New physics at old Tevatron

[Jam]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/sc...icle.html?_r=1

Physicists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory [...] have found a suspicious bump in their data that could be evidence of a new elementary particle or even, some say, a new force of nature.
[...]
One possible explanation [...] is that it is evidence of a new and unexpected version of the long-sought Higgs boson.
[...]
This could not be the Standard Model Higgs, Dr. Punzi and his colleagues concluded, because the Higgs is predicted to decay into much heavier particles [...].
[...]
If real, it was something totally new, Dr. Punzi said.

Not to be cynical, but another explanation is the desperation of scientists running out of funding

Fermilab’s Tevatron, once the world’s most powerful particle accelerator [is] slated to go dark forever in September or earlier, whenever Fermilab runs out of money to operate it.

[charliebrown]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

ouch fermi going dark? first NASA, now fermi. We do seem to find money for bombs, and for smart phones to give to people to remind them at regular intervals to change their nicorete patch. Hmmm

[Chris Coles]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

When the truth finally comes out; we will see that they are desperate to cover up that their entire theory base is suspect and does not stand up to scrutiny. No particle has any mass. THAT is their "Problem".

[Jam]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

Chris,
The standard model has been spectacularly successful in explaining the results of high-energy collision experiments. If you claim to have something better, you better make damn sure that what you put forth explains all that the standard model has been so successful explaining, and then some. If you don't verify that your model's predictions are consistent with those of the standard model, then all your talk will be summarily ignored.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

Chris,
The standard model has been spectacularly successful in explaining the results of high-energy collision experiments. If you claim to have something better, you better make damn sure that what you put forth explains all that the standard model has been so successful explaining, and then some. If you don't verify that your model's predictions are consistent with those of the standard model, then all your talk will be summarily ignored.

I was quoting two eminent physicists at CERN who stated on a BBC TV program:

"There is something spooky about this Standard Model. It doesn't really work. So we know there is something sick in our theory" Nobel Prize Winner, Leon M. Lederman, CERN

"For example, we have at the moment what we call a Standard Model of Particle Physics. Works great. Only one small problem. If you write down the equations of this model, it would seem to suggest that no particle could have any mass. Clearly that's not true" Prof. John Ellis, CERN.

Taken from: The Big Bang Machine, BBC4 TV, September 2008, http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/cont..._feature.shtml

I added the following note to my book, (Not available at the moment as I am in the process of adding several new chapters and also moving the web site from being hosted in the US to the UK).

At CERN, and other such facilities, physicists have been using the images of the tracks that have been created by their high energy collisions of particles, as the foundation for their calculations. Part 4 will show that their calculations may well have been correct all along. But what they lacked was a logical description of the structure that produced their images. I am going to show that if they had made a mistake, it was in their logic, not their mathematics.

[c1ue]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

When the truth finally comes out

I'd suggest not using that particular term.

Because doing so lumps you in with all the conspiracy theorists and automatically dismissed as a crackpot.

Again, your theories are interesting, but without actual proof it is difficult to lend credence to them.

As for the Tevatron - one note in modern science is that almost all of the phenomenon researched these days is so close to noise level that only the most careful analysis can tease out actual trends. This in turn exacerbates subconscious bias - after all - the employment of ever more dramatic adjustments to find data is easily corrupted into creating nonexistent trends.

The additional failure of most non-mathematics based scientists to understand statistics is another major issue.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

A fair point C1ue. But my theories have been "out there" for nearly a decade now.

Fear of scientific zealots within conventional science now seems to have driven all debate out to the "fringe" and having seen that fear, right up close, I can understand why so many refuse to get involved any more.

But rest assured, I am making good progress.

I must also add; if you want to make progress, you always have to endure, in your face, often very verbally violent refusal to believe. That goes with the territory.

