US atom smasher may have found new force of nature (Update 4)

Apr 06, 2011
A monitor showing ultra high-energy collisions of protons. US physicists are to announce that data from a major atom smasher lab may have revealed a new elementary particle, or potentially a new force of nature

Data from a major US atom smasher lab may have revealed a new elementary particle, or potentially a new force of nature that could expand our knowledge of the properties of matter, physicists say.

The science world was abuzz with excitement Wednesday over the findings, which could offer clues to the persistent riddle of mass and how objects obtain it -- one of the most sought-after answers in all of physics.

But experts cautioned that more analysis was needed over the next several months to uncover the true nature of the observation, which comes as part of an ongoing experiment with proton and antiproton collisions to understand the workings of the universe.

"There could be some new force beyond the force that we know," said Giovanni Punzi, a physicist with the international research team that is analyzing the data from the US Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

"If it is confirmed, it could point to a whole new world of interactions," he told AFP.

While much remains a mystery, researchers agree that this is not the "God Particle," or the Higgs-boson, a hypothetical elementary particle that has long eluded physicists who believe it could explain why objects have mass.

"The Higgs-boson is a piece that goes into the puzzle that we already have," said Punzi. "Whereas this is something that goes a little bit beyond that -- a new interaction, a new force."

Punzi said the new observation behaves differently than the Higgs-boson, which would be decaying into heavy quarks, or particles.

The new discovery "is decaying in normal quarks," Punzi said. "It has different features," he added.

"One thing we know for sure -- it is not the Higgs-boson. That is the only thing we know for sure."

For more than a year physicists have been studying what appears to be a "bump" in the data from the Illinois-based Fermi lab, which operates the powerful particle accelerator, or atom-smasher, Tevatron.

The Tevatron was once the most powerful machine in the world for such purposes until 2008 when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) became operational at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which goes by the acronym CERN.

The US machine began its work in the mid 1980s, and is scheduled for shutdown later this year when its funding runs dry.

"These results are certainly tantalizing," said Nigel Lockyer, director of Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, TRIUMF.

"It is too early to say for sure what the Fermilab team has observed," he added in an email.

"On the one hand, there is clear evidence for something unexplained, and on the other, there is a long list of alternative explanations for what might be causing this subtle observation.

"My personal judgment is that this excitement is adding fuel to the fire for the next generation of results and discoveries that will be made at the LHC (in Europe) and elsewhere. We are so close to learning something profound."

Lockyer, a former spokesman for the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF), which made the announcement, said there is another major experiment going on at Tevatron, a sister project known as D-Zero (D0), which could help confirm the data.

"They are both multipurpose detectors. They both have the capability of seeing this," he said, predicting a rush of opinions by theoretical physicists in the coming days, and more data that could shed more light on the finding by summer.

"It will become very much clearer in the next few months. You won't have to wait years."

According to D0 physicist Gregorio Bernardi, the presentation of the findings created a stir.

"This is not yet what we call a discovery, since this is possibly a statistical fluctuation, but it is already quite significant, and could be evidence for physics beyond the standard model," he said.

"While experimentalists are careful when a signal is extracted above a large background as it is the case here, the theorists were all quite excited and several papers are being submitted today or tomorrow."

D0 will release a similar study in the coming weeks.

"In the previous D0 publication on such events, with four times less statistics, no such peak was visible," Bernardi said.

Explore further: Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

More information: View an online video presentation here.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The hunt for the Higgs steps up a gear

Aug 28, 2008

The hunt for the Higgs boson, the most highly sought-after particle in physics, received a boost this month with the release of two new results from the Tevatron particle collider at the US Department of Energy's ...

New experiments constrain Higgs mass (w/Videos)

Mar 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The territory where the Higgs boson may be found continues to shrink. The latest analysis of data from the CDF and DZero collider experiments at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermilab now ...

Search for the Higgs: What’s next?

Aug 16, 2010

In July, the particle collider experiments at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory revealed their latest search results for the elusive Higgs particle. Based on the analyses of data collected by the ...

Recommended for you

New method for non-invasive prostate cancer screening

6 hours ago

Cancer screening is a critical approach for preventing cancer deaths because cases caught early are often more treatable. But while there are already existing ways to screen for different types of cancer, ...

How bubble studies benefit science and engineering

7 hours ago

The image above shows a perfect bubble imploding in weightlessness. This bubble, and many like it, are produced by the researchers from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland. What ...

Famous Feynman lectures put online with free access

8 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Back in the early sixties, physicist Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures on physics to first year students at Caltech—those lectures were subsequently put into print and made into text ...

Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

12 hours ago

In the quantum world, making the simple atom behave is one thing, but making the more complex molecule behave is another story. Now Northwestern University scientists have figured out an elegant way to stop a molecule from ...

User comments : 105

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Royale
3.3 / 5 (25) Apr 06, 2011
Honestly, if they found the Higgs I'd have to chuckle to myself. I am all about backing CERN and the LHC, but *IF* America beat them to the punch with a smaller accelerator; HA!
Callmewhatuwant
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2011
an *unepexpected version*?? of the Higgs particle??...Fundamentally He's saying he's actually found the Higgs Particle??!!....
NotAsleep
4.6 / 5 (27) Apr 06, 2011
Their announcement better not be like NASAs "alien life" announcement a few months back...
ereneon
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2011
Wow, they guys at CERN will be envious if this is true!
210
2.9 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2011
COME ON TEV-BABY.....FLY!!!!!
ruebi
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
why wait untill the end of the day to make the announcement... or do they want cern to hear about it first thing in the morning.
CHollman82
4.1 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2011
Not getting my hopes up...
spinchange
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2011
@Royale ...on an accelerator that's going into mothballs this year, too! http://j.mp/dEFpFK
SmartK8
4.7 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2011
Good news. Maybe it's a "Devil Particle" ;) Now seriously. I'm intrigued to hear more about this, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't like teasers.
Pyle
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2011
The title makes it sound like it isn't the Higgs. I wonder if it isn't just another poor headline to turn heads.

Phion...
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (26) Apr 06, 2011
why wait untill the end of the day to make the announcement...

Peer review. Probably by the guys at CERN and others in the field. At that level of expertise the field is so small that most people working on it know each other.

Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.
bwvandorn
4.2 / 5 (26) Apr 06, 2011
Tevatron is closing due to budget cuts. Somebody send those tea partiers back home.
newsreader
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011

WOW! This is exciting. If it is a major discovery maybe the people will think twice about shutting down the Tevatron.
El_Nose
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
ahh.. isn't that just this evening 2100 GMT in EST is GMT+5 right?? so say 6pm ?
El_Nose
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
just in time for the evening news to butcher the story
210
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
GO TEV GO!!!!!!
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (34) Apr 06, 2011
Of course they've discovered something now that their funding is about to be cut...

"Uh...yeah...we found something awesome, it's an anti-graviton...yeah...that's it...we need more funding!"
Pyle
3.3 / 5 (18) Apr 06, 2011
Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.

Nonsense! The scientists care too. Maybe not for the money, but putting your name after Nobel Laureate is the dream of just about everyone in science.
MrPressure
Apr 06, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ereneon
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
I agree with Pyle. Ideally science would not involve competition between scientists to be first, but in reality it can make all the difference for publishing, funding, and awards.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
The paper with the results is already published. If you're familiar with physics, it's worth a look and shows an obvious deviation from the predictions of the standard model. The later press release, while obviously used as a media gimick, is probably so they have time to dumb it down. The paper does NOT go as far as to interpret the results. i.e., they don't say they've found the boson, dark matter, new physical laws, etc. I'd be disappointed if they started doing that before peer-review and a reproduction of the results in a separate test
Ro_Man
3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
It sounds like Mother Nature is up to her old Jedi Mind Tricks...
lbentil
3 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
The Times report said the findings relate to a "suspicious bump" in the physicists' data and *COULD* involve "a new and unexpected version of the long-sought Higgs-boson."

I'm with those holding their breath...
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (20) Apr 06, 2011
The edited version of the article now says that whatever it is, it isn't the Higgs...

So what if my joke is true?

What if they DID discover an anti-graviton?

Or a particle came through a nano-wormhole or something?

What if it's Dark Energy?

Or Dark Matter?

Or Quintescence(sp)?

I'd prefer anti-gravity, but hey, that's just me.

Travelling to another star in human time scales would be cool...
Husky
4.2 / 5 (39) Apr 06, 2011
they found the send more money particle?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2011
but putting your name after Nobel Laureate is the dream of just about everyone in science.

No. we don't care about that. How much is a prize worth if it's given by people whom you KNOW have no idea what they're giving the rize for?
When you do science you NEVER do it for prizes or money (you could make a lot more money working for some tech company instead of working on research)

In any case the Tevatron thing is a group effort. Fat chance anyone but the head-bureaucrat would get the Nobel Prize.
resinoth
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2011
this article has next to no substance at all.
NotAsleep
3.3 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2011
Neither does your comment
resinoth
1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2011
well what should I comment on, exactly? I can speculate about the motives, I can speculate about the findings...
danimal67
1 / 5 (29) Apr 06, 2011
A new force beyond the force that we know?

Is there any way to turn this force into a bomb to drop on the Ayatollahs? We should get on that.

Also, let me say preemptively that there's no way this force is stronger than THE Ohio State Buckeyes football team will be in 2011. Look for Braxton Miller to have a breakout performance and keep the Bucks in the hunt until Coach Tress gets back from that suspension.

QED.
El_Nose
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2011
@QC

hey i tried to vote you up -- it was a good joke -- but your reputation receeds you...
eachus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2011
The presentation, in less than an hour, is titled: Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in proton-antiproton Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV

The nice thing about proton-antiproton collisions (or electron-positron collisions) is that you start with a lot of energy, and all the other various numbers at zero. The title implies a new higher mass particle which is an analog to the W boson (the W+ is the antiparticle of the W-). It could be mediating another force like the weak force that hasn't been discovered, or it could be "just" a complication of the weak force with a particle that decays say into a muon and mu-antineutrino instead of an electron and antineutrino.

It could also be a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) which could make it a candidate for dark matter.
Objectivist
4.6 / 5 (32) Apr 06, 2011
Being European this "trash talking" excites me. For almost a century the US has been the pinnacle science. After the US government refused to fund the LHC Europe backed up and took on the job. Certainly not because we're better in any way, but rather that luckily the EU recognized that we cannot expect the US to fund every expensive piece of lab equipment, and that we must all share the "burden" of paying the bill in the name of science. It kind of puts a smile on my face that people act almost like juvenile sports fans rooting for the team rather than the show, but at the end of the day I of course see how the ends justify the means. Be it for competition or curiosity, it really doesn't matter if it brings us forward.
It has been 31 years now since the Tevatron was put online and it is responsible for discoveries such as the top quark. Just imagine the potential of the LHC. That been said, I myself don't care where the next smasher gets built -- as long as it does. Great stuff.
NameIsNotNick
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
they found the send more money particle?

I hope that's not the case... but thanks for the chuckle!
mysticshakra
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2011


Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.


Keep dreaming.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (15) Apr 06, 2011
Or Quintescence(sp)?
QC... 30-40 (inane) comments in 8 hours... average 10 min/comment... too busy to google the proper spelling? Must_post_vacuity_before_somebody_beats_me_to_it [typetypetypetypetypetype]
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2011
Idiot operating the camera won't stay put w/ good zoom on the slides.

live stream is almost useless.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
>3 s.d.!!! (Means very very very significantly odd.)

http://arxiv.org/...99v1.pdf
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2011
Ok, so they were just theorycrafting and said it may actually be two new particles.
eachus
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2011
Just finished watching. Basically they found a way to slice the CDF data to get a good signal for their intended research, and found an excess of events with an energy peak around 144 +-5 GeV. No one said the Higgs word, but this is in the range where the Higgs is expected.

Just a note before I go off to look at the slides and backup online. There is a lot of talk about discovering the Higgs, or for that matter the WIMPs expected to be dark matter. But you can't just look at the data when you have enough, and find the particle. You have to hypothesize properties for the particle (mass, spin, strangeness, charm, charge, etc.) filter the data for events which can create "your" version of the particle, and filter further for the signature of the particle decaying. Now out of billions or trillions of events, you pick the few thousand which might be what you are looking for.

This presentation is very unusual since it is about finding a resonance they were not looking for.
Pyle
3 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2011
Quick question:
It could also be a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) which could make it a candidate for dark matter.

If so wouldn't it be stable and not decay? Seems like if they found DM you would have missing energy because the WIMP would flee like neutrinos, right?

What they think they are seeing is unexpected normal quarks resulting from decay of something unstable like the gauge bosons. QC, I am sure the modified gravity guys are holding their breath for the anti-graviton (Moffat's phion).
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2011
What they think they are seeing is unexpected normal quarks resulting from decay of something unstable like the gauge bosons. QC, I am sure the modified gravity guys are holding their breath for the anti-graviton (Moffat's phion).


Well, one can only hope that we can figure out how to find a particle that we can actually manipulate and do something useful with that particle.

I think the last two times that happened where photon and electron...

Finding something with a real world practical value, such as the graviton or anti-graviton, or a tachyon or something would be just amazing.
eachus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2011
It could also be a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) which could make it a candidate for dark matter.

If so wouldn't it be stable and not decay?


How could this be a WIMP? In most cases the WIMP would exit from the detector--and those events were not eligible for this data set. In some cases, you would get a WIMP which would interact weakly with some particle in the detector, and the two jets would represent the debris from that decay. You don't need much of a WIMP + say electron (weak) interaction to produce the number of events seen here.

I don't know where science writers get the idea that WIMPs interact with matter only through gravity. The name should make it clear that weak force interactions are required.

Back to the presentation (given by Viviana Cavaliere). This is not the Higgs that everyone has been looking for. But it could be a different Higgs, and that would explain why the Higgs hasn't been found yet. ;-)
FrankHerbert
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2011
Positrons are useful. Ever heard of a PET scan? Isn't there some muon analog to the PET also?
Suavytommy
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
they found the send more money particle?


I have to admit, I quite literally LOL'd when I read this.
MorituriMax
4 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
Peer review. Probably by the guys at CERN and others in the field. At that level of expertise the field is so small that most people working on it know each other.

Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.

So the knives sticking in each others backs have the names of the stickees on them from the stickers?

Kidding! Nothing like friendly personal competition to liven things up.
MorituriMax
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2011
It sounds like Mother Nature is up to her old Jedi Mind Tricks...


Mother Nature waves hands, "This is not the particle you're looking for."

Scientists in tandem, "this.. is.. not.. the.. particle.. we.. are.. looking.. for."
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
@eachus just had a lapse.
It could also be a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) which could make it a candidate for dark matter.


If so wouldn't it be stable and not decay?


How could this be a WIMP? In most cases the WIMP would exit from the detector--and those events were not eligible for this data set.


@eachus - You were the one I quoted that suggested it be a WIMP 3 comments ago. I guess your most recent response means you agree with my point. Strange...

Peer review. Probably by the guys at CERN and others in the field. At that level of expertise the field is so small that most people working on it know each other.
It actually looks like everybody in the field has their name on this paper. The delay was probably for spell checking on last names.
IncaHoots
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2011
they found the send more money particle?


Sure sounds like it. They discover a mystery particle just as funding is about to run dry? We could use these guys in Congress.
saintneko
2.8 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2011
Please stop calling it the "god" particle.
Quantum_Conundrum
Apr 06, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Kurto
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2011
Even if this is not a new force of nature, I appreciate you keeping us up to date! It's exiting with actual true innovation and discovery!
soulman
3.6 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2011
Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.

Actually, that's not quite the case. There is intense rivalry between Fermi and Cern. The Fermi guys desperately wanted to find the Higgs but could not, even with extensions, before the facility closes. They're desperately trying to find an exotic signal in the experimental noise and therefore one up Cern, but so far it's all been very tenuous and this report changes little.

But, in fact, this sort of rivalry between labs is a very good thing for science in general.
tigger
5 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2011
Interesting, it will be what it will be but I hope to be around when the uncovering of the system below the standard model happens... a step away from an "observer" obsessed paradigm and a realisation that the mystery of quantum physics isn't such a mystery after all and that free will is the illusion it has always been.

Oh, yes, I agree... please can we stop using the description "God particle", goodness me, a religious mind doesn't need any helping hand with irrationality... it isn't cute, it's ridiculous.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
I wonder, might this this shed some new light on CPT symmetry violations? That would be cool. It might tell us why the universe is here and looks like it does.

eachus
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
If so wouldn't it be stable and not decay?

How could this be a WIMP? In most cases the WIMP would exit from the detector--and those events were not eligible for this data set.
@eachus - You were the one I quoted that suggested it be a WIMP 3 comments ago. I guess your most recent response means you agree with my point. Strange...

I guess you missed one of my earlier posts. There are billions of events, but the detectors are selective and only "trigger" on a few of them. Selection criteria in the data reduction eliminate most of those. So if one out of ten million WIMPs produced interacted with a particle in the detector, this is the sort of signature you would see.

As for WIMPs being stable, so are protons, unless some theories about proton decay are true--but they last for at least 10^33 seconds. But every event in the detector begins by smashing a proton to bits. At the energies that the particles produced in the detector have, nothing is really stable.
soulman
3.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
a step away from an "observer" obsessed paradigm

Really? What other 'paradigm' is there?

a realisation that the mystery of quantum physics isn't such a mystery after all

And how would you make this realization without testing and observation?

and that free will is the illusion it has always been.

Oh no, not another philosophical free will discussion :o
Beard
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Do you paranoid people understand how peer reviewing works?
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
not for sure, but I'll bet Steve Jobs is in on it...
C'mon, even statistical anomolies have statistical anomolies.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2011
So the knives sticking in each others backs have the names of the stickees on them from the stickers?

Kidding! Nothing like friendly personal competition to liven things up.


a) We're dealing with multi-billion dollars worth of equipment. No one is going to rush anything. Experiments are done when they are good and ready (and pre-planned by a year or more). It's not exactly a secret who will do what and when in particle physics. Groups don't shift their schedules around top beat other groups.

b) Until 6 months ago I lived that life as a scientist (not a particle physicsist). And I have NEVER seen that kind of competitive attitude between scientific groups which would mean "we have to find X before group Y does".

I was well aware of all the groups that did research comparable to mine. And you know what? When they found stuff that matched with what I found (either sooner or later than them) I was extremely pleased. How else can you check whether you've made a (systemic) error?
Wulfgar
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
As far as I could tell, this finding has no bearing on the existence or lack thereof of the Higgs Boson. Why is everyone getting derailed in a discussion about Higgs vs. non-Higgs? The world does not revolve around Higgs, so to speak.
mariusz
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
This is new, magical, incredible, totally revolutionary IParticle with a brand new particleOS 3.14.
AkiBola
1.4 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
We can pay off fat cat bankers (TARP), screw bondholders and gift car companies to unions, turn NASA into a Muslim feel good outreach, expand the ethanol boondoggle and waste money on useless feelgood "green" projects, double down in Afghanistan, bomb Libya, keep Gitmo open for ever, but fund research into our future, no way! Those darn tea partiers. Oh, hold on, never mind, been watching too much MSNBC.
DoubleD
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2011
they found the send more money particle?


nailed it on the 1st try
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Old MacDonald had a farm: With a quark-quark here and a quark-quark there, here a wimp there a wimp; everywhere a pimp pimp: Old MacDonald had a farm.
Kingsix
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Who the heck is editing this article? It says there are 4 update. Well where the heck are the updates? Don't they usually say
"UPDATE 1: BLAH BLAH BLAH
"UPDATE 2: Blah bleep blah

I vote for the particle to be called the "its not heavy baby, its my brother" particle
Mahal_Kita
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2011
I'd prefer anti-gravity, but hey, that's just me.
Travelling to another star in human time scales would be cool...


Within 1 minute tops you'll receive a lethal dose of ionizing radiation and you will die.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
Remember how in our old electronics classes we were taught that electrons were the mobile -'ve charge carriers? Now they are teaching that holes are the carriers of +'ve charge and that we should consider the flow of electricity to follow their path. Well, it is kind of irrelevent - tomatos, tomahtos - but not when you're taking an electronics course.

It occurs to me that it is no mystery that there is mass, rather the absence of it where there isn't any. Reality is the result of differentiation. Before there was anything, there was nothing, and nothing can be represented as infinite density, and infinite density can be represented as infinite potential. Then space, time, and matter are created. Insomuch as time as the perception of continuity, mass only exists relative to the absence of it in unnoccupied space. So in essence, mass is not actually conferred on a particle, it exists as a matter of course.

A point to ponder.
Mahal_Kita
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2011
b) Until 6 months ago I lived that life as a scientist (not a particle physicsist). And I have NEVER seen that kind of competitive attitude between scientific groups which would mean "we have to find X before group Y does".

Hm.. What about the "publish-or-perish" practice? Falling off the tenure track? What about commerially sponsored research? Like to see your insights..
Mahal_Kita
1.5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
Before there was anything, there was nothing, and nothing can be represented as infinite density, and infinite density can be represented as infinite potential.

Infinite potential was before the start of what we call time in our Universe. Time brought entropy and the potential degraded into space and matter. Nothing and infinite density never existed..
maxsmeLL
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
Honestly, if they found the Higgs I'd have to chuckle to myself. I am all about backing CERN and the LHC, but *IF* America beat them to the punch with a smaller accelerator; HA!

The argument of "it's not the size, it's how you use it" comes to mind, haha :P
RayWilson
1 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Ahh! Can we make a bomb out of it?
scoop
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.


The best evidence I've seen for a while for existence of a multiverse. I imagine there's World Peace in your universe too...
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 07, 2011
Hm.. What about the "publish-or-perish" practice? Falling off the tenure track? What about commerially sponsored research? Like to see your insights..

Publish or perish is very real. But that doesn't mean you have to publish ahead of other guys. Experiments at different facilities are never identical. The data you publish is always different enough not to coun as a "me too" publication.

I don't know about the tenure track (since I am not a professor). But I know that the profs have always several things going on at once. And anyways it's not the professors that do the actual research (neither, mostly, the guys with the PhDs) but the PhD students. The profs/PhDs mostly just say which area you should investigate.

Commercially sponsored research (like mine was) is always something specific for a company or related to their products - so the chances that someone else does exactly that elsewhere is practically zero.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
The best evidence I've seen for a while for existence of a multiverse. I imagine there's World Peace in your universe too...

You are welcome to work as a scientist yourself and get first hand experience.

Reemember that scientists have invested a lot of time and energy into something that is dear to their hearts. They aren't stupid. They know that with much less effort they could have gotten a lot more money/recognition.

So dismiss the notion that scientists are in it for the money or the fame. Honestly. We don't care about that beyond being able to live off it and getting the occasional paper out (and many wouldn't even care about the latter part if it weren't more or less mandatory).
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2011
a) We're dealing with multi-billion dollars worth of equipment. No one is going to rush anything. Experiments are done when they are good and ready (and pre-planned by a year or more). It's not exactly a secret who will do what and when in particle physics. Groups don't shift their schedules around top beat other groups.
-Except when the LHC was pushed a little too far at the beginning for political reasons, and kinda blew up? You are naive. When funding and grants and egos are at stake scientists will tend to act hu-mon.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2011
Huh? That occured well below the real operational maximum (even below what is termed 'modest' operation for the LHC). It was a faulty electrical connection.

How can you call something like that 'pushed a little too far'?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
Huh? That occured well below the real operational maximum (even below what is termed 'modest' operation
Sorry, I do recall that discussions at the time mentioned that the scale of the damage was made worse because of the pressures to show results from a machine which was 2 yrs behind schedule and way over budget. It was run at higher energies than was proper during the testing phase.

Additionally this pressure had caused corners to be cut in design and oversight but I can't find confirmation of this.

"The connections between the LHC's magnets aren't robust enough, Strait says. "The design looks like one that is optimized to make installation easy," he says. "These stupid little corners [of the design] get short shrift because they are boring." Only constant project reviews and more-integrated management can catch such problems, he says."

"...restart of the experiment in late summer 2009, with the beam energy and intensity limited to minimise the risk of another accident."
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
And this has to do what exactly with SCIENTISTS wanting to outdo others? If anything it's down to bureaucrats getting nervous.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
Sub: LHC Concepts Mislead Scientific Spirit
Inadequacy of Perception to Cosmology Vedas Interlinks.
Now I am happy to see confirmation through
"One thing we know for sure -- it is not the Higgs-boson. That is the only thing we know for sure."
Now start Seach- Where lies the right Spirit
www.newciv.org/nl...hp/_v162
Vidyardhi Nanduri

pauljpease
not rated yet Apr 09, 2011
Remember that science is not a competition among scientists as to "who does what first". It's only the bureaucrats that care for such childshness.


I guess you're not a scientist. If I had a dollar for every time some ego-crazy scientist obsessed about being the first to publish a new result (myself included, by the way), I'd be able to afford health care!
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 09, 2011
I guess you're not a scientist.

You guess wrong.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2011
If I had a dollar for every time some ego-crazy scientist obsessed about being the first to publish a new result (myself included, by the way), I'd be able to afford health care!

You have hit the nail on the head. Scientists are completely self-centred: Especially those who deny that they are. The latter ones are usually the ones who steal ideas since according to them it dioes not matter who gets the credit: So why not grab the credit even if you have not earned it!
TheQuietMan
5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2011
It is called integrity, honor, and ethics. Those who have it don't need to go on about it, they just practice it, those who don't talk about it endlessly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2011
And this has to do what exactly with SCIENTISTS wanting to outdo others? If anything it's down to bureaucrats getting nervous.
Sorry, I was just responding to your statement "no one is going to rush anything." Perhaps I misunderstood the context of it. When limited funds are available, competition for them can be generated. I remember at PPL in the 80s when funding began to dry up, there was palpable competition among departments for what was left, as each tried to justify the extent of it's involvement. This does not always produce good science.
trekgeek1
not rated yet Apr 09, 2011
I know this isn't something that will inevitably lead to warp engines, but I always get excited when we may have found something unknown to us. I always hope that the discovery of some new force would allow us to do what we believe is impossible. For instance, faster than light travel to other star systems. I know it isn't likely, but I always hope we've been wrong about what seems impossible.
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2011

I think the last two times that happened where photon and electron...

Finding something with a real world practical value, such as the graviton or anti-graviton, or a tachyon or something would be just amazing.


Add the positron to that short list: Positron Emission Tomography has been used in medicine since the 1950's ...
Ulg
4 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2011
I'd prefer anti-gravity, but hey, that's just me.
Travelling to another star in human time scales would be cool...


Within 1 minute tops you'll receive a lethal dose of ionizing radiation and you will die.


You would think if we had anti-grav tech that facilitated near light speed travel the prospect of bringing sufficient shielding would be feasible.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011

I think the last two times that happened where photon and electron...

Finding something with a real world practical value, such as the graviton or anti-graviton, or a tachyon or something would be just amazing.


Add the positron to that short list: Positron Emission Tomography has been used in medicine since the 1950's ...

Unfortunately you're wrong on this one. I thought the positron was isolated in a collider and it wasn't. It was discovered first mathematically, then detected within a vaccuum chamber. No collider involved.
kaypee
3 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2011
Funding is running out, so this looks suspicious. I sincerely hope this is genuine and not some temporary ploy to secure further funding. The swelling anti-fact, anti-value-of-education movement has scientists depressed enough, and fraud isn't going to help reverse the trend. We don't need another cold-fusion-like debacle. We need an actual breakthrough. I sure hope this is for real.
knowitall599
not rated yet Apr 09, 2011
Even if one could call this an anti-graviton, how would an anti graviton be of any real use? What kind of technology would we see come out of this if it is an anti-graviton?
Husky
not rated yet Apr 10, 2011
well, maybe the Higgs oscillates through several flavours, like neutrinos, making it hard to get a good signal to noise ratio from all the stuff happening in circular accellerator, maybe the International Linear Accellerator will do, it's location yet to be decided, but i would think the guys a the tevatron have earned their stripes, there is too much good infrastructre and brains floating around there to let it all go to waste, it would be nice if it got build their to keep scientific momentum, the LHC is still good another decade of research, so this would keep both sides of the atlantic going with the right mix of complimentary research with a hint of rivalry.
Bigblumpkin36
not rated yet Apr 10, 2011
Anti-gravity and Tiger Blood
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2011
Even if one could call this an anti-graviton, how would an anti graviton be of any real use? What kind of technology would we see come out of this if it is an anti-graviton?

An anti-graviton would probably be something along the lines of an inflaton. If we can verify inflatons, we would be verifying a massive amount of physics that is not only in question, but under heavy assault by heretical physicists, however, if we determine that this is a novel particle, we can wrap up and kill the current standard model of particles and explore some new science.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2011
An anti-graviton would probably be something along the lines of an inflaton.
I do like this statement. :)
Although few would understand why.
mayan
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2011
small smasher is here there is a site with strange exotic materials, nudity mirrors too

http://www.youtub...X6HsUBkY
http://www.youtub...M5gQeInw

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2011
An anti-graviton would probably be something along the lines of an inflaton.
I do like this statement. :)
Although few would understand why.
Isn't "anti-graviton" a Star Trek term? As I recall, it was used in DS-9 in an attempt to collapse the wormhole...

Anyway, can a graviton have an antiparticle? Wouldn't an anti-graviton simply be another graviton?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2011
Isn't "anti-graviton" a Star Trek term? As I recall, it was used in DS-9 in an attempt to collapse the wormhole...
Roddenberry pulled as many real terms from physics as possible, along with the various rules involved. He was very explicit in trying to not violate any known rules. Hence the use of terms like 'Heisenberg Compensators' in the transporter system.
Anyway, can a graviton have an antiparticle? Wouldn't an anti-graviton simply be another graviton?
No idea, but the current standard model would require some form of anti-particle, even if that anti-particle was the graviton itself.
Pyle
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2011
Wouldn't an anti-graviton simply be another graviton?

If I am reading the thread right, anti-graviton is probably a poor term. I think the concept would be a new particle that carries a repulsive force that counteracts gravity.
Moffat calls his a phion.
Bob_B
4 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2011
I can't make heads or tails out of what is being tossed back and forth here. Although it made me recall a dream from oh, say, 45+ years ago. I inserted a coin into a device shaped like a parking meter. It had a belt locked on it that opened so I could use the belt...an anti-gravity belt. I floated around the town and when my time was up the belt returned to it's parking meter and stopped working.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2011
Moffat calls his a phion.
Right, "Reinventing Gravity." I think he used it to describe the Pioneer anomaly as well (which, as I recall, turned out to be heat radiation). Fun stuff.

Since we're on to wild imaginings regarding this article, has anyone thought about tachyons? Wouldn't that be cool?
Pyle
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2011
Tachyons violate causality. They seem to be a good way to tell if your string theory model is broken.

Go on arxiv and look up Viktor T Toth. He is one of the pair that came out with last year's comprehensive study on the Pioneer anomaly. A couple of articles suggest that he and Turyshev are leaning towards heat radiation, but per their report, further study is being done and the jury is still out. As recently as last month papers were coming out with CDM explanations as well as gravity modifications. btw, Toth is also still working with Moffat on MOG (not that that really means anything).

Maybe Moffat's MOG is wild imaginings but at least it tries to stay within the bounds of relativity. And unlike MOND, MOG seems to fit cosmological data without any DM (needs DE though).
In any event, I'm rooting for the new particle to be the "anti-graviton".
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2011
Tachyons violate causality. They seem to be a good way to tell if your string theory model is broken.
Those are the things that are cool about them! They're an instability of D-brane! (pun intended)

look up Viktor T Toth. He is one of the pair that came out with last year's comprehensive study on the Pioneer anomaly
It looks like consensus is being reached.

Here's the latest:

http://www.cosmos...y-solved

Maybe Moffat's MOG is wild imaginings but at least it tries to stay within the bounds of relativity.
It's interesting, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel on GR. We need to better assert the argument for (or against) DM and DE, first.

I'm rooting for the new particle to be the "anti-graviton".
LOL. Sure. Why not?

rodgod
not rated yet Apr 12, 2011
At what point do bits become just that, "bits" of other "stuff". Granted, mass accumulation would be nice to know; but, can we get on with entanglement please. Inquiring minds want to know.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 12, 2011
At what point do bits become just that, "bits" of other "stuff". Granted, mass accumulation would be nice to know; but, can we get on with entanglement please. Inquiring minds want to know.

I have an idea about that. Digital universe. Compare it to a flight of stairs. Time would be the x axis, communication between particles the y axis. In between segments of planck time is a space of null time in which all particles communicate with one another. Effectively it would solve the schroedinger's cat paradox, which is kind of a silly construct to begin with. Schroedinger implies that a particle can exist in isolation. I don't think that's possible. So I would propose that every subcomponent of the universe is in complete contact with every other subcomponent in the spaces between moments of planck time. The math shows that when you subdivide time beyond the smallest possible bits you have 'no time', but as you have no time you would also have 'infinite time', similar to a SMBH.
Code_Warrior
3 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2011
In between segments of planck time is a space of null time in which all particles communicate with one another.

Careful Skeptic, some might get the idea that you believe in hidden variables.........
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2011
Hm.. What about the "publish-or-perish" practice? Falling off the tenure track? What about commerially sponsored research? Like to see your insights..

Publish or perish is very real. But that doesn't mean you have to publish ahead of other guys. Experiments at different facilities are never identical. The data you publish is always different enough not to coun as a "me too" publication.

I don't know about the tenure track (since I am not a professor). But I know that the profs have always several things going on at once. And anyways it's not the professors that do the actual research (neither, mostly, the guys with the PhDs) but the PhD students. The profs/PhDs mostly just say which area you should investigate.

Commercially sponsored research (like mine was) is always something specific for a company or related to their products - so the chances that someone else does exactly that elsewhere is practically zero.


Noted..