Fermilab's CDF Result Sparks Rumors of New Physics

hmm

Which surprises?

Excess muons--isn't that what we need for muon induced fusion?

In response to the conjecture that elementary particles are elementary:

I offer this insight.

Even if there is such a thing as an "elementary" particle or wave, the scale of such an entity may be so very small that the so-called "elementary" particles observed in atoms and accelerators are nothing more than random amalgamations of said particle.

A muon may be made up of billions of some of "googlons" so tiny that nothing we can possibly imagine would detect them.

Scroll to the bottom of this linked page to see the humor in particle physics.

http://www.blazel...flaw.asp


The "laws of physics" at the sub-atomic level may indeed behave more like an object oriented program than classical physics.

in goes a variable, out comes the output, and the output can be more or less than the variable.



If you factor a prime number, say 13, you get factors 1 and that prime number, in this case 13.

One might say, "Well, I gained a 1."

As an analogy, viewing the digits as objects in and of themselves.

On the other hand, multiplying 13 x 1 = 13.

You might say, "I lost a 1."


Thus, at the sub-atomic scale, the universe may be multiplicative, instead of additive.

Scientist look for reactions Particle A Particle B = Particle C energy.

But what if such reactions do not actually occur?

What if what is really happening is Particle A * Particle B, or Particle A dot Particle B, or Particle A cross Particle B.

This "out of the box" way of looking at things is probably totally wrong, but it is something that occurs to me.

Analogy 2:

Consider the possibility that energy and mass behave more like a surface area rather than a linear value or a volume.

If you have two cubes, each having volume v = X^3 and surface area s = 6x^2, what happens if you "Add" them together by stacking?

Well, your total volume remains the same v = 2x^3.

But your surface area of the cubes, s = 12x^2, is not "conserved" in the new object, the stack, s = 10x^2...

Similarly, "Stacking" two higher dimensional objects may result is an apparant gain or loss of "surface volume" (i.e. energy or mass). In reality, nothing has been "gained" or "lost", it is simply "hidden" much like the surface area of the two cubes are hidden in the stack.

Finally, there is Ontology.

Suppose "mathematics" and "Topology" cannot actually describe the universe.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Man I like your attitude, thats attitude with universal potential."digits as objects" they are objects man they are not digits."Suppose "mathematics" and "Topology" cannot actually describe the universe. "of course not. no way mathematics make sense man. i mean from the universal point of view.Im sure for the numbers so that means matematics also.

actually all you can do is form something into something else. so even if you form everything into everything else the best you can do is form universe into universe.so that means?you cant add a meaning to the universe if it doesnt already contain that meaning!and that means universe can not have a meaning outside of the bubble! and if the is no cutting line possible then there only one implication possible! that theres also no meaning inside of the bubble! whoa!thank you for your inspiration my friend!I think ive just visualize what i was looking for 10 years.thank you!

and of course there is no meaning.i mean, how is it possible i havent realize before that there is no such thing as universal meaning.i mean if there was any kind of universal meaning, no way planet would be addicted to the money so much.

u can do with universe whatever you want but still no way she would tell you why we are here.

slow down velvetpink. To many coffees or something. You need to limit your number of contributions to no more than two in a row so that others can feel like contributing.

You may well be correct. The big P and the big V universes combine to make ours but you need to relax a little.

Besides we are looking to find out where these excess muons came from.

ok sorry i will leave then. i just cant be something i am not. btw i thought there is an endless space on the internet so we can brainstorm as much as we want. but if you have complexes okay i might serve you well.good night and wishin ya luck with your theories.

and to help you answer your question man. they come from the universe man!

go away

Besides we are looking to find out where these excess muons came from.

Ah yes. See my post above. A muon could be as simple as a "surface" of a "cube" in hyperdimensional space-time. When you "unstack" two "cubes", you "increase" the surface area of the system, manifested as "new" muons which had previously been "hidden" in the stack.


This is, of course, pure conjecture, but it makes at least as much sense as any of the "physical" models these crackpot "scientists" are going to present.

so what

By AWT the stabilization of dense matter isn't so surprising, because head to head proton collisions could lead to slowing of unstable particle decay. We can model this by neutron example, which decays at ten minute scale. While the neutrons are quite stable inside of neutron stars, they're stabilized by high hydrostatic pressure against decay into protons and electrons.

Is here another possibility, how to stabilize them? As we know, inside of tiny water dropplets the hydrostatic pressure is substantially larger, then inside of bulk liquid. For example, the hydrostatic pressure inside of water dropplets of micron diameter is comparable to the hydrostatic pressure in 150 meter depth.

