New blow for 'supersymmetry' physics theory

July 27, 2015 by Mariette Le Roux
An artistic impression depicts the formation of a galaxy cluster in the early Universe, released on October 13, 2014
An artistic impression depicts the formation of a galaxy cluster in the early Universe, released on October 13, 2014

In a new blow for the futuristic "supersymmetry" theory of the universe's basic anatomy, experts reported fresh evidence Monday of subatomic activity consistent with the mainstream Standard Model of particle physics.

New data from ultra high-speed proton collisions at Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) showed an exotic particle dubbed the "beauty quark" behaves as predicted by the Standard Model, said a paper in the journal Nature Physics.

Previous attempts at measuring the beauty quark's rare transformation into a so-called "up quark" had yielded conflicting results. That prompted scientists to propose an explanation beyond the Standard Model—possibly supersymmetry.

But the latest observations were "entirely consistent with the Standard Model and removes the need for this hypothesis" of an alternative theory, Guy Wilkinson, leader of LHC's "beauty experiment" told AFP.

"It would of course have been very exciting if we could show that there was something wrong with the Standard Model—I cannot deny that would have been sensational," he said.

The Standard Model is the mainstream theory of all the fundamental particles that make up matter, and the forces that govern them.

But the model has weaknesses: it doesn't explain dark matter or , which jointly make up 95 percent of the universe. Nor is it compatible with Einstein's theory of general relativity—the force of gravity as we know it does not seem to work at the subatomic quantum scale.

Supersymmetry, SUSY for short, is one of the alternatives proposed for explaining these inconsistencies, postulating the existence of a heavier "sibling" for every particle in the universe.

This may also explain dark matter and dark energy.

A scientist looks at a section of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research Large Hadron Collider, during maintenance works
A scientist looks at a section of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research Large Hadron Collider, during maintenance works in Meyrin, near Geneva on July 19, 2013
'Many-headed monster'

But no proof of supersymmetric twins has been found at the LHC, which has observed all the particles postulated by the Standard Model—including the long-sought Higgs boson, which confers mass to matter.

Supersymmetry predicts the existence of at least five types of Higgs boson, but only one, believed to be the Standard Model Higgs, has so far been found.

Wilkinson said it was "too soon" to write off supersymmetry.

"It is very difficult to kill supersymmetry: it is a many-headed monster," he said.

But "if nothing is seen in the next couple of years, supersymmetry would be in a much harder situation. The number of true believers would drop."

Quarks are the most basic particles, building blocks of protons and neutrons, which in turn are found in atoms.

There are six types of quarks—the most common are the "up" and "down" quarks, while the others are called "charm", "strange", "beauty" and "top."

The beauty quark, heavier than up and down quarks, can shift shape, and usually takes the form of a charm quark when it does.

Much more rarely, it morphs into an up quark. Wilkinson's team have now measured—for the first time—how often that happens.

"We are delighted because it is the sort of measurement nobody thought was possible at the LHC," he said. It had been thought that an even more powerful machine would be needed.

The revamped LHC, a facility of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), was restarted in April after a two-year revamp to boost its power from eight to 13, potentially 14, teraelectronvolts (TeV).

"If you expect Earth-shattering news from the new run, it's a bit early," CERN director-general Rolf Heuer told journalists in Vienna Monday at a conference of the European Physical Society.

"The main harvest will come in the years to come, so you have to stay tuned."

So far, the new run at 13 TeV has re-detected all the Standard Model particles except for the Higgs boson, but Heuer insisted: "We are sure that it is there."

Explore further: Possible discovery in 2015 of a new particle in physics

More information: Nature Physics, DOI: 10.1038/nphys3415

Related Stories

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.

Higgs quest deepens into realm of 'New Physics'

July 2, 2014

Two years after making history by unearthing the Higgs boson, the particle that confers mass, physicists are broadening their probe into its identity, hoping this will also solve other great cosmic mysteries.

