I recently encountered The Higgs Fake, how particle physicists fooled the Nobel committee, by Dr. Alexander Unzicker. It is a major rejection of “accepted knowledge.”
(He followed this with Bankrupting Physics, with Sheilla Jones. It is a continuation of the same expose.)
The “Higgs” is the theoretical missing “particle” required to complete the “standard model” of the atom provided by quantum mechanics. The Higgs particle was supposedly found with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at the CERN (Centre Europe for Research Nuclear) laboratory outside of Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC cost about 10 billion dollars to build and it employs about 10,000 physicist, most with PhDs. The group was awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics for “discovering” the Higgs particle.
Some of the things that Unzicker finds wrong are:
Since 1930, he considers particle physics as an exercise in futility. “Only the super-specialized understand their small portion of the data analysis, while a superficial babble is delivered to the public.” (p7)
Scientists give their discoveries extremely high probabilities, such as 99.9999 percent. But that regards statistical fluctuations. The real concern is about faulty assumptions, computer bugs, material effects and self-deception. (p13) There are at least 18 unexplained numbers in quantum mechanics (p16) … There is an incredible number of hypothesis layered over one another.
In large colliders, gamma radiation cannot be precisely modelled. It has to do with infinity cropping up around electrons or protons. (p21)
Atom smashers generate more data than can be analyzed. So most is filtered out. What is left? Background noise exceeds the remaining signal strength. (p42, 112)
W bosons, top quarks and the Higgs have a “calculated” half-life of 10-25 seconds. In that time period, they cannot travel the distance from a proton to a particle detector! So these “fundamental particles are “mathematical constructs.” They have never been detected, much less seen. (p43, 81, 119
What are the construction details of the LHC? Could there be tolerances or misfits that skew the results. Answer: no outsider has seen any details. It is true that many are not qualified to do so, but there are large worldwide research or educational organizations that are competent to look at the details.
The other physical device of interest if the “particle detector.” (Is it really a “debris detector?”) See Polyscience and Christianity. What are its construction details or calibration curve? No data. (p63)
To understand the particle detector results, there are massive computer programs. Actually, millions of lines of code. Are these available for analysis? No. (p63)
Any published results are processed through multiple layers of theoretical assumptions and computer code by massive groups of “experts.” How is a valid signal distinguished from background noise? Just trust us. (p66-67)
Unzicker concludes: Nothing is said about the “crucial factors of the discovery, on triggering, detector components, their physics and artifacts, the energy calibration of the detectors …, on the computer code which eliminates the background [noise] multiple [times] stronger than the signal, and so on.” (p129)
Back on pager 83, he traces the “good” physics back to 1914 to Ernst Rutherford. Yet, it is a proper caution to remark that Rutherford, and especially Bohr, modelled with point-particle electrons. There is no look at the alternative toroidal ring electron model that was first proposed in 1915 by A L Parson in his Magneton theory of the Electron.
It is disappointing to realize that the Knowledge Acquisition Spectrum is needed in order to purify the atmosphere around theoreticians and their Theory-Generated Understandings. Unzicker points out the yawning mathematical labyrinth. Even the “hard sciences” may have inaccessible characteristics that become the domain of well-reasoned storytellers.
The book is highly recommended. Note that there is some profanity in the book.