If nothing new turns up — an outcome casually referred to as the “nightmare scenario” — physicists will be left with the same holes that riddled their picture of the universe three decades ago, before supersymmetry neatly plugged them. And, without an even higher-energy collider to test alternative ideas, Falkowski says, the field will undergo a slow decay: “The number of jobs in particle physics will steadily decrease, and particle physicists will die out naturally.”
Greene offers a brighter outlook. “Science is this wonderfully self-correcting enterprise,” he said. “Ideas that are wrong get weeded out in time because they are not fruitful or because they are leading us to dead ends. That happens in a wonderfully internal way. People continue to work on what they find fascinating, and science meanders toward truth.”
From Simons Science News (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.
See what we're tweeting about
81 Comments
Add CommentThe basis of every scientific theory is reality. As clearly stated in the article, experimental evidence is the guide - a theory must not only conform to known observation, but also predict future observations. The world of science is littered with mountains of disproved theories, and that's the wonderful thing! You try something, if it works, you build on it and build on it, and if it fails, you start over. There is no need to be shocked. What we should be inspired by is the unending creativity of the human mind. New theories will be proposed, and may more will fail the test of time, but eventually we'll get there. Prof. Greene could not have said it better, 'Science is this wonderfully self-correcting enterprise'!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe is a much stranger place than we would like to believe. We may eventually find that the effects we cannot find particles for are actually caused by particles in nearby parallel universes/alternate realities leaking or tunneling through into our dimension. I think it highly unlikely that if parallel universes/alternate realities exist that they would be totally isolated from our own dimension/reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is in being able to measure things that do not exist fully within our own universe/reality. And science principle is by definition restricted to our own reality as defined by what human beings can perceive/see/touch/smell/taste/touch either directly or through well understood technological instrumentation.
It is highly likely that we humans will never be able to fully understand the universe we live in. And what we consider pseudoscience may actually contain a few grains of truth.
curmudgeon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter than yelling "it's a 'divine' mystery" and hating those who don't share their particular faith-based spiritual beliefs...
Are you suggesting that a truth can be known even if it is not measured? Perhaps you are implying a faith or a belief?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the cut of your jib Mr. Bill R. I'm not sure about how pseudo science would tie in to it, but coming from a more liberal arts perspective, I've been playing with the idea of parallel universes tying in to our own as a rhetorical device lately. As soon as I read this article, I instantly wondered at how amazing it would be if they could actually explain the issues super symmetry is having. Nice to see I'm not the only one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may very well be unlikely we will know everything, but if our short history has told us anything, it's that there is no limit to human creativity! Maybe I'm just a foolish optimist (and physicist at that), but I'd never bet against the capability of the human imagination. Any time we think we've reached a limit of knowledge, new ideas have broken through and profoundly changed our way of thinking. By either way, it's a wonderful voyage!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) <i>All</i> theories have some evidential basis in reality. No evidence? It's just a hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisb) Science often goes through a "paradigm shift", when a previously cherished idea or theory is proven to be false. It's what science does.
I think what you should take from this article is that the LHC has been *very* effective at trimming back the unruly hedge of GUTs that have proliferated over the years.
Oops. HTML apparently does not work here =p .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNah, the field is not slowly going to die out. We'll just have a lot of brilliant minds kicked out of their confort zone and sent to think again. It happens all the time, it's just on a larger scale on this one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost SUSY options remaining are too convoluted for my taste, but can't throw them away just yet.
Rethink the whole thing over, try to find a way to test so-far untestable alternatives... or go into Neuroscience if you like =P re-directing brainpower (and funding) into fresh areas might turn out to be the best.
So another one bites the dust; thousands others have, too. Sooner or later one is left standing. This is how the game goes, and this is how we've gotten this far.
It's called progress, Curmudgeon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sure beats the crack out of holing on to obviously illogical, unfounded concepts just because you like or want to believe the idea.
Funny, how you're always trolling these science forums, with your computer, through the Internet, which were obviously given to you by Jesus, right? This wonder here was produced by the very scientists you're always trying to mock. Get a grip.
Isn't 'God' a (less than) elegant theory that has no basis in reality?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrior to the start-up of the LHC, the possibility of finding nothing appreciable beyond the standard model of particle physics was called “The Nightmare Scenario” because that meant most of the theoretical attempts over the last 40 years to explain the shortcomings of the standard model (e.g., string theory and supersymmetry, etc.) were misguided.
The main problems with the standard model of particle physics are:
1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.
2. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
3. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the “foam on top of the ocean”.
4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted by particle physicists (microcosm) and measured by cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120, depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle physics VED).
5. The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
7. The standard model cannot include gravitation which is the most fundamental and well-tested interaction of the cosmos.
Clearly it is time for a new approach to understanding nature. Almost certainly this will involve expanding the set of fundamental geometrical symmetries of nature. It is now crucial to seriously question the old and poorly tested assumptions of the past like strict reductionism, absolute scale, and an absolute value of G for all scales of the discrete hierarchical cosmos.
Time to study nature, not Platonic abstractions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
Can we start looking at lie-admissible algebra?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.santilli-foundation.org/Announcement-Super.php
We measure what we have the tools to measure and that helps to frame our view. As you suggest, our 'measurable' reality may not (currently) be in line with the nature of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, there's less justification for supersymmetry if the inferred requirement for the never identified, much less detected, peculiar dark matter particle is actually the result of analytical errors in the gravitational evaluations of large scale aggregations of massive objects, for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHIS is exhibit A of why the human enterprise of scientific inquiry into the Nature of Reality is so wonderful... versus the bogus pontifications of moronic troll who slimed this blog at the beginning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep... sometimes an "elegant hypothesis", no matter how many aspects of a "problem" they appear to solve, just don't pan out and get elevated into accepted theory... cuz' the data just ain't there. You can't build a home without a foundation... duh... unless you're just pipe-dreaming.
Anyway... the triumph (cue the trumpets) of the so-called Standard Model, vis a vis proving the Higgs field/boson was nothing short of spectacular.
Science at it's best is a fresh on-going discourse of our best probes into Nature... and we have learned a so much in such a short time span... the point of diminishing returns on basic, fundamental processes has been reached. We can study and manipulate phyical and biological phenomena on so many levels, it truly boggles the mind.
JUST because we can't know "everything" does not negate the fact that we know a huge amount and are learning more... inexorably, but perhaps at a reduced pace.
AND... most importantly, what we have learned... what we KNOW, does NOT comport with ANY RELIGIOUS dogma... musings, superstition or folklore.
This is postmodern physics at work! They subverted the natural order of things. A theory should explain observations not the other way around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey spent a huge amount of time in these so-called elegant ideas, but as always natures does not care for what humans think....
What next? String theory?
Do you not understand science? Most scientific hypotheses end up failing. The ones that work, you keep and probe further into the details. The ones that don't, you discard or learn from to make better hypotheses. It is a competition of explanations for observations which means there are winners, losers, and better and worse. That is how science works, and works very successfully. It is not a failing of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is how we have the modern world we have: modern medicine that keeps people alive and healthy at an unprecedented rates; modern technology of unprecedented efficiency and capability; modern capability of unprecedented awe; and unprecedented prosperity and well-being.
The world has never seen an approach to growing knowledge as successful as the scientific approach. No theology or faithful vision has ever produced anything nearly as successful. Even the successes of reasoned philosophy pale in comparison to empirical science.
Sorry, but the existence of the Higgs boson has not been "proved" by the discovery of a new boson at ~125 GeV. Actually, no new boson was directly detected: two photons with characteristics similar to those expected to be produced by the decay of a boson were detected at ~125 GeV. Bosons are unstable and decay too quickly to be directly detected by the CERN experiments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CERN CMS announcement http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-particle-mass-125-gev announcement text states:
"CMS observes an excess of events at a mass of approximately 125 GeV with a statistical significance of five standard deviations (5 sigma) above background expectations."
The Fig. 5 caption states:
"The observed probability (local p-value) that the background-only hypothesis would yield the same or more events as are seen in the CMS data, as a function of the SM Higgs boson mass for the five channels considered. The solid black line shows the combined local p-value for all channels."
The 5 sigma statistic applies only to the probability that the detected boson decay products were NOT just the result of background detector noise. The experimental data has been cross-checked by two 'independent' groups of (CERN) researchers...
Additional information, including particle properties and how they interact with other particles, will be necessary to confirm the identity of the indirectly inferred new bosons. As mention above, the bosons themselves are so unstable that they cannot be directly detected: their presence is inferred from the detection of some of their expected decay products. As I understand, many more analyses and perhaps additional experiments will be required to more definitively identify the new particles.
Even if a mass mediating boson is confirmed experimentally, that will only validate part of the Higgs mechanism - it will not confirm that a unspecified Higgs field dynamically imparts mass of varying quantities to selected particles...
We have a modern world because of hard cold facts, and not elegant hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese elegant theories are similar to Ptolemaic deferens and epicycles; they too were elegant, convoluted, but in the end the simplicity of Copernicus' theory won...
It is very good that the LHC is poised to rule out some of the least "fine tuned" models (i.e. where SUSY solves the hierarchy problem). But we already know that the universe is fine-tuned in some ways, and we might just have to live with a model of particle physics that is somewhat fine-tuned as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not mince words: People who study high energy physics in a serious way eventually find that SUSY is an essential idea, for many interrelated reasons, especially having to do with quantum gravity. That will be remain true whether SUSY resolves the tuning issues of the electroweak standard model or not. SUSY is here to stay, at least for competent high energy theorists. That doesn't at all mean that production of new ideas will stop.
More like "Scientists develop theory and, in face of evidence against, man up and revise their theory. Meanwhile "Christian science" asserts that the Earth is 6000 years old and everyone else is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis great thing about science is there are no zombie theories, a term coined by economist Paul Krugman. When theories are not confirmed in science they actually die and do not come back to life. What a wonderful contrast to religion, pseudo-sciences, beliefs and opinions generally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it great to actually know something!
Since I am not a physicist, I realize this is a naive question. But maybe it's time to revisit the current understanding of what the Higg's field is and how it works? What if (naiveté speaking loudly here) there were some property of the Higg's field that limited the "diffusion" of energy spilled into it by quantum fluctuations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not attempt to engage the religious trolls. They are winding you up on a COMPUTER - something developed via the scientific process of trial & error. These same people would have burned Galileo at the stake but use a cell phone and take antibiotics to cure infections. See where they really stand when stem-cells offer a cancer cure or better. Big-up to the Amish, who although draw an arbitrary line with technology are at least principled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLogic and rationality are a language that let us communicate. There are mutually understood rules analogous to grammar that facilitate constructive discussion. All religion is open to interpretation and currently exists free of scrutiny permitting ANY claim regardless of rationality (flying spaghetti-monster, etc.). Even then, practitioners seem unaware that dogma changes - see Pope John Paul on evolution, or aforementioned Gallileo (anyone still think the earth is the center of the solar system?).
That an elegant theory like SUSY failed should only be embraced as an opportunity to posit something more spectacular and challenging to current understanding. At least these trolls read a SciAm - maybe something will eventually sink in.
Hopefully this will be seen as a good thing. It will send everyone back to the drawing board and we might get a few really good ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheories of principle like special and general relativity can make definitive predictions that allow relatively straightforward yes/no tests. Einstein said that if the eclipse experiment did not yield the predicted effect on space-time, then GR would be wrong - end of story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor over 40 years theoretical physics has been based on model-building in which empirical results are fitted to a model, i.e., the Ptolemaic method. There are no guiding principles and so no definitive predictions.
Instead we get pseudo-scientific hypotheses like the "ad hoc WIMP conjecture". No predictions of the masses or the exact physical properties are possible. Not a single "WIMP" has showed itself in over 40 years of dogged and very expensive snipe hunting.
String theory has yet to offer a single prediction after 44 years.
SUSY predictions are "adjustable predictions", which amount to no predictions. If "sparticles" fail to show up at the LHC, then they just say that they must be at higher energies. Sure, or perhaps off on astral planes.
Bottom Line: No guiding fundamental principles = no definitive predictions = pseudo-science. Haven't we had enough of that rubbish over the last 40 years?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Hmmm... JTD... you may wish to throw your cold water cut n' paste over to The LHD Director in Cern, Rolf Heuer... since i'm certain he's unaware of your caveats as to what is actually "proved" (actually it was to a paltry 4.9 sigma considering all the CMS data... or about 1 in 2 million chance) in the arena of super-high-energy particle physics... and that YOU, the ultra-skeptical-stick-in-the-mud... remain... yawn... unimpressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh... and you may wish to "CC" Peter Higgs and the many other physicists actually doing this intense research the findings of which were absolutely CONSISTENT with the Higgs particle... 'cuz they got all excited.
However, since they hadn't first vetted the data with... ahem... YOU, they simply made fools of themselves.
I'm quite sure a strange Quark like you could really... charm them... and get their heads spinning... up n' down... and top t'bottom.
AND... here's my cut n' paste from BBC NEws:
"Prof Joe Incandela, spokesman for CMS, was unequivocal: "The results are preliminary but the five-sigma signal at around 125 GeV we're seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle," he told the Geneva meeting."
So... there ya' go JTDwy... another irresponsible Professor that need YOUR astute guidance.
B' Bye.
"Scientists construct complicated, elegant theory which has no basis in reality? Oh I am soooooooooooooo shocked! And I bet God's well ROFL!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, there's your hypothesis, all you need now are some facts to back it up...
This is exciting news. Colossal "failures" of this type are often followed shortly by even more interesting theories which are eventually proven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI bet you're just annoyed you'll never get the same headline about evolution....Ouch
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are real physicists working within the bounds of the data they have available, not just making up stuff.....like 'I know, God did it!' case closed
Do you have a theory that is better? Do you have a theory on God that is based in sound physics and can be modeled by mathematics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, Professor Sensitive - check your last cut and paste and see that the CMS spokesman specifically said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... This is indeed a new particle..."
