The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Scientific Discoveries and Advancements

Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

The newest revelations in the scientific world -- post articles, discussions and your own ideas.

Postby at1with0 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm

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"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby bionic » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:09 pm

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
User avatar
bionic
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:15 pm

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"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby SmokinJoe » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:28 pm

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.
User avatar
SmokinJoe
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: OHIO

Postby chrisv25 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:14 am

lol. black swan :lol:

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.
chrisv25
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:05 am

Postby at1with0 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:15 am

I was under the impression that Arxiv wasn't peer-reviewed.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby chrisv25 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:56 pm

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.
chrisv25
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:05 am

Postby Tairaa » Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:40 pm

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."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby SmokinJoe » Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:22 pm

chrisv25 wrote:
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.


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. :oops: :oops: :oops:

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.
User avatar
SmokinJoe
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: OHIO


Return to Scientific Discoveries and Advancements

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests