Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Don" Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: energy and mass Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:54:04 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: <20260225a@crcomp.net> References: <1rqdqrq.1rx7k5o10kkc3wN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> <10n93er$6196$5@dont-email.me> <9bGdnZo4hL-aDQX0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <10na9a8$kc8a$1@dont-email.me> <1rqujx0.y1v3ks1h3x1j8N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <5Iadnb2qI8JjgQT0nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <1rqvm2j.4swkko1es1k0vN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <20260223a@crcomp.net><10nikjj$n45p$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <20260224a@crcomp.net> <10nmuit$1506i$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:54:06 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9818af4c96a36e5645b5a6a55a1d3293"; logging-data="948469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KwUEDm0cocCeSQ2a8yB6G" Cancel-Lock: sha1:umJJrHOL/DXulyR/WNQRnl5TT1Q= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:669196 sci.electronics.design:740999 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Don wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Don wrote: >>>> Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> Come out with a Number >>>> >>>> Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when >>>> it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner, >>>> but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for >>>> instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of >>>> the constants c, e, ε0 and h. The number 137.035999... is, >>>> according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn >>>> mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good >>>> theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their >>>> wall and worry about it." [...] >>> >>> None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours. >> >> Please enlighten me as to your perception of my heretofore unstated >> argument. > > There is no "us" here. You are alone in your special kind of crackpottery. > >> USA situational poet laureate Edgar Allan Poe (EAP) disdained [...] >> Aristotelian and Platonic peerage group think. Instead, EAP highly valued >> individual independent intuitive leaps of imagination, as demonstrated >> by Kepler, Heaviside, and George Green demonstrated by Kepler, Heaviside, >> and George Green: [...] Albert Einstein commented [...] Julian Schwinger >> [...] published a tribute [...] > > Fallacy: /Ipse dixit./ > > The non-scientist Poe's opinion about science (if even true), and even the > physicists Einstein's and Schwinger's opinion about George Green (if true) > are irrelevant with regard to experimental confirmation of the > Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism, for example, which has been done. > “Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of > intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always > talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always > to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the > discussion of ideas.” > > --History scholar Henry Thomas Buckle as quoted by Charles Stewart > in the latter's 1901 autobiography > (a shorter version is often ascribed to Socrates, and several other > people, like Eleanor Roosevelt, without there being evidence of that: > ) Unzicker begins by bringing up your precious: THE HIGGS MASS HYSTERIA IF ANYTHING, THE HYPE OF THE CENTURY On July 4, 2012, at the famous CERN seminar, scientists applauded, cheered, celebrated. The news spread quickly all over the world that the Higgs had been discovered (nobody cared about the subtleties of "the Higgs" and "a Higgs"), allegedly the verification of an almost 50-year-old idea formulated by a Scottish theoretician. The nonsense starts right here. It’s not that the physics world had desperately sought the Higgs for five decades. Feynman, for example, died in 1988, and was never heard to mention the Higgs. Rather, after the top quark was discovered in 1995, something had to be found in the theoretical boxroom to inspire the next round of high energy experiments. And a nice thing to play with was the "Higgs mechanism," even though it was not exactly an ingenious idea. Peter Higgs appears to be a modest old gentleman who honestly wonders how all this hype has fallen into his lap, but he is certainly no Einstein. You cannot compare a life full of passionate struggling with the laws of Nature to one single idea which was in the air. And of course, there is an irrelevant meta-story floating around about who might have published a similar or the same idea before or after Higgs: Brout, Englert, Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble and anyone else who wanted to add his name to this baloney in order to get rewarded. This just means the idea was quite obvious in the jargon of the day and many picked it up, prepared or reinvented it, like Nambu, Weinberg, Veltman, Gell-Mann (according to him) and others. My preferred abbreviation is BEGGMHHKN'tHVW. A favorite topic of all the blogger-blabbers was how the particle should be named and who deserved the Nobel Prize. As he had probably done several times earlier, Nobel started spinning in his grave again on October 8, 2013. -- 73, Don, KB7RPU veritas _|_ liberabit | https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu vos |