Sign on

Author comment for 2011APS..APRE13009M

The full text of this article is available from the author's home institution at the URL: ttp://

The findings described in the PHYSICS OF PREDETERMINED EVENTS: Complementarity States of Choice-Chance Mechanics manuscript, revealed that the fundamental interactions of selection consists of two causal variables, direct and indirect selection. With knowledge of the selection principle, we have been able to apply Choice/Chance Mechanics to particle physics. When physicists announce their preliminary discovery of the Higgs boson, a.k.a. the God particle, on July 4, 2012, it received worldwide attention. However, a recent peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences (IJFPS) revealed a fundamental flaw with the shortcomings of the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider's (LHC) inability to obtain empirical evidence of the Higgs boson. The LHC is designed to detect particle collision effects, but not which type of collisions, direct or indirect, causes these effects. This limitation applies to all particle colliders of this nature due to the size difference between the beam size and the particle size. The omission error of not accounting for direct observation of the cause of the collision effects can only led to making assumptions in analyzing the effects of collision effects. In science, evidence based on an assumption, i.e., not knowing which type of collisions are being used for evidence, is a speculation, not a discovery. To illustrate this point, let's say that you drop a coin "directly" into a cup; the effect is certain, for there is only one potential selected: coin-in-cup. Conversely, you drop a coin "indirectly" into the cup by dropping the coin onto the rim of the cup; the effect is uncertain, for there is more than one potential selected: coin-in- cup/coin-not-in-cup. If everything is either certain or uncertain, then what else is there? By obtaining certain effects from a direct selection (direct proton collisions) and by obtaining uncertain effects from an indirect selection (indirect proton collisions), you now have knowledge of all causal possibilities. You now observe two cups with a coin in each. Can you tell which direct or indirect selection caused the coin-in-cup effects (or proton collision effects)? Without knowing which selection caused which coin-in-cup effect you can only make an assumption of how that effect was caused. This knowledge is what Einstein alluded to when he stated that quantum mechanics, as used to conduct the LHC experiments, is an incomplete theory. He believed that there were hidden variables that prevented us from knowing "God's thoughts" as he put it. As it turns out, he was right. However, to make sure we have considered all possibilities we can also look at this another way. Let's just say that proton collisions are "spontaneous" which would be understood as follows: Proton particles do not directly or indirectly collide into each other for they do not exist. There is only the spontaneousness of collision effects that takes place. This assumption would mean that collisions happen without cause thus barring the following mechanical functions: 1. Direct selection/collision of one proton into one proton 1. Indirect selection/collision of one proton into more than one proton So if proton collisions are not being caused by direct or indirect selection events this would mean that collisions are the effects of themselves. If that is indeed the case then why did we need to spend 13.25 billion dollars to prove collisions are non-collision events and that point particles do not exist? The paradox is obvious, proton collision events cannot take place if they do not directly or indirectly collide into each other. Effectual causality begins with the existence of collision effects, not what caused the effects. This can only generate non-empirical evidence, as opposed to empirical evidence, which is required for scientific discovery. Unless of course we are now applying a double standard. The subjective standard of non-empirical evidence for particle physics and the objective standard of empirical evidence for the rest of science. Link to IJFPS Manuscript:

Author comment submitted on 12 February, 2013 by Manuel Morales ( )