MATHUSLA—a new idea proposed to spot long-lived particles at LHC

May 24, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
MATHUSLA—a new idea proposed to spot long-lived particles at LHC
Possible geometric configurations for the MATHUSLA surface detector at the HL-LHC. Gray shading indicates areas assumed to be sensitive to LLP decays. The surface detector is a 200m square building, centered along the beam line. Credit: arXiv:1606.06298 [hep-ph]

A small team of physicists that includes Jessie Shelton of the University of Illinois and David Curtin of the University of Toronto has written a paper and presented it at this year's American Physical Society meeting outlining a possible way to detect particles emitted from the Large Hadron Collider. Their idea involves constructing a new building near the LHC to house a suite of long-lived particle detectors.

The whole point of spending billions of dollars to build the LHC was to make progress toward understanding the universe and how everything in it works. Researchers there hoped to learn more by detecting the most elementary of by smashing protons together at high speed and looking at the pieces as they were expelled like shrapnel in a bomb blast—many of which had already been theorized. The Higgs boson was the most notorious. But since that monumental observation, researchers have begun to wonder whether the LHC will ever find some of the other proposed particles. And there is another problem—the Higgs turned out to have a smaller mass than theory suggested, which means either the theory was not quite correct, or some of its mass was lost during the collision.

With no new discoveries in the years since Higgs was found, researchers have begun to grow impatient. Some physicists wonder if the other particles might ever be observed, while others have started questioning basic assumptions about such particles, such as how long they exist after a collision. As Shelton noted when presenting the team's paper, detectors at LHC have been set to look for only those that live a very short while. But, she wondered, what if they last longer than thought? She and the rest of the team have proposed constructing a near the LHC that would house other detectors to note the presence of longer-lived particles that have made their way out of the collider altogether. Such a building, they say, would be separated from the LHC by several feet of granite, which would serve as a filter for other particle debris.

The team has named the proposed new project the Massive Timing Hodoscope for Ultra Stable Neutral Particles, or MATHUSLA, for short. They believe it could be built for the relatively low cost of just $50 million.

Explore further: Long-lived physics

More information: John Paul Chou et al. New detectors to explore the lifetime frontier, Physics Letters B (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.043 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06298

Related Stories

Long-lived physics

January 18, 2018

New particles produced in the LHC's high-energy proton-proton collisions don't hang around for long. A Higgs boson exists for less than a thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of a second before decaying into lighter particles, ...

European physicist discusses Higgs boson at Brown University

April 20, 2015

The head of the European Organization for Nuclear Research says the historic 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson particle and the particle accelerator that detected it are getting scientists closer to understanding the creation ...

Recommended for you

Physicists build fractal shape out of electrons

November 12, 2018

In physics, it is well-known that electrons behave very differently in three dimensions, two dimensions or one dimension. These behaviours give rise to different possibilities for technological applications and electronic ...

Atomic parity violation research reaches new milestone

November 12, 2018

A reflection always reproduces objects as a complete mirror image, rather than just its individual parts or individual parts in a completely different orientation. It's all or nothing, the mirror can't reflect just a little. ...

Innovative experimental scheme can create mirror molecules

November 12, 2018

Exploring the mystery of molecular handedness in nature, scientists have proposed a new experimental scheme to create custom-made mirror molecules for analysis. The technique can make ordinary molecules spin so fast that ...

75 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) May 25, 2018
Riigghht!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
Even though they are transparent? Charge! Visualize the equal-potential spheres as the center moves.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
Yeah, O I C Energy!

GR?

Modern Physics? Etc.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
Oh, each one of those is unique. Space, 'conceptual', is filled with nothing but these. Looks like an infinite number of pairs.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
So, I think you are wasting time; unless, you're building a weapon, propulsion, massive energy manipulation; OK! We got other things to solve! Everything!
ZoeBell
May 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
May 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
mass?
milnik
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
What is Higgs boson and other particles produced from the "tortured" protons? Science has not yet figured out what's in their "vacuumed" tubes and what can all be formed there with high magnetism and high crash speed. It is a substance of Aether that fills the infinite universe and forms matter. But in these collisions it is impossible to achieve processes that form the existing particles in nature. These particles are "dead-end abortions" of incompetent performers.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2018
I wonder when the Dunning-Kruger affected, physics crank brigade are ever going to write up their woo? Or are the denizens of places like this going to have to put up with their incessant torrents of crap? I'm not optimistic.
ZoeBell
May 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2018
ZB, I am confused. Silly me, I thought earning a living, doing work you care about, was a good thing? Whether or not they accomplish provable and profitable inventions? Spin-offs and serendipity and odd gadgets each opens up new vistas for exploration and exploitation.