[Jam]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

I was quoting two eminent physicists at CERN who stated on a BBC TV program:

"There is something spooky about this Standard Model. It doesn't really work. So we know there is something sick in our theory" Nobel Prize Winner, Leon M. Lederman, CERN

"For example, we have at the moment what we call a Standard Model of Particle Physics. Works great. Only one small problem. If you write down the equations of this model, it would seem to suggest that no particle could have any mass. Clearly that's not true" Prof. John Ellis, CERN.

Not sure why he would say that--unless the next statement was a reference to spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism, which endows particles (of the standard model) with mass. And then, pointing out that the Higgs boson has never been observed experimentally--hence the weakness of the model.
Like I said before, although there is lots to be desired of the standard model in terms of aesthetics, its predictive power is undeniable. And, in the end, the predictive power is what really matters. Scientific journals are littered with dozens, if not hundreds, of alternatives to / extensions of the standard model. And guess what, nobody cares (with the exception of the people who came up with them). Typically, the reason is that the alternative models introduce more problems than they solve. For example, a model may be really elegant, but does it at the cost of introducing a couple of hundred new elementary particles that have never been observed. And remember, what made it to the literature is only the models that have been demonstrated (by the authors) to produce results consistent with the standard model at the experimentally-available energy levels.
If you propose something new, which you claim is better than what we have now, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it predicts all that the existing theory predicts, and does it better. Unless/until you show it, you are wasting everybody's time.

[Glenn Black]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

A fair point C1ue. But my theories have been "out there" for nearly a decade now.

Fear of scientific zealots within conventional science now seems to have driven all debate out to the "fringe" and having seen that fear, right up close, I can understand why so many refuse to get involved any more.

But rest assured, I am making good progress.

I must also add; if you want to make progress, you always have to endure, in your face, often very verbally violent refusal to believe. That goes with the territory.

OK, all the above is interesting. If the track isn`t a particle or a wave, then what does your postulation propose?

Here is something that may be of interest: The 11 stages of a "Truth":

Cycle of Truth
(c) 2010 by Glenn Black

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

With all due respect to Schopenhauer and other who came before me, I propose that there are 11 stages in the Cycle of Truth, as follows:

1. Active ignorance towards the "Truth" (See Mark Twain's "Lie of Silent Assertion").
2. One or more Leaders discover the "Truth", or publicly communicate & endorse the "Truth" (via bravery, foolishness, morality, principles, or some combination thereof). One or more Followers may join with the Leader(s), and thereby a Movement has been born.
3. Dismissal and ridiculing of the "Truth", the Movement, and those who support it (See Schopenhauer Step #1).
4. Aggression and violent opposition towards the "Truth" and the Movement, which may include oppression &/or punishment of the proponents of the "Truth" (See Schopenhauer’s Step #2).
5. Trivialization & dismissal of the "Truth" and the Movement as a transient fad.
6. Integration, co-option, & hijacking of the Movement & the "Truth" for the purpose of others (see 2009 Tea Party in USA).
7. Mass tolerance & passive acceptance of the "Truth" and the Movement, with the promotion & participation of them by a Leader, Followers, and social activists.
8. Active belief and participation in the "Truth", and joining the Movement by everybody as it becomes the “In” thing to do, the new norm, and eventually the next dogma (See "Political Correctness").
9. Trivialization, dismissal, ridicule, aggression, violent opposition, oppression, &/or punishment of those who refuse or resist the "Truth" and the Movement.
10. Active ignorance & silent assertion towards those who deny the "Truth" and the Movement.
11. Awareness & enlightenment by a few will lead to an epiphany, fractionation, and splintering of the "Truth" dogma to create a new truth (ie. "Truth2"), which leads to a cycling back to Step #1 above.

Above, I have placed "Truth" in quotes, as I believe the Cycle of Truth and its 11 steps apply equally well to great evils that have been packaged via propaganda so as to masquerade as a truth, and thereby manipulate the masses.

