Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

Oct 22, 2013 by Lisa Zyga feature
Simulated production of a Higgs event in ATLAS. Credit: CERN

(Phys.org) —The recently discovered Higgs boson is best known for its important role in explaining particle mass. But now some physicists are wondering if the Higgs could have played an equally significant role in generating dark matter and baryonic matter in the early Universe, as well as causing the hypothetical dark matter asymmetry and the observed baryon asymmetry between matter and antimatter particles.

In a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Géraldine Servant at CERN, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and CEA Saclay in France, and Sean Tulin at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, call this theoretical scenario "Higgsogenesis."

"With the Higgs discovery, the final piece of the Standard Model of particle physics has been put into place," Servant told Phys.org. "Now, it is a natural question to ask: could the Higgs boson have been important in the early Universe to help explain two observational puzzles that the Standard Model cannot: the origin of dark matter and the matter-antimatter asymmetry? In the very early Universe, the Higgs particle was distinct from its antiparticle. We show that an asymmetry between Higgs and anti-Higgs might have been the missing link connecting the densities of visible and dark matter, which observationally are quite similar."

This Higgs could have provided the missing link in one of two ways. One possibility is that, if there were a dark matter asymmetry in the early Universe, then this asymmetry could have transferred to an asymmetry between the Higgs and the anti-Higgs, which then could have transferred to a baryon asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Another possibility is that this sequence could have happened in reverse, where a baryon asymmetry first transferred to a Higgs asymmetry, which then transferred to a dark matter asymmetry.

In both cases, the Higgs provides a "portal" through which asymmetries can flow from the dark sector to the visible sector or vice versa. In these scenarios, dark matter would have an asymmetry just like baryonic matter. The physicists proposed two new fermions that couple to the Higgs boson that could have mediated the asymmetry transfers.

"Our mechanism relies on the existence of an interaction between the Higgs field and the dark sector, which is a natural assumption in many extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics," Tulin said. "The novelty of our work is to investigate the role of the Higgs in transferring matter asymmetries between the dark and visible sectors. It offers new opportunities for baryogenesis and dark matter generation."

In fact, previous research has shown that the Higgs boson may play a role in electroweak baryogenesis and leptogenesis, both of which describe asymmetries in the early Universe.

Future experiments may be able to test these proposals. For instance, physicists could investigate Higgs decays at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In these decays, the proposed fermions may escape as missing energy that could be detected.

"For Higgsogenesis to work, there must be new particles that interact through the weak force," Servant said. "Actually, new weakly interacting particles are not unique to Higgsogenesis, but are part of many different new physics models, and the LHC is actively searching for them. A second prediction is that the Higgs boson can decay invisibly to particles, and again the LHC is looking for this signature as well."

Explore further: Nobel physics laureate Higgs 'overwhelmed' (Update)

More information: Géraldine Servant and Sean Tulin. "Baryogenesis and Dark Matter through a Higgs Asymmetry." PRL 111, 151601 (2013). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.151601

Related Stories

Nobel physics laureate Higgs 'overwhelmed' (Update)

Oct 08, 2013

British scientist Peter Higgs said he was "overwhelmed" after he and Belgium's Francois Englert were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday for their work on the Higgs Boson particle. ...

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 ...

'God Particle' Nobel ticks boson box for CERN

Oct 08, 2013

The reflected glory of a Nobel prize for the minds behind the "God particle" sent champagne corks popping at Europe's top physics lab CERN Tuesday, vindicating its landmark discovery a year ago.

The Higgs boson: One year on

Jul 05, 2013

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

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

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

10 hours ago

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

Apr 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (32) Oct 22, 2013
Gives new meaning to the "god particle". Lotsa "faith" in "science" these days!
Fisty_McBeefpunch
1.3 / 5 (18) Oct 22, 2013
Is this just a variation on CP violation?
TopherTO
4.6 / 5 (20) Oct 22, 2013
Are all these dense aether model comments just cut and pasted into every article the mentions Higgs or dark matter?

