Physicists offer a solution to the puzzle of the origin of matter in the universe

February 25, 2015 by Stuart Wolpert

Most of the laws of nature treat particles and antiparticles equally, but stars and planets are made of particles, or matter, and not antiparticles, or antimatter. That asymmetry, which favors matter to a very small degree, has puzzled scientists for many years.

New research by UCLA physicists, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, offers a possible solution to the mystery of the origin of matter in the universe.

Alexander Kusenko, a professor of physics and astronomy in the UCLA College, and colleagues propose that the matter-antimatter asymmetry could be related to the Higgs boson particle, which was the subject of prominent news coverage when it was discovered at Switzerland's Large Hadron Collider in 2012.

Specifically, the UCLA researchers write, the asymmetry may have been produced as a result of the motion of the Higgs field, which is associated with the Higgs boson, and which could have made the masses of particles and in the universe temporarily unequal, allowing for a small excess of over antiparticles.

If a particle and an antiparticle meet, they disappear by emitting two photons or a pair of some other particles. In the "primordial soup" that existed after the Big Bang, there were almost equal amounts of particles of antiparticles, except for a tiny asymmetry: one particle per 10 billion. As the universe cooled, the particles and antiparticles annihilated each other in equal numbers, and only a tiny number of particles remained; this tiny amount is all the stars and planets, and gas in today's universe, said Kusenko, who is also a senior scientist with the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe.

The research also is highlighted by Physical Review Letters in a commentary in the current issue.

The 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson particle was hailed as one of the great scientific accomplishments of recent decades. The Higgs boson was first postulated some 50 years ago as a crucial element of the modern theory of the forces of nature, and is, physicists say, what gives everything in the universe mass. Physicists at the LHC measured the particle's mass and found its value to be peculiar; it is consistent with the possibility that the Higgs field in the first moments of the Big Bang was much larger than its "equilibrium value" observed today.

The Higgs field "had to descend to the equilibrium, in a process of 'Higgs relaxation,'" said Kusenko, the lead author of the UCLA research.

Explore further: Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

More information: "Postinflationary Higgs relaxation and the origin of matter-antimatter asymmetry" arXiv:1410.0722 [hep-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1410.0722

Related Stories

Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

October 22, 2013

(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 ...

Possible discovery in 2015 of a new particle in physics

February 15, 2015

The world's largest atom-smasher could help physicists understand mysterious dark matter in the universe, and later this year it may offer a discovery even more fascinating than the Higgs-Boson, researchers say.

Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

60 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tpb
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
So, if the other 9,999,999,999 out of 10,000,000,000 particles were converted to photons, why isn't the universe flooded with photons?
yyz
4.8 / 5 (19) Feb 25, 2015
"...why isn't the universe flooded with photons?"

It is.

Ever hear of diffuse extragalactic background radiation(DEBRA): https://en.wikipe...adiation

DEBRA is composed of several different types of extragalactic background sources spanning the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma and x-rays (CGB & CXB) to infrared, microwave and radio (CIB, CMB & CRB). The universe truly is flooded with photons of all wavelengths.
adam_russell_9615
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
Maybe in the big bang particle space expanded in one 'direction', and anti-particle space expanded in another 'direction'. Im thinking a 4d double cone. ><
mbee1
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2015
The 1 in 10 billion number is a guess. If you write the math in a certain order you get that number, write it in any other number and you get another number. The idea they were equal or almost equal is a quantity not of the universe but of the math language used which assumes symmetric numbers. the other problem is the energy background is not high enough to account for the energy of all that mass turning into photons except for 1 in 10 billion. Take our galaxy for example, multiply it by 10 billion times and convert it all to energy, That would evaporate our galaxy many times over.
EyeNStein
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2015
"Physicists at the LHC measured the particle's mass and found its value to be peculiar" ??