For those who are concerned about being trapped in a vicious circle, or chasing our tails: Yes, it is a cycle, but more like a spiral. The steps are the same forever, but I believe there is evolution from "Truth", to "Truth2", and so on as we complete each cycle of 11 steps. There is improvement, there is hope for a better future.
Depending on those involved and the environment which exists at that time, certain steps may be skipped, done comprehensively or superficially, done out of sequence, or repeated. Often, a “Truth” and/or Movement will die, disappear, or become dormant (ie. awaiting more favorable circumstances under which to grow again).

[Chris Coles]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

Not sure why he would say that--unless the next statement was a reference to spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism, which endows particles (of the standard model) with mass. And then, pointing out that the Higgs boson has never been observed experimentally--hence the weakness of the model.
Like I said before, although there is lots to be desired of the standard model in terms of aesthetics, its predictive power is undeniable. And, in the end, the predictive power is what really matters. Scientific journals are littered with dozens, if not hundreds, of alternatives to / extensions of the standard model. And guess what, nobody cares (with the exception of the people who came up with them). Typically, the reason is that the alternative models introduce more problems than they solve. For example, a model may be really elegant, but does it at the cost of introducing a couple of hundred new elementary particles that have never been observed. And remember, what made it to the literature is only the models that have been demonstrated (by the authors) to produce results consistent with the standard model at the experimentally-available energy levels.
If you propose something new, which you claim is better than what we have now, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that it predicts all that the existing theory predicts, and does it better. Unless/until you show it, you are wasting everybody's time.

At no time do I in any way try and introduce new mathematics. All the existing work is very sound. All I have done is show another mechanism, a new physical structure for the proton that delivers exactly what is observed. But that is just one small part of the whole, (which is already 484 pages, 57 chapters, 168 illustrations), and this is not the right time to open that up to further scrutiny, while I am adding to it. If you will all bear with me, as soon as I can, I will return with more detail.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

OK, all the above is interesting. If the track isn`t a particle or a wave, then what does your postulation propose?

Having given your question some further thought; it seems churlish to say, go away and wait, so I will try and give you a synopsis.

My long term thought process has been wrapped around Big bang theory since I was ~ 17 yrs old, (50 years ago). In 1998, I started to place some of my thinking on the internet, but still had the whole thing as a dormant process when, in 2002, finding myself at a major wireless conference in San Francisco and out for a Beer in the evening I get into a discussion with a number of other delegates and was challenged to publish my now much wider thinking on the subject of gravity. (I well remember a NIST scientist banging his fist on the table while enthusiastically telling me "Chris, you must publish". To cut a very long story short, my attempt to find a publisher produced the response; "I cannot publish that, you destroy everything" (I will not quote who said that, even though I suspect he would not mind).

So I set up The Leonard R. Sugerman Press to publish it myself. Len Sugerman, at that time my principle mentor in the US was a Past President of the US Institute of navigation, and also personal assistant to the Director of the Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico State University and he was very happy to put his name to the first edition which came out early 2003. But no one would give the book any publicity. And I do mean no one... By that summer, my long term attempts at setting up a Video-911 system based upon my US telecom patents, had to be abandoned, and I returned to the UK, living rough in an old American motor home on Lasham Gliding Club airfield. So I sat down to continue writing. As new thoughts came to mind, I passed them out. As an example, when I drafted a new chapter on the subject of the evolution of the Whirlpool Galaxy, I passed a copy to the Hubble Space Science Institute. That draft in turn, had an aside comment made at the end, of the intention to produce a poster based on the chapter. You might like to go look at the Hubble site and see that not long afterwards, to celebrate their 15th anniversary they produced two great images, one of the Whirlpool Galaxy and the other, of the Eagle Nebula, a dust cloud, exactly what I would need for the poster..... http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2005/12/

In essence, my first thought was that everyone had misunderstood the concept of the event horizon; that once created, it cannot move, as it is merely a mathematical point that, once passed, meant that all further mass added to the object, has to be deposited outside of that "event" and is thus inert.

