Re: What if the higgs don't exist....

From: Mike Helland (mobydikc_at_gmail.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: 29 Oct 2004 08:08:23 -0700

"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message news:<Nfjgd.5430$kM.2177@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11990c07.0410281334.737feb9c@posting.google.com...
> > jameslandle@yahoo.com (James Landle) wrote in message
> > news:<86901f7b.0410271453.7dc7595c@posting.google.com>...
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991649
> >>
> >> What if the Higgs don't exist. What would be an alternative theory that
> >> can
> >> replace or explain the Standard Model. Anyone got a idea?
> >
> > If the Higgs doesn't exist then a likely alternative is that there is
> > no such thing as a massless particle.
> >
> > For example, let's say that we take the interpretation of quantum
> > mechanics that reality is created by observation.
> >
> > Ask yourself, how do we observe?
> [...]
>
> How about something a bit simpler, i.e., "How do you represent what you
> observe?"

Well, we observe mass, so that was the original question :-) How do we
represent mass? Right now with Higgs. But if thats not the right way
to do it, we need to think of another one. That's what lead me to ask
how do we observe.

> Why not accept that we have yet to correctly represent what is?

We're on the same page, my man.

> The standard model began more or less in 1895. I think we've learned enough
> in the last 110 years to build a better model . What's the big deal if we
> were to work on a new model of reality?

Again, I agree. I have been working on a new model of reality. Its
called "The Multiple Natures Hypothesis" and is strikingly different
from the standard view in the role of space, time, and matter in the
model.

The URL again is www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm