Ground-breaking research could challenge underlying principles of physics

November 20, 2015
Ground-breaking research could challenge underlying principles of physics

An international team of physicists, including a Plymouth University academic, has published ground-breaking research on the decay of subatomic particles called kaons – which could change how scientists understand the formation of the universe.

Dr Nicolas Garron, a Research Fellow in the Centre of Mathematical Sciences, has helped to devise the first of how the behaviour of kaons differs when – anything with mass, such as the world around us – is swapped out for antimatter – made out of similar particles with opposite charge.

The of the kaon decays was conducted on supercomputers, which would have taken 200 million core processing hours on a laptop.

So why is the calculation important?

The rate at which the kaons decay highlights that, despite being virtually identical, there is an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. This is key to physicists' understanding of the universe, as it's currently accepted that the universe was created with equal parts of matter and antimatter, and, in order for matter to have overhauled its negative counterpart, the two sets of particles must have behaved differently – however slight that difference was.

Nobel prize-winning work dating back to 1964 first showed that matter and antimatter are asymmetrical, a concept known as indirect CP violation. This was built upon to a more accurate degree in 2000, to uncover direct CP violation – a tiny effect which only affects a few particle decays in a million. Now the research published today has narrowed the calculation even further, making it the first theoretical – rather than experimental – prediction of its kind.

At present, the experimental results are consistent with the theoretical calculation. But, with the road now paved for the calculation's accuracy to be pinpointed even further, it is expected that the experimental results may not conform to the theoretical prediction – which would mean that a new mechanism must be responsible for the preponderance of matter of which we are made.

Dr Garron said:

"Physicists have been waiting for more than 40 years for this kind of breakthrough. It sounds strange, but we're looking for this theoretical computation not to match the , as that will mean there's more to the behaviour of these particles than we have ever understood.

"The calculation is ongoing with an accuracy that is increasing rapidly, leaving the possibility that evidence of new phenomena, not described by our theory, may yet be uncovered."

The supercomputers on which the research was conducted are housed at various institutions in the UK and in the USA. Last month, Plymouth University agreed to a major upgrade of the computing facilities, improving the present computing power by approximatively a factor of ten.

Dr Garron continued:

"High performance computing is now essential in research, even for the most fundamental sciences. We are very fortunate to have one such supercomputer here at Plymouth University.

"We are also part of a consortium of research groups and share our resources with Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Oxford, Southampton, and Swansea universities. This is a national programme called DiRAC, which supports particle physics, astronomy and cosmology, and has received £15 million since 2011. This research on matter-antimatter asymmetry, which seriously challenges our current understanding of , would not have been possible without supercomputing facilities."

Explore further: Supercomputing the strange difference between matter and antimatter

More information: Standard-model prediction for direct CP violation in K→ππ decay, Physical Review Letters, 2015. On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1505.07863

Related Stories

LHCb experiment observes new matter-antimatter difference

April 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —The LHCb collaboration at CERN today submitted a paper to Physical Review Letters on the first observation of matter-antimatter asymmetry in the decays of the particle known as the B0s. It is only the fourth ...

Supercomputing the difference between matter and antimatter

March 29, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international collaboration of scientists has reported a landmark calculation of the decay process of a kaon into two pions, using breakthrough techniques on some of the world's fastest supercomputers. ...

Recommended for you

Complete design of a silicon quantum computer chip unveiled

December 15, 2017

Research teams all over the world are exploring different ways to design a working computing chip that can integrate quantum interactions. Now, UNSW engineers believe they have cracked the problem, reimagining the silicon ...

An ultradilute quantum liquid made from ultra-cold atoms

December 14, 2017

ICFO researchers created a novel type of liquid 100 million times more dilute than water and 1 million times thinner than air. The experiments, published in Science, exploit a fascinating quantum effect to produce droplets ...

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KBK
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2015
It is interesting to note that claims of over-unity, anti gravity, FTL craft, etc, all center around CP violation.

It is enabled via a resonance coupling effect that leverages 'random' CP violation into a grouped effect, a bubble or area/volume of CP violation. As the alternative sciences have clearly shown.

In most physics calculations based on experimentation and observation, the 'CP violation' is written off as random noise, or calculation error. Fudge factors, where enforcement hides things they can't explain. To define experimental error and then sweep the anomalies under the carpet.

Academia and theory is filled with these fudged numbers. The fudged numbers are then 'law' used to brow beat and attack anyone who deals with 'violations'. A social construct used to control science.

Science ends up being controlled. Follow the money/power.

We need more independent minds who take risks, in order to defeat the clandestine breakaway group and their blockade.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (29) Nov 20, 2015
"Physicists have been waiting for more than 40 years for this kind of breakthrough. It sounds strange, but we're looking for this theoretical computation not to match the experimental results,

People on here who always cry about scientists "just trying to preserve the status quo" should read this sentence.

And again.
And again.

Until they finally get it through their thick skulls that they are crying about something that doesn't exist.
Ultron
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2015
"Physicists have been waiting for more than 40 years for this kind of breakthrough. It sounds strange, but we're looking for this theoretical computation not to match the experimental results,

People on here who always cry about scientists "just trying to preserve the status quo" should read this sentence.

And again.

Until they finally get it through their thick skulls that they are crying about something that doesn't exist.


The problem is that mainstream physicists expect this breakthrough coming only within established mainstream ideas. That means if somebody will come with some new revolutionary theory, which is in line with existing experiments and makes good predictions, it will be dismissed because it is new and not established yet. But if somebody comes with completely bullshit which is not in line with existing experiments and it is not falsifiable, it would be still accepted if it is within mainstream theory, for example within string theory.
CharlesRKiss
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
I hope CP violation is real physics and not experimental error; there is a whole field of natural law we don't understand fully, eg. gravitation, and maybe this is a way in to learn more about the Universe.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (18) Nov 20, 2015
The problem is that mainstream physicists expect this breakthrough coming only within established mainstream ideas. That means if somebody will come with some new revolutionary theory, which is in line with existing experiments and makes good predictions, it will be dismissed because it is new and not established yet.

Read the article. Read it again. That is EXACTLY what they did. No one expected CP violation - yet here it is predicted. You're completely missing the point of what cosmologist and particle physicists do.

Every one of them is out to prove the standard model wrong and supplant it with a better one.
Every.
Single.
One.

That's the one and only job description of what a scientist in these fields is supposed to do.

it would be still accepted if it is within mainstream theory, for example within string theory.

Point to one source that says string theory is verified/accepted. I dare you. I double dare you.
KBK
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2015
"Physicists have been waiting for more than 40 years for this kind of breakthrough. It sounds strange, but we're looking for this theoretical computation not to match the experimental results,

People on here who always cry about scientists "just trying to preserve the status quo" should read this sentence.

And again.
And again.

Until they finally get it through their thick skulls that they are crying about something that doesn't exist.


That's a nice little white picketed fenced and flowered soft breeze world you are trying to sell us, and possibly sell yourself.

The situation is far more deep, complex, and ugly.... than that simple surface view you are promoting.

Basically, either you are ignorant... or trying to sell a load of bollocks.... to a group of people who don't look deep enough ....as they don't have the mind or the capacity to deal with the depth of the matter.

bschott
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2015
Every one of them is out to prove the standard model wrong and supplant it with a better one.
Every.
Single.
One.


with the understanding that,

mainstream physicists expect this breakthrough coming only within established mainstream ideas.


Below describes the impression most people I know get when they read about theoretical physics these days.

Basically, either you are ignorant... or trying to sell a load of bollocks.... to a group of people who don't look deep enough ....as they don't have the mind or the capacity to deal with the depth of the matter.


A femto second decay product is going to solve it all now...you guys must be gettin tired of continuously moving these eggs from basket to basket.

Well thought out remarks KBK.

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2015
vThat's a nice little white picketed fenced and flowered soft breeze world you are trying to sell us, and possibly sell yourself.

I don't need to sell anything. Use the scientific method and test my assertion. The email address of researchers is on every paper they publish (or you can just google for the names in the articles posted here. Their email addresses are publicly available on their institute's website).

Scientist love to be asked about their work. Just go and ask them themselves. I've done just that on a number of occasions where discussions here hinged on the interpretation of a linked paper - and I've gotten answers every time.