But again, as a glider pilot since the early 1970's, I had a lot of "mark one eyeball" evidence that clouds act as though a solid mass. That gas molecules cannot detach from each other. So I followed my line of thought and over several years of additional thinking, I created a completely new model for the atom that took my own observations into account.

Placing both lines of thought together has brought me to the following general conclusions.

Gravity within a solid mass object is an attachment force between each proton and is thus a negative, attractive force, and thus at the centre of the mass, in every direction, gravity is towards the surface. That simple point, in turn, means that there must be a single point, right at the centre of the mass, where all those, negative, towards the surface forces; must balance out to a zero. That at the centre of every solid mass object in the universe, whether a tiny speck of dust, or the largest object imaginable; there is a single point at the centre of the mass where all the gravitational forces relative to the mass meet at a point of zero balanced gravity.

While, again, as one rises up through the mass, up from the centre, there must be another point where the forces above and below the observer; balance. That there must also be a point, on each line of observation, from the centre towards the surface; where again, we will meet a point of balanced gravity where there is the same mass above the observer as below. It is my contention that that point delineates the interface between the inner and outer core of this planet.

That, once these simple aspects are accepted, then, when we reach the point of mass deposition where the mass is sufficient to cause photons of light to be beyond escape velocity, or the event horizon, all further mass deposited must be outside of that event and thus inert.

Now add that you already have zero balanced gravity right at the centre, but as a negative force towards the surface, relative to all the force of all the gravity potential of the entire mass at that surface, (more than 1 Million G here on Earth), much much higher at that black hole "event" and again, already, with balanced gravitational effects within the mass between the centre and the surface. Now add more mass and you have all those internal effects with an outer surface that is inert. Super compressed inert mass.

Now, as the mass increases you will get a second event horizon that will rise from that inert surface, relative to the additional mass deposited. So now you have an object that has reached the first event horizon, has balanced gravitational effects within that has a stationary event horizon WITHIN the mass, surrounded by additional mass that is super-compressed and inert, and beyond that inert surface, you have a second event horizon enclosing the entire object.

Now add more mass and what happens is you eventually arrive at an object that is a massive ring of mass surrounding an inner object, not spherical, but of the same mass as the outer ring. A total void right at the centre with massive forces towards the surface of the inner object and a ring of balanced gravitational forces; gravity towards the centre of the inner object and towards the surface of the outer object which again has gravity towards the centre at its surface, but with the final event horizon quite a distance from the outer surface of that outer ring of mass. That is four separate event horizons and possibly more when we get to accurately model the effects.

As that object evolves, over immense periods of time, (much, much, more than 13.7 billion years), the two masses expand and the outer ring will start to break up. Which is where the evolution of the Whirlpool Galaxy comes into play as I believe this is an example of the outer ring of mass breaking up and creating Barred galaxies.

Another example in my book is SN 1987A where the outer ring is now broken onto roughly 30 pieces and is unable to break free from those balanced gravitational forces, even though the inner object has just produced a Supernova in 1987, the outer ring is still there. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2007/10/

So then I turned to thinking about the small matter of gas molecules and have broken that thought process down to the point where I have created a completely new model for the electromagnetic structure of the proton that makes it an inviolable electromagnetic force field attached to a dipole at its centre.

That the electron is simply a part of the structure of the proton, and gravity, as also every other form of energy; relates to the simple discovery that as the proton is electromagnetic, then its force field extends beyond the orbit of the proton's electron to attach, (via James Clerk Maxwell's rules of electromagnetism), to the nearest other negative potential, an adjacent proton's electron.

That as every atom is thus attached with an external energy field with electromagnetic attachments that must change as the atom rotates, (causing the attachments to constantly change their distance), and thus attach and detach as rotation continues, then these attachments/detachments are the origins of the photon, which is simply a ripple of energy, (like a whiplash), that travels along these lines of force field as they attachment or again detach relative to the temperature of the surrounding energy environment..