Perhaps its time for Physics articles to require references to support statements like this one.
A Wiki system with a footnote ( As Wikipedia does) would prevent random unsupported statements and blatant hype or worse being perpetrated on these sites.
mbee1
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
There is a problem with the 1 in 10 billion estimate. The universe is about 93 billion miles in diameter and has maybe 200 billion galaxies in it. That is roughly 33 billion cubic light years per galaxy multiply by 10 billion makes for a galaxy every 3.3 billion cubic light years than convert all that to energy all the galaxies would evaporate yet they have not done so. something is wrong with the calculations. Remember all this happened when the universe was a lot smaller than today so the energy density would be a lot higher than running the numbers today.
kennyhobo
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2015
So science really has no clue how the Universe began. There is no physics that can explain how nothing became something. The Big Bang was interesting. But no one could explain what caused the Big Bang. Science has a serious problem. I can't believe that scientists think that nothing can become something. I suspect that they voted for Obama and believe in drug gangs supporting world peace.
simpletim
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
particle + anti particle = 2 photons

m = E / c**2

problem solved
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2015
problem solved

Not entirely. The point is: if it were that simple then
a) either all matter should have annihilated or
b) we should observe roughtly equal amounts of matter and antimatter

If there had been an equal amount of matter and antimatter islands after the big bang (resulting in some matter galaxies and some antimatter galaxies, which we could not distinguish from merely looking at them through a telescope) there should be some very spectacular fireworks visible when two such galaxies collide. That is not observed. So there has to be a reason why the observable galaxies are of a single type.
jerry_bushman_7
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 25, 2015
Physicists are always at odds with creationists. So why are they trying to figure out "in the beginning"? Creationists believe that in the beginning God said, "let there be light". If physicists discount 'God did it'. then why are they trying to say the same thing happened but all by itself? Wouldn't it make more sense that it was always here? There was no beginning? Oh, sure, there was a beginning for this star and that star, this planet and that planet, but overall, not so much. Stars are born and stars die. Planets are born and planets die. Matter is matter and as such it can not be born and it can not die. Matter has always existed and it always will.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2015
Physicists are always at odds with creationists.

No. Really? Why'd you think that is? (Hint: look up what physics is)

If physicists discount 'God did it'. then why are they trying to say the same thing happened but all by itself?

Because that's two entirely different explanations?

Wouldn't it make more sense that it was always here?

What has 'make sense' got to do with how stuff is? If it fits observation and makes valid/testable predictions then there's all that is to it.

Matter is matter and as such it can not be born and it can not die.

Evere heard of something like a nuclear reactor (or an atom bomb)...or the sun? Matter is being converted into energy all the time while you type.

And a bit of matter is created from energy in other places - like particularly energetic cosmic events
And on Earth that may be possible, too:
http://www3.imper...15-32-44
tadchem
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
If an entire galaxy were composed of anti-matter instead of 'normal' matter, how could one tell? The 'anti-photons' it would emit are indistinguishable from normal photons, and the gravity of anti-matter is indistinguishable from the gravity of matter.
Other then gravity and EM radiation, what signal would an anti-matter galaxy emit that might be distinguished from that of a normal galaxy?
mscheue1
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2015
A few of you are hung up on the number of photons in the universe. There is no conservation law on the number of photons, just on the amount of energy (and other properties). While matter-antimater reactions create photons, they can be absorbed w/o creating new particles. Objects in the universe are moving at very high speeds, consuming a lot of energy. Perhaps this is the main result of those 'billions of annihilations per remaining particle' in the early universe.
vic1248
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
Asymmetry in the universe is only one of the major mysteries in science. A major mystery related to asymmetry is that the amount of matter in the universe, e.g. stars, planets, etc., is nothing even close to be behind the massive gravitational forces and the expansion phenomena.
mikep608
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
The universe is made from a solid electronic substance. I say it is solid, because it is not made of smaller parts, and it is electronic because it carries this event called polartity.
https://www.faceb...e?ref=hl
Bob one
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2015
More speculative belief statements trying to get around the fact that the belief in evolution does not fit the facts.
Night Rider
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
There's a much simpler explanation for baryogenesis: Gravity. Matter interacts with spacetime in a manner that attracts. Antimatter's opposing interaction with spacetime must be in a manner that repels. If so then as matter and antimatter repeatedly formed and self annihilated as the early universe inflated and cooled, antimatter with repulsive gravity would tend to diffuse while matter with attractive gravity would tend to concentrate. Eventually enough concentrated matter gathered to form galaxies, stars, and planets while antimatter continued to diffuse and spread throughout the universe since it would be unable to form gravitationally bound structures such as stars. The repulsive gravity of diffuse antimatter could be the source of dark energy, and matter antimatter annihilations the source of the universe's gamma ray glow.
Dethe
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
OK, the lack of antimatter is "explained" with Higgs boson relaxation with "electroweak sphalerons". Has been this relaxation observed/explained already? IMO the explanations should use already established concepts for to provide less answers than questions...
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2015
First, they "discovered" the Higgs particle's mass to be within the expected range", now they call it "peculiar". It looks very much like a recalibrating of a reality that didn't exist in the first place, namely, the supposed existence of the Higgs particle, to take advantage of those who can't remember beyond a few minutes and whose "grasp" of reality is what people in white lab coats order them to think.
A point to keep in mind. Where did matter come from? As diaphonous as "science" says they are and supposedly carrying their own space time frames, photons seem like pieces of space time. Photons could almost be imagined as a slight variation on space time. "Science"
says matter is far different and even special relativity says that photons cannot convert into matter antimatter except in the presence of other matter which imparts a frame of reference to the matter antimatter pairs. If there was no matter at the Big Bang, where did it come from?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2015
If an entire galaxy were composed of anti-matter instead of 'normal' matter, how could one tell?

We couldn't (provided that everything else outside the galaxy was made of antimatter, too). Antimatter and matter are just two labels (like positive or negative polarity....or magnetic north and magnetic south...or left chirality and right chirality).
You can rewrite every textbook and exchange every mention of matter with antimatter, every mention of positive charge with negative charge, and every mention of left-handedness with right-handedness...and you have EXACTLY the same books with the same laws that make the same observable predictions.

what signal would an anti-matter galaxy emit that might be distinguished from that of a normal galaxy?

If there's any galaxies (or just interstellar dust) of the opposite matter type around...one hell of a gamma-ray show.
charlimopps
4.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2015
This is probably the best site for science news out there, yet the comments section is filled with every crackpot idiots theory you can think of. I can understand if you don't understand basic physics, that's fine. But when you decide that because you're ignorant, you're going to reject thousands of years of very detailed exhausting work done by millions of the most brilliant people to have ever been born? You just look like a tool. This really is how the universe works, the people that wrote this paper may be wrong, but they are far more likely to be right than anyone in the comments section could be. So stop, please, just stop.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2015
...the people that wrote this paper may be wrong, but they are far more likely to be right than anyone in the comments section...
@charlimopps
The problem is not the the crackpots are here... they will always try to flood a science site with pseudoscience

the problem is because the site is not moderated
and when it is, it is very loosely moderated

Case in point: Zephir AKA Dethe AKA all of THESE: nesac, tirahobis, pahawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, megayuyo, begalifowi, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, susamuca, Lesea, Deisa, vse97513, zetazov, kuresehe, sator, rihumoyax, Eset, Masuzole, Timen, porah, zesuja, leticu, fewitofosa, rhsthjnty
(not including the ones already banned)

when posters like zephir, realitycheck, cantdrive, reset, hannes_alfven, jvk, and so many more are not deleted for posting pseudoscience, it makes the others bolder

Wake
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2015
antialias_physorg - when that matter is converted to energy what becomes of it?
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2015
@charlimopps:
This is probably the best site for science news out there, yet the comments section is filled with every crackpot idiots theory you can think of. I can understand if you don't understand basic physics, that's fine. But when you decide that because you're ignorant, you're going to reject thousands of years of very detailed exhausting work done by millions of the most brilliant people to have ever been born?...This really is how the universe works, the people that wrote this paper may be wrong, but they are far more likely to be right than anyone in the comments section could be. So stop, please, just stop.
It's Scientific Method at work, challenging 'sources/claims', even if by mainstream. Eg, BICEP2 claims were bogus. Not so 'smart' that time.

@Stumpy:
when posters like ..., realitycheck, cantdrive, ..., hannes_alfven...
Stop lying to forum. Apologize for lying, being wrong re science/people. Proven. Be a man, Stumpy; just do it. You know you must.
Contance Underfoot
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
How about the simplest explanation? That at the time of mass expansion, anti-matter traveled at a higher velocity than matter. We can't see it because it beyond the edge of the known universe. Matter isn't being wiped out for the same reason. While the inequality of mass between the two may have been a contributor to the difference in velocity during expansion, it really doesn't matter, pardon the pun.
OceanDeep
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2015
If an entire galaxy were composed of anti-matter instead of 'normal' matter, how could one tell? The 'anti-photons' it would emit are indistinguishable from normal photons, and the gravity of anti-matter is indistinguishable from the gravity of matter.
Other then gravity and EM radiation, what signal would an anti-matter galaxy emit that might be distinguished from that of a normal galaxy?


Wow, that is a wild thought. Are you saying that the universe could be filled with matter and antimatter galaxies in equal numbers, just that we don't yet know which are which? I wonder if that would explain distant gamma ray bursts, which could be galaxies annihilating each other back when some matter and antimatter were close enough to run into each other.
OceanDeep
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
How about the simplest explanation? That at the time of mass expansion, anti-matter traveled at a higher velocity than matter. We can't see it because it beyond the edge of the known universe. Matter isn't being wiped out for the same reason. While the inequality of mass between the two may have been a contributor to the difference in velocity during expansion, it really doesn't matter, pardon the pun.


Interesting. But why would antimatter travel faster than matter?
Dethe
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2015
yet the comments section is filled with every crackpot idiots theory you can think of
Even one of authors of Higgs field concept and Nobel prize winner doubts the existence of Higgs boson by now.
reject thousands of years of very detailed exhausting work done by millions of the most brilliant people to have ever been born
The fact, thousands of climatologists or cold fusion deniers are diligently working people cannot exclude the fact, they're all plain wrong. And the Higgs model is actually few decades old and elaborated with few dozens of people. The risk of misunderstanding is quite imminent here.
nevermark
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
@mbee1,

There is a problem with the 1 in 10 billion estimate. The universe is about 93 billion miles in diameter and has maybe 200 billion galaxies in it. That is roughly 33 billion cubic light years per galaxy


93*10^9 light years diameter means a radius of 46.5*10^9 light years.

The sphere of the visible universe around us is 4/3*pi*r^3 = 4.2*10^32 cubic light years.

Divide that by 200*10^9 and we get 2.1*10^21 cubic light years per galaxy.

2,100,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic light years per galaxy, not 33,000,000,000.
nevermark
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
Dethe,

...thousands of climatologists or cold fusion deniers...all plain wrong.


What you believe is immaterial. The probability is that the vast majority of scientists are right as apposed to non-scientist dissenters. In both cases the dissenters have had every opportunity to make their case (and still do).

Perhaps you want to propose a better system than science. Please show your method has a higher track record than science before wasting anyone else's time.

Maybe some kind of cold fusion capable of generating useful energy will be possible in the future, I don't think any physicist thinks it is impossible. But nobody has been able to clearly demonstrated that yet. If you think its real, go into business with it and get rich.

(Just don't tell those conspiratorial physicists, they might try to suppress you!)
Dethe
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
The probability is that the vast majority of scientists are right as apposed to non-scientist dissenters
The things are actually quite simpler - the scientists are forming a crowd which represents some paradigm. And these paradigms do alternate by quite simple geometrical pattern. So if we would pursuit some dual paradigm, then we would get correct soon or later (and falsified even later according to the same principle). Galieo wasn't actually so smart with his heliocentrism - he just followed the dual/opposite paradigm than most of his peers. So that the scientists are predestined to fail just because they do adhere strictly on the observations available in a given period of time. I can just say the opposite, sit down and wait for my time..
Dethe
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2015
I don't think any physicist thinks it is impossible
So why they're not attempting for replication of it? You can tell me, that everyone did try to fuse the hydrogen with nickel and it didn't work - but where we can read about it? Everyone just THINKS, that these findings are getting replicated - but nobody really attempts for it. This is indeed a difference: a vicious circle of pluralistic ignorance....
If you think it's real, go into business with it and get rich
This is apparently not a viable argument, scientific the less. Most of scientific phenomena simply work, no matter if someone makes money with them or not. If the scientists really want to succeed with scientific methods and criterion of validity of their findings, they should start to use them first. It's really as simple as it is: if the main scientific criterion of validity - the replication - works, why we're not using it?
Dethe
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2015
The Anderson's problem with Higgs boson is quite simple: the Standard Model doesn't actually predict it. The Standard model requires the presence of Higgs field - but it does predict the absence of Higgs boson instead. What the Standard Model predicts is the smooth curve here. So that the Higgs boson observed at LHC cannot serve as a prediction of Standard Model, but its violation instead. Instead of it, we have multiple theories, which predict such an artifact, like the SUSY. But what we can read in the media is, that the SUSY got falsified with LHC experiments and that the Higgs boson follows the Standard Model way too well..