Even outright failures can teach us a lot. If we are not afraid to fail, from fear of being criticized for failing. Might yet produce completely unexpected results. Both good and bad. And sometimes the result is both.

When your primary methods fail to produce the results you hypothesized? Improvisation may turn out to be the skeleton key to success!

Edison failed thousands of times at producing a commercially viable and useful light bulb.
ZoeBell
May 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
May 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) May 25, 2018
^^^^^^^Sounds like the usual whines of physics cranks who are neither qualified, nor intelligent enough, to contribute anything themselves. Dig deeper, and you usually find that they believe in some ridiculous woo or other. That's why they hang around places like this, inflicting their rubbish on everyone else.
barakn
5 / 5 (4) May 25, 2018
ZoeBell = current sockpuppet of mackita/Zephir.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 26, 2018
ZoeBell = current sockpuppet of mackita/Zephir.

Yah.
Insta-ignore.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) May 26, 2018
Which is why I'm linking opinions of those, who are qualified and intelligent enough to do it... ;-)


Yep, which is why the message I replied to included a link to an appallingly badly written paper on vixra! Publishing on vixra = crankery. QED.

ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) May 26, 2018
link to an appallingly badly written paper on vixra
This paper just cites failures of HUNDREDs predictions failed in LHC experiments in a completely dry journalist way.


Nope, un peer-reviewed crap on vixra is a sure sign of crankery. The author was a research engineer, and is in the philosophy department of a university! Like I said - unqualified. If this was coming out of the physics department of that university, it may be worth a look. Philosophy? Lol.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2018
link to an appallingly badly written paper on vixra
This paper just cites HUNDREDs of predictions failed in LHC experiments in a completely dry journalist way. It also demonstrates the destiny of huge volume of material and intellectual investments into it. The question rather is, why physicists didn't collect these failures itself.


So show me the correct predictions of this philosopher? Who the hell is he to be pontificating on stuff he isn't qualified in? Why put a 'journalistic' piece in a craphole like vixra? Get a life.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2018
basis? logic? what ya'll smoking, send me some
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Of course that such article could be published at ArXiv anytime


And Arxiv is a pre-print server. There is absolutely no point taking seriously anything on there, either, that hasn't, or isn't about to be published in a respectable journal. Most papers on there are in proper journals (or will be), and it is therefore a useful repository for those without access to those journals. Vixra is purely for, and by, cranks.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Vixra is purely for, and by, cranks
This is just a semantic labeling. ArXiv is controlled by string theorists like Diestler from similar reason: their overly speculative and abstract articles wouldn't get published by anywhere else. So that they usurped it as their https://www.reddi...malleus/ and expelled proponents of another physical theories from there.


Bollocks. Like I said, Arxiv is a pre-print server. It is not meant to be a final publication place. Authors upload their papers as they await submission and/or acceptance by respectable journals. Some try to use it to get nonsense 'published'. Which is no doubt whty they have strict rules about who can put stuff on there. Otherwise they'd be overwhelmed by crap. Like Vixra.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Vixra is purely for, and by, cranks
This is just a semantic labeling and https://en.wikipe...uthority and expelled proponents of another physical theories from there.


Lol. Tries to justify his argument by linking to a comment on Reddit by none other than himself! Eh, Zephir? How come you need so many sock puppets? Strikes me as being underhanded, and the actions of someone who should not be trusted.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Once again: this article does anything less, anything more than to cite (verbatim) many other ArXiV articles. I.e. the bare already published facts. There is no other value added except that it selects only articles which failed in the light of LHC experiments.


And that seems to be pure obfuscation and lies. I picked just one paper linked by this engineer/ philosopher. It failed to show results that some had hypothesised outside the standard model. Ergo, for the hard of thinking, the standard model has not been falsified. The hypothesis for possibilities outside of the standard model has been falsified. Do you understand what that means? Probably not.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Some try to use it to get nonsense 'published'. Which is no doubt whty they have strict rules about who can put stuff on there
Only by theory. For example the 3-sigma effect in the mass distribution of 750 GeV photon pairs found by ATLAS at the end of 2015 has lead to the wake of 700+ articles at ArXiv. After three months it has been announced, that this effect is bogus. Do you think, some of these articles has been withdrawn from ArXiv? Do you think, some of string theory articles has been withdrawn from there?


For the umpteenth time - Arxiv is not a frigging journal, you idiot. Why would anything need to be withdrawn? A journal is something like ApJ, A & A, Physics Reviews, etc, etc. And yes, if they had been published in those, they would haver been withdrawn, you loon. Arxiv is a PRE-PRINT SERVER!
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 26, 2018
Ergo, for the hard of thinking, the standard model has not been falsified. The hypothesis for possibilities outside of the standard model has been falsified. Do you understand what that means?
It just means, whole high energy physics after Standard Model (i.e. after 1970) is bogus: stringy, susy, loopy quantum gravity theories were disproved at LHC. Fifty years of theoretical physics wasted.


Christ, what a loon. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'theoretical'? It is essentially that which has not been proven, and may be worth considering. So they consider it by experiment (the only way you can do it), and see what is possible and what is not. If all those theories are wasted, then we haven't reached the right theory, have we? But at least we can eliminate others, which, in itself, is a result. I see nothing from the crank brigade in those 50 years. Just word salad and whining.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Approximate half of all preprints in arXiv subsequently appeared in peer-reviewed publications (Manuel, 2001; Mine, 2009), and Moed (2007) found this percentage to be about 75% in condensed matter. You even don't know how this server is working and for what.


Yes I do. And it is not a playground for cranks like you. Set up a website, or put some crap on youtube. That's what the rest of the cranks do. Quit moaning about your conspiracy paranoia, likelihood is that you are ignored because you are talking crap.
And surely you are not talking about the idiot Oliver Manuel? I will really laugh if that is the case.

ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Because you're avoiding to visit their preprint servers, like ViXra?


No, I told you - vixra is for cranks. Nobody is going to visit there for scientific purposes. Get it published in a journal, and people might see it. Non peer-reviewed stuff on vixra is a waste of a person's time. There is enough to be looking at without subjecting oneself to hundreds of physics cranks.
And you did mean this Oliver Manuel, didn't you?
https://www.huffi...5fbdc13a
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
For example here you can find a theory predicting masses of most known particles from scratch.


Never been published, never been peer reviewed. Waste of space until it is.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
The opponents of Galileo........


And another 10 points on the crackpot index! Lol.

I didn't talk about Oliver Manuel, you did.


Liar. You brought up some crap about Arxiv, and used a paper (?) by this loon to back it up. I asked if it was the loon Oliver Manuel. No you are running away from it. Is it Oliver Manuel you are talking about? If so, what relevance has anything he says got to do with anything? He's a complete loon. Among other things.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) May 26, 2018
Try to imagine, your child would die of cancer
@zoe
argument from emotion?
really?

1- there have been far, far, far more "cheap accessible reliable remedies" promoted by pseudoscience shills and sites like ViXra that have been shown to be false claims.

bubbanicholson and jvk on this site alone is proof of that. Just because the author or someone randomly says it's a cure doesn't mean it is

2- science isn't just about random publication. it's about fact checking, validation and (important here), impact. if you just want to publish, vixra is akin to the "self-publish" of the book world. It doesn't preclude there being a best seller, but it's far, far more unlikely that there will be one on vixra compared to professional publishers (with standards, etc)

3- if we go by statistics, vixra is a health hazard compared to Science Magazine, etc, therefore, a threat, not a potential remedy
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) May 26, 2018
]Try to imagine, your child would die of cancer and someone would publish a cheap accessible and reliable remedy against it at ViXra - what would you do? Ignore it unmercifully?


Even vixra warn against taking seriously non peer-reviewed papers in medical sciences! Anybody that published there is more likely to kill than cure you. Yes, I would ignore it, just as I ignore homeopathy.

