/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11818629
>the fundamental problem of quantum field theory
no, this is a fundamental problem of metaphysics for now
>vixra
I don't see a single testable assertion in this paper. take your meds

>>11818629
You spewing put bullshit does not answer the questions. You are not "solving" anything. Fuck off john tooker

>>11818629
>The author wishes to recognize octopi for keeping it real in the ocean. The author wishes to thank Sheriff for not putting the fungicide in his cattle feed.
His help was invaluable. We express gratitude to Captain Pickard for making the LSD that spurred this inquiry. Fuck the system.
What the fuck is this? Do you even know what acknowledgements are for?

>>11818629
So if you have a stationary state, you cannot have spin?

>>11818641
>I don't see a single testable assertion in this paper.
You don't see my testable assertion that the varieties of the elementary matter particles should be exactly the ones which are observed? It's the thing I pot into the OP pic. Also, it says there is no Higgs boson but ought to be some other spin-1 force carriers. So that's my prediction: the particle they found in 2012 won't have spin-0 as required for it to be a Higgs.

>>11818659
>You are not "solving" anything
I solved the fundamental problem of quantum field theory: why do we have the particles that we have?

>>11818664
acknowledgements are for acknowledging

>>11818695
maybe if you phrased you question about the most intricate details of quantum theory with more than eleven words, then I would have a better idea of what you're asking. If you mean "stationary" as in "4-velocity equal to zero" then the mechanism I proposed would not induce spin. However, GR requires that all physical objects have 4-velocity normalized to the speed of light.

>>11818774
>You don't see my testable assertion that the varieties of the elementary matter particles should be exactly the ones which are observed?
That's a requirement for any valid theory, not something "testable".

the best part about jon's theory is that he thinks the Higgs boson is spin 1 and he doesn't understand why that implies everything is massless

>>11818774
>You don't see my testable assertion that the varieties of the elementary matter particles should be exactly the ones which are observed?
Anyone can create a logically-consistent formalism that corresponds to the standard model. Unless you can predict testable phenomena that are unique to your model then you've just transformed the standard model into a rephrased standard model with no new information.
Once again, take your meds. There's a reason you're "publishing" on vixra. An undergrad degree from georgia tech does not make you a theoretical physicist.

>>11818969
Then there aren't any other valid theories of QFT because no one had ever predicted the fundamental particles before I did it. They assume the particles we have and then solve their interactions. The interactions have led to predictions for non-fundamental particles like the pion, kaon, etc, but no one else has a model for predicting the fundamental particles which compose the standard model's basis. My new result was to show how to get the particles without assuming them.

Besides that, my model predicts that there is no such thing as a spin-0 force carrier. This is a classically falsifiable prediction.

>>11819019
An undergrad degree doesn't so 100k debt in 4 semesters and not getting a degree definitely doesn't

>>11819011
I absolutely do not think that Higgs' "scalar boson" has spin-1. You are wrong.

>>11819019
Why am I the only one who did it then? The answer is that not anyone can do it, and everyone in the field has been trying to do it for decades, and they all failed where I succeeded in 2013.

>>11819030
If your model does not offer anything beyond what the standard model already includes, besides your explanation of origin by introducing new concepts, then your ideas and no different than saying "these are the fundamental particles because God said so" except that you're showing some expressions made to fit.

>>11819030
>because no one had ever predicted the fundamental particles before I did it.
The standard model is about MODELING the observed particles. Some were predicted before being observed (top, higgs, etc.) as a consequence of formulating the theory.
What you're doing is creating a theory that recovers the standard model. You're doing the exact same fucking thing how are you this delusional. You're assuming the fundamental particles just as much as the standard model does.
>Besides that, my model predicts that there is no such thing as a spin-0 force carrier. This is a classically falsifiable prediction.
At least this is a testable prediction. So when you finally realize that this is wrong you'll know everything else is wrong.

>>11819041
Yes John you're the only person in the world smart enough to make up a back story for some particles

>>11819048
My model predicts that there is no such thing as a spin-0 force carrier. The mainstream QFT disagrees with me. It says there are spin-0 force carriers. My theory and the mainstream theory are equally falsifiable, and they can't both be right.

