Reidar Hahn/Fermilab, via US Department of Energy

A Tiny Particle’s Wobble Could Upend the Known Laws of Physics

From the NYT

The Muon g-2 ring, at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., operates at minus 450 degrees Fahrenheit and studies the wobble of muons as they travel through the magnetic field.
The Muon g-2 ring, at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., operates at minus 450 degrees Fahrenheit and studies the wobble of muons as they travel through the magnetic field.Credit…Reidar Hahn/Fermilab, via U.S. Department of Energy

Something interesting may be happening at Fermilab.

Evidence is mounting that a tiny subatomic particle seems to be disobeying the known laws of physics, scientists announced on Wednesday, a finding that would open a vast and tantalizing hole in our understanding of the universe.

The result, physicists say, suggests that there are forms of matter and energy vital to the nature and evolution of the cosmos that are not yet known to science.

“This is our Mars rover landing moment,” said Chris Polly, a physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, or Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill., who has been working toward this finding for most of his career.

The particle célèbre is the muon, which is akin to an electron but far heavier, and is an integral element of the cosmos. Dr. Polly and his colleagues — an international team of 200 physicists from seven countries — found that muons did not behave as predicted when shot through an intense magnetic field at Fermilab.

The aberrant behavior poses a firm challenge to the Standard Model, the suite of equations that enumerates the fundamental particles in the universe (17, at last count) and how they interact.

The article is well worth a read and a nice distraction from politicized EVERYTHING

For decades, physicists have relied on and have been bound by the Standard Model, which successfully explains the results of high-energy particle experiments in places like CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. But the model leaves many deep questions about the universe unanswered.

Most physicists believe that a rich trove of new physics waits to be found, if only they could see deeper and further. The additional data from the Fermilab experiment could provide a major boost to scientists eager to build the next generation of expensive particle accelerators.

It might also lead in time to explanations for the kinds of cosmic mysteries that have long preoccupied our lonely species. What exactly is dark matter, the unseen stuff that astronomers say makes up one-quarter of the universe by mass? Indeed, why is there matter in the universe at all?

Perhaps it’s time to junk the Standard Model. Perhaps not.

The full article is an interesting read.

4.6 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 8, 2021 2:09 am

Fermilab and Italians.
This is epic!
I hope, the muons will not travel faster than light… unless the italians forget a rag at the detector… again.
Fermilab badly needs ANY “success”, otherwise they will be shut.

Reply to  Alex
April 8, 2021 3:09 am

It’s case of wait (for a replication of experiment) and see (results of peer review)
here is a video presentation a bit long (8 min) but has some of interesting stuff

Last edited 1 year ago by vuk
Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 3:38 am

There is a fundamental problem with this experiment:
–       Muon discrepancy was first discovered by Brookhaven lab in New York, using a huge permanent magnet.
–       The magnet was recently transported from New York to Fermilab site is located in Batavia, Illinois, and used for replication of the experiment.
–       Same result found but a bit more accurately measured than before
Ergo: Same magnet – same result, no surprise but definitely not overturning ‘standard model’ (liquorice allsorts) of fundamental particles

Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 4:20 am

Sounds like they are testing a wonky magnet, rather than the laws of physics

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Voltron
April 8, 2021 10:00 am

Please explain what you mean by “wonky”. Do you mean to imply that there is fundamentally something different about the magnetic field produced by this particular magnet?

Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 20, 2021 5:22 pm

Has it been ruled out? The same magnet, the same results, first thing I would do is verify that I even have “results” by repeating the experiment using a different magnet. If you get the same results, now you have results. But what if you don’t? You have probably just confirmed you have a wonky magnet.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 10:04 am

I would guess that permanent magnets capable of producing such strong fields are rare, which explains why they used the same one. Do you believe that a different magnet which produces a comparable strength field will produce different results? If so, what is the basis for that belief?

Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 8, 2021 11:09 am

I don’t dispute their findings. According to the Fermilab results deviation from standard model is smaller than one from Brookhaven, which could be due to the improved uniformity. The claim that the basic quantum mechanics theory needs looking into can be seriously accepted at least if another lab such as the LHC confirms their findings, which I’m sure they would be interested in testing.
As I said “Same magnet – same result, no surprise but definitely not overturning ‘standard model’ (liquorice allsorts) of fundamental particles”

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 6:31 pm

That was my thought also. The article did not discuss how they eliminated that possibility. Testing in another lab with different equipment will reveal the truth.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
April 8, 2021 9:01 pm

I’ve heard from reliable sources that the Brookhaven magnet erased all of the credit cards of the scientists at Fermilab, which is why they need additional huge funding for another accelerator.

Reply to  Vuk
April 9, 2021 9:25 am

“Same magnet – same result,”

Response from a researcher on the project to that speculation.

Karen Zatz
Naperville. ILApril 7
Rubin (Vuk)Very reasonable question. It’s possible in principle, but the only thing that this measurement relies on in the knowledge of the magnetic field, which we (I’m on the experiment) measure with incredible precision. My collaborators have also worked very hard to make the magnetic field uniform, and it is better than the Brookhaven field by a factor of 3. So the upshot is that while it’s the same magnet, it’s also a brand new magnet and therefore not the same magnet used at BNL. Also, the entire remainder of the apparatus has been replaced, so there is minimal correlation between the two experiments in that regard. The primary correlation is in the overall experimental method, and the field as a whole has been thinking hard as to whether there is some (common) issue that could be biasing the two results in the same way. It’s also why other physicists are in the planning stages of making the same measurement using an entirely unrelated technique.

Reply to  Gyan1
April 10, 2021 9:45 am

Ms Zatz
Thank you kindly for making effort and finding time to respond. It is greatly appreciated.

Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 11:09 am

Hmm so the theory is that virtual particles randomly blink in and out of existence and throw off the behavior of the muons just a little bit? This was mentioned by the lady in the ugly mumu in the video. Are these particles tunneling thru from a neighboring universe only to be quickly pulled back? Or is some micro disturbances in the fabric of the universe making them pop in and out? (Note she did not say how long these virtual particles linger before they pop back out of the universe.) Maybe these disturbances are related to what caused matter to pop into existence in the big bang, and now the stabilized expanded universe cannot support creation of permanent matter out of nothing but yet some ephemeral virtual particles still manage to flash in and out of your universe like Heisenberg Cheshire Cats, just enough to wonk up the standard model a tiny bit. Still I don’t see the connection to dark matter/energy, seems doubtful that the sum of all these ephemeral particles in the universe is accounting for it.

Reply to  menace
April 8, 2021 2:22 pm

Vacuum is the elephant in the china shop, but
‘not a lot of people know that’ 
“Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world’s oceans.”

Reply to  Alex
April 8, 2021 6:55 am

Fermilab and Italians

Maybe they confirmed we live in a “spaghetti” universe….

Reply to  beng135
April 8, 2021 11:14 am

I was struggling to figure out how the OP Alex was trying to be funny (or if he was even trying at all or else hates Italians) but this reply sure made me LOL

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Alex
April 8, 2021 1:01 pm

Fermilab is outside Chicago.

April 8, 2021 2:16 am

Interesting contrast with Climate Science, which defends its Standard (greenhouse) Model against all contrary evidence, whereas a proper science like Particle Physics is constantly looking for failures of its Standard Model, nothing advances without such failures.

Reply to  climanrecon
April 8, 2021 3:31 am

There is a big difference between the two, indeed.
“The Climate Science” is dead (no funding at all) if the “Standard Climate Model” fails: there is no doomsday, thus no funding.
The particle physics is dead, if the “Standard Model” is flawless: there is nothing to search for, thus no funding.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  climanrecon
April 8, 2021 10:35 am

I disagree. Particle Science has become as politicized as many other sciences. They need government billions to pay for the ever increasing power colliders. That means they have devolved into what I call “Gee whiz” science always touting wonderful “gee whiz”particles or properties that need to be discovered. And they are often not looking for contrary evidence.

I cite the “God particle” nonsense about the Higgs boson. The CERN LHC was configured and the software was coded specifically to FIND the particle using secondary or tertiary reaction products. No surprise that it was “found” when no other result was looked for. Keep in mind that quantum physics allows almost any result. It’s all about the statistics. No surprise that it corresponded to the predicted results when any other result would not have caused it to be “found”.

I liken current particle physics to running locomotives into each other inside a shed at higher and higher speeds and then claiming to determine the composition of the locomotives based on the bulges left on the outside of the shed by the flying parts. You predict a particular shape and then claim you have made a discovery when one bulge out a thousand collisions has the desired shape.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
April 8, 2021 11:37 am

Well… I have little doubts they did find Higgs.
The Standard Model required that. Without Higgs, it would be very weird.
The great disappointment was that found NOTHING outside of the Standard Model.
Nothing, nichts, nada, nitschego.
Actually, this did prevent a few big projects, including International Linear Collider.
Even though the Japanese still push for it.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  climanrecon
April 8, 2021 7:34 pm

science is doubt, religion is faith …

anna v
April 8, 2021 2:26 am

The standard model cannot be “junked”, because it is a map, a mathematical repository of fits to an innumerable number of data, and its mathematics predicts successfully a lot more. Of course it will be superseded by new data, as it is not the theory of everything. A new theory will have to embed the standard model, because the data is there and cannot be ignored. In the same way that general relativity “embeds” Newtonian physics for small masses and energies.

Up to now what has been happening with inconsistencies to the standard model, is that the model is extended, in the same mathematical form. We have to wait and see

Richard Page
Reply to  anna v
April 8, 2021 4:06 am

Depends. If the experiment is replicated and the muon’s are, indeed, behaving in a manner inconsistent with the standard model then it would all depend on just how big or fundamental a shift that might be. It might be that a new chapter is added, or it might mean that the very basis of the standard model will have to be rewritten. Either way, it advances our understanding.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Richard Page
April 8, 2021 1:03 pm

Yup. Can our model of what reality is be modified slightly, or are we in a situation where a Kuhnian ‘paradigm shift’ will provide a new simpler perspective, and everybody will get excited because, stuck in the absolute conviction that a world view is in fact reality-in-itself, they will declare that the universe is not what it was yesterday…?

Our absolute conviction that our everyday view of RealStuff™, absolute space, time and energy, just one universe that obeys determiistic rules, that can be ‘discovered’, is so broken by cosmology and by quantum physics…and yet the scientists cling to trying to explain everything in terms of it.

Meanwhile the ArtStudents™ and marketeers have convinced people that magic works, that by naming something, it therefore acquires an existence, not as an approximate description of something vague, but as a hard concrete thing, a fact, as real as a mountain. ClimateChange™, InstitutionalRacism™, GlobalCapitalism™, SocialJustice™. All facts if not indeed scientific facts (whatever those are.)

And when something approximating to a fact – like a deadly virus – comes along people are so convinced its just another faux ‘fact’ , rather than a reasonable description of something that has an existence beyiond public belief in it…why then we really are up Schitt Kreek without a paddle, deciding that simply not believing in it will make it disappear.

We live entirely in a world of our own imagination and construction. Sometimes, in the best science there is a relationship between what we think is real, and something presumably beyond us, that is, but most people most of the time live entirely in a personal fantasy, formed in Bandar Log fashion as the approximate centre of gravity of ‘whatever everybody says is so’. And this is as true of WUWT convinced climate sceptic and the most fervent warmunist…Its just a different echo chamber and a different centre of gravity.

And it infects science as well. Almost no scientist understands the philosophical underpinnings of his own field, let alone challenges them.

Remember the only limit to the nonsense that people will believe to be real is if their beliefs kill them before reproducing.

It is possible to prove that we can never know the truth. That we have no way of telling if we are even close. True wisdom lies in understanding that that is as near the truth as we will ever get, and the rest is world salad, that may or may not be useful in survival to continue the species.

Mark BLR
Reply to  anna v
April 8, 2021 4:57 am

In the same way that general relativity “embeds” Newtonian physics for small masses and energies.

My understanding is that General Relativity (GR) didn’t “embed” Newtonian Mechanics (NM), GR replaced NM with something that approximated NM when using “v/c ~= 0” and “mass = a constant at all (relative) velocities”.

For engineers NM is still “good enough for government work”. For example NASA has always used NM for (satellite) orbital and (planetary probe) trajectory calculations because “F = G x M1 x M2 / (R^2)” and “F = M x A” are slightly [ or even, dare I say, “relatively” ? … ] easier to work with than the full field equations of GR.

anna v
Reply to  Mark BLR
April 8, 2021 5:24 am

that is why I put “embeds” in quotes., effectively embeds

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Mark BLR
April 8, 2021 8:00 am

It takes light >15,000 seconds to travel from the sun to Neptune, yet those two massive bodies are attracted to each other where they are located at the moment, not to where they were located 15,000 seconds earlier.

Neptune transits more than 1.5 of its diameters in its orbit around the sun in 15,000 seconds, yet the sun is attracted to Neptune’s instantaneous position, not to where it was more than four hours earlier.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 8, 2021 10:06 am

That’s because in GR, gravity is not an attractive force per Newton. It bends space-time. A tensor field as Einstein first worked out.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 10:47 am

Gravity curves space, but what makes an object roll down the curves? (It seems to me sometimes that gravity is assumed in explanations of gravity)

If an object was placed in space with enough fuel to stop its motion relative to a receding earth, wouldn’t it accelerate toward the sun vs. remaining motionless? What is the motive force that would compel the object toward the sun? Even if space is curved toward the massive sun, how does this compel motion? If I place a ball on a sloped board, it isn’t the slope that causes the ball to roll down the board.

