Higgs Boson announcement expected from CERN today

UPDATE 5:57 AM The live webcast from CERN is overloaded but it appears that uncertainty still exists about the HB, they may have glimpsed its signal around 126 GeV – see below – Anthony

“The God Particle” may have been found.

Scientists in Geneva are expected to announce they have caught a glimpse of the elusive Higgs Boson on Tuesday in a press conference planned for 8 AM EST.

The particle is a vital factor in science’s understanding of the universe, but it has never been seen by scientists in any particle accelerator, perhaps until now. The theory of its existence goes all the way back to 1964.

Finding the Higgs Boson is one of the main goals of the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which recently started operation amidst worry that the search for the HB might open a rift or create a small black hole.

If scientists have gotten a  glimpse of the Higgs, it could have far-reaching consequences in particle physics. It is the only particle predicted by the current favored theory of particle physics that has not yet been observed experimentally. Its discovery would likely validate the Standard Model theory.

Some trivia from the Wikipedia entry on it:

The Higgs boson is often referred to as “the God particle” by the media,[50] after the title of Leon Lederman‘s book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?[51] Lederman initially wanted to call it the “goddamn particle,” but his editor would not let him.[52]

I’m sure our physicist friend Luboš Motl will have some coverage at The Reference Frame once the announcement is made for us folks that are three quarks shy of full set of fermions.

==============================================================

The Guardian reports on live tweets and what portions of the webcast they could view

While Fabiola Gianotti goes through the slides from the Atlas experiment, excluding various energies for the Higgs signal, here’s some thoughts from Prof Stephan Söldner-Rembold, Head of the Particle Physics Group at the University of Manchester:

ATLAS and CMS have presented an important milestone in their search for the Higgs particle, but it is not yet sufficient for a proper discovery given the amount of data recorded so far. Still, I am very excited about it, since the quality of the LHC results is exceptional.

The Higgs particle seems to have picked itself a mass which makes things very difficult for us physicists. Everything points at a mass in the range 115-140 GeV and we concentrate on this region with our searches at the LHC and at the Tevatron.
The results indicate we are about half-way there and within one year we will probably know whether the Higgs particle exists with absolute certainty, but it is unfortunately not a Christmas present this year.

The Higgs particle will, of course, be a great discovery, but it would be an even greater discovery if it didn’t exist where theory predicts it to be. This would be a huge surprise and secretly we hope this might happen. If this is case, there must be something else that takes the role of the “standard” Higgs particle, perhaps a family of several Higgs particles or something even more exotic. The unexpected is always the most exciting.

From Cern: “#ATLAS sees a small excess at a Higgs mass of 126 GeV coming from 3 channels. Local significance: 3.6 sigma but only 2.4 sigma globally”

That’s not enough for a “discovery” (which techically needs 5 sigma) but it is very interesting evidence for the Higgs.

Also: “#ATLAS excludes a #Higgs mass between 131 and 453 GeV at 95% confidence level at #CERN Higgs seminar”

Fabiola Gianotti has finished her presentation. So far,we know that Atlas seems to have found evidence for a bump around 126GeV for something that looks like the Higgs.

Next up is Guido Tonelli, spokesperson for Cern’s other main detector, the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS). As @iansample says, “So. What we’re looking for now is whether CMS detector has seen Higgs-like signals around the same mass (126GeV).”

How science has changed…doing some searching on the Atlas experiment, I came across this commercialization of the science at the Atlas store. At least they aren’t offering Pecan logs.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to Higgs Boson announcement expected from CERN today

  1. Cuthbert says:

    The webcast will be shown here;
    http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/

  2. cui bono says:

    Oh wow! Proper science with proper probabilities. Congratulations to all at CERN. It’s been a long wait but well worth it!

  3. TomO says:

    So, the Higgs field is The Aether then eh? :-)

    It will be interesting to see how the berks in the MSM mangle this ……

  4. It’s Motl without the final s and I predict they’ll report hints rather than evidence

  5. Luboš Motl says:

    Thanks for thinking about this discipline, Anthony!

    If there are real fans of particle physics among WUWT folks, the webcast at
    http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/

    will begin at 8 a.m. Boston Winter Time. If you will watch it, you may also open a chat box
    http://xat.com/chat/room/12544185/

    where you may share your feelings or ask questions. I hope it will remain manageable. ;-)

  6. “Well let you know when it whizzes by….”

  7. Ibrahim says:

    Bet: If they have found this one they’ll have to find the next.
    Higgs +

  8. Stephan says:

    OT but… [snip - simply saying so doesn't make it OK here]

  9. wayne says:

    Don’t know why I always thought they would not find it, but, this will be interesting. During the 70s through early 90s I was always stuck to this “particle physics” tube waiting for the next shattering breakthrough.

  10. Mike McMillan says:

    I didn’t quite get the gist of that CERN animation. Is there some particle exchange mechanism involving the Higgs that does the curving of spacetime?

  11. Ric Werme says:

    I mentioned on a couple Facebook posts that this could be a “massive” announcement.

  12. Anthony Watts says:

    @Luboš Motl

    Particle Physics (well actually the technology of it) was my first love. I built a Cyclotron in the EO Lawrence style for my high school science project that went to the National Science Fair. Powered by my dad’s DC arc welder, it was a noisy and somewhat fearsome bugger to operate.

  13. Vince Causey says:

    I am stunned.

    I was confident that no such particle existed. Here’s why.

    It was an idea that came out of left field by Peter Higgs in the sixties to answer the question why particles have mass – ie inertia. Since there was nothing in the standard model that provides an eplanation, Peter put forward the idea that inertia is the observed effect of an undiscovered field, named the Higgs field. He believed that it is particles moving through the Higgs field that gives the appearance of inertia. This gave rise to the realisation that if there is a Higgs field, there ought to be a corresponding particle. This is because in the standard model all fields are associated with particles that carry those fields. The particle that carries the electo magnetic field is of course the photon.

    The problem I have is that such a field is a return to the theory of the aether. This was discredited by Einstein – if you have an aether, then that implies an absolute space, an absolute frame of reference against which all other frames can be measured. It also appears to violate Newton’s first law of motion, since it would imply that if particles are interacting with a field that is responsible for their inertia, then those particles should not continue to move in a straight line at constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.

    They may well have discovered a new particle, but does it mean that the Higgs field exists? That is the question.

