Even if he ends up being wrong, this kind of examination is healthy in science.

The filtering argument kicked my butt. I've been in several groups where we filtered out background data or noise without any understanding of where it came from. Just so that what we were left with was the data as predicted by the models. This is ok if you want to look at these specific aspects for example when doing spectroscopy but it won't advance our understanding, in fact, it leads to the delusion that we know what we are doing as one becomes accustomed to this.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair This applies to the current generation of particle physicists unfortunately

The courage for somebody to acknowledge he is wrong, is very rare, if you look at physicists and biologists

Back in the late 60's, when I was a young physics student, it dawned on me that we don't know anything about the constituents of matter. All we know is what we can do to them. That is not the same thing. The example I used at the time was that particle physics was like taking a rock and breaking it up into smaller and smaller pieces, until all you're left with is powder. You started out with a rock, you're left with the rock in altered form- powder- but you still don't know anything about the rock itself. All you've learned is what you can do to it. No matter how you bash the rock around, all you've done is chase its reduced size for all eternity. That's a case of going down the rabbit hole, not actually learning something.

I'm a layman in the field of physics, but I've intuitive believed that particle physics is a dead end for decades. It seems that the ability to generate ever more ephemeral particles, by upping the energy involved, is a process with no foreseeable end. And each 'discovery' simply perpetuates the search for the next 'revelational particle!'

I agree with you. I see group think in medicine where I work too and supposedly intelligent people are just working in echo chambers which validate their own career paths.

There's ain't nothing-better than a brave heretic with a pragmatic/salient point.

One thing I did learn in life is that humanity absolutely hates hearing the truth....and this man has bravely spoken the truth.

takes a lot of courage to stand up and do that. many thanks.

For the first time I have listened to such so frank lecture about particles physics, it's practical and true.

Wow I thought I was the only one who didn't accept the Standard Model...glad to see I'm not alone!

"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity." A Einstein My favorite is their gravitons and how they expect to measure a graviton. Every institution of our common has been thoroughly infested with the for-profit, financialization money-junkies and theoretical physics has not been spared. CERN is high energy weapons research and they'll get their money.

I am not at all involved in the field of physics. Haven't had it since high school, loved Einstein and Newton, checked out completely in particle physics. Even then it seemed to me as if that part of science was stuck with the equavilent of the geocentric model, and still waited for a Copernicus to come along and provide a workable. As a complete layman, I want to thank you Dr. Unzicker for having the courage to speak truth to power. I hope that in the years since this upload, more and more have come to terms with that this is indeed zombie science, in need of going back to the drawing board. I do believe that unhindered by dogma, these riddles can all be cracked.

I love this channel. As a recently subscribed viewer, I am slowly working my way through your various videos. This presentation here is a great one. You seem a bit nervous but it is understandable. You know that strong reactions await you. What's particularly nice for me as a non-physicist, is that you present your ideas simply, clearly, logically. Even I could understand you. Anyway......carry on. You are inspiring.

I disagree with his entire premise. The Standard Model has made several predictions which have been confirmed in colliders. It is all a matter of creating the energy levels necessary for these particles to exist. While it is not possible to measure the particles themselves, we can measure the decay products. I don't know what this guys problems are, but he appeals to naysayers and other nihilists. If he thinks it's crap, I would love to see his alternative, and how well it explains what we observe.

I think because he was obviously nervous (who wouldn't be) he missed some of his most telling points that come over better in his book. In particular, he says that approximately 10^12 events have to be filtered to produce one Higgs particle, and that the actual detected particles are just photons and electrons. Furthermore, most of the filtering is performed in hardware because there is too much data to store! Add to that the fact that the Higgs, W and Z bosons have lifetimes of 10^(-25) sec - so they only cross the width of a proton before they decay! These facts alone were sufficient to make me hugely sceptical of the entire enterprise.

The LHC data and related stuff are all publicly available online, not sure where you got the impression they were not.

I asked a Chomskyan linguist once what evidence she had that her son's advancements in learning English were not rooted in things he'd heard at daycare. I shit you not, her response was, 'there's a framework'. When I pointed out that that's not evidence she lost her fucking mind. It was hilarious.

Thanks for the honesty. I've never trusted the standard model of "particle physics"

The fundamental problem of this speech is that two things are thrown together which are essentially independent. "No practical use came out of it" is not entirely correct if you count the Pyramid Scan Project which uses Myons - not part of our everyday life, but part of the standard model. So, the standard model is at the moment the best simplification, basing on experimental data going back to the early 50s (without real computers, removal of background etc.). There were are a LOT of different Baryons found and only six quarks is sure a simplification. I just see the problem that the theory is basically incomplete and the quarks and leptons are not stable in the same way atoms were proved to be fissionable. I am no physicist, but radioactive decay means that one quark is transforming into another which means more or less that mass and energy are basically interchangeable and you can transform one particle into another or into energy and make new particles out of the energy, based on principles unknown. The other thing is: it is worth spending more and more money to build ever larger experiments? That might be the real issue here and the one which has more merit. Perhaps there will come something out of other unexplained mysteries which are largely ignored until today. But who knows and will decide? If usability is the measurement, all science beyond the solar system is wasted money too.

Quarks are the new Smurfs, and Gargamelle can't capture them. Those miserable Quarks.

Finally someone who understands the idiocy of particle physics. I'm so tired of trying to explain to my friends the false assumptions of the cult of quantum!

It was an honor and privilege to hear this talk. One of the few instances of an absolute unbiased review I've heard.

to all who cheer: physics is about what you can predict. SM predicted the Higgs, they measured it, it was there. there are valid points of course, it should be more accessible, transparent. anyway, this whole approach is like calling the Moon landing a hoax.

Great talk…grew up in Los Alamos in 60s and 70s …I remember playing tennis with many of the “big guns” at the lab and I remember the word baloney used a lot around the standard model…. Also with Europe facing a tiny energy crisis where does the LHC find spare energy on the grid to speed protons around in a circle. Anyway just found your channel and appreciate your view point.

I first encountered sm twenty years at uni. I rejected it pretty shortly whereas sr and gr felt natural. I went into electronics and thepractical application of two hundred year old theoretical knowledge to me says enough said. Talk to me again about the merits of sm when it impacts the world. Till then I wonder at just how much has been wasted on pursuing sm and string theory etc. mathetical models distant from our reality.

I love this discussion. He is on to something... In my opinion, the probability that intelligent more advanced life in the Universe has our Standard model, String Theory, QM and GR in its adhoc fashion is basically zero...

Quantum mechanics has a similar problem - students are told to calculate not understand. Cosmology has an identical problem - with dark matter and energy comprising 96% of the universe and not interacting with us in any way except to explain the problems of the current model....

01:00 overwhelming complication 02:33 suppression of basic problems, unsolved problems 03:34 historical ignorance 09:44 LHC, string theory 11:06 lack of transparency 14:12 question 1

The critiques to the standard model and the experimental paradigm are correct and also physicists tries to do something about it. However, it's not crap, even the epicycles were not crap. Don't forget that physics is not about finding the "true laws of nature" which is both an impossible task and a religious approach to science. So telling people that physics should offer an explanation to "the nature of space, time and inertia" or the "origin of spin and radioactivity" is kinda misleading. Proposed laws of nature and models are "proposed" meaning that if you find a better model, go for it and it will become the new standard model. QFT is still a theory that predicted the existence of many particles and we were able to measure with precision many observables. Also, you are focusing too much on the "LHC side" of physics' research, but with QFT and many body quantum systems we studied many systems that were extremely successful, like materials for electronics for medical application or quantum chemistry.

As the lead CERN scientist had announced it during the public press conference in front of good old Peter Higgs ... "I think we have it" ... LOL

Atom smashing is like crashing 2 planes together and trying to figure out how the planes worked by the parts that fall off it.

I always enjoy your videos, Alex.

"If you're happy working on the epicycles... let it be." He pwned that girl with that one statement.

I'm proud to say that in 2005 I chose not to join the masses entering a career in particle physics. For pretty much the reasons described here. I wasn't happy "working on the epicycles" 🤣 These days I like to think that science should be led (performance managed) by engineering problems, nothing else. Can someone even conceive of a Higgs computer? Rocket? Power plant? Weapon?

Great work at explaining !....cheers.

Alexander Unzicker: I must offer you my great respect for your courage here, in what appears to be you telling some professional physicists that some of them are contributing negatively to physics. Wow! The simplifying theory you allude to here, which will result in a tremendous simplification of particle physics, and a tremendous improvement over the standard model, is exactly the theory I've invented, matter theory. Matter theory begins by assuming a fundamental mechanism, which is consistent only with some very specific, simple and useful fundamental particles, which are more fundamental than anything assumed in the standard model. This leads to the simple, logical explanation of 23 fundamental physics observables the standard model can not explain and only assumes. It also necessarily leads to the derivation of self-consistent, quantum-relativistic-like formulas for the motions of those particles, which supersede the formulas of both quantum theory and the special theory of relativity, making all professionally used physics theories obsolete. Can you help me sell it? Satisfaction is guaranteed beyond any reasonable doubt. Also, I'm pretty sure you will appreciate my KZfaq video, "Quantum Mechanics Intervention". It's been made clear to me that not every 1 appreciates that video.

I would love to see a flawless qft textbook that was strong on every point, not just one or two

Much respect to Unziker. I love this channel!

Great work Prof. Unzicker, right to the point revealing dreamers in physics.

If you want a simplification of modern physics, lookup “A Theory of Incomplete Measurements”.

Well if you didn’t end up missing 3 in all combos. What would you do.

Alexander Unzicker and Bibhas De seem to be on the same page. Myron Evans as well. I respect these guys even if the establishment doesn't.

It seems to me that you are just replicating the confusions the founders of QED had when they were developing the theory in the 1960s. Nowadays we know how to resolve these apparent "confusions". This is quite common to "paradigm shifts" in science that you like to refer to. Often there are different formulations of a theory that are later shown to be equivalent and misconceptions are resolved later on. The apparent "scandal" regarding the calculation of g-2 is of course not a scandal after all. At the time (and still today), a two-loop calculation is a rather complicated endeavor and, therefore, prone to mistakes. This "scandal" was resolved swiftly and today with supercomputers at our disposal, we know g-2 to a much higher precision at 5 loop order. Your assertion about QED being bogus attributed to Dyson is also inaccurate. We understand now that the perturbation series in alpha is actually an asymptotic series, a well-defined concept in mathematics, roughly meaning the first few terms (roughly 100) converge extremely well and diverge only at O(alpha^137). We probably will never have the computing power to go to such high orders. These papers by Oliver Consa you are pushing are actually just a collection of utter gibberish and nonsense that every capable physics undergrad would be able to rebuke quickly. We also know today that QED cannot be a fundamental theory and expect that new physics has to enter at some point. Yet for the energies we have access to, it is an extremely accurate description of experiments Here is an honest question: Do you really believe that thousands of physicists, theorists, and experimentalists alike, conspired in claiming that QED and the Standard Model describe nature to astonishing precision, while secretly knowing that they are fooling people? That would seem to be extremely unlikely. And what would be the point of such a conspiracy? Science is probably not the best field when your goal is to fool and defraud people.

I have never been a fan of particle phisics, but I really love quantum mechanics. And I have the gut feeling that quantum mechanics found something that is truly fundamental. No matter "particles", no matter the scale, I think that the QUANTUM BEHAVIOUR OF EVENTS is something that really touches the source.

God this is such a breath of fresh air. _« To sumarize, the Standard Model says nothing about the contradictions of electrodynamics, it says nothing about how to compute masses,_ _it says nothing [about] how to compute mass ratios, nothing about lifetimes, nothing about the fine structure constant, nothing about the relation to gravity,_ _nothing about the origin of spin, of radioactivity, nothing about the nature of spacetime and inertia._ _A model that says nothing about all these fundamental questions is crap. »_ - Dr. Alexander Unzicker (b. 1965) I have been waiting for this attitude to emerge since the end of the '80s.

Thanks for your work. I'm giving a talk about your work next month at the International Association for Relativistic Dynamics conference in Prague.

It’s great that someone has finally decided to stand up and question the current trends in high energy physics ... how can the lay public who pays taxes be expected to just “trust” the scientists when the data is kept hidden from public view?

Great info; thanks for uploading!

Also to be considered is The Scriptural Perspective that the atom results from the transmutation of Divine Essence, and is thus beyond finding out, whilst the molecule is subject to entropy.

Dear AU - Bravo!!! Thanks for your courage & ethical+intellectual integrity. I really want you to be my partner & critic in articulating post-modern physics & cosmology, as I eliminate all the anomalies, especially black holes, big bangs, "dark" stuff, cosmic expansion, and magical pseudo-particles.

"A study of true scientific achievements in the past suggests that the current model is a symptom of a Kuhnian crisis."

Even as Ptolemaic astronomers were building epicycles on epicycles, they still accumulated the data that other thinkers needed (Copernicus, Kepler) to come up with their models. The work of the experimentalists (e.g. Galileo observing our moon, phases of venus, and Jupiter's moons), is extremely valuable, even if the theoreticians are off using maths to cook up why crystal spheres, deferents, and epicycles (read strings, branes and new dimensions) in order to fool the public and their financiers. It is possible to re-think the evidence, as long as we get the evidence down. My own view on wave-particle duality is illustrated below, it goes back to basic assumptions and proceeds differently in the light of modern experiments. Quantum Mechanics: Particle Simulation Intro ver 1.1

The more energy we ADD the more particle we find. The question is... "Are we potentially fabricating these entities OURSELVES simply by adding these energies into them?"

7 years after posting and nothing has changed.

The single Q&A exactly hit at the root of the Standard Model problem and how it's mappable (or not) to Copernican Revolution. Thomas Kuhn's book of that name is a must-read. He proved, backed by comprehensive historical documentation that about 1700 years of scientific effort and lots of epi-circles did nothing to get any closer to the correct understanding. The final question by the lady is, therefore, ahistorical.

When you start running into massive paradoxes you are not just wrong but there is some basic assumptions about physics that is completely off base we need to go back and start from scratch

A model is only a model that’s all it makes everyone sound right and everyone agrees cause everyone agrees and it’s beautiful but that don’t make it necessary a picture of the real situation or something like that I think maybe can’t be sure a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse

Is anyone working on an alternative to standard model?

Modern physics is an exercise in "how to hide something about ourselves we don't want to know". 1) Shrink it so we can't see it. 2) Complicate it, and compound the complications until Gordian Knot status is reached. 3) Elevate the whole bucket of lies to "wonderful mystery" status

I have wondered for a number of years, whether colliders were discovering particles, or creating impressions of particles. I know that when you go from smaller numbers (of apples, for example) to bigger numbers, you go from dealing with a degree, to dealing with new kinds. Take, for example, going from 6 apples to 6 bushels of apples, to 6 truckloads of apples, etc.

to be fair , real engineers did manage to make something actually useable out of the binned epicycle, a 'cycloidal gear'

As a total layman I wonder if all that noise they measure could be a sign that the many interacting worlds model is true? In this model all the many worlds already exist and are not created on the fly through branching. The double split interference are the many surrounding copies of the particle interfering. So the nearest universes are leaky, not completely separated and have even many points in common. It's hard to divide them up until too many parameters start to differ. Each particle, each object is surrounded by shadow copies which are identical enough to cause confusion about "which is which and where is where" An object has no clear sharp boundaries on Planck scale level but diffuse ones. The next layers are particles who are already too different and those don't interact. Sometimes I wonder if something like fine structure constant has to do with the fact that there is only room for a limited number of shadow copies around each object.

You can love or hate a model, that's just your feelings, you may feel that the model is beautiful or ugly, that's again just your feelings. A sciencific theory is valuable if it can predict outcomes. Is the standard model able to do that? I think so. Are those predictions useful, I think so ergo its a valid scientif theory, period. Everything else is your opinion... or your feelings...

The Standard Model and Big Bang Cosmology are both baroque kludges, heavy with epicycles and anomalies, overdue for a paradigm shift.

Given what you are saying; I wonder what have been found had the built the original particle accelerator in Waxahachie Texas which 51 miles in circumference?? Yep it would have 3 X the size of the LHC!!

there are probably just three particles ultimately: photons, protons and electrons. but then again I wouldn't be surprised by a unification of photons and electrons.

I studied some physics as an undergraduate 30 years ago, I just accepted everything they said, watching this makes me feel cheated.

Absolutely agree. You’re a true champion.

But as I'm reader and fond of quantum physics, I did read somewhere, that scientists through their experiments in labs or accelerator they come across applications which are useful in technologies or manufacturing.

There is a string called a "two winding" by Ashoak Sen mentioned in Leonard Susskind's Black Hole Wars. I noticed the shape is a right and lefthanded double helix. I imagine helical wave motion from either or both opposite poles. Could explain magnetic field of a battery. Get a compass..

You are a genius Mr Unzicker.

A human can only best understands a human not tiger or cow etc. So to understand fundamental particle needs another fundamental particle and who will supply that one.

2023... NOTHING HAS CHANGED

What about Ions and Split light Experiment ? MBraithwaite Yorkshire Viking

No such thing that's why, matter is cymatic compressed ether. Some harmonically stable, some not(radioactive). Particles are real in a sense, but only as a varied level of energy until it "decays" evaporates back to uncompressed ether. Everything is ether, either compressed(matter) or uncompressed(space).

Ok professor, there are so many flaws and unanswered questions in particle physics, critisms are easy but what us your contribution to understanding nature and our observations. Einstein in his later years had time to work on the unified theory what progress did he make if it was supposed to be easy to understand. All the great scientist you mentioned had their fair chance to solve the vacuum energy problem, what progress did they make? If nature always makes its laws easy to be understood why didnt they at least make some progress on it as great scientists.