- he did NOT say 'This is indeed the Higgs boson!!!!!!'
If you actually read any of the CERN material you'll find that they are very clear that additional analyses is necessary to determine whether the new particle actually meets the requirements specified for the Higgs boson. It's been more than 4 months now and still no definitive answer - it may take another year or so to be sure.
Excerpt from your rant:
AND... here's my cut n' paste from BBC NEws:
"Prof Joe Incandela, spokesman for CMS, was unequivocal: "The results are preliminary but the five-sigma signal at around 125 GeV we're seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle," he told the Geneva meeting."
"If "sparticles" fail to show up at the LHC, then they just say that they must be at higher energies. Sure, or perhaps off on astral planes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent Science has not even distant knowledge of astral and causal planes which are realms of Nature from which physical realm of Nature emerge out. That is why it is being indicated sarcastically that"sparticles" may be in on some astral planes. Of course, modern Physics has gained knowledge of Physical plane of Nature in quite detailed manner.
When Science especially Physics and cosmology will gain access to astral plane of Nature and get some understanding of that part of nature, entire view point may have radical change. Till than, all sort of speculative theories shall come out regarding dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang, SUSY etc
Yes, confirmation of decay rates and coupling of Higgs particle with other particles are still two incomplete area of studies which are pre-requisite for confirmation of new particle as real Higgs Particle. That is why Scientists at CERN have not yet unequivocally declared the newly found particle as Higgs particles but stated the same to have Higgs like property at mass of 125GeV
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: 12-21-12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are not approaching the "end of the world".
Rather we are approaching a fin de siecle, which heralds the end of an old way of thinking and living, and much more importantly the beginning of a new way of thinking and living.
We will understand the cosmos and our place within it in a new and highly unified way.
As a visionary physicist said not that long ago:
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, 'Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!'." John Archibald Wheeler
The failure of the LHC to find any "new physics" beyond the standard model of particle physics and the impending demise of "WIMP" theory, string theory and supersymmetry are a prelude to a completely new paradigm for understanding nature: an infinite discrete fractal paradigm for the structure, organization and dynamics of the cosmos.
None too soon.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Actually, I am suggesting that there are truths/facts that may be impossible to quantify simply because they refuse to be constrained by what we perceive (or define) as reality. Since we cannot easily change the paradigm that we use to interpret or understand the universe, we find ourselves implicitly trying to force the universe to meet our own definitions/requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fundamentals of the universe just simply may not fit into what we are currently capable of quantifying or understanding.
Of course that means that we cannot just dismiss what we call faith, whether it is faith in science or religious faith. We just need to accept that there are things that we cannot know yet without fundamental changes in our ability to conceptualize and understand that which we think we perceive. The question can also be stated as to whether mankind can possibly survive its own self-centered egotistical viewpoints and prejudices long enough to draw close to a full comprehension and understanding of the universe around us. Most likely, we will be extinct before that can happen.
I am in no way trying to prove anything by faith but rather am asking whether some things must simply be taken on faith until a unequivocally correct answer can be proven. To reject an idea simply on the basis that it sounds like "faith" is not a valid criteria. And to reject all that we consider faith based is to leave ourselves without a solid surface to stand on.
At the risk of repeating myself unnecessarily, I offer the following wake-up call to Volvox and those who are not up-to-speed on the shabby state of theoretical physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not mean to be disrespectful or excessively negative, but when I read insufficiently qualified praise for the merits of the Standard Model of particle physics, scientific integrity would seem to demand that the following well-known facts are also considered, so as to give a more balanced assessment.
1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.
2. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.
3. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".
4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted by particle physicists (microcosm) and measured by cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120, depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle physics VED).
5. The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.
6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.
7. The standard model of particle physics is unable to incorporate gravitation which is the most fundamental and well-tested interaction in the cosmos.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
Just a fan, not a physicist. Does the math allow for the possibility that most of the superpartners' properties are only observable in other than our 4 standard dimensions? Maybe they're just sneaky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChad.English writes: "The world has never seen an approach to growing knowledge as successful as the scientific approach. No theology or faithful vision has ever produced anything nearly as successful. Even the successes of reasoned philosophy pale in comparison to empirical science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you try and remove reasoned philosophy from empirical science, you're screwed. The successes of science are successes of reasoned philosophy. It's the fusion of reason, logical thinking and empirical observation that lies behind our successes in understanding our world and manipulating it (or orienting ourselves in it) to live better and more safely.
We're not just talking about ideas in the abstract. All of this is very concrete, it's the daily activity of millions of people working with millions of machines to realize (and daily refresh) our understanding and skills.
And it's problematic in the extreme, because there are huge institutions dedicated to negating what we consider to be our successes. From the anti-science lobby to the anti-education lobby to the forces using rational methods for irrational purposes - millions of people using millions of machines to destroy lives and property (war, destruction of lands, forests and waters, perpetuation of poverty and despair, etc).
The use we make of our ideas and devices, methods and institutions is a real part of their significance for us - which means that scientists have a responsibility for how their activities affect society. Superman is a dumbass using his superpowers to "help out" the local authorities in Metropolis. All the superheroes in fact are nothing but robots with no political or moral will.
As much as superseding old explanatory models, scientists need to supersede old models of servitude. It's all very well being celebrated as a useful idiot and winning that Nobel Prize... but reason and logic are more universal than that.
' "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun' - in Tom Lehrer's song. We need to ensure that "where they come down" is as much part of our scientific effort and responsibility as getting them up. Einstein was fully aware of this, of course, and set out his views on social responsibility "from the point of view of scientific knowledge" in an article in the first issue of Monthly Review in 1949: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism.
The history od science is full of "Paradigm Shifts" where the foundations of many theories were shaken by experimental facts and had to be replaced by the light of the new findings. I think that's how science moves us closer to deeper understanding of our Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrja2012 is quite correct and Thomas Kuhn published a famous book on this called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout these paradigm-shifts science would become fossilized and sterile.
Theoretical physicists always claim that they are open to new ideas, but their actions belie quite a different set of adgendas. The adherents of the old paradigm have devoted their lives to studying the old paradigm and their status and funding are totally dependent upon it. They resist the new paradigm and try to paint its proponents as "crackpots".
Nature sorts it out in the end, but it is a battle royale during the transition period.
We are definitely in such a transition period now. The old paradigm is faltering badly. New ideas that move away from strict reductionism and absolute scale and non-predictive pseudo-science are available and ready to take their proper place at center stage.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
There are two reasons which compel physics to think of new ideas. First is the discovery of exoplanets - especially retrograde variety. I have already explained how such planets pose a logical problem in a Letter in Physics Education, UK, January 2012, p. 132. In the LHC also, two proton beams move in opposite directions and therefore students / public can pose same difficulty - I have stated for retrograde exoplanets. Therefore I think physics needs new ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two reasons which compel physics to think of new ideas. First is the discovery of exoplanets - especially retrograde variety. I have already explained how such planets pose a logical problem in a Letter in Physics Education, UK, January 2012, p. 132. In the LHC also, two proton beams move in opposite directions and therefore students / public can pose same difficulty - I have stated for retrograde exoplanets. Therefore I think physics needs new ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFYI - I happened upon the more complete comment I'd prepared a couple of months ago, which included a more complete quote than your BBC source...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCERN announcement letter http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html
Regarding the particle characteristics that have been determined, it quotes CMS experiment spokesperson Joe Incandela:
“The results are preliminary but the 5 sigma signal at around 125 GeV we’re seeing is dramatic. This is indeed a new particle. We know it must be a boson and it’s the heaviest boson ever found.”
The announcement also states:
“The next step will be to determine the precise nature of the particle and its significance for our understanding of the universe. Are its properties as expected for the long-sought Higgs boson, the final missing ingredient in the Standard Model of particle physics? Or is it something more exotic?”
The ATLAS experiment announcement http://www.atlas.ch/news/2012/latest-results-from-higgs-search.html
states:
“The Higgs Boson is an unstable particle, living for only the tiniest fraction of a second before decaying into other particles, so experiments can observe it only by measuring the products of its decay. In the Standard Model, a highly successful physics theory that provides a very accurate description of matter, the Higgs Boson is expected to decay to several distinct combinations of particles, or channels, with the distribution among the channels depending on its mass.”
More specifically, it explains:
“The next steps for ATLAS, the LHC and the high-energy physics community are to measure the properties of this particle and compare these measurements with the predicted properties of the Higgs Boson. Already some of these properties match the predictions: the fact that it is seen in the predicted channels and at a mass favoured by other, indirect measurements.”
The CMS site includes a new page http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/cms-higgs-boson-search-results-2010-2011-data-samples
“The significance of the largest excess (at 124 GeV) has increased slightly to 2.1 standard deviations [5]. There is no substantive change in our conclusions: the question of the existence of the Standard Model Higgs boson can only be resolved with the collection of more data during 2012.”
“For every complex problem there is a solution, which is clear, simple, and wrong”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisH. L. Mencken
We can not solve the creation of the Universe by our man made heard mathematics. Universe is not in complicated way. The system is very easy, no need for mathematics. I have written the Book 1) Mystery of Origin of the Universe (P- 193, 1990), 2) Complete Unified Theory (P-424, 1998). I explained that the equation of mass of a photon is responsible to create all matter in the ocean of graviton particle by which gravitational fore is occurred. The name of converted photon equation is Unification of Physics. When, graviton and gravitational force acts on this equation, then then observed the Complete Unified Theory. With the help of this theory, I explained all from the particle to the universe. It can explains the Structure of Electron, EMR, birth of particle as pion, kion, Eta, etc, Higgs Boson, quark etc and the birth of stars, galaxies, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLot of things are there. It is not possible to explain in a paper. The calculated results tallied the experimental results beautifully.This is single and New Theory of all.
With thanks,
Nirmalendu Das
Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com
Dated: 02-12-2012
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn interesting and very important question in science is: How do we distinguish good science from the far more numerous examples of pseudo-science, Ptolemaic models and speculative abberations?
Science, to its everlasting credit, offers a reliable compass to guide us through the dense fog. It is the predictions/testing steps of the scientific method.
Good science is based on empirically-based guiding principles and a lot of empirical evidence. This allows good theories to make definitive predictions, which are prior to testing, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable (that is KEY) and unique to the theory being tested.
If you want to know whether a theory is good or mediocre or useless, then ask these two questions.
1. Can the theory make definitive predictions?
2. Can the theory pass the testing of these predictions?
Here is a realworld example:
http://www.academia.edu/2042222/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
Compare this with the failings of string theory, WIMP theory, supersymmetry, and the shortcomings of the standard model of particle physics.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
If we're to map this maze accurately, then we'd best include the dead ends. Thanks for this small accomplishment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with smidgen. Negative results and falsifications play an important role in science and should not be looked down upon or ignored or forgotten.
When we accept the verdicts of nature, that is good science.
When we tack on yet another epicycle to a failing theory/paradigm and claim the theory/paradigm is even better than before, then that is bad Ptolemaic science.
Adding epicycles or "adjusting the theory/paradigm" to fit the data short-circuits the crucial predictions/testing steps that keep science healthy.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have left out the energy difference between the Atlas and CMS Collaboration results, which is 1.2 GvV. It is no a negligible difference.
Regards,
basudeba
I think this article is pre-mature. Physicists should not lose sight of the fact that the only fundamental requirement of supersymmetry is that of a symmetry between bosons and fermions. Nature may not be kind to realize this beautiful idea within one of the specific frameworks accessible by the LHC. For one thing the LHC is insensitive to the production of supersymmetric partners other than gluinos and squarks. Superpartners may decay by R-parity violating couplings, or to unknown particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is like saying that high power Electro-magnetism is dead because you can't produce lightning from a 6-volt flashlight battery.
The answer to is build a bigger and more powerful collider - like the Superconducting Supercollider in the US. This may have provided the answer if it had been completed. In 1993 after having already spent nearly $1.5 billion, Congress was feeling to poor to continue the project. Maybe, it's time to pump the water out of those underground tunnels near Austin and to hire back the physicists and mathematicians who migrated to Wall Street and who have produced nothing new in the last 20 yrs except toxic products like credit default swaps, and the 2008 collapse of the world economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein said his only tools were pen and paper.
Maybe the answer to the "lost in the cosmos" problem of theoretical physics is not to be found in a SuperDooperSuperconductingSuperCollider, but in searching existing observational evidence for unifying principles that yield a far better model of nature.
Maybe we need to seriously question strict reductionism, which has led to the current dead end. And we need to question absolute scale. Since nature abounds in fractal self-similarity, we should explore discrete scale invariant and conformal hierarchical models.
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, 'Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!'." John Archibald Wheeler
The big fools say to press on straight ahead deeper into the "Big Muddy". The intuitive natural philosopher says to look for a new and radically different paradigm, which does for physics what the Theory of Evolution did for biology.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Pyramid Gravity Force
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarl Sagan [in the book Cosmos] said that the idea of an infinite fractal cosmos was: “haunting, evocative…perhaps the most exquisite idea in science or religion…”
Why do theoretical physicists totally ignore this beautiful and highly unified alternative to the old and failing paradigm?
The ignore-ance is more egregious when you consider that the idea was developed scientifically via a very large amount of observational data, has made a host of definitive predictions, and has successfully predicted pulsar/planets, trillions of unbound planetary-mass “nomad” objects, and the lack of planets orbiting the lowest mass M dwarf stars.
The new discrete fractal paradigm also is able to elegantly retrodict more than 35 fundamental parameters from the subatomic to the galactic scales.
Details at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Definitive predictions at http://www.academia.edu/2042222/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
"In the absence of some guidance from experimental data, how do you guess something about nature?”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. Now that the so-called standard model has failed to deliver, "The time has come... to start thinking and developing new ideas.”
However, we could instead go back to see, with existing experimental data in hand, what has basically caused this state of affairs in the world of physics today. Allow me kindly to offer that fundamental reason why modern physics, despite the billions of research dollars spent on super colliders and such "big-science" projects, not to mention the sheer waste of invaluable human resource here, is still very much lost in the the "bizarre," "weird" and "counterintuitive" woods of quantum mechanics. The simple answer is: We have failed to recognize the most blatant and fundamental of all basic facts in physics. which are given in a nutshell in this one-page summary: http://www.sittampalam.net/Summary.pdf.
In short: THE ATOM IS A BREATHING ENTITY; and the sooner we recognize and accept this fundamental fact of nature, the sooner will our "weird," "bizarre" and "counterintuitive" realm of modern quantum mechanics will be out of the woods, to shake hands at long last with the outside macroscopic world of cassical mechanics, and quantum gravity! For more on this final perspective on the nature of things, leading to the holy grail of science - physics unification, kindly access:
http://www.sittampalam.net/MassEnergy.htm
http://www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
Thank you all for your time here. Cheers!
www.toe.tv
Ref 57. rloldershaw 10:34 PM 12/4/12 EXCELLENT WRITE -UP -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"discrete fractal paradigm also is able to elegantly retrodict more than 35 fundamental parameters from the subatomic to the galactic scales." I am in a confirmed agreement with the physical applications of this para to all orbital Celestial bodies , including the planets,moon"s etc within our Solar System,though the fundamental parameters are above 65 from the 35 that you mentioned, included is a Spherical Axis, and a Reverse Cylindrical Axis ,OVERLAPPING AT CERTAIN PERIOD'S OF A FIXED TIME, can be Emperically Verified, even from the ground level on earth, whenever the planetary Celestial Bodies Orbitals sweep through " EQUEAL ANGLES AT ONE FIXED TIME,IN A PERFECT SYMMETRY FORMATION, STAGING CASCADE OF DISTANT PARRALLLELISM .
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter a long long time we found some scientist telling the world to follow the obvious. We commend you for the plain speaking. You are absolutely correct that strict reductionism has led to the current dead end. We add two more supplements. The first is the cult of incomprehensibility with an eagerness to impress others with something different even though it is irrelevant to the main issue. Example: the July 4 declaration by LHC. It was more a technological exhibition of expertise than factual scientific data. The over dependence on mathematical modeling is an outcome of this cult. The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality and the validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency. There are plenty of examples to show that both the above statements are not the same. Mathematics only explains “how much” one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not “what”, “why”, “when”, “where”, or “with whom” about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. Thus, while all of physics is mathematical, all of mathematics is not physics.
The second is a deep routed malaise – the way the students are guided from high school stage to accept certain facts and reject others, which in effect, renders them superstitious. They examine everything from their known perspective with a bias against anything different.
You are also right that the problem of theoretical physics is not to be found in a SuperDooperSuperconductingSuperCollider, but in fractal self-similarity and that we should explore discrete scale invariant and conformal hierarchical models. However, one should be overly cautious in this regard, as there is a danger of being led astray. We have shown the similarities of the internal structure of planet Jupiter and protons. We have also shown that there is no quantum weirdness and all so-called quantum phenomena including superposition, entanglement, tunneling, spin, etc., have macro equivalents. Only we should be looking in the right direction.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Thank goodness for how dull it would all be if we fully understood the nature of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 2008 I have developed a theory that solves your problems. My theory is simple, yet challenging insofar as the physicist is confronted with five paradigm changes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The laws of nature are as they must be for perception to be possible. The laws are not derived from nature, but as with Immanuel Kant and C. F. von Weizsäcker from the way nature can be perceived, that is, from metaphysics (= science of language and methodology of physics).
2. The first principle of propositional logic A = A no longer applies. It contradicts itself, since the two As are always distinct, temporally or spatially, and are therefore not identical. The identity axiom is replaced by a new "axiom of chirality", which is formulated as in category theory with arrows instead of equals signs, and thus serves as a model for the constant change of nature. Roger Penrose believes it is possible that the problems of theoretical physics can be solved with the category theory.
3. Likewise, I do not use the axiom of infinity because infinity is not perceivable, as Albert Einstein and David Hilbert have already established. The mathematics should therefore do without any form of infinity in the description of nature, i.e. in physics, because its objective is to describe what is perceived. This means doing without the continuum, derivative, integration and irrational numbers like pi, e, sqrt(2). Patrick Suppes has shown that dispensing with the axiom of infinity has a similar effect to dispensing with the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry. So this opens up similar perspectives to the introduction of curved spaces in the general theory of relativity.
4. The usual four entities in physics, i.e. space, time, matter and interactions are replaced by a single entity, the event. It is defined by me mathematically. This also corresponds in essence to Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of process and reality.
5. The concept of the black hole is expanded.
For details please see my website www.hanswehrli.ch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany thanks for the positive comments above.
At the risk of repeating myself:
Regarding the fin de siecle heralded by the impending demise of "WIMP" theory, string theory, supersymmetry and related lost causes, the comments of a former visionary physicist seem especially appropriate.
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, 'Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!'."
John Archibald Wheeler
Perhaps what is needed is not a fix, or fixes, for the old paradigm, but rather a completely new and unifying paradigm for physics. Do we have the courage, honesty, dedication, perseverance and humility that will be needed to realize such a paradigmatic change?
The new discrete self-similar (fractal) cosmological paradigm does for physics what Darwinian Evolution did for biology - provide a unifying framework for the whole field.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
I have developed a theory that solves your problems. My theory is simple, yet challenging insofar as the physicist is confronted with five paradigm shifts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The laws of nature are as they must be for perception to be possible. The laws are not derived from nature, but as with Immanuel Kant and C. F. von Weizsäcker from the way nature can be perceived, that is, from metaphysics (= science of language and methodology of physics).
2. The first principle of propositional logic A ≡ A no longer applies. It contradicts itself, since the two As are always distinct, temporally or spatially, and are therefore not identical. The identity axiom is replaced by a new "axiom of chirality", which is formulated as in category theory with arrows instead of equals signs, and thus serves as a model for the constant change of nature. Roger Penrose believes it is possible that the problems of theoretical physics can be solved with the category theory.
3. Likewise, I do not use the axiom of infinity because infinity is not perceivable, as Albert Einstein and David Hilbert have already established. The mathematics should therefore do without any form of infinity in the description of nature, i.e. in physics, because its objective is to describe what is perceived. This means doing without the continuum, derivative, integration and irrational numbers like π, e, √2). Patrick Suppes has shown that dispensing with the axiom of infinity has a similar effect to dispensing with the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry. So this opens up similar perspectives to the introduction of curved spaces in the general theory of relativity.
4. The usual four entities in physics, i.e. space, time, matter and interactions are replaced by a single entity, the event. It is defined by me mathematically. This also corresponds in essence to Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of process and reality.
