Physicists propose Higgs boson 'portal' as the source of this elusive entity

Aug 09, 2013

One of the biggest mysteries in contemporary particle physics and cosmology is why dark energy, which is observed to dominate energy density of the universe, has a remarkably small (but not zero) value. This value is so small, it is perhaps 120 orders of magnitude less than would be expected based on fundamental physics.

Resolving this problem, often called the cosmological constant problem, has so far eluded theorists.

Now, two physicists – Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and James Dent of University of Louisiana-Lafayette – suggest that the recently discovered Higgs boson could provide a possible "portal" to that could help explain some of the attributes of the enigmatic and help resolve the cosmological constant problem.

In their paper, "Higgs Seesaw Mechanism as a Source for Dark Energy," Krauss and Dent explore how a possible small coupling between the Higgs particle, and possible new particles likely to be associated with what is conventionally called the Grand Unified Scale – a scale perhaps 16 orders of magnitude smaller than the size of a proton at which the three known non-gravitational forces in nature might converge into a single theory – could result in the existence of another background field in nature in addition to the Higgs field, which would contribute an to of precisely the correct scale to correspond to the observed energy density.

The paper is published on line today (Aug. 9), in Physical Review Letters.

Current observations of the universe show it is expanding at an accelerated rate. But this acceleration cannot be accounted for on the basis of matter alone. Putting energy in empty space produces a repulsive opposing the produced by matter, including the dark matter that is inferred to dominate the mass of essentially all galaxies, but which doesn't interact directly with light and therefore can only be estimated by its .

Because of this phenomenon and because of what is observed in the universe, it is thought that such 'dark energy' contributes up to 70 percent of the total energy density in the universe, while observable matter contributes only 2 to 5 percent, with the remaining 25 percent or so coming from dark matter.

The source of this dark energy and the reason its magnitude matches the inferred magnitude of the energy in empty space currently is not understood, making it one of the leading outstanding problems in particle physics today.

"Our paper makes progress in one aspect of this problem," said Krauss, a Foundation Professor in Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration and in Physics, and the director of the Origins Project at ASU. "Now that the Higgs boson has been discovered, it provides a possible 'portal' to physics at much higher energy scales through very small possible mixings and couplings to new scalar fields which may operate at these scales."

"We demonstrate that the simplest small mixing, related to the ratios of the scale at which electroweak physics operates, and a possible Grand Unified Scale, produces a possible contribution to the vacuum energy today of precisely the correct order of magnitude to account for the observed dark energy," Krauss explained. "Our paper demonstrates that a very small energy scale can at least be naturally generated within the context of a very simple extension of the standard model of particle physics."

While a possible advance in understanding the origin of dark energy, Krauss said the construct is only one step in the direction of understanding its mysteries.

"The deeper problem of why the known physics of the standard model does not contribute a much larger energy to empty space is still not resolved," he said.

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

More information: prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i6/e061802

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 ...

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 ...

Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy

May 10, 2007

The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor ...

Recommended for you

First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives

6 hours ago

While creating the first-ever images of explosives using an x-ray free electron laser in California, Los Alamos researchers and collaborators demonstrated a crucial diagnostic for studying how voids affect ...

New approach to form non-equilibrium structures

Jul 24, 2014

Although most natural and synthetic processes prefer to settle into equilibrium—a state of unchanging balance without potential or energy—it is within the realm of non-equilibrium conditions where new possibilities lie. ...

Nike krypton laser achieves spot in Guinness World Records

Jul 24, 2014

A set of experiments conducted on the Nike krypton fluoride (KrF) laser at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) nearly five years ago has, at long last, earned the coveted Guinness World Records title for achieving "Highest ...

User comments : 81

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 09, 2013
Nice. Always enjoy Krauss' lectures (check them out on youtube or wherever you may find them). He's in the same vein as Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
JIMBO
4.4 / 5 (16) Aug 09, 2013
As usual, PhysOrg fails to link us with a copy of a paper they cover which Everyone can access,
instead of just journal subscribers. Here it is: http://arxiv.org/...3239.pdf
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 09, 2013
From the above article:
...existence of another background field in nature in addition to the Higgs field, which would contribute an energy density to empty space of precisely the correct scale to correspond to the observed energy density.


How many 'background fields' does it take to form a compound background "aether' which supports creation, evolution, propagation etc of all the field perturbations (like light and other energy-mass) features we call 'particles'? It seems the more we look, the more pre-existing 'background energy-space' arena/reservoir we find is needed to give the observed phenomena we call 'the universe'. I wonder how long it will take for that 'fundamental background' penny to drop and mainstream stops avoiding/denying the bleedin obvious?
angelhkrillin
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2013
I'm starting to lose confidence in current theoretical physicists, I have already figured most of this out but I can't publish stuff because I am not even close to finishing my mathematics so I can provide proof for it and have that 80,000 dollar certificate that says I know what I am talking about.... here's a hint graduate students, it has to do with an infinite number of orders, as they get with other quantum equations, I wish they would stop taking out infinities to get around the math.
Argiod
1 / 5 (20) Aug 09, 2013
Unified Field Theory... hah! The more they try to 'unify' the cosmos, the more 'particles' they find at ever decreasing scalar factors. Occam's Razor doesn't unify; it divides.

The universe is an almost balanced tug of war between two forces: the forces of Creation, and the forces of Destruction... between these two forces is the balancing force, the regulator of existence... (think atoms: electron - neg force : proton - pos force and neutron - neutral force)
The slight imbalance is needed to keep the universe moving, always trying to return to a state of equilibrium. We see this in lasers, where there has to be an imbalance in the energy state between the main material and the slight bit of another element... Without creative imbalance, life would not, could not exist. If nothing moves, how would you know anything existed?
shavera
5 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2013
angelhkrillin: They pay you to go to grad school in physics. You TA or do research. If you don't know what we already know about our universe, there's no way you can proceed to find "new" things in our universe.
kevin_buckeye_3
1 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2013
Infinity! Stop avoiding the inevitable!