And, just for the record, and something you could have answered yourself with the tiniest bit of research - no, it wasn't Oliver Manuel. He actually 'publishes' on Arxiv, and is indeed a loon. However the 2001 paper was by K. Manuel. There is a more up to date one here:
https://www.resea...ionships
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 26, 2018
1) none such a statistics exists
none such cures exist on vixra either, and peer-reviewed the less
2) According to statistics already published and reviewed 90% of medical studies is bogus
your own link demonstrates you're willing to blatantly misrepresent the data from your own 2010 article, with no link to a statistical analysis, let alone a study.

plus, what part of "validation" do you not understand yet?
it's not rocket surgery - this is basic stuff here
Therefore your claim is completely speculative - maybe this ratio is exactly the opposite for the few medical articles presented at ViXra
and maybe unicorn farts cause hurricanes too

you have yet to produce anything other than speculation yourself - your interpretation of what you read
that isn't science

Science requires adherence to certain principles that you've just demonstrated you know nothing about

more on your medical statistics in a minute
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 26, 2018
@zoe
talking about vixra: there are statistical analysis of certain fields in vixra vrs arxiv
https://arxiv.org...1036.pdf

there are existing studies to push the boundaries of information further
one of the problems of vixra is that non-academically trained authors proliferate on said site. this is apparent not only in style but in content

whereas a non-academically trained person may well be capable of presenting earth-shattering new science, it's statistically unlikely, especially in light of the intense specialisation of medical and modern scientific endeavours

more to the point, though NIH suggests that open access may be the wave of the future ( https://www.ncbi....3763246/ ) it doesn't mean non-peer reviewed or validated (that latter being kinda important in science, just in case you forgot)

medicine is also subjected to additional constraints that typically don't exist for other fields, be it cultural or otherwise

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 26, 2018
cont'd
According to statistics already published and reviewed
just because it's published doesn't mean it's science. this is one of the driving differences between pseudoscience advocates and science advocates

source material is important - for a reason
that reason starts with validation of content and ends with scientific constraints - the very definition of science ( which uses the scientific method - https://en.wikipe...c_method )

Example:
you don't use Dr. Seuss as a medical reference
you need to have a way to differentiate the potential bullsh*t like jvk or bubbanicholson from the actual medicine that has been proven effective

lastly
medicine is difficult because it involves a highly complex biological machine that includes microbiota and other influences, including psychosomatic. add into that the differences between individuals and you get issues that arise and can mislead results (hence your article)

medicine just ain't easy at all
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2018
Ignore everyone since Maxwell but me!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2018
.....who willingly decided to ignore findings like cold fusion for whole their productive life and they're even comfortable with it.


Wow, somebody has created cold fusion? Gee, I must have missed that.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) May 26, 2018
That thread went straight into the loony bin...

"And there is another problem—the Higgs turned out to have a smaller mass than theory suggested".

Except the standard model does not predict the Higgs mass, hence the long search [ https://en.wikipe...gs_boson ]. And the paper does not refer to it directly, unless I missed it. So the reader is left wondering.

Possibly they refer to this:

"The Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson.[94] If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2 (consistent with empirical observations of 125 GeV/c2), then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1019 GeV).[95] Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model." [Ibid.]

I.e. since the Higgs permits SM to be valid up to Planck scale, this is unsatisfying for dark matter.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2018
Last was a joke; but, c, mass, QM? Well, I'll sign off to the illogical
ZoeBell
May 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2018
Higgs boson is not a particle that exists in nature. It is an artificially produced particle, only the squirrels are unaware of how they got it. All these artificial particles obtained in particle collisions are the result of increased magnetism and the velocity of the particles that collide and the Aether itself that stands in these "empty" tubes.
It's like a children's toy when they make bubbles from a soap opera.
It's time to find out and understand that without Aether there is no matter, movement, gravity or magnetism. Scientists will never be able to form something that does not exist in nature. These surrogates disappear in a very short time
Ojorf
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2018
Only the squirrels are unaware of how they got it
and the Aether itself that stands in these "empty" tubes.
like a children's toy.
When they make bubbles from a soap opera
it's time to find out and understand
these surrogates disappear in a very short time
never be able to form...
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 27, 2018
Only the squirrels are unaware of how they got it
and the Aether itself that stands in these "empty" tubes.
like a children's toy.
When they make bubbles from a soap opera
it's time to find out and understand
these surrogates disappear in a very short time
never be able to form...

poetry, nice; but, logic? Aether? Charge exist, axiom. no fair deviating.

21st century, in the 20th we allowed nonsense, not in the 21st. now, you should know better. forget the illogical standards you grew up in are illogical! pay attention.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy,
Be specific and clear, without illogical philosophies.
Why has science not yet learned how the matter arises? Can you explain that? For all of you and for you there is "nothing and empty space" from which "everything" was created, only one of you is unaware of the low level of awareness.
There must be some substance in the universe, from which the matter is formed, and we need to know what that substance is, and only then make conclusions about something we did not know the cause of the phenomenon. Remember: this substance is AETHER, which fills the infinite universe. Science has not yet realized the role of Aether and which is its core business. This is the effect on matter, and this causes gravity and magnetism. This is the truth for which I have proof, only today's science did not deserve to explain it to me, because everyone asks me to pay them to see it. !!!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2018
@Hyperfuz This is the truth for which I have proof, only today's science did not deserve to explain it to me, because everyone asks me to pay them to see it. !!!

This sort of conversation is illogical. Study, begin with Hypatia, next the crusades,then introspect, .. so; where did money come? The logical God or Pharaoh that ruled Ancient Egypt or The Barbarians? The Ancients knew it conceptually, ... then charge!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2018
it is not the err, it's the disrespect!

meh, so we lost about 4000 years and have practically destroyed the earth! if an infinite set of diametrical spherical fields, exist, it always exist
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
It is illogical for you to be the one I am talking about, and it is logical that I publish my work worth at least one Nobel Prize, and that I pay for this work to be published and that those who need to learn something from it, although always ignoring new knowledge. They are always tied to old people and wrong theories. Is it science or tycoons?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
It is illogical for you to be the one I am talking about, and it is logical that I publish my work worth at least one Nobel Prize, and that I pay for this work to be published and that those who need to learn something from it, although always ignoring new knowledge. They are always tied to old people and wrong theories. Is it science or tycoons?

so say the illogical; however, as an axiom it should be well known, charge well known, particles, your guess is as good as mind. But keep publishing. The NOBEL is about destruction an money. Truth is damaged by its existence! Look at your history, led by magic. As far as I can see, as a collective, we're illogical! Truth has yet to be published. We don't even know where we are.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
that that is is that that is
that that is not that that is is not that that is
that's that

Learned as a kid reading "Flowers for Algernon"
https://en.wikipe...Algernon

punctuation, meh, it's a tautology and a test for intelligence

stating that charge exist; then explain why the universe is not expanding, this is a stream of galxies, a visual for energy, imagine the equal potential spheres about a charge, see them update forever as the charge moves or its center; you argue with particle theory or dark matter, throw the aether?
andyf
not rated yet May 29, 2018
Hey, the full moon was last night. Shouldn't you have gone home?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 29, 2018
Funny! Logic is now irrelevant!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 29, 2018
Oops! Didn't I sign-off to the illogical; relate: ref to the moon, i.e. nonsense. We have lost our way. We are lost. No one knows where we are. The leader is blind. Critics, foolish with their being only as complicit.
andyf
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2018
I'd go home now if I was you, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) May 29, 2018
I'd go home now if I was you, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.

if I were
jonesdave
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
I'd go home now if I was you, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.


That would be impossible. Idiots come in certain categories. Hypertwat has exceeded every one of them. He is a loon. Prove me wrong.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 30, 2018
I'd go home now if I was you, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.


That would be impossible. Idiots come in certain categories. Hypertwat has exceeded every one of them. He is a loon. Prove me wrong.

if ya missed it only the field center we call charge exist & speed of light is the speed of a wavelet, ya need a media to fuzzy up the wavelet; since it belongs to single charge; anyway original wavelength and the measured Period was not reconciled by Einstein! He went off into a whole different set of illusions. Don't get lost, fields don't affect fields. They add, but temporally.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 30, 2018
It doesn't bother me that you measure with instrumentation made with proper science; it bothers me that an Engineer is not allowed to correct to precision what is being measured; regardless what you want to name a QM phonom, or an oscillation between energy levels that doesn't fit the theory; but, adds to the theory as a new particle? Logic?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 30, 2018
I'd go home now if I was you, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.


That would be impossible. Idiots come in certain categories. Hypertwat has exceeded every one of them. He is a loon. Prove me wrong.

QED
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 30, 2018
I'd go home now if I was you, before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself.


That would be impossible. Idiots come in certain categories. Hypertwat has exceeded every one of them. He is a loon. Prove me wrong.

QED

Formal Logic: A Proper Premise is Necessary and Sufficient.
Axiom: Charge as the center of it's field, i.e. Field as the object that has existed and will exist. Space and Time are conceptual. Charge complies to the field.

The field update complies with Maxwell; question global constants; mass

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.