In brief, the physicists got it exactly opposite, because they don't really understand the subject, they don't even understand their own math.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
antialias_physorg - when that matter is converted to energy what becomes of it?

Photons (or phonons)...or kinetic enery...or potential energy...or...any kind of energy.

As the article I linked states: it is probably possible to turn energy into matter again (though charge parity must be observed...so you could create a positron/electron pair. The importance of such an experiment would be whether there is a asymmetry of some kind when this occurs - giving a clue as to why we observe one type of matter over its "anti" type

That at the time of mass expansion, anti-matter traveled at a higher velocity than matter

No go. Massive particles are limited to c. Antimatter is no exception to this.
I wonder if that would explain distant gamma ray bursts
While bright/powerful they are not THAT powerful.
PhotonX
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
OFF TOPIC
.
Captain Stumpy:
Case in point: Zephir AKA Dethe AKA all of THESE: nesac, tirahobis, pahawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, megayuyo, begalifowi, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, susamuca, Lesea, Deisa, vse97513, zetazov, kuresehe, sator, rihumoyax, Eset, Masuzole, Timen, porah, zesuja, leticu, fewitofosa, rhsthjnty
You forgot Losik: http://phys.org/n...sts.html
https://i.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/2rf629/why_we_need_to_listen_to_the_real_experts_in/
.
.
TheOrphan
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
I can't comment on the SUSY aspects, I just can't find any realistic reasons for it.
But I can say, the Higgs field would have been very very dense during the initial expansion event.
nyland8
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2015
While decaying one day from Higgs-Boson
My Gluon got stuck to my Proton
With no spark in my Quark
I was left in the dark
'til what's left of me Lepton my Photon
zeldog
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
"...why isn't the universe flooded with photons?"

It is.

My previous comment not showing for some reason. Question was: why isn't there 10 billion times as much energy in photons as there is in particles in the present day?
info2k
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
Interesting read.
However, dumb as this might sound, where does this all explain where the matter in the universe originated?
I thought that was the title of this piece.
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2015
More nonsensical conjecture about the unknown. When you are drowning, grab the nearest straw.
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
Or maybe not!
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
ypo means 10**10 more photons than it is now flooded with BUT also the first particle (Eu) would need 10**10 more energy than it had, and that is unlikely. Those arn't neutrinos you are getting rid of.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
You forgot Losik:
@PhotonX
OT reply

yes i did
SORRY

i thought it was already banned... i will re-adjust my list

There is a FULL list on http://saposjoint.net/ you can see (if you are a member)

The site is free, but it is also HEAVILY moderated, so trolls like zephir and rc can't post there

RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2015
@Stumpy.
...trolls like ... rc ... can't post there
Why keep doing this to yourself, Stumpy? You know that I am not a 'troll', because you have been lying and trolling half-truhs about me spread by mod-troll gangs controlling certain sites who took action to bait-and-ban me after I exposed/proved their abuses. I exposed/proved it many times via INTERNET EXPERIMENTS...so they called me 'troll' and banned me rather than face that you/they were/are the 'trolls'.

As long as you keep making unfounded assertions, I'll remind you of your 'troll hole' dug by your lies/personal troll tactics in other threads. To wit:

@Stumpy. You keep avoiding the point:

1) I was proven right, and all you confirmation-biased "smart peoples" wrong, re BICEP2.

2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts.

