What's next for particle physicists, post-Higgs?

Jul 17, 2013 by Angela Herring

In March of last year, scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, identified the Higgs boson, the last elusive particle in the Standard Model of physics. The Higgs particle, said Northeastern assistant professor of physics Toyoko Orimoto, one of the scientists on the team, can be used to explain how elementary particles acquire mass. "Before the discovery of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model was like a puzzle with one piece missing," she said, "and you kind of know what that piece will look like."

Orimoto hopes the Large Hadron Collider will be able to address many more unanswered questions in physics. "The Higgs particle is interesting," she said, "but what really captures my imagination is thinking about possibilities beyond the Standard Model."

Backed by an Early Career Award from the Department of Energy, Orimoto hopes to begin exploring those other possibilities.

For her, the two biggest questions still left unanswered by the Standard Model are gravity and . "Dark matter and dark energy make up more than 95 percent of the universe, and yet the Standard Model doesn't address them," she said.

Dark matter was hypothesized to explain the large discrepancies between the gravitational behavior of large astronomical objects and the amount of detectable matter they contain. Physicists suspect that dark matter is made up of elementary particles that are difficult to observe in the laboratory because of their weak interactivity.

Gravity is a more well-know force, but it's also extremely weak for unknown reasons, Orimoto said. You can get a sense of its weakness, she explained, by counteracting earth's on a tiny paperclip by moving it with a single magnet. While does a fine job of explaining how gravity works on a macroscopic scale, things fall apart when particle physicists try to understand it at the quantum level.

One of the most compelling theories often used to explain anomalies such as dark matter and the weakness of gravity, Orimoto said, is supersymmetry, wherein all of the particles described in the Standard Model have a supersymmetric "brother" particle. In supersymmetry, there are also multiple Higgs bosons, a fact that Orimoto and her colleagues at the LHC plan to leverage as they begin to probe deeper into the behavior of the newly discovered Higgs.

The researchers will take a closer look at the Higgs' behavior using hordes of data collected at the LHC. If some of its properties cannot be explained by the Standard Model, Orimoto said, then supersymmetry or some other new theory of physics could be at work.

She can't wait to investigate. "I started to get interested in the idea that everything in the universe was made up of this small set of elementary particles and that blew my mind," said Orimoto, recalling the moment in the 1990s when scientists announced the discovery of the top quark, the heaviest of the in the Standard Model. "And it hasn't stopped blowing my mind."

Explore further: Optimum inertial self-propulsion design for snowman-like nanorobot

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The Higgs boson: One year on

Jul 05, 2013

A year ago today, physicists from the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN proudly announced the discovery of a new boson looking very much like the Higgs boson.

Lepton-photon conference wraps up in San Francisco

Jul 04, 2013

Last Saturday, about 230 high-energy physicists of various stripes wrapped up a week of talks on all aspects of the field at the XXVI International Symposium on Lepton Photon Interactions at High Energies ...

Physicist clarifies Higgs boson in human terms

May 31, 2013

Why did the journal Science name the Higgs boson – an elementary particle – last year's most important discovery? And why did it need something as enormous as the Large Hadron Collider, about 27 kilometers in diameter, to fin ...

Recommended for you

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

8 hours ago

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

Jul 29, 2014

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 75

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

natello
Jul 17, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2013
Gravity is a more well-know force, but it's also extremely weak for unknown reasons, Orimoto said. You can get a sense of its weakness, she explained, by counteracting earth's gravitational pull on a tiny paperclip by moving it with a single magnet. While classical physics does a fine job of explaining how gravity works on a macroscopic scale, things fall apart when particle physicists try to understand it at the quantum level .


Maybe this simple mechanism of gravity could help to understand it at the quantum level…

http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 17, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist!

Antonio Jose Saraiva

The mass is an electric dipole moment.
Standard model is all wrong.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (48) Jul 17, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
JIMBO
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2013
This article is mere `Filler' w/a sexy title to include SUSY hype. Vacuous from the git-go.
EyeNStein
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2013
Its hardly surprising that gravity and dark energy are mysteries. we still don't understand the underlying nature of space and time.
It's like we are looking at a forest of particles complaining that we cannot explain the soil they are standing in. While postulating that any attraction or repulsion force between trees must ALLWAYS be caused by acorns and other seed exchanges.
LarryD
not rated yet Jul 17, 2013
Now I know this might just be 'a play on words' but does the article refer to 'classical' Newtonian Force for grav or refer to 'classical' Einstein where grav is seen as a warping of S-T and not a force in the usual sense of the word. I know that most calculations that involve grav also use N's G but has there been or is there a method where the quantum unification might be explained by 'warped geometry' rather than force. Even S String theory uses 'force' although perhaps the D Brane gravitational escape might be interpreted as somewhat 'geometrical' higher dimensional warping but that would would be macro and not micro level.
I think I'm right in saying that EM and GR theories on the quantum have yet to be combined to a common satisfaction that is to say that it might be possible to connect them if one considers particles but then connection fails on the EM wave state. That is, 'stress tenor = curve tensor' might be applicable to particles but not to waves. Any ideas?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2013
I know from experience, the space is warped around my mass.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
The mass is an electric dipole moment:
kilogram = Coulomb.meter

António José Saraiva
brt
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2013
Its hardly surprising that gravity and dark energy are mysteries. we still don't understand the underlying nature of space and time.
It's like we are looking at a forest of particles complaining that we cannot explain the soil they are standing in. While postulating that any attraction or repulsion force between trees must ALLWAYS be caused by acorns and other seed exchanges.


We actually have 2 VERY mainstream ideas that 99% explain space and time. They are called Field Theory and String Theory. And before you go spouting some stupid crap about "they're only theories"; so are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. If you think all 4 are complete crap because they are technically theories, then you don't know your ass from your elbow.
brt
2.3 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2013
Classical Mechanics isn't real!
Newton was wrong!
The Lizard People are controlling the distribution of academic information!

Bernardo De Buttfuk
geokstr
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2013
I think they should try to split the quark and the neutrino next. There is nothing to indicate that it's not just smaller and smaller particles all the way down, is there?
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.
brt
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2013
2 VERY mainstream ideas that 99% explain space and time. They are called Field Theory and String Theory
This is BS as well. String theory is theory of particles (in form of strings) - not theory of space-time. Both field theory both string theory use the concept of space-time from special/general relativity - it doesn't explain it.


String Theory and Field Theory are theories of how matter and force result from fluctuations in space and time. Like I said in response to "we still don't understand the underlying nature of space and time." they explain 99% of space and time. Of course you have to be interested in the math that explains it rather than being some stupid crank on a popular physics website to understand them; so your idiocy is forgiven.
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2013
---" nightmare scenario as follows from EPS-HEP conference in Stockholm. So far all signs of stringy and SUSY theories were disproven with LHC experiments. " ---

And I thought the headlines for these articles were misleading. Disproven? really? they were disproven?

There was a lack of evidence; that doesn't mean it was disproven. That's your penis you're holding when you urinate; just in case you didn't know.
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.


You are without a doubt, the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.


You are without a doubt, the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet.


Time will tell! Within two years time you will have to admit that you are one of the dumbest morons who EVER inhabited this planet.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (37) Jul 19, 2013
2 VERY mainstream ideas that 99% explain space and time. They are called Field Theory and String Theory
This is BS as well. String theory is theory of particles (in form of strings) - not theory of space-time. Both field theory both string theory use the concept of space-time from special/general relativity - it doesn't explain it.


String Theory and Field Theory are theories of how matter and force result from fluctuations in space and time.


Actually, natello is correct. Quantum field theory as a mathematical formulation of particle physics, does not explain space and time. Instead those concepts are applied as a-prior elements. For each type of particle (electron, photon, etc) there is a corresponding field of which it is a excitation. These fields are not our notion of space and time. If they were in a particular theory, we would have unification of GR and QFT.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (36) Jul 19, 2013
.... Even SR and GR does not "explain" space and time though, rather only how those components of coordinate descriptions must be changed from one inertial frame to another on account of relative motions. Since those elements are used to reference events, they're presupposed and operationally speaking, they're comparisons of length and number of cycles with a standard.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.


You are without a doubt, the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet.


A supporter of string theory said to the published physicist.

As soon as you find those other 7 dimensions math created you'll have a working knowledge of how the universe works. Let's hope we don't hear from you again until then.
brt
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2013
2 VERY mainstream ideas that 99% explain space and time. They are called Field Theory and String Theory
This is BS as well. String theory is theory of particles (in form of strings) - not theory of space-time. Both field theory both string theory use the concept of space-time from special/general relativity - it doesn't explain it.


String Theory and Field Theory are theories of how matter and force result from fluctuations in space and time.


Actually, natello is correct. Quantum field theory as a mathematical formulation of particle physics, does not explain space and time. Instead those concepts are applied as a-prior elements. For each type of particle (electron, photon, etc) there is a corresponding field of which it is a excitation. These fields are not our notion of space and time. If they were in a particular theory, we would have unification of GR and QFT.


Field Theory DOES unify GR and QFT.
brt
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.


You are without a doubt, the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet.


A supporter of string theory said to the published physicist.

As soon as you find those other 7 dimensions math created you'll have a working knowledge of how the universe works. Let's hope we don't hear from you again until then.


I'm a supporter of quantum field theory since it is the most successful theory in physics and unifies General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. But string theory is just another mathematically valid idea that attempts to explain the nature of space. congrats on being an ignorant douche.
brt
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.


You are without a doubt, the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet.


A supporter of string theory said to the published physicist.

As soon as you find those other 7 dimensions math created you'll have a working knowledge of how the universe works. Let's hope we don't hear from you again until then.


To further explain your ignorance...

being a published physicist does not make one knowledgeable. There are plenty of cranks and half-wits who have published papers in barely known journals.
brt
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2013
Any more crank theories before we vote? Where's johanfprins?
Are you missing me? I have found better things to do than to argue about your crackpot ideas on physics.

BTW: Since CERN found a Higgs that does not exist, since there is no need that such an entity must exist, I suggest that they should next search and find the unicorn.


You are without a doubt, the dumbest son of a bitch on the planet.


Time will tell! Within two years time you will have to admit that you are one of the dumbest morons who EVER inhabited this planet.


oooh! Oh yeah? well, I'm rubber and your glue.... I'm also not some pathetic failure of a physicist doomed to troll a bullshit website because that's all that I have left in life after publishing this pathetic antiphysics book : http://www.cathodixx.com/. But hey, on the bright side, You could always kill yourself johan.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (36) Jul 19, 2013
2 VERY mainstream ideas that 99% explain space and time. They are called Field Theory and String Theory
This is BS as well. [...] Both field theory both string theory use the concept of space-time from special/general relativity - it doesn't explain it.


String Theory and Field Theory are theories of how matter and force result from fluctuations in space and time.


Actually, natello is correct. Quantum field theory as a mathematical formulation of particle physics, does not explain space and time. Instead those concepts are applied as a-prior elements. For each type of particle (electron, photon, etc) there is a corresponding field of which it is a excitation. These fields are not our notion of space and time. If they were in a particular theory, we would have unification of GR and QFT.


Field Theory DOES unify GR and QFT.


You're factually wrong. Both are gauge theories but are not unified.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2013
being a published physicist does not make one knowledgeable. There are plenty of cranks and half-wits who have published papers in barely known journals.
So Physical Review B is according to you a "barely known journal"? LOL!!!

And have these half-wits been invited to lecture at the Fermi School of Physics in Cuomo Italy? LOL!!!
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2013
being a published physicist does not make one knowledgeable. There are plenty of cranks and half-wits who have published papers in barely known journals.
So Physical Review B is according to you a "barely known journal"? LOL!!!

And have these half-wits been invited to lecture at the Fermi School of Physics in Cuomo Italy? LOL!!!


Alright big boy, where were you published? Let me guess the title "On the lies spewed forth by physics; heil hitler". Seriously though, give me a volume, issue and page # or stuff a sock in it.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2013

___"You're factually wrong. Both are gauge theories but are not unified. "___

We are going to have to agree that we each think the other one is factually wrong.
brt
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2013
being a published physicist does not make one knowledgeable. There are plenty of cranks and half-wits who have published papers in barely known journals.
So Physical Review B is according to you a "barely known journal"? LOL!!!

And have these half-wits been invited to lecture at the Fermi School of Physics in Cuomo Italy? LOL!!!


I would say that if you can't show me where your work is published then you are completely full of shit and more pathetic than I initially thought you were.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2013
There was a lack of evidence; that doesn't mean it was disproven.
You're just completely uninformed in this matter. The SUSY indeed provides exact outcome of the Higgs search experiment above linked and the string theorists failed many times already. Instead of finding a unique stable point to which any other compactification would degenerate they found that fluxes could stabilize a vast landscape of possible outcomes.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2013
LHCb and CMS detectors at CERN have seen more decays and are able to confirm that this is the rate of decay of a Bs meson. That is good news for CERN's high-precision instruments, but bad news for those looking for signs of supersymmetry, an extension of the standard model which says all particles have a heavier partner. That is because many supersymmetric models predict a higher rate of Bs meson to muon pair decay than suggested by the standard model, so these new observations count against those theories. Illustratively speaking, the SUSY predict that the products of collision are surrounded with dense shell of supersymmetric particles, which form the spherical droplet, stabilized up to level, it decays less or more symmetrically into pair of leptons. This mechanism is therefore very similar to the way, in which Higgs boson is detected with symmetric decay of various products of particle collisions.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2013
Alright big boy, where were you published? Let me guess the title "On the lies spewed forth by physics; heil hitler". Seriously though, give me a volume, issue and page # or stuff a sock in it.


All my publications are under my curvit on my website www.cathodixx.com

It seems you are too stupid to read a website: I suppose that brt=brainless troll.

You will find that quite a few of manuscripts have been published in Physical Review. BTW: I am a referee for Physical Review and Physical Review Letters

EyeNStein
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2013
Our understanding of space and time hasn't advanced all that much since Dirac unified relativity and wavefunction. We are certainly not 99% there.
When we can do for the other bosons what Maxwell did for photons. When we can quantify/derive the properties of fundamental particles from first principles. When we can explain wave-particle duality and quantisation. Then we will be 'nearly there'
Until then: Do keep theorising. We need plausible theories as much as experiments.
But we do need the integrity to admit when the data has squashed our cherished pet theory and the humility to move on. ( Preferably quietly )
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
When we can quantify/derive the properties of fundamental particles from first principles.
Burkhard Heim already did it with high precision before fifty years.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
Our understanding of space and time hasn't advanced all that much since Dirac unified relativity and wavefunction. We are certainly not 99% there.
We are not even 0% there.

Dirac assumed that the Lorentz transformation is a coordinate transformation which keeps space-time distances invariant. IT IS NOT!! All physics based on the "invariance" of the Lorentz-transformation is deeply flawed. The Lorentz-transformation is NOT a four-dimensional rotation within a space-time manifold. Minkowski's space-time violates the most fundamental rules of mathematics, and can therefore not model real physics!
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2013
VT: Burkhard Heim did indeed have an interesting theory of everything but it predicted some non-existent particles, and went out of fashion in the 1970's.
JFP: you are still having problems accepting that Minkowski space is Affine and so doesn't need an origin, and events are only truly common where they meet in both time and space: Special relativity with Minkowski spacetime doesn't violate physics, it is a cornerstone of it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
JFP: you are still having problems accepting that Minkowski space is Affine and so doesn't need an origin, and events are only truly common where they meet in both time and space: Special relativity with Minkowski spacetime doesn't violate physics, it is a cornerstone of it.
And you still cannot understand that the word "affine" cannot be applied to Minkowski's postulate that the Lorentz-transformation is a rotation of coordinates within a 4D space-time manifold. The fact is is that the untransformed and transformed space-time coordinates do not end at invariant positions within ANY 4D manifold.

Thus any physics that has been formulated on the assumption that the mathematics must be invariant under a Lorentz transformation is unadulterated BS! Your "cornerstone" does not exist! Higgs, Higgs, Ohhhh Higgs: LOL!

brt
4 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2013
Alright big boy, where were you published? Let me guess the title "On the lies spewed forth by physics; heil hitler". Seriously though, give me a volume, issue and page # or stuff a sock in it.


All my publications are under my curvit on my website http://www.cathodixx.com

It seems you are too stupid to read a website: I suppose that brt=brainless troll.

You will find that quite a few of manuscripts have been published in Physical Review. BTW: I am a referee for Physical Review and Physical Review Letters



Why would I even go searching for a website belonging to a complete raving asshole like Johan Prins? It's too bad that a limp dicked, angry old man who was banished from his field for obviously having a nervous breakdown is a referee for Physical Review Letters. That publication has really gone down the toilet along with your career and your understanding of physics. Ta Ta Johan. Remember that you can always commit suicide.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2013
Burkhard Heim did indeed have an interesting theory of everything but it predicted some non-existent particles

These particles correspond the WIMPs currently soughed with another theories. How is it possible, that supersymmetry and string theory is maintained, despite they do violate all observations just because they do predict some new particles, whereas the Heim's theory is ignored just because of it? The application of double standards belongs into signs of pathological skepticism.
brt
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2013
There was a lack of evidence; that doesn't mean it was disproven.
You're just completely uninformed in this matter. The SUSY indeed provides http://news.softp...1.shtml. Instead of finding a unique stable point to which any other compactification would degenerate they found that fluxes could stabilize a vast landscape of possible outcomes.


I wish I could understand what the hell you are trying to say with your butchered English.
EyeNStein
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
VT; You are right the is no room for double standards. Supersymmetry and some string theories are standing on thinning ice; and must be discarded once disproved, but not before then.
Hopefully the boosted LHC will thin down the pile of theories and leave us with: Whatever remains, however improbable, [being] the truth"
EyeNStein
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
JFP: The subject the reversibility of Lorentz transforms and their corresponding HYPERBOLIC rotations in spacetime and is covered comprehensively in Wikipedia. Please read it, digest it, then go and rewrite your thesis.
http://en.wikiped...st#boost
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2013
JFP: The subject the reversibility of Lorentz transforms and their corresponding HYPERBOLIC rotations in spacetime and is covered comprehensively in Wikipedia. Please read it, digest it, then go and rewrite your thesis.
http://en.wikiped...st#boost
I have read it: It is BULLSHIT!! There is no such a thing as an "hyperbolic rotation" just as there is not a thing like a square hole. Whatever you want to call it, a "rotation" is assumed to occur around an origin and can thus NOT be an "affine" transformation without an origin. Affine mess your brain in in!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2013
I wish I could understand what the hell you are trying to say with your butchered English.


You are too brainless (br) to understand ANYTHING in physics, even when written in the most perfect English. Please rid our planet of your stinking presence!
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2013
Any rotation in 4D MST has to be hyperbolic as it is a non Euclidian space. No origin is necessary as the only valid reference points are where the transformed event was before and after the transformation.
There is no privileged rest frame to define where an origin might be, all frames must be relative. MST is therefore definitely affine.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2013
Any rotation in 4D MST has to be hyperbolic as it is a non Euclidian space.[
This is pure semantics with no physics-basis whatsoever; since thre is no such a thing as a MST. You are in reality transforming an event from one 3D inertial space-frame (IRF) into another IRF. The fact that the the un-transformed time and transformed times of the event are different does not mean that you are transforming from a 4D ST reference-frame into another 4D ST reference frame. It only means that within the 3D IRF within which the event occurs the time is simultaneously t on all clocks, while the transformed event only manifests within the other IRF at another time t' which is also simultaneously the same on all clocks. This is why the Lorentz transformation is unidirectional: It does not have an inverse that can transform a transformed event back into the original event.
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2013
JFP: neither time nor space are invariant between 3D IRF's. So your transforms are invalid when there is any difference in velocity between your IRF's.
However in 4D MST: ST is invariant and permits transforms, and their inverse transforms, to leave an event unchanged. (As they must to be valid.)
This is not semantics it is physics.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2013
It does not have an inverse that can transform a transformed event back into the original event
This is not a problem but a feature, illustrating the radiative time arrow of Minkowski space-time.
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2013
VT: Its not a feature, its a mathematical disaster if you cannot change rest frames and back again without altering the event. Fortunately in 4D MinkowskyST: Lorentz transforms aka. Hyperbolic rotations and their inverses bring you back to the original Event.(Even where time and space would be distorted if you tried the (uncorrected) transform calculations at relativistic velocities in 3D space.)
Causality is, necessarily, maintained. An event cannot be changed without a cause.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2013
Who cares about some math here? In reality it's not possible to return into the same place of space-time twice-times, so why the model should allow it? It would just enable the time travel, closed time-like loops and another unphysical artifacts.

The mathematicians are here for physics, not vice-versa.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2013
JFP: neither time nor space are invariant between 3D IRF's. So your transforms are invalid when there is any difference in velocity between your IRF's.
Exactly: This is how it must be for a relativistic transformation.
However in 4D MST: ST is invariant
It is easy to show that it cannot be invariant since the un-transformed ST-coordinates and transformed ST-coordinates are not coincident!
and permits transforms, and their inverse transforms, to leave an event unchanged.
From the time of Galileo it is inherent in relativity that the coordinate transformation of an event CANNOT have an inverse transformation which leaves the event "unchanged". If this can be physically done, then you do not have a relativistic transformation at all.
This is not semantics it is physics.
It is not anywhere near physics at all. I agree it is not even semantics: It is just plain bullshit!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2013
The conventional way to derive the equations of the Lorentz-transformation is done by linearly equating two mathematical expressions which are both equal to zero. If such a derivation could be valid, the Lorentz-transformation should not be a mathematically-isomorphic transformation. Since it is known that the Lorentz-transformation actually is the latter, an alternative derivation for these equations must be valid. Here such a derivation is proposed: Although the Lorentz-equations, derived in this manner are mathematically isomorphic, it is found that the physics involved restricts this isomorphism to be unidirectional: i.e. the Lorentz-transformation only applies when transforming the space-coordinates and the time of (what will be called) a "primary-event" at the position-coordinates of a three-dimensional point within (what will be called) the primary event's "proper" inertial reference-frame (IRF), into a three-dimensional coordinate-point within a "non-proper" IRF of this event.
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2013
VT: The only reasons that a change of viewpoint (transform) of an Event would not be reversible is where acceleration in involved (Twin Paradox) or in a variable Gravity field (General Relativity). But these two are not "rest frames" are they.
JFP: Thanks for copy/pasting your flawed thesis again. We've been over that one before, in a previous postal sparring match.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2013
JFP: Thanks for copy/pasting your flawed thesis again. We've been over that one before, in a previous postal sparring match.
Which you lost since you are totally incapable to understanding the rules of elementary linear algebra.
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2013
JFP: Which you lost, as I recall, due to your failure to understand and solve elementary simultaneous equations nor employ dimensional analysis.
The sooner you revisit and rewrite your thesis the fewer wasted years of fruitless debate you will have to endure.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2013
JFP: Which you lost, as I recall, due to your failure to understand and solve elementary simultaneous equations nor employ dimensional analysis.
The sooner you revisit and rewrite your thesis the fewer wasted years of fruitless debate you will have to endure.


It is just the other way around: You just do not have a clue what relativity means and clearly NEVER will have a clue!
brt
3 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2013
JFP: Which you lost, as I recall, due to your failure to understand and solve elementary simultaneous equations nor employ dimensional analysis.
The sooner you revisit and rewrite your thesis the fewer wasted years of fruitless debate you will have to endure.


It is just the other way around: You just do not have a clue what relativity means and clearly NEVER will have a clue!


Is it any wonder why you were flat out rejected by your peers? You are so predictable and typical. You fit so perfectly into the mold of the angry asshole that was rejected by his peers for being a person who refuses to accept fault when they are so blatantly wrong. You think the most insulting comment is one that attacks a person's knowledge or their ability to comprehend because that's what all of your peers have criticized you for, time and time again. It's sad that you still. don't. get it. But it's good in a way, because your association with an organization tanks its' credibility.
brt
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2013
Who cares about some math here? In reality it's not possible to return into the same place of space-time twice-times, so why the model should allow it? It would just enable the time travel, closed time-like loops and another unphysical artifacts.

The mathematicians are here for physics, not vice-versa.


math is pure logic without interpretation. when you introduce interpretation, you get science and the philosophy of science. Math is important because it proves something beyond a doubt and shows that personal interpretation played no role in the facts. Faulty math shows that you model is also faulty. Solid math shows that your model is solid. Saying that math is not important is the biggest indicator that you have no idea what you are talking about..that a high school physics student knows more about physics than you do.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2013
math is important because it proves something beyond a doubt
Math models is as doubtful, as doubtful are its assumptions and logics, under which it's derived. Sorry, but I do believe the authorities like Feynman in this regard - no matter how many voting trolls will upvote you:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Do you have some problem with it? If yes, then sorry, it's just your problem, not mine.

Solid math shows that your model is solid.
Of course not. Epicycle model is mathematically pretty robust, yet it doesn't prove anything. Math is just a thin layer above assumptions. It can package whatever BS you can imagine into itself. Why is why I adhere on logical consistency of assumptions, not mathematical one. After all, even inside of math every postulate has to be proven first with predicate logics, before it can be used in subsequent derivations. Why not in physics?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2013
Is it any wonder why you were flat out rejected by your peers? You are so predictable and typical. You fit so perfectly into the mold of the angry asshole that was rejected by his peers for being a person who refuses to accept fault when they are so blatantly wrong.
Must I like Galileo kneel before you and confess heresy? You have EXACTLY the SAME mentality as the Cardinals had in the time of Galileo. Wake up IDIOT, we are not living in the 1600's anymore! Or if you do not want to believe this, go and join ASSAD in Syria!

brt=brainless troll!!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2013
Let us see how you idiots fare on simple physics:

Question: Origins 0' and 0 of two inertial reference frames coincide: A wave-front is emitted at the coincident origins. Does the wave-front move away from each origin with the SAME speed c? YES or NO?

How about it brainless-troll?
brt
1 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2013
math is important because it proves something beyond a doubt
Math models is as doubtful, as doubtful are its assumptions and logics, under which it's derived. Sorry, but I do believe the authorities like Feynman in this regard - no matter how many voting trolls will upvote you:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Do you have some problem with it? If yes, then sorry, it's just your problem, not mine.

brt
1 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2013
Johan, you're a loser.
It must drive you insane that you spent your whole life studying physics, misinterpreted some data, and then shit all over yourself when you lashed out at all your colleagues when they tried to help you.

Now you're a troll on a popular physics website. That's your legacy.

I couldn't possibly be any more amused by your pathetic and predictable attempts at attacking people while TRYING to validate yourself...in the comments section of physorg! lol :D ! But I'll say it again; it's hopeless dude. You're a washed up old hack who wasted his life and still can't accept that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You're a giant retard who crushed the bunny that he loved to pet, but doesn't understand that the animal is dead. So he just keeps on petting it.
brt
5 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2013
Valeria Troll : The purpose of math is to design a model that you can then check by performing experiments. Like I said before; a grade school physics student is more knowledgeable than you are. A physics model is a mathematical model applied to a physical system. If math is bullshit, then every single physics concept, law, and theory that exists is bullshit. If you think that every single bit of physics is completely wrong all the way back to observations of force in classical mechanics; then there isn't anything that anyone can tell you to break that bubble that keeps your brain separate from reality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2013
Johan, you're a loser. It must drive you insane that you spent your whole life studying physics, misinterpreted some data, and then shit all over yourself when you lashed out at all your colleagues when they tried to help you.
Can you PROVE that I have done this or is it just your wish that it must be so? I have asked you a simple question but you prefer to retaliate with venom and insults. Let us see if you can react like a sane person: I ask again:

Question: Origins 0' and 0 of two inertial reference frames coincide: A wave-front is emitted at the coincident origins. Does the wave-front move away from each origin with the SAME speed c? YES or NO?

brt
1 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2013
Johan, you're a loser. It must drive you insane that you spent your whole life studying physics, misinterpreted some data, and then shit all over yourself when you lashed out at all your colleagues when they tried to help you.
Can you PROVE that I have done this or is it just your wish that it must be so? I have asked you a simple question but you prefer to retaliate with venom and insults. Let us see if you can react like a sane person: I ask again:

Question: Origins 0' and 0 of two inertial reference frames coincide: A wave-front is emitted at the coincident origins. Does the wave-front move away from each origin with the SAME speed c? YES or NO?



It's no fun if you're not screaming and name calling Johan.

Someone who is ignorant, angry, and holds a grudge against all of mainstream Physics wants to start an argument based on their opinions; oh what fun. You're a prick and a crackpot Johan, I have no desire to validate myself to you. You're a loser.
EyeNStein
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2013
JFP: The answer to your simple relativity question (and the answers to your mistaken follow on questions which led to your twisted thesis) are here:- http://en.wikiped...periment
Why do you ask questions, when you are blind to the answers yourself?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2013
JFP: The answer to your simple relativity question (and the answers to your mistaken follow on questions which led to your twisted thesis) are here:- http://en.wikiped...periment
I have found that it is usually a person who knows no physics himself that refers you to other articles since he is not capable of reasoning physics!
Why do you ask questions, when you are blind to the answers yourself?
If you cannot even answer such a simple question, then you do not have the knowledge or intelligence to refer me to other sources; or to accuse me of being blind! Why not answer it? I am sure any first year student in physics will be able to answer these questions. How about it?
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2013
JFP: There is no challenge in your kindergarten relativity question. Its the first, obvious, baby step following from the Michelson–Morley experiment.
Having been exposed to your twisted thesis before, I was anticipating your next 5 questions, and demonstrating that you only get the right answers when you ask the questions correctly.
The article I cited would have taken you step by step, and formula by formula through the peer reviewed work of the genius' of physics to a proper understanding of relativity.
Starting with the famous trains and platforms relativity thought experiment that you mimicked so poorly.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2013
@Eyenstein,

I accept that you are TOO stupid and mediocre to answer a simple first year question. So why waste my time on a simpleton like you? I hope you are NOT a physicist! On the other hand, most modern physicists have proved that they are idiots! Are you maybe Brian Josephson?
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2013
JFP: What a immature backlash response! Looks like brt was correct: You ARE an angry old man frequently rejected by your peers.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2013
JFP: What a immature backlash response! Looks like brt was correct: You ARE an angry old man frequently rejected by your peers.
You are immature by refusing to engage me in a mature manner. Anybody who has self-respect will not hesitate to answer a simple question in physics unless he is TOO stupid to answer it!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2013
@ EyeNStein

Your reference: "The observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off...."

This argument means that the light emitted from the source is moving with the speed v+c relative to the rear of the traincar: However, according to Einstein's second postulate, light can ONLY move relative to ANY object (and thus also the rear of the traincar) with the SAME speed c. Can you see how stupid your reference is? Just as moronic as you are!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2013
@ EyeNStein,

Did the cat swallow your typing board?
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2013
Hi JF, Sorry I'd forgotten about you.
If your analysis gives you stupid numbers (like >c or divide by zero) then its time to review your analysis. That's how time dilation and length contractions were arrived at.
When you've done that you will be able to re-analyse your thesis, and contribute to physics, rather than shout at it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2013
@EyeNStein,

Let us test your LACK of honesty and integrity again: Quote again from your source: "The observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off...."

Do you agree that this MUST mean that the light MUST be approaching the back of the traincar with the speed v+c where v is the speed of the train relative to the embankment? YES or NO?

Again a simple question that even my grandson of age 6 can answer! Are you going to duck it again as you usually do?