  14. If they have found it, I will give the EU 6 months before they tax it.

  15. polistra says:

    Luminiferous aether was unfashionable when it was just an understandable energy field. By defining it as a “particle” which can only be observed by elite physicists commanding billion-dollar research budgets, it becomes fashionable again.

    Sort of like outhouses. When they were wooden shacks that any old peasant could build, they were unfashionable. Now that they’re highly expensive Carbon-Neutral Composting Toilets, requiring special EPA permits, they’re haute enough for San Francisco.

  16. Ian E says:

    The Godot particle seems a better name!

  17. Alan the Brit says:

    Have they sorted out the “time-travelling” particles yet? Is it real or is just satellite drift causing a misreading?

  18. Alex the skeptic says:

    Now that is science. We also recently had from CERN the results of the CLOUD experiments, led by Jasper Kirkby. Can CERN give these results as much exposure as the Higgs Boson will get once it is dedected? These are both very important to humaniy, the former is becasue it boosts standard model theory, while the second will pull the carpet from beneat the greatest scientific scam ever concocted and save the tax payers trillions of dollars/euros/yen, money that can be utilised to further enhance the quality of our lives.

  19. wayne says:

    I miss the bubble chambers!

  20. Domingo Tavella says:

    [snip - off topic political junk and over the top]

  21. Sunny says:

    The stream on the site isn’t working well. I hear the perimeter institute for theoretical physics is doing a live interactive chat with some of the physicists involved with the experiments later today at 12:30 est its on their site at http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca.

  22. 1DandyTroll says:

    Oh, my,… Here we go, soon there’ll be pure H2O alternative medication for:

    people who don’t eat enough…Higgs-challenged persons?

    people who eat well enough…Higgs-aholics?

    people who suffer food allergies…Higgs-intolerant people?

    people who exercise too much…Higgs-deficient folks?

  23. bob says:

    Watching the streaming video, now, and I get the distinct impression that the CERN folks are trying to justify their continued budgetary existence. No Higgs, yet, but things are looking good for something in the future. This seminar is primarily to note progress on the project.

  24. Very interesting. And I’m happy to see they are open to the possibility the Higgs boson doesn’t exist rather than insisting it does exist and they just haven’t been looking in the right place.

  25. Warren in Minnesota says:

    Vince Causey says: December 13, 2011 at 5:02 am

    The problem I have is that such a field is a return to the theory of the aether. This was discredited by Einstein…

    I don’t remember Einstein discrediting the theory. I remember Michelson-Morley running the experiment using an interferometer, mirrors and a big vat of mercury.

  26. Robin Hewitt says:

    I’ve got a bottle of them somehere in my workshop. I would uncork it and look inside, problem is catching the durned thing.

  27. Alberta Slim says:

    So if you believe in the “God Particle” your an Aetherist.
    And if you don’t, then your an Athiest. [I know. that's weak] ;-)
    Looks like a whole new argument like AGW vs Skeptics

  28. NotTheAussiePhilM says:

    I wonder if they had to use dodgy statistical techniques to fit the data to their a priori assumptions?
    Or select data that gave them the answers they were looking for?
    Or had to ‘Hide-the-Decline’ when the data didn’t do what they wanted it to?
    Or are they real scientists who let the real data speak for itself?
    (Ans: No! No! No! Yes!)

  29. Vince Causey says:

    Warren in Minnesota,

    “I don’t remember Einstein discrediting the theory. I remember Michelson-Morley running the experiment using an interferometer, mirrors and a big vat of mercury.”

    It arises as a consequence of Einstein’s description of space and time. Pre Einstein, it was thought that space and time were absolute. In other words, it would be possible to define a universal frame of reference against which all other frames could be measured. This was what Michelson-Morely were trying to do – measure the aether drift.

    Einstein realised there could be no such thing as absolute space or time. It was impossible to define a motion without explicitly stating what frame of reference that motion existed in. Any reference to “the aether” must logically reintroduce the idea of absolute space. Whether or not the Higgs field is viewed as permeating all of space like the aether, is not made clear.

  30. steveta_uk says:

    “That’s not enough for a “discovery” (which techically needs 5 sigma) but it is very interesting evidence for the Higgs.”

    Read it and weep, Mann and Jones.

  31. Spen says:

    Prof Stephan Söldner-Rembold (above) says:

    ‘The Higgs particle will, of course, be a great discovery, but it would be an even greater discovery if it didn’t exist where theory predicts it to be. This would be a huge surprise and secretly we hope this might happen. If this is case, there must be something else that takes the role of the “standard” Higgs particle, perhaps a family of several Higgs particles or something even more exotic. The unexpected is always the most exciting.’

    Now here is a proper scientist – he even seems to think that not only is the science not settled but it would be even more exciting if the theory is wrong!

    Copy to The Team

  32. AntonyIndia says:

    From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/12/higgs-boson-particle-physics-benefit

    “But perhaps one of the biggest benefits of the current excitement will be this: watching the twists and turns of the neutrinos or the Higgs might, just might, help us as a society to become better equipped to make sense of other scientific issues, which are more politically and economically charged. MMR, stem cell research, climate change, GM foods: which way would you bet?

    Often the mix at the emerging edge of science is liberally adulterated with political and economic bias, and simple hubris. Even in particle physics there are massive egos and perhaps slightly less massive careers at stake – some of which got their mass from the Higgs. This is because science is, in fact, a human activity. It’s just special because it is the best way we’ve found of getting the right answers. Probably.”

    (By Professor Jon Butterworth, physics professor at University College London )

  33. Crito says:

    Clearly, a discovery as important as the retrograde motion of planets.

  34. Matt says:

    Vince
    The Higgs, if found, is NOT the aether. Also, not Einstein discovered that there is indeed no aether, but the Michelson Morley experiment. And Einstein is reported to have said that he wasn’t even aware of MMs experiment when he set out.
    The aether was thought to be an ultra dense, yet ‘super-fluid’ (?) substance, through which all other matter moves with no friction/resistance at all. And it is not there, as we know from MMs experiment. Even empty space would have been jam-packed with aether matter, but Higgs is where we see/have mass, as it is thought to be associated with it.

  35. John Cooke says:

    Isn’t it refreshing to see real scientists presenting their current work in a humble manner, with an emphasis on the limitations to what can be said at present.

    Yes, more work is needed – they have obviously been pushed in front of the MSM a bit here because people want answers. It would be nice to think that a few people outside science might finally get the idea that science is not about simple, settled answers.

    It will be interesting to follow this to the end of their hunt. Of course, it would be much more fun for physicists if they haven’t actually found anything, so that a lot of ideas would need an awful lot more work!

  36. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Ibrahim says:

    December 13, 2011 at 4:03 am

    Bet: If they have found this one they’ll have to find the next.
    Higgs +

    The boson’s mate!

  37. P Wilson says:

    it stands to reason – or at least – inference, that if a perfect vacuum were created in a laboratory, then if there were no matter left in a chamber, the interior of that chamber would be absolute zero. Although it is well nigh impossible to create this perfect vacuum in a lab, there is some energy field in this “vacuum” – so a vacuum is a rather redundant concept – nature abhors a vacuum.

  38. Typhoon says:

    For a signal to be considered statistically significant in particle physics, it must be at least 5 sigma.

    The history of HEP has plenty of tantalizing 3.5 sigma signals that later turned out to be background as more data was accumulated.

    This announcement seems to have more to do with budgets than physics ;-)

  39. kwik says:

    What really would be interesting to read, is a discussion on how the existense of a Higgs-particle comes into conflict with the “Ensteinian universe”.

    Would’nt that be an interesting blog-issue for our own Lubos Motl?

    If we believe in the existence of the Higgs-particle, what do we have to “say no to” in the “Einsteinian Universe”? I can see it is mentioned above, but I want more! Lubos?

  40. tallbloke says:

    Matt says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:48 am (Edit)

    Vince
    The Higgs, if found, is NOT the aether. Also, not Einstein discovered that there is indeed no aether, but the Michelson Morley experiment. And Einstein is reported to have said that he wasn’t even aware of MMs experiment when he set out.

    1) You cannot prove a negative.
    2) Einstein entertained his own Aether theory before giving it up for relativity.
    3) Dayton Millers experiments were far better than MM’s, and Einstein knew they were a threat to his theory.

    “My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”

    — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-medium-pervading-space/

  41. Cyber says:

    Hmmm, if indeed the Higgs boson exists, and we find out exactly how it interacts with other particles, could we then create regions of space that did not contain the Higgs field, or had a Higgs field much stronger than the default? Wouldn’t it be interesting if you could remove the concept of inertia from a small region of space, perhaps the approximate size of a spaceship. :D

  42. G. Karst says:

    Vince Causey says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:02 am

    They may well have discovered a new particle, but does it mean that the Higgs field exists? That is the question.

    I leaned in a similar direction. The excitement is justified, but it will be some time yet, before physics can declare the HB. Conclusions are premature. The devil is in the details.

    tallbloke says:
    December 13, 2011 at 3:44 am

    Also recently discovered: enough electrons to power a star
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/donald-scott-voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/

    I too, would like to hear a discussion, on the implications to sol and our system, to this little gem. Are we about to enter the “electric universe”? GK

  43. Pete H says:

    Still waiting, as I am, for how they broke the speed of light! Maybe, perhaps etc!

    Typhoon says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:21 am
    This announcement seems to have more to do with budgets than physics ;-)

    Typhoon, amazing and wonderful if they show it but I will scan the a.m. MSN very carefully to see what occurs but I tend to agree with you. So far we have has..Ziltch

  44. MikeG says:

    An interesting quote from one of the scientists…
    “…will, of course, be a great discovery, but it would be an even greater discovery if it didn’t exist where theory predicts it to be.”

    Imagine that. A scientist that hopes the accepted standard theory will be proven wrong, using carefully constructed experimentation, because there is an acknowledgment that we might not know everything we think we know.

  45. Scientists narrow hunt for ‘God’ particle

    Fabiola Gianotti, an Italian physicist who heads the team running the so-called ATLAS experiment, said “the hottest region” is in lower energy ranges of the collider. She said there are indications of the Higgs’ existence and that with enough data it could be unambiguously discovered or ruled out next year.

    Several mass or energy ranges within the atom smasher are now excluded to a “95% confidence level,” Gianotti told other physicists at CERN. . . .
    Rolf Heuer, director of the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, said in conclusion that “the window for the Higgs mass gets smaller and smaller.”

    “But be careful — it’s intriguing hints,” he said. “We have not found it yet, we have not excluded it yet.”

    Progress in Quest for Particle That Could Explain Mass

    One experiment, known as Atlas, suggested that the hypothesized Higgs is most likely to have a tiny mass, in the range of 116 to 130 gigaelectronvolts, or GeV. The other experiment pegged mass at 115 to 127 GeV. The experiments were carried out at the European particle physics laboratory CERN near Geneva.

    “Over the last few weeks, we have started to see an intriguing excess of events around 125 GeV,” said CERN researcher Fabiola Gianotti, who was involved in the Atlas experiment. “This excess may be due to a fluctuation, but it could also be something more interesting. We cannot conclude anything at this stage. We need more study and more data.”

  46. This gives me a hadron!

  47. Allan M says:

    Kelvin Vaughan says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Ibrahim says:

    December 13, 2011 at 4:03 am

    Bet: If they have found this one they’ll have to find the next.
    Higgs +

    The boson’s mate!

    Roger the cabin boy?

  48. Steve C says:

    Whatever exactly it is that they may have caught a glimpse of, a large part of me would still like it not to be the Higgs boson, just so’s physicists would have to get working on a replacement for the Standard, but not very Satisfactory, Model.

  49. Roger Longstaff says:

    I still don’t understand. Surely a single, universal (Higgs Field) frame of reference violates Special Relativity, in the same way that the “aether” would have done (until disproved by Michelson and Morely)? What am I missing?

  50. James F. Evans says:

    Tallbloke: Good to see you are considering the electromagnetic perspective of solar system physics.

    Regarding the announcement: Be reasonably sceptical, but have an open mind to the presented evidence. In the current state of Big Government Physics, be wary of pronouncements that confirm long-held theoretical physics.

    Why?

    Because there is tremendous political pressure to confirm those long held beliefs and therefore there is a strong tendency for “confirmational bias”. In other words, to find what one is looking for.

  51. James F. Evans says:
    December 13, 2011 at 10:53 am
    Because there is tremendous political pressure to confirm those long held beliefs and therefore there is a strong tendency for “confirmational bias”. In other words, to find what one is looking for.
    This is even more the case for fringe-physics. The ’100-fold increase of high energy electrons’ is a prime example. These electrons are not solar wind or interstellar medium particles, but galactic cosmic rays and their density is extremely low [millions of times smaller than the number the EU folks claim]. Not that I think it makes any difference, but here are some pointers:
    http://www.astro.umd.edu/openhouse/programs/presentations/Moiseev_20110405.pdf
    http://heliophysics.nasa.gov/SolarMinimum24/papers/florinski_ferreira.pdf

  52. eyesonu says:

    Pardon me for saying this, but after ‘climate science’ I just can’t seem to gain much interest in anything that carries a label ‘science’.