We get it, you disagree. Can you present your opinion more succinctly....or if not, than don't present it at all in the comment section
barakn
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 22, 2013
Gives new meaning to the "god particle". Lotsa "faith" in "science" these days! -cantdrivel85

Nowhere did they say they believed this to be the correct scenario. This is simply another hypothesis which can be compared to observation. This is in marked contrast to EU, which doesn't make quantifiable predictions and therefore can't be compared to observation. You still believe in it, though, so that makes you the religious nut.
scottfos
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 22, 2013
Gives new meaning to the "god particle". Lotsa "faith" in "science" these days! -cantdrivel85

Nowhere did they say they believed this to be the correct scenario. This is simply another hypothesis which can be compared to observation. This is in marked contrast to EU, which doesn't make quantifiable predictions and therefore can't be compared to observation. You still believe in it, though, so that makes you the religious nut.

i actually think you have it backwards: it's not that belief in EU makes them similar to relgious nuts - no, they ARE religious nuts who cannot bring themselves to believe in the (non-fundie, in their eyes, i still don't understand why) big bang, and therefore in a quest for a steady-state solution that feeds their preconceived religions notions they landed on plasma/EU/AWT/etc. subtle but important difference, and it makes it easier to understand em when viewed this way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2013
Are all these dense aether model comments just cut and pasted into every article the mentions Higgs or dark matter?

We get it, you disagree. Can you present your opinion more succinctly....or if not, than don't present it at all in the comment section
I wonder if anybody ever reads them. Ive never seen any meaningful discussion about their content, only their presence.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (21) Oct 22, 2013
I wonder if anybody ever reads them. Ive never seen any meaningful discussion about their content, only their presence.


I read them when I first came to this site. then i asked some questions and asked for proof ... and the more i asked, the more they cut-and-paste... they offered NO evidence of any kind, but ramblings and double-talk and argued with their links to crazy sh*t .... i learned quickly to just ignore them ...
LarryD
1 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2013
From what I have been reading recently so called 'resurrected' AT there seems to be 2 main types and so far, for me that is, both have serious faults. But I'm still reading (but only out of interest) so that can have a better appreciation of where my own thoughts lay. So, TheGhostofOtto1923, I'll comment later…but like you say maybe no one will read it ha!
LarryD
1 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2013
In brief, this article says, that the matter - antimatter asymmetry could be explained with Higgs - antiHiggs asymmetry - which isn't really an explanation, just a delaying the final answer. But my deeper problem with antiHiggs is, that the Higgs boson isn't supposed to have some antiparticle, being a scalar boson. Even if it could have it, we still didn't observe any antiHiggs. So, what this article is actually talking about?

As far I am layman I would agree with this but modern terminology doesn't make it easy. The Higgs Boson is listed as being its own anti-particle, and shown in diagrams as being such. But if identical anti-particles meet...and I assume the Higgs is identical with 'itself'... then...Okay I don't want to insult you by going on.The math doesn't seem to support this idea so I conclude that my interpretation of 'anti-particle' is wrong. Only the W Boson is + or -.
SUSY lists 'superpartners' but then the article doesn't mention SUSY.
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 23, 2013
Re: "This is in marked contrast to EU, which doesn't make quantifiable predictions and therefore can't be compared to observation."

That's an incredibly biased portrayal of the debate. The quantified models that are being pointed to as superior are filled with inferred constructs. The baryonic matter is apparently only around 4% the total. And as for that which dominates the baryonic matter -- the cosmic plasma -- the models are widely applied to circumstances for which they are not applicable, and their creator has basically recused himself from the way in which they are being used.

If what you mentioned was the whole story, I'd agree with you. These other circumstances, however, should induce some skepticism of the textbook story. What I think happens is that when people don't fully understand something, they tend to defer to authority. That probably works for most of science, but not when the textbooks are only covering half of what you need to know.
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2013
We saw this quantification argument made on the two flashes observed by Deep Impact at Tempel 1 too. It's not clear to me if anybody in the world knew how to quantify those two flashes at that time. Wal is suggesting that Tempel 1's charge density adjusts to its surrounding space. How would anybody actually know how much charge was supposed to be on Tempel 1 when that first of the two flashes -- the charge-neutralizer -- occurred? Perhaps I'm missing something, but we should all probably be wise to the danger of favoring what could really just be unfounded guesses. Sounds like another example of experimenter's regress to me ...

The fact remains that Wal was the only theorist predicting two distinct flashes, and that is because the charge neutralization should precede impact ... Right? This is really an either-or scenario: Either it happens or it does not. Nobody actually disputes that two flashes occurred, so why did it happen?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2013
I think that much is lost when we view science as a system of equations. The concepts and the relationships between the concepts are more fundamental. And if you don't attach the formulary to these systems of concepts, you'll never succeed at effectively questioning the models such that you can make a meaningful judgment for one model over another. At the end of the day, a human makes a decision about what to put into the model based upon concepts and propositions of concepts -- and he then chooses the mathematics to make it happen. Mathematics may be the language of nature, but concepts are the language of humans.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2013
There is just no Dark Matter or Dark Energy but aether. How could they introduce Dark Matter & Dark Energy under a paradigm where space is presumed to be vacuum containing nothing. Higgs field is the imaginary castle in the air and CERN has fudged experimental observation to conclude detection of Higgs Boson. Mass/inertia is actually because of electromagnetic interaction of matter with aether whereas physicists have been making all sorts of manipulations since more than a century. Newton & Einstein had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute and filled up with aether, the electric dipoles, and it is aether through which forces of nature are transmitted as against the irrational action at a distance through fields without knowing the physicality of the fields, time is emergent & relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. (This alternative paradigm reveals that there is very powerful God who has power on matter & time and everything existing in the finite space and existence of God is the prerequisite for the creation & existence of universe ).
In brief the scenario is as under
Aristotle:- Space- absolute & finite; time- absolute, matter-absolute, light/radiation- not properly known

Newton:- Space, time & matter same as Aristotle; light a wave-motion with corpuscular theory

Einstein:- Space- interconnected with time & emergent, Time-emergen & interconnected with space & relative, matter & Energy (light/radiation) is absolute & transmutable and light/radiation as wave-motion with no clue as to what is light/radiation physically.

Final state of existence:- Space-absolute & finite, time- emergent & relative depending on the motion of the observer/body with respect to aether at rest frame of reference, matter-emergent & finite, light/radiation- a electromagnetic disturbance of electric dipoles of aether creating a wave motion and all forces of nature being
electromagnetic forces which is being transmitted through aether, the electric dipoles.

Following is the list of my published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals & sites where these articles are available
1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe
2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment
4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
6.Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology
7. Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life
These publications are available at the journal site of Indian Journal
of Science & Technology (a peer-reviewed journal) www.indjst.org
(March 2012,oct 2010, oct 2011,Aug 2010) and also on www.gsjournal.net, www.worldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives, ResearchGate & Academia.edu in my profile.
On the basis of above-mentioned articles an open challenge has been put forward to the adopted paradigm of physics. The standing (till date) open challenge could seen at
http://www.worlds...mp;tab=2
and
http://www.gsjour...ew/4018.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (18) Oct 23, 2013
Nobel Committee A Big Joke
"I fail to understand how the Nobel Prize in physics 2013 was announced on the basis of the paradigm which is under standing open challenge. It is painful to see that Nobel Committee upholds the paradigm of physics which has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally shown to be fundamentally incorrect. Standing open challenge could be seen at World Science Database & General Science Journal in my profile at http://www.worlds...mp;tab=2 and http://gsjournal....ew/4018"
I agree with Mohammad Khan that the award of the Nobel Prize for the theory of the Higgs boson is unjustified. The Higgs apparition is alleged to be composite, made up of 'higgsinos'. This is all nonsense. (Steve Crothers)
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (17) Oct 23, 2013
The existence of aether concept doesn't exclude the existence of dark matter, energy, Higgs field or let say photons or electrons. These all are observational artifacts, which the aether model is just supposed to explain. My largest problem with aether model is, its existing proponents are inherently silly if not downright dull (and the arguments of their opponents are corresponding)
The very Michelson-Morley Experiment which was the basis of rejecting the existence of aether has been shown to be proof of existence of aether in the article "Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment". Read the article on Indian Journal of Science & Technology (a peer-reviewed journal) at www.indjst.org Oct 2011 Issue. Here is the link http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2879 (open it at s.no.25) and see for yourself, how, why and what errors were committed to misinterpret the experiment.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2013
The dense aether model actually predicts the negative result of M-M experiment, so there is nothing to correct. Try to read http://aetherwave...ce.html.

That is exactly what I have shown in my published article. The articles in fact shows what errors were committed to conclude the absence of aether from M-M Expt.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2013
Dueling aethern(a)uts. How droll. Something tells me you are talking about 2 entirely different things, both of which are crap. How would I know? It will be in the paper I intend to publish one day. But we must accept that conclusions drawn about unfalsifiable crap are themselves unfalsifiable. But this does not mean they are any less valid. Or more I suppose.
LarryD
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2013
mohammadshafiq_khan_1, if you are going to quote history then GET IT RIGHT! You claim others 'fudge' data to make a conclusion yet you are using only those parts of history that suit your case.
Aristotle (Physica) only believed in four elements and suggested a fifth. Was he right?
Although Aristotle concluded from arguments that '...there no body which is actually infinite.' he didn't stop there. He also stated that if one accepts that, it leads to ...'many impossble consequences.' and that Time was one of those. He goes on to say that '...The infinite exhibits itself in different ways-in time,....'
You should read why Aristotle concluded '...time is continuous...' and understand Aristotle's context. Ha, the translation also uses the word '...relative to...' several times!
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2013
@TheGhostofotto
You have realize the situation that the very adopted paradigm of physics could be based on Crackpot theory. Since adopted paradigm of physics is also based on a theory like any other theory; the same could be also wrong. Actually the secret that Einstein was the greatest scientific trickster ever has been revealed through published scientific research articles. Since you consider it as crap why you should not accept the standing (till date) open challenge could seen at
http://www.worlds...mp;tab=2
and
http://www.gsjour...iew/4018
and without indulging in senseless arguments publish the rebuttal article and you are at liberty to take assistance from all the physicists of the world.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2013
@LarryD You are mixing up space with time. Aristotle's perspective was finite & absolute space and Aristotle perspective of time was that it is absolute (which means that time was always there and time will be always there) and this perspective continued through Newton till 1905. If you have any doubts read Alghazali's 'Incoherence of Philosophers' wherein the issue is threadbare discussed and rationally proved incorrect.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2013
Teech2 Maxwell's luminiferrous aether/plasma failed mathematically because he could not visualize that time could be relative as he had adopted the absolute time of Aristotle & Newton. Read my articles carefully. Gravitational lensing is because of displacement of aether by the body. The whole history of what wrong has happened is given in my published articles.
LarryD
4 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2013
@LarryD You are mixing up space with time. Aristotle's perspective was finite & absolute space and Aristotle perspective of time was that it is absolute (which means that time was always there and time will be always there) and this perspective continued through Newton till 1905. If you have any doubts read Alghazali's 'Incoherence of Philosophers' wherein the issue is threadbare discussed and rationally proved incorrect.

Wrong! Go and read Aristotle's own works not the works of some interpretation of what Aristotle meant!
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2013
LarryD
Do you know the meaning of absolute time. Check it up. Where did Aristotle mention that time could be emergent. Read again Aristotle you will find Aristotle believed in absolute matter & time and finite & absolute space.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2013
Here is the standing open challenge

Open Challenge
The article 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is based on trickeries is proved beyond any doubt whatsoever in the articles (1). Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe published in the peer-reviewed journal namely Indian Journal of Science & Technology (March 2012 issue) available on www.indjst.org (2) On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies By Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (Open letter to Professors, Teachers, Researchers and Students of Physics) published in peer-reviewed journal Elixir Online Journal (February 2012 issue) available on www.elixirjournal.org. The Voigt transformation was simply a mathematica
Moebius
1 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2013
"With the Higgs discovery, the final piece of the Standard Model of particle physics has been put into place," Servant told Phys.org. "Now it's a natural question to ask what other pieces are missing."
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2013
@ Moebius
There is just no Dark Matter or Dark Energy but aether. How could they introduce Dark Matter & Dark Energy under a paradigm where space is presumed to be vacuum containing nothing. Higgs field is the imaginary castle in the air and CERN has fudged experimental observation to conclude detection of Higgs Boson. Standard Model of Particle Physics is based on Big Bang paradigm but when space is proved as absolute then Big Bang paradigm simply fails and so does the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2013
DM and DE are only useful for failed theories which need to be saved with ad hoc additions.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2013
Either there is aether or it should be vacuum containing nothing because GR being the basis of Cosmological Model presumes that space is just vacuum. Newton & Einstein had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute and filled up with aether, the electric dipoles, and it is aether through which forces of nature are transmitted as against the irrational action at a distance through fields without knowing the physicality of the fields, time is emergent & relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. (This alternative paradigm reveals that there is very powerful God who has power on matter & time and everything existing in the finite space and existence of God is the prerequisite for the creation & existence of universe
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2013
@ mohammadshafiq_khan_1

I have an open challenge for ya. Would ya care to explain this in layman's terms?

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2013
@ Anyone

For some good big fun, take a peek at this gem. Mr. Khan has been banned on more sites then Zephyr has.

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

Now he is going to try sell his crackpottery under another name,,,, I wonder how much trouble it is to change the name on all those "peer reviewed" articles?

Naaa, it's easier just pretend that only one or at most two people would think a fake letter from Dr. Hawking would subtract from your creditability.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2013
Q-Star
Please ask Hawking, Krauss, Tyson, Michio and whole of NASA & CERN to produce the rebuttal of my articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward. I would like to keep you informed that the open challenge has been sent to almost all professors of physics & universities of the world and so far two retired professors of physics namely Jeremy Dunning-Davies of Hull University & Brian Cole of Columbia University accepted the challenge but both of them finally failed to show a single error in the articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward. In this regard exchange of articles between me & Jeremy is available at vixra, General Science Journal & Elixir Online Journal.
Now every concerned physicist of the world is in total knowledge of the standing open challenge and they also know that they can do nothing about it technically & scientifically.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2013
Q-Star
Please ask Hawking, Krauss, Tyson, Michio and whole of NASA & CERN to produce the rebuttal of my articles on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward..


No, I'm challenging ya to tell us about the letter that Dr Hawking sent ya telling ya how ya opened his eyes to truth and the errors of his thinking.

Why would any of those people take the time to rebut a "challenge" from a crank? Ya realize those people get literally HUNDREDS of crank challenges every week? If they responded to them they wouldn't have any time to do real science.
LarryD
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2013
Please Q-Star, Franklins hope you can enlighten me. I keep reading post's that mention '...the dense aether model...' does 'dense' here refer to all models or is the DAM another type of ether theory as opposed to say, AT,QAT,AWT? The net doesn't seem to respond specifically to a Dense ether model. Does DAM have a greater drag factor than the others?
Although I had heard of Oliver Lodge, must admit I didn't know much other than bits here and there. I see on Wiki the quote that
'...Lodge came to believe that the spirit world existed in the ether...'
That's a new one on me! Do you know others that believe similarly?
Would appreciate any help you can offer...I'm just curious, that's all. Don't rush though ha ha I'm offline for most of today
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2013
Those of you who are writing embarrassing comments to one another please note that those who believe the adopted paradigm of physics is correct should rather divert their energies for producing the rebuttal article to the articles on the basis of which standing open challenge which could be seen at http://www.worlds...mp;tab=2
and
http://www.gsjour...ew/4018.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2013
Franklins, thank you.
LarryD
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2013
@ mohammadshafiq_khan_1

I have an open challenge for ya. Would ya care to explain this in layman's terms?

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

I'm sure mohammadshafiq_khan_1 deserves 10/10 for something, just can't think what it is Ha!
But who am I to talk, you guys would think I'm a crackpot too if you knew what I had published about 'synchronicities'...it wasn't religious and no I'm not advertising. Seems to me that mohammadshafiq_khan_1 give crackpots like me a bad name. Oh well...
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2013
Please ask Hawking, Krauss, Tyson, Michio and whole of NASA & CERN to produce the rebuttal of my articles


The answer why this isn't happening you can find in this video (if you're impatient skip to the 9 minute mark, but the entire thing is relevant to your misconceptions about science.)

http://www.geek.c...1488517/

Cranks aren't heard not because no one wants to hear them. Cranks aren't heard because their science is bad (if it's science at all). That they can't see the fault in their own work is a pity (but otherwise they wouldn't champion it, so there's no easy 'out' there).
It's just like kids stating that "magic is true" (or adults that "gods exist"). There's no way to dissuade them from that belief because the capacity for understanding is missing.

This is something no one wants to acknowledge of themselves - so rather they turn to conspiracy theories of being 'snubbed by science'.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2013
should rather divert their energies for producing the rebuttal article to the articles on the basis of which standing open challenge


Okay, I'll give it go and rebut your challenge. Here is my rebuttal and I await your response with bated breath.

It takes only 5 minutes of reading to show the flaws in your theory. So here's my answer to your challenge.

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2013
There are many idiots & lunatics making all sorts of comments here but they should know that no Tom, Dick & Harry has any right to set aside the findings of research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The very well known & universally accepted scientific procedure of setting aside such scientific findings is production of rebuttal article & publication of the same in any peer-reviewed journal. So anonymous Tom, Dick & Harry should keep their senseless comments in their brainless head.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2013
should rather divert their energies for producing the rebuttal article to the articles on the basis of which standing open challenge


Okay, I'll give it go and rebut your challenge. Here is my rebuttal and I await your response with bated breath.

It takes only 5 minutes of reading to show the flaws in your theory. So here's my answer to your challenge.

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1


Q, I like quoting Hawking too, one of my favorites is as follows;
"hubr;mmufph uhh oo oo aahh ahhh brengbjad gooooo"
He's so well spoken isn't he?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2013
There are many idiots & lunatics making all sorts of comments here but they should know that no Tom, Dick & Harry has any right to set aside the findings of research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.


Then why are ya trying to set aside this little gem?

https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1

Maybe I not as modest and humble as ya are, but I would be proud to show off and talk about the letter Steven Hawkin wrote me about how I had opened his eyes and changed the way physics would be done in the future.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2013
Q, I like quoting Hawking too, one of my favorites is as follows;
"hubr;mmufph uhh oo oo aahh ahhh brengbjad gooooo"
He's so well spoken isn't he?


That's about par for your level of maturity,,,, ya wouldn't have been able to understand if he had used different words. Did ya also get a personal letter from him telling ya that ya had opened his eyes and had ushered in a new era in physics?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2013
Q, I like quoting Hawking too, one of my favorites is as follows;
"hubr;mmufph uhh oo oo aahh ahhh brengbjad gooooo"
He's so well spoken isn't he?


That's about par for your level of maturity,,,, ya wouldn't have been able to understand if he had used different words. Did ya also get a personal letter from him telling ya that ya had opened his eyes and had ushered in a new era in physics?

Well dern tootin' ya'll. At least ya and Hawking share a trait, ya'll both need subtitles to understood what the hell ya are talkin' bout.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2013
There are many idiots & lunatics making all sorts of comments here but they should know that no Tom, Dick & Harry has any right to set aside the findings of research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The very well known & universally accepted scientific procedure of setting aside such scientific findings is production of rebuttal article & publication of the same in any peer-reviewed journal. So anonymous Tom, Dick & Harry should keep their senseless comments in their brainless head.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2013
So anonymous Tom, Dick & Harry should keep their senseless comments in their brainless head.

Read more at: https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1]https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1[/url]


I agree read more at: https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1]https://plus.goog...ekrJADj1[/url]
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2013
LarryD
not rated yet Oct 27, 2013
I've searched this forum for a anonymous Tom, Dick & Harry and damned if I can find them! Seems like a lot words to say nothing?
Franklins, interested in your '...It's a four-dimensional slice of the hyperdimensional reality...' but I'n not sure of the context you are using. Although there are formulations 4D, 5D etc gravity & polyhedrons testing their existence is something else. Are you considering a connection between dense aether model and SString theory? Do you have a math link/info to the 'four-dimensional slice' picture? sorry if I'm I asking to many questions
verkle
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 29, 2013
What ever happened to guidelines in posting? Does physorg have any?
Here are the very basic guidelines I feel are needed:

* Keep your posts clean. Avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
* Don't threaten or abuse. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
* Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
* Anyone not keeping to the above guidelines will have their account revoked!

mohammadshafiq_khan_1
1 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
Here is the answer of most of comments about my posts
http://www.scienc...09.htm#!
http://www.thedar...n.html#!
LarryD
not rated yet Oct 29, 2013
verkle, got to admit you made me laugh...'...sexually-oriented language'!? Dance of the (7) photons maybe?
CAPS LOCK is the only way to emphasise a point on the posts, isn't it?
Writing a lie...do you have method of proving that someone 'knowingly' posted a lie?
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
@ Q-Star
Now he is going to try sell his crackpottery under another name,,,, I wonder how much trouble it is to change the name on all those "peer reviewed" articles?


unfortunately, it is quite easy. even with the older versions of MS Office, you would only need a few programs, like Word and Excel... with Mail-merge feature you could change everything just by adjusting a few names on a list, or on an access DB, then with the additional integrations you are capable of with VAB, you can publish it to the web easily.

I used to have to do things like this quite often when I worked with my State building a database for what is now ADEQ and the EPA in our area.
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
@mohammadshafiq_khan_1

Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time.

and
There is just no Dark Matter or Dark Energy but aether.


i need more data, please. Empirical data for the first (please show peer reviewed articles and experimental results so that it can be verified). i have found nothing. Please do not include links to crank sites, i will not go back to those... instead, some verifiable empirical data would be nice.

also, what exactly is the method for aether to continue to expand the universe. the CURRENT physics models show how it is possible, but i dont see where aether shows how a substance, even as ethereal as aether, can assist in universal expansion. Or is it the opposite, and Aether causes friction and the friction in certain areas causes a reaction and then it ripples? what?

a soliloquy is nice, but empirical data is what i am after, so save your writing fingers.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2013
What ever happened to guidelines in posting? Does physorg have any?

It does:
http://phys.org/help/comments/

One of these should be pointed out to you as particularly interesting:
Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed.
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
sorry... VAB in my above post should be VBA.

got rushed... didn't bother to look over the post.

More news stories

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Scientists tether lionfish to Cayman reefs

Research done by U.S. scientists in the Cayman Islands suggests that native predators can be trained to gobble up invasive lionfish that colonize regional reefs and voraciously prey on juvenile marine creatures.

Leeches help save woman's ear after pit bull mauling

(HealthDay)—A pit bull attack in July 2013 left a 19-year-old woman with her left ear ripped from her head, leaving an open wound. After preserving the ear, the surgical team started with a reconnection ...