Exploring the Higgs boson's dark side

July 21, 2015

In 2012 CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) discovered the Higgs boson, the 'missing piece' in the jigsaw of particles predicted by the Standard Model.

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

September 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron Collider in 2012.

Recommended for you

Understanding the building blocks for an electronic brain

October 22, 2018

Computer bits are binary, with a value of zero or one. By contrast, neurons in the brain can have many internal states, depending on the input that they receive. This allows the brain to process information in a more energy-efficient ...

Researchers study interactions in molecules using AI

October 19, 2018

Researchers from the University of Luxembourg, Technische Universität Berlin, and the Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society have combined machine learning and quantum mechanics to predict the dynamics and atomic ...

69 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.3 / 5 (24) Jul 27, 2015
So far, the new run at 13 TeV has re-detected all the Standard Model particles except for the Higgs boson, but Heuer insisted: "We are sure that it is there."


Really?

You haven't detected Dark Matter nor Dark Energy either, but you are "sure they are there" too.

What's the excuse this time? Can Higgs Bosons only be made when the planets are in a certain alignment or something?

Besides all this, the fact Dark Energy supposedly doesn't "Dilute" strongly suggests it is not a particle anyway, as particles "Dilute". Waves also "Dilute" so you'll need to come up with some new terminology to explain Dark Energy, that is if it is a real thing, and not just an error in data interpretation.
Returners
1 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2015
Now, haters, certain types of ERROR do not "dilute".

For example, suppose you need to make a 90 degree turn, but you make a one degree error and instead make an 89 degree turn. You will always be off by 1 degree no matter how far you travel in a straight line.

It is curious that I can think of no property of nature which does not dilute with volume or distance, with the exception of ERROR.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2015
Not off topic:

But the model has weaknesses: it doesn't explain dark matter or dark energy, which jointly make up 95 percent of the universe. Nor is it compatible with Einstein's theory of general relativity—the force of gravity as we know it does not seem to work at the subatomic quantum scale.


The article made a positive affirmation of the existence of DM and DE, and even claimed they make up 95% of the universe...yet we've never encountered any of the stuff.

With regards to "dilute", one of the properties ascribed to Dark Energy is the property of not Diluting as the volume of the universe increases. This means, they claim, that the larger the universe becomes the more Dark Energy there will be.

This is not a property of facts. This is a property found in ERROR.
Bigbangcon
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2015
@ Returners:
"What's the excuse this time? Can Higgs Bosons only be made when the planets are in a certain alignment or something?"

*The quarks and gluons are not physical observables, i.e. not 'apparent' in the true sense of the word. [Apparent - adjective clearly visible or understood; obvious.]
The measurements are apparent. They measure observable results of a collision, influenced by the quarks and gluons.
To answer your question on the status of our knowledge, now this is just a guess, but I'd say we are at the stage where we are at a Theory of Theoretically Everything :)
**Thanks! So now we will get a TOTE instead of a TOE when the LHC would have its job done!
Bigbangcon
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2015
The above is part of a discussion in The Guardian, in an article "This is not a measurement" by Prof. Butterworth, the leader of the British team with the LHC ATLAS. : http://www.thegua...surement
redmudislander
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2015
It seems that the familiar Bottom Quark has already transmuted into the aforementioned "Beauty" Quark.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2015
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.


A common sense way of seeing this is that a sub-set cannot fully describe the super-set of which it is a member.

A complete mathematical description of the universe is, in my view, impossible, because the universe exists in logical means which are not limited to purely mathematical constructions, and even if it were, the incompleteness theorem implies we could never prove we've found the correct mathematical description.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015
An example of such a problem (may) be the failure to convincingly unify QM and Relativity. The only mathematical models I'm aware of which even remotely come close require us to allege an infinite or near-infinite number of alternate realities with all conceivable configurations of laws, and we just happen to be in one of the few conceivable realities where intelligent beings are capable of pondering any of this. That, to me, is a cop-out, because it doesn't explain anything. It avoids explanation of anything in reality by simply doing some math tricks to imply all conceivable realities are in fact real, which is nonsense. Different versions of the many worlds view, and their attempted formulations fall under this category, including string theory.

Moreover, string theory fails at one of the goals it had, which was to remove division by zero terms in physics, and actually introduces additional division by zero terms under some circumstances.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2015
The fact that QM and Relativity have been failed to be unified actually agrees with the second incompleteness theorem, because we cannot demonstrate consistency between QM and Relativity, even though intuitively we "know" the universe must make sense, otherwise we would observe pure chaos, which we certainly don't observe.

I think post-modern physics is short-sighted in assuming that all of reality can be described by systems of mathematical equations and entities allegedly described or modeled by those equations.
big_hairy_jimbo
not rated yet Jul 27, 2015
Just a query.

Isn't DM and DE deduced by the implication of something causing gravity?
So DM and DE are implicated by Relativity?

So if Relativity, DM & DE don't meld with the Standard Model, and nothing outside the Standard Model has shown to be "real" as of yet (ie super symmetry etc), then couldn't we point the finger at Relativity, rather than the Standard Model???
Just thinking out loud.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2015
Just a query.

Isn't DM and DE deduced by the implication of something causing gravity?
So DM and DE are implicated by Relativity?

So if Relativity, DM & DE don't meld with the Standard Model, and nothing outside the Standard Model has shown to be "real" as of yet (ie super symmetry etc), then couldn't we point the finger at Relativity, rather than the Standard Model???
Just thinking out loud.


Part of the problem with DM and DE is there is no way to prove they are mediated by the gravitational force. In fact, the units of DE are inconsistent with the units of DM, for example, because DE causes an acceleration in the expansion of space-time, while DM merely (allegedly) causes "excess attraction" in and among galactic matter.

And to the other part of your question, the answer is "no", because for most "real world" applications Relativity makes more accurate and more useful predictions than QM, even though they can prove QM is at least in principle correct.
Bloodyorphan
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2015
"except for the Higgs boson"

If it's not apparent this time around, I wonder what conditions have changed.

Maybe the ever changing G constant experiment will help point the way...

Maybe the space we travel through has more of an impact on these experiments than people are willing to consider.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2015
Where QM beats Relativity is when you get into the realm of individual particles, or systems of just a few particles at the sub-atomic level, or certain other situations such as the double slit experiment an entanglement.

It hasn't proven very useful for something like explaining why one galaxy grows 10 times faster than another one in the same region of space, or why there appear to be galactic super-highways (usually called "filaments") throughout the universe, which merge to form super-clusters and even larger structures when viewed on a large enough scale.

Hawking used QM to predict that black holes should evaporate, but to my knowledge this has not yet been actually confirmed through any form of measurement. To be honest, you would probably need to find a very old black hole of sub-stellar mass in order to be able to detect hawking radiation (they would evaporate faster the smaller they are, so finding the smallest possible black hole would be ideal for the test).
someone11235813
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2015
Is the 'beauty' quark the same as the 'bottom' quark. Because I thought 'truth and beauty' had pretty well given way to 'top and bottom'. But the article appears to talk about a 'beauty quark' as if it is not the old 'bottom quark'.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2015
Here's something for the WEALIAS crowd.

If God is real, and I am an independent being from God, and God knows everything past, present, and future, then there is an exact replica of me in God's memory who is at this very moment concluding that he is the real me and a separate being from God, and that some other exact replica of himself exists in God's memory....

This almost bears a resemblance to the "Holographic Universe" concept...

If I am real (I think therefore I am?) then there is also a simulated me.

However, if I am simulated (as God's imagination for example rather than an independent creation,) then there is not necessarily a "real" me.

In that sense, "information" would be conserved, because the exact copy of past, present, and future would exist in God's memory.

Neat?

If I am real, then there is in fact a cosmic simulation of me, but if I am in fact a simulation, then I can only say that there may or may not be a "real" me.
Bigbangcon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2015
The problem with "New Physics" is that it has become an ideological tool at the behest of monopoly capitalism, which wants to bring back the old rationalist notions of certainty, continuity, universalism, determinism etc. as a reaction to the developments in quantum dynamics.