  53. Stan Pruss says:

    Fermilab has already seen hints like these and expects to present further results at the spring and summer meetings. http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/12/13/fermilab-hot-on-trail-of-higgs-boson-with-lhc-tevatron/

  54. Konrad says:

    The problem with the search for the Higgs Boson is that it has a foundation in the belief of the big bang theory. This theory like many before it is an anthropogenic conceit. Just as we wanted the earth to be the whole universe, or the centre of the solar system or our solar system to be the centre of the universe, big bang theory says more about us than it does about the true nature of the universe. We cannot cope with a “snap, crackle and pop” universe that continues in an infinite cycle oblivious to our irrelevant existence. Give us red shift and confirmation bias kicks in. We can believe in a universe with a beginning, middle and end. A universe that follows a cycle just like us and everything we know around us. How comforting.

    The harder they collide the particles together and the better they build detectors, the greater the number of shorter lived particles they will detect. Infinite complexity will exist at the fractal boundary between energy and matter. Perhaps a parallel and possibly more useful area of research would be to try to create matter from colliding energy. Short lived particles at first and eventually hydrogen. Just how does the energy emitted from what scientists call black holes condense to form new matter?

  55. uninformedLuddite says:

    There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
    what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
    and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
    is another which states that this has already happened.

  56. uninformedLuddite says:

    eyeonsu@12.29 – I have to agree especially if the word God is involved

  57. malagaview says:

    In related news:

    The pictures came to the attention of writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who used them to illustrate an article on fairies he had been commissioned to write for the Christmas 1920 edition of The Strand Magazine. Conan Doyle, as a spiritualist, was enthusiastic about the photographs, and interpreted them as clear and visible evidence of psychic phenomena. Public reaction was mixed; some accepted the images as genuine, but others believed they had been faked.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

  58. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    Perhaps a parallel and possibly more useful area of research would be to try to create matter from colliding energy. Short lived particles at first and eventually hydrogen.
    This is precisely what CERN is doing. Matter and Energy are equivalent [E=mc^2], one can be created from the other and vice versa.

  59. LarryD says:

    According to this guy, Dayton Miller and Michelson-Morley got “non-null” results. Here’s a project for a Physics class, review Michelson-Morley, Dayton Miller, and the “Shankland” paper.

    Since discussion of the Higgs bosun brings up the subject of inertia, an alternative to the Standard Model is Mach’s Conjecture, specifically the formulation, “inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies”, leading to the Woodward Effect. Woodward claims to have achieved 1 micro-newton of thrust from his apparatus, which at least has the virtue of not costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

  60. BFL says:

    Does this mean that there will be a 20th adjustable parameter added with the “hocus pocus” (Feynman) of “renormalization”?

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=12395&y=0&no=&content=true&page=2&css=print

    “It would be surprising if the strange world of subatomic and quantum physics did not lead the field in mysteries, conceptual ambiguities and paradoxes, and it does not disappoint. The standard model of particle physics, for instance (the one containing all the quarks and gluons), has no fewer than 19 adjustable parameters, about 60 years after Enrico Fermi exclaimed, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant!” Suffice to say, “beauty” is a term not frequently applied to the standard model.”

  61. Dave Springer says:

    If discovering one God particle causes this much of a stir imagine how exciting it will be when physicists discover the rest of God. :-)

  62. kwinterkorn says:

    re Cyber above,

    If every particle has an “anti-particle”, as a matter of accepted theory, then is there not a theorized “anti-Higgs” particle, and from that an implied “anti-Higgs field”?

    I have not heard that anyone has a solid theory on the issue of “dark energy” accounting for the accelerating expansion of the universe. Could an anti-Higgs field act as dark energy?

    KW

  63. Roger Knights says:

    Ian E says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:16 am
    The Godot particle seems a better name!

    Excellent!

  64. Babsy says:

    Cyber says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:45 am

    “LaForge to Captain Picard! I’ll have the warp engines back online in less than two minutes, Captain!” Interesting times we live in. Higgs bosons. Warp drives. Dark matter and dark energy. My dad was a small child when the Wright Brothers flew in 1903 and saw Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon. Interesting times, indeed.

  65. Johnnythelowery says:

    What they also hope to find at Cern is mass dissappearing. That the sum of the bits will weigh less than prior to collision as mass has dissappeared into another dimension…and it’s information (what ever that is). Merry Christmas everyone.

  66. Johnnythelowery says:

    …and you thought the scriptural account of christ dissappearing while sitting eating a meal with his disciples was impossible(which it is at our current level of knowledge). But your would have said nothing could dissappear (it’s mass)..into another dimension not long ago as well. Watch this space.

  67. timbrom says:

    uninformedLuddite – Ah! The great Douglas Adams again.

  68. Johnnythelowery says:

    Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    The problem with the search for the Higgs Boson is that it has a foundation in the belief of the big bang theory. This theory like many before it is an anthropogenic conceit. Just as we wanted the earth to be the whole universe, or the centre of the solar system or our solar system to be the centre of the universe, big bang theory says more about us than it does about the true nature of the universe.
    —————————————————————————–
    The Big Bang is eerily reminiscient of the ‘bronze age sheep herder’ version. The Big Bang is Priema Fascia given the expanding universe. The Cosmic Microwave Background confirms the theory in black and white (well….colour actually but sounds better if it’s black and white). The Oscillating Universe idea has it’s fans but no experimental evidence has been produced as we can’t reverse past T -xxxxxx seconds after the Big Bang. So, we’re it….in infinity so far…although…something ‘banged’ into the nothing and everything eminated from something smaller than this ——-> , <———- . The idea of Infinity is a weird one and it's one thing bandied around quite a bit in the bible which i find interesting all by itself. The universe had a beginning but I didn't says the Lord and lo and behold, physics at the moment says the Universe had a big bang beginning and there had to be something to make it happen. A paradox,

  69. Konrad says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    “This is precisely what CERN is doing. Matter and Energy are equivalent [E=mc^2], one can be created from the other and vice versa.”

    No, this is precisely what CERN are not doing. They are colliding protons which have mass and observing the short lived particles and energy produced in the collisions. While this will lead to better understanding of the semi stable state of energy we call matter, it is not a direct attempt to create semi stable matter from massless electromagnetic radiation. The “vice versa” you mention.

    To properly consider the creation of matter from energy it may be best to abandon the big bang theory and its proposed special initial conditions. Rather consider the “snap, crackle and pop” universe in which energy is neither created nor destroyed but matter is constantly created and destroyed.

    While creating semi stable matter from electromagnetic radiation alone in a hissing sea of vacuum energy may be beyond our present abilities, empirical experiments could still be conducted in that area. A high power gamma source could be targeted at the epicentre of the hadron collider proton collisions. If the same quantity of particles were created with a larger mass and longer lifespan, this would be a step in the right direction.

  70. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    No, this is precisely what CERN are not doing. They are colliding protons which have mass and observing the short lived particles and energy produced in the collisions
    This is precisely what CERN is doing. Just gently colliding protons will not give you anything. You first have to accelerate the protons to give them a very high energy, then collide them, which will convert some of that energy to particles much heavier than the protons. This has nothing per se to do with the big bang [although the same process worked them: the energy released from the false vacuum was converted into particles which then were annihilated to create radiation again, leaving only a small residue [one in a billion] of particles to make up you and me]. Learn more here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

  71. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    They are colliding protons which have mass and observing the short lived particles and energy produced in the collisions
    A more colorful explanation of creation of matter from energy is here:
    http://www.chemistryland.com/ElementarySchool/BuildingBlocks/AtomicParticles.html

  72. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm
    While creating semi stable matter from electromagnetic radiation alone in a hissing sea of vacuum energy may be beyond our present abilities
    It isn’t: http://www.invisibleculture.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747

  73. Konrad says:

    Leif,
    If the mass of short lived particles is indeed greater than the mass of protons involved in the collision, then I would concede that CERN are creating matter from energy. This however does raise the question of “seeding”. The mass and velocity of the protons bring energy to the collision, but do the number of short lived particles produced exceed the number of subatomic particles brought to the collision?

  74. Konrad says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    It isn’t: http://www.invisibleculture.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747

    I stand corrected and amazed.

    Now all I need for a “snap, crackle and pop” universe is an indication of stable matter being created from the ejecta from the poles of a black hole. ;-)

  75. G. Karst says:

    Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    While creating semi stable matter from electromagnetic radiation alone in a hissing sea of vacuum energy may be beyond our present abilities

    Ah yes, the famous replicator. It frees mankind from greed and enables us to become an advanced civilization, which will explore – where no man has gone before! GK

  76. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm
    do the number of short lived particles produced exceed the number of subatomic particles brought to the collision?
    Yes, two particles [protons] collide and hundreds or thousands of new particles are created from the energy of the speeding protons. The hope is that one or more of those would be the Higgs.

  77. Tim Barzyk says:

    I can’t wait to see where the Higg’s field leads in terms of implications for physics and the universe. What kinds of technologies can be developed for it? How will we come to a deeper understanding of time, space and other dimensions when it becomes more tractable and observable. Can’t wait to see…in the meantime, my imagination will fill in the blanks – for better or worse!

  78. Mac the Knife says:

    Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider
    Search feverishly for Higgs Boson sprites inside her.
    The data from Atlas says “Maybe…”
    but confirmation of the God Particle remains hazy!
    Could it be God is a Higgs Boson Denier?

    MtK

  79. Konrad says:
    December 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    The problem with the search for the Higgs Boson is that it has a foundation in the belief of the big bang theory. This theory like many before it is an anthropogenic conceit.

    You are 100% correct. Glad there are still rational people out there.

    P.S. Open mind and [SNIP: Whether you are right or not, site policy demands civility and that was rather uncivil. Address the arguments, please. -REP]

  80. There is no Higgs’ Boson, and it will never be found.
    I am 100% sure, because the Big Bang theory is an obvious lie.
    The farther they will look using better telescopes, the more galaxies they will see.
    The ubiquitous red shift is nothing but an effect of the curvature of the space-time.
    Keep in mind that it isn’t only space that is curved; time is also curved, and on the scale of billions of light-years it’s curvature becomes noticeable.
    No need for demonic energy and evil invisible matter.
    Objects in the curved mirror are closer than they appear.

  81. Mike says:

    ‘NASA’s Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge’
    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

    “Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. … Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it.”

    Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system.

    The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system is evidence of the aether.

    The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

    In de Broglie wave mechanics the particle is in continuous energetic contact with a hidden medium. This energetic contact with a hidden medium is the state of displacement of the aether.

    A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes through both.

    ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein’
    http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

    “the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, … disregarding the causes which condition its state.”

    The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

  82. NotTheAussiePhilM says:

    No scientist would use the ‘G’ word in connection with this or any other particle
    - science is after all the pursuit of natural explanations of reality without resorting to super-natural explanations.
    - science is also the pursuit of natural explanations of reality without the need to ‘hide-the-decline’
    - but that’s another story!

  83. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 13, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Thanks Leif, I’ve reposted your comment here. All input welcome to this open debate.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/donald-scott-voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/#comment-10685

  84. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 13, 2011 at 8:00 pm
    This has nothing per se to do with the big bang [although the same process worked them: the energy released from the false vacuum was converted into particles which then were annihilated to create radiation again, leaving only a small residue [one in a billion] of particles to make up you and me].

    What is a ‘false vacuum’?

  85. wayne Job says:

    Delusion is the ongoing search for the god particle to prove a standard model that is growing in complexity and particles rather than simplifying into a real theory.

    The search for truth in all endeavours, be it science, mathematics or engineering becomes less complex and more elegant as one finds the truth. The standard model is a nightmare of increasing complexity that takes us away from the truth.

  86. Mike says:

    No scientist would say empty space can push back and exert pressure inward toward the solar system.

    Voyager detected the gravitational field.

    What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass and is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts pressure toward the matter.

    What Voyager detected is the aether displaced by the solar system pushing back toward the solar system which is gravity.

  87. Vince Causey says:

    Alexander Feht,

    “The farther they will look using better telescopes, the more galaxies they will see.”

    Not true, for two reasons. 1) Beyond the limit of the observable universe, space would be receding from us at a speed greater than light speed, and 2) when we look out to the edge of the observable universe, the furthest point we can see is the universe as it existed just 300,000 years after the big bang – a period known as the “first light”. Thus, if you tried to look any further out, you wouldn’t see anything at all because light was still bound up in the high temperature of the matter that existed then.

