Scans by Dr. Douglas Lindstrom

Many thanks to Dr. Douglas Lindstrom for his scans. I agree that this text’s eq. (4) has a term completely missing. I checked Ryder’s eq. (8.80) by hand and that is correct within the definitions he uses of the covariant derivatives, but Weinberg uses different definitions. Other authors use still different definitions. However Ryder’s eq. (8.85) is algebraically incorrect to such an extent that the GWS theory is refuted definitively, and with it Higgs boson theory. The correct result of Ryder’s eq. (8.85) is that the U(1) electromagnetic potential interacts only with the left handed electron, which is nonsense. The electromagnetic field interacts with both right and left handed electrons. I will write this up now in UFT225 with Dr. Horst Eckardt. I notified Dr. L. H. Ryder of this but as usual there was no reply. There are other sites mentioned later on this blog that point out twenty phenomena in particle physics that cannot be described by the Higgs mechanism. It is by now common knowledge that there is no Higgs boson. Even the general public can see this clearly and it is common knowledge that standard physics ignores all refutations. It has done so for nearly a century. So it is not physics at all, it is dogma. There are many refutations by many distinguished scientists.

cc Dr. L. H. Ryder.

In a message dated 30/07/2012 19:22:30 GMT Daylight Time.

Here is the chapter on the electroweak unification and the Higgs particle from Zee’s book. eqn 8.80 of Ryder includes a differential term that Zee ignores altogether (his equation 4) Zee doesn’t go as far as developing 8.85, although i think his equation (10) is a first stab at it.

He defines
e=g sin( theta)

which you had a question on earlier, Horst, if I remember correctly.

Doug

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM, <EMyrone> wrote:

Many thanks again to Dr Horst Eckardt for this computer check! This shows that Ryder’s eq. (8.85) is incorrect algebraically, and it is a definitive refutation of GWS theory and by implication the theory of the Higgs boson. Also the claimed renormalization of GWS by ‘t Hooft cannot be meaningful. I will go ahead and write this up as UFT225 in coperation with co author Horst Eckardt, and send a copy of the paper to CERN. There is a need to construct a new electroweak theory and this is scheduled for UFT226. CERN does not have very much credibility now, especially as I can see that all the refutation papers by AIAS are being read with great interest, and by feedback it is clear that this interest is permanent – it represents the Einstein de Broglie ECE School of Thought as opposed to the so called standard physics. So I advise the British Government and US Government (beig a US dual citizen) to cut funding to CERN so that much needed research in other areas are properly funded. AIAS is by no means the only group to criticise CERN theory and scientists are not accepting the CERN claims and take no notice of propaganda as substitute for science. It is well known that Nobel Prizes in particle physics are awarded among a very small group of ultra sepcialists. Dr. ‘t Hooft is well known for censorious conduct and unprofessional remarks about colleagues. This refutation show sthat the Nobel Prize awarded to him is very doubtful, because it was for renormalization of GWS, a theory that is incorrect as shown here and in note 224(8). The GWS Nobel prize is also very doubtful, since GWS could not have predicted anything. The CERN and other particle collider data are probably good data, but need to be completely reinterpreted without a Higgs mechanism. There is certainly no Higgs boson, and scientists do not “believe”, they constuct correct theory and test it against data. Note carefully that all AIAS refutations are checked with computer algebra, so the calculations by AIAS are rigorously correct. Many othes and ourselves have found that if we go to the root of the much vaunted standard model it frequently collapses. This comes from a lazy minded acceptance of incorrect basics. An elaborate edifice has been built on sand. It is no use making derogatory remarks about the computer, and derogatory remarks about colleagues are rejected.

In a message dated 29/07/2012 21:18:44 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

I did the computer calculations. I will further check for errors tomorrow but the results look consistent.
Line %o32 is the final result for the difference of both sides of Eq.(1). This expression is definitely not equal to zero. To force it to zero I constructed a special case:

g=g’
eL bar = eL
eR bar = eR (real wave functions)
X[mu] = – W3[mu] (completely arbitrary)
eL * partial[mu](eR) = – eR * partial[mu](eL) (some kind of special antisymmetry)

You found also such special cases, will study these tomorrow.

It could be argued that the wave functions on the LHS of eq.(1) should be normalized too, but this gives even more complex differences of both sides.

Horst

Am 29.07.2012 20:44, schrieb EMyrone

It is the ninth term in eq. (15). In fact the only thing that has to be checked is eq. (22), and it is clear already that that equation cannot be true. So that is the end of GWS in logic.

In a message dated 29/07/2012 17:25:15 GMT Daylight Time, horsteck writes:

What exactly is the hermitian conjugate in eq. (1)? We don’t have a matrix here where I would know what it is.

Am 29.07.2012 14:42, schrieb EMyrone

This is the definitive refutation of GWS and Higgs theory that I have been working towards in the past couple of weeks of ploughing obscure textbooks and sloppy websites with missing definitions. The true and correct GWS theory, by its own definition, leads to the electromagnetic lagrangian component (26), in which their own U(1) electromagnetic potential interacts only with the left hand electron, a clearly unphysical result, because the electromagnetic field interacts with both right and left electrons. I can see by hand that Ryder’s eq. (8.85) cannot be true, the computer algebra will confirm this result without a problem. Note carefully that all I have done is use the GWS theory’s own definitions. Even those are inconsistent from one author to another. The algebra looks revolting but it is not all that difficult. So billions have been spent to “prove” incorrect algebra, for which a Nobel Prize has been purchased and arranged at approximately the same price tag. Who’s the crackpot now? Probably the computer’s fish and chips. How much fuel did they burn in flying over Ken Higgs and his group to CERN?

cc Prime Minister’s Office
Royal Society of Chemistry
Rt. Hon Martin Caton M. P.


%d bloggers like this: