Following Higgs discovery, physicists offer vision to unravel mysteries of universe

Aug 08, 2013
Simulated production of a Higgs event in ATLAS. Image credit: CERN.

After nine days of intensive discussions, nearly 700 particle physicists from about 100 universities and laboratories concluded nine months of work with a unified framework for unmasking the hidden secrets of matter, energy, space and time during the next two decades.

Physicists have made remarkable advances in understanding the of the universe during the last two years. On July 4, 2012, the world celebrated the discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. The discovery, made possible by more than 1,500 U.S. scientists providing talent, technology and leadership, ended a decades-long search for the . Physicists working in other facilities made progress in unmasking some of the bizarre behavior of particles called neutrinos.

But despite these successes, puzzling questions about the nature of the universe remain unanswered. For example, the essential properties of neutrinos are still a mystery. And dark and dark energy, which together constitute 95 percent of the universe, are today still astonishing enigmas.

Scientists debated those and other questions July 28-Aug. 6 at the University of Minnesota during the 2013 Snowmass Community Summer Study, the capstone in a series of meetings held last year. They wrapped up their work by identifying the most exciting and vital questions facing particle physics and by providing a 20-year outlook for the investigative work needed to address them. The final report of the Summer Study, to be published this fall, will detail the scientific importance of each question and the scientific instruments required to probe them.

The following provides a flavor of the questions:

  • The Higgs particle is unlike any other particle we have ever encountered. Why is it different? Are there more?
  • Neutrinos are very light, elusive particles that change their identity as they travel. How do they fit into our understanding of nature?
  • Known particles constitute 1/6 of all the matter in the universe. The rest we call dark matter. But what is it? Can we detect these particles in our labs? Are there other undiscovered particles in nature?
  • There are four known forces in nature. Are these manifestations of a single unified force? Are there unexpected new forces?
  • Are there new hidden dimensions of space and time?
  • Both matter and anti-matter were produced in the Big Bang, but today our world is composed only of matter. Why?
  • Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?

"There's a great deal of energy and a host of ideas in the field of particle physics," said Jonathan Rosner, chair of the American Physical Society's Division of Particles and Fields. "In the last 12 months, we've discovered the Higgs boson and made important discoveries about the behavior of neutrinos. It's clear that there is much more to discover. We understand less than 5 percent of the matter and energy in our . What experiments can help expand our knowledge in the next 20 years?"

Significantly, the final report of the Summer Study will reflect the ideas of the next generation of scientists who will become the stewards of . It will include the results of a survey of graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and young staff scientists in the field.

"The Snowmass process is about planning the next generation of experiments, many of which have decade-long lead times," said Jonathan Asaadi, a researcher at Syracuse University. "Decisions made today will shape the careers of the young scientists who will run these experiments many years from now. Our survey of nearly 1,000 young scientists has provided a valuable perspective."

Explore further: A new generation of storage—ring

More information: Organized by the American Physical Society, the Snowmass study brought together experts in particle detectors, particle accelerators, theoretical and experimental physics, computing and many other areas of research related to particle physics. Its report will help inform the U.S. Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), which will develop a strategic plan and advise the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science of Foundation on future U.S. particle physics investments.

Provided by American Physical Society

3.9 /5 (78 votes)

Related Stories

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

Jul 17, 2013

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 ...

12 matter particles suffice in nature

Dec 13, 2012

How many matter particles exist in nature? Particle physicists have been dealing with this question for a long time. The 12 matter particles contained in the standard model of particle physics? Or are there ...

Interview: CERN chief firmer on Higgs boson

Jan 27, 2013

The world should know with certainty by the middle of this year whether a subatomic particle discovered by scientists is a long-sought Higgs boson, the head of the world's largest atom smasher said Saturday.

Recommended for you

A new generation of storage—ring

10 hours ago

A bright synchrotron source that emits over a wide part of the electromagnetic spectrum from the infrared to hard X-rays is currently being built in Lund, Sweden. The MAX IV facility presents a range of technical ...

Universe may face a darker future

14 hours ago

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

High-intensity sound waves may aid regenerative medicine

Oct 30, 2014

Researchers at the University of Washington have developed a way to use sound to create cellular scaffolding for tissue engineering, a unique approach that could help overcome one of regenerative medicine's ...