5. The concept of the black hole is expanded: There are black miniholes which are stable due to their high symmetry and black holes within black holes with specific actions to the outside.
My theory can be veryfied by experiment, e.g. masses of electrons and life time of neutrons depend on their spin.
For details please see my website www.hanswehrli.ch.
This comment was written for (and rejected at) the Vixra log blogsite for particle physicists, but perhaps it applies here as well, and readers may get a laugh out of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an analogy version of what went wrong at the Perimeter Institute.
100 Ferraris, Aston Martins, Shelby Cobras, Harley Davidsons, etc. with their engines racing at full speed but going nowhere because they are all up on blocks.
The blocks are the old failing paradigms of cosmology and particle physics, and no one is going anywhere until a new unified paradigm is identified and people get their intellectual wheels back on the solid ground of nature.
If that new unified paradigm sounds absurd and impossible, consider that Einstein said quite seriously : "If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it."
Time to consider radically different comprehensive paradigms, so long as they are derived from empirical evidence, can make definitive predictions, and can PASS definitive predictions.
Theories that cannot make and pass definitive predictions should be studiously ignored until they can at least make definitive predictions by which they can be tested, because that is the definition of science.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe propositional logic A = A is still valid, because A does not the same as the object, but the defining characteristic of the object. More than one object can have the same characteristic. Otherwise the number sequence would be impossible, as it defines more than one similar object. If the As are always distinct, temporally or spatially, they would not be different, but the same. Yet, chirality, which is a distinctly different characteristic, is also true.
It is true that infinity is not perceivable fully. It is like one – without similars, with the exception that while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. Space and time are examples of infinity. They are perceptible as without similars. If infinity is not perceptible, you would not have even mentioned it. Einstein never defined anything conclusively. He always gave an operational definition that suited him. Your examples of pi, e, sqrt(2) have characteristics of infinity in a limited way, because while we cannot know their precise value, we known that lies between two known values – hence not infinite. Thus, we chose a value of these as precise as we require. However, a similar argument is not possible for space and time at the universal scale.
Event is a type of interaction involving mass and energy and reality includes objects with matter. Thus, the usual four entities in physics, i.e. space, time, matter and interactions cannot be replaced by the term event alone. Process is a chain of events.
Regard,
basudeba
Nicely put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have written a book on number theory, which also discusses modern physical theories. In case you are interested, you can get a copy free of cost by sending your complete postal address.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Hi Melkholy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe new paradigm will win out in the end in the same way that it always happens.
Even though the old failing paradigms currently have a large amount of control over the physics profession, journals and media forums, the proponents of the old paradigm do not have control over experimental/observational science.
Just as happened when the powerful and centuries-old Ptolemaic world view crumbled after Democritus, Copernicus, Kepler and especially Galileo showed the world a new unified paradigm for how nature works, the current situation will be resolved by empirical evidence that shows the failure of the old paradigm and the bright new potential of the new paradigm.
Personally, I believe that before long it will be discovered that the dark matter is definitely not in any form of subatomic particles (old paradigm), but rather is in the form of trillions of unbound planetary-mass and stellar-mass ultracompact objects like black holes and neutron stars (new paradigm).
The powerful army will be vanquished by a noble few because they have honor, honesty and, most importantly, they have nature on their side.
Best of luck for freedom and democracy in Egypt.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Dear Sir
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf cause you are right: A = A remains valid. My problem with statement nr.62 was that I did not know how to write an identical sign with my computer. In my statement nr.64 I corrected the mistake.
Einstein said "space and time are not aspects of reality but at most, questionable mathematical models in which we think." Of cause, infinity is allowed in a mathematical model. But since space and time as models do not exist in reality and are never perceivable as such there cannot be a real continuum. The same is true for mass and interaction. The only perceivable and real entity is the event, i.e. something changes whereas something else remains unchanged. Perceivable events are always finite and countable. For details see my book in www.hanswehrli.ch!
pyschists must be the bravest people in the world. we try to put static rules on an ever changing univers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with Einstein and others is that they do not give precise scientific definitions of the terms used by them, but always give operational definitions, which can be manipulated to suit one’s convenience. For example, in his SR paper of 30-06-1905, he used clock A as a reference clock to synchronize the clocks at B and C. Yet, immediately thereafter, he denied the existence of any privileged frame of reference. A similar proposition can be seen in his method of measurement of a moving rod. Yet, immediately thereafter, he denied the existence of any privileged frame of reference. A similar proposition can be seen in his method of measurement of a moving rod. We quote:
(a) “The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest”, or
(b) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod”
The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
His statement: "space and time are not aspects of reality but at most, questionable mathematical models in which we think" is wrong. He has not precisely defined reality. We have defined it in an essay "Is Reality Digital or Analog" published by FQXi Community. You can have our book free of cost by sending your postal address.
mbasudeba@gmail.com
all in Love is fair: that is in Love.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose I'm one of the happy ones. In the absense of a workable theory from which the workings of the universe might actually, naturally flow, it seemed highly unlikely that supersymatry would prove out. Ambitious theories based upon biased perceptions that in turn arise from the inability to relinquish out-dated paradigms ought to fail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA theory that mirrors the reality of the universe should not require supersymetry, Higgs bosons, gravitons or even any other so-called force-carrying particles, anti-matter, dark matter, dark energy, negative energy, vacuume energy, all the absurd dimensions of string theory, and not even the 4 dimensions of space time.
A viable theory might begin with a COLD, dense, quiet, hyperinflating, homogeneous UN-bang, that naturally gives rise to and accounts for the hierarchy of so-called particles and the observed distribution of so-called matter. It should establish a constant velocity for light, and account for so-called time dilation, etc, etc.
String theory is a wash. It continues to become ever more convoluted as we expand the knowledge-frontier. Quantum loop gravity theory fails because it retained as a beginning point the one thing that needed to be overcome, namely, 4 dimensional spacetime paradigm. And, there will be other failures.
Although the LHC at CERN has, maybe, discovered something Higgishly massive, it will NOT prove out to be a Higgs boson and will be dwarfed by what will eventually be produced when full power is reached. Behaviors will be evidenced that, not having a proper framework or perspective against which to measure such developements, will in all likelyhood be described as wormholes, when they will in fact be something quite differant.
And when the Higgs boson fails to make it's appearance, particle physisists may end up scrapping the whole Higgs idea, completely missing the fact that the only useful part of it there ever was, is the Higgs type field itself.
So, of course supersymetry fails,,, how can one supersymetrify a mis-conception?
