Physics community buzzing over possible new particle | Scientific Discoveries and Advancements | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Physics community buzzing over possible new particle
April 8, 2011
5:53 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/201103 ... _sys.shtml

If the findings hold up, they likely indicate the production of a new, unknown particle that is not predicted by the Standard Model, the current gold standard theory of the fundamental laws of physics. A completely new type of force, or interaction, is also likely to be involved. Interestingly, several models proposed in recent years that postulate the existence of new fundamental interactions beyond those known today would create an excess similar to the one seen in the new data.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

April 9, 2011
2:09 am
Avatar
bionic
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9870
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

they should name it "the Black Swan" particle!
:mrgreen:

Willie Wonka quotes..
What is this Wonka, some kind of funhouse?
Why? Are you having fun?
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams

April 9, 2011
2:15 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

They should name it after me.

That is, because I discovered it.

Kinda like how Newton discovered that law in science where the result is attributed to the wrong person.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

April 9, 2011
4:28 am
Avatar
SmokinJoe
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 365
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This goes to what I've been saying, man makes the laws, and man rewrites the laws. All science would need to do, imo, is expand their defintion of acceptable methodologies. Maybe, they could tweak a few of their "laws" allowing for the study of the so-called "supernatural" to become part of the mainstream science world. And finally, this subject could be taken serious.

With that said, I understand science, as it stands now, follows observation, then asks the question, i.e. hypothesis, experimentation and falsifiability. This, of course is the method for the natural world. Before microscopes, bacteria might have fallen under the term "supernatural" as there was no way to even observe them (the first step).

We have many great scientific minds out there finding unique ways to study the supernatural. I'm confident we can set up a supernatural scientific methodology just like men have set up and agreed upon the natural world's current scientifically accepted methodology.

Dawkins thinks belief in God is an excuse to evade thinking in the scientific world. Sadly, he is ignorant to the list of christian scientists who have contributed & founded many of the sciences he himself believes in. How ironic.

April 11, 2011
12:14 pm
Avatar
chrisv25
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 175
Member Since:
December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

lol. black swan Laugh

I'm not a high energy particle physicist, but this is pretty exciting. Basically if it is true and repeatable, it brings the whole field to a standstill. The 'standard model' will have to be re-interpreted, which will be no small feat to say the least, and ArXiv is not very fond of publishing 'far out' papers. This might stall hep-theory for years.

April 11, 2011
4:15 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was under the impression that Arxiv wasn't peer-reviewed.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

April 12, 2011
2:56 am
Avatar
chrisv25
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 175
Member Since:
December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: I was under the impression that Arxiv wasn't peer-reviewed.

no they have 'submission' or 'endorsement' process. It means if we don't like what it says we won't publish it.

April 18, 2011
2:40 am
Avatar
Tairaa
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2842
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This goes to what I've been saying, man makes the laws, and man rewrites the laws. All science would need to do, imo, is expand their defintion of acceptable methodologies. Maybe, they could tweak a few of their "laws" allowing for the study of the so-called "supernatural" to become part of the mainstream science world. And finally, this subject could be taken serious.

That's not the way it works, a theory and a law are two totally different things. The standard model of particle physics is not a law, it is a theory.

I law describes what is demonstrably real, and a theory explains why. By nature, we don't have access to all the information all the time, and theories have to be tweaked or overhauled on occasion in light of new evidence. Thus we have the difference between the laws of gravity and the theory of gravity.

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."

April 22, 2011
1:22 am
Avatar
SmokinJoe
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 365
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"chrisv25" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]I was under the impression that Arxiv wasn't peer-reviewed.

no they have 'submission' or 'endorsement' process. It means if we don't like what it says we won't publish it.

I was trying to explain that to another vaulter here who refused to believe scientist and organizations would ever do such things. This kind of "control" over what gets made available on mass scales happens within the hallowed walls of all organizations on this planet.

Organized religion and mainstream science share that much in common.

Tairaa,

You're absolutely right. I was thinking about theories and methodologies and meant to say that expanding both would have to happen to allow what they call "supernatural" to be studied. I don't know why I kept saying "laws"...Reading the rest of my post, you will see I was referring to theories and methodologies, but somehow I kept saying "laws"...I do understand the difference. It is basic science. Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

MEA CULPA. :Doh:

Dawkins thinks belief in God is an excuse to evade thinking in the scientific world. Sadly, he is ignorant to the list of christian scientists who have contributed & founded many of the sciences he himself believes in. How ironic.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
49 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10232

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24016

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8696

Posts: 123380

Newest Members:

Melanie, chetney sessoms, Horatius, Express Documents, PaulDee094, Gary Wayne Ponder, AuthenticDocuments, matic mogan, nativembonyesiwe, laguse

Administrators: John Greenewald: 570, blackvault: 1776