    However, it may well be possible that the universe is infinite. Some scientists have suggested that the event known as “inflation” may be occurring all over the place. So for example, our observable universe arose from inflation that caused a rapid expansion followed by a normal type of space. Beyond that bubble of normal space, there may be other inflations that have happened and are happening now.

    Incidently, the evidence that supports the big bang is the microwave background radiation which was predicted to be at 2.7k and that is indeed what it is.

  88. kwik says:

    Vince Causey says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:33 am

    “Not true, for two reasons. 1) Beyond the limit of the observable universe, space would be receding from us at a speed greater than light speed, and 2) when we look out to the edge of the observable universe, the furthest point we can see is the universe as it existed just 300,000 years after the big bang – a period known as the “first light”.

    You do not know that, Vince. It is an assumption, right? Therefore you cannot tell Alexander this as a thruth, rejecting what Alexander says.

    Based on empirical evidence, Alexander’s “thruth” is really more believeable….Because what he says is what allways has happend in the past….Extending the range, and you see more galaxies….again and again, this has happened….

    But then, one day, we might not see anything more….but we dont know why…..Yes, I know, the bing bang, redshift, doppler effect, and all that….but tell me; If we can see the velocity of all galaxies, in all directions, we should be able to pinpoint the center where the big bang was? By vectoring all velocities? In that case, where is it? …..Just kidding.

  89. Vince Causey says:

    Kwik,

    “You do not know that, Vince. It is an assumption, right? Therefore you cannot tell Alexander this as a thruth, rejecting what Alexander says.”

    Well, the further out into the universe you look, the younger the galaxies also appear, since you are looking back in time. Right out at the furthest reaches – around 13 billion ly – you see only dust clouds, because 13 billion years ago, the first galaxies haven’t formed. This is simply a consequence of the finite speed of light. I never suggested that there was nothing beyond that – simply that you can’t see beyond that. This is not an opinion, but an observation.. In addition I mentioned that the universe may in fact be infinite, but I accept that would be mere speculation.

  90. kwik says:

    Vince Causey says:
    December 14, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Yes, but the funny thing is that I remember very well all those years that exactly the same was said when we could only see 4 billion years “out”……and it was said in a very confident way, as if this was the thruth, and it proved that the universe was….yes, 4 billion years old. It also proved the big bang, and what have you.
    A bit circular reasoning, dont you think? It didnt prove that the universe was 4 billion years at all.

    I admit that I myself believe the big bang theory as being the most probable story, because of the red shift, the speed of light and all that, but, I must admit that when they just substituted 4 with , is it 12 now, and kept the rest, I suddenly realised that most scientists are just parrotting what they themselves learn at school, and arent questioning much.

    So, where is the center of the big bang?

  91. Johnnythelowery says:

    Frankly…. (which is odd as i used to be Frank before I changed my name)….things are getting stranger (which is also a double odd coincidence because my wife says i’m getting stranger by the minute!)!!

  92. Johnnythelowery says:

    The embyronic E8 Lisi theory and string/M need A Higgs. And a Anti-Higgs.

  93. Johnnythelowery says:

    …………….But then, one day, we might not see anything more….but we dont know why…..Yes, I know, the bing bang, redshift, doppler effect, and all that….but tell me; If we can see the velocity of all galaxies, in all directions, we should be able to pinpoint the center where the big bang was? By vectoring all velocities? In that case, where is it? …..Just kidding.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    The place where the Universe emminated is near here. not that far—i’ve heard.

  94. malagaview says:

    Vince Causey says: December 14, 2011 at 10:15 am
    Right out at the furthest reaches – around 13 billion ly – you see only dust clouds

    So you can’t see what is beyond the dust clouds? :-)
    I think we all see what we want to see on this one…
    Anyway, the Big Bang keeps us amused and helps scare the kids…
    But can we now get back to work and do some real science.

  95. Mike says:

    They are not getting stranger. Voyager detected the aether.

    What is postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts pressure toward matter.

    Gravity is the force displaced aether exerts toward matter.

    A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

    The hidden-medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

    In a double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes through both.

  96. malagaview says:

    tallbloke says: December 14, 2011 at 3:54 am
    What is a ‘false vacuum’?

    I am glad you asked :-)

    In quantum field theory, a false vacuum is a metastable sector of space that appears to be a perturbative vacuum, but is unstable due to instanton effects that may tunnel to a lower energy state. This tunneling can be caused by quantum fluctuations or the creation of high-energy particles. Simply put, the false vacuum is a local minimum, but not the lowest energy state, even though it may remain stable for some time. This is analogous to metastability for first-order phase transitions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

    It’s metastable but unstable
    It’s first-order but transitions
    It’s a minimum but not the lowest minimum
    It’s a vacuum that has tunnels…
    It’s a vacuum that enables the creation of high-energy particles
    It’s a perturbative vacuum that manages to remain stable for some time

    Straightforward really :-)

    Simply put: It’s analogous to first-order vacuous waffle.

  97. malagaview says:

    And for a really good laugh :-)

    In quantum mechanics and quantum field theory,
    the vacuum is defined as the state
    (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory)
    with the lowest possible energy (the ground state of the Hilbert space).

    This is a state with
    no matter particles (hence the name),
    and also no photons,
    no gravitons,
    etc.

    As described above, this state is impossible to achieve experimentally.
    (Even if every matter particle could somehow be removed from a volume,
    it would be impossible to eliminate all the blackbody photons.)

    This hypothetical vacuum state often has interesting and complex properties.
    For example, it contains vacuum fluctuations
    (virtual particles that hop into and out of existence).

    It also, relatedly, has a finite energy, called vacuum energy.
    Vacuum fluctuations are an essential and ubiquitous part of quantum field theory.
    Some readily-apparent effects of vacuum fluctuations include the Casimir effect and Lamb shift.

    There can be more than one possible vacuum state.
    The starting and ending of cosmological inflation is thought to have arisen from transitions between different vacuum states.

    For theories obtained by quantization of a classical theory, each stationary point of the energy in the configuration space gives rise to a single vacuum. String theory is believed to have a huge number of vacua – the so-called string theory landscape.

    In the superfluid vacuum theory the physical vacuum is described as the quantum superfluid which is essentially non-relativistic whereas the Lorentz symmetry is an approximate emerging symmetry valid only for the small fluctuations of the superfluid background.

