prephysics

How much more detail do you need? Simply put, the cause of the collisions are not considered which then compromises the integrity of the evidence by scientific standards. As stated in the following link, "Researchers have a responsibility to take account of all relevant evidence and present it without omission, misrepresentation or deception." http://www.respectpr...e/cstds.php?id= ... unless of course physicists are above such standards. Then of course everything is just fine and dandy. "... you should rather ask if the quarks are well aligned, not the protons." - if they can't align the protons, they assuredly cannot align quarks. I think the work they are doing is very very important. All the more reason why they should get it right by considering all possibilities "without omission". This has nothing to do with stupidity. It has to do with the effectual methodology of the art of physics. Physics is the practice of how observed or measured effects cause other effects, not cause and effect. So it makes perfect sense for physicists to focus on the effect of collisions and their effects. However, the inherent problem with effectual methodology is that it is incomplete by not taking into account the cause of the effects measured. "Choosing to" ignore this fact ... now that would indeed be stupid. If I am not mistaken science is about discovery, not dogma. If something comes up that has not been considered before and has a fundamental impact on the art, then it is the responsibility of the practitioners of the art to address it, not ignore it. To do otherwise lowers the high standards we come to expect of science.

So if it is not possible to distinguish the effects (collisions) that are being measured are certain or uncertain, then their evidence is based on assumptions (direct and indirect collisions being one in the same, which they are not) which in turn they use to make their 99.99999 % assumption of a Higgs boson discovery. How is that scientific? An assumption based on an assumption = discovery? Sounds more like religion to me.

Over the past twelve years I have been conducting a selection-based experiment to see if the two acts of selection are causal. The experiment shows that these two acts of selection are dichotomy including their effects. It also shows that if you ignore or have no knowledge of the cause (type of selection made) you can only make an assumption of which selection caused which effect because the effects between the two selections are undistinguishable without this knowledge.

So this means that random proton collision experiments cannot be absolutely sure if the hard collisions and their effects are caused by direct or indirect collisions.

Thanks! So what this means is that they are conducting "random" proton collision experiments. Just trying to confirm my findings...

Why? Please elaborate, thanks.

Regarding the LHC collision experiments, I understand that you cannot see which proton directly or indirectly collides into each other only the decay products of the overall collisions. Is it feasible to somehow align protons directly into each other instead of bunches?

In that article it states, "Gianotti called the findings "beautiful results" at the seminar, but stopped well short of declaring victory because there's not enough data for statistical certainty. "It's too early to draw definite conclusions...We believe we have built a solid foundation on the exciting months to come." How can "statistical certainty" be anything other than almost certain? Are we not talking about a "definite maybe" here?