>>11819041
So what's the tl;dr version of your paper taking physics from GUT/Planck scale physics from one object breaking it down into the fundamental particles we see?

>>11819041
>Why am I the only one who did it then?
Gee, I wonder.
You either have the possibility that the entire fundamental physics community is wrong and has this massive oversight that a schizophrenic pre-undergrad realized all by itself, or that your "theory" is just a gobbledygook of rewritten equations that other people have already formulated that doesn't present any new information.
again, take your meds. or please see a doctor so that you can get them prescribed to you

>>11819063
So if we do not find a spin 0 force carrier, that means you are correct and this is the real and only reason we have these fundamental particles?

>>11819063
then come up with a way to test your particle fanfiction against mainstream QFT

>>11818629
mate for the love of god don’t you have family or friends? sincerely, get help, stay off 4chan, spend time with your loved ones. I don’t want to see your graffiti again or hear about swat beating your ass like before

>>11818629
there are usually special sections at physics conferences for crackpots like you who "know the truth" or whatever. I remember some idiot engineer was giving out his book on QFT nonsense in one of those and people were audibly laughing and throwing the book in the trash when leaving the room.

>>11819052
>The standard model is about MODELING the observed particles.
Yes that's true. That's why I said I solved the fundamental problem of QFT but the fundamental problem of the standard model. If you know where the particles come from, you don't have a build a model of them already having come from somewhere. QFT is better when you don't have to slap the standard model on top of it to get it to work.\

>You're assuming the fundamental particles just as much as the standard model does.
No you are wrong. The grid of possible automata that I derived from my cosmological just coincidentally looks exactly like the standard model. I did not put the SM data into it all, and yet I recovered it from my cosmology.

>At least this is a testable prediction. So when you finally realize that this is wrong you'll know everything else is wrong.
When the spin of the particle from 2012 is determined, then one model or the other will be proven wrong. Also, what an asshole one would have to be to think the didn't find the spin yet after 8 years? The reason they don't report it is because the powers that be don't want their employees saying that I am a super genius who smoked all of the thousands of them working together all on my own in about 4 pages with a master's degree. Everyone in the know knows it has spin-1.

>>11819064
Dude, I have like 30 papers. The one about the particles is only 4 or 5 pages and it has big pictures in it. If you ask a question that shows you at least looked at, then i will entertain your inquiry.

>>11819066
They aren't wrong. They know it has spin-1 but they don't report it because the USA says such a report would be bad for its national security.

>>11819072
If the particle they found in 2012 has spin-1, then that supports my theory but does not necessarily prove it. On the other hand, spin-1 absolutely, positively rules out the Higgs theory.

>>11819074
To test my theory, they should determine the spin of the particle they found in 2012. Certainly they already did this in the ensuing 8 years. The reason the result is not yet reported is, in my mind, quite obvious.

>>11819091
>people were audibly laughing and throwing the book in the trash when leaving the room
those people are assholes

pic unrelated: it shows how my solution to quantum gravity follows EXACTLY the form of Higgs' own seminal result.

Is any of this verifiable or just bullshit he put on LinkedIn trying to get a job?

>>11819129
Not my job to read your paper if you can't even present your work. This is why we have filters on peer reviewed work, and in your case, apparently even have filters on arxiv (I want aware those were ever enforced until you). Not being able to pass those filters means there's better use of my time. If you can't even give an answer to my question in conceptual terms then I'm not even going to bother reading it.

>>11819131
That is all true but I didn't write it. Helene paid for an SEO thing to try to get my burglary mugshot off the front page of google so i might be able to get a job one day if i was so inclined.

>>11819131
>getting a masters in physics
>getting a graduate degree from the same as your undergrad institution
>being in grad school at GT and STILL publishing on vixra
it writes itself

>>11819129
>The reason the result is not yet reported is, in my mind, quite obvious.
meds. take em

>there's better use of my time
go make better use of it then. buh bye.

>>11819129
>Higgs boson has spin 1
>Higgs boson found from data taken in switzetland/france
>truth about Higgs boson (physics) has consequences on USA national security
Even my wife laughed at this and knows how fuckin crazy you are.

>>11819153
>being on the USA shit list

>>11819167
The Higgs boson has spin-0.

