Scientists find evidence for significant matter-antimatter asymmetry

May 18, 2010
The DZero collaboration has found evidence for a new way in which elementary particles break the matter-antimatter symmetry of nature. This new type of CP violation is in disagreement with the predictions of the theoretical framework known as the Standard Model of particles and their interactions. The effect ultimately may help to explain why the universe is filled with matter while antimatter disappeared shortly after the big bang. Credit: DZero collaboration

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists of the DZero collaboration at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced Friday, May 14, that they have found evidence for significant violation of matter-antimatter symmetry in the behavior of particles containing bottom quarks beyond what is expected in the current theory, the Standard Model of particle physics.

The new result, submitted for publication in Physical Review D by the DZero collaboration, an international team of 500 physicists, indicates a one percent difference between the production of pairs of muons and pairs of antimuons in the decay of B mesons produced in high-energy collisions at Fermilab’s Tevatron .

The dominance of matter that we observe in the universe is possible only if there are differences in the behavior of particles and antiparticles. Although physicists have observed such differences (called “CP violation") in particle behavior for decades, these known differences are much too small to explain the observed dominance of matter over in the universe and are fully consistent with the . If confirmed by further observations and analysis, the effect seen by DZero physicists could represent another step towards understanding the observed matter dominance by pointing to new physics phenomena beyond what we know today.

Using unique features of their precision detector and newly developed analysis methods, the DZero scientists have shown that the probability that this measurement is consistent with any known effect is below 0.1 percent (3.2 standard deviations).

"This exciting new result provides evidence of deviations from the present theory in the decays of B mesons, in agreement with earlier hints," said Dmitri Denisov, co-spokesperson of the DZero experiment, one of two collider experiments at the Tevatron collider. Last year, physicists at both Tevatron experiments, DZero and CDF, observed such hints in studying particles made of a bottom quark and a strange quark.

The DZero result is based on the comparison of the distributions of positively and negatively charged muons (μ+ and μ-) emerging from high-energy proton-antiproton collisions produced by the Tevatron particle collider. A strong magnetic field inside the DZero particle detector forces the muons that emerge from those collisions to travel along a curved path. Two muons with opposite charge follow paths that curve in opposite direction (see graphic). Scientists first compared the muon distributions when the the magnetic field inside the DZero detector pointed in one direction (configuration 1) and then compared their distributions when the magnetic field had been reversed (configuration 2). If the matter-antimatter symmetry were perfect, the comparison of the muon distributions in the two configurations would yield the same result. Instead, the DZero experiment observed a one-percent deviation, evidence for a matter-antimatter asymmetry. Credit: Fermilab

When matter and anti-matter particles collide in high-energy collisions, they turn into energy and produce new particles and antiparticles. At the Fermilab proton-antiproton collider, scientists observe hundreds of millions every day. Similar processes occurring at the beginning of the universe should have left us with a universe with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But the world around is made of matter only and antiparticles can only be produced at colliders, in nuclear reactions or cosmic rays. “What happened to the antimatter?” is one of the central questions of 21st-century .

To obtain the new result, the DZero physicists performed the data analysis "blind," to avoid any bias based on what they observe. Only after a long period of verification of the analysis tools, did the DZero physicists look at the full data set. Experimenters reversed the polarity of their detector’s magnetic field during data collection to cancel instrumental effects.

“Many of us felt goose bumps when we saw the result,” said Stefan Soldner-Rembold, co-spokesperson of DZero. “We knew we were seeing something beyond what we have seen before and beyond what current theories can explain.”

The precision of the DZero measurements is still limited by the number of collisions recorded so far by the experiment. Both CDF and DZero therefore continue to collect data and refine analyses to address this and many other fundamental questions.

“The Tevatron collider is operating extremely well, providing Fermilab scientists with unprecedented levels of data from high energy collisions to probe nature’s deepest secrets. This interesting result underlines the importance and scientific potential of the Tevatron program,” said Dennis Kovar, Associate Director for High Energy Physics in DOE’s Office of Science.

The DZero result is based on data collected over the last eight years by the DZero experiment: over 6 inverse femtobarns in total integrated luminosity, corresponding to hundreds of trillions of collisions between protons and antiprotons in the Tevatron collider.

“Tevatron collider experiments study collisions in every detail, from searches for the Higgs boson, to precision measurement of particle properties, to searches for new and yet unknown laws of nature. I am delighted to see yet another exciting result from the Tevatron,” said Fermilab Director Pier Oddone.