...Be a man and apologize to the forum for your lies, denials, half-truths and personal trolling attacks.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
after I exposed/proved their abuses
@sam
ok
it should be easy for yo to prove you are not a troll

simply link all the arguments on Sciforums where you "exposed/proved their abuses"

they will still be there - all your BICEP2 arguments are still on there, including the ones reported for baiting/trolling and pseudoscience or spamming

it is also all logged behind the scenes and kept (or didn't you know that?)
including all your arguments via PM (so that they can be used as evidence should the site ever be subjected to a litigious idiot like you requesting a subpoena)

this protects them legally and justifies their actions

that is why all your "so called gang" of mods are still operating
because you've never been able to provide any evidence proving that you were treated unjustly

case closed

the only reason you are still posting here is:
-you pay the site
-the site is not really moderated at all

RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
@Stumpy. You're dishonest, delusional; and your 'link till you drop' distracting/delaying demands, which would waste my valuable time, are childishly transparent.

And people are innocent til proven guilty, Stumpy. You've been proven to post lying, half-truth versions and 'links' etc, while I've been proven to be correct.

Longtime members/readers have already seen my proof/experiments. Whereas all you 'present' is half-truths/lies from the mod-trolls I proved/exposed via experiments! Duh.

And to prove the fact I am innocent/correct, and you guilty/incorrect (ie, a lying self-serving troll), here is a reminder:
@Stumpy. You keep avoiding the point:

1) I was proven right, and all you confirmation-biased "smart peoples" wrong, re BICEP2.

2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts.

...Be a man and apologize to the forum for your lies, denials, half-truths and personal trolling attacks.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
people are innocent til proven guilty,
@earthlingSam
yes, and that is why i posted those links
because you are guilty and i can prove it

and anyone who simply looks into it will find the exact same thing because it proves you guilty too
seen my proof
if you had any proof at all whatsoever, you would not be perma-banned from sciforums or sapo's joint

if you had any evidence of what you claim, you would be able to litigate and restore your profile to the sites that you wish to be on

if you had any proof that would stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method or the legal one

and the latter is actually easier to find proof for, considering that they would also allow eye-witness testimony (notoriously inaccurate and scientifically proven to be so)

now we see that you are still perma-banned and the only site you can post to is the unmoderated site you pay $$ to

you can continue to post
but it doesn't matter
the evidence is still against you
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
@Stumpy. Your 'links' presented the half-truths and lies, nothing else. Just like your "following the evidence" stops short of telling the whole story in the latest case of your dissembling, trying to con the forum with your 'self-serving versions'.

I don't have time to waste collecting together and re-posing here all the instances, proofs and experiments which prove you and the mod-trolls you 'believe' and 'run with' were/are the 'trolls', not me. I already previously corrected many times your lying half-truth 'versions', I don't have to do it again. Longime readers/members will have seen it all. Including the latest instance of your dissembling:
...

2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts. Go on, Stumpy. Grow up. Be a man and apologize to the forum...
You still haven' apologized for that latest example of your (ahem) "integrity".

Stop denials and delusional trolls, Stumpy. Apologize.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
I don't have time to waste collecting together and re-posing here all the instances, proofs and experiments which prove....
@trolling sam
ROTFLMFAO
another blatant lie

more than 1500 posts about nothing but your personal inability to follow any rules

it all boils down to being able to prove or validate your post
You've never been able to do that
no proof
no evidence

I've already given enough validation to prove you are a liar as well as baiting/trolling and that you've never been able to link or prove your denigrations of BICEP2 and that you don't understand basic english (like the word: plagiarism )

you keep on posting your baiting/trolling posts here, rc
i don't care
i will simply downvote and report them

the only reason i am even replying now is because i am really enjoying making you look like a complete fool, liar & TROLL

but all things come to an end
you've been proven a con man
all you are doing now is simply repeating yourself and crying

BYE
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
POST SCRIPT
You still haven' apologized for
you already know how it works

you provide the 8 flaws from BICEP2
and make sure you designate which 4 are the fatal flaws

then we can talk about everything else

not going to keep repeating it

that is all you are doing
repeating your lies as if it will automagically become true

you keep it up and let me know how it works out for you
i'll keep reporting and downvoting you and see if i can't get you banned
OK?

great!
bye-bye penguin head

https://www.googl...af4331c2
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
@Stumpy. Of you and me, the only one who has been proven a liar is you; so I don't have to do anything more to prove my innocence, because it is you who has already been proven the guilty one. Latest instance reminder:
... 2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts. Go on, Stumpy. Grow up. Be a man and apologize to the forum...


Stumpy, just apologize and stop repeatedly SPAM 'spraying' your self-serving in-denial 'versions' about all this in the forum. Just apologize and we can all move on from your personal nightmare. Ok? Go on. Be a man, Stumpy. Just do it and be done with it.

charlimopps
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015

@RealityCheck:
It's Scientific Method at work, challenging 'sources/claims', even if by mainstream. Eg, BICEP2 claims were bogus. Not so 'smart' that time.


When you don't even have Highschool science class under your belt, it's hard to take you seriously.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
You seem to only be doing:
Ask a Question
Communicate Your Results
That's NOT the scientific method. That's arrogant blathering.
docroc67
5 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
Unfortunate that some of the prole-feed trolls from faux news and other similar places have decided to infest a forum about science for people interested in science, ie people who are here not to sneer at science, but to discuss it intelligently. The trolls seem to feel that the same sort of sophomoric, cynical, snide, sneery tone used in popular news sites has some appeal for people here. The truth is, it's boring and a depressing reminder of just how willfully ignorant people can be.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
@charlimopps. You forget the rest of that method: test your Conclusions against known science, logic and reality before making an ass of yourself because you followed flawed methodology not scientific method. Remember BICEP2? I was right to 'question' that. Pity some of the "smart peoples" here 'accepted on faith' instead of 'questioning' for themselves, as I suggested they did before 'just believing it all' as 'fact' in order to 'bash cranks'.....with flawed 'mainstream exercise/results'.

And your assumptions about my level of formal/informal education/knowledge etc demonstrates that you are no honest scientist/commentator; since you are patently working from your own imagined (and as it happens, egregiously incorrect) 'version' of the reality there.

Please in future also allow for the fact that this site's limited text format necessitates contractions of speech/info. The relevant intent in my earlier comment was "part of" the scientific method, not "all" of it. Thanks.
Nova-Solaris
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2015
So science really has no clue how the Universe began. There is no physics that can explain how nothing became something. The Big Bang was interesting. But no one could explain what caused the Big Bang. Science has a serious problem. I can't believe that scientists think that nothing can become something. I suspect that they voted for Obama and believe in drug gangs supporting world peace.

I cant believe you can make such erroneous claims and yet not understand what science means by nothing
Nanowill
not rated yet Mar 01, 2015
Well, Its completely wrong. Grasping for straws that are not relevant.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2015
@Nova-Solaris

Explain to us what science mean by nothing? I see impotent and desperate attempts this evolutionary science to explain reality with virtual undetectable physical phenomena, so to fit the mental attitude of the "scientists" supporting the theory of the big bang. This is certainly not a scientific approach. Seem to have an irrational fear to recognize Creation. Maybe programmed mindset.
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2015
Relax Higgs, we got this. CERN is about to probe this very question. Posed as: Why does nature prefer matter over antimatter? Or does it? Folks are just placing their bets, hoping for "I told you so," which is far preferable to "Back to the drawing board." CERN will spin the wheel and we'll soon see where the chips (particle debris) falls.
Interesting comments about how it may just be luck that the matter/antimatter asymmetry might exist only in the tiny sliver that is our observable universe.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
viko_mx claimed
Seem to have an irrational fear to recognize Creation. Maybe programmed mindset.
Beg pardon, how is "creation" scientific then ?

How does your 'creator' communicate, like a scientist or like an egotistical overlord, who's activities are more consistent with a Satan ?

ie. Look at Evidence in your bible, your god kills & punishes EVERYONE - ie a Devil !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2015
Seem to have an irrational fear to recognize Creation. Maybe programmed mindset.
@viko
1- argument from stupidity: you are simply shifting the argument from one unknown to another unknown and unprovable
the "god of the gaps" argument, seen here when Dr. Tyson refutes creationist religious ideas: https://www.youtu...QmYX-71Q
No, i don't expect you to watch it... it would be blasphemy to you
it would also mean accepting logic and scientific methodology

by the way... given that it is PROVEN that your religious historical comic is plagiarized from other religions, then, by logic and definition, your religion (and bible) are nothing more than modern mythology (as you've called other religions)
NONE can prove anything
there is NO evidence
there can BE NO PROOF that your deity exists,
only that your book and religious tenets are stolen and lies, authored and full of fallacious content which IS provable by science

epic fail

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

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