Umm, what is a "pyschists"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbasudeba , a clock is abitrarily chosen as a point a and is continually referenced as criterion is changed in reference to the criterion of the reference clock , thus no supercede .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbasudeba , a clock is abitrarily chosen as a point a and is continually referenced as criterion is changed in reference to the criterion of the reference clock , thus no supercede .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have been toying with the idea that the nucleus of an elemental atom is derived not from gravity but from the sharing of sub-atomic particles - quarks _ . thru limited research i think that the hydo/heli fusion can be done in this manner with an apropriate loss of energy and a resulting stable helium nuclie. this hpoth can also seemingly account for isotopal variance and perhaps even the need for catylitic joining of two elements . this would also suggest the need for the protons to be north pole pointing and the nutrons to be south pole pointing , and the electrons to be tracing a circle 8 pattern .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither a clock nor time can be a point. Only the position of the hand of a clock at a given time can be designated as a point. Einstein was not referring to position, but time when he referred to clocks A, B and C.
basudeba
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNucleus is matter and gravity is a force that is experienced due to its energy. Hence you are right that quarks (matter) sharing, which is possible with a particular function of energy, constitute all particles. You should think why the double slit experiments have been done only using electrons or photons and not protons. Though isolating individual protons is not possible with the present level of technology, alpha particles could be used, which will not show interference. This shows that interference is caused only by leptons and zero-mass bosons. This puts them into a class like that of fluids while the massive fixed dimension "particles" belong to a different class. You can treat the "particles" as boats swimming in leptons that behave as rivers that confine the boat. We are aware that such ideas challenge the modern notion and considered taboo. It may get deleted. But how long we will superstitiously follow the old ideas that has failed us repeatedly for about a century?
Regards,
basudeba
MOST IMPORTANT ADVANTAGE OF COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY (TOTAL PAGES – 424, PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1998, ISBN: 81-7643-0005), WRITTEN BY Nirmalendu das. EMIAL: nirmalgopa@gmail.com , Mob: India 9475089337.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY FOLLOWS THE LAW OF NATURE OR PHYSICS. THIS IS SINGLE THEORY.
2) THIS THEORY IS THE THEORY OF CERTAINTY, THEORY OF EVERY THINGS ETC.
3) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY IS VERY CLEAR AND EASY THEORY TO UNDERSTAND THE VAST SCIENCE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE WHOLE SCIENCE WITHOUT USE OF CALCULUS LIKE MATH.
4) IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW DIFFERENT FINDINGS FROM PARTICLE TO THE UNIVERSE BY THIS SINGLE THEORY.
(THE CALCULATED RESULTS ARE EXACTLY TALLIED WITH THE FINDINGS OF OTHER TRADITIONAL THEORIES DONE BY THE SCIENTISTS IN THE DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE.)
5) THE COMLLETE UNIFIED THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE INTERNAL MECHANISM OF MATTERS DURING EMISSION OF ENERGY. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW FROM THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO NOT KNOW THE INTERNAL MEHCANISM OF THE EINSTEIN`S EQUATION E = mc2 THAT, IN WHAT WAY MATTER IS RADIATING ENERGY AS m IS NOT ALONE .
6) THIS THEORY CAN SOLVE THE STRUCTURE OF ELECTRON, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, BIRTH OF MAGNETISM, MAXIMUM MASS OF THE UNIVERSE, THE SUCCESSIVE DERIVATIVES OF BIRTH OF STARS, GALAXIES, QUASARS, PARTICLES ETC, THUS THE UNIVERSE.
7) IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DISTASTEFUL CONCEPT OF SCIENCE LIKE ZERO REST MASS OF THE PARTICLES (MASS OF PHOTON, GRAVITION).
8) THE VALUE OF Pi (π) IS NOT CONSTANT AT EXCITED STATE OF MATTER WHEN PARICLE IS DEFORMED ------ BUT THE SCIENTISTS ARE USING THE VALUE OF π AS CONSTANT IN EVERY FIELDS WHERE NEEDED.
9) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE EQUATION OF THEORY OF RELATIVITY OF EINSTEIN OF MASS, AS VELOCITY IS NOT MASS, THAT CAN INCREASE OR DECREASE THE MASS. THE VELOCITY IS ONLY THE ENVONRMENT THAT CAN INCREASE THE MASS BY ACTING MASS TO MASS REACTION.
10) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE MASS OF CURIE PARTICLE (TILL UNKNOWN) WHICH IS RELATED TO ALL SUBATOMIC PARTICLES EVEN HIGGS BOSON, QUARKS. THIS IS VERY NEW SYSTEM, IN WHAT WAY ALL PARTICLES ARE INTERRELATED.
11) COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY IS SINGLE THEORY. WE CAN SOLVE ALL TO USE THIS THEORY.
12) THIS THEORY CAN GIVE THE ANSWER THAT WHY BLACK PARTICLE, BLACK HOLE ETC. LOT OF THINGS IS THERE.
More than 500 websites are their against the book COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY and MYSTERY OF ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. Few are given here for examples.
1. NASA ADS Astronomy Database Service, Mystery of Origin of the Universe (Unified Theory), Nirmalendu Das, (Abstract: A scholarly treatise on the mass of photon or its properties which has been the source of many discoveries regarding the matter (Universe), { Bibliographic Code: 1990mouu.book…..D}, Citation Result: 8. Reads History: Total = 184 (up to date: 22-12-2012) .
2. SEMINAR : UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRING THEORY GROUP: Mathematics / Physics Workshop on K Theory and Super symmetry February 10-12, 2005 INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR THEORY PROGRAM: "From RHIC to LHC", Seattle, Sept-Dec 2006 Throughout the book "Mystery of the Origin of the Universe (Unified Theory)" the author ---- (SHRI NIRMALENDU DAS) cites many references.
3. Books search- The Library, The Abdus Salam International Centre ... , London.
523.1 DAS, Mystery of origin of the universe (unified theory). Das, N. (Nirmalendu) c1990, [availability] • [want to locate it...
library.ictp.trieste.it/pages/bsearch/bwbcat.php?PAGE=7&NEXT=/DBENGINE/bwbcat/SDW?W%3DSUBJ+PH... - 184k
4. SB Berlin PK. Search Short List-[Translate], Andy Evans. Berlin [u.a]: Springer, 2000. Buch, Complete unified theory / Nirmalendu Das. 1. ed. Guwahati [u.a.] : Bani Prokash, 1998.
5. COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY http://nationallibrary.gov.in/showdetails.php?id=13140 National Library, Government of India, Ministry of Call No. E 530.142 D26, ISBN No. 8.17643e+008.
6. J R D TATA MEMORIAL LIBRARY, PHYSICS, (15. Das, Nirmalendu, Mystery of the word atom / by Nirmalendu Das. -- Sikkim: Mukul das, 1986. 116p. 539.72 N861 G19282, ** Atomic physics)
7. Experiments at CERN help us understand the world we live in ...
Complete unified theory / Nirmalendu Das. – 1. ed. ... which is linked with the book "Mystery of origin of the universe, page-193 " (1990mouu.book… ... www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/.../Experiments-at-CERN-help-us-understand-the-world-we-live-...