DZero is an international experiment of about 500 physicists from 86 institutions in 19 countries. It is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and a number of international funding agencies.

Explore further: Researchers demonstrate ultra low-field nuclear magnetic resonance using Earth's magnetic field

More information: www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WW… esults/final/B/B10A/

Related Stories

New experiments constrain Higgs mass (w/Videos)

Mar 13, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The territory where the Higgs boson may be found continues to shrink. The latest analysis of data from the CDF and DZero collider experiments at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermilab now ...

New Physics Results from Fermilab

Aug 22, 2004

Scientists from the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are presenting new results from experiments performed at the world's highest-energy particle accelerator during the 32nd International Conference ...

The hunt for the Higgs steps up a gear

Aug 28, 2008

The hunt for the Higgs boson, the most highly sought-after particle in physics, received a boost this month with the release of two new results from the Tevatron particle collider at the US Department of Energy's ...

Fermilab's CDF observes Omega-sub-b baryon

Jun 29, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- At a recent physics seminar at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Fermilab physicist Pat Lukens of the CDF experiment announced the observation of a new particle, ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
1.6 / 5 (7) May 18, 2010
Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

I'd like to read more on how they've made sure this is not the case.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2010
Foamy dense aether has found a wandering colt on their farm, they will name it Santorum for when the symmetry of the puppets have included the lighter materials of Vaseline.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
newsreader
4 / 5 (3) May 18, 2010

This sounds really interesting. A new type of CP violation would have enormous implications (wouldn't it?) I wonder how long it will take to verify these results.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DrManhattan
3.5 / 5 (11) May 18, 2010
Top 10 things some fat guy would do to give normal people more pain.
1. Always do long monologes
2. Post links which has nothin to do with your text
3. Think that ppl come here to read your posts
4. Always say that only loosers rate your post with 1 without a reason.
5. Tell that you're a shaman and you're trying to save the world from nibiru
6. Show everyone that the only thing you can do is hamburger, keyboard, and retarded mind with one website installed.
7. Do not listen to other people, your mom knows the best.
8. Submit is on the left Cancel is on the right.
9. Allways start your text with pure facts that your father told you when you were a child.
10. The world begs to know your opinion.

With respect former members of our gang or just the same fat guy with many nicks and hopes for matrix to be real. Alizee Seneca Sceptic_Heretic Zero

If your opinion is free doesn't mean you can trash the world with it.
thales
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2010
There should be a way to hide comments so we don't have to read comments from certain people.

This is a fascinating discovery - if it's real - and I'd really like the adults to be able to have a discussion without it being hijacked by a couple of overzealous crackpots.
JayK
2.7 / 5 (7) May 18, 2010
Foamy Dense Aether Theory, or as I like to call it "Santorum", predicted your comments. It also tastes bad on toasted arugula.
OregonWind
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2010
The problem Alizee , is the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think that would be a good idea to ask you to elaborate any further, right?
JayK
2.1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2010
The problem Alizee , is the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think that would be a good idea to ask you to elaborate any further, right?

When people are confronted with crazy conspiracy theorists on the street corner, they usually just avoid eye contact, not give them pity. I just happen to be the guy that likes to shout back at them in order to entertain myself.

Is that so wrong?
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
2 / 5 (4) May 18, 2010
Even the foamiest of aether may contain a particle of truth or insight, however. Frequently a conceptual disconnect prevents understanding. Other times, just plain gaga.

This article interests me chiefly because of another article from physorg yesterday:

http://www.physor...592.html

perhaps this is further proof that, since this slight nonsymetry of amounts of regular matter vs antimatter being produced(by various possible mechanisms) the amount of baryonic matter is slowly increasing in the universe.

Perhaps, in the case of gravitational field/zero point field interaction, the action of gravity is sufficient to alter the energy equilibrium of a "virtual" particle enough to convert, or phase-shift it into an "actual" particle in our universe.
Obviously, I don't know this for a fact, nor do I possess the maths to back such an extraordinary claim- but, isn't it worth some serious consideration?
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OregonWind
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2010
Alizee - OK, let me be fair with you.

What do you mean by "real soap foam"? Elaborate.

Do you believe that the vacuum does behave like...soap? How that would explain the asymmetry that the article just suggested? Let me advise you that the experiment is not yet corroborated widely therefore you should be a little skeptical until solid evidences are established (even if you are not a physicist).
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2010
The problem Alizee , is the very simple fact that I don't understand what you are saying. I don't think that would be a good idea to ask you to elaborate any further, right?

When people are confronted with crazy conspiracy theorists on the street corner, they usually just avoid eye contact, not give them pity. I just happen to be the guy that likes to shout back at them in order to entertain myself.

Is that so wrong?

It better not be or I am in BIG trouble. I also like to throw big pieces of rotten fruit at them but hey... thats just me.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OregonWind
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2010
Alizee - I still don't see how that causes the matter and anti-matter asymmetry in nature.

I am also noticing that you collect a lot of facts and ideas here and there trying to link them somehow so they would make sense to you in some not very clear way.. But then you lack continuity in your thoughts (not trying to offend you by any means, not my nature).

How specifically the soap model above you just mentioned explain the matter and anti-matter asymmetry? You say that the "vaccum is dense particle system"? But what kind of system are you taking about? I am lost here.

You closing statement "Some other aspects are different, but they're irrelevant/invariant to explanation particle-antiparticle asymmetry. " is absolutely vague.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (22) May 18, 2010
This is why I'm proposing simple explanation and various analogies of it. Do you have some problem with it? Or do you prefer to discuss it with people, who have no explanation for it?
The problem I have with it is, that you seamingly have an explanation for everything..

By dense aether/soapfoam theory, you have an explanation for every "phenomena", for every single (postulated or just proposed) member of the whole "particle zoo", for every symetry/parity violation, for most anomalies, etc.. You can explain "dark" matter, "dark" energy, "strange" matter, "strangelets", Higgs bosson, "unparticles" (o_O), quantum phenomenas, quantum postulates, relativity postulates, ST postulates, LQG postualtes, whatnot.. And that all just by using your dense aether logic.. (?!)

Excuse my scepticism, but when someone tries to convince, that he can explain every ever postulated/proposed/made-up thing scrapped from a truckload of various theories/hypotheses, then it hardly can be taken seriously..
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
daywalk3r
3.4 / 5 (15) May 18, 2010
Dense aether theory isn't rotten fruit, it's just unknown fruit.
And you are a fruitcake, obviously ;-)

(just kidding ofcourse)
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Graeme
3.5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2010
Could this effect be due to the neutrino flux? As the earth moves through its orbit there will be a neutrino wind that changes direction by time of day, and intensity over the seasons. It would be interesting to see if there was any correlation with time of year or day.
Alizee
May 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Graeme
not rated yet May 18, 2010
The solar neutrinos detected are very high energy, but there will be many more low energy neutrinos. Possibly including massive numbers from supernovas and the big bang. However at the interaction speeds in this experiment even the thermal neutrinos will seem to be very high energy and have a chance of interacting. If they are falling in the gravity field of the earth and sun there should be a faster flux in the early AM hours when direction of earth's spin matches the orbit. And the time of year when the earth is closest to the Sun (Perihelion) the velocity will be higher, and also closer to the sun, the solar neutrino flux will be higher. There may also be a greater density of neutrinos trapped in the sun's gravity. (Although cannot be that much mass altogether otherwise we would see effect on planets orbits)
Graeme
not rated yet May 18, 2010
On the other hand it may not be due to any direction of the neutrinos just the mere presence of more neutrinos compared to antineutrinos could bias the experiment. A large number of decay modes involve neutrinos.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SmartK8
3.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010
Don't feed Alizee, the links (s)he's posting belong to a well-known pseudo-physics nut-job, who was banned on several scientific forums, after people (real scientists) tried to reason with him, because they genuinely weren't able to tell if he was genious or a graphomaniac madman, and finally acknowledge that it's the later (after year). I'm not sure if Alizee is directly him, or he somehow convinced other people to get in to his mad theories. Just to warn you guys. Otherwise I'm really curious how this affect the Standard Model, after it's confirmed.
ZeroX
2.1 / 5 (11) May 19, 2010
Proponents of mainstream physics will never accept explanation(s), which wouldn't require some years of studies at their schools & institutes. It's similar, like to expect, proponents of fossil fuel lobby will suddenly sponsor cold fusion research or big pharma will invest into real cures.

http://www.newswe...ut/print

It's simply money driven industry lobby, which perfectly knows about its preferences.
KronosDeret
4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
It's simply money driven industry lobby, which perfectly knows about its preferences.


Ofcourse its just a conspiracy. Some lazy old dudes that doesnt want to hear the real and only truth about aether bubbles.

You know that if something is working in yourt mind it doesnt have to be real right?
ZeroX
2.1 / 5 (11) May 19, 2010
Of course its just a conspiracy.
Conspiracy is a typical mechanism favored by formally thinking people, who cannot imagine nothing which isn't organized - but aether model considers omnipresent emergent origin of social phenomena, too.
..if something is working in your mind it doesn't have to be real..
Of course, but it still doesn't mean, it's a BS. It's the simple explanation of experiments at the moment, when you have none. You're defending a vacuum.
bluehigh
2.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010
What proof is there that anti-matter existed and then dispersed after a big bang?
LeeSawyer
5 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
The magnets of the accelerator are away from the detector, and the fields are well mapped. More important are the magnets inside the detector, a solenoid in the central tracker and large toroids in the muon detector. These are also mapped to high precision, and the field polarities are reversed every two weeks in under to minimize systematic effects. All detector-related systematics are estimated, using data, and described in detail in the paper.

Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

I'd like to read more on how they've made sure this is not the case.

fleem
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
There are so many things that might make us think there are parity violations when there really aren't, like:

1. Subtle chirality (not just in 3-space) of ambient fields.

2. Particles under test are really not anti-particles (there might be flavors of particle which we are not aware, and the supposed "antiparticles" we test really aren't antiparticles)
ZeroX
2.3 / 5 (9) May 19, 2010
What proof is there that anti-matter existed and then dispersed after a big bang?

We can observe annihilation signal (511 keV) near large massive objects, including our own galaxy. But this signal is too strong for to be assigned only to anihillation of dark matter.

http://www.physor...146.html

"What we concluded is that the detection of so many positrons makes it unlikely they're all from dark matter," Kaplinghat said...
ZeroX
2 / 5 (8) May 19, 2010
There are so many things that might make us think there are parity violations when there really aren't
Many observations of monojet suppressions during proton collisions can be attributed simply to asymmetry of collision with respect to core of resulting quark-gluon plasma: one jet is dispersed in quark-gluon plasma, the another one not.

http://www.tinyurl.cz/pm6

But it's known artifact and I presume, the DZero guys knew well, what to measure...
newsreader
3.5 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010

There needs to be a way we can post a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" sign.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
There needs to be a way we can post a "Do Not Feed the Trolls" sign.
First of all, there's a need to detect and ban users with multiple accounts. They are worse than trolls.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (17) May 19, 2010
How bout we just ban Alizee, and all accounts from his IP? That would probably halve the amount of server space required from his insane multi-post monologues. And Alizee, go take a formal logic class, then take a class in higher level algebra and calculus. If you manage to pass (which I doubt) then you can come back. You think your dense aether theory explains fundamental physics, ecosystem balancing, and social evolution without needing math? None of those things can be understood without math. At best, they can be pointed to. Math is not some obscure, impenetrable voodoo meant to keep you out. It is logic, pure and simple, all the way down. So don't tell people they need to get the logic, then refuse to do the math.
JayK
1.8 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
I see that Thrasymachus is part of the conspiracy to keep my Dense Foamy Santorum Theory from the mainstream.
OregonWind
3.3 / 5 (7) May 19, 2010
Alizee:

Thrasymachus is right, without math and proper foundation your ideas cannot accomplish anything in Physics. Your ideas lack the formal framework necessary to establish a physical theory and you cannot accomplish that without mathematics. You need metrics (mathematical analysis) in order to give basis to your ideas and allow the ideas to be exposed to experimental verification. Physics is an exact science.

It is good to see so much enthusiasm about science from someone but in your case it is misguided.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) May 19, 2010
Not just physics. All of science requires math in order that it be understood. There must be something to measure, and those measurements must be related to one another through precise logical (i.e. mathematical) transformations. Natural language is insufficient to do science.
OregonWind
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
I was referring to Physics in this case but you are right.
frajo
3.6 / 5 (7) May 19, 2010
All of science requires math in order that it be understood.
That's an interesting statement. What about medicine & health? The statistically measurable, but not causally understood effects of placebos, acupuncture, and psychological well-being?
JayK
2.6 / 5 (7) May 19, 2010
soft-science vs. hard-science is a debate that has been going on for a long time, and the definition continues to blur at the edges (think of a Venn Diagram). The soft-sciences are still bound by epidemiological viability. I find it interesting that you separated placebos and acupuncture, but it is more of a "haha" interesting, than a "hmmm" interesting.

We still don't know the root cause of gravity, yet it is still in the realm of physics. Anything that has observable and reproducible results can be considered scientific.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
Dense Aether Foamy Santorum Theory raped my dog and then drank all of the beer.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OregonWind
3.9 / 5 (7) May 19, 2010
"Anyway, the understanding of physics cannot be reduced into few equations and even the building of formal models should be based on robust understanding of physical situation at logical level."

However math is necessary to give the physical theory a strong framework with formal logic. You need to relate the physical principles quantitatively. That does not mean that you are replacing physical intuition and visualization with mathematics.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (17) May 19, 2010
The very definition of a theory is a formal relationship between two measurable quantities. If your theory resists formalization by its very structure/operation, it's not a theory. In fact, I'll go further. If your understanding of a phenomenon is incapable of being formalized, you don't understand that phenomenon. Now go learn some math.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (16) May 19, 2010
But the behavior of N-body system in Newtonian gravity field is well understood, but we still have no formal model of it. We can solve this system by using of computers, though
Contradict yourself much? Computers can't do anything except math and formal logic. N-body gravitational systems are well understood, and there are formal models expressing their behavior. It's the same model as the one describing 2-body systems. The computations involved in its application are beyond the capacity for most humans to complete in their lifetimes. The theory governing gravitational interactions is well understood, it is the application of that theory that requires computers to complete. Maybe you should take a basic science and philosophy class as well.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010
Such level of formal math is indeed acceptable even by aetherists

Both of them? Consensus has been reached!
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OregonWind
3.9 / 5 (7) May 19, 2010
"The probabilistic character of quantum mechanics illustrates clearly, the formal description of reality has its own uncrossable limits, despite many physicists, who favored relativity (including Einstein) attempted to prove the opposite. We cannot formalize quantitatively even the simplest model situations of quantum mechanics."

Now you are really confusing things. The probabilistic character of QM is considered to be intrinsic behavior of nature (some philosophers and physicists challenge this concept however). In any case, QM is a formal theory, mathematically constructed, extremely successful, and very elegant. What is not clear it is its interpretation.

If you want to convince the "formal physicists" you will have to sit down, work your math carefully, verify the consistencies of your hypothesis with established physical facts, publish your paper, wait for clinical analysis of your ideas, wait for experimentation and collect your glory.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
OregonWind
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010
No, I am not missing the point, I making my point.

"But the behavior of N-body system in Newtonian gravity field is well understood, but we still have no formal model of it. We can solve this system by using of computers ..." - You said.

Well, lo and behold, we do have a formal model of the Newtonian gravitational field.

If you have a non-linear system ruled by non linear equations (in your case the N body system you mentioned) that does not mean that the theory is not formally established just because in order to resolve the equation you need numerical approach or analysis to solve them (computers are great to crunch numbers for us, right?).

Math is fun just get rid of your fear and learn it. You will tank us for the motivation.
OregonWind
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
Oh, if you knew anything about Hamilton mechanics you would consider it to be one of most elegant part of physics. Believe me.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) May 19, 2010
No, it's actually a formal extension of Newton's equation for gravitational attraction between two bodies. The only thing you need "numerical regression based on astronomical observations" for is to more precisely determine the gravitational constant G. What you need computers for in solving N-body problems is solving the equation specified by the theory multitudes of times for each object over the course of the simulation. Math never conceals the truth, only people who are too stupid or afraid to learn the math do that.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SmartK8
2.6 / 5 (5) May 20, 2010
Alizee: Or is it Zephyr himself ? I thought I killed you down in Moria. Check this out, it's a well known theoretical physics document, used very often unfortunately.

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

I can inform you, that your score is through the roof, at least something positive, right ?
ZeroX
3 / 5 (8) May 20, 2010
The labeling of opponents is just an evidence of lack of arguments.

Did I said something wrong? If not, why I'm called a crackpot after writing of dozen posts w/out mistake? If yes, why don't you show us this mistake directly instead of off-topic linking the analogy of Malleus Maleficarum book? BTW Such handbooks are typical for every closed sectarian community, based on religion instead of facts.

http://en.wikiped...eficarum
Shootist
3 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
Considering the presence of other powerful magnets (for focusing the beams, for giving energy to the protons, etc.), I'd be surprised if there weren't a one-percent difference when you reverse the detector magnet.

I'd like to read more on how they've made sure this is not the case.


One would think that such obvious mistakes would have been avoided during construction.