As I mentioned earlier, Neptune travels more than its diameter in the amount of time light requires to travel between it and the sun. How is the sun instantly updated regarding Neptune’s continuously changing location? How is this information transmitted at greater than lightspeed?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 8, 2021 1:22 pm

The solution to ‘problem’ you identify is that reference frames and what is observed are relative the observer. There is no absolute reference frame in Relativity. You are trying to take an absolute frame of reference. What you are envisioning isn’t happening.

Neptune is one reference frame, the Sun is another. If the Sun were somehow suddenly removed from our universe, the gravitational field change of its mass removal would travel outwards at speed c, and Neptune would be see (EM) its disappearance at the same “time.” Neptune would NOT feel an acceleration from the change due to its path change from a circle around the sun to proceeding a straight line.

In GR there is no “spooky action at distance” like you envision. Einstein understood that, and so why he couldn’t fully accept Quantum mechanics invocation of that instantaneous action at a distance between quantum entangled particles.

Trying to take an “objective” absolute position looking at both simultaneously is where your thought experiment breaks down under Relatively. It is why Relativity informs that there is no absolute time frame of reference, which classical physicists 115 years ago thought absurd. There is no absolute time frame of reference.

The first and most important notion that students have to be taught in physics class is:
gravity is an acceleration, not a force. This is the fundamental leap that Einstein used to surmise his Equivalence Principle.

A body, like Neptune, in the Sun’s gravity field is in true ‘free fall’, it is accelerating but experiences no inertial force it can measure.

Gravitational waves, ripples in space-time, travel at speed c across the universe. Not instantaneously. A Michelson interferometer set-up has verified GWs existence. The GW alters the distance in one arm of the interferometer relative to its orthogongal beam path. But the reflective test masses at either end change their separating distance, but do not experience a force. But the chaged distance is enough to setup up an interference pattern in the split and then re-converged coherent light beam, an intereference pattern.

How can the distance change without the bodies feeling a “force”? Because they are in free fall.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 8, 2021 1:25 pm

It was already there at the time of the big bang. It doesn’t need to travel.

Change your world view. All you are doing is showing that your assumptions are broken. So discard them.

Gravity and forces are just models, that’s all, and Newtonian models depend on a worldview of absolute space and time.

Einstein pointed out that the constant speed of light relative to the observer meant that there was no ‘absolute value’ of space or time.

Of course quantum physicists have mostly failed to understand this, and are still struggling to express their data in terms of the broken model of absolute time, space and energy, implacable Causality, invisible Laws and the utter conviction that there is one, and only one, RealWorld™ out there.

Whereas the evidence seems to point to a fog of possible, and more, or less probable futures, of which just one is selected by us to be the RealWorld™. And even then we argue about it.

Schrödinger’s cat emerges from his box, and licks his paws, and heads for the warmest place. Or he doesn’t. Classical ‘absolute’ reality allows of no other options.

So bin classical reality. If its too hard to map the data onto OneTrueReality, don’t.

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 8, 2021 1:32 pm

It may be 15,000 seconds later, because the Eisenstein’s space curvature around the sun is not passive but, dynamic it is warped and twisted by the mass and spin of it. It will take your 15,000 sec for that warping to reach Neptune. This image shows an instant of the Earth’s space-time.(click to enlarge)comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by vuk
Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 1:46 pm

Here is short clip from Kip Thorne demonstrating giro drift effect (Geodetic effect precession)

Reply to  Vuk
April 9, 2021 11:08 pm

I can see how this vortex motion could be misunderstood as going down the plughole. Put the flat standard model of the solar system on it’s side and give it a push.
The helical model – our solar system is a vortex – YouTube

Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 10, 2021 12:39 pm

Objects travel through space-time in straight lines. These paths appear curved (i.e. an elliptical orbit) because of the curvature of space-time. Think of straight lines on curved surfaces.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 1:10 pm

Well that is how it (gravity) appears in the model. Whether it exists outside of the model at all, is of course the ultimate argument, between Realists, Idealists, and Transcendental Idealists.

Yer picks yer a prioris and yer constructs yer worldview accordingly…and of course ironically to WUWT appartchiks, that worldview is of course just another model

Leo Smith
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
April 8, 2021 1:05 pm

which is why gravity doesn’t exist, but bent space does, or whatever the latest world view insist is the OneTrueView™ of Science…

..rember according to Einsteim time is not absolute. The ‘instantaneous position of Neptune’ is meaningless.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Mark BLR
April 8, 2021 10:02 am

NASA and ESA uses GR corrections for orbital mechanics in the near Sun probes. This is for the same reason English astronomers Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson were able to confirm the observed shift in apparent location of Mercury when its light rays passed near the solar disc during a total eclipse.

