Nobel Anticipation

This is Nobel week and prize handouts start today with Medicine. Tomorrow is Physics, and Chemistry is on Wednesday. All others are political prizes of no interest here.

The physics prize should be awarded for the Higgs Boson and most likely Higgs himself and Englert will get it, but a third share may go to some other wildcard person or organisation. This will be decided by a vote at TRF but I can also remind you that a similar vote has been running for some time on viXra which has already been used to elect two winners of the much larger Fundamental Physics Prize.

Update 8-Oct-2013:  Congratulations to James E. Rothman, Randy W. Schekman and Thomas C. Südhof who won the Physiology or Medicine prize “for their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic, a major transport system in our cells”.

Today will be the turn of the physics prize and it this point it may be worth hedging bets by noting that this might not even be given for the Higgs. Each year the Nobel committee has a big pile of worthy nominations and they may just decide that one of them fits better. However the chances for Higgs seem slightly better than even.

Some people are suggesting that the third share for the Higgs could go to CERN. The committee have hinted that an organisation is not ruled out even though they have never used that option before, but I think CERN would be a mistake. This is because many people in the CMS and ATLAS collaborations are not strictly speaking part of CERN. You could justify that CERN played a deserving role but to then leave out the physicists who actually made the discovery would be a new kind of mistake for the Nobel committee to make. Lumping CMS and ATLAS together as one also seems a bit forced but they could give it to Higgs, CMS and ATLAS leaving out Englert. That is more like the kind of mistake they have made before. I favour the option of reserving the prize for the theorists. If they start giving it to big organisations then they will also have to look at many other big collaborations in the future and they probably dont want to set a precedent that could radically change the nature of the award.

23 Responses to Nobel Anticipation

  1. Luboš Motl says:

    LOL, your candidates are cool, too.

    Not only because of the overlap, I have believed for a year that a likely group could be Higgs, Englert, and Goldstone.

  2. A particle is discovered that is supposed to have the proper spin and electric charge and that falls in the expected (?) mass range. This is derived from collision debris. This particle is supposed to implement the Higgs mechanism. That fact is not proved. The Higgs mechanism is a very ingenious theory. Not many physicists understand this mechanism. The mechanism is supposed to explain why a category of elementary particles have mass. Having mass does not yet explain how the particle curves space. It also does not explain why massive particles experience inertia. So if I am correct then some essential parts are still missing.

    If some mechanism explains how space is curved, and it is true that elementary particles cause space curvature, then this mechanism also explains how particles get mass. So, is there some competition between mechanisms?

  3. George Rajna says:

    The magnetic induction creates a negative electric field, causing an electromagnetic inertia responsible for the relativistic mass change; it is the mysterious Higgs Field giving mass to the particles. The Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators explains the electron/proton mass rate by the diffraction patterns. The accelerating charges explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the wave particle duality and the electron’s spin also, building the bridge between the Classical and Relativistic Quantum Theories. The self maintained electric potential of the accelerating charges equivalent with the General Relativity space-time curvature, and since it is true on the quantum level also, gives the base of the Quantum Gravity. http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0011

  4. HeJin says:

    Dear Phil,
    Glad see you again. You forgot that Physics Nobel Prize is political too: Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Sussy, Stringy, etc.. You can never verify those dark stringy stuff. They are worse than any religion!

  5. Nobel committee should withdraw the past prizes in physics as most of the past prizes were awarded for false & baseless research for reasons mentioned hereunder. Both, Newton & Einstein had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute and filled up with aether, the electric dipoles, and it is aether through which forces of nature are transmitted as against the irrational action at a distance through fields without knowing the physicality of the fields, time is emergent & relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. (This alternative paradigm reveals that there is very powerful God who has power on matter & time and everything existing in the finite space and existence of God is the prerequisite for the creation & existence of universe ).
    In brief the scenario is as under
    Aristotle:- Space- absolute & finite; time- absolute, matter-absolute, light/radiation- not properly known

    Newton:- Space, time & matter same as Aristotle; light a wave-motion with corpuscular theory

    Einstein:- Space- interconnected with time & emergent, Time-emergen & interconnected with space & relative, matter & Energy (light/radiation) is absolute & transmutable and light/radiation as wave-motion with no clue as to what is light/radiation physically.

    Final state of existence:- Space-absolute & finite, time- emergent & relative depending on the motion of the observer/body with respect to aether at rest frame of reference, matter-emergent & finite, light/radiation- a electromagnetic disturbance of electric dipoles of aether creating a wave motion and all forces of nature being
    electromagnetic forces which is being transmitted through aether, the electric dipoles.

    Following is the list of my published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals & sites where these articles are available
    1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe
    2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
    3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment
    4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in
    my profile)
    5. ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
    6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology
    7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life
    These publications are available at the journal site of Indian Journal
    of Science & Technology (a peer-reviewed journal) http://www.indjst.org
    (March 2012,oct 2010, oct 2011,Aug 2010) and also on
    http://www.gsjournal.net, http://www.worldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives,
    ResearchGate & Academia.edu in my profile.
    On the basis of above-mentioned articles an open challenge has been put forward to the adopted paradigm of physics. The standing (till date) open challenge could seen at

    http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php

    and

    http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018.

    • Outraged says:

      Your comment is nothing but nonsense.

      • hepresearch says:

        The root concept of the Higgs field mechanism is just as nonsensical… and this is why, while I do not dispute that this particle at CERN may indeed exist and have the right quantum numbers to look like the “Higgs”, I dispute that the observed particle at CERN does NOT do what they think it does. If I was cool enough to write a popular book about the Higgs boson (as Leon Lederman did), I would give it the title “The New Aether.” And that, my friends, is exactly what the Higgs field is to these esteemed String Theorists… an alternate aether that gives mass to stuff that passes through it, thus altering and setting the inertial reference frames of just about everything except photons… and so, I disagree that this new particle at CERN, though in the right mass range and with the right quantum numbers, is actually a “Higgs” by the strictest definition. I disagree altogether that there ever will be a “Higgs.” Another way will be found to deal with fundamental particle masses because another way must be found that does not aetherize space-time.

      • I totally agree with you. If you haven’t read my papers yet read them now. But you better sit while reading ;-)

  6. cormac says:

    I think a strong possibility is Higgs and the two team leaders of ATLAS and CMS, given that Peter is the only one who predicted an actual particle

  7. This is for everyone here whining about how stupid current physics paradigm is, throwing open challenges and pushing his/her pet theory. It’s useless! Nobody (but you) cares about your new ideas, challenges etc. Ok, maybe couple of other crackpots.

    You must find an unique, testable, prediction based on your pet theory. But even that won’t do the trick! Only the most powerful prediction/experiment does the trick. So, concentrate on antimatter and its applications ;-)

    On topic: If it’s hard to find any obvious third individual then I would go with CERN.

  8. Thousands of my distinguished colleagues waste their time on Higgs, strings and event horizons…
    It saddens me deeply.

  9. Stephen Crowley says:

    Interesting article. http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/10/4/4799326/day-at-genius-camp-the-institute-for-advanced-study

    Anyway, I think all you guys should get on retroshare cause the blog format is really old and busted, and sometimes Phil goes months without making a post and the comments get closed and I don’t know how to “communicate” with some of you folks otherwise.

    Here are my 3 retroshare keys you can use to contact me, there is already a viXra forum!

    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5kp8BrW_9rdc2hTNld2M2ZkOW8

    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5kp8BrW_9rdMFhNRWVjOTNYSEE

    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5kp8BrW_9rdeXhmOG5uZmNuTlU

    • orwin says:

      Odd, I was listening to the verge recently – they’re out on the far side of the beetles on the road back to medieval plainsong, hypergothic, if you like. but scroogle have 129 open security coding posts and are going the wrong way fast, so I ditched them.

  10. Nigel Cook says:

    This is a puzzling Nobel Prize decision in the sense that it is merely assuming without proof that the 125 GeV spin-0 massive boson decays confirm the prediction, just as the discovery of the muon (a lepton) was initially believed to be the Yukawa strong force mediator and led to a Nobel prize for Yukawa. (Later the pion was discovered, after his Nobel prize, confirming his theory, but it might not have been if the theory was wrong.)

    While Higgs and others certainly did work of value, the danger is that the foundations of the Standard Model will now be assumed to be proved real and there will be ever more censorship of alternative variants of basic ideas. Certainly the SU(2) weak interaction is beyond question in my opinion, but the Abelian U(1) electrodynamics model is a contrived piece of nonsense because you can’t represent electromagnetism by one charge, its anticharge and a single photon; you need 2 extra “polarizations” on the photons to account for electromagnetic photons, which can be considered charges. It turns out you can have an SU(2) electrodynamics and a U(1) quantum gravity, considerably changing the meaning of “electroweak symmetry” in the SM (viXra:1111.0111).

    The whole basis of prize-giving seems to be to encourage and reward groupthink, conformity, and censorship. I’ve always believed in one myth: that science is different from fashion and politics. Apart from making a fortune supplying dynamite to both sides in the Crimean War, Nobel’s legacy of rewarding ideas after they have become dogmatic consensus is a toxic poison for nascent science.

  11. All opened elementary bosons are gauge, that is are vectors. Logically – in the nature there are no scalar elementary bosons.
    It is not Higgs: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302013v2 Every physics event is interpretted by particles which similar well-known elementary particles – leptons, quarks and gauge bozons. Therefore, if anybody will claim that he had found Higgs then not believe – this is not Higgs.

  12. This can only be a good prize as I would have voted for if I had known about the second guy.. As to the standard theory the LHC shows at the frontier it works both ways, for and against that is… complaints before hand are naturally progressive more than in retrospect on a theory (whatever the physicality of the issue as to what mass and higgs are) it brings the issue to fore at a time when science is on the ground, it needs a kick-start, not a kick to add insult to injury. If as some suggest this is the swan song of particle physics should nothing more be discover-able…what a fine concept to end the long awaited search on. Science, like the one successful mutation in a sea of lethal ones is the expected sacrifice so in that sense no one has squandered their light or wasted their careers. Not to mention one hell of a contraption like the pyramids or anything great ever built but not without cost overruns. Nature in the awakening of the known and new is not ready to conserve or balance her budget yet… But none of you should throw away your cherished ideas… This is a call to celebrate.

  13. Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

    Congratulation to Higgs, Englert for the Nobel and all the others (Brout , Gerald Guralnik, Tom Kibble , Carl Hagen and Philip Anderson) who played a part in this Higgs story. Yet, this great honor of Higgs Nobel officially marks the nightmare scenario which is now a reality and must be overcome.

    a. In the article “What *Should* We Be Worried About? (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5465 ), the Higgs connotes a great crisis of physics.
    b. Jester (Résonaances, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-about-b-to-k-star-mu-mu.html ) showed his trademark pessimism and frustration.
    c. In the article “the crisis in modern physics, (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6238 ), Turok (Director of Perimeter Institute) said, “Theoretical physics is at a crossroads [after the Higgs] right now…In a sense we’ve entered a very deep crisis.

    The nightmare above connotes a dead end for the Standard Model. Yet, this crisis is not truly serious according to the article “Top Ten Higgs Boson Facts (by Sean Carroll, at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/11/13/top-ten-amazing-higgs-boson-facts/ )”. Three its facts are as below.
    (6.) The Higgs boson isn’t really all that important.
    (8.) Your own mass doesn’t come from the Higgs.
    (10.) The easy part is over — The discovery of the Higgs … leaves plenty of physics that we don’t yet understand, from dark matter to the origin of the universe, not to mention complicated problems like turbulence and neuroscience and politics.

    Indeed, the new era is defined by dark mass and the dark energy which requires a conceptual revolution in physics. One possible revolution is about the mass-charge which gives our own mass. This mass-charge is described in a Pimple model. The details of this model is available at
    http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/16/a-quantum-gravity-cosmology-conference/#comment-86056 ,

    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/09/16/dark-energy-detectives/#comment-7295910552604271829 , and

    http://physicsfocus.org/katie-mack-space-station-ams-detector-has-not-found-dark-matter-despite-what-some-media-reports-say/#comment-3232

    • Gong, interesting links and debates (the Higgs can just as well give support for the standard theory if it is upgraded so it is important one way or the other). I think we still need more a technology breakthrough to be better masters of that universal level of magnetism in controlling before we can solve the theoretical debate of dark issues. If we understood a little more general physics then ideas on the crude level of politics and neuroscience as they stand today would not be so chaotic and turbulent. Perhaps it is time to get down to the hard work of specialized models again rather than accepting quantum theory on the levels we now understand it denies the possibility of more comprehensive unified theories and so any conceptual breakthrough. I will take a look at those links, thanks… the mass-charge idea (as I imagine you mean it) shows that foundational physics is alive and well if not a good career choice but we can treat any of these force values as continuous or discrete and at least try to see the CPTM whole, M as mass yet in a sense the same thing as Gravity at singularity. In this sense a new extended mathematics would help us find the next physics.

      • Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong says:

        @ L. Edgar Otto,

        While we are congratulating this Higgs Nobel, we must recognize the dire situation we are in for the future of physics. Now, the Higgs has made the Standard Model *complete*, that is, the *dead-end* for particle physics. The *completed* Standard Model is no longer able to give us any guideline to the unanswered questions.
        a. The mysteries about the fermion masses are still here, as Sean Carroll said that “Your own mass doesn’t come from the Higgs.”
        b. Many free parameters in the Standard Model still cannot be derived from a theoretical base. The article “Litmus test for the final physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/04/litmus-test-for-final-physics.html )” gives a good rundown on this.
        c. The 48 matter (anti-matter) particles popped out in our test data as *God-sent* gifts and have no theoretical base for them in the Standard Model.
        d. Many, many more, such as (string unification, dark mass, dark energy, etc.).

        Today is the time of celebration. Let’s think about these issues tomorrow.

      • I couldn’t agree more! Well put indeed.

  14. This astronomer I accidentally followed in my blog (of which if you go to mine I posted a new level of higher dimensional physics called Isomnium) has references to old papers that seem to apply for a new standard of what pulsars are as a class of four space objects.

    http://hoggresearch.blogspot.com/2013/10/pulsars-eccentricities.html

    • orwin says:

      leo was onto something like that, and hit paydirt at fxqi which was wierd, but now my fave old papers site is:

      http://www.neo-classical-physics.info

      grassman, caratheodory, levi-civita, you name it: just the best where-did-we-go-wrong site around.

      MetaGothic Department: at the long end of a Byzantine Medieval debate about the logic of modalities, Jean Buridan showed that you need three dimensions and an octagon to represet them…and also got modern physics under way, quietly, with impulse theory.

      meanwhile, the Earth’s magnetism is due to magma percolating through rock, so there’s percolative AdS involved, and the ghosts have complete ghostcover, so implementing Freedom of Imagination: What you Believe in What you Get.

      If you believe in gauge-fixing and gun-jumping, ya, give a big hand for Peter (who didn’t know he’d won), but frankly the Nobel Foundation is bleeding money and have just dissipated their credibility on a 3.5-sigma Ghost Dance. So how the Hell can they ever trawl that signal out of they ghostcover? No, how??

      I’m saying it openly now: its inverse (magtnetic) Kaluza-Klein or bust….

      • In a way it is great to live in this exciting age of renewed or new discoveries… thank you for the deep thoughts, risky but firm stances, in the reply – our reality checks of a scientific sorts. Kaluza-Klein is hauntingly similar to so many things in this rather logical and philosophic debate. We may probe the deeper demons with a little wider view or experimental method it turns out… but in that horizon between the mind and matter do we like Maxwel’s daemon add to the entropy. If God was all knowing as the last appeal to so hidden unified theory would not the mangled information flow of it make of our universe a chaos?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 275 other followers

%d bloggers like this: