Confining supersymmetry: LHCb presents evidence of rare B decay

Nov 13, 2012 by Antonella Del Rosso
The graph showing evidence of the Bs0 → μ+ μ- decay. The result was presented Monday 12 November at the HCP Conference in Kyoto. Credit: LHCb Collaboration

Today, at the Hadron Collider Physics Symposium in Kyoto, the LHCb collaboration has presented the evidence of a very rare B decay, the rarest ever seen. The result further shrinks the region in which scientists can still look for supersymmetry.

Particle decays tell us about the inner properties and functioning of Nature's physics processes. By studying them and their occurrence, physicists infer the rules that control them. Often, it turns out that some rare decays, which are very difficult to observe, are those in which Nature could reveal the presence of new physics. This is the case of some decays of the Bs0 particle (a particle made of a bottom anti-quark bound to a strange quark), and in particular Bs0 → μ+ μ- whose rate can be predicted very precisely in the Standard Model. Deviations from the expected values could be the signal of the existence of new , for example those from .

After analysing part of the data accumulated in 2012, together with that from 2011, the collaboration has presented for the first time 3.5 σ evidence made up of a handful of Bs0 → μ+ μ- decays. "Theorists have calculated that, in the , this decay should occur about 3 times in every billion (109) total decays of the particle," explains Pierluigi Campana, LHCb Spokesperson. "This first measurement gives a value of (3.2+1.5-1.2) x 10-9, which is in very good agreement with the prediction."

A beam of protons enters the LHCb detector on the left, creating a B0s particle, which decays into two muons (purple tracks crossing the whole detector). Credit: LHCb/CERN

This result provides more severe constraints on the impact of new physics in this decay, at least the areas more widely explored so far by theorists. "This channel is a very precise marker of new physics effects. Supersymmetry is not ruled out by our measurement but it is strongly confined," says Pierluigi Campana. "This measurement is a sort of checkup of the Standard Model and today it appears healthier than it was yesterday."

The baton now passes on to the large community of and theorists in particular. "The result needs to be fully integrated in the theoretical models," says Pierluigi Campana. "We now plan to continue analysing data to improve the accuracy of this measurement and others which could show effects of (such as studies of CP violation in Bs0 decays). We believe that new data from the LHC and more sophisticated analyses will eventually allow us to find a chink in the Standard Model's armour."

The collaboration hopes to have additional results from its 2012 dataset in time for the winter physics conferences.

Explore further: Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision

More information: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/

Related Stories

LHCb experiment squeezes the space for expected new physics

Mar 06, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Results presented by the LHCb collaboration this evening at the annual ‘Rencontres de Moriond’ conference, held this year in La Thuile, Italy, have put one of the most stringent limits to date on ...

Rare particle decay could mean new physics

Aug 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- An incredibly rare sub-atomic particle decay might not be quite as rare as previously predicted, say Cornell researchers. This discovery, culled from a vast data set at the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF), ...

Large Hadron Collider achieves 2011 data milestone

Jun 19, 2011

Today at around 10:50 CEST, the amount of data accumulated by Large Hadron Collider experiments ATLAS and CMS clicked over from 0.999 to 1 inverse femtobarn, signalling an important milestone in the experiments' ...

Recommended for you

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

15 hours ago

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 105

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 13, 2012
And what about the Higgs?
No one says the truth: the Higgs doesn't exist!

Antonio Jose Pinho Saraiva (From Portugal)
Egleton
3 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
The peanut gallery(Me) is confused by the Higgs.
The gallery wants to know how a field can cause an object that once in motion, remains in motion? Which is one of the attributes of mass.
I am really quite offended by gravity's non-compliant nature. Don't we have any means of persuading it to yield, just a little?
I really need to get off this planet.
Soon.
Tomorrow if possible.
Things aren't looking too good down here.
Hello? Can anyone help?
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (17) Nov 13, 2012
The standard model and supersymmetry are all wrong!

Saraiva
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2012
Supersymmetry is not ruled out by our measurement but it is strongly confined

Darn shame. SUSY is just so 'neat'. But then again: there is no reason nature has to be neat. (OK, so SUSY isn't technically out of the race, yet, but large swathes of it are)

We believe that new data from the LHC and more sophisticated analyses will eventually allow us to find a chink in the Standard Model's armour.

And it will be an exciting day for physics when they do. Gotta love the LHC.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (55) Nov 13, 2012
If bacteria starts growing on the dead horse, the string theorists will claim it as life, and continue by saying the LHC does not have the capacity to disprove SUSY.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (16) Nov 13, 2012
the proponents of "modern" theories have no big reason for loving it: it just did blow one their theory after another (SUSY, string theory, extradimensions, WIMPS, micro-black holes, etc..).

I think you are missing the idea of what a 'proponent' of a theory is. A proponent is a scientist who proposes a theory and works on it. If the theory is tested and turns out to be false then that person is as happy as if it turns out to be viable.

Science is not about being right but about furthering knowledge (that's where the word 'science' comes from. Lat.: "scientia" which means knowledge).

Excluding a theory ALSO furthers knowledge. Getting a negative result is as much of a happy day for a scientist as getting a positive one.

This is markedly different from a fanatic (like a few people here on physorg - yourself included) who are completely incapable of abandoning a theory way past the point when it's been shown to be bunk.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (51) Nov 13, 2012
Excluding a theory ALSO furthers knowledge. Getting a negative result is as much of a happy day for a scientist as getting a positive one.


Would you say this is the case for string theorists as well?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
Would you say this is the case for string theorists as well?

Sure. Problem is that there isn't, as of yet, a good test for/against string theory.
It still has too many free variables. But that's just another reason to keep working on it: to find such a test that will reduce the number of variables (like the test in the article severly reduced the number of potentially viable SUSY candidates)

I'm sure that if such a test is devised - and string theory is shown not to be compatible with the results - these guys (and girls) will happily go on to work on something else.

It's not like they don't have enough imagination to come up with other stuff to work on (unlike some on this board wo are so invested in their ideas that if they turn out wrong they'll be utterly devastated/empty. Which pretty much tells you all you need to know about what a scientists is and what isn't)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2012
During my scientific career I've tried out a lot of stuff that didn't work (which makes it all the more cool when you hit upon something that does).

Working on methods for aspects of a problem that don't work is the NORMAL state of science. Mostly because you start off by trying to solve a problem using the easiest approach (natch). Only when that doesn't work (and you've learned why) do you gradually go on to more and more complex attempts at achieving a solution.
You NEVER jump from a standing start to a perfect solution. That only happens in the movies.

Publishing what doesn't work is also important. It keep others from wasting time on avenues already explored. But that's the part of science the public never gets to see because it looks 'boring'. Nevertheless it's what eats up the overwhelming part of your time in doing research.

After a few years work it's quite normal to go: "If I had done that right away I would have been finished in a month"
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2012
Max Planck said his quote "Science advances one funeral at a time. Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out."

You have to place Max Planck in his time. At that time there was still a lot of prestige going in holding certain stations and the 'argument from authority' was still very much in effect. This has radically changed since then (mostly because science has become so complex that it is no longer a one-man-show). Go to any scientific conference. You'll see what I mean.

Planck was also in his later years very much one of those conservative people who whe had decried in his statement. So I'd be very careful to use him in YOUR argument from authority, if I were you.
Shabs42
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2012
This is what happened to aether physics, cold fusion, antigravity or water cluster research.


Yes, they were disproven and most real scientists moved on.

I'd rather call you a demagogic liar, who is systematically pretending here, that the scientific community works better, than its own representatives are willing to admit (Max Planck was famous and successful physicist).


Obviously there are bad apples among scientists as there are among any group. Some will continue to tout their own pet theories long after it is reasonable. That's why we have a peer review process. And I'm guessing he knows who Planck was.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
Of course, when your theory is proven wrong, you'll lose your grants and not only this, but the whole area of research will be denounced for years.

Erm - no. That theories are proven wrong happens all the time. No biggie. It doesn't mean you will lose grants as the result is published at the end of the grants period. And if it should turn out that a theory is unworkeable during a grants period then there is nothing stopping you from working on altenative theories during the rest of the time. mostly it's not an all-or-nothing breakdown (like in the article under dicussion). There's still some SUSY variants that are viable.

Yes: you will probably not get a grant after that for working on a failed theory. But as I said: Being a scientists is a creative occupation. If it's really completely bunk then you choose somthing else to work and apply for a grant for that.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2012
I'd rather call you a demagogic liar, who is systematically pretending here, that the scientific community works better, than its own representatives are willing to admit

I'm simply sharing my experiences in the scientific community. While you do...what? Pretend you know something about something you have no real first hand experience in whatsoever?

Max Planck was famous and successful physicist

He was also someone who lived in an entirley different time. If you think science today is anything like it was around 1900 you're kidding yourself.

you've no provable scientific carrier with compare to Max Planck

I do have (or better: had) a scientific career. Nowhere near the likes of Planck, to be sure. I'm just one of a gazillion people who earned a PhD, worked a couple of years at scientific institutions and published a couple of papers. But I interacted a lot with other scientists - and my experiences differ from what you imagine science to be.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
No member of Scientology church will tell you, the scientologists are shits. Isn't it logical?

That is logical. However, since I haven't been a part of the scientific community for the past two years I have no 'vested interests' in making it appear in any particularly positive light.

I hold down a regular job now. Mostly because science jobs pay abysmal wages - which translates into very low pensions if you stick with it. And also because the workload is incredible. You don't work by the clock (the contracts don't even specify work hours and thus there is no such thing as 'overtime')
You work nights and weekends more often than not - which pretty much kills your social life. I thought that only was true for grad students but I have seen most postdocs (and even some professors) on similar schedules.

Apart from that it's the most fun job you could have, though - I'll have to give it that.
rowbyme
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
Someone get natello off this site...Please!!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2012
If you think science today is anything like it was around 1900 you're kidding yourself.
It's actually a way worse, than in the Max Planck times. In his time many scientists still researched for their own money, so they were directly motivated in practical usability and plausibility of their research. The approach of contemporary community of physicists to the findings of cold fusion, antigravity, water cluster physics, psychic phenomena or various ZPE machines is tragically ignorant, because whole this community is occupation driven.
Someone get natello off this site...Please!
And it uses censorship instead of arguments like the priests of medieval church.
since I haven't been a part of the scientific community for the past two years I have no 'vested interests' in making it appear in any particularly positive light
I don't care about anything, which I cannot verify. So until we cannot see your CV, please spare us your subjective opinions in this matter.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2012
In his time many scientists still researched for their own money

Which lead only to people who could affor to doing research (as opposed to all those who have the brains to do so). it is this shift towards tapping all that potential that has allwed modern economies to be the powerhouses they are.

they were directly motivated in practical usability and plausibility of their research.

The current grants system favors applied research which can be turned into products.

because whole this community is occupation driven.

I'm not sure you understand this: you can land a billion dollar grant and it will not reflect in a single cent increase in your salary. Your occupation as a career scientist is 100% independent of grant money.

So until we cannot see your CV

This site lists some of the publications
http://www.inform...ter.html
Kron
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2012
If the theory is tested and turns out to be false then that person is as happy as if it turns out to be viable.

What a dishonest troll you are, or just a plainly stupid one.

-Also, when a hunter focuses his sight on a deer and misses the shot, he is just as happy as if he got the hit. Afterall, he now knows that his sight was off. He now knows that he has bad aim. He is not a good hunter. What a joyous happy day!-
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
Also, when a hunter focuses his sight on a deer and misses the shot, he is just as happy as if he got the hit.

OK, let's clear up a few misconceptions. Science isn't like hunting deer. When you hunt deer you know how to do it and that you can be successful.

When you do science you tackle UNSOLVED problems that NO ONE has done before. You mostly don't even know whether its possible at all.

So what you do is you try stuff that seems plausible. But the easiest way usually doesn't work (otherwise it wouldn't be an unsolved problem).
This means that a LOT of the things you try likely won't work.
In effect you keep refining you methods (and sometimes you just have to scrap an approach and start over from scratch). And you LEARN from each thing that doesn't work.

Scientists are addicted to knowledge (I don't know a single one who isn't). Anything you learn gives you a high - positive or negative - even if your first reaction sometimes is: "darn it, didn't work".
Kron
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 13, 2012
antialias_physorg,

It smells like fart when you speak. My theory behind the smell is you're talking s***. My level of certainty is about 5 sigma, this one will not be falsified.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Sorry, kid. But unless you have some arguments to present this is going nowhere.
Kron
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
When you hunt deer you know how to do it and that you can be successful.

Not in the case of our hunter above.
So what you do is you try stuff that seems plausible.

So trial and error. This a simplistic approach. Real science employs probabilities which place constraints. (such as a scope on a rifle in the case of the hunter)
This means that a LOT of the things you try likely won't work.

Not in the case of a good scientist, he only need try once. (Just as a good hunter requires one shot to take down the deer). Seems your approach is to try everything and see what works, what are you a statistician?

Your approach to hunting would be to use a machine-gun with an infinite number of rounds, this way the deer goes down, regardless of aim.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2012
So trial and error.

Sure. What else are you going to do? Of course you first do literature research and try and find out stuff others have done in related fields. This often gives you some ideas on what avenues might work and which ones might not. So it's not really completely blind guesswork.

But if you don't believe me you can see Richard Feynman expressing this exact sentiment here when explaining the scientific method:
http://www.geek.c...2012059/
If you want to skip just watch the first and the last 4 minutes.

Not in the case of a good scientist, he only need try once.

I see you have never even talked to any scientist. There is NO scientist that would claim this. None. Science is 90% prespiration and 10% inspiration. It's a lot of hard work, making mistakes, refining...until you finally find something that works.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2012

Not in the case of a good scientist, he only need try once.


Something about finding 100 ways to not make a working light bulb should probably go here. I would find Edison's exact quote; but since you aren't even making sense with your replies, I don't feel I need to do any research for mine.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Kron showed his base nature
antialias_physorg,
It smells like fart when you speak. My theory behind the smell is you're talking s***. My level of certainty is about 5 sigma, this one will not be falsified.
Kron is so perverse & anti-intellectual & thus attracting attention showing inability to understand basics of Science that have stood us so well for so long, is he a kid ?

From my perspective Science = "The disciplined acquisition of knowledge"

It includes Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment and so the loop goes on towards ever greater precision & at ever larger & smaller scales.
The key issue is the discipline in the three main steps, Hypothesis relies on mathematics & that is where we appear to be reaching a quandary. It does look as if an addenda of form is needed, I'd like to label it "Relational Mathematics" which makes full sense of,

Eg Re: photons

1 Do not experience time, do they then exist ?
2 We don't see them, only energy exchange
3 No anti-particle

Comments?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
Hi antialias_physorg. Careful, mate, for you just disparaged what happens at the LHC. That 'exercise' IS all about 'statistics' and multiple runs and datapoints etc etc which can later be 'treated' mathematically to 'arrive at' the 'result' as a 'statistical probability' of a certain 'sigma' value of confidence etc etc.

Also, one's science-occupation related 'salary' IS in many ways dependent on 'grants' for projects, since one's contribution to that project is 'individual' as well as 'teamwork'. Moreover, successful projects (whether pure or applied research) will attach prestige and employment prospects to you personally and as a team for future projects. Also the 'hit rate' for citations of your 'name/collaboration' etc will enhance your future prospects within scientific circles and outside in industry and 'speaking engagement' and 'expert witness/reference' etc remuneration/opportunities.

Softly softly on this, mate! Cheers.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
What a dishonest troll you are, or just a plainly stupid one.
Alphanumeric is something like the PR speaker of big corporation. He's spewing nice sounding lies with smile. But the insightful scientists itself admit, when some theory becomes suspicious for mainstream, it's ignored for years because of gregarious instinct of scientists, which is fed with their grant system. Which is why we still have no attempt for replication of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel even after twenty years: everyone of physicists is simply affraying to propose such a research program, or he could lost his grants in another areas. With compare to it, the fringe theories like the string theory are maintained and held for years, despite the number of counter-evidence.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Careful, mate, for you just disparaged what happens at the LHC. That 'exercise' IS all about 'statistics' and multiple runs and datapoints etc etc which can later be 'treated' mathematically to 'arrive at' the 'result' as a 'statistical probability' of a certain 'sigma' value of confidence etc etc.

AFAIK I said nothing to disparage that in any way. The statistics are part of the data gathering. And I do seem to remember saying something about doing lit. research first. Of course will you only propose theories that fit with already observed phenomena (otherwise the theory is false from the word 'go'). The Feynman video I posted explains this incerdibly well in the last half (starting at 6:43) how you arrive at 'educated guesses'. I never meant to imply that you just make random guesses (that would be the method employed by the cranks on this site - which is NOT scientific in any way)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
Kron is so perverse & anti-intellectual & thus attracting attention showing inability to understand basics of Science
We all know and agree, how the Science should appear. We are just differing in the opinion, if it really appears so by its own principles. AlphaNumeric says "Yes, it does", but many people disagree..

From this graph is evident, SUSY has been well dead before twenty years already, yet theorists are still investing huge amount of public money into its confirmation. SUSY failure is just one of many recent examples. Parody of Supersymmetry/Theoretical Physics Papers..
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Also, one's science-occupation related 'salary' IS in many ways dependent on 'grants' for projects

Only to the point if you forever do work that goes nowhere someone may decide to shut down your group. But your salary does not rise or dip with what grants you do or don't acquire.

Getting more (or less) grant money only translates into more (or less) grad student positions and more equipment. And since the time for projects miraculously (read: intentionally) coincide with the time it takes to get a PhD on that project (and PhD students mostly leave after getting their degree) the ebb and flow of grant acquisition just means an ebb and flow of coworkers.

Also the 'hit rate' for citations of your 'name/collaboration' etc will enhance your future prospects

Sure. Do good work and you may become a professor. But that depends on the work (and citations) - not the grants you bag.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
"Science today is a new type of religion," Miles says "New discoveries or concepts that don't agree with the scientific scriptures are to be banished without a fair hearing." According to Leshan, the crisis in Physics is due to following factors: 1) Mainstream science suppresses all competing theories. 2) The university teaching is wrong; 3) Absence of criticism. 4) Perhaps the crisis in physics is caused by "evolution in reverse" of human race.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2012
IMO The biggest problem in physics is institutional: in fact the system is designed to summarily reject ideas that question existing physics. A 'ripple effect' of retractions stigmatize entire scientific fields. After a retraction, the rate at which related papers were cited dropped by 5.7% relative to a selection of control papers that were not related to a retraction. M. Shifman provides an "impressionistic portrait" of the current state of particle theory. I wouldn't call the contemporary physicists a "lost generation" - rather the generation which completely misunderstood the practical meaning of its own insights.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2012
Also the 'hit rate' for citations of your 'name/collaboration' etc will enhance your future prospects within scientific circles and outside in industry and 'speaking engagement' and 'expert witness/reference' etc remuneration/opportunities.

Those things are outside the grants sectors and part of private enterprises. In the free market renumeration is variable.

The original thing that started someone said 'this community is occupation driven'. But scientists aren't stupid. They know they can make A LOT more money working for some R&D section of a company.
Scientists don't do science in places like the LHC to get rich or do climate science for 'job security'. That makes no sense. They are intelligent and trained people who can have any job they want (know how many applications I filled out after my PhD? One. And I'd say I was an average researcher)

If you do science, you do it for the love of it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
I've roughly another one hundreds of links prepared in the same manner, but IMO it has no meaning to repeat them all here. But I've prepared a counter example to everything, what antialias_physorg could say for its defense of contemporary science, physics in particular. Of course, many physicists are diligent honest people dedicated to their work - but the system which drives their community is corporation and job/employment driven and it should be replaced/improved.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
But scientists aren't stupid. They know they can make A LOT more money working for some R&D section of a company.
IMO scientists know, they would work way more hardly and responsibly in private sector. The principle of basic research gives them
freedom and stability of occupation at the moment, when they will follow few trivial rules. Unfortunately these rules are often contradicting the whole spirit of scientific work. For example, most of physicists tend to engaged in research supporting/extending existing theories rather than into research, which is threatening them. Unoriginal research is preferred more, because you can get more citations for it with less risk. The negative results are often excluded from publications, some mainstream journals even don't allow the publishing of experimental findings without underlying theory presented. That is to say, I'm not against basic research, but if some finding indicates the practical applications, it should always get a priority.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2012
You may believe you second hand sources. I believe my first hand experience.

To each his own, I guess. If you want to believe in conspiracy theories then you will believe in them no matter what (and I'm sure you will find any number of conspiracy sites to link to)

I can just give you the advice: Get some first hand experience (i.e. use the scientific method and TEST your theories. Do some work in the scientific sector and see how that goes.)

Then we'll talk.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
scientists know, they would work way more hardly and responsibly in private sector.

You mean having a 40 hour a week job (with paid overtime) at triple the salary now (instead of the 60 hours minimum and regular saturday/sunday work with no real holiday in three years I was doing in my science jobs)? Yeah. How could I ever leave THOSE easy jobs (/sarcasm)

Unoriginal research is preferred more, because you can get more citations for it with less risk.

You don't get it, do you? You never know whether your research will pan out or not while you work on it.
Whether you get cited or not is so far in the future that it's not on your mind. Whether you get cited isn't up to you, anyhow - so there's no worry about it, anyhow.

Science is not a mindset where salary or fame matters. This is something people who have never done any will never understand.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
You may believe you second hand sources. I believe my first hand experience.
Your personal experience is irrelevant in this forum, because it wasn't published and you cannot prove it, if you want to remain anonymous. And I've number of counterexamples, which were published with famous scientists under their real names. The testing of theory with scientific method cannot prove the validity of scientific method. For example, in accordance to the "scientific method" the æther model is wrong, because it should lead into drag of light waves. But we know, the drag applies to the longitudinal waves only, but the light waves are transverse and transverse waves doesn't exhibit any drag even in quite common particle environment.

Therefore the "scientific" method used for dismissal of æther was wrong, not the theory itself. Should I repeat the same mistake again and use the same fringe "scientific" method for testing of another theory? Why I should do it?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
if you want to remain anonymous

Erm - I linked you to some of my publications at your request. How is that 'remaining anonymous'?
with famous scientists under their real names

'Fame' means very little in science. You do good work or you don't.

Why I should do it?

Because you're required to use the scientific method (watch the Feynman video I linked. Do. )

Make a prediction that aether theory makes but the standard theory doesn't. Then do the experiment. (and also show that aether theory conforms to all experimental observation until now. Otherwise you're just bunk science which Feynman describes in the 'make a hole in the theory' part in the video.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
Science is not a mindset where salary or fame matters
I don't care about your naive/demagogic ideas about how the science SHOULD behave, but about how it REALLY behaves. Why the findings of Podkletnov, J.F. Prins, O. Lodge, Piantelli and Foccardi and hundreds of another physicists were never attempted to replicate in peer-review press? The common point of all these findings was, they could threat the established theories. But isn't the falsification of established theories just the primary program of scientific method based on falsification of theories? Not to say about utilitarian criterions: why the potentially useful research is always ignored and neglected, when it could threat the job places in existing research on behalf of useless research, which just brings the opportunity for another job places? Isn't the primary reason of science to help the progress of human society which is paying all this fun from its taxes - not the close and limited community of scientists?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
Because you're required to use the scientific method (watch the Feynman video I linked.
Why I should use the "scientific" method based on formal approach, which already failed in previous attempts - so I can only expect, it will just fail again? As you can see, my method is based on nonformal logics - not on formal math, which becomes singular and misleading in judging of singular/hyperdimensional concepts (like the behavior of particle environment). Can you realize, that the solely formal approach is not omnipotent in its very nature - so that "scientific method" based on it will undeniably fail with it in every attempt?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
antialias_physorg to ValeriaT:
You may believe you second hand sources. I believe my first hand experience. To each his own, I guess. If you want to believe in conspiracy theories then you will believe in them no matter what (and I'm sure you will find any number of conspiracy sites to link to). I can just give you the advice: Get some first hand experience (i.e. use the scientific method and TEST your theories. Do some work in the scientific sector and see how that goes.) Then we'll talk.


It's not so much 'conspiracy' as 'culture'. Like every large group, it's subject to group dynamics not related to actual profession. Every 'orthodoxy' is ipso facto 'behind' those exploring/questioning anew at the frontiers of that profession. Just because some 'cranks' point out the flaws doesn't mean others who do so are also 'cranks' by default.

Let's be ever on alert for the 'left field' contribution! That's what it's still all about even in these 'monolithic-science' days! Cheers!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
Because you're required to use the scientific method (watch the Feynman video I linked.
Feynman's scientific approach is based on systematic ignorance of "WHY" questions in behalf of "HOW" questions. Why I should use just the approach, which I'm criticizing all the time? Should Mr. Galileo use the medieval theology in argumentation of his theory (like the model of solar system)? Wouldn't be such an approach just a plain craziness from his own perspective?
You may believe you second hand sources. I believe my first hand experience.
Could you realize, you're sitting inside of black hole, when you appear exactly in the center of it? Would the space-time around you appear curved? Of course, for every fly its own shit appears perfect.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
Just because some 'cranks' point out the flaws doesn't mean others who do so are also 'cranks' by default.

Not everything is hunky dory in the scientific world.

But the problems that there are aren't with scientific honesty, protectionism, editor conspiracies, broken peer review or 'keeping unwanted theories out'.

The problems I see are in the 'science management' field, where unrealistic goals are set and 'company-friendly' research is emphasized over fundamental research to the point of the latter almost disappearing (and the former just being used by companies to retroactively fund their own R&D and abusing universities as cheap labor). Add to that the 'publish or perish' culture that emphsizes quantity over quality.

Why I should use just the approach, which I'm criticizing all the time?

Because if you want to be accepted as scientific you have to play by science's rules (Galileo didn't aim for his thories to be accepted as theology)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
Why the findings of Podkletnov, J.F. Prins, O. Lodge, Piantelli and Foccardi and hundreds of another physicists were never attempted to replicate in peer-review press?

Since we're rehashing stuff you have been told a hundred times on this site already: They were. They didn't work. People moved on. That's how it goes with bunk science.

(I actually had a short and very interesting email exchange with Podkletnov in 1996 while I was still at uni because I thought it was fascinating - and boy was I surprised when he wrote back.
He was very nice and we chatted about possible mechanisms. I had a very weird (and obviously wrong) idea of it possibly being a temporal effect instead of an antigravity one. By his description I'm not convinced antigravity has anything to do with what he observed - though I'm sure he saw something weird.
But since no one could replicate it - not for lack of trying...Meh.)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2012
They were. They didn't work. People moved on.
Nope, the work of Podkletnov, J.F.Prins, O.Lodge or Piantelli was never replicated and published in any peer-reviewed physical journal. You're believing they were - but this is just a religion of yours. If you would attempt to find such a replication, you would fail and this is just the problem: your opinions are pure religion based - or you're just lying intentionally.

Just try to prove the opposite...;-) The private emailing with Podkletnov is not a peer-reviewed publication about his research in Nature or Science, as you probably know.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
Could you realize, you're sitting inside of black hole, when you appear exactly in the center of it?

You mean apart from:
- The gravity gradient even a millimeter out would be enormous (and unless I appear as a 1 dimensional being in the center - which is not conductive to life - that would be something I could feel)
- The hard radiation hitting me and obliterating me instantly
- the complete absence of matter
- The fact that even if I could move my (one dimensional) head outside the center - which would have to move at faster than the speed of light, BTW - I would not be able to see any part of myself that is closer to the center.
- ...the about a million other effects?

...no I would not realize it (/sarcasm)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2012
How is it possible, after then, many physicists are seriously speculating, we are living inside of black hole? (1, 2, 3) Are all these physicists just plain imbeciles, who just cannot realize your trivial arguments?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2012
Running out of time again, so briefly...

Everyone should bear in mind that life at great depths in the oceans evolved under those conditions, such that 'pressure' is not actually 'felt' as such. Also, in some perspectives, the 'black hole' feature has a 'shell' structure like a neutron star, where a crust of 'active region' intecepts incoming matter/energy, while the lower/central regions have 'coalesced' into a neutron-like 'energy-space' where other 'features' may arise as fluctuations in that new state/conditions such that these features (not 'life' necessarily) may persist according to the conditions under which they 'arose/evolved'. Let's not be too sure about things which we know nothing about YET, either way! Let's keep open minds on possibilities which may still 'surprise' us as they are still frequently doing to astronomers/cosmologists of late! Cheers!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
we are living inside of black hole? (1, 2, 3)

There's a lot of wild assumptions needed to make this work.

Just because someone has a theory doesn't mean it's automatically right (look at antigravity, aether theory, SUSY, or this 'inside-a-black-hole' theory).

If they can make predictions that fit observations then by all means: they should give it a go.
I'm guessing it will be hard, though, as looking inside black holes is a bit of a poser.

Black holes in our universe seem to have a spin. So I would assume that if we were inside a black hole we'd see a definite band accross the CMBR from any accretion disc outside it. But then again it's pretty pointless to speculate what a black hole might look like from another universe. That's one assumption that you can make fit with any observation.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
Everyone should bear in mind that life at great depths in the oceans evolved under those conditions, such that 'pressure' is not actually 'felt' as such.

Gradients are felt. And if we take the standard model of a black hole then the gradients inside are rather severe. (c.f. Sphagettification). Also in such a gravity field you'd see some major deviations in experiments when you point them in radial or tangential directions to the center.

Let's not be too sure about things which we know nothing about YET, either way!

There's a difference between brainfarting while making no testable predictions and science. As long as we're just imagining scifi stuff: we can imagine anything. But that means nothing in terms of knowledge.

But science/the scientific method works another way. Just having an idea what MIGHT be without a way to test it does not a theory make (this is why string theory is, as of yet, not strictly speaking scientific).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
Quickly, antialias-physorg...
Gradients are felt. And if we take the standard model of a black hole then the gradients inside are rather severe. (c.f. Sphagettification). Also in such a gravity field you'd see some major deviations in experiments when you point them in radial or tangential directions to the center.
Inside a sphere gravity effect is 'balanced' and pressure is only 'felt' if structures/features did not evolve to avoid such gradient variations in pressures.
There's a difference between brainfarting while making no testable predictions and science. As long as we're just imagining scifi stuff: we can imagine anything. But that means nothing in terms of knowledge. But science/the scientific method works another way. Just having an idea what MIGHT be without a way to test it does not a theory make (this is why string theory is, as of yet, not strictly speaking scientific).

Agreed. But like you say, "inspiration" as well as "perspiration", hey?

Cheers!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2012
Inside a sphere gravity effect is 'balanced' and pressure is only 'felt' if structures/features did not evolve to avoid such gradient variations in pressures.

Even if we were evolved not to notice gravity gradients (which we can - something you can try yourself the next time you go on any carnival ride) we could still measure them with our technology. Even the gradient at the event horizon would be easily measurable with todays's tech - and this goes infinitely more for any place inside the event horizon.

. But like you say, "inspiration" as well as "perspiration", hey?

Sure. Nothing wrong with wild ideas. But making the jump from 'wild idea' to 'this idea has any merit' WITHOUT making an experiment is where science differs from crankery.

Many people here have such wild ideas and defend them as 'true' without being able to show the work or the experiment. That's why they are cranks and people who publish in peer reviewed journals are scientists.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
antialias_physorg. I remind you that the mainstream calculations have it that for a sufficiently super/hyper-massive black hole, the event horizon local 'gravity/tidal gradients' would be practically imperceptible.

Also, any feature persistent and capable of mobility within a range of pressure effects would have evolved to be 'fit' for such conditions, so any speculative 'limitations' by you are just as speculative as the initial speculations about some form of life/feature evolving from fluctuations arising in the inner conditions and not actually 'imported' from without.

Just a couple of things for your consideration whenever you are tempted to be so 'kneejerk' dogmatic/dismissive about such speculations, either way. Look at all the angles, not just your own preferred ones, hey?

Gotta go! Cheers and see y'all when I have time to visit again! Play nice, everyone!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
as looking inside black holes is a bit of a poser
We are getting off topic with trivialities. My point was, the insider may not see the deformation of his own environment. The existence of intelligent life inside of black hole is hypothetical, but you may imagine, you're observer inside of large galactic cluster, who is looking into outside. But because he doesn't see any gravitational lensing, he could believe easily, he actually isn't inside of curved space-time at all. This curvature can be seen only when you're sitting outside of it (which violates general relativity, btw, because just at the place, when space-time curvature can be seen is zero gravity field and vice-versa: the place at the center of cluster where the gravity field is least intensive actually exhibits highest curvature of space-time). Anyway, my memo is, the insider can never recognize easily the professional deform, in which he actually resides.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2012
Particle decays tell us about the inner properties and functioning of Nature's physics processes… Deviations from the expected values could be the signal of the existence of new particles, for example those from supersymmetry….
This result provides more severe constraints on the impact of new physics in this decay, … This channel is a very precise marker of new physics effects. ….


This is interesting. But note that all created particles in the collision seem UNSTABLE, why? May be they are not true particles, and if we interpret them as disturbed parts of vacuum medium (something like created waves arisen from disturbed water), below, then the problem could be solved without any new physics!
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Parsec
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
antialias_physorg,

It smells like fart when you speak. My theory behind the smell is you're talking s***. My level of certainty is about 5 sigma, this one will not be falsified.

antialias is completely right knucklehead. Anyone that isn't addicted to the euphoria of gaining knowledge simply cannot understand it. You are not, so you don't understand it. I am completely and utterly addicted to knowledge of practically any sort, and getting a bad result may in fact be a small disappointment, but its completely overwhelmed by the excitement of the chase and the thrill of discovering the truth.

I have spent all my life doing this. More than 40 years, and will continue until my life is over.
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2012
getting a bad result may in fact be a small disappointment

This is not what antialias_physorg said. He stated that a negative result brings the scientist as much happiness as a positive result.
antialias is completely right knucklehead.

No. As I said, he is full of crap. Even you disagree with him within the context of the comment built to defend him. How stupid is that? I'd really hate to have you as my advocate.
you don't understand it

you know nothing of what I do and don't understand.
I am completely and utterly addicted to knowledge of practically any sort

unfortunately, you lack comprehension skills. How can you think someone is "completely right" on a point, yet disagree with him on it?
I have spent all my life [in the pursuit of knowledge]. More than 40 years

I wish you many more years to come, you'll need them to make any considerable gains in knowledge given your handicap.
theon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
This is also a big blow for the possibility that WIMPs exist, aka Cold Dark Matter. We have to come to terms with the idea that our standard theory of cosmology and linear theory of structure formation may very well be false. If we get over it, we may realize that for the properties in the Galaxy, this is a blessing.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
Anti, feeding fringe nuts just excites them.

Nothing you say will convince them; they will always loathe mainstream science because it excludes the delusional and the mentally ill, to whom 'peer review' is an implacable barrier.

Best policy is, don't address them. Speak to the sane readers about the article. They are the ones who are interested in your viewpoint.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
I remind you that the mainstream calculations have it that for a sufficiently super/hyper-massive black hole, the event horizon local 'gravity/tidal gradients' would be practically imperceptible.

You'd still not be able to see anything further in the black hole (not even something that is one millimeter further in than you are). That's the point of the event horizon. Anything that is further in has no (light)path to anything further out. And this goes for ALL points within a black hole's event horizon (not just the horizon itself. That's just the demarcation surface where that rule starts to apply). Perception would be very weird (and very different) inside a black hole.

Gravity is not pressure. The analogy is flawed.

This curvature can be seen only when you're sitting outside of it
Curvature can be measured even when you're not aware of it. If you live on a sphere (which appears flat to you) you can lay out a triangle on it. Sum of the angles will exceed 180°
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
What do you think about dense æther theory, memory of water clusters, psychic phenomena like telekinesis, antigravity, ZPE devices and cold fusion after then?

I was excited by all of them when I first heard about them (at uni a couple of friends and me did even some calcs on how a temporal effect would mimick the observations Podkletnov made without it being antigravity - this was the impetus of why I emailed him and later another italian scientist that worked on the issue)
I didn't dismiss these things out of hand.
I did dismiss them after having looked into the matter and finding that they are promoted through handwaving (cold fusion, psychic phenomena), lacking scientific rigor/repeatability (aether, cold fusion, water memory, psychic phenomena), or lacking plausibility (water memory).

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
ZPE is a solid quantummechanical construct as evinced by the Casimir Effect.
ZPE is the lowest energy state (theoretical, you always have the uncertainty principle mucking things up - that's why liquid hydrogen doesn't turn solid at low temperatures)

ZPE machines would either violate thermodynamics, ZPE itself (because withdrawing energy from a ZPE system would require that the ZPE for that system be lowered) or Uncertainty.
I see no real mechanism for that happening (and also a lot of handwaving with reagrad to supoposedly functioning perpetual motion machines based on it).

It would be cool to get energy from 'nothing', but energy seems to flow from more usable to less usable forms over time (thermodynamics). So if vacuum energy is the endstate of 15 billion years worth of flow then the energy in there is likely unusable.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
So you're interested about all experiments

I'm interested in new ideas and like to keep an open AND CRITICAL mind.

This means that new ideas will be scrutinized. Once an idea fails to hold up under scrutiny it's going to be dismissed (UNTIL such time as the criticism is dealt with. The SUSY killer in the article is a good example of such scrutiny)

There is a certain 'belief' behind this if you so will. That belief is that the universe is consistent (otherwise we could just stop looking for patterns and just say "it's all magic/gods/invisible unicorns" and be done with it.)

'Information from the outside' must show that it is consistent. If it just makes a claim that relies on an inconsistent universe (as cold fusion, water memory, aether theory, etc. do) then that just means that someone came along and said "magic is real - let's forget about doing scientific work".

And given the track record of magic vs. science... draw your own conclusions.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
Kron:
getting a bad result may in fact be a small disappointment
This is not what antialias_physorg said. He stated that a negative result brings the scientist as much happiness as a positive result.

Parsec got it exactly right in interpreting what I said

And I'm a bit surprised that it could even be interpreted wrongly - but you certainly managed to twist it in your mind into something that I never said.
It does look like the scientific mindset is so far removed from your way of thinking that you can't really fathom the joy of getting results: whether they substantiate or refute your own theory.
Because: Even if exprimental results refute your theory that 'failure' is always a wellspring of new ideas for trying to get it right the next time (and every new idea you have is exciting in itself).
Thus even a string of failures helps you hone in on the one thing that finally works.

And THAT victory is then all the sweeter for the previous 'failures'.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
Can you explain, why these phenomena aren't analyzed in peer-reviewed journals

They have been. And if you just use google (preferrably google scholar) you will find a lot of studies on them in peer reviewed conference papers and journals.
They are just CURRENTLY not analyzed anymore because when they were first published (and tried to be reproduced by others) was decades ago. And since then no headway in demonstrating these effects by those that claim they are real have been made (and hence no publications).

Can you explain, why only results of theories like the SUSY are studied and published there?

Because SUSY made a testable prediction that only NOW could be tested. It was tested - and found wanting. Wait another ten years and you will likely not find any new publications on SUSY then, either.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2012
Here you can get a pretty exhaustive criticism of Meyl's work.
(Sorry, german only)
http://www.mathem...ding.pdf
It looks like he cites wrong sources (i.e. when you look up the source he cites you find something completely different there), uses false ways of deriving his partial differential equations, incorrect simplifications (using 1D resonator equations instead of the known solutions for 2D resonators), misleading terminology (redefining words to make them sound like an unrelated, but scientifically established concept) and uses just plain wrong scince (to the point of assuming that wavelengths are indpendent of frequency for EM waves at one point - which is where he get his (false) 'greater than c' result)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2012
Mentions of cold fusion papers in journals:
http://en.wikiped...ications

Dense aether doesn't pass the sanity test - so no surprise there.

We discussed the lack of peer-reviewed references in this matter

To get peer reviewed references means that you have to get a paper past peer review. And the reasons why you don't see any papers on some subjects is:
a) no one writes any
b) they don't pass the quality checks in peer review because they're full of errors or make unsubstantiated claims.

Peer review means that you have to write a paper that holds up under intense scrutiny. You could decry the "lack of peer reviewed papers" on unicorns all day but that doesn't mean that unicorn-research is somehow being suppressed by a global, scientific cabal.
It just means that the results of unicorn research doesn't hold up under inspection of the materials and methods used. Cold fusion/aether/etc. is just 'unicorns' with technical terms thrown in.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2012
So, when you want to disprove some experiment, ...you should disprove it experimentally again.

Who, in your mind, should disprove this? Sometimes you find someone who tries to reproduce stuff (like NASA did for cold fusion in 1989 and antigravity in 1996 to 2002)

Peer review looks at the PAPERS - when you do peer review you don't go to the lab of the guy (or try to rebuild what he did in your lab).

You look at the paper and see if it makes sense (i.e. if all methods and materials are consistent, obvious sources of false positives were addressed, the mathematics and statistical measures used are sound and applicable, the experimental results warrant the conclusions, etc. )

Could you explain, why seemingly rational people are violating the basis of scientific method so often and so obstinately?

No I can't, because they don't (they only do so in your mind because you haven't yet grasped what the scientific method/science is).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
I'm talking about lack of peer-reviwed experimental replications.

As I said: NASA tried some of this and couldn't get it to work. There's no one that says that you MUST publish stuff that doesn't work.

I do think it is extremely nice if someone publishes failures. But it's rare (and I must admit that I have also not published on stuff that didn't work - though I did try to include in my papers sections on failed alternative approaches. But that was highly contingent on how many pages were alotted for the paper. Usually space is tight, so you concentrate on the stuff that did work.)

Writing a paper takes a lot of time (and usually is done after hours). So it's not one of the things researchers look forward to.

Pope Pius XII declared, at 1951 that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation.

Who cares? That's like me declaring that Lady Gaga makes good music. I have no idea what constitutes good music. My opinion on music means nothing.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
Do you realize, that the contemporary mainstream science refuses many ideas and paradigms without its own experiments for longer time, than the Holy Church did?

Are you aware that a musician can judge what makes good music better than a deaf person (to spell it out: that scientificially literate people can judge what is good scientific work better than scientifically illiterate people)?
That the deaf person accepts a piece of music as great after a while, while a musician keeps calling it dross doesn't mean the piece of music is somehow 'not adequately recognized by manistream musicians'.

Isn't it more likely that it's just dross and the deaf person doesn't know what he's talking about?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2012
who never did any practical experiment regarding cold fusion or scalar waves should know better, what it is possible and what not?

It's a matter of being able to spot phoney science which is pretty much independent of the scientific field.

It's like a famous pianist can tell you if a piece of violin music is well composed or not. The particular instrument doesn't matter. It's the method and structure and craft that went into composing the piece which is independent of the instrument.

It's just like that with the scientific method. The scientific method is the same in all fields.

...Why the experts missed the crash

Oh boy. You do know what a staistic is? What probabilities are? That a forecast based on a statistic is a measure of probability? That to expect something that is based on a statistic to be correct in 100% of cases is a COMPLETE admission of not understanding science (and even basic math at high school level)?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2012
Polling the experts

'Expert' is not a job description, nor is it subject to any kind of quality control. Anyone can call themselves an expert on anything (there was a funny video where someone checked out all the TV shows that had 'experts' on and found that there are some people that appear over and over in that role in wildely disparate fields). The 'wine tasting' thing you linked to is one where we're also dealing with a very subjective area. There's nothing subjective about science.

I'm very stupid in this regard and I'm even proud of it

I'm sure you're proud of it. Your stupidity (in any regard) is without peer.
The article you linked to shows how people will skip the math. Scientists, on the other hand, - especially during peer review - don't skip the math.

Gut feelings get you nowhere in science (and also nowhere with your critique of it)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
You can be pretty sure, most of so-called "crackpots" know quite well, that their ideas aren't consistent with mainstream physics

No one asks them to be. That's not why they're called crackpots. It's because their theories are inconsistent with experiment (or their fundamental math is just plain wrong if it's a theoretical work - as in the case of Meyl).
Without experiments it's all just about subjective opinion

Science is independent of the scientist. That's why peer review is always ANONYMOUS. Math isn't subjective. Either you do it right or you do it wrong.

In such cases the using of math introduces a bias automatically

If you watched the Feynman video I linked earlier you may have heard the following: It doesn't matter if your theory is good for a particular case. If it contradicts all experiments in all other areas it's wrong. If you want to introduce math/phyics you have to be consistent accross the entire spectrum - otherwise it's worthless.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2012
Hi antialias_physorg.
You'd still not be able to see anything further in the black hole (not even something that is one millimeter further in than you are). That's the point of the event horizon. Anything that is further in has no (light)path to anything further out. And this goes for ALL points within a black hole's event horizon (not just the horizon itself. That's just the demarcation surface where that rule starts to apply). Perception would be very weird (and very different) inside a black hole.

Gravity is not pressure. The analogy is flawed.
I pointed out difference between gravity gradients/pressure gradients. Again, if hyper-massive BH's is a neutron-like 'energy-space' condensate surrouned by a 'crust' (like on a Neutron star where infalling matter-energy impinges), then BH interior will be effectively gravity-balanced. Also pointed out case where 'gravity gradient' are virtually imperceptible. Quantum fluctuations may arise/evolve in situ. No more, no less. Cheers
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2012
Hi again antialias_physorg: Please add to my above post: Hence no 'horizon' inside if gravity 'balanced' in all directions from centre to crust. The only gravity gradients/horizons are outside leading up to the 'crustal surface' where all incoming energy-matter impinges and eventually transitions to 'interior state' as more incoming material makes BH grow.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2012
RealityCheck needs a Linguistic Check
Hi again antialias_physorg: Please add to my above post: Hence no 'horizon' inside if gravity 'balanced' in all directions from centre to crust.
What rubbish are you talking about 'if', well its not is it and it cant be, the gravity well gets deeper the closer to whatever is at the core...

If your head were say 1mm below the event horizon (and still in one piece) and you were several hundred meters away from the 'crust' you would only see light from overhead come in, no light would reach you from below or if any did it would be heavily redshifted to be closer to radiowaves even. And if you had a torch shone at you from a few meters away the light would be dragged down towards the core.

So are we all living in a black hole, by 'in' means beneath the event horizon - NO.

All I am allowed to disclose is, we are living in a very special type of dream ;-)

A long way before you get to the event horizon tidal forces would likely tear you apart !
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 15, 2012
Again, if hyper-massive BH's is a neutron-like 'energy-space' condensate surrouned by a 'crust' (like on a Neutron star where infalling matter-energy impinges), then BH interior will be effectively gravity-balanced

That doesn't work because:

a) The 'crust' would have to be far more dense than neutron star matter (it would be black holes, too - so the problem is just the same as it was before)
b) Even if that crust existed anything that 'falls in' would hit the crust first and be destroyed (it wouldn't move beyond the crust).
c) Such a crust would be easily visible (it certainly wouldn't look like the CMBR)
d) We see stars/galaxies out to 42 billion light years distant. gravity doesn't reach that far to such an extent to counter any black hole we're currently falling into/through
e) Even a miniscule motion away from an equilibrium point inetrior to such a structure would either result in an steadily increasing acceleration towards the center or towrds the crust.
f) ...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2012
Hi Mike_Massen, antialias_physorg. I'm short of time again, so briefly...

Please note that in the hypothetical internal 'neutron-space' scenario I mentioned, there is no 'central' feature. It is all homogenous neutron-space much as 'flat space' scenarios in general. And as pointed out, mainstream calculations say that the gravity/tidal 'gradient' anywhere will be hardly perceptible even at the 'event horizon' between 'exterior' (presently observable space type) and 'interior' (hypothetical 'neutron-space type).

Moreover, the active layer 'crust' would be more energetic and would logically/effectively be merely a transition zone where impinging matter-energy enters an interaction/conversion zone, much like the ergo-sphere observed 'outside'.

Sorry I have run out of time. Please re-read in that context, and not in the context of your apparent misinterpretation of what I pointed to. Cheers!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2012
And as pointed out, mainstream calculations say that the gravity/tidal 'gradient' anywhere will be hardly perceptible

Mainstream calculations would also show that such a structure would not be stable. It would collapse immediately since there is nothing that is keeping IT from falling in.

When you make a hypothesis you have to check whether it fits ALL laws - not just the one, tiny aspect you conveniently want to address.

That's the main problem with all the 'brilliant' ideas floating around here. They explain that one thing the author wants to explain - but they contradict all the trillions observations already made inthe past. So they're rubbish.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2012
When you make a hypothesis you have to check whether it fits ALL laws - not just the one, tiny aspect you conveniently want to address.
Thats a great point for RealityCheck - who needs to improve his linguistics, it's intimately & inextricable tied substantively with various accepted forms of intelligence, they scaffold & relate so keenly.

As to Laws, well I mostly agree with antialias_physorg but, 5% I leave open is the 'other' which might encompass a misperception of a principle as if a Law.

To me they are all principles with participant normal distributions, all subject to caveats re combinatorial complexity & pecuniary factors, one of these is special relativity in respect of the '3 body representational paradox' the other as Eg. The Faraday paradox, re rotating magnetic devices but non rotating field lines, plus subtle issues not yet addressed.

Laws, whether imposed or implied as implicit may well be broken, if at least phenomenologically (as starting point) :-)

*grin*
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2012
IMO theory gets disproved, when the Gauss maximum of the parameter scope get disproved

No. That's why we have the sigma values (which are a measure of certainty). If you use the Gauss maximum then you're just 50% certain (which is not good enough for making any statement whatsoever. It would be as sensible as simply flipping a coin)

Note that the confidence in the article is 3.5 sigma (which still means that the chance this is a false positive for excluding SUSY is 1 in 1000)
Also note that it does not exclude all variants of SUSY (but it does put a serious question mark on that particular branch of GUTs).

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2012
Hi anti-alias_physorg, Mike_Massen.
...Mainstream calculations would also show that such a structure would not be stable. It would collapse immediately since there is nothing that is keeping IT from falling in.

When you make a hypothesis you have to check whether it fits ALL laws - not just the one, tiny aspect you conveniently want to address. ...

I point you to mainstream "dark energy', 'cosmological term' etc to produce 'expansion' and 'prevent collapse' of 'space volumes' on observable universe scale: so same mainstream 'dark' entities/terms equally valid for HYPER-mass BH 'neutron-space' volumes on observable universal space scales. Again, gravity inside BH sphere is 'balanced', essentially producing a 'flat' interior neutron-space constituting a 'ground state' energy-space 'quantum vacuum' which may differ from familiar 'external' space only as to its 'vacuum density/pressure' constant/value?

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander? Checkmate, I think.

Cheers!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2012
Again, gravity inside BH sphere is 'balanced'

Nope, it's not - only for one very specific distance. Move a micrometer either way, then one or the other side will gain the upper hand.

Do the math on that one - it's pretty easy. Just plot out the gravity potential in one dimension and you'll see what I mean.

Checkmate, I think.

Too bad we're playing physics - not chess. Reality checkmated you 30 posts ago.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2012
Please don't forget that I am talking of the hypothetical 'version' of a black hole on the scale of 'the universe'.

If you are applying the usual logic/extrapolations of gravity etc based on conventional bh 'models' then we are at an 'apples' and 'oranges' impasse.

Again, since a bh interior 'neutron-space' with the volume of the universe, we would see the dynamics which we observe in the familiar space outside of conventionally-sized bh.

See? The limitations/principlesyou are applying does not relate to a hypothesized universe scale/volume bh where the 'space' would be 'flat' like the familiar observed space we live in outside conventional bhs.

Checkmate/impasse: depending on whether we are discussing 'apples and oranges'....or a universe sized bh as hypothesized/described, with interior space much like ours except for the pressure/density of the quantum vacuum of either type, as explained.

Cheers!
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2012
RealityCheck NEEDS to improve his understanding rather desperately as it has caused so much noise and wasted so much time - which for all of us can NEVER be recovered
Please don't forget that I am talking of the hypothetical 'version' of a black hole on the scale of 'the universe'.
Huh? How could any physicist talk otherwise of a real black hole we are somehow inside (duh), where is the equivalent 'gravitational dipole' then ?

This so called hypothesis, that doesn't stand even the most basic assessment test, has been thrown out long time ago and yet you go on say "Cheers!" in your last message,

I wish SO MUCH that happened long ago !

Please get an education in:-

- Critical and Analytical thinking
- Linguistics
- The accepted meaning of scientific *technical* terms in use by those conversant with their field

oh, and last but not least:-

- PHYSICS

Cheers indeed !

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2012
Please don't forget that I am talking of the hypothetical 'version' of a black hole on the scale of 'the universe'.

OK, I'll try to explain this as gently as I can: There is a difference between scientific thinking and someone who thinks they have a scientific theory.

A scientist employs scientific thinking. This is based on a foundation of a LOT of knowledge (being a scientist is not something you become by heading over to wikipedia once in a while. It's a job that requires AT LEAST a decade of 8 hour a day, serious, SERIOUS training and learning).

Being a scientist is not just memorizing facts (it is very little of that, actually). Being a scientist is to develop an understanding of how the knowledge in your knowledge base relates.

And not in the fuzzy way a psychologist/sociologist might say "not enough love increases antisocial tendencies" but in a VERY hard, number-crunching kind of way.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2012
So when someone like you comes along and says "I have a theory" you can hear the scientists groan.

It's like when a kid comes along and says: "I built a dam to stop up the small trickle running through our back yard - and I bet that dam is sooooo great it could stop an entire ocean!" - and you, as an adult, don't even know where to begin to explain on how many levels that is wrong.

This is because the kid has no conception of the sizes, mechanics, and physical laws involved and how they interrelate.

Now this is EXACTLY how we feel when someone like you proposes a 'theory'. To someone without any knowledge in physics or who thinks in a very "Harry Potter", magical way it may sound OK.

But to anyone who's taken a high school physics course (and immeasurably more to scientists, who, by and large, are much smarter than the averag Joe like you) it's like: "You've got to be kidding. Why don't you do a reality check on your stuff before posting? Might save you a lot of embarassement."
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2012
Hi antialias-physorg, Mike_massen. My, you both sound as if mainstream modeling of bh interior space/structure was anything more than hypothetical extrapolation of observations themselves. Please remember my initial/ongoing comments were merely exploring/considering hypothesis put by others. I merely pointed out for consideration some aspects/possibilities logically/physically indicated based on exactly the kind of things that mainstream uses to make their current hypotheses/extrapolations about bh interiors. Please refrain from personal disparagement when you run out of counters for the logic/physics posited on the basis already explained, which does not in any way depend on the arguments/assumptions you seem to (incorrectly) think invalidate what I have speculated. Oh, and 'gravitational dipole' is between interior and exterior of hypothesized hypermassive bh, and gradient is gentle such that no discernible difference is 'felt', just as in normal 'flat' space. Cheers!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2012
Please refrain from personal disparagement when you run out of counters

What do you mean 'run out of counters'? We've posted more than a dozen counters. Any single one of which shows your theory to be total BS. You have not adressed a single one of them. At some point it makes no more sense to destroy a 'theory' that has already been destroyed a dozen times over.

The exasperation you feel we have simply comes from your complete ignorance - that you still want to argue science when it's very clear that you don't have a clue what science is.

What you have is a religion. A belief in the notion that you know something or can argue logically. But from how you argue here that belief looks very much like it is based on nothing at all.

I know this will not shake your belief. But it may give you a clue why you aren't being taken seriously (here, or in real life) until you shape up ... or move to a forum with a level that is more like your own.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2012
Hi antialias-physorg.

Mate, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. Please note again that I was just SPECULATING on OTHERS' hypothetical about 'living in a black hole'. OK? You apply things which in my speculation scenario dos not apply unless you already know what is inside a bh. You or anyone else does NOT know. OK? So your objections so far are not valid counters as such to my speculations/observations as put.

Unless you can give the COMPLETE factual/physical exposition of what even mainstream science is STILL speculating about regarding bh interiors, then chill out and enjoy the speculation for what it is in the context posited using mainstream information presented (eg, gravity gradint for hypermassive bh is calculated to be almost imperceptible; flat spaces may occur with differing constants/density/pressure etc in energy-space tems) as well as the further speculations.

I'll leave it at that. No hard feelings. Good luck and cheers to both of you, and everyone!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2012
By the way, it has been brought to my attention that there is this "lite" character going round ranking people like a demented bot. Is it a bot or a real person? If a real person, is he a troll anywhere else on the internet? Just curious, as this "lite" seems to be extremely light on substance! Have fun, and play nice, everyone!
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2012
RealityCheck STILL doesnt understand, ffs STUDY physics PLEASE
Oh, and 'gravitational dipole' is between interior and exterior of hypothesized hypermassive bh, and gradient is gentle such that no discernible difference is 'felt', just as in normal 'flat' space. Cheers!
Blimey, felt as empirical ? as in quantitative ? as in instruments ? where do you think are you going with that feeble notion ?

We have observations and across an approx 13 billion light year region, how do you imagine such a large expanse ostensibly from one event horizon to another (LOL), would not have an EFFECT ?

There is of course the 'great attractor" which might well be a super massive black hole and given missing anti-matter who knows, it might have originated from that, but thats a guess !

Your idea RealityCheck is an idea, please leave it at that and maybe train yourself for some lucid dreams in that respect and PLEASE go to another forum with those 'feelings' important to you, try some maths on that:-)
Maggnus
not rated yet Nov 17, 2012
The standard model and supersymmetry are all wrong!

Saraiva


And let me guess--you have the correct answer right? But no one will listen to you right? And you've shown all your friends, who all agree with you right? And you're being repressed right?
Crankenstein
not rated yet Nov 17, 2012
antialias_physorg, I am truly amazed by your patience. But I can't help getting the feeling there might be some perpetual motion going on here in this thread; there's so much energy that seems to go around in circles. However, I'd say this thread clearly obeys at least the second law of thermodynamics; I guess established physics wins yet another round.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2012
Hi MIke_Massen. Mate, you're starting to sound hysterical, not to mention pedantic. Watch your blood pressure! Chill out.

I used 'perceptible', 'felt' in context in much the same way any mainstream physicist use to describe to layperson the negligible 'gradient' effect involved with hyper-massive black holes. No need to get your knickers in a knot about that, since it is clear what is meant, irrespective of 'detection/perception' entity/instrument used. OK?

And if you are INSIDE a hypothetical as described (HYPERMASSIVE equal to universal extent within), then, as I pointed out, it is possible that the neutron-space would be 'gravity balanced WITHIN in all directions, so behaving like observable universe 'flat space' extent. Separation between opposite horizon directions/locations would also not be evident for reason of balanced gravity and flat' bh space as speculated.

You have a certainty about you which is at odds with the facts/speculations. Chill.

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2012
RealityCheck STILL doesnt understand science
Hi MIke_Massen. Mate, you're starting to sound hysterical, not to mention pedantic. Watch your blood pressure! Chill out.
NO, you warm up, why not mention pedantic?

Science works well when it embraces precision, details matter and should be pinned down with a vengeance, with emotion and passionate zeal to uncover the truth and avoid so much bad thinking which has often caused the suffering of millions - religion especially so included !

Please notice:-

- Observable universe shows evidence of accelerating expansion
- Mass of observable universe not increasing

In order for a black hole to 'get bigger' it would be synonymous with increasing mass.

We dont have those two conditions present together, therefore we are not in a black hole.

Goodbye

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 18, 2012
But I can't help getting the feeling there might be some perpetual motion going on here in this thread;

Maybe we should hook up a generator, see if we can do soemthing useful with it.

I am truly amazed by your patience.

Comes with the territory. The scientist way of thinking never really leaves you. It requires you to be very dispassionate about things (so you can probably tell that when I DO get passionate and rip into someone - it's way past time someone did)

Probasbly also a bit of a leftover from my tutoring days (that's how I earned my way through uni). You tend to deal with a lot of 'not so bright' kids - but usually you can get through to them.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2012
Hi Mike_massen. Take it easy, mate. Watch your blood pressure. This is SPECULATION upon HYPOTHESIS. No-one is claiming otherwise. That said, to address your other misapprehension of the context which the speculation/hypothesis involves:

The hypothesis is about a UNIVERSAL SIZE bh....wherein if the interior 'space' is also a 'flat' kind of space throughout which 'features' and dynamics would arise/evolve according to the properties and characteristics/constants etc of that space. There is nothing to prevent SMALLER bh features arising/evolving in the hypothetical UNIVERSAL SIZE bh.

I merely point out that IF the SPECULATIONS/HYPOTHESIS turns out to be not so far-fetched, then the dynamics we would observe in THAT scenario may not be all too perceptibly different from what we observe when we look about this universal space. We don't actually know everything about this universe, so we don't know what boundary conditions apply beyond what we can currently observe/extrapolate. :)

Cheers
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2012
RealityCheck needs to get a grip with understanding of audience
...This is SPECULATION upon HYPOTHESIS. No-one is claiming otherwise.
The hypothesis fails, can you move on now please ?

Instead bring this up for discussion with people that dont understand science at the local coffee shop, that would be more entertaining for you and save so much noise for all other participants here :-)

Bye
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2012
RealityCheck needs to get a grip with understanding of audience
...This is SPECULATION upon HYPOTHESIS. No-one is claiming otherwise.
The hypothesis fails, can you move on now please ?

Instead bring this up for discussion with people that dont understand science at the local coffee shop, that would be more entertaining for you and save so much noise for all other participants here :-)

Bye


Mate, come back when you have the complete "theory of everything", especially including full and consistent micro and macro level physical explanation/mechanics of the condition of space/features in bh interiors of a hypothetical universe size/mass bh. Until then, you sound a tad arrogant and preconclusionary in your approach to speculating/hypothesizing on unknowns even to mainstream science. Ego? Leave it out. And chill; enjoy the exploratory ride towards discovery! Cheers!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2012
RealityCheck still doesnt get and cant even read between the lines
...when you have the complete "theory of everything", especially including full and consistent micro and macro level physical explanation/mechanics of the condition of space/features in bh interiors of a hypothetical universe size/mass bh.
As before nothing in your post that goes forward by any increment whatsoever to advance that hypothesis, it FAILS.

This is NOTHING to do with "theory of everything" you are absurd !

I come from a very strong background in theoretical and practical physics, have multiple qualifications in wide disciplines, this is not ego, thats the first time I've mentioned it, it is so you understand "I've been there", done that have already looked at this bh hypothesis almost 2 years ago, its DEAD !

The only similarity which you seem to be attached to is both might be spherical and gee whizz share the same matter - thats all, its dead, done and dusted, move on, you are wasting time & space !
Kron
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2012
The problem is many people look to scientists for answers regarding their questions on reality and existence. This is not the expertise of any scientist. Scientists do not understand reality or hold answers to lifes mysteries. Scientists theorize about ways the real world functions, this theory becomes a model of the physical world. The theorists at this point subject their models to experiments. Failure means the theory is useless (although it still may have practical applications within certain settings). If the model holds up we are left with predictive power over the real physical world. A model passing experiment does not mean that the physicist knows or understands the physical world, we just have a way of working with real world values through the model. Throw numbers into the equation, get results out. We predict outcomes through use of the model.

Learning physics is useless from the laymans perspective. If you can't apply the models, they have no use.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 19, 2012
I would agree with what you say , except this one bit:
Learning physics is useless from the laymans perspective.

While physics (and science in general) 'just' models the world it does give a feel for the interrelation between widely disparate entities therein.
Many pople do have a feeling that 'all is connected' but that's as far as it goes. With some basic knowledge of physics one can get a much better feeling for what interrelations exist, which ones don't (i.e what are superstitions), and what magnitude they are when they do.

Finally a basic understanding of phyiscs might give some a clue that science is hard.
....and that scientists have worked on any theory they propose for YEARS (if not decades) - and that these are not just brainfarts.


RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2012
Hi Mike_Massen. You miss the 'practically imperceptible' gravity gradient aspect; you miss the gravity-balanced 'flat space' aspect just as is observed in our universe outside the small bh holes; you miss the fluctuations and features/smaller bh etc which can arise in ANY 'flat space' to give just as we observe in 'our' flat space universe; you keep making preconclusionary judgements based on 'apples' when I am speculating 'oranges'. How can you say anything about the hypothesis that the universe is like a bh containing smaller black holes within its neutron-space (energy-space) as hypothesized/speculated? You overestimate yourself, mate. It's your attitude as well as ego getting in the way of just following SPECULATIONS where they lead instead of PRECONCLUDING the exploration with apples and oranges irrelevancies. There is much to find out. Enjoy the journey. Watch your blood pressure! Good luck.