Data from Eddington’s Principe expedition translated into a light deflection of 1.6 arseconds—an angular measurement of distance across the sky—while plates from Dyson’s crew in Sobral suggested 1.98 arcseconds and a margin of uncertainty of some 30 percent. In 2017, Bruns, a retired optical physicist, took images that translated into exactly the number Einstein would predict—a deflection of 1.7512 arcseconds—with an uncertainty, related to atmospheric turbulence, of only 3 percent.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 9, 2021 3:48 am

My understanding (which may well no longer be valid …) is that while the “near Sun probes” take many measurements in order to test (the accuracy of) GR, the actual trajectories of the probes themselves were all calculated using NM because the GR “corrections” are less than the mechanical “error ranges” associated with rocket firings and/or changes to internal gyroscope settings that would have to be compensated for anyway.

Do you have a reference to a paper (/ link to a webpage ?) where they explicitly state that the orbital mechanics of the probe itself was initially calculated to a precision where GR had to be taken into account ?

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 9, 2021 11:21 pm

Except that Eddington did not do what he claimed. Given the equipment he had at the time and the viewing conditions, he simply could not have achieved the necessary resolution (not the removal of chromatic aberration) to get the results he claimed. But being an avid Einsteinian, he wanted it to be true so he fudged the data.

anna v
Reply to  anna v
April 8, 2021 5:22 am

this is a short good for physicists video , and here is the talk

Reply to  anna v
April 8, 2021 7:19 am

Thanks for your physics comments & links, anna v — interesting as always.

Last edited 1 year ago by beng135
Curious George
Reply to  anna v
April 8, 2021 7:39 am

“what has been happening with inconsistencies to the standard model, is that the model is extended, in the same mathematical form.”

I like the same mathematical form which extends three massless neutrinos into a single massive one.

Reply to  anna v
April 8, 2021 1:30 pm

re: “The standard model cannot be “junked”, because it is a map, a mathematical repository of fits to an innumerable number of data,”

Nice, but, it would seem to ignore physical laws and rather goes the simpler ‘curve fit’ route? Curve fitting is not *true* to the underlying physical processes involved though …

Roger Hird
April 8, 2021 2:28 am

I’m sorry to be a pedant but traditional though I am in many things, and staunchly british, in science I find no place for units other than those in the Systeme Intrenational – “minus 450 degrees Fahrenheit indeed”!

But a valuable article – thanks.

Reply to  Roger Hird
April 8, 2021 3:53 am

Roger, here in ‘Merica, we don’t need no fancy French units.

Reply to  SMC
April 8, 2021 7:29 am

Benjamin Franklin be da*m’d

Reply to  Roger Hird
April 8, 2021 3:54 am

Yup. It drives me crazy when volume isn’t expressed in the standard SI units of Olympic-sized Swimming Pools.

Leo Smith
Reply to  H.R.
April 8, 2021 1:27 pm

or SpinalTapDecibels (they go up to 11)

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 8, 2021 3:11 pm

Any time you’re working with STDs, Leo, you should wear an SI unit condom.

Reply to  Roger Hird
April 8, 2021 4:39 am

NASA has crush landing learned their lesson by mixing units, in their media presentations they use Imperial units while quoting metric ones in brackets e.g. 2,370 degrees Fahrenheit (about 1,300 degrees Celsius) 1,000 miles per hour (1,600 kilometers per hour).

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Roger Hird
April 8, 2021 7:07 am

High Energy physics has a unit named the “barn”; I forget who came up with it, might have been Fermi himself. Definitely not SI.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 8, 2021 10:13 am

Neutron cross section. The bigger the cross section, the more barns you have and the more likely a neutron will cause a fission… or be absorbed.

Last edited 1 year ago by SMC
Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 8, 2021 9:40 pm

Another Purdue University contribution. They measured neutron cross sections of various isotopes of various elements for the Manhattan Project, and the unit they coined was the “barn”, after the rural colloquialism for a poor shot who “couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.” Purdue is in rural Indiana, and when I went there, in the 1970s, it was still dominated by kids from the farms. I’m not sure if the unit of time known as the “shake” came from Purdue, but it had rural origins. It’s 10 nanoseconds, a convenient time scale for nuclear events – and it comes from the expression “two shakes of a lamb’s tail.”

You have to remember that prior to World War II, fully one third of the US population lived and worked on farms, and a higher percentage lived in “rural” areas. Many of the US astronauts who first flew in space were farm kids, as were the engineers who built the rockets to send them there. I am used to the rural influence on scientific (especially nuclear) and engineering terminology. But it isn’t what I would call common knowledge these days.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Roger Hird
April 8, 2021 9:19 pm

I got my BSME and MSME from Purdue University. To me, it should be 10 degrees Rankine.

Doug Huffman
April 8, 2021 3:41 am

Beware Epistemic Trespass!

Leo Smith
Reply to  Doug Huffman
April 8, 2021 1:28 pm


April 8, 2021 3:48 am

This is where I get confused. Science – where a single experiment can shift a paradigm – against the dogma of post-modern science where the consensus is always correct and the experiment is wrong.

Why do scientists accept both depending on the subject at hand?

…a scientific consensus is of vital importance, and can tell us much about the world around us. But before we get there, let’s break this down a bit: Exactly what is a scientific consensus, and why is it important?


Reply to  fretslider
April 8, 2021 5:18 am

Why do scientists accept both depending on the subject at hand?

Ah, you are obviously unaware of the difference between a scientist, and a sciencer. Scientists go where the evidence leads, sciencers go where the funding leads.
*Sciencery: The magical ability to prove anything the client pays for. For a fee, a sciencer can make any product or service walk upon a cloud of scienciness, causing the biggest crap to become essential for human survival. See ‘Climastrology’

Reply to  paranoid goy
April 8, 2021 6:19 am

Ah, you are obviously unaware of the difference between a scientist, and a sciencer.

Did you see the money bit at the foot of my post?

where the funding leads.

Clearly not.

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  fretslider
April 8, 2021 6:50 am

Futurism for climate consensus based only on Cook’s article and statement of confirmation thereof. “Thus, for the most part, scientists stop interrogating this particular issue, as it’s already largely settled, and they start building on this agreement (interrogating things that are related to it).” A de facto consensus could be just ignoring, but in this case, Cook’s (among others) article is bad stats, and who has ‘stop[ed] interrogating this particular issue?’

And their link about the particle doesn’t read like a consensus. And their other link sounds too cold to check (Antarctica Hit By Antimatter Particles, Scientists Say).

Gary Ashe
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 8, 2021 1:06 pm

Jeez Antarctica is really taking it the arse isn’t it, what with climate hell aswell.
Particles and molecules can be so viscous.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Ashe
April 8, 2021 3:56 am

I am waiting for a headline where scientists are shown to be right.
At this point I expect a headline saying the sun doesn’t rise in the east confirming the Earth is flat.
Maybe we should just redefine the word “know”.
Scientists are barely ahead of economists. But psychologists make both of them look good.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  bluecat57
April 8, 2021 1:12 pm

It doesn’t in the RGHE model, it shines on every square centimeter of the earths surface equally at half its actual intensity 24/7.

And from that model they come to the conclusion that we are all doomed, and not the conclusion that their model has not even a finger tip grasp on reality and is bat schit crazy.

Leo Smith
Reply to  bluecat57
April 8, 2021 1:41 pm

When even scientists haven’t a clue about the underlying philosophical assumptions thay make to ‘do science’ what hope have science journalists or worst of all the Average ArtStudent on the Clapham Omnibus?

Mostly they contruct a more detailed narrative within the current paradigm, but just occasionally an Einstein or a Galileo realises that the current paradigm is getting in the way, and invents a new one – and then spoils it all by declaring it to be the One True Paradigm and so condemning the world to centuries of faux ‘facts’ which are really no more than models.

Heliocentrism is not a fact, its a model. The church, beimg the place where most mediæval philosophy happened, realised the disaster that woud accrue if people confused mathematical models with Truth, which was simply whatever the Pope said it was.
Today of course Warmunstas have trumped the narrative, and Climate Change is not only just mathematical models, it is whatever Michael Mann says it is, as well!

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 9, 2021 4:13 am

I don’t have time to digest your reply, but it looks like a good expression of what I think about science reporting. Thank you.

April 8, 2021 4:16 am

Of course, the muon is the reason that the emdrive creates antigravity….

April 8, 2021 4:39 am

Off topic, but a recent climate scare says that cherry trees blossomed earlier this year than at any time in the last thousand years.
Bearing in mind the medieval warming and other variations in the last millennium, is there any evidence to disprove this?

Leo Smith
Reply to  D J
April 8, 2021 1:43 pm

The ones round here are later than usual. But what is a personal observation compared with a scientificConsensus?

The world is what the Liberals say it is, so there!

Paul C
Reply to  D J
April 8, 2021 2:54 pm

Old news around here.
It seems that UHI is the best candidate for the earlier blossoming of Japan’s cherry trees, though light pollution may also be significant. The earlier blossoming correlates very well with population growth.

April 8, 2021 4:41 am

Sorry to be OT but…

Maine counties chafe at lower-than-expected payments from wind farms
counties and towns are finding out they are getting less revenue out of the wind projects than they had expected when they were wooed in the 2000s and 2010s by developers looking to erect turbines several hundred feet tall along local remote, elevated ridgelines. In some cases, the developers are arguing that recent advancements in wind turbine technology have made newer models so efficient that older, less efficient turbines erected nearly a decade or more ago have lost much of their taxable value.
In Franklin County, Maine Revenue Services granted a tax abatement on the Kibby Wind Power project that last month forced county officials to return $187,844 in tax-increment financing, or TIF, payments to Helix Maine Wind, which owns the 44-turbine wind farm.
In Hancock County, state officials granted an abatement to another wind farm, TerraForm-owned Bull Hill Wind, that is forcing the county to return $17,342 it had received in TIF payments last year for the 19 turbines erected in that county’s unorganized territory in 2012.

Reply to  john
April 8, 2021 8:24 am

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2021 5:27 am

Muons schmuons. CO2 and carbon heat continually defy the laws of physics. Just ask the Alarmists.

April 8, 2021 5:30 am

Classical Physics is like Love: Authors write about it, say they “understand” It, until the divorce come.
Many of you will recall casting dispersions on LENR, especially Dr Andrea Rossi of Hot Cat fame (“E-Cat, the new fire.” Now, using a plasma to rip nucleons apart, he promises a new device capable of Coefficients of Performance much greater than 1.0. We will see.

Recently I wrote the following to note where we have come from and where we are. (My opinion, as a lowly Chemical Engineer.)

  1. Firstly, when Henri Becquerel and Madam Curie was playing with Radium and Uranium in the 19th Century, people thought matter was, perhaps, atoms, indivisible but different pieces of matter that could be stuck together or broken apart with chemistry.  It was absolutely forbidden to think that the individual elements could be created or destroyed…that would be “Alchemistry,” enough to get you disbarred from the society of scientists immediately. Then all hell broke loose when she and Becquerel discovered radiation.
  2. The idea that an indivisible atom could throw off a smaller piece, albeit a very tiny piece or even energy wave seemed impossible. But worse was to come. Rutherford, who was to eventually go on to use high energy particles to demonstrate nuclear fission and fusion, had a Chemist (Physicists hate Chemists) as an assistant, who proved, and discussed Transmutation and isotopes. However, his name, Soddy, has faded from history. Rutherford got all the credit, initially refusing to use the term transmutation. He went on to screw up the world.
  3. The Manhattan Project originated with Rutherford bombarding nitrogen nuclei with alpha particles to cause the first synthetic nuclear reaction. In the background were LENR scientists were perfectly willing to do the same sort of chemistry peacefully ( See “The Lost History” series by Steven B. Krivit, including “The Forgotten Story of Chemical Transmutations”). I’ve left out a LOT of steps here, but the atomic bomb is totally unimportant to this story.
  4. All of a sudden LENR came back, in the form of Cold Fusion. Two foolish chemists, before they could study the steps necessary to reproduce their discovery, as you call it, of “perpetual motion,” i.e. a C.O.P. of greater than 1.0 (“anomalous energy”) went to press at the University of Utah in 1989 with claims of more heat out than energy in. See Wiki:
  5. Millions of dollars have been spent chasing the F&P will-o-the-wisp. Many positive and many negative results. Summary: It works.
  6. An earnest gentleman in Italy started a firm known as Petrodragon, but ran afoul of competitors with more political clout. He went to jail.
  7. Andrea Rossi, now in the US, after experiencing the frustration of trying to develop an electrochemical fuel cell under a government contract, slowly but awkwardly developed a catalyzed nuclear reactor he calls the E-Cat. After trying to market the anomalous heat commercially, and engaging in several joint ventures ending up in the hands of lawyers.
  8. Abandoning efforts to have his company Leonardo Corp. in Miami make money from the Hot E-Cat, he researches the reaction in the form of a plasma reactor. The hot E-Cat works essentially as US a Patent Application I sent you a link to describes. The plasma reactor, first called the E-Cat SKL and now in R&D as the E-Cat SKLed is based on an entirely new physics theory.