    An observer who resides inside such vacuum and is capable of creating and/or measuring the small fluctuations would observe them as relativistic objects – unless their energy and momentum are sufficiently high (as compared to the background ones) to make the Lorentz-breaking corrections detectable. It was shown that the relativistic gravity arises as the small-amplitude collective excitation mode whereas the relativistic elementary particles can be described by the particle-like modes in the low-momentum limit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_vacuum

  98. malagaview says:

    Re Wikipedia:
    virtual particles that hop into and out of existence

    Is there a BIG BANG when these particles hop into and out of existence?

    Can a Universe simply hop into and out of existence?

  99. Mike says:

    ‘From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum’
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

    “The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new
    form of matter. This is the real substance”

    Meaning, aether has mass, aether physically occupies three dimensional
    space and aether is physically displaced by matter.

    Force exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

    This is what Voyager found evidence of.

  100. long pig says:

    Vince Causey says:
    December 13, 2011 at 5:02 am
    I am stunned.

    They may well have discovered a new particle, but does it mean that the Higgs field exists? That is the question.

    Does any field exist? Electromagnetic, gravitational or otherwise? This debate periodically pops up in the WUWT solar threads where Leif Svalgaard for instance describes the solar magnetic field lines as if they are as real as physical ropes or strings.

    Do any fields “exist” or are they just gradients of potentials, and is “field” just a kind of imagery to describe them?

  101. Mike says:

    A field is physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

  102. @Vince Causey

    There was no Big Bang, and space is not “receding” anywhere.

    Apparent expansion of the Universe (red shift) is a simple optical effect of curvature.

    No, the far galaxies do not appear “younger” — they appear so blurred that we cannot see their structure yet, just because they are far away. Them being “younger” is an unsubstantiated myth.

    If you accept as truth a cosmological theory that needs 11 dimensions as a least common denominator, creation out of nothing, intangible and unprovable dark matter, mysterious dark energy, conservation of energy, motion and inertia laws thrown out of the window, aether re-invented, and a particle that doesn’t exist (aptly named “God particle”), you accept a religious dogma, science has nothing to do with it.

  103. If we are to believe that, indeed, Christmas Eve
    Celebrates what, in fact, has been done,
    Then the time of Big Bang we could certainly hang
    Circa March twenty-fifth, zero one.

  104. Funny that Dr. Leif Svalgaard doesn’t seem to understand that matter is energy, and vice versa. V. I. Lenin made the same mistake.

    Field, as I understand it, is a radiating part of energy contained in a matter or in a particle that extends beyond the concentration of energy, which we call “matter” or “particle.” It is only the near-light-speed motion, translational or rotational, that converts energy into “matter.” In the absence of motion (at zero degrees K) all matter (atoms, particles) become waves (radiating energy). If all the energy contained in one human body in the form of rotating fields would be released, it would vaporize the whole Earth into plasma.

  105. Mike says:

    Aether and matter have mass.

    Matter is condensations of aether.

    Aether evaporates into matter.

    When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

  106. Mike says:

    Correction:

    Matter evaporates into aether.

    When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

  107. Vince Causey says:

    Alexander Feht;

    “If you accept as truth a cosmological theory that needs 11 dimensions as a least common denominator, creation out of nothing, intangible and unprovable dark matter, mysterious dark energy, conservation of energy, motion and inertia laws thrown out of the window, aether re-invented, and a particle that doesn’t exist (aptly named “God particle”), you accept a religious dogma, science has nothing to do with it.”

    I’ll deal with each point separately:

    1) 11 dimensions. This relates to superstring theory and its veracity or otherwise has nothing to do with the origins or expansion of the universe.

    2) Unprovable dark matter. A little background first: It has been observed that stars at the edge of galaxies are rotating at the same speed as those closer to the centre. But as objects orbit further and further out from the centre of a system, they should be orbiting more slowly (as do the planets in our solar system). The only explanation is that there must exist a framework of matter, and that because we cannot see it, must not interact with light. Therefore it was called dark matter.
    What is your explanation for the anomalous rotation of galaxies?

    3) Mysterious dark energy. Again, this is the result of observation. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what could be causing this?
    What is your explanation?

    4) Conservation of energy, motion and inertia laws thrown out the window. Not sure what you mean here.

    5) Aether re-invented. That was my original skepticism of the Higgs field.

    6) A particle that doesn’t exist. May or may not exist. That is the whole point of the CERN experiment. If it does exist then that lends further support to the standard model. If not, then according to Peter Higgs, “I will no longer understand everything I thought I understood.

    7) Creation out of nothing. You got me on that one.

    8) Science has nothing to do with it. As all these theories are based on trying to fit observation into some kind of coherent model, I would say that science has a great deal to do with it. Arm waving it all away by calling it religious dogma, is not science either.

    You also write: “There was no Big Bang, and space is not “receding” anywhere. Apparent expansion of the Universe (red shift) is a simple optical effect of curvature.”

    Can you offer any reference to how this curvature creating the appearance of curvature? I’ve never heard of this hypothesis. Is it something you’ve made up on your own?

  108. Vince Causey says:

    Oops!
    Meant to say in last para above: Can you offer any reference to how this curvature creates the appearance of expansion.

  109. Myrrh says:

    Mike says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:21 am
    ‘NASA’s Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge’
    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

    “Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. … Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it.”

    Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system.

    The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system is evidence of the aether.

    The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

    This not in an expanding universe then? Could “outside” actually be outside of the universe as we know it? Just as there are molecules with attraction, perhaps our universe has ‘another’ acting on it, or, what appears to be ‘pushing back’ from a rigid boundary might be just our universe in another medium, like a something suspended in water.

  110. Mike says:

    Myrrh says:
    December 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm
    “This not in an expanding universe then? Could “outside” actually be outside of the universe as we know it? Just as there are molecules with attraction, perhaps our universe has ‘another’ acting on it, or, what appears to be ‘pushing back’ from a rigid boundary might be just our universe in another medium, like a something suspended in water.”

    ‘Was the universe born spinning?’
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

    “The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”

    The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

    ‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

    ‘The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. “We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we’d like whether the clusters are coming or going,” Kashlinsky said.’

    The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

    The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

    http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

    The reason for the ‘expansion’ of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, ’1st Stars’ is where the increase in pressure caused by the aether continually being emitted into the Universal jet causes the aether to condense into matter.

    The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in.

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

    The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

    http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

    Dark flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet. Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

    It’s not the Big Bang. It’s the Big Ongoing.

