Particle Physics Subject To be Rewritten. W Boson Debacle.

[Shadowprophet]

Pictured Above, The Higgs Boson Down to its leptons and Quarks.​

I like Science, I like it a lot, Every once and a while I just have to study it, Speak about it, Absorb it.. . So, An Amazing Discovery was recently unveiled.
So, I will try to skip forward to what that is, But I need to fill in some blanks first. So there was the discovery of the Higgs Boson I believe in 2012 or 13, SO this discovery proved that Most of the mass of the universe came about By the Higgs field interacting with the force from the Big bang, Because an exploding black hole will only release energy, Not mass. So the question was, where did matter come from if not the big bang.

​

So, The Energy interacted with the Higgs field giving that energy Mass and this is where most of the mass in the universe originally came from. So Bosons are neat because they tend to work in pairs to achieve their function, We knew the Higgs boson had sister particles. The positively charged W particle and The Negatively charged Z particle. Both Bosons themselves btw. anyway. So here is the Deal, The W and Z particles work together to Cause Radioactive or Beta Decay, Without this function entropy would not exist, Without entropy, Things like The idea of a half-life wouldn't work and this would affect us egregiously, Even our medications couldn't be proportioned correctly, Let alone the idea of time itself would become moot...

Anyway, So, It was recently suggested that the W boson, May actually be much larger than originally thought,... This is important because Quantum physics only applies to the subatomic universe, The Macro Universe still functions at large on good old relativity. Now, With the discovery that the W boson may be larger than the subatomic quantum level, leaves physicists puzzled as they now have to consider redefining how Quantum interactions are carried out between particles. This is really interesting stuff if you are into this kind of thing. Man, I do love it when some real science news happens.

​

Oh Yeah, Here is a link to get the ball rolling: https://www.sciencenews.org/article...yY9IYELmHVvr1I61991p5o9Lr9u9xsO02lXGxJjgjwOiQ

 

[wwkirk]

I don't understand your inclusion of the word debacle. Is there a controversy of some sort?

 

[Shadowprophet]

I don't understand your inclusion of the word debacle. Is there a controversy of some sort?

Indeed. The need to redefine The Standard Model of Physics Because the current understanding of Quantum interaction between particles would be the controversy at hand. Yes, The controversy being The W Boson's Weight. This is not unanimous, Every time a discovery is made it is put to peer review. Of course, there is resistance. There is always resistance. People still resist Relativity, my good man.

See, The W particle isn't proven to be a massive Boson as of yet. It's just Theorized to be heavier than originally thought. If it turns out to be a Hefty Boson, It shouldn't be able to function within the Higgs field the way it does, It breaks Quantum understanding.


Let me elaborate on this. The W particle, Is Positively Charged, It works alongside the Z particle This Is how Matter, Mass, Decays back into energy. This is entropy. Time... This affects so many things across the board, including Medication and the Half-life of particles, The mathematics we use to make satellites function would even have to be adjusted for the new understanding of Time dilation. It changes so many things because it's so fundamental that it's honestly an upset in the physics communities.

 

[Shadowprophet]

If this leads to a new understanding of the Half-life, This w Boson Study could lead To Supersymmetry.

Supersymmetry is super-awesome. Here's what it means for particle physics.

If supersymmetry is proven, Then Concepts Like The Multiverse and Causality become proven. Which Proves things like The universe would in fact have a positive curve and Time is not infinite. It's mind-blowing stuff really.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

You mentioned that black holes explode.

Would be curious to find out how and when was one seen to that?

 

[Shadowprophet]

You mentioned that black holes explode.

Would be curious to find out how and when was one seen to that?

Well, We are still observing the Effects of an exploded Black hole, The Big Bang, A singularity, Which "Apparently Exploded, As you know, It will take longer than the Age of the universe for the end to occur. And they will Fade out with Hawking Radiation. But. What Else Could the Big Bang have been? A white hole? It was a Singularity. Without a doubt.

 

[Shadowprophet]

Bear In mind, That Before you Constitute that it was a White hole. And that Black holes have a size limit. What would the size limit of a singularity be? once it's a singularity?
There is no theoretical limit to the mass of a black hole.

That I know of.

Also, Supermassive black hole causes biggest explosion ever spotted in the universe
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/black-hole-eruption-marks-most-powerful-explosion-ever-spotted

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Well, We are still observing the Effects of an exploded Black hole, The Big Bang, A singularity, Which "Apparently Exploded, As you know, It will take longer than the Age of the universe for the end to occur. And they will Fade out with Hawking Radiation. But. What Else Could the Big Bang have been? A white hole? It was a Singularity. Without a doubt.

I spend at least 10% of my waking hours watching physics videos. I've never heard of exploding black holes. Gravity is pulling black holes inwards, so I would say they can't explode, only implode. But then I'm no physicist.

Do you have any physics papers as a reference about exploding black holes?

 

[Shadowprophet]

I spend at least 10% of my waking hours watching physics videos. I've never heard of exploding black holes. Gravity is pulling black holes inwards, so I would say they can't explode, only implode. But then I'm no physicist.

Do you have any physics papers as a reference about exploding black holes?

My brother, a white hole is a black hole with spacetime flowing backward.. The only difference is the flow of spacetime. Here you go, | JILA - Exploring the Frontiers of Physics. I think this is what you are looking for, but to distinguish a white hole from a black hole is folly, they are the same thing simply with flipped space time..

