The Black Vault

by **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.

by **bionic** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:09 pm

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

by **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.

by **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.

by **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.

by **at1with0** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:15 am

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

by **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.

by **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.

by **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:

MEA CULPA. :Doh:

The Black Vault

Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Share On:

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

Re: Physics community buzzing over possible new particle

The Social Network Buzz

Who is online