A theory can be very well tested and still be incomplete at he same time. In fact, no serious physicist would contend that _any_ contemporary theory is complete. It is notable that dark matter is an astronomical and cosmological hypothesis which hints at the incompleteness of the standard model (as one solution). The quantum level is well understood -- the theory just doesn't explain everything at the large scale. It is also cheap and actually wrong to mock the particle physicists when they say "we try to find out where we come from". Of course: On the "emergent" level, as Robert Laughlin might call it, it's nuclear physics, chemistry, biology and evolution. But without condensing matter and stars no structure could ever emerge, or at least none like us. And just why our particles are made such that they behave in this favorable way is very much the subject of this research.

Years ago (when I was much younger and terribly curious) I was exposed to a portion of an article at on what would have been described as “particle physics” I think!! It helped me see some aspect ratios regarding relative sizes of particles!! Boiled down it said this; If we made the nucleus of a hydrogen molecule the size of a basket ball the lone orbiting electron would be the size of a pea 22 miles away!! It helped me see why Hydrogen is so light and maybe the beginnings of Hydrogen embrittlement My question is; Is any of that nearly or remotely accurate?

The root of a dogmatic thinker is hard to erase

Has particle physics experimentation reached it's limit on earth? Are the next discoveries to be made in space based labs?

At 6:55, you mention how in a Beta Decay, a proton transforms into the neutron. Perhaps you misspoke. It is the opposite, it is the neutron that transforms into a proton during Beta Decay.

Physicists know that the standard model is NOT the theory of the elementary particles. Standard model is putting together the whole puzzle. Creating a "periodic table of detectable particles". It is a semi empiric model, the same kind what was used to describe nuclear physics BEFORE the development of quantum mechanics. It actually works well. It showed the SYMMETRIES in nature. It also showed the missing parts where we shall dig deeper. It also the same as the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was. Since Aristarchus every REAL scientist knew that the sun is HUGE compared to the other heavenly bodies, and it makes sense to put it into the center. However there was NO THEORY to explain how it worked, and there was no theory to make accurate predictions, while the Ptolemaic model was able to make predictions. So, they used that, and kept collecting data. Than came Kepler and newton, and the Solar centric model finally become USABLE. It is easy to say the standard model is wrong... the hard part is to create something conclusively better.

Don't tell the audience 'No' when they laugh; you have captivated them when they laugh

I would have to say that the leisure suit was the discovery of the century, followed by the mood ring and the Chia pet

why does light make matter aka electrons,,,, dont u think thats key to understanding the Aether ?

I filter out the noise in my tea leaves

I was fascinated by theoretic high-energy when in sophomore and took a particle physics course that highlight standard model. I decided not to pursue my career in this field because every particle acquires it mass based on how much it interacts with Higgs for example did not seem a fundamental theory but magician trick. I could not share this with any professor of mine as it is neither politically incorrect nor showing my “smart”. Glad to know that there is fundamental issue with standard model.

Very good … really very well said.

12:40 extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I too think the LHC is a waste of money.

I don’t disagree with this scientist. We all know, if anyone is initiated to the modern physics, that there is something kind of weird or strange about Quantum physics or general relativity but usually these speeches they don’t give any alternative and it’s like leaving us without a clue about reality. That’s sticking to a dream or have nothing.

Particle Physics is the new alchemy. The standard model equation is epicycles upon epicycles.

"If you are happy working on epicycles" !!!! What a brilliant put down! :-)

What a relief! I'm not the only one not understanding the subatomic. It might be an idea to suss out these laws before embarking on space missions. After all, two Nobel Prize winning scientists recently said the Universe isn't real.

Unzicker notices that we are in a pre-paradigm shift era (ala Kuhn, who invented the term paradigm shift; I recommend his book, structure of scientific revolutions…). We have decent models for all the fundamental forces except gravity. At the same time our astronomy friends have dark matter and dark energy, yet another problem related to gravity. The astronomers have been looking to particle physicists for help finding a missing particle. So far, that has not been successful. The Higg’s boson, if it is real, is an explanation for mass, not for gravity. I suspect a new model of gravity might help.

Watching the march of progress in particle physics is like watching a parade of ants on a Moebius strip.

This is why you hydrate before you talk. The message gets lost in loud swallow and that old grandma lip smacking noise.

C.P Steinmetz and Nikola Tesla, JJ Thompson all laughed at the idea of an electron particle or charge carrying particles in general. There is not such thing as a wave/particle duality that's an inherent contraction. How does something go from a particle emission in empty space to a wave in a medium? Quantum physics equations made no sense until they started applying wave equations to make them work lmfao. The Ether exists.

Yes, gathering data is important, but which data to gather? You need a theory to prove / disprove.