Returning to the original proton which, in turn, acts as though an infinite spring that cannot normally be compressed. But when the outer energy environment matches that inside the proton, that outer surface of the inviolable electromagnetic force field will then be unable to resist compression, (where the inner and outer forces match), and the two dipoles are then attracted to each other and thus accelerate towards each other to "snap" together, producing the tiny quantum of additional energy left over after the change from Hydrogen to Helium.

But that then makes the outer surface of those two protons, compressed springs, that, when the new element returns to ambient conditions; remain attached and compressed as potential energy relative to the compression of the outer surfaces of the two protons. Thus the Neutron is not a particle, but a quantum of compressed energy, that when released, travels along those external force field attachments between the protons. That all such "particles" are thus simply packets of energy travelling along the external attachments between the protons.

And the icing on the cake is that in this case, now we can see why the speed of light appears always to be the same. It is simply related to the rotation of the atom right at the surface of the detector.

Oh! and why not discuss these new thoughts? Well I can only conclude because, if you have an object with gravity towards the surface and balanced gravitational forces between the centre and the surface, then it becomes impossible for any object to collapse into a singularity .... Ergo, no big bang..... VERY embarrassing.

I think I have given you all enough. The next edition will not become available until some time later in the year when I will also provide a complete proof of balanced forces in equilibrium at the centre of any solid mass object. (I have already, recently, presented a demonstration of such balanced forces to the Royal Society here in the UK, but wish to write up a new chapter surrounding that paper and that, as well as further explanation of what is happening right at the surface of the atom.

[Jam]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

Having given your question some further thought; it seems churlish to say, go away and wait, so I will try and give you a synopsis.

My long term thought process has been wrapped around Big bang theory since I was ~ 17 yrs old, (50 years ago). In 1998, I started to place some of my thinking on the internet, but still had the whole thing as a dormant process when, in 2002, finding myself at a major wireless conference in San Francisco and out for a Beer in the evening I get into a discussion with a number of other delegates and was challenged to publish my now much wider thinking on the subject of gravity. (I well remember a NIST scientist banging his fist on the table while enthusiastically telling me "Chris, you must publish". To cut a very long story short, my attempt to find a publisher produced the response; "I cannot publish that, you destroy everything" (I will not quote who said that, even though I suspect he would not mind).

So I set up The Leonard R. Sugerman Press to publish it myself. Len Sugerman, at that time my principle mentor in the US was a Past President of the US Institute of navigation, and also personal assistant to the Director of the Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico State University and he was very happy to put his name to the first edition which came out early 2003. But no one would give the book any publicity. And I do mean no one... By that summer, my long term attempts at setting up a Video-911 system based upon my US telecom patents, had to be abandoned, and I returned to the UK, living rough in an old American motor home on Lasham Gliding Club airfield. So I sat down to continue writing. As new thoughts came to mind, I passed them out. As an example, when I drafted a new chapter on the subject of the evolution of the Whirlpool Galaxy, I passed a copy to the Hubble Space Science Institute. That draft in turn, had an aside comment made at the end, of the intention to produce a poster based on the chapter. You might like to go look at the Hubble site and see that not long afterwards, to celebrate their 15th anniversary they produced two great images, one of the Whirlpool Galaxy and the other, of the Eagle Nebula, a dust cloud, exactly what I would need for the poster..... http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2005/12/

In essence, my first thought was that everyone had misunderstood the concept of the event horizon; that once created, it cannot move, as it is merely a mathematical point that, once passed, meant that all further mass added to the object, has to be deposited outside of that "event" and is thus inert.

But again, as a glider pilot since the early 1970's, I had a lot of "mark one eyeball" evidence that clouds act as though a solid mass. That gas molecules cannot detach from each other. So I followed my line of thought and over several years of additional thinking, I created a completely new model for the atom that took my own observations into account.

Placing both lines of thought together has brought me to the following general conclusions.

Gravity within a solid mass object is an attachment force between each proton and is thus a negative, attractive force, and thus at the centre of the mass, in every direction, gravity is towards the surface. That simple point, in turn, means that there must be a single point, right at the centre of the mass, where all those, negative, towards the surface forces; must balance out to a zero. That at the centre of every solid mass object in the universe, whether a tiny speck of dust, or the largest object imaginable; there is a single point at the centre of the mass where all the gravitational forces relative to the mass meet at a point of zero balanced gravity.

While, again, as one rises up through the mass, up from the centre, there must be another point where the forces above and below the observer; balance. That there must also be a point, on each line of observation, from the centre towards the surface; where again, we will meet a point of balanced gravity where there is the same mass above the observer as below. It is my contention that that point delineates the interface between the inner and outer core of this planet.

That, once these simple aspects are accepted, then, when we reach the point of mass deposition where the mass is sufficient to cause photons of light to be beyond escape velocity, or the event horizon, all further mass deposited must be outside of that event and thus inert.

Now add that you already have zero balanced gravity right at the centre, but as a negative force towards the surface, relative to all the force of all the gravity potential of the entire mass at that surface, (more than 1 Million G here on Earth), much much higher at that black hole "event" and again, already, with balanced gravitational effects within the mass between the centre and the surface. Now add more mass and you have all those internal effects with an outer surface that is inert. Super compressed inert mass.

Now, as the mass increases you will get a second event horizon that will rise from that inert surface, relative to the additional mass deposited. So now you have an object that has reached the first event horizon, has balanced gravitational effects within that has a stationary event horizon WITHIN the mass, surrounded by additional mass that is super-compressed and inert, and beyond that inert surface, you have a second event horizon enclosing the entire object.

Now add more mass and what happens is you eventually arrive at an object that is a massive ring of mass surrounding an inner object, not spherical, but of the same mass as the outer ring. A total void right at the centre with massive forces towards the surface of the inner object and a ring of balanced gravitational forces; gravity towards the centre of the inner object and towards the surface of the outer object which again has gravity towards the centre at its surface, but with the final event horizon quite a distance from the outer surface of that outer ring of mass. That is four separate event horizons and possibly more when we get to accurately model the effects.

As that object evolves, over immense periods of time, (much, much, more than 13.7 billion years), the two masses expand and the outer ring will start to break up. Which is where the evolution of the Whirlpool Galaxy comes into play as I believe this is an example of the outer ring of mass breaking up and creating Barred galaxies.

Another example in my book is SN 1987A where the outer ring is now broken onto roughly 30 pieces and is unable to break free from those balanced gravitational forces, even though the inner object has just produced a Supernova in 1987, the outer ring is still there. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2007/10/

So then I turned to thinking about the small matter of gas molecules and have broken that thought process down to the point where I have created a completely new model for the electromagnetic structure of the proton that makes it an inviolable electromagnetic force field attached to a dipole at its centre.

That the electron is simply a part of the structure of the proton, and gravity, as also every other form of energy; relates to the simple discovery that as the proton is electromagnetic, then its force field extends beyond the orbit of the proton's electron to attach, (via James Clerk Maxwell's rules of electromagnetism), to the nearest other negative potential, an adjacent proton's electron.

That as every atom is thus attached with an external energy field with electromagnetic attachments that must change as the atom rotates, (causing the attachments to constantly change their distance), and thus attach and detach as rotation continues, then these attachments/detachments are the origins of the photon, which is simply a ripple of energy, (like a whiplash), that travels along these lines of force field as they attachment or again detach relative to the temperature of the surrounding energy environment..

Returning to the original proton which, in turn, acts as though an infinite spring that cannot normally be compressed. But when the outer energy environment matches that inside the proton, that outer surface of the inviolable electromagnetic force field will then be unable to resist compression, (where the inner and outer forces match), and the two dipoles are then attracted to each other and thus accelerate towards each other to "snap" together, producing the tiny quantum of additional energy left over after the change from Hydrogen to Helium.