 

[Shadowprophet]

I will reply as soon as possible on this, I am with the family in bowling green, it's a shopping day. But I assert to you, thinking that black holes and white holes are different from one another is tantamount to thinking of pipes as different because the water in them is flowing In different directions..

 

[Shadowprophet]

What I am saying is, white holes expel, black holes compress, it's a polarity of spacetime kind of thing, yes we can ask, where does spacetime flow backward? But thats not the same thing as saying it cannot occur , to assume that a black hole can be connected to a white hole or Explode is to almost conjecture that white holes can not exist in this universe..

 

[spacecase0]

I have been reading a book that might point out where physics went wrong in the first place
Dan Davidson Shape Power(b Ok.xyz) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
the video where the guy is interviewed is also very good, it is on youtube on the channel TeslaTech

 

[Shadowprophet]

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-astronomers-violent-black-hole-outburst.html

Now keep in mind these outbursts are explosions from the black holes themselves. I mean, It happens. Black holes do explode sometimes. Just not totally destroy themselves, By definition those are explosions.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

What I am saying is, white holes expel, black holes compress, it's a polarity of spacetime kind of thing, yes we can ask, where does spacetime flow backward? But thats not the same thing as saying it cannot occur , to assume that a black hole can be connected to a white hole or Explode is to almost conjecture that white holes can not exist in this universe..

L'problem is that white holes haven't been observed, while black holes were.

Another problem with black-whit hole polarity would be that if energy and space-time were flowing from black hole to white hole, then black holes would eventually shrink and disappear. Yet we see black holes as very stable over aeons and even growing. Very healthy monsters indeed.

I have been reading a book that might point out where physics went wrong in the first place
Dan Davidson Shape Power(b Ok.xyz) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
the video where the guy is interviewed is also very good, it is on youtube on the channel TeslaTech

Yeah, physics is not "wrong". Modern physics is only accurate to some degree after which uncertainty begins. Problem is that certainty provided by physics is very high 99.99% in case of General Relativity and 99.999 999 999 999% in case of Quantum Mechanics. Or if you want it expressed via uncertainty GR is 0.01% wrong and QM is 0.000 000 000 001% wrong. And these are not true limits of accuracy of GR and QM, these are limits of our measuring equipment, while QM & GR can be much more accurate.

So, the question is, is it worth bothering about 0.01%?

 

[Shadowprophet]

L'problem is that white holes haven't been observed, while black holes were.

Another problem with black-whit hole polarity would be that if energy and space-time were flowing from black hole to white hole, then black holes would eventually shrink and disappear. Yet we see black holes as very stable over aeons and even growing. Very healthy monsters indeed.



Yeah, physics is not "wrong". Modern physics is only accurate to some degree after which uncertainty begins. Problem is that certainty provided by physics is very high 99.99% in case of General Relativity and 99.999 999 999 999% in case of Quantum Mechanics. Or if you want it expressed via uncertainty GR is 0.01% wrong and QM is 0.000 000 000 001% wrong. And these are not true limits of accuracy of GR and QM, these are limits of our measuring equipment, while QM & GR can be much more accurate.

So, the question is, is it worth bothering about 0.01%?

No this is a perfectly fair assessment, But keep in mind There are a lot of things in this universe we know for a fact exist that we haven't observed. We have never observed the Milkyway but we know it's there. Though it has been suggested that it may not look exactly as we imagine it.
And no White holes are not proven. But, Few things are empirically proven. I am going to look around for some peer-reviewed papers on white holes, The reason this is important is, It's believed the Big bang was a White hole so we may be still seeing the effects of one to this day.

 

[spacecase0]

So, the question is, is it worth bothering about 0.01%?

netonian physics told almost everything about the world when it was invented,
I think there is lots of useful things in that small percentage (just like there was last time)
rotating frames of reference is going to be a big one when it catches on.

 

[Shadowprophet]

netonian physics told almost everything about the world when it was invented,
I think there is lots of useful things in that small percentage (just like there was last time)
rotating frames of reference is going to be a big one when it catches on.

The problem with Newtonian physics is, it was a great beginning to understanding physics. However, We know beyond doubt that Newtonian physics doesn't only not begin to scratch the surface, It scratches it incorrectly. Newtonian physics are incorrect. To hold on to newtonian ideas in physics is not just tantamount to, It's the exact same thing as pulling out the leaches to exercicse the the demons from the leper.

Yes, I can disprove newtonian physics all day long if need be..

 

[spacecase0]

Yes, I can disprove newtonian physics all day long if need be..

just like rotating frames of reference can't be explained by relativity at all.

 

[Shadowprophet]

just like rotating frames of reference can't be explained by relativity at all.

Um Actually, Relativity does an eloquent job explaining rotating frames of reference.8.1: Rotating Frames of Reference

 

[Shadowprophet]

Needs to be mentioned, This is special relativity, which is different from general relativity, General relativity focuses on Gravity and acceleration, While special relativity focuses on speed and time, Still. One can't say relativity doesn't cover rotating frames of reference, It's just the version that is the lesser-known of the two.


Yes, Einstein was all about that Ego, Every time someone Broke his relativity, He tried to rewrite it. If he had survived past his death he was already theorizing Quantum Relativity. Which luckily never happened.

I'm guessing he would have called it, Spooky action at distance relativity or something