Formula could shed light on global climate change

Oct 30, 2014

Wright State University researchers have discovered a formula that accurately predicts the rate at which soil develops from the surface to the underlying rock, a breakthrough that could answer questions about ...

User comments : 65

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheWalrus
3.5 / 5 (20) Aug 08, 2013
Something something dark matter, scientists are clueless, check out my pet theory for which I have no evidence, scientists don't know what they're talking about, dark matter is a lie, etc.
rug
3.1 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2013
Does get kinda old doesn't it.
Ober
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2013
Where are all the GOOD comments these days? I'm sick of reading tripe like the above three posts!!!!
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2013
The following provides a flavor of the questions:
• The Higgs particle is unlike any other particle we have ever encountered. Why is it different? Are there more?

What we have learn is the Higgs particle arisen from Higgs field which is something look like the old aether,

• Neutrinos are very light, elusive particles that change their identity as they travel. How do they fit into our understanding of nature?

What we have learn is the neutrino could propagate at speed of light via something as vacuum medium energy,

• Known particles constitute 1/6 of all the matter in the universe. The rest we call dark matter. But what is it? Can we detect these particles in our labs? Are there other undiscovered particles in nature?

What we have learn is that vacuum space is not empty, maybe there is something as vacuum (medium) dark energy pervade our universe,

• There are four known forces in nature. Are these manifestations of a single unified force? Are there unexpected new forces?

Maybe it is just a single unified force arisen from vacuum (medium) dark energy,

• Are there new hidden dimensions of space and time?

Please limit ourselves to what we have experienced,

• Both matter and anti-matter were produced in the Big Bang, but today our world is composed only of matter. Why?

Maybe we just misunderstood about what which we called as anti-matter,

• Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?

Our universe is very huge, so what we called as dark energy is very large amount which do the action, maybe this obvious prove of it existence could solve the entire problem mentioned….
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2013
In AWT based on dense aether model there should be multiple Higgs bosons, because they mirror the dodecahedral structure of dark matter observed at the sky in similar way, like the solitons at the water surface.

Prior to the discovery and confirmation of the Higgs, I seem to recall AWT proponents claiming there was no Higgs and AWT easily explained that. Now AWT understands and readily describes that same Higgs that wasn't there.

AWT is one hell of an all-purpose rationalization-of-the-moment theory. Not too unlike those theists who constantly reinterpret and reapply their favorite religious texts to fit the reality of the moment.

Oh yeah, this isn't criticism - just an observation that fits a theory of mine.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2013
We understand less than 5 percent of the matter and energy in our universe. What experiments can help expand our knowledge in the next 20 years?"


Actually, they don't even understand what they think they understand about matter, as such they are required to invent all sorts of nonsense (DM,DE, etc..) to account for their ignorance and misunderstanding.
TheWalrus
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2013
The explanation of dark matter is related to shielding LeSage gravity model....


Dude, you should totally publish that. I'll bet there's a Noble prize in there. Of course, those entrenched know-nothings in Stockholm are too closed-minded to admit its genius. Still: Publish that bad boy. Be sure to show your work.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2013
The circus continues...
http://www.holosc...iggs.jpg

verkle
3.2 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2013
I like these honest articles which acknowledge that we are still very limited in our understanding of the universe and science. I don't think it would be an understatement to say that we know <1% of what the universe is all about. Maybe I should write <<1%.

But it's quite awesome to see the advances of science in the last few hundred years. This earth and the universe are wonderful places to be and live in.
TheWalrus
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2013
Actually, they don't even understand what they think they understand about matter, as such they are required to invent all sorts of nonsense (DM,DE, etc..) to account for their ignorance and misunderstanding.


Please. regale us with your superior scientific knowledge. You sound like a real expert. What is it, that you can back up with math, observations, experiments and peer-reviewed publications, that these doofi don't know?
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2013
I like these honest articles which acknowledge that we are still very limited in our understanding of the universe and science. I don't think it would be an understatement to say that we know <1% of what the universe is all about. Maybe I should write <<1%.

But it's quite awesome to see the advances of science in the last few hundred years. This earth and the universe are wonderful places to be and live in.


I do agree with that 100%.

"there is no conceivable means by which we shall one day determine the chemical composition of the stars, no, not even our star, the Sun",,, Auguste Comte 1835

"heavier than air flight" is contrary to all physical science",,,,,,,,,, Lord Kelvin 1888.

"these Hertzian waves are an interesting phenomena, but can never have a practical use in the communication of telegraphy over distances of a few hundreds of feet, a mile at most, the well established principles will not permit it.",,,,,,,,,,,,, Sir Oliver Lodge 1894.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2013
Oliver Lodge was right,,,,,,


No he wasn't,,,,, Marconi proved him wrong five years after he made that pronouncement.

he just didn't realize the ionosphere mirror.


That's why he was wrong. He also didn't "realize" a means of measuring the frequency of the waves, the power of the transmission, or wave-length dependence of antenna. Nobody did, those things weren't discovered until ten years AFTER Marconi made his first trans-Atlantic transmission

I'm supposing that right and wrong mean something different in the Czech Republic than they do in North Carolina. Lodge was more wrong on more things than he was right on. More than most physicists of his fame. He's not one of the "giants" in the physical community. He was a politically and socially connected scientist who could seldom see a research avenue through to completion before he was distracted by "new" topic/phenomena to go after.
ziphead
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2013
Where are all the GOOD comments these days? I'm sick of reading tripe like the above three posts!!!!


You are so "Ober" it?
...I have to admit, so am I...
indio007
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2013
@Franklins
There is experimental evidence of longitudinal waves in vacuum.
Phonon vacuum tunneling. This WAS impossible.

They've attributed the effect to the EM near field. This is because there is no other KNOWN mechanism. An experiment with neutral atoms to verify the effect is EM related should be done.
Anyhow ...
Focus: Vibrations Skip Across Vacuum
http://physics.ap...v26/st15

Acoustic Phonon Tunneling and Heat Transport due to Evanescent Electric Fields
Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 125501 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1408

Vacuum Phonon Tunneling in Variable Temperature STM
"By comparing experimental data and theory, we
show that the thermal energy transmitted through atomically narrow vacuum gap
due to thermal vibration of image charges exceeds, by ten orders of magnitude, the
Planck's thermal radiation."
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2013
Zephyr back again as Franklins. What is it with you and sock puppets?
JIMBO
1 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2013
What's completely missed is that in ~ 1 yr from now, if the Planck Sat announces a Null observation of primordial grav waves, it is a massive blow against inflation, & in support of the Cyclic universe, which is in turn built on M-theory, the parent theory of Superstrings, i.e., string theory incorporating Supersymmetry.
Thus the latter two receive a huge boost if the inflationary universe dies & the cyclic universe replaces it.
griffinfinity
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2013
"Are there new hidden dimensions of space and time?" -

Duh, haven't you been following Dr. Who?!@#%...
Egleton
1.5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2013
I still don't get this Higgs thingy.
OK. so every hadron "moves" by interacting with the entire universe and then poping back into reality in a new spot and apparently that takes time (which we all know is stretchy anyway).
The way I see it is that the faster the hadron moves (relative to its own frame of reference) the longer it takes between hops.
But where does its inertia come from?
Every explanation I have seen treats the Higgs field as a medium that offers resistance to Hadrons that move through it. Which is obviously wrong or our planet would spiral into the sun.
There is nothing intuitive in this at all.
Dont let Higgs get all the hops, we have a better use for them.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2013
There is nothing intuitive in this at all.

You may want to reflect on what intuition is and what it is evolved to do (and THAT it is an evolved facility in the first place).

Then you may consider that stuff like QM or the HIggs field aren't central to that evolutionary process as they affect things on a much more micro level than what your intuition is supposed to deal with.

This may lead you to the conclusion that to expect these things to conform to intuition is not sensible.
brt
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2013
" Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in comparison to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD. "
brt
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2013
I just published it (= made it public). What next? Should I buy the Stockholm ticket now? My motivation rather is to explain at public, what all this circus actually means. The physicist will indeed pile their equations and models next fifty years, but we - laymen - can already understand it.


Right, because fuck all those stupid scientists who could make the world a better place with it. What really matters is that laymen, who don't understand or care about basic sciences or mathematics, can understand it. It's the laymen who will build a car that doesn't need gas or colonies on other planets. What have these stupid physicists ever done except give us all of the electronic devices ever invented?
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2013
Hey guys, check ou this story:

http://phys.org/n...ent.html
Have we been had? Is anybody else suspicious??

Regards, DH66
Moebius
not rated yet Aug 09, 2013
I would paraphrase one of the questions and ask this. There are six known quarks in nature. Are these manifestations of a single unified entity?

I would also want to know how entanglement works since it seems to violate our current understanding.
MikeBowler
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2013
But where does its inertia come from?
The dense aether model makes it perfectly clear with using the water surface analogy of space-time. The particles are behaving like standing waves of vacuum, i.e. like the ripples at the water surface. But the ripples tends to penetrate ............... The Higgs field is therefore system of tiny density fluctuations of vacuum, which are slowing the spreading of energy waves at short distances. And the Higgs bosons are most prominent density fluctuations of it at the energy density spectrum.


thought you were Franklins for a moment
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2013
There is nothing intuitive in this at all.

You may want to reflect on what intuition is and what it is evolved to do (and THAT it is an evolved facility in the first place).

Then you may consider that stuff like QM or the HIggs field aren't central to that evolutionary process as they affect things on a much more micro level than what your intuition is supposed to deal with.

This may lead you to the conclusion that to expect these things to conform to intuition is not sensible.


Beautifully said Sir, true and concise sure.
brt
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2013
I would paraphrase one of the questions and ask this. There are six known quarks in nature. Are these manifestations of a single unified entity?

I would also want to know how entanglement works since it seems to violate our current understanding.


Leonard Susskind (Stephen Hawkings' famous nemesis and friend) and Juan Maldacena (A big shot) are proposing a very good explanation that's worth looking at.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2013
@Zephyr

Just curious if ya would entertain an odd question I have.

Why did ya trouble to retire Valeria and Natello if Teech and Franllins are just going to be exact carbon copies of Valeria and Natello?
brt
3 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2013
fuck all those stupid scientists who could make the world a better place with it
The scientists are seeking for opportunity to publish. They can publish math models only, so that the stuff, which cannot be formalized is irrelevant for them - no matter, how apparent or even selfevident it can be. The scalar waves do manifest itself like the quantum noise in similar way, like the underwater waves manifest itself with Brownian noise at the water surface - so that they effectively don't exist for formally thinking mathematicians. In addition, the duality of transverse and longitudinal waves is typical for all particle environment, it brings the notion of aether into vacuum physics back. From this reason all supporters of scalar waves were proponents of aether model at the same time and the mainstream physicists, who refuse the aether model ignore the scalar waves from the same reason. They seek for gravitational waves instead.


You're totally right, devote your life to it
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2013
so that the stuff, which cannot be formalized is irrelevant for them - no matter, how apparent or even selfevident it can be.

The point is that if you can't formalize it then you can't communicate it.

What may be 'self evident' to person X may not be so to person Y (just ask a muslim and a christian on that one). If you have no way of formalization which allows an unbiased test then your 'theory' is just a subjective brainfart (and likely wrong).

It it IS correct then it can be formalized (always) and shown to work independent of whether someone thinks its sensible/intuitive or not (just look at QM or GR).

Why did ya trouble to retire Valeria and Natello if Teech and Franllins are just going to be exact carbon copies of Valeria and Natello?

Probably the number of sockpuppets isn't keeping pace with his schizophrenia.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2013
oh..e.rrh, so could I still interest any one in my dense cheesehole model of the universe?

It also contains fields which are resembled by the cheese between the holes, it has vacuums, it contains conspiracies of mainstream science and altogether is very anti-Swiss/French. no?

...anyone?
vlaaing peerd
4 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2013
a little more on topic, I didn't know CERN consisted of 1500 solely US scientists ...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2013
any one in my dense cheesehole model of the universe??

Can I test it? Sounds delicious.

Might not be an unbiased test, tho.
brt
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2013
The problem of dumb people is, they tend to judge the posts by their authors instead of factual content. The occasional switch of accounts could therefore make the situation for their dumbness more difficult. So I'm essentially trying to force you into smarter behavior, which may indeed hurt the residua of the brain in your heads sometimes.
The point is that if you can't formalize it then you can't communicate it
I don't think so - in such case the popular journals and science sites like this one couldn't mediate any information to their readers, because they don't usually formalize the findings, which they're presenting at public.


OF COURSE! how could we not see it?! You're trying to force us to be smarter by NOT using math or logic. It's so obvious now. It's DEFINITELY not that you're batshit insane and suffer from delusions of grandeur because you're to lazy to work to understand physics and its associate math.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2013
Hmm, just reading up on that SCC collider. Man...that would have been huge.

if your praising it because of the costs (12 billion US$)...I would disagree, it's peanuts compared to the knowledge and contributions to humanity we could gain. It's not even 5% of US anual military spendings. I'd know where I prefer my tax money to be spent on.

brt
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2013
a little more on topic, I didn't know CERN consisted of 1500 solely US scientists ...


All the cold war years of nuclear research and development made US scientists good candidates for the Organisation Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Organization for Nuclear Research)
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2013
The problem of dumb people is, they tend to judge the posts by their authors instead of factual content.

Problem is that we ARE judging your posts by content - and that content is complete BS.

You may have noticed that even after a name switch the content of your posts is IMMEDIATELY judged as bad? Even though the new 'author' isn't known for the first post or so (so it can't be that people judge by name)?
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2013
THe Higgs doesn't exists.
The mass is an electrioc dipole moment.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

There's no misteries in the universe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2013
Being "judged" doesn't mean "proved".

It at least disproves your theory that we're biased against your person.

You may still believe that we are biased against your theory. But then again: you don't have a theory. You have number of vague and confused (and mutually contradictory) concepts, which you rubber-band to fit any particular techno-babble-term you happen to like (but don't understand). That's not science. That's not even philosophy. That's just garbage.

Go put your theory on a sound mathematical (read: logical) footing and present some results. Then, and ONLY then, will there be something to discuss.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2013
THe Higgs doesn't exists.
The mass is an electrioc dipole moment.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

There's no misteries in the universe.


"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish." Faraday

Yep, you're right, and here'show it works. It's quite simple really.
http://www.holosc...niverse/
The LHC is hunting for snipe!
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2013
"But despite these successes, puzzling questions about the nature of the universe remain unanswered..... And dark matter and dark energy, which together constitute 95 percent of the universe, are today still astonishing enigmas."

This depends on who you ask. Clearly AWT can mutate to accomodate any new information. The magnets at CERN hold 10GJ of energy during a colision experiment with the beam at 724MJ ( In my opinion this is an awful lot of energy required to produce the guage boson for existence). Calculating the energy contained in magnetic flux throughout the universe is almost not possible due to variations and lack of measurment ability (this is because it effects matter without being detectable, hmm) However the relationship is mockingly apparent, you need magnetic flux to concentrate energy and keep it stable, and concentrations of energy above a certain threshold dictate the parameters of the flux around themselves. MF permiates the Universe. Not a Higgs field.

brt
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2013
THe Higgs doesn't exists.
The mass is an electrioc dipole moment.

Antonio Jose Saraiva

There's no misteries in the universe.


I can think of at least one "mistery" ...
brt
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2013
You may have noticed that even after a name switch the content of your posts is IMMEDIATELY judged as bad
Being "judged" doesn't mean "proved". It's just a subjective labeling without expertise, no less no more.


So there is no way to ever prove anything correct; but you're correct? How does that work?

Someone must be an expert in order to judge, but all the experts don't know what they are talking about? If you aren't battling mental illness, then mental illness doesn't exist.
meBigGuy
4 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2013
I don't understand the claims of fraud with respect to DM and DE. It is freely admitted that they are made up concepts that fit the data. They are dark because they can't be seen. They are matter and energy because observations tend to indicate they behave like matter and energy. That's what science is. Truth is that which best fits the facts at hand. It may turn out that it's all wrong.

There is no theory that explains it all, especially Franklins/Zephyr and vacuum-mechanics and the others of similar delusional grandeur that prolifically and emphatically post what I personally see as mushy nonsense. Correct me if i'm wrong (LOL)

brt
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2013
there is no way to ever prove anything correct; but you're correct
Of course not, but the downvoting without arguments cannot work as a disproof here. For proving theory correct or false you should focus to its predictions - not to its author and or his mental health. Until you aren't mentally ill by itself, indeed.


That's not proof! upvotes or downvotes on some website are not scientific proof. I can't tell you in words how ignorant you are because of that. We are talking about experimental, SCIENTIFIC proof. NO scientific law or principle is based on internet comments, it's based on experimental evidence that is correct every single time. The speed of light is the speed of light because it is observed to be that speed every. single. time. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about but you are convinced that you are brilliant and all of physics is wrong, despite the fact that you clearly don't know anything about physics. This is why you are crazy.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2013
What the founder of the red shift did think about expanding Universe model. Actually http://nimble.nim...er.html.


Zeph,,, Hubble wasn't the "founder" of redshift. It had been observed and noted 20 years before he published.

He thought enough of the expanding universe to be aware that the observational evidence was good physics, he just hoped that another explanation of the observations would be found.

He wrote that in paper 1942. The largest telescope in world at that time was still the 100in Mt Wilson scope. He only had "stone age" tools (spectrometers, photometers, photographic plates, etc,,,) to work with. Don't ya think we've come a looooooong way in the last 70 years?

He was only one guy, not "THE" guy. And he was handicapped by the lack of all the observations that have been made during the last 70 years.
Moebius
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2013
oh..e.rrh, so could I still interest any one in my dense cheesehole model of the universe?

It also contains fields which are resembled by the cheese between the holes, it has vacuums, it contains conspiracies of mainstream science and altogether is very anti-Swiss/French. no?

...anyone?


So the moon really is cheese? I'll buy that.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
The problem of dumb people is,
that they think that they can hide their stupidity by changing their names.
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
There are three fundamental universal forces in the universe.

The electric, magnetic and gravity.

All force particles and matter particles are made up of these three universal forces.

The question is how these three forces working with each other and how they organize themselves together into force particles and matter particles.

In addition, the fabric mass, which is not a lot of energy, but rather a host particle, not given energy, because it is powerless, but included in the universal forces manifestation of energy.

The dark energy is a weakening of the electromagnetic exchange of fields in radiation fields, because it costs energy to switch between an electric and a magnetic field, which would therefore exchange to become slower in time, whereby the electromagnetic wavelength becomes longer. Light turns to redshifted.

This is reflected in the fact that the redshift is greatest closest to an observer and at least furthest away and therefore can get an observer to believe in BB
Ober
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
@LarsKristensen, were you sacificing a goat on a large stone when you typed that lot in?
Three fundamental forces???? Two of which you said are electric and magnetic. You do realise that there are 4 forces, and electric and magnetic are the same force... we call it electromagnetic force!! So the other three are gravity, strong and weak nuclear force.

I think you should research BOSONS and how they mediate force. That would be a good place to start before you tackle dark energy!!
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2013
@LarsKristensen,

I think you should research BOSONS and how they mediate force. That would be a good place to start before you tackle dark energy!!


@ ober
the strong and weak nuclear force particles exposed to Annihilation, when matter and antimatter meet. The weak and strong nuclear forces particles is converted to electric and magnetic forces (radiation).
Matter particles viewer with gravitation and when matter particles exposed to annihilation disappear gravity together with radiation electric and magnetic force, where the force field of gravity is perpendicular to the electric and maghetiske force fields.
The electrical and magnetic forces are not the same force, but yes, they interact with each other.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
@Lars:

1) Find a better translation program. The English version of your text is so bad, it makes you sound as if you are on drugs.

2)Forces do NOT convert into each other. (were you smoking something after all?)

3) You have taken little snippets of information that you have heard somewhere (but not understood) and mixed them up in a weird and garbled way.

4)Learn some basic physics. And do it PROPERLY. THEN you might understand what Ober was telling you. He really DOES understand it better than you.

Regards, DH66
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
oh..e.rrh, so could I still interest any one in my dense cheesehole model of the universe?

It also contains fields which are resembled by the cheese between the holes, it has vacuums, it contains conspiracies of mainstream science and altogether is very anti-Swiss/French. no?

...anyone?


So the moon really is cheese? I'll buy that.


No no, it goes much deeper than that, cheese is a good model for representing the universe from largest scale (the cheese bulk) to the smallest scale (cheese strings). As you may know the best cheeses to model universes are plain Dutch Gouda. However the cheese competing countries (not really, all they do is make stinky fungus) from Switzerland and France tried to cover it up by clinging onto mainstream science's Standard Model.

They were so succesful in covering up the succesful theory,(on a side note, they did this with Casimir's slow moving mayonaise theory of vacuum energy as well): http://apod.nasa....801.html
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
that this Swiss/French conspiracy was able to convince the mainstream science community to ditch the very succesful cheese theory over the pretty inaccurate SM (not even able to incorporate ...errrhh... gravity seems like a big fail to me, just saying). All European funding for science went to these bloody twats to build some geekish tunnel to smash stuff into eachother.

Now how sick is that?

Cheese explains the universe, all forces including gravity (cheese string loop gravity shows at the small scale gravity leaks into calabi-you manifold like cheese strings. Just play with molten cheese strings for half an hour and 11 dimensions will reveal itself quite intuitively), dark matter (holes don't interact with normal matter and cannot be seen, yet make up a large part of the cheese/universe), higgs field my #$%, matter sticks to molten cheese and very evidently we are easily able to rip off particles of cheese at very low energies (the Gouda-particle).
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
But nooooo, the Swiss/French needed to buy a multi-billion Euro damn smashing tunnel, just to maintain funding and keeping themselves employed.

All those taxpayers Euro's.....just because their lousy stinky fungus stuff's inabilty to properly model universes, see how they cripple real science just to cover up modelling that can be done with real qualitative cheese?
brt
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2013
The problem of another dumb people is,

they think, they can hide the clever ideas of other people by forcing them to change their names.


Oh boo-hoo. You're just SOOO persecuted aren't you? It's so racist/bias that people won't just openly accept any of the bullshit that spews from your mouth. The world would be in a much better place if we just all accepted everything without any scrutiny or proof of fact. Speaking of; LADIES: I'm rich, hung like a horse, and the most famous movie star/model/physicist alive.
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
@ DarkHorse66

Ad.1) May be I should do it. Thank you. Have not really learned English because I have not traveled abroad. And no, I'm not on drugs - have never used it.

Ad.2) Sorry that my language translation is bad, but that does not necessarily my knowledge of physics worse than it is, but only that it is hard to me to communicate it in English. Maybe English speaking people could learn to read poorly translated English or perhaps translating from people's own language instead.

ad. 3) Explain what you mean by strange and distorted way?

ad. 4) My basic knowledge of physics is larger than many others. Therefore, I understood very well Ober.

Should you not understand my written English and you think it sounds weird, you are welcome to ask me about what I write about.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
ad. 3) Explain what you mean by strange and distorted way?


Ya aren't a very good role player. Didn't they teach about consistency in acting class?

A sampling of your previous trolling:

The objects will not move in space, it is the space that is expanding. That's the truth.

But is it the truth about the universe or is it just a theory? A theory there only tells us that we humans know nothing about, but so very like to want to believe.


And:

Gravity is a force similar to the electric and magnetic forces. Gravity also contains two chargings, like the two other forces.


And:

Dark matter is actually ordinary matter composed of ordinary particles (proton - hydrogen) which absorbs low-energy radiation.


So if ya want the part in drama, ya must put more effort into the character.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2013
@Lars
Ad.2) Sorry that my language translation is bad, but that does not necessarily my knowledge of physics worse than it is, but only that it is hard to me to communicate it in English. Maybe English speaking people could learn to read poorly translated English or perhaps translating from people's own language instead.
ad. 3) Explain what you mean by strange and distorted way?
ad. 4) My basic knowledge of physics is larger than many others. Therefore, I understood very well Ober.
Should you not understand my written English and you think it sounds weird, you are welcome to ask me about what I write about.

1)or maybe you could attend some English classes right there in Denmark. You don't actually need to travel, in order to learn a language. Especially not English, which is the equivalent of an international language these days. As for as poor translations: bad grammar changes the meaning of a text in any language. This gets worse if the wrong words are chosen....cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2013
cont...As a case in point (from your bio); the word 'mails' does not even exist in the English language as a noun with a singular & plural, by itself. It is a verb. It describes what you can do with a letter (& I'm not talking about letters of the alphabet, I'm talking about a written message that you send or 'mail'.(the only time 'mail' gets used as a noun is when it is used to describe a a postal system in general & then it is THE mail (no singular or plural). It is an Americanism for post/postal service, etc, that has crept into wider use. There is only one exception to this rule: e-mail (electronic mail). But then that word becomes a stand-in for 'a LETTER sent by Electronic mail. As you can have more than one letter, 'email' CAN have a plural. But if your translator screws even than up...
You don't have any business telling people that they have to adapt you, when you are on a site that has English as its default language! That's just being slack & lazy! Many people here..cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2013
cont...do not have English as a first language, but they all, at some time, took the time & made the effort to learn it. I will bet you that they didn't travel oversees to do so, either. Maybe a Danish site would be more suitable for you.
As for the rest of your assertions; I doubt that your basic knowledge is larger than many others. You do not even seem to know what a fundamental force is:
http://en.wikiped...eraction
Just for you (& think about the meaning of the title word "Naturkræfter" (Natur=Nature/natural & kræfter=forces)
http://da.wikiped...3%A6fter
from there: ' de fire fundamentale kræfter' Note, 'fire=four' You might like to click on the links in the box. Still think you've understood your topic? By the way, I don't speak Danish.
Read these links before answering! and think!
Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2013
@Lars
No person who has the basic physics knowledge that you claim to have would have mistaken the electric or magnetic force to be fundamental. Why is electromagnetism a fundamental force? (despite both being there) It is not about the forces, but it is about the fields that they create. It is because an electric current is required to generate a magnetic field. ("An electric current is a flow of electric charge (wiki")) In other words, no current, then no magnetic field. One field is required to generate the other. I will post you some nice links to read in the next post. Half will be in English, the other half will be in Danish (nice Wiki, good Wiki) just for you. Just so that you can't complain that you can't read it properly. Make sure that you read them, especially the one about H.C. Ørsted. He was actually a countryman of yours and helped discover HOW electricity & magetism each were just a part of electromagnetism.
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Aug 14, 2013
This editor sucks
DH66
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Aug 14, 2013
Now for a (re)post of the post that it screwed up.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2013
Here are the links:
In English:
http://en.wikiped..._current
http://en.wikiped...agnetism
http://en.wikiped...agnetism
http://en.wikiped...%98rsted

In Dansk:
http://da.wikiped...r%C3%B8m
http://da.wikiped...gnetisme
http://da.wikiped...gnetisme
http://da.wikiped...%98rsted
I went to alot of trouble to find these, so that I could get my point across without the language barrier.Make sure you read them carefully. You might even begin to understand why I said that your understanding was strange & distorted. I just hope that your 'basic physics' is enough to understand them.You might have even THAT wrong. It is definitely not good enough for you to assume that you can make such definitive claims as you did.You HAVE to be prepared to be corrected. I know MORE THAN basic physics, but am ALWAYS prepared to learn new, more&better.
BestRegardsDH66
Ober
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2013
I hope Lars pays attention to your comments Dark, as you certainly have made a lot of effort to help him.
I particularly like your closing statement regarding your own knowledge of Physics and your willingness to learn more. If only more people would keep their eyes and mind open like yourself.
To throw in some speculation, we suspect 3 of the 4 forces are in fact the same force at higher energies. The fact that 3 of the four forces can be quantised also helps to reinforce this idea. This is where MY speculation comes in. The failure to quantise Gravity could be due to lack of understanding, OR it could be telling us that Gravity is not a true force, but is merely a result of Spacetime curvature. But if Spacetime is being curved, then what force is doing this?? Gravity may be a red herring, and merely a manifestation of some yet-undiscovered force. THIS is why we build huge accelerators in order to probe for the deeper truth. Isn't Science wonderful???

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.