Mathematical idealism of the early Greeks revived by Albert Einstein and inspired by the subjective idealism of Immanuel Kant, has helped New physics to develop a virtual edifice of theory driven and subjective algorithm based "experimental proof" of that edifice. But is this "positive knowledge" or mathematics based fantasies?
...continued
Bigbangcon
1.8 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2015
Contd.
Following the subjective idealism of Kant, Einstein assumed (faced with quantum "spookiness") that the "objective reality" is a mess of unknowable "thing-in-itself". The only way to deal with this mess is (like Kant) to impose human intuition and logical categories (geometry, symmetry, mathematics for Einstein) on Nature. But is Nature obliged to conform to our subjective description and view of her? Fantasy, mathematics based or not, can only go so far!
http://www.thegua...collider
RealScience
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2015
So far, the new run at 13 TeV has re-detected all the Standard Model particles except for the Higgs boson, but Heuer insisted: "We are sure that it is there."


Really?

...

What's the excuse this time? Can Higgs Bosons only be made when the planets are in a certain alignment or something?


It took a few years of data to detect (at high confidence) the Higgs at 7 TeV. They should detect it again faster at 13 TeV and with the brighter beam, but the LHC simply hasn't been running long enough at the new level to RE-detect it.


For example, suppose you need to make a 90 degree turn, but you make a one degree error and instead make an 89 degree turn. You will always be off by 1 degree no matter how far you travel in a straight line.

It is curious that I can think of no property of nature which does not dilute with volume or distance, with the exception of ERROR.


Read your own statement and think about it... How about DIRECTION?

DonGateley
3.7 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2015
Does string theory not require supersymmetry?
theon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2015
Can we please stop claiming the SM has a weakness, namely DM? The SM is fine. DM is nus, a bit of steriles needed though.
PhysicsMatter
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2015
As Schopenhauer said, paraphrasing: matter does not exists it is all representation of our mind, a-priori assumption, an axiom we seek to prove, a circular reference among our concepts.

In our unintelligent abstract science we seek what we a-priori unconscientiously assume.
We seek standard model hence we find it. We seek dark matter/energy, hence we find it.

When models of mathematical physics become so extremely abstract, and observables become extremely abstract as well and rely on huge interpretative pyramid scheme, one can prove whatever one assumes since no intelligible connection to reality is necessary or needed.

It is clearly seen in theories of massless particles such Weyl fermions, pnp junction holes, or vacancies in crystal lattice, all non existent objects well described by mathematical theory.

For interesting discussion of the issue:

https://questforn...reality/

docile
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vlaaing peerd
3 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2015
Does string theory not require supersymmetry?


It does and finding supersymmetry would be a huge hint to further explore (super) string theory.
docile
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2015
Perhaps we are nearing the limits, in certain areas of physics, for what humans are "meant" to understand.

The speed of light limits our knowledge of the universe, because it limits our horizons in space and time.

The inability to unify QM, Relativity, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the new "Dark Flow" phenomenon (All should be treated as separate theories and separate sets of equations until shown otherwise,) is actually in agreement with an accepted theorem of mathematics.

Not to mention higher dimensional theories, as it was shown that Einstein's field equations actually worked better in 5th dimensional space-time rather than 4th dimensional space-time, but we can't confirm a 5th dimension with known observations. We could at best say that the 5th dimensional model appears to make equal or better predictions.

Does this mean we just give up? No.

Keep searching for the answer, but just remember, the answer very well may be, "No, you can't have that, puny mortal."
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2015
Right now, DM and DE are included in the General Relativity equations as though they were "Mass-equivalent", but this is based solely on conjecture.

As I pointed out, DE does not behave like a particle, and it does not behave like a wave.

DM does not behave like a wave, but MAY or may not behave like a particle. It is assumed (assumed I say) to behave like a particle, because it is again assumed to be mediated by the gravitational force (even though this creates its own problems r.e. gravitational collapse if it is not interacting via the other forces).

Because of this, the physicists ASSUME that DM and DE should go in the relativity equations as "Mass-equivalent" terms...but what if they are not mass-equivalent terms?

In that other thread, I laughed at the comment on how they planned to detect DM in a particle collider, since it presumably doesn't interact.

There's a bigger problem: How do you even know whether you are colliding the right "ingredients" to make DM?
Returners
1 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2015
If there is a Higgs, then the Dirac equations predict there should be an "anti-Higgs", and this creates another problem...where is the "anti-mass" or "anti-gravity"?

DE is not "Anti-Gravity" because Gravity "Dilutes" with distance/volume according to the inverse squared relationship, while DE supposedly does not "Dilute" with distance or volume.

In the 3 hour long youtube video, "The Evolution of Time" it is proposed that both the Higgs and the Anti-Higgs have already been detected, due to the apparent existence of two seemingly contradictory decay mechanisms of the "Higgs" detected by particle colliders; upon decay, it appears one gives off slightly more energy as photons, while the other gives off slightly more energy as particles. An attempt in that video is made to use "higher dimensional time" to create a form of super-symmetry and what he calls "CPTM" symmetry, rather than just CPT symmetry.

In his view, the universe somehow recycles itself in spite of entropy.
docile
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2015
Reader bait title again - the article clearly describes how specific failures of the Standard Model isn't part of supersymmetry theory. (But can possibly predict some of them, if any.)

Bye the way, Wilkinson isn't correct either. It is possible that LHC can't probe the failures of the Standard Model (if any), so whatever new physics may be needed appear in the next generations of colliders.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2015
where is the "anti-mass" or "anti-gravity"?

DE is not "Anti-Gravity" because Gravity "Dilutes" with distance/volume according to the inverse squared relationship, while DE supposedly does not "Dilute" with distance or volume.
......in addition, electromagnetism also dilutes with distance in accordance with the Inverse Square Law, just as gravity does. If DE is postulated not to dilute in accordance with ISL, then it is not energy. Energy is just one thing, photons (electromagnetism), never anything else or it isn't energy as defined in Special Relativity (E=mc*2).

If there is indeed a "dark flow" out there, the Dark Flow itself can't be "energy" if such "flow" does not comport to the ISL. There are those who imagine there can be "forms of energy" other than electro-magnetism, but such reasoning is in stark denial of the very definition of "energy" which is "electro-magnetism, nothing else, just electro-magnetism.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2015
The thread is filled with the usual crackpots, so this will be a short reality update.
First the real science concern of a commenter:

@big & hairy: "So if Relativity, DM & DE don't meld with the Standard Model, and nothing outside the Standard Model has shown to be "real" as of yet (i.e. super symmetry etc), then couldn't we point the finger at Relativity, rather than the Standard Model".

GR is not a part of the Standard Model except that its semiclassical description is based on an approximately flat (low gravity) background. As such quantum field theories like SM are based on special relativity and lives in a low energy general relativity background. Hence cosmology, which incorporates SM, DM and DE.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2015
Then the crap:

- Conspiracy theory is crap (e.g. here totally cranky, unsupported ideas of what scientists mean and do), meant to never be tested.

- DM and DE are known to exist, even better than the SM presently (DM & DE evidenced at ~ 23 sigma respectively 9 sigma, Higgs only at 5 sigma). [ http://www.cosmos...anck/pla ] If you want to argue new physics that break the small sector of SM, fine. But that doesn't concern the existence of the major components of the universe.

- We know of lots of forces that doesn't go as 1/r^2. The SM describes some of them, like the Higgs that is a constant energy, part of DE. Others are stuff like van der Waal forces.

Repeat after me: crackpots can't google. [ https://en.wikipe...i/Energy ; http://profmattst...-forces/ ]
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2015
It is clearly seen in theories of massless particles such Weyl fermions, pnp junction holes, or vacancies in crystal lattice, all non existent objects well described by mathematical theory.
- PhysicsMatter

They do 'exist' as in that they are the absence of something. They are not a 'thing' in or of themselves. I struggle with terminology to describe these 'artefacts'. They are not particles. They are not objects. They are not 'quasiparticles' (a euphemism for 'dunno'). They are not even 'real things'. Anyway, I agree with your comment and have book marked the link for another time because it looks like I'll really have to concentrate and I have taken too much medication today!

bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2015
IMHO (Stumpy shields raised)

Dark Matter if it really 'exists' is likely in the same category. An absence of something. Perhaps, go looking for what's not there.
bluehigh
4 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2015
Hey, I've got a bag of donuts here and I've removed all the holes. I've put the holes in a package and can ship them for a fee. Any takers?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2015
@ T_L your quote: "We know of lots of forces that doesn't go as 1/r^2. The SM describes some of them, like the Higgs that is a constant energy, part of DE. Others are stuff like van der Waal forces"

In Physics 102 students learn that F (force)=ma as an outcome of "work" which is KE=1/2mv*2, neither of which are "energy" (electro-magnetism) which is calculated by E=mc*2.

Van der Waal Forces are just what the term implies, a "force", and is not calculable by E=mc*2.

So you know "lots of forces that doesn't go as 1/r^2"? How about all of them.....not just "lots". You obviously do not comprehend the difference between "work" & "energy", but you come onto a science website with your usual name name calling tirades against those of us who do.

You fundamentally do not understand what Kinetic Energy is versus what Electro-magnetism is, thus you are defined by your own name calling tirades in which you employ "crank" so freely .

Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2015
Hey, I've got a bag of donuts here and I've removed all the holes. I've put the holes in a package and can ship them for a fee. Any takers?
....what's the going market rate to buy "holes"? Are they all the same color? Are they all the same size (and how would I know)?
Ultron
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2015

You fundamentally do not understand what Kinetic Energy is versus what Electro-magnetism is, thus you are defined by your own name calling tirades in which you employ "crank" so freely .


Hey Bennie, are you currently sick or what?
You forgot to mention that he is not able to calculate basic differential equations :)
nikola_milovic_378
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2015
You fundamentally do not understand what Kinetic Energy is versus what Electro-magnetism is, thus you are defined by your own name calling tirades in which you employ "crank" so freely .


Hey Bennie, are you currently sick or what?
You forgot to mention that he is not able to calculate basic differential equations :)


...............and by the way T_L, have you ever seen a Differential Equation in Einsteins SR you could solve?=:) Ultron?
Egleton
2 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2015
I'm a believer of the quantum erasure experiment, which tells me that history is adjusted to support the observed facts.
OK so we observe this reality, and history is backloaded to support the observation.
If the Standard Model works and is self consistent, fine, we don't need a kludge. But if a Kludge is required to support the observation, then obviously a Kludge is backloaded into history otherwise we won't see what we see.
All science has to do is abandon their objective materialism and accept the results of the Quantum Erasure Experiment.
For example. Dark matter is a necessary Kludge. Without it galaxies would not form. It need have no other attributes than to hold galaxies together.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2015
For example. Dark matter is a necessary Kludge. Without it galaxies would not form. It need have no other attributes than to hold galaxies together.


I take for granted you own a Kludgemeter, you've placed it in a strategic location & measured Kludge flux density & from that used Partial Differential Equations (nonlinear ones I presume?) to calculate even that which Einstein had difficulty with?

Or wait a minute here, there is a new science floating around being promoted by IMP9 & <$.02 worth, that JeanTate invented, it's called Beyond General Relativity, we'll just call it BGR. Apparently just before JeanTate discovered AdTracking he passed onto a couple of noted scientists here, that there is a simple calculation that Einstein overlooked in his GR for calculating the density of Dark Matter & gravity.

If only these two would cease with their self imposed silence & reveal those simple calculations, all this bickering could cease & they could be the new icons of science.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2015
<$.02 worth,

........for sure you know when it's you when I make an indirect reference to someone on this site.
Returners
3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2015
You can't just conjecture that DE is an actual "Energy", since the units of the "change" it does are not Joules! It is certainly inconsistent to assume that DE is a in a form which converts to a portion of the "mass" of the universe.

That is conjecture, and in this case it doesn't even agree with a simple observation of the units of change caused by DE. It has neither wave-like nor particle-like properties. This is ridiculous.

Dark Matter could be anything. What possible justification do you have for assigning specific properties, such as "mass-energy" to something nobody has ever directly detected?

That is conjecture. You don't even know how many types of Dark Matter there might be, how many Quarks it's made of, nor whether it's even made of Quarks at all.
Egleton
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2015
I missed my mark entirely Benni.
No higher mathematics is required. All you have to do is accept the results of the Quantum Erasure Experiment, and "poof" there is nothing out there. All that exists is information.

Kludgemaster? Why, you sir, are the Kludgemaster. You make the observation.

Abandon Positivist Materialism, and stop hiding behind mathematical models of reality. They are only models. The map is not the terrain.
DonGateley
4 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2015
This thread has been great for filtering out another whole set of certified nut cases.
NiteSkyGerl
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NiteSkyGerl
Jul 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2015
Oh look, Jean Tate has an evil alias, a sock moppet.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2015
The usual assortment of quacks (Zephyr now posting as docile), misunderstood geniuses (Returners), bizarre conspiracists (Benni) and plain old nutcases (Nikola) I see. Funny how articles on elemental particles and dark matter brings them out like flies to a steaming pile of manure.
Benni
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2015
The usual assortment of quacks (docile), misunderstood geniuses (Returners), bizarre conspiracists (Benni) and plain old nutcases (Nikola) I see.Funny how articles on elemental particles and dark matter brings them out like flies to a steaming pile of manure.


........and you along with ,<$.02 worth, Ira, etc, are never able to get beyond a grade school comprehension of science & math. Most of your voting clique doesn't even know there's a difference between "force" & "energy", yet you claim to have "simple calculations" beyond General Relativity that explains DM & gravitational anomalies it creates.

So you think DM is a fundamental particle? Odd, no matter how high they crank up the particle accelerator in Cern, they can't find one, yet you absurdly believe such material composes 75-90% of the Universe. So here we sit in a solar system inside a Universe most of which you claim is missing, yet we can't find the "local gravity anomalies" you claim exists everywhere else.
my2cts
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2015
@Benni

........and you along with ,<$.02 worth, Ira, etc, are never able to get beyond a grade school comprehension of science & math. Most of your voting clique doesn't even know there's a difference between "force" & "energy", yet you claim to have "simple calculations" beyond General Relativity that explains DM & gravitational anomalies it creates.

You know absolutely nothing of physics. So you start guessing and of course the result is laughable. You know absolutely nothing of my level in physics. So the same thing happens.
Knowing nothing at all seems to give you confidence. It is your comfort zone.
That is really weird.

You then go on to claim that I think that "DM is a fundamental particle". I never made such a statement, nor here nor elsewhere. You are and will always be an inept moron.

Get Professional Help.
my2cts
3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2015
So here we sit in a solar system inside a Universe most of which you claim is missing, yet we can't find the "local gravity anomalies" you claim exists everywhere else.

Nobody including myself ever claimed that "local gravity anomalies" exist here or elsewhere.
I am not even going to explain what they, not me, DO claim because you have a nasty habit
of biting the hand that feeds you.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2015
@Benni
.....along with ,<$.02 worth, Ira, etc, are never able to get beyond a grade school comprehension of science & math. Most of your voting clique doesn't even know there's a difference between "force" & "energy", yet you claim to have "simple calculations" beyond General Relativity that explains DM & gravitational anomalies it creates


You know absolutely nothing of my level in physics
.....sure we do, in your own words you have claimed many times during the past week here that you have a "simple calculation" for the density of Dark Matter that does not require knowledge of General Relativity. That is "physics" is it not? Maybe you'd like to see those statements reproduced? It won't require much Copy & Paste effort.

You then go on to claim that I think that "DM is a fundamental particle". I never made such a statement, nor here nor elsewhere
It was your voting partner Maggnus

You are an inept moron
But I can do Differential Equations

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2015
So here we sit in a solar system inside a Universe most of which you claim is missing, yet we can't find the "local gravity anomalies" you claim exists everywhere else.

Nobody including myself ever claimed that "local gravity anomalies" exist here
....I know, I know, and that's just the problem which you're unable to comprehend.....do you even understand what you just said? No?
DO claim because you have a nasty habit of biting the hand that feeds you.
How so? What are you doing to put food on the dinner table of my family? We don't get welfare benefits, so you can't accuse us of being partakers of your paycheck via taxes. I have a very, very good job. So how about you just explain to me how you feed me?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2015
You then go on to claim that I think that "DM is a fundamental particle". I never made such a statement, nor here nor elsewhere
It was your voting partner Maggnus


I never made any such statement, here or elsewhere.

I guess this comes from the same place as your engineering degree.
Returners
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2015
So here we sit in a solar system inside a Universe most of which you claim is missing, yet we can't find the "local gravity anomalies" you claim exists everywhere else.

Nobody including myself ever claimed that "local gravity anomalies" exist here or elsewhere.
I am not even going to explain what they, not me, DO claim because you have a nasty habit
of biting the hand that feeds you.


Silly rabbit, if 80% of the "mass" of the universe were this mysterious "Dark Matter" then there SHOULD be local gravity anomalies, and calculating the trajectories for space-craft should be virtually impossible.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2015
Well why don't you back that up with a calculation. Ah I forgot that you do not have the skills.
Too bad, you will remain irrelevant for ever.
my2cts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2015
So here we sit in a solar system inside a Universe most of which you claim is missing, yet we can't find the "local gravity anomalies" you claim exists everywhere else.

Nobody including myself ever claimed that "local gravity anomalies" exist here
....I know, I know, and that's just the problem which you're unable to comprehend.....do you even understand what you just said? No?
DO claim because you have a nasty habit of biting the hand that feeds you.
How so? What are you doing to put food on the dinner table of my family? We don't get welfare benefits, so you can't accuse us of being partakers of your paycheck via taxes. I have a very, very good job. So how about you just explain to me how you feed me?

It's an expression. It takes some abstraction to understand what I meant.
Whatever job you have, don't quit it for a physics career.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2015
You are an inept moron
But I can do Differential Equations

Smart as a monkey!
TechnoCreed
3.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2015
This article's title should read 'New blow to Mariette LeRoux's credibility'. This year the integrated luminosity recorded at the LHC is barely over a 100 inverse picobarn that is around 0.5% of the integrated luminosity recorded in 2011-2012. Why would anybody expect any new science to come out of so few collisions? https://acc-stats...ew-panel

In fact her article was suppose to report on a paper submitted in last April; so from old data set. By the way the experiment is LHCb 'b' like in 'bottom quark' not 'beauty' bitch. To use a name that has been put aside for ages is not cool; your attempt to cutify science sucks.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2015
If she uses "beauty" instead of "bottom", should she not use "truth" instead of "top"?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2015
If she uses "beauty" instead of "bottom", should she not use "truth" instead of "top"?

...and God particle instead of Higgs boson; this makes me barf.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2015
If she uses "beauty" instead of "bottom", should she not use "truth" instead of "top"?

...and God particle instead of Higgs boson; this makes me barf.


Especially since 'God particle' was not the original term - it was 'goddamned particle', but back in those days 'damned' was a minor swear word so the editor of the original article edited it out (http://www.thegua...rn/print )
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2015
@returners

the incompleteness theorem actually states that if all aspects of a system of logic can be described then there are by definition statements that are legal in context but still cannot be answered.

basically the incompleteness theorem states if i know everything there is about say algebra, then I can still make algebraic statements that are both legal (syntax )and inconclusive or ambiguous ( semantics ).

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.