Tooker...... you do realize that posting ex-post-facto results "explaining" what was observed is useless, right? Generalize your theory and determine all the possible fundamental particles and we'll talk.
What are the fundamental SUSY particles?
What are the fundamental highest energy particles?
Are strings included in your theory or do we throw out strong theory entirely?
Most importantly, are there fundamental particles that exist at GUT/Planck scale that we haven't thought of and should be starting from?

>>11819149
So tooker, how did you manage to get your tuition paid to stay in classes and not have them drop you?
Do you have a picture of your diploma? I'm surprised they allowed someone with your reputation and continued disgrace to academia to graduate

>>11819184
>you do realize that posting ex-post-facto results "explaining" what was observed is useless, right?
This is the entire field of phenomenology. I don't agree that is is useless. I am not a phenomenologist but I believe they are rightly well regarded. You are stupid if you think phenomenology is useless and you are retarded if you don't know the difference between a theorist and a phenomenologist. I am a theorist.

>Generalize your theory and determine all the possible fundamental particles and we'll talk.
"Do all the combined work of all the tens of thousands of particle physicists in the world collaborating together for the last 100 years. Do it all by yourself with no funding and then we'll talk." What makes you think I want to talk to you? I'd rather kill you and then talk to the person I give your old job to.

>what?
>what?
>are?
>are?
Those are good questions. If you have a grad student, maybe you can pay him to answer them for you.

I have an original falsifiable prediction that I came with all by myself. Do you have one? There is no reason for me to make Nth order extrapolations from my basic model before they report the spin of the particle they discovered 8 years ago. If I could get recognition for my correct theory, and get grant money for it, the questions you raise are exactly the type of thing I would pay my grad students to answer.

>>11819131
>master's in physics

>>11819231
You act like you're eligible for grant money to hire graduate students...

>>11819248
I certainly do not.

>>11819252
>If I could get recognition for my correct theory, and get grant money for it, the questions you raise are exactly the type of thing I would pay my grad students to answer.

>>11819257
exactly.

So for someone besides Tooker. Is there any debate about the spin of the 2012 measured Higgs boson? I've never been an experimental particle physicist but thought that was well established years ago but may have missed some nuances.

In Feb 2013, I predicted the spin-1 particle. In March 2013, John Ellis wrote this short paper
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3879
where he wrote "beyond any reasonable doubt [it has spin-0]". The reason he wrote that is because reasonable doubt is the bottleneck in USA jurisprudence and my enemies were wanting to make a legal case's evidence include the alleged falsity of my theory. You could search literally every other particle physics paper ever written and I don't think you could ever find another reference to "reasonable doubt." Furthermore, this "reasonable doubt" clause which my enemies asked Ellis to include in his stupid paper is so fucking stupidly unscientific that he had to back off the "beyond any reasonable doubt" criterion in the first sentence of the paper. The judge that this paper was submitted to as evidence, however, surely did not read the paper and just said, "Oh! Ok! Beyond a reasonable doubt, this alleged expert says Tooker is retarded. Sounds good to me!"

Then later in 2013, Ellis' paper became the first citation in the technical write up for the 2013 Nobel for the Higgs mechanism. This was to add gravitas to the legal standing the USA courts and normally the Nobel committee would not include a paper so stupidly written in its citations at all, and certainly not as the first citation.

So please... go ahead and see if you can find "reasonable doubt" ever mentioned in any other particle physics paper, ever, other than the one written a month after my paper which only included that language so as to say "beyond any reasonable doubt, Tooker is retarded." I feel VERY confident that you cannot even find one other instance of that phrase anywhere in the literature.

Ellis' paper is just a shill paper written for his Faggot Club overlords who are my enemies in the world

>>11819264
If anyone has some paper which claims to report the spin of the particle from 2012, please link the arXiv. To my knowledge, CERN has refused to report the spin.

I made two infographics about it:
>>11818774
>>11819099

How are Georgia Tech, Georgia State, and Georgia Southern University related? I can only find in writing Tooker listed at Georgia Southern University and not graduating/receiving awards from Georgia Tech

>get tired of the schizos on /x/
>decide to check this place, see what people are talking about nowadays
>this thread

>>11819347
I went to undergrad at Georgia State.
I went to GT for a PhD in physics but left with an MS after getting fired and expelled, pic rel.
I went to Georgia Southern for math grad school briefly last year but left when it was obvious that my profs were fake know-nothing who were only lecturing the material from the book they had read a day earlier, and not lecturing from their own subject matter mastery.