So, if we create a tiny droplets of pure neutrons by collision of heavier particles in accelerator, we can achieve the formation of tiny droplets of neutron fluid, which will condense in contact with common atoms by avalanche-like mechanism by the same way, like so so-called strangelets.

The signs of stable tetraneutron or pentaquarks states appears to support this model, because the very same mechanism should work for every sufficiently large lumps of dense particles, when the surface tension effects cannot be neglected anymore. This will result into slowing of decay of unstable forms of matter on behalf of further condensation of it. Was such explanation clear for you?

The above effect just demonstrates the insintric danger, connected with the high energy collisions, during which the critical amount of extremelly dense matter can became a much more stable, then the contemporary models of black hole evaporation are assuming. While we can exclude the formation of stable black holes safelly, we cannot still exclude a strangelet formation, during which the part of Earth will condense into tiny droplets of neutron matter, while the rest of it will be blown into free space by pressure of radiation formed in less or more extensive explosion.

From thermodynamical point of view we cannot exclude such process, just the repulsive character of nuclear force effectivelly prohibits it. We can compare the matter to the system of tiny mercury droplets, which are repelling mutually due their surface tension by nuclear interactions. The merging of these droplets is not spontaneous, because it requires a temporal formation of thin neck with negative curvature, which exhibits a strong repulsive force. But at the moment, such merging occurs in some place due the high-energy density initialization, whole pile of droplets will collapse by avalanche-like mechanism into more dense state of matter - and the excessive surface tension energy will be released.

So we can consider these latest results as another warning of Nature before starting of LHC experiments (...well, maybe the very last one..). The formally thinking physicists cannot understand the character of danger, which follows from these experiments - but you can! Only you and public opinion can still stop them!

By AWT the stabilization of dense matter isn't so surprising, because head to head proton collisions could lead to slowing of unstable particle decay. We can model this by neutron example, which decays at ten minute scale. While the neutrons are quite stable inside of neutron stars, they're stabilized by high hydrostatic pressure against decay into protons and electrons.

Is here another possibility, how to stabilize them? As we know, inside of tiny water dropplets the hydrostatic pressure is substantially larger, then inside of bulk liquid. For example, the hydrostatic pressure inside of water dropplets of micron diameter is comparable to the hydrostatic pressure in 150 meter depth.

So, if we create a tiny droplets of pure neutrons by collision of heavier particles in accelerator, we can achieve the formation of tiny droplets of neutron fluid, which will condense in contact with common atoms by avalanche-like mechanism by the same way, like so so-called strangelets.

The signs of stable tetraneutron or pentaquarks states appears to support this model, because the very same mechanism should work for every sufficiently large lumps of dense particles, when the surface tension effects cannot be neglected anymore. This will result into slowing of decay of unstable forms of matter on behalf of further condensation of it. Was such explanation clear for you?

The above effect just demonstrates the insintric danger, connected with the high energy collisions, during which the critical amount of extremelly dense matter can became a much more stable, then the contemporary models of black hole evaporation are assuming. While we can exclude the formation of stable black holes safelly, we cannot still exclude a strangelet formation, during which the part of Earth will condense into tiny droplets of neutron matter, while the rest of it will be blown into free space by pressure of radiation formed in less or more extensive explosion.

From thermodynamical point of view we cannot exclude such process, just the repulsive character of nuclear force effectivelly prohibits it. We can compare the matter to the system of tiny mercury droplets, which are repelling mutually due their surface tension by nuclear interactions. The merging of these droplets is not spontaneous, because it requires a temporal formation of thin neck with negative curvature, which exhibits a strong repulsive force. But at the moment, such merging occurs in some place due the high-energy density initialization, whole pile of droplets will collapse by avalanche-like mechanism into more dense state of matter - and the excessive surface tension energy will be released.

So we can consider these latest results as another warning of Nature before starting of LHC experiments (...well, maybe the very last one..). The formally thinking physicists cannot understand the character of danger, which follows from these experiments - but you can! Only you and public opinion can still stop them!

Hebrews 11:3
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. "

Very interesting quote. The author distinguishes between "things that appear" like ghosts and visons that i interpret as psychic phenomena created by the human mind or psyche and things that are real like a rock you trip on.
He (an apostle?) posits that the psychic world of visons is qualitatively different from the world of real things; The mind vs. matter duality that Eccl es and so many other modern philosophers talk about. This ancient writer had an outlook on reality that seems to be the same as Descartes and others of the age of enlightenment and onward. I had always assumed that people in that age believed that visions and ghosts were as real as trees or the red sea.

Jesus appears to be like a modern day professor of philosophy or psychobiology standing before a blackboard saying essentially that...
"you have to take this on faith because we have no way of proving that the world of the psyche is really less substantial than the world we call real."