8. Nirmalendu Das (Open Library) Nirmalendu Das. [Edit]. Books by this Author. Mystery of origin of the universe by Nirmalendu Das. (Gopa Das, 1990) ... openlibrary.org/a/OL822287A
9. experiments at cern help us understand the world we live in Total Pages - 424) The book written by Nirmalendu Das, Mystery of Origin I live near CERN and haven't felt any world imploding moments as yet. I did feel a bit queezy earlier
10. Stephen Hawking, "Equal to Anything!" [Excerpt]: Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stephen-hawking... 6 Jan 2012 – I explain all in my book Complete Unified Theory (page- 424, 1998). ...Nirmalendu Das, Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com,
MOST IMPORTANT ADVANTAGE OF COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY (TOTAL PAGES – 424, PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1998, ISBN: 81-7643-0005), WRITTEN BY Nirmalendu das. EMIAL: nirmalgopa@gmail.com , Mob: India 9475089337.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY FOLLOWS THE LAW OF NATURE OR PHYSICS. THIS IS SINGLE THEORY.
2) THIS THEORY IS THE THEORY OF CERTAINTY, THEORY OF EVERY THINGS ETC.
3) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY IS VERY CLEAR AND EASY THEORY TO UNDERSTAND THE VAST SCIENCE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE WHOLE SCIENCE WITHOUT USE OF CALCULUS LIKE MATH.
4) IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW DIFFERENT FINDINGS FROM PARTICLE TO THE UNIVERSE BY THIS SINGLE THEORY.
(THE CALCULATED RESULTS ARE EXACTLY TALLIED WITH THE FINDINGS OF OTHER TRADITIONAL THEORIES DONE BY THE SCIENTISTS IN THE DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE.)
5) THE COMLLETE UNIFIED THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE INTERNAL MECHANISM OF MATTERS DURING EMISSION OF ENERGY. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW FROM THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO NOT KNOW THE INTERNAL MEHCANISM OF THE EINSTEIN`S EQUATION E = mc2 THAT, IN WHAT WAY MATTER IS RADIATING ENERGY AS m IS NOT ALONE .
6) THIS THEORY CAN SOLVE THE STRUCTURE OF ELECTRON, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, BIRTH OF MAGNETISM, MAXIMUM MASS OF THE UNIVERSE, THE SUCCESSIVE DERIVATIVES OF BIRTH OF STARS, GALAXIES, QUASARS, PARTICLES ETC, THUS THE UNIVERSE.
7) IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DISTASTEFUL CONCEPT OF SCIENCE LIKE ZERO REST MASS OF THE PARTICLES (MASS OF PHOTON, GRAVITION).
8) THE VALUE OF Pi (π) IS NOT CONSTANT AT EXCITED STATE OF MATTER WHEN PARICLE IS DEFORMED ------ BUT THE SCIENTISTS ARE USING THE VALUE OF π AS CONSTANT IN EVERY FIELDS WHERE NEEDED.
9) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE EQUATION OF THEORY OF RELATIVITY OF EINSTEIN OF MASS, AS VELOCITY IS NOT MASS, THAT CAN INCREASE OR DECREASE THE MASS. THE VELOCITY IS ONLY THE ENVONRMENT THAT CAN INCREASE THE MASS BY ACTING MASS TO MASS REACTION.
10) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE MASS OF CURIE PARTICLE (TILL UNKNOWN) WHICH IS RELATED TO ALL SUBATOMIC PARTICLES EVEN HIGGS BOSON, QUARKS. THIS IS VERY NEW SYSTEM, IN WHAT WAY ALL PARTICLES ARE INTERRELATED.
11) COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY IS SINGLE THEORY. WE CAN SOLVE ALL TO USE THIS THEORY.
12) THIS THEORY CAN GIVE THE ANSWER THAT WHY BLACK PARTICLE, BLACK HOLE ETC. LOT OF THINGS IS THERE.
More than 500 websites are their against the book COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY and MYSTERY OF ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. Few are given here for examples.
1. NASA ADS Astronomy Database Service, Mystery of Origin of the Universe (Unified Theory), Nirmalendu Das, (Abstract: A scholarly treatise on the mass of photon or its properties which has been the source of many discoveries regarding the matter (Universe), { Bibliographic Code: 1990mouu.book…..D}, Citation Result: 8. Reads History: Total = 184 (up to date: 22-12-2012) .
2. SEMINAR : UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STRING THEORY GROUP: Mathematics / Physics Workshop on K Theory and Super symmetry February 10-12, 2005 INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR THEORY PROGRAM: "From RHIC to LHC", Seattle, Sept-Dec 2006 Throughout the book "Mystery of the Origin of the Universe (Unified Theory)" the author ---- (SHRI NIRMALENDU DAS) cites many references.
3. Books search- The Library, The Abdus Salam International Centre ... , London.
523.1 DAS, Mystery of origin of the universe (unified theory). Das, N. (Nirmalendu) c1990, [availability] • [want to locate it...
library.ictp.trieste.it/pages/bsearch/bwbcat.php?PAGE=7&NEXT=/DBENGINE/bwbcat/SDW?W%3DSUBJ+PH... - 184k
4. SB Berlin PK. Search Short List-[Translate], Andy Evans. Berlin [u.a]: Springer, 2000. Buch, Complete unified theory / Nirmalendu Das. 1. ed. Guwahati [u.a.] : Bani Prokash, 1998.
5. COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY http://nationallibrary.gov.in/showdetails.php?id=13140 National Library, Government of India, Ministry of Call No. E 530.142 D26, ISBN No. 8.17643e+008.
6. J R D TATA MEMORIAL LIBRARY, PHYSICS, (15. Das, Nirmalendu, Mystery of the word atom / by Nirmalendu Das. -- Sikkim: Mukul das, 1986. 116p. 539.72 N861 G19282, ** Atomic physics)
7. Experiments at CERN help us understand the world we live in ...
Complete unified theory / Nirmalendu Das. – 1. ed. ... which is linked with the book "Mystery of origin of the universe, page-193 " (1990mouu.book… ... www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/.../Experiments-at-CERN-help-us-understand-the-world-we-live-...
8. Nirmalendu Das (Open Library) Nirmalendu Das. [Edit]. Books by this Author. Mystery of origin of the universe by Nirmalendu Das. (Gopa Das, 1990) ... openlibrary.org/a/OL822287A
9. experiments at cern help us understand the world we live in Total Pages - 424) The book written by Nirmalendu Das, Mystery of Origin I live near CERN and haven't felt any world imploding moments as yet. I did feel a bit queezy earlier
10. Stephen Hawking, "Equal to Anything!" [Excerpt]: Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stephen-hawking... 6 Jan 2012 – I explain all in my book Complete Unified Theory (page- 424, 1998). ...Nirmalendu Das, Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com,
The balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path producing gravitoethertons which is graviton and anti graviton at common boundary by annihilation is now taken by scientists seriously as we have found graviton and anti graviton as two Higgs Bosons recently in LHC,CERN. Non isotropic, assymetrical universe with varying gravitoetherton soup will give MOND theory and we may now understand the dark matter is due to MOND. But if both the universes are getting consumed at common boundary,then even accelerated expansion is illusion as galaxies are flying away to get consumed at common boundary and the boundary may be even shrinking. SO read theories published by DURGADAS DATTA to understand our universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this