You are right from a probabilistic viewpoint. YES, all modern physical experimentation data are statistically based which gears all experimental designs, setups, and result-interpretations from a probabilistic angle. To me, probabilitic analysis is one of our most advancing and pioneering sciences that is able to solve or psuedo-solve (pareto-feaible solution) some of complex intractible nature’s problems like simple weather predictions or next customer incoming and service times, let’s say at some bank queue or movie queues. Hoewever, I would like to add that if we can reformulate some quantum physics models in deterministic environment, or couple the 2 models together one can solve some prediction problems possible much better. Then, we can rest assured of improved results with over 99.999 %confidence levels.

“The problem is I believe that probabilistic quantum physics is not the answer to our real physical world. May be Einsteinist in this sense.”

But all modern physical experimental data are statistical.

“I also think that time generates space and not as commonly understood, because time was up and running when there were nothing at all of existence. so to me space is generated by time which may seem hard to conceptualize by scientists for different reasons.”

Yes, I agree with it (see ref. p.21-49).

“The most interesting thing that I want focus on here, is the fact that you were implying that nucleons get their mass from Dirak’s improved equation. This directly means that if we could assume theoretically (only) Dirak’s improved equations to be correct, then we are really saying that there are no nucleons at all in atoms substructures or in matter before Dirak’s improved equation is triggered or kicked off to generate masses for these unexisting particles? WAHOO! Great! because this helps me kick off my view (or framework) which conjectures that matter is pure liquid (what experimentally RHIC detected recently) and that particles are formed or masses are generated by Dirak’s improved equation on exit from matter. Whether collision or any simple chemical, physical, thermal, entropical, strain, stress, nuclear, whatever surrounding field exists that forces changes in matter to spit an electron, a proton, a neutron, etc…???”

No, here the elementary particle (a lepton, a quark) is an ensemble of dot events (ref. p.37-80). The behavior of probabilities of such events is defined by Dirak’s equation (ref.p, 80-101). Masses, moments, energies, spins of such particles represent parameters of their probabilities distributions. Hadrons, atoms and molecules are constructed of elementary particles standardly (in standard textbooks).

Thank to you

Prof Gunn: I browsed thru your state-of-the art paper… and thank you it is very illuminating and instructive to read what you referenced.

The problem is I believe that probabilistic quantum physics is not the answer to our real physical world. May be Einsteinist in this sense.

I also think that time generates space and not as commonly understood, because time was up and running when there were nothing at all of existence. so to me space is generated by time which may seem hard to conceptualize by scientists for different reasons.

The most interesting thing that I want focus on here, is the fact that you were implying that nucleons get their mass from Dirak’s improved equation. This directly means that if we could assume theoretically (only) Dirak’s improved equations to be correct, then we are really saying that there are no nucleons at all in atoms substructures or in matter before Dirak’s improved equation is triggered or kicked off to generate masses for these unexisting particles? WAHOO! Great! because this helps me kick off my view (or framework) which conjectures that matter is pure liquid (what experimentally RHIC detected recently) and that particles are formed or masses are generated by Dirak’s improved equation on exit from matter. Whether collision or any simple chemical, physical, thermal, entropical, strain, stress, nuclear, whatever surrounding field exists that forces changes in matter to spit an electron, a proton, a neutron, etc…???

Please illuminate me, Professor Gunn?

The problem is I believe that probabilistic quantum physics is not the answer to our real physical world. May be Einsteinist in this sense.

I also think that time generate whiace and not as commonly understood, because time was up and running when there were nothing at all of existence. so to me space is generated by time which may seem hard to conceptualize by scientists for different reasons.

Neutrons and all other nucleons generate their mass from Dirak’s improved equation:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0302013

To me no matter how we look at it, higgs boson has one of the short life spans in the universe, (less than 1.0 X 10-33sec) which makes its decay stages impossible to observe with CMS / ATLAS… There is difference between what CERN has discovered and celebrated the higgs particle, and what higgs theory celebrates to be the higgs particle. The particle discovered can be given any name, including higgs.