Interesting neilF/quantumC!

Suppose "mathematics" and "Topology" cannot actually describe the universe.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I have to disagree somewhat,... To describe the universe, ...for it to be intelligible at all, necessarily involves an observer. To "know" reality means that it has been subjected to conditions of understanding given our mental design. In processing experience we have a-priori functions or modes under which reality is made to conform, if it is to be known. In other words the mind has a certain and limited design, a way of functioning, which therefore dictates conditions of possible experience and knowledge.

So I disagree a little with QuantumC, ...we can always describe reality within these intellectual paradigms, say with mathematics, cause and effect, time,... and this will be the entire subset of reality known in principal to us.

The interesting unanswerable question is, ...is this the whole of reality? Is there a noumenal reality apart from the observer-entangled phenomenal reality?

NF:
You should read Exodus and also Hebrews and Romans.

Descartes probably got most of his ideas from the Bible.

he rejects any ideas that can be doubted, and then reestablishes them in order to acquire a firm foundation for genuine knowledge.

Essentially, almost the entire book of Romans takes this form. Paul often makes a point by beginning "as the fool" rejecting the reality of the gospel and then proves the reality of the gospel from a stance of doubt. This method of reason is basicly manifested in several ways in Pauls writings.

In Exodus, when Moses asks God "who do I say sent me?" God says, "Tell them 'I AM' has sent you." Jesus later called himself 'I AM', a direct claim to deity in the context of which he used it, which resulted in the pharisees and priests trying to stone him.


Descartes says, "I think, therefore I am".

The Bible says, "God spoke, therefore we exist."

But before anything was created, there was God and "sensory perception" would be meaningless to God 'before' anything was created. It is humorous that Jesus is called the "Word of God" in John's gospel.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...he made all things and without him was not anything made that was made....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth..."

"Word" is greek Logos.
"Something said"
"Thought" or "expression of thought"
"Reasoning"
"Motive"
"Divine expression"

This is also the same word from which we get the "science" suffix "-ology" or "-logy" and the word "logic".

But the verse really is saying that everything was quite literally made out of nothing.

How? I don't know. But ultimately, everything in the universe started as a figment of God's imagination.

Are we corporeal, are we seperate entities from God? I personally believe so for one reason, which is that everything God did seems to have been that which was hardest to do. It may not matter ultimately, but I believe we are corporeal beings in a corporeal universe created by God. "Before" the creation of hte universe, there was nothing and noone except God himself.

As an example of what I mean by, "Everything God created seems to be the hardest possible thing".

How does one measure the power of an eternal God? Well, God created the universe, and the worst possible problem happened: Lucifer chose to rebell against God, and ultimately tempted humanity to do the same. This is the worst possible problem in ANY possible universe, i.e. a creation that rejects its creator, and that creator's own righteousness forbids him to save or forgive humanity on any basis other than death without violating their free will. Worst possible problem for an all knowing, all loving God. The only solution was for him to allow himself to be murdered by his own creation, and die in our place, and he did that.

This represents the ultimate act of humility in that an all powerful being would beome a mere mortal and die a sinner's death. It represents the ultimate act of mercy and love, and it represents the ultimate power of the creator of the universe, in that he is so powerful he solved the worst possible problem of any possible creation he could have made: "The wages of sin is death."

Indeed, but the second half of the verse is the solution, "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Stop this non sense, all of you.

Did I really read a post that stated "maybe we're all trapped inside a black penis universe"?

and maybe thats why we think universe stops with the black matter somewhere and is like a bubble. cause there is black penis universe all aroud us!!maybe?

Jesus tap-dancing Christ

Don't encourage him. He'll probably just think you're blown away by his "brilliant logic" >.>

At first I thought I wanted whatever velvetpink was on. As I read on I decided it would be ill advised to subject myself to that which inspires his rants.

I am easily not the smartest guy in the room. However, as more research is conducted and more information spills forth from the infinite, I am more confident my particle theory has merit.

Schroedinger understood the requirements of particle structure when he wrote in 1937: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just 'Schaumkronen'. ('Schaum' means foam, 'Krone' means crest).

I am the author of Siedle's Supermassive Aether Theory - obviously unpublished. I postulate matter isn't physically present, rather, a manifestation of the interference pattern created by waves in the medium of 'existence' I begrudgingly call Aether.

Please contact me. Help me get this idea to the big guys. siedletc yah

I don't get it how you don't see anything for years and just when LHC is in sight, you start producing result and seeing new particles. For me, this is in the least, odd.

http://tothefutur...spot.com