Basically, either you are ignorant... or trying to sell a load of bollocks.... to a group of people who don't look deep enough

Yes, y are not looking deep enough. You're just making up a fantasy about what scientist do without ever having spoken with one. Use the scientific method. Do the experiment. Find out!
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2015
@antialias_physorg, I'm with you on this one but as you mentioned string theory;

it would be still accepted if it is within mainstream theory, for example within string theory.

Point to one source that says string theory is verified/accepted. I dare you. I double dare you.

...I thought I might mention a quote from elsewhere;
Context: U.S. government cuts to theoretical high-energy physics groups have been 25% to 50% in the last couple of years. (Despite news articles suggesting otherwise, billionaires have not made up for the cuts; and most donations have gone to string theory, not particle physics.) Spare resources are almost impossible to find. The situation is much better in certain other countries...'
Do you have info that that supports this or has someone got it wrong? Thanks
ECat
Nov 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2015
the scientists are trying to break or preserve the status quo when it does provide more jobs for them
@zeph
1- you're confusing the application of science to research (epic fail)

2- this just proves that you've never taken the time out to actually discuss any valid science with any reputable published scientists...
as AA_P stated above
Scientist love to be asked about their work
they also like to prove other scientists wrong, as noted here: https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

this has also been demonstrated against JVK on almost every attempted interpretation of the science he tried... you know, all those posts you just downrated with your socks (including ANON et al posts!)

so your grasp of the situation is tenuous at best, delusional is more like it though

it is also called a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
Context: U.S. government cuts to theoretical high-energy physics groups have been 25% to 50% in the last couple of years. ...
Spare resources are almost impossible to find. The situation is much better in certain other countries...'
Do you have info that that supports this or has someone got it wrong? Thanks

I don't know how the resource situation in theoretical physics is (They always say: give a string theorist a blackboard and some chalk and he's all set ;-) ). In any field I have come in contact with it's always the same (medicine, biology, computer sciences). It's very hard to get funding. You spend about a quarter of your time writing/vetting proposals instead of doing research with no guarantee that a grant will go through (i.e. no money: Which means your contract is terminated on the spot. Talk about lack of job security!)
But probably still easier than in particle physics since you can sometimes find industry collaborators in these fields.
Ultron
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2015
Point to one source that says string theory is verified/accepted. I dare you. I double dare you.


You are missing the point. I think that string theory is complete bullshit with all its 11 dimensions. But FACT is that there are thousands of string physicists which get directly or indirectly billions of dollars in research grants and there are many string theory popularizers which produce thousands of string theory books and documents. Therefore is string theory established mainstream theory and if you want publish some string theory bullshit paper in some peer reviewed journal or in arxiv, you have no problem.

But if you have some new revolutionary theory which is not established yet, you have major problem and it doesnt really matter if you are in line with experiments or not.

And CP violation proof is not a new revolutionary theory, it is just a signal, that a new theory is probably needed.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
"Ground-breaking research could challenge underlying principles of physics"
This title is a truism.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2015
But if you have some new revolutionary theory which is not established yet, you have major problem and it doesnt really matter if you are in line with experiments or not.

No you don't. Publish it. Einstein won his nobel prize for a paper that was barely 15 pages long ("On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light"). That's less than some high-school essays.

There's nothing that prevents anyone from submitting their paper for peer review in a conference. It costs 0$ to do so.
As for arxiv: Anyone can publish there. It also costs 0$ To do so.

There is absolutely no problem whatsoever getting a new theory published. However, if you go for peer review, you must be prepared to have the _content_ of the paper actually evaluated/scrutinized. No one is going to accept that "this is it" based on someone#s word (that would be an 'argument from authority' fallacy)
Ultron
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2015
Einstein won his nobel prize for a paper that was barely 15 pages long ("On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light"). That's less than some high-school essays.

There's nothing that prevents anyone from submitting their paper for peer review in a conference. It costs 0$ to do so.
As for arxiv: Anyone can publish there. It also costs 0$ To do so.


You are just naive and are knowing practically nothing about publishing NEW theory. In time of Eistein around 1905, there was nothing like peer review. Today is the situation completely different. Arxiv is actively censoring all non mainstream theories and everything new have to be endorsed. Most peer review journals automatically reject really new theories.

I will try to publish it, but there 99%% chance it will be rejected, but I will do it, just to show how rigged is the whole official preprint and peer review system.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2015
I will try to publish it, but there 99%% chance it will be rejected, but I will do it, just to show how rigged is the whole official preprint and peer review system
@ultron
the only way it will be rejected is if:
1- you don't provide evidence

2- your evidence doesn't actually relate to your argument

3- your experiment or evidence doesn't conform to the rigorous constraints of the scientific method (as in, removes bias, etc)

4- you argue a known fallacious or impossible point (such as: mills hydrino argument which creates perpetual motion)

Please note that even the blatant perpetual motion in the hydrino argument got published (and argued further in arXiv as possible)

so that set of papers alone proves your argument (rigged system will refuse you) is a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

axemaster
5 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2015
I will try to publish it, but there 99%% chance it will be rejected, but I will do it, just to show how rigged is the whole official preprint and peer review system.


Ultron, if your ideas get rejected it's probably because they're garbage and everybody except you knows it. But, if you manage to actually publish something I promise to retract this statement - just be aware, the "American Based Research Journal" doesn't count ;P
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
I'm not sure if I agree; submitting a 'new theory' for evaluation having it rejected, then claiming the system is biased (or whatever) is the wise thing to do in the first place. Publish via book seller if one really has confidence in what one has formulated. Put it out there, in general form for everyone to see and then look at responses. Then perhaps write a more detailed complete paper specifically for the scientific community. One has to realise that new theories are emerging all the time so if you don't act now someone else might beat you to it. Release a general manuscript then you might find that it has, indeed, been thought of already.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2015
Publish via book seller if one really has confidence in what one has formulated
@mimath
this is a bad idea, IMHO
first off: book sellers sell books because they make money off of it, not becuase it is accurate, scientific or in any way based upon reality (ex: S. King, Asimov's sci-fi, Poul Anderson)

secondly: the easiest way to get published is to pull a reg and do a vanity press/self publish, and that provides no real feedback either

lastly: advertising

the only way you will get a new idea recognized is to "write a more detailed complete paper specifically for the scientific community" in a journal
but this means you will HAVE to conform to the scientific method and it's constraints as well as provide evidence/research

if you're not doing the journal & peer review, then you might as well be publishing a religious tome
and if you're gonna do the work, do the journal first and accept criticism OR prove you're correct
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

Publish via book seller if one really has confidence in what one has formulated
@mimath
this is a bad idea, IMHO
first off: book sellers sell books because.....
....and if you're gonna do the work, do the journal first and accept criticism OR prove you're correct

That wasn't my point. Ultron said he was 99% sure it wouldn't pass. Would you go and sit an exam if you were 99% sure you wouldn't pass or go for a job if you were 99% sure your qualifications weren't what the employer wanted or step into a boxing ring if you 99% sure you were going to get really clobbered? I don't think I would. I'd do one of two things; Do more study to improve my chances or change strategy completely (I was studying the wrong topics, going for the wrong job or in the wrong sort). I mean, 99% lack of confidence? Either Ultron has a total lack of respect for the system or of his own work. cont....
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
cont...I assume he has confidence in his own work...well let him prove it and publish any way that he is able. For example, how many believe that it is our consciousness that creates the universe (not mainstream is it!) yet certain well written books on the subject have sold well. Obviously Ultron thinks his work is not mainstream so, imo, then clearly he has to change something...which change would you make to get your theories heard?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2015
Would you go and sit an exam if you were 99% sure you wouldn't pass or go for a job if you were 99% sure your qualifications weren't what the employer wanted or step into a boxing ring if you 99% sure you were going to get really clobbered?
@mimath
yes, i would. i know this because i have done it...
in typical people, there is always a time when, even after all you've done to prepare for something, you get to the point of feeling inferior or unprepared. This is especially true in youth... and i've experienced all three of the above. Confidence comes from training, but also from the application of said training IRL
I mean, 99% lack of confidence? Either Ultron has a total lack of respect for the system or of his own work
or he is well aware that his work doesn't meet the criteria or constraints of the scientific method and instead of working towards fixing it, prefers instead to create the image of persecution and victimization (common IRL)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2015
@mimath cont'd
some people prefer not to forge ahead due to whatever reason, or can't actually accept constructive criticism. this is a failing of many fragile ego's, and apparently it is THE choice of a lot of pseudoscience adherents (no joke, read the comments and seek out the ones posting known pseudoscience like creationism or electric universe... all of them choose to promote themselves as "victims" of the conspiratorial mainstream science who refuse to accept their ideas "because [insert delusion here]")
I assume he has confidence in his own work
you can't assume this - see above
yet certain well written books on the subject have sold well
this is a poor judge of anything... the bible has also sold well, and yet it's been proven to be mis-authored, plagiarized, false as well as outright contradictory...
people buy books because they want a good story OR it validates their internal delusions/beliefs