I agree with Richard, but on a different scale or dimension. Scientist all over will find out someday that the solution to our SM model is there when we consider that all matter is in the pure liquid state (Brookhaven… discovery) with low viscosity. I add that high and ultra high densities of liquid matter is what makes matter behave like particles to detectors because it is observed like single moving shot, single compact mass, single object (virtual particle) at the quantum leve, and real solid particle at the macrolevel.

$W$-hadron much closer corresponds to the LHC data than Higgs.

” I have not read your paper”: Well so read. For example, this:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/books_files/quznetsov2011.pdf.

(It is written by LaTex, if you do not like World). Otherwise, there is no sense to argue with you.

The Standard Model has 26 manually inserted tuning parameters. It is a curve fit. SM predictions fail. Introduction of mass (the Higgs, CP-even) unleashes furies of parity violations followed by hierarchies of manually inserted symmetry breakings to further curve fit. SUSY has no empirical validation. Fundamental vacuum mirror symmetry, f(x) = f(-x), cannot be rigorously correct toward fermionic mass.

“Therefore, the existence of the Higgs boson is proof that there must be new physics somewhere” Yes! Euclid and Newton are both rigorously derived. Euclid failed via Bolyai. Newton failed via Einstein and quantum mechanics. Validating internally does not find the problem. One must falsify externally.

Observed vacuum has a trace chiral background toward mass, f(x) = -f(-x). Probe ONLY the chiral background. Chemically and macroscopically identical, enantiomorphic atomic mass distributions will insert with trace different energies. They will vacuum free fall along trace non-identical minimum action trajectories. That is your SM-gravitation connection. It is testable to 5×10^(-14) difference/average sensitivity within 90 days in existing apparatus as a geometric Eotvos experiment.

A pseudoscalar field will do everything a scalar field does, plus whistle. Neither “elegant” nor “derived” demands “empirically true.” The only way to know is to look.

thanks for the enlightening

Good catch. As always, out friend, the devil, is in the details. You brought up a few things so allow me to go down the list:
(a) You are absolutely correct, there are many divergences (infinities) in quantum field theory and they are (mathematically) removed through renormalization [1]. What I discussed above is actually an example of “mass renormalization,” where we require that the physically observed/measured mass is the sum of the mass we find in the Lagrangian (“bare” or “tree-level” mass) + all the quantum mechanical correction terms (“loop effects”).
(b) Briefly regarding gravity: it is unclear quantum gravity can solve this problem with the Higgs’s mass. This is especially questionable because quantum gravity is currently predicted to kick in 17 orders of magnitude in energy higher than the Higgs mass. With such a huge difference in energy scales, the cancellation would have to be due to some physical principle, e.g., loop cancellations by supersymmetric partners, etc.
(c) By definition, if the cutoff is a real number (finite), then there is new physics somewhere. The discovery of the Higgs boson (or something that satisfies its properties) has given the strongest, non-gravity-related indication that the cutoff is indeed finite.
(d) Back to renormalization, the divergence discovered when renormalizing the SM Higgs boson’s mass is different from any other divergence in quantum field theory. All other divergences that are not some mathematical mischief (due to some poorly done transformation) are logarithmically divergent, i.e., they all have a form similar to the far-right term in Eq.(1). The renormalized electron charge, etc., all have logarithmic divergences (they grow logarithmically with the cut-off energy), and have a physical interpretation that is well understood (screening[1,2]). The Λ^2 term grows much more rapidly than any other renormalized parameter and spoils the entire renormalization process. In other words, our usual tricks do not work here. We need a new physical principle to make this divergence go away.
(e) Again, gravity. Yes, the existence of gravity means that the SM must breakdown at some point. However, this is not necessarily “new” physics. : )
(f) I hope this has helped. Please, ask more.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_effect