But that then makes the outer surface of those two protons, compressed springs, that, when the new element returns to ambient conditions; remain attached and compressed as potential energy relative to the compression of the outer surfaces of the two protons. Thus the Neutron is not a particle, but a quantum of compressed energy, that when released, travels along those external force field attachments between the protons. That all such "particles" are thus simply packets of energy travelling along the external attachments between the protons.

And the icing on the cake is that in this case, now we can see why the speed of light appears always to be the same. It is simply related to the rotation of the atom right at the surface of the detector.

Oh! and why not discuss these new thoughts? Well I can only conclude because, if you have an object with gravity towards the surface and balanced gravitational forces between the centre and the surface, then it becomes impossible for any object to collapse into a singularity .... Ergo, no big bang..... VERY embarrassing.

I think I have given you all enough. The next edition will not become available until some time later in the year when I will also provide a complete proof of balanced forces in equilibrium at the centre of any solid mass object. (I have already, recently, presented a demonstration of such balanced forces to the Royal Society here in the UK, but wish to write up a new chapter surrounding that paper and that, as well as further explanation of what is happening right at the surface of the atom.

Chris,

This is all interesting, if at times difficult to comprehend (at least for me). Let me point out, however, that the extraordinary success of conventional physics is based on its predictive power, which, in turn, relies on the ability to express the stated truths in the language of mathematics. For example, (Newtonian) gravitational force between two objects of mass m1 and m2 is expressed as -G m1 m1/r^2, where r is the distance between these objects. This formula works beautifully. It predicts Keplerian orbits of planets just as easily as the fall of a person walking off a cliff, or a formation of a galaxy--well, actually, the last one requires supercomputers to simulate the dynamics, nonetheless it works very well. Now, you talk about 'attachment force' between protons. Care to produce an equation/formula that expresses such force as a function of distance? Other parameters? It cannot be electrostatic since it acts as q1 q2/r^2, and is repulsive for same charges, whereas the 'attachment force' you postulate appears to be attractive.

To summarize my take on the subject: without hard math behind, words in physics are just fluff. Can you produce math to support your understanding of reality expressed in words above?

[Glenn Black]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

OK, interesting. I've read it twice. I feel a need to read it a few more times. Thanks for sharing. Does your theory have protons carrying a positive charge? Electrons negative? I assume that your theory holds that the electrostatic repulsive force is far superior at distance, but once the protons get close enough to each other, the dipole attraction overcomes the electrostatic repulsion. Use & description of positrons? Alpha, beta, & gamma radiation? Electron flow in DC current?

Does your alternative theory adequately explain all of these?

You mention your previous self publication. Is one of these available for me? I'm interested in learning more.

How does my proposed 11 steps for Cycle of Truth resonate with you and your experiences with your alternate theory?

[ASH]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

As for the Tevatron - one note in modern science is that almost all of the phenomenon researched these days is so close to noise level that only the most careful analysis can tease out actual trends. This in turn exacerbates subconscious bias - after all - the employment of ever more dramatic adjustments to find data is easily corrupted into creating nonexistent trends.

The researchers are claiming three sigma confidence for their measurement.

A skeptic quoted by the same article notes: "I've been doing this for 30 years now, and every few years we get these three-sigma effects - they come and then they go. Time will tell."

[c1ue]

Re: New physics at old Tevatron

The researchers are claiming three sigma confidence for their measurement.

A skeptic quoted by the same article notes: "I've been doing this for 30 years now, and every few years we get these three-sigma effects - they come and then they go. Time will tell."

As the skeptic notes - 3 sigma isn't as big a deal when you're talking about very low signal to noise.

And again, I'm not saying there is some plot to get more funding. Merely pointing out that when there isn't much to see, it is easy to find something.

The purpose of peer review is exactly to lend outside viewpoints to detect cases of bias, conscious or otherwise.

Thus the 'packing' of peer review with like minded peers is itself a huge danger.