  111. @Vince Causey;

    I am a musician and a translator. I cannot impress you with long lists of links to published works in the rather diversified field of cosmology, or with hairy formulas. Nevertheless, I am able to think, and the fact that I am not infected by dogmas prevailing in today’s colleges and universities is rather a positive factor, since scientists are mere humans, and humans, as well as sheep and cattle, always follow the trail to the feeding trough.

    1) 11 dimensions are now part of the newest Big Bang theory editions.
    Fashionable new variations of the Big Bang theory (they are being pushed all over the place, even on TV) are based on the idea of “colliding branes” — that is, they are inseparable from the superstring juggling of formulas.

    2) Unprovable dark matter. What is my explanation for the anomalous rotation of galaxies?
    I don’t have a ready “explanation” for everything. I suspect that the pace of time changes depending on the quantity of mass present, and on the distance from that mass, and this “curvature of time” will serve as an explanation of the anomalous rotation of galaxies in the future. In any case, inventing an intangible “matter” that cannot be observed or registered using any instruments — just to explain something away — doesn’t count as an explanation.

    3) Mysterious dark energy. If the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, what could be causing this?
    It doesn’t. There is no “if” about it.

    4) Conservation of energy, motion and inertia laws thrown out the window.
    To postulate Big Bang, one has to forget about the most fundamental laws of physics.

    5) Aether re-invented. Seems that we don’t have a disagreement on this point.

    6) A particle that doesn’t exist. May or may not exist. That is the whole point of the CERN experiment. If it does exist then that lends further support to the standard model. If not, then according to Peter Higgs, “I will no longer understand everything I thought I understood.

    7) Creation out of nothing. You got me on that one.

    8) Science has nothing to do with it. It has been a long time since the Big Bang theory doesn’t fit observations. Recent discovery of a super-massive cluster of galaxies at the “edge of the visible Universe” where, supposedly, only smaller “young” galaxies could exist, is one more nail in the BBT coffin.

    Apparent expansion of the Universe (red shift) is a simple effect of curvature.
    David F. Crawford’s Curvature Cosmology, Segal’s Chronometric Cosmology, Fred Hoyle’s critique of the modern “consensus” in cosmology, recent rapid back-pedaling by Stephen Hawking on the validity of the BBT, and Mandelbrot’s rebuttal of Olson’s paradox could give you an idea about where, approximately, my thinking is coming from.

    We don’t have yet (and may not have in out lifetime) a cosmological theory that fits all the observations. We have a smorgasbord of incomplete and imperfect theories, from which we are free to chose the one that, in our perception, is the closest to reality. The Big Bang theory is a dogmatic exercise in extrapolation of the anthropocentric, illogical, irrational, creationist basic principle.

    Think about what Grigoriy Perelman said in one of his rare interviews:
    “Of course, there are more or less honest people among mathematicians but almost all of them are conformists — that is, being more or less honest themselves, they are ready to tolerate dishonest ones. This is why violators of ethical standards don’t become outsiders in modern science. Instead, people like me are pushed into isolation.”

  112. Myrrh says:

    Mike says:
    December 16, 2011 at 4:03 am
    Myrrh says:
    December 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm
    “This not in an expanding universe then? Could “outside” actually be outside of the universe as we know it? Just as there are molecules with attraction, perhaps our universe has ‘another’ acting on it, or, what appears to be ‘pushing back’ from a rigid boundary might be just our universe in another medium, like a something suspended in water.”

    ‘Was the universe born spinning?’
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

    “The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis”

    The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

    Mike, thanks for all this information, I’m finding it quite fascinating. Don’t see how “preferred axis” correlates to the “jet” though, the ‘trumpet’.

    ‘Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper into Universe’
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

    ‘The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. “We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we’d like whether the clusters are coming or going,” Kashlinsky said.’

    The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

    What I’m getting from those descriptions is a flow back possibly simply an orbit around a central point. Wouldn’t that fit with the more right spinning as observed from the northern hemisphere and more left spinning observed from the southern? Could, also possibly account for the anomaly in the red shift, that younger galaxies being found further away and in an ‘expanding’ having blue shifts showing velocities towards us somehow overriding expanding away from us red shifts. I hope I’m explaining myself well enough, it’s very difficult to type, my keys have been hijacked again, and I’ve only just found that the big bang sets up empty space in the middle .. which seems very odd. Although like apples perhaps.

    The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

    http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

    The reason for the ‘expansion’ of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, ’1st Stars’ is where the increase in pressure caused by the aether continually being emitted into the Universal jet causes the aether to condense into matter.

    Not that I’ve got anything against trumpets, or a host of them dancing in the breeze, hmm, I think Imight try painting that one, but what is the ether being emitted from ?

    The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in.

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

    The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

    http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

    Dark flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet. Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

    It’s not the Big Bang. It’s the Big Ongoing.

    What do you mean here? What is dark energy then? Is this the plasma that is said to have been at the beginning opaque to light?

    Could the dark flow be the movement of a medium in which the clusters are orbitting/spinning around axis?

  113. Mike says:

    Myrrh says:
    December 16, 2011 at 6:47 pm
    “Could the dark flow be the movement of a medium in which the clusters are orbitting/spinning around axis?”

    Yes dark flow is a medium in which clusters orbit and spin around axis. Dark flow is the state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

    There are a bunch of objects flowing downstream in a river. At the mouth of the river the objects move away from each other. Now spin the water and this is analogous to the Universal jet we exist in.

    Just as a black hole continually emits what it pulls in into its jets the Universe continually pulls in what it emits into the Universal jet we exist in.

  114. don penman says:

    I don’t believe that space has substance even if you populate it with particles it is only the particles that have substance not space.We don’t observe space only visible light which are particles if we could alter the behavior of visible light then our perception of space and time would change .While space and time were thought to be absolute it was possible to think that space had substance but how do you give any substance to something that is relative. that is My ignorant and unscientific opinion anyway

  115. Higgs? Bypass Singularity?

    http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
    E=Total[m(1 + D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
    The big bang did not create matter or antimatter. Singularity was all the energy-mass of the universe.
    Matters and Antimatters are big-bang follow-up evolutionary, circumstantial-accidental expansion collision products.
    At 10^-35 seconds since big bang, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance started the energy space texture, the straining of space texture, the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate impansion back to singularity, again.

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
    http://universe-life.com

  116. bwood says:

    Glad to see that the science at CERN and their scientists is consistent wtih the groundbreaking work and discipline of the majority of climate sceintists.

    For those who have mentioned the CLOUD project which I find very interesting, can you direct me to a legtitimate study that shows how their initial findings correlate to observed conditions over the past several decades?

Comments are closed.