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2015
@mimath cont'd
they buy something and make it popular (the books) for the same reason they buy pizza...etc

because it makes them feel good and it gives them a reason or justification (internal: real OR imagined) for continuing to believe/feel a certain way (confirmation bias)
...which change would you make to get your theories heard?
well, mainstream or not has nothing to do with it IMHO...
and as for the changes I would make?
hard work, evidence, and continually working towards the goal of either acceptance or rejection
I've had to promote a fringe theory in the past that was wild and no one would accept it in my line of work... i followed the evidence and finally it was accepted, and we were successful in our endeavor... sometimes all it really takes is perseverance... and if you are correct and the evidence backs you up, you plod on until someone catches on OR until you get enough evidence to be more convincing

the scientific method is a lot like investigation
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Captain Stumpyi, you have really only rephrased what my point is. I stand by the Scientific Method and I too have problems with fringe ideas. But in the end if one really is convinced one has something important and valid to say then one should 'stand up and be counted' but it is also important choose the way in which that should be done. You write 'well, mainstream or not has nothing to do with it IMHO...' and again that is my point. The example I quoted before has a lot of followers especially when it comes to the 'Information Theory' of the universe. I've seen TV programs where scientists attending were almost split down the middle as to the interpretation. Like you, I feel Ultron has made a claim and now he should back that up...make public or be quite. I once put my life on the line even when the odds were against me and it doesn't come much harder than that. Fortunately, I was either lucky or better than I thought I was or both. But when one chooses a route stick with it until y
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2015
cont...But when one chooses a route stick with it until you are proved wrong. Imo it is something of an excuse to to 'I'm 99% sure they'll refuse/deny etc.' If Ultron does not have the confidence to 'do it' then he can hardly expect others to have confidence in what he claims.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2015
"This is key to physicists' understanding of the universe, as it's currently accepted that the universe was created with equal parts of matter and antimatter, and, in order for matter to have overhauled its negative counterpart, the two sets of particles must have behaved differently – however slight that difference was."

Why? On which facts are based this assumption? Or maybe just on wishful thinking?

The main problem of people is that they want to became Gods. People are trying to understand the physical reality in which they live to be able to control it as gods. But this position is already occupied and require a holiness, which is not inherent in man. Official science looks too materialistic at the physical world, and this is the reason to stay away from the truth and reality. Because before the matter is the spirit that gives meaning and purpose to the matter. Without taking into account this essential component, never will understand even a fraction of reality.
animah
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2015
Why? On which facts are based this assumption? Or maybe just on wishful thinking?

It's because of the Dirac equation, which is not wishful thinking as many experiments have been conducted to verify it.

So calculations and experiments show that every particle today is guaranteed to have an antiparticle with exactly the same mass and lifetime and they annihilate when they meet. So why is there matter at all?

The simplest explanation is that early in the universe when pressure and temperature were much higher, this must not have been the case.

Physicists don't say that because calculations and experiments prove it, but because there is matter today so something *obviously* must have changed. it's the most parsimonious hypothesis but could very well be proven wrong.

materialistic at the physical world

Physics looks at the physical world +by definition+. Whatever you want to look at, it isn't physics.

Try participating in a metaphysics forum instead?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
you have really only rephrased what my point is
@Mimath
sorry, i didn't get that out of it... it really appeared like you were saying something different. my apologies
Imo it is something of an excuse to to 'I'm 99% sure they'll refuse/deny etc.' If Ultron does not have the confidence to 'do it' then he can hardly expect others to have confidence in what he claims.
man, i wish i could give you two dozen stars for that, and yes, that is exactly the point i was making too (sorry)

yeah, it seems a whole lot of a "cop out" to say "'I'm 99% sure they'll refuse/deny etc"... and my biggest problem with a lot of pseudoscience is this very argument
or the excuse that it must be kept "secret" or i can't divulge it due to "plagiarism/copywrite" /whatever until its publish... then drag on for a decade whining about it while building a web page to crackpot pseudoscience

my mistake and misunderstanding Mimath

jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2015
In what ways and how exactly do they want to become gods? Define what gods means to you please.
Assuming god exists why are you so adamant about ignorance when understanding creation and reality further is discussed?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2015
@Captain Stumpy, No need to apologise, Ha, I don't think I'm the worlds best expressing the necessary points anyway but I'm glad that we can agree. You know, what do 'these guys' really think is going to happen to them if they're wrong? They might lose a little 'face' but they're not going to be taken to the wall and shot. Fortunately we have moved on from the time when Socrates had the resolve to stand by his words and died for it or Galileo who was ingenious enough invent the image of 'two books' by the same hand and escaped the dilemma.
@Ultron Come on, the world isn't going to wait around for you so let's see your resolve.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2015
You know, what do 'these guys' really think is going to happen to them if they're wrong? They might lose a little 'face'

That's the real puzzling thing, though. 'Face' is something a scientist isn't concerbned with at all. It's the content that matters, and nothing else. The important thing is that someone makes a breakthrough - not that he's the one. (Yeah, it's cool if you're the one. But any kind of recognition is just a bonus not the point of scientific work. When you're doing science you're really working in this grander scheme of things.

And how else could it be? After all you're immersed in the knowledge of others (dwarfs on the shoulders of giants and all that). Anyone who thinks that science is a something for a lone warrior knows nothing about science. Nothing.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
@antialias_physorg, Yes, right! Do you have any idea of what Ultron is referring to?
Ultron
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2015
@Ultron Come on, the world isn't going to wait around for you so let's see your resolve.


If Im right, then the world is going to wait at least next 10 years or until I publish, because my theory is just insane :)
My theory is like collection of physics heresies. Shortly described it is relativistic push gravity/push inertia theory including preferred time and space (to which are the relativistic effects aligned) and allowing FTL communication compatible with non local hidden variables.

So it is obvious it will be extremely hard to publish it despite it is in line with existing experiments and making verifiable experiment predictions. It is like rewriting major part of physics. History will tell, if it is just extreme intellectual arrogance combined with stupidity or a stroke of genius. Im sure in the initial phase almost everybody will think it is the first case :)

vidyunmaya
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2015
sub: Cosmology needs best of brains trust- who limits the advancement ?
Cosmos Quest- means Search origins to interlinks-science-philosophy to cosmological Index.
in-depth study to know about present trend to mislead- Cosmos Anarchy- cosmic confusion- paradigm shift- form background. Moderators and Organisers of a conference must be open-minded -otherwise et blocked.
Invisible-Visible Matrix mode -My papers could not be presented to particle Physics-Fermi lab groups while I was in Chicago-a few miles away. how to remove Dogma- dark mode concepts as well.
super-imposition of visible-Invisible matrix is a reality at the milky way galactic Frame- I could do it at COSPAR2013-Thanks the organisers.
many subjects need interlinks-east West Interaction-sponsors welcome.
vidyardhicosmology [dot]BlogSpot [dot]com
my2cts
not rated yet Nov 23, 2015
"This is key to physicists' understanding of the universe, as it's currently accepted that the universe was created with equal parts of matter and antimatter, and, in order for matter to have overhauled its negative counterpart, the two sets of particles must have behaved differently – however slight that difference was."

Why? On which facts are based this assumption? Or maybe just on wishful thinking?

The main problem of people is that they want to became Gods. People are trying to understand the physi ... reason to stay away from the truth and reality. Because before the matter is the spirit that gives meaning and purpose to the matter. Without taking into account this essential component, never will understand even a fraction of reality.

Vade retro Satanas.
SuperThunder
not rated yet Nov 23, 2015
"How would I know if I'm wrong" once again shown to be the greatest of questions.

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.