It's simple,there are infinite universes out there. Collectively,theses universes are in one,big,infinite,cycle of life and death.

No deities needed. Simple!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (17) Aug 09, 2013
A return to classical physics is needed, simplicity that would make Occam proud.
http://exvacuo.fr...ight.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (18) Aug 09, 2013
Two down votes within 10 minutes, on a comment with a link to a 150 page paper. Here I thought I was a fast reader. More opinions shouted from the pulpit of ignorance.
bcode
1 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2013
"Now that the Higgs boson has been discovered..." ?!?

I'm sick of this overzealous statement from scientists that should know better. We have not found the Higgs. We have apparently narrowed it down to an area that it "must" be, but until we actually have "proof", it's just another theory.

It's incredibly counter-intuitive to make these claims before they 'officially' happen -- All it does is make lay-people not care about actual advances when they happen... And worse, gives religious-folk the cannon fodder they so desperately seek when/if the theory turns out to be wrong.
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2013
bcode, you must be out of date. We have definitely found a particle resonance at the 126 GeV/c^2 mass range or so that has pretty much exactly the right interaction characteristics to be the Higgs Boson. In fact, it's depressingly exact. As in, we don't really see any new physics in the data about the Higgs boson. And we hoped there would be.
bcode
1 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2013
shavera -- I guess you can call me skeptical. We've found a new particle having the spin-parity of a Higgs boson as in the Standard Model... But we don't know how it interacts and what implications those interactions bring to the table, we're not sure if it really does give particles mass; we really don't know anything. We don't even agree that the Standard Model can accurately predict particles of this size.

Granted, we've found something at the energy level where we predicted the "Higgs boson" would reside, but what I'm getting at is that we have yet to prove that this new particle is actually responsible for mass as we know it. So to say that we've "found the Higgs boson" (so as to say that we've found the particle that creates 'mass') to me, is premature.
shavera
5 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2013
bcode it has all the right decay modes, the right interactions with W and Z bosons, all the things predicted to be found by a Higgs. What would it take for you to be convinced it's a Higgs?
VendicarE
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2013
"How many 'background fields' does it take to form a compound background "aether' which supports creation, evolution, propagation etc of all the field perturbations (like light and other energy-mass) features we call 'particles'?" - Reality Check

4 so far.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2013
Krauss: "Now that the Higgs boson has been discovered"

Hi Lawrence, do you always jump to conclusions on insufficient evidence: As far as I remember, they only discovered "hints" of the Higgs: i.e. they discovered an excitation which "might" be associated with the Higgs boson. Furthermore they still have to perform an experiment that is able to falsify the conclusion that this excitation, gives other excitations their mass-energies.

It does not auger well for the future of physics when a physicist of your standing is willing to be so sloppy in your assumptions.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2013
"Because of this phenomenon and because of what is observed in the universe, it is thought that such 'dark energy' contributes up to 70 percent of the total energy density in the universe, while observable matter contributes only 2 to 5 percent, with the remaining 25 percent or so coming from dark matter."

"Furthermore they still have to perform an experiment that is able to falsify the conclusion that this excitation, gives other excitations their mass-energies."

Johan, are you referring to the mistake in the article I've quoted above your quote? And for those above posters who don't know what I'm referring to, it's because your background in science is so weak that it will always be impossible for you to pick up on the science of Conservation of Energy, starting with the very first poster.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2013
As far as I remember, they only discovered "hints" of the Higgs

You probably missed the develpoments of last year?
https://en.wikipe...ew_boson
gopher65
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2013
...but what I'm getting at is that we have yet to prove that this new particle is actually responsible for mass as we know it...

Errr... the Higgs boson isn't responsible for mass. The Higgs field is responsible for mass. The field isn't directly detectable though, and the Higgs boson is the easiest way to indirectly detect the existence of the field.

If you're going to be "skeptical" of a discovery, read a textbook on the subject before commenting on it. Or at least skim the Wikipedia article:P. Until then, don't spew ignorance.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2013
Johan, are you referring to the mistake in the article I've quoted above your quote? And for those above posters who don't know what I'm referring to, it's because your background in science is so weak that it will always be impossible for you to pick up on the science of Conservation of Energy, starting with the very first poster.


In order to judge my competence in the Science of the Conservation of Energy, your competence must be greater than mine. Your posts are usually that of a total moron and since you are not willing to post your CV anywhere, I can only conclude that you are actually a certifiable moron. Please stop acting like a person without any integrity will act! State your competence before attacking the competence of other people!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2013
As far as I remember, they only discovered "hints" of the Higgs

You probably missed the develpoments of last year?
https://en.wikipe...ew_boson


LOL: This no better than the original BS claim! There is NO experimental PROOF whatsoever that these excitations do what the theorists are claiming. It only fits within their scheme: So did epicycles in the case of Ptolemy's model of the Universe!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2013
Errr... the Higgs boson isn't responsible for mass. The Higgs field is responsible for mass. The field isn't directly detectable though, and the Higgs boson is the easiest way to indirectly detect the existence of the field.
This is the BS we are fed with by the "particle physicists". If you cannot experimentally prove that there is a Higgs-field, then an excitation which is allocated to be a "hint" of the Higgs field is an even poorer argument that such a field exists. This is not physics!!! It is a waste of time and unfortunately also billions of dollars that could have been spent on more worthwhile projects.

If you're going to be "skeptical" of a discovery, read a textbook on the subject before commenting on it. Or at least skim the Wikipedia article:P. Until then, don't spew ignorance.
I have not found any textbook which gives experimental proof that the matter excitations observed in accelerators do what the particle theorists claim they are doing!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2013
You may not have understood this: But epicycles are a fully valid theory. They work (arguably they are a lot more elaborate than other theories) - but they give the same results as newtonian mechanics.
If a theory works and makes good predictions (and stands up to all tests) then it's not a false theory.

That you don't agree that the Higgs was found beyond reasonable doubt impresses no one (maybe yourself. But I even doubt that).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2013
You may not have understood this: But epicycles are a fully valid theory. They work (arguably they are a lot more elaborate than other theories) - but they give the same results as newtonian mechanics.
Have I claimed otherwise? You usually become pedantic in order to be a smart ass.

If a theory works and makes good predictions (and stands up to all tests) then it's not a false theory.
It is false when subsequent experimental facts prove that although it gives mathematically the same answers, it is impossible for it to model the actual physics involved. Jeesh, why do you not at least try and come out of cloud-cuckoo land?

That you don't agree that the Higgs was found beyond reasonable doubt impresses no one (maybe yourself. But I even doubt that).
Which experiment did they do to prove that the Higgs field is responsible for mass? Before this is not done to either prove or falsify this claim, the doubt must be TOTAL!
chardo137
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2013
There is new physics hinted at in the Higgs data. They expected to see the Higgs boson decay into a tau and an anti-tau pair a certain percentage of the time. Even after a dedicated search of the data not a single candidate event was found, even in the CMS data (which should have been especially sensitive to this signal). They kind of downplayed the significance of this during the official announcement on July 4, 2012. The CMS presentation said that the expected tau decay channel was detected at the 0 sigma significance level. That is shorthand for "we really looked, but we couldn't find it".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2013
There is new physics hinted at in the Higgs data. They expected to see the Higgs boson decay into a tau and an anti-tau pair a certain percentage of the time. Even after a dedicated search of the data not a single candidate event was found, even in the CMS data (which should have been especially sensitive to this signal). They kind of downplayed the significance of this during the official announcement on July 4, 2012. The CMS presentation said that the expected tau decay channel was detected at the 0 sigma significance level. That is shorthand for "we really looked, but we couldn't find it".


Somewhat like saying that when the symmetry is not there which we expect that must be there it is still there but has been "spontaneously broken". What a farce!
daywalk3r
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2013
the recently discovered Higgs boson could provide a possible "portal" that could explain some of the attributes of the enigmatic dark energy

Oh yea, so a "dark portal" now aswell... how novel ;-)

Seems like "dark Higgs" should be just around the corner, awaiting "discovery" - and all jokes aside - if some of the data doesn't fit the bill, be discovered you can bet it will! ;-D
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2013
You may not have understood this: But epicycles are a fully valid theory. They work (arguably they are a lot more elaborate than other theories) - but they give the same results as newtonian mechanics.
If a theory works and makes good predictions (and stands up to all tests) then it's not a false theory.


Descarte said something very profound on the subject of theory, I think. Paraphrasing, it's something like, "A theory need not be exactly what a philosopher would call the 'Truth' in order to be useful."

Something of that nature anyway.

Obvious example is man used fire for thousands of years, long before anyone realized fire worked by consuming oxygen to combine it with the fuel to release more energy.

However, he's an issue, the fact that epicycles actually do work, and NASA even uses them in some astrophysics when tracking asteroids and such, shows that the standard physics model of the solar system is not strictly better than other models.
IronhorseA
not rated yet Aug 10, 2013
You may not have understood this: But epicycles are a fully valid theory. ...


Actually, epicycles are a correction to a flawed model which has since been discredited (the flawed model, not the correction).
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2013
There is new physics hinted at in the Higgs data.
IMO Higgs boson provides a good confirmation of supersymmetry. The supersymmetry theory http://news.softp...51.shtml than these ones, which we are observing by now - but whole the supersymmetry theory is somewhat overparametrized and muddy, so that I can live with it.


ValeriaT: So you now call yourself Franklins, but still post the same old bullshit! LOL!
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2013
However, he's an issue, the fact that epicycles actually do work, and NASA even uses them in some astrophysics when tracking asteroids and such, shows that the standard physics model of the solar system is not strictly better than other models.


It is this bullshit that has led physics back into the dark ages of superstition. The fact that mathematics can reproduce the measured data does not mean that the postulates on which the mathematics is based is real physics! Physics requires from one to explain why a planet will rotate around its path (perform epicycles like the moon around the earth) when there is no force present that will cause this to happen. Voodoo all the way!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2013
Johan, are you referring to the mistake in the article I've quoted above your quote? And for those above posters who don't know what I'm referring to, it's because your background in science is so weak that it will always be impossible for you to pick up on the science of Conservation of Energy, starting with the very first poster.


In order to judge my competence in the Science of the Conservation of Energy, your competence must be greater than mine. Your posts are usually that of a total moron and since you are not willing to post your CV anywhere, I can only conclude that you are actually a certifiable moron. Please stop acting like a person without any integrity will act! State your competence before attacking the competence of other people!


Yep, you did, you have missed it as well, putting you in the same class as the ones you're attaching labels to......
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2013
Yep, you did, you have missed it as well, putting you in the same class as the ones you're attaching labels to......
What is your class? Obviously the brotherhood of morons. I am not attaching labels like you are. I am just asking from you to establish that you know what you are talking about. How about posting your CV like I have done? That is what any objective arbitrator would expect from you. But of course you are just a bozo-clown. Are you also hunting bosons in CERN? How pathetic!
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2013
Zeph, ya remind me of a prekindergartener playing Boccherini on a Fisher-Price Music Master. (I'm am pleased to see ya have taken time to add some new jargon to your repertoire. But ya really need to retire the water surface ripple thingy.)
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
ya really need to retire the water surface ripple thingy
Why not, if you propose more intuitive and easy to follow explanation.


The problem with that is ya are the only who finds it "intuitive and easy to follow". Not one person out all the hundreds that post here has ever offered the slightest kudos or encouragement to ya for the water ripple surface thingy. (Zephyr, Natello, Valeria, Yashi, Kron, and Teeches don't count for obvious reasons.)

Though at times it can be entertaining in a perverse sort of way.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 12, 2013
Why not, if you propose more intuitive and easy to follow explanation.

Try to understand what intuition is, where it comes from and what it's supposed to do.
Then you will quickly understand that asking for an intuitive explanation in these matters is utterly wrong.
brt
3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2013
There is new physics hinted at in the Higgs data.
IMO Higgs boson provides a good confirmation of supersymmetry. The supersymmetry theory http://news.softp...51.shtml than these ones, which we are observing by now - but whole the supersymmetry theory is somewhat overparametrized and muddy, so that I can live with it.


ValeriaT: So you now call yourself Franklins, but still post the same old bullshit! LOL!


holy shit, I agree with Johan Prins, and hell hath frozen over. That's how full of shit ValeriaT, Franklins, Teech2, is; enough to get 2 people who despise each other to fully agree on something and back each other up on it. And that's how science works. If sufficient evidence is available, then we all put our personalities aside and agree on a conclusion. In this case; ValeriaT: So you now call yourself Franklins, but still post the same old bullshit! LOL!
brt
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
Not one person out all the hundreds that post here has ever offered the slightest kudos or encouragement to ya for the water ripple surface thingy
No one of mainstream physicists expressed their support for cold fusion as well. And so? Does it mean, that the cold fusion doesn't work? You apparently don't understand, how the http://en.wikiped...gnorance works.


It's pretty obvious that you are hoping that by creating countless fake names to support your idea, then people will support you. The delusion you have is that you think it's strictly group think that is preventing people from accepting your idea. The reality is that you have no supporting math or a model to describe it, and you're basically describing a theory/model that already exists, but you do a piss poor job and give it a different name. So it wouldn't matter if you DID actually explain your idea, it already exists under a different name and has been around since the 1980s.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
you are hoping that by creating countless fake names to support your idea, then people will support your idea
It's pretty obvious, that people, who are forcing me to change my accounts hope, that the people will not recognize my ideas after then. But the ideas aren't dependent on their authors - once expressed, they're starting to live their own life. Which is for example why most of people here still call me a Zephir - despite this account is dead over two years at PhysOrg.


Who is forcing you to change your account? This is another delusion, that everyone is trying to silence you by "forcing" you to change your account.

But back to the topic that you are dodging. Why not just support the existing and well supported theory that you are plagiarizing (for lack of a better word), rather than try to pawn it off as your own? I hesitate to call it plagiarizing because that would suggest that you know the theory you're mirroring.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
I never changed my account, until this account was blocked prematurely.


Didn't ya mean postmaturely? I think the moderators have been overly tolerant.
brt
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
Here is the difference between all 'theories' that use the word Aether (ether) and all 'theories' that use the concept of Fields: Aether assumes that matter is not composed of aether but is influenced by it and exists in a 'sea' of aether. Fields assume that matter and space are composed of the same material; a field. Aether is a classical model. Quantum mechanics does not obey classical mechanics. Field theories are quantum mechanical models that accept the principle of superposition. So yes, they are very similar in the base concept, but also extremely different when it comes to which one actually works during experiments and observations of nature. That's why Aether models don't work and why scientists don't accept them; because they aren't the same and many respected physicists throughout history already went through the work of ruling out the concept of aether. Good guesses for a time before Quantum Mechanics, but not correct at the end of the day.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
Why not just support the existing and well supported theory that you are plagiarizing (for lack of a better word)
Which theory I do plagiarize (link)? Try to lie about it again...;-)

BTW Why I'm downvoted, if this theory is already "supported well"? Are http://phys.org/p...activity complete imbeciles after then?
I think the moderators have been overly tolerant.
What you think is irrelevant. We are in scientific thread, the important is, what you can prove. If I'm spreading "well supported" theory, as brt is saying, then I don't really see any problem with my activity here. You should coordinate your fallacies better, guys...;-)


You are plagiarizing the well known concept of fields. The reason why I said I hesitate to call it plagiarism for lack of a better word is because you don't know the basic math behind fields. You make the same mistake that every other delusional schizophrenic makes; you think you're a genius when you're just ignorant.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
Dense aether model was proposed with Oliver Lodge before one hundred years,,,,,,


As a means of explaining the medium through which he received messages from his deceased aunt.

(actually this idea was expressed first with Robert Hooke in 17'th century)..


Hooke also posited "the hand of God" to keep things moving through the aether.
brt
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
Quantum mechanics does not obey classical mechanics.
So how is it possible, [url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics-0729.htmlit can be modeled[/url] with classical mechanics? It uses the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics developed in 18th - 19th century. I'd rather say, it uses special perspective of classical mechanics. The purpose of AWT is to unify the physics just on background of the best known and most robust physical model we already know and which works best in real life: i.e. the classical mechanics. Not on the background of abstract and ad-hoced quantum mechanic theory, which nobody did actually see working by his naked eyes - and which has its contradicting complement in form of general relativity in addition.


It is believed by many physicists that everything in reality is an emergent property of quantum mechanics. Many classical systems use wave equations of quantum mechanics to describe their behavior.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
Newton believed in God quite firmly as well. .


He differed from Hooke, whereas Hooke thought the "hand of God" was the prime mover, Newton thought it was "Angels" keeping things from falling.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
Quantum mechanics does not obey classical mechanics.
So how is it possible, [url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics-0729.htmlit can be modeled[/url] with classical mechanics? It uses the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics developed in 18th - 19th century. I'd rather say, it uses special perspective of classical mechanics. The purpose of AWT is to unify the physics just on background of the best known and most robust physical model we already know and which works best in real life: i.e. the classical mechanics. Not on the background of abstract and ad-hoced quantum mechanic theory, which nobody did actually see working by his naked eyes - and which has its contradicting complement in form of general relativity in addition.


The purpose of Field Theory is to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; and it has already done so. The only thing left for debate is loop quantum gravity or string theory.
Q-Star
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
It is believed by many physicists that everything in reality is an emergent property of quantum mechanics. Many classical systems use wave equations of quantum mechanics to describe their behavior.


Ya and I know Maxwell's equations are part of the body of classical physics. As are Einstein's field equations. (But Zeph hasn't read that deeply, just toying with the jargon is about as far as he's gotten.)
brt
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
Newton believed in God quite firmly as well. .


He differed from Hooke, whereas Hooke thought the "hand of God" was the prime mover, Newton thought it was "Angels" keeping things from falling.


Newton also ingested mercury for its magical properties. When talking about ANY 'physicist' from over 100 years ago, you are going to encounter something crazy that they did. It all had to start somewhere. That said, Newton was by far the LEAST crazy out of everyone.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
Newton also ingested mercury for its magical properties. When talking about ANY 'physicist' from over 100 years ago, you are going to encounter something crazy that they did. It all had to start somewhere.


Ain't that the truth. That's why I find it a hoot when some people drop names & quotes as if just because "a certain person" says "so and so", it must be considered proof of correctness. The fellow who can't drive very well and Zeph are the two most prolific offenders.

brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
Quantum mechanics does not obey classical mechanics.
So how is it possible, [url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics-0729.htmlit can be modeled[/url] with classical mechanics? It uses the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics developed in 18th - 19th century. I'd rather say, it uses special perspective of classical mechanics. The purpose of AWT is to unify the physics just on background of the best known and most robust physical model we already know and which works best in real life: i.e. the classical mechanics. Not on the background of abstract and ad-hoced quantum mechanic theory, which nobody did actually see working by his naked eyes - and which has its contradicting complement in form of general relativity in addition.


Proof of your ignorance and that you have plagiarized without knowing that you have plagiarized. The classical concepts don't work on quantum objects, but quantum concepts do work on classical objects.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
The classical concepts don't work on quantum objects, but quantum concepts do work on classical objects
How can you explain, after then, physicists know about water surface analogy of double slit experiment, Hawking radiation, Zeeman effects, quantum corral, atom orbitals, etc?
you have plagiarized without knowing that you have plagiarized
It sounds like if I'm vindicated, after then? I cannot plagiarize something, if I don't know what it actually is...
Newton also ingested mercury for its magical properties
Just another claim without linked evidence. But he was certainly imbecile enough to do it. Robert Hooke would never do it.


It was actually how he died. Your ignorance continues. Providing an internet link does not prove a statement true. I can link to a website that supports Hitler's ideas on genetic cleansing; that doesn't mean he was correct. You are an idiot.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 12, 2013
And the planes heavier than air cannot fly. Why not to admit, that our understanding of Nature evolves and improves gradually?

But which should be a perfect example to you that intuition is often wrong when it is used on issues it's not suited for. And here we're even dealing with the macroscopic world of everyday experience. Think about how utterly inapplicable common sense is to QM or GR if it already falis there.

I never changed my account, until this account was blocked prematurely

And you still don't get the hint? (I'll spell it out for you: People are banned because they are not welcome/troll/break forum rules). If you can't even realize that then your common sense is in even worse shape than hitherto imaginable.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
..think about how utterly inapplicable common sense is to QM or GR if it already falis there...
In dense aether model the both quantum mechanics, both general relativity can be modeled with water surface easily. The only difference is, you should observe it with its own ripples, not with another waves (which you don't have in vacuum anyway). This is the whole obstacle in intuitive understanding of vacuum and its theories. IMO it's not extraordinarily difficult task for people, who are already capable to understand the mainstream theories of physics. And you can get many testable predictions, which these theories still don't provide. Human brain handles the hyperdimensional connections better and faster, than the strictly deterministic low dimensional theories.


Again, http://en.wikiped...ctuation , This is an old concept which you are completely ignorant of.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
In dense aether model the both quantum mechanics, both general relativity can be modeled with water surface easily.

You're not getting any results from that 'model'. It's of no use. It's like modeling the sky with crystal spheres. Beautiful, simple - but useless. "Simple" is not a figure of merit. Simple AND useful is.

IMO...

Since you've demonstrated that your opinion is already not based in any kind of common sense (much less scientific understanding or understanding what science even IS) it's pretty much inconsequential what you think.
Your brain is GIGO (with the added complication that the mechaism in between the input and the output is also garbage).

It merits its own concept: GIGPGO (garbage in, garbage processing, garbage out)

who are already capable to understand the mainstream theories of physics

Which you evidently don't. So why you would even assume that you're capable of makind such a statement is baffling.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
..think about how utterly inapplicable common sense is to QM or GR if it already falis there...
In dense aether model the both quantum mechanics, both general relativity can be modeled with water surface easily. The only difference is, you should observe it with its own ripples, not with another waves (which you don't have in vacuum anyway). This is the whole obstacle in intuitive understanding of vacuum and its theories. IMO it's not extraordinarily difficult task for people, who are already capable to understand the mainstream theories of physics. And you can get many testable predictions, which these theories still don't provide. Human brain handles the hyperdimensional connections better and faster, than the strictly deterministic low dimensional theories.


You continually show your ignorance of well established concepts. Either because you are stupid, or are too lazy to study them. My guess is that you're too cowardly to accept embarrassment & mentally ill.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
..people are banned because they are not welcome/troll/break forum rules..
Of course, no person bringing new theory to mainstream is welcomed. History already knows many examples of it. Just because we should do it, because the dismissal and negativism of mediocre people is a sign of every fundamental progress. Why do you mean, the mainstream physicists refuse the cold fusion so obstinately? Because it doesn't actually work? Just on the contrary - it brings an unwanted competition for their research. Is it so really difficult to understand it? This is simply, how the human society is working, worked and it definitely will work in future too. People simply ARE selfish assholes - it has no meaning to cover it. If I can live with it, why you cannot?


AGAIN, and as you have stated, your concept (it's not a theory) is not new in any way. You are copying and pasting older concepts.

You are projecting your own faults onto everyone else because you're embarrassingly wrong.
brt
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
..people are banned because they are not welcome/troll/break forum rules..
Of course, no person bringing new theory to mainstream is welcomed. History already knows many examples of it. Just because we should do it, because the dismissal and negativism of mediocre people is a sign of every fundamental progress. Why do you mean, the mainstream physicists refuse the cold fusion so obstinately? Because it doesn't actually work? Just on the contrary - it brings an unwanted competition for their research. Is it so really difficult to understand it? This is simply, how the human society is working, worked and it definitely will work in future too. People simply ARE selfish assholes - it has no meaning to cover it. If I can live with it, why you cannot?


There is already competition, how would you be any different? In fact, I'm pretty sure they would prefer you over the current competition because they could easily prove that you're a crackpot.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
..because you're embarrassingly wrong...
This is just the stuff, which you're supposed to prove, or you'll end like the priests, who attempted to silence Mr. Galileo. Why I'm wrong, when we are finding http://web.mit.ed...729.html of the water surface with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Isn't it just the evidence of my claims?


I already explained why you are incorrect several times above. More accurately, I explained why physicists use field theory rather than aether. The problem you have is that you are arrogant and refuse to accept that you are wrong. That's your problem. That's why you should be embarrassed, because you're not even smart enough to admit when you're wrong or that you don't understand the mathematics behind fields, or that a better version of your "theory" has existed for longer than you've probably been alive. You are an annoying troll, that's what we take offense to.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
..because you're embarrassingly wrong...
This is just the stuff, which you're supposed to prove, or you'll end like the priests, who attempted to silence Mr. Galileo. Why I'm wrong, when we are finding http://web.mit.ed...729.html of the water surface with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Isn't it just the evidence of my claims?


You act like a bratty child. You are late, it has already been done, and to a much more detailed extent...with observable proof. You simply live in a fantasy world to protect your ego from finding out just how ignorant you are. I can't say it enough and you won't accept the facts or even attempt to look them up, so there's no point in continuing. Someone beat you to the finish line, period. Your work is not original and you still don't understand the fundamental concept. Accept it and change that or continue living in a pathetic fantasy world.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2013
because you're not even smart enough to admit when you're wrong
LOL, isn't it somewhat embarrassing for you to repeat I'm wrong ad nauseum without single reason and/or explanation? And to demonstrate repeatedly in this way, you actually have absolutely no matter-of fact argument against me? Isn't it already evident for you, you're just serving as a source of big fun for me?


I've given you several reasons and you refuse to accept them because you're a brat and you're delusional. If you actually read them and accepted them as a possible fact, then it would crush you and you would have to accept whatever sad reality it is that you live. I think it's evident that you're such a loser in life that you must create this grandiose fantasy where you are just an unknown genius rather than an mentally ill dim-wit who refuses to accept facts. The end.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2013
Of course, no person bringing new theory to mainstream is welcomed.

But that's not really the reason why you are banned (there are others here that claim to have 'unwelcome' theories). Notice how these people DON'T get banned but you do get banned repeatedly and constantly?

You get banned because you're a troll. You add your theories to every comment section - whether it fits the content of the article or not. That is trolling - plain and simple.
Trolling is against forum gudelines. If there's ever an article about AWT or cold fusion or chemtrails or transparent Martians then you're certainly free to expound on those issues at great length in the appropriate comment sections.

But in any other article (as in this one): you're a troll. And trolls need to be banned.
That trolls don't see it that way is understandable. But it only further demonstrates your lack of common sense.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
I've given you several reasons
Yep - you told repeatedly, I'm wrong, I'm ignorant, I'm silly, I'm arrogant, I'm not original and I don't understand the fundamental concepts. Just wake me, when you bring up something really new and substantial. And don't forget to address the dense aether model during it - not me. My person is not important here at all. Or do you believe, that something with general relativity would change, if something with Einstein reputation would change in the past or future?


I've told you the difference between field theory and aether. I've showed you that you're literally ignorant of concepts, vacuum flux, & history. If you wanted to really be correct, then you would take 30 minutes to search these well known topics on the internet; but you don't, you want fame.

Do you know what ignorant means? It means you can't paint a shittier copy of the Mona Lisa and then claim to be the original creator of the Mona Lisa. That's why you're an idiot.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2013
You add your theories to every comment section - whether it fits the content of the article or not
It's not true - until the aether model has a good connection to subject.


Pssst, Zephyr,,,,,, Do ya forget the AWT related comment on the article about earthquakes? Or the AWT comment to the article about genetic diversity and evolution? Or the article about Obama's trouble with the Tea Party? On those I took the time to compliment ya on just how all-encompassing the AWT was.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
I've given you several reasons
Yep - you told repeatedly, I'm wrong, I'm ignorant, I'm silly, I'm arrogant, I'm not original and I don't understand the fundamental concepts. Just wake me, when you bring up something really new and substantial. And don't forget to address the dense aether model during it - not me. My person is not important here at all. Or do you believe, that something with general relativity would change, if something with Einstein reputation would change in the past or future?


I have to address you because you will not accept any facts that do not agree with your views. There is no evidence that I can present to you if you aren't willing to read it or if you'll automatically disregard everything that doesn't agree with your warped views. You are the reason why you are wrong. You're personality disorder is the issue. The facts are abundantly clear and so is your rejection of them no matter how they are presented or what links are given. It's sad.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
..you're personality disorder is the issue..
And you still don't know, I used to eat little kitten - yes, alive, when nobody was watching. But I still don't understand, how it could falsify the dense aether model? At least remotely?


It's not necessarily that you are falsifying it, it's that something extremely similar exists. The difference being that the other concept (which is extremely similar) has fixed all the problems with aether models and made them compatible with observations in nature. The predictions and experiments based on aether were proven incorrect time and time again. You just don't realize how many people have made the exact same claim you're making over the exact same idea; the problem that all of you who make this claim have is that a more evolved and tested theory (modified from the centuries old concept of aether) exists and is the most successful theory in the history of physics.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2013
..you're personality disorder is the issue..
And you still don't know, I used to eat little kitten - yes, alive, when nobody was watching. But I still don't understand, how it could falsify the dense aether model? At least remotely?


What is annoying is that you haven't taken the time to research the concept of field theory. The reason why there are countless assholes such as yourself is because it is not a well known theory outside of the physics community, but it is widely accepted. http://en.wikiped...physics) It is a very fundamental concept that so many amateurs propose as this major breakthrough that is overlooked by the evil physicists out to steal your corrupt government's money (oh noes!). But that is simply the view of someone who has no idea what they are talking about. The exact opposite is true, yet you and so many others spam physics websites with this http://en.wikiped...gnorance
brt
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2013
To say that aether is correct shows an absence of knowledge about aether, field theory, the history of physics, and modern physics. Its typical for someone who doesn't understand basic concepts in physics to continuously come back to aether because modern physics has worked out every single detail so well that it does take a lot of effort to understand. When the modern concept of field theory went through its long period of being tested, it became stronger because physicists found solutions to the problems pointed out over close to 200 years. Every time someone came up with a problem that caused field theory to fail, a solution was found. Over time, those problems became more and more detailed. A unifying theory has to cover all of reality, and there is a lot of math covered in all of reality, all math actually because math is a product of reality. If you don't know the basics, and AWT misses basic laws of nature, then it is wrong. If it doesn't fulfill the claim, then it's wrong.
no fate
not rated yet Aug 12, 2013
"A unifying theory has to cover all of reality, and there is a lot of math covered in all of reality, all math actually because math is a product of reality."

"The fact that mathematics can reproduce the measured data does not mean that the postulates on which the mathematics is based is real physics!"

Absolute truth in both of the above quotes....and possibly this one:

"holy shit, I agree with Johan Prins, and hell hath frozen over."

"It is believed by many physicists that everything in reality is an emergent property of quantum mechanics. Many classical systems use wave equations of quantum mechanics to describe their behavior."

My favorite from the comments section, to think otherwise is absurd.

"new scalar fields which may operate at these scales."
"120 orders of magnitude less than would be expected".

Flux field.

DarkHorse66
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
..people are banned because they are not welcome/troll/break forum rules..
Of course, no person bringing new theory to mainstream is welcomed.

Directly from the comment guidelines:
http://phys.org/help/comments/
"Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience). " & "Comments that will be deleted include:

spam;
promotion of services, publications or work unless it is relevant to the post;
abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone;
off topic ramblings, rants, or pointless verbiage;
political and religious discussions;
pseudoscience theories.
From the provided link: http://en.wikiped...oscience
You are unpublished. You are pushing a private theory as if it were already accepted by science. How does this make you not in breach of the rules?
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
You wonder and complain about other people downvoting and reporting you and put it down to bad sportsmanship. Are you so sure that this what it really is? The sad part is that when you aren't promoting waterripples or AWT and happen to make a genuine contribution, you can actually come across as relatively reasonable and acceptable. Unfortunately that happens all too rarely (on those rare occasions, I have even upvoted in approval) and I haven't seen that for quite a while. The rules are quite clear, yet you repeatedly deny that you are in breach.
So could you please explain HOW/WHY YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE JUSTIFIED , AND NOT BREACHING THE COMMENT GUIDELINES OR VIOLATING THE TERMS OF USE?
I think that it is a safe bet that I am not the only one curious about this!
DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
What brt has said to you is not really my concern. That is something that you will need to argue with him. The only issue that I will adress with that, is your assertion that 'dense aether' is
...well accepted ideas already...
They might have been accepted around the time of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, but that same experiement caused the belief in aether to be scrapped as a part of accepted physics. It doesn't matter who invented it. That does not make it legitimate. It might have been more appropriate to say "well KNOWN" instead. The other problem that I see here, is that you do more than 'just' explain concepts. You have used such words as 'in my theory' & phrased your posts to make it very clear that certain ideas were all yours. Oliver Lodge died in 1940 (at the ripe old age of 90) http://en.wikiped...er_Lodge , well before many of these concepts were thought of & physics not as advanced as it is now. That means that you cannot assume...cont
DarkHorse66
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2013
cont...that he would have continued to believe in his theories, as the scope of knowledge and concepts grew and evolved over many following decades. And that is assuming that he was able to adapt. He was a product of his time. Even Einstein had trouble coping with the then emerging physics of quantum theory http://en.wikiped...Einstein (He died even later, in 1955.) His favourite saying was "God does not play dice". Ultimately he could not adapt. But that does not mean that we shouldn't believe in quantum physics either, just as we shouldn't believe in an ether theory, just because somebody refused to give up believing in it. Now, we take the existence of quantum theory for granted, as an integral part of the bigger picture. As far as intuitive explanations; it is bad practice to make that the reason for using outdated/refuted theories to explain stuff. You might think that you are explaining, but the other person does not accept it, because your theories are deemed..
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
...not to be with real, accepted substance. The next thought will be: if the theories he is relying on, are discredited, then the explanation is worth no more than the theory. Then that becomes a waste of everyone's time. You are mistaken if you think that it is about concepts having 'no content' for most readers. It is more about the basis for your arguments. Although, yes, some things are counter-intuitive in physics, there is plenty that is more than intuitive enough. Unfortunately, how intuitive one feels that something might be, is dependent on how well one has actually understood it and the concepts used, in the first place. Sometimes it is more important to be credible and correct, than merely 'intuitive'.
Regards, DH66
brt
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2013
This is what I mean when I say that you are the problem Zeph. DH66 is trying to explain it to you but you don't like what he's saying, so you plug your ears and keep chanting your pet theory as though you are performing an exorcism or trying to cast a spell to bring it to life.

You can't be reasoned with and you won't engage in a debate without cherry picking words, distorting the comments of your opponents, and telling lies in order to try to veer off topic to avoid addressing any real issues or questions. It's all there for people to see; you can't lie about and really expect people to believe you when it's right there for everyone to see exactly what was said. The reason you use this tactic is because you think it saves you from the truth: that you are spamming this website with your own pet theory, that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you're personal theory is incorrect.
brt
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2013
Every theory, law, idea, and concept is presented with criticism (whether constructive or harsh disagreement). How the author deals with that criticism plays a major role in whether or not it is accepted. Einstein addressed criticism WITH FACTS and waited 20 years for his ideas to be accepted. It's not just that many of us don't agree with you, it's that when we try to engage you, you resort to the tactics of a person who is obviously wrong. Tactics which are usually incorporated by people who are unable to accept fault no matter how definitive the evidence is; politicians, children. You could have this type of person on camera, stealing a purse out of a car, while showing their driver's license next to their face, with a blood sample; and they would still say that they didn't do it.

If you feel that we are being unfair to you or that we refuse to listen, then you either need to change your method of communication to better work with others, or leave and try it somewhere else.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2013
If you feel that we are being unfair to you or that we refuse to listen, then you either need to change your method of communication to better work with others, or leave and try it somewhere else.

Unfortunately, I doubt that he will take your or anybody elses advice on that either. If you google 'Zephir' or 'AWT', you will find multiple sites that have actually banned him for continuing to push his personal theories. Those threads have tended to have been shunted to the 'bin' sections of those sites. That is probably why he came here in the first place. Even while playing the 'innocent' card, he knows exactly what he is doing. But he doesn't care. Sad.
Regards, DH66
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2013
he knows exactly what he is doing. But he doesn't care

What I know is, you're permanently OT here with your attacks of another readers


Since you already jumped over to other topics to continue your trolling I'd say he's spot on in his analysis of your - for want of a better term - mind. And it is also pretty apparent that you NEED someone to tell you these things - as you're unable to get the message yourself.

I, for my part, will start hitting the 'report' button at the first sign of AWT, cold fusion, etc. if it isn't EXACTLY on topic. I hope your fingers will start bleeding from having to re-register on a constant basis

And since you're unable to get the hint about what "being banned" means. Here's a translation: "Get out and STAY out".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
So I can report you without any moral problem too.

Please do - when I'm off topic.

After all, most of your accounts were already banned from PO already

Bzzt. Wrong.
I haven't had any account banned on any forum I've ever been. (And I've been on internet fora since I was a teen.)

(I had a second account a couple years back on PO, since I once forgot my password and made one under the name "antialias" - But have never used two accounts at the same time. And it's not like I'd be trying to dissimulate with "antialias" and "antialias_physorg" - is it?)
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2013
Just in case anybody is misled by the following from 'Teech'
you resort to the tactics of a person who is obviously wrong
The word "obviously" appears very often in your labeling - but I still don't see any matter of fact argument, why my explanations are wrong. The stories about driver's license and cars apparently don't apply to physics, so you're off-topic here.
he knows exactly what he is doing.But he doesn't care
What I know is, you're permanently OT here with your attacks of another readers.Just keep the physics, this is not Facebook or any other social club.
He does not name whom he is responding to.Going by the 1st quote, it's to brt, however he is (mis)using a snippet from MY post for his 2nd quote.It is giving the appearance that he is accusing ME of mounting OTattacks. Unfortunately it's only possible to work out that he is still adressing brt in his ripost to it.That's dishonest!Attribute quotes PROPERLY or don't use them!Or write your own words!DH66
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
Dark energy doesn't exist,Einstein equations are wrong.

Antonio Jose Saraiva
brt
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2013
you resort to the tactics of a person who is obviously wrong
The word "obviously" appears very often in your labeling - but I still don't see any matter of fact argument, why my explanations are wrong. The stories about driver's license and cars apparently don't apply to physics, so you're off-topic here.
he knows exactly what he is doing. But he doesn't care
What I know is, you're permanently OT here with your attacks of another readers. Just keep the physics, this is not Facebook or any other social club.


This is what I mean when I say you have some sort of mental illness. Just keep covering your eyes and pretending like the other 20 posts above that explain it in detail with provided links don't exist. This is exactly what I mean in my previous comments and this is why I'm not attacking you, you're actually a pathetic, trolling, delusional, man-child; and that's a fact supported by your comments. Anyone would have trouble accepting that truth: understandable
brt
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2013
if it isn't EXACTLY on topic
In this thread it's just me, who is on topic. I'm just dealing with physical explanation of this study. Everything else in this thread is an informational noise, not to say, it involves personal attacks. So I can report you without any moral problem too. After all, most of your accounts were already banned from PO already too from various reasons. Now, you were reported multiple times for personal attacks and off-topic comments.


When you go off topic, it causes others to address you and why they disagree with you or would like you to stop. You're being a bitchy little baby and continuing to lie. Please educate yourself with this http://en.wikiped...Delusion