>>11819365
Your knowledge means nothing unless you're able to make someone listen.

And you're not being very compelling to be heard.

>>11819264
>>11819314
there is no debate about it. if you believe that the higgs boson is responsible for the higgs mechanism (i.e. giving mass to the W and Z bosons through the ordinary higgs mechanism [read A Theory of Leptons by Weinberg] which works beautifully in every measurement, and giving masses to other particles via Yukawa couplings, which are all in agreement with the theory experimentally) then it is a fact of quantum field theory that these mechanisms can ONLY work for a spin-0 particle, otherwise it violates lorentz invariance

of course there are suggestions that not everything gets its mass through the higgs mechanism, like e.g. neutrinos. but it is anticipated that their masses are explained by a minor addition that leaves the ordinary higgs mechanism alone for all the experimentally confirmed stuff

>>11819416
Contrary to your opinion that something means nothing, I have an opinion that your respect for the shitardian rules of 4chan etiquette outweighing your reverence for the Lord, who is me, means very much.

>>11819434
This person make no reference or nod toward the contentious issue: What is the spin of the particle that was discovered in 2012?

>>11819048
Even if his model offered nothing beyond the standard model but actually reformulated it in a new and valid way he would be putting it on arxiv not vixra.

>>11819434
Not talking about the theory, talking about the 2012 particle that is called the Higgs boson, whether or not it has spin 0 and actually is the Higgs boson from the Higgs mechanism.

>>11819461
>This person make no reference or nod toward the contentious issue: What is the spin of the particle that was discovered in 2012?
are you incapable of understanding english now? the spin is 0. the theory relies on it being spin 0 and the theory is confirmed in a bunch of different measurements of various different kinds. if the spin were anything besides 0, then the theory makes no sense and violates lorentz symmetry. therefore it is confirmed that it is spin 0 unless you are retarded or have schizophrenia

>>11819461
>>11819468
Of course they checked whether it has spin 0. Look at page 90 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.0763

>>11819464
Yes and even then, if it yields no more results than the SM or any easier computational methods, it would not get any attention

>>11819468
every measurement done on the 2012 boson -- there have been a bunch -- agrees perfectly with the theory of the higgs mechanism and the other properties of the higgs boson.

let me give you an analogy. do you have a problem with the top quark? the top quark is only observed indirectly in its decay products. nobody has ever held a top quark in a tweezer and looked at it with a microscope and said "yep, that looks like a top!" no. you just verify whether the theory of the top quark agrees with the data or not, and it does. therefore the top quark is confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. same thing with the higgs boson

>>11819464
Not if arXiv received a USA national security letter commanding them not to publish it and never to mention the national security letter which forbids them from publishing it.

>>11819474
ok. let me have a gander. one sec.

>>11819487
Yeah and that's what I assumed and figured it was well understood to be spin 0 and the Higgs boson from the decay products and interactions that made it. I was surprised they had to verify the spin but assumed that was ensuring it came from the expected channels and wasn't a spin 2 tensor particle instead of a scalar particle. Was just making sure that all checked out and there's no debate since I'm out of the field now

>>11819499
I'm (not) sorry that your papers are rejected, but that doesn't make it a government conspiracy. Seriously, when is your appearance on the show ancient aliens?

>>11819502
well, Jon says it is spin 1 which is even more obviously wrong than spin 2

>>11819474
Is it your contention that the J=1 line in this plot represents "all possible models" of spin-1 and not simply "a theoretical prediction" like it says in the caption?

I do agree 100% that CERN has published literature showing that almost all models of spin-1 have been ruled out, such as the J=1 model which appears to be ruled out in this plot. The point I am raiding about CERN not reporting the spin is that have no ruled out ALL possibilities for spin-1 and they have not reported the particle as having spin-0 anywhere in the literature.

>>11819510
Yes, he's obviously wrong but that's only because I'm posting from USA and was given a national security letter to not say he could be right...