If valid (I believe it is rough but valid) it will change the world.  He has “promised” future versions that generate electricity that will self-sustain the reaction and produce export electricity. An invention like this, if proved (likely) will have a COP of infinity!
9)     I, a highly qualified Chemical Engineer with a successful career with W. R Grace, Glidden-Durkee, International Minerals and Chemicals Corp and Jacobs Engineering, am not competent to read the source document for his new theory. However, I can say with some certainty that very few “real” physicists are either. He is talking about ripping a nucleus apart with picometric EMF magnetic waves and collecting the electrons resulting from this unheard-of reaction. I am sure that 98% of “real” physicists will cry “Bullshit.” He describes several possible explanations for the E-Cat (SKL) effect, in this paper.  and
10)  Currently, the intelligentsia (including me) on E-Cat World htps:// are in consternation as to what Leonardo Corp is doing. After his fiascos with earlier efforts, we understood that he formed agreements with at least one large “Partner” and they consulted with the great Deloitte research group as to the best way to develop this technology. I and several others read his disjointed, unclear, “English is not my primary language” remarks trying to ferret out if he is real or a shyster.  We are aware that a enormous number of forces, starting with Big Oil and OPEC and certainly not stopping with the federal Government would try to step in an quell this new energy source. Just think about what it would mean to have a 5 kilo watt 110/220 VAC box the size of a kitchen toaster powering your TESLA down the road, potentially not stopping to refuel for months or years. Rossi “says” a 0.5 megawatt test system has been built. 
The E-Cat SKLed is new product, sprung on us after Rossi said the electrical current from the plasma reactor was not suitable for running an electric motor without much further development. This seemed a safe move, likely to introduce the technology, make money for further R&D, and not threaten any big players. Rossi said that the system he is now working with powers an LED with much greater than the expected efficiency. OK sounds good. Some of us expected the Partner, widely thought to be the great ABB Corp of Switzerland and Sweden, had a hand in that decision because ABB is signing contracts in numerous electrification areas, including charging stations for EVs and LED lighting fixtures.
It made sense that the Eat SKLed would be perfect for industrial lighting systems and Streetlights, areas ABB appears eager to expand into. 

But no, Leonardo has put out an amateurish order form for a $30 Made-in America E-Cat SKLed, the picture of the prototype looking like a joke. On top of that, he declares all orders to be void if he does not receive orders for 1E6 units. Could ABB sell a million streetlights or industrial fixtures powered by this technology? In a heartbeat. Could Leonardo? How could they, without ABB’s robotic fabrication and silicon foundries?

Could this technology (if real) change the world? Absolutely. Would a link up with someone like AAB make sense? Yes. But as someone on the blog asked, would a partner of that scope allow a .jpg order form and a privately labeled product from an unknown American company be the vehicle? Absolutely not. As I mentioned on E-Catworld, “Something is wrong here.”

This where the energy revolution stands at the moment. Holding my breath.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Enginer01
April 8, 2021 1:47 pm

and two scientsists were, not ‘was’ responsible for discovering radiation.
We dont all habe to spik jive man, just becoz blicklivesmatter™

Reply to  Enginer01
April 8, 2021 3:24 pm

re: “We are aware that a enormous number of forces, starting with Big Oil and OPEC and certainly not stopping with the federal Government would try to step in an quell this new energy source.”

Well, Big Oil nor OPEC stepped on another company’s demonstration back in February of a (and I’ll use this term for good reason) primary energy source earlier this year. I know you guys at e-catworld are largely “un-studied” on BrLP’s developments over the years, so the demo of a 150 kW (that’s 150,000 Watt) device may come as a surprise. I can’t recall right off hand a similar exhibition by A. Rossi of anything similar.

Now, maybe BrLP has indemnity from B.O. and OPEC sanctions on account of R. James Woolsey (former CIA head) sits on the board. Don’t know whether this makes much difference or not, but I’m SURE it can’t hurt.

D Boss
Reply to  Enginer01
April 9, 2021 6:46 am


Nice history lesson. Though there are other important contributors…. I have verified that LENR is real on the bench. Though not specifically Rossi’s avenue.

Aside – I’ve been studying and dissecting claims of O/U or COP over 1 in many arenas for over two decades. First literature research, to sort wheat from chaff, then comparing and examining if common root principles were at work, and selecting the most promising replications to bench test.

Serious fabrication, testing and cross checking of instrumentation and methodologies were employed. I can say with certainty that O/U is real, with magnetic and electro-magnetic devices. Also it can occur with plain jane electrochemistry (specifically water splitting), and with LENR.

Part of this “aside” is that a strange but known phenom occurs – which we see in the Climate Cult adherence too – which is the “Messiah Syndrome” can take hold of a person and it warps your mental balance. The instant you believe you need to “save the world” this imbalance takes hold and if you feed it and do not check it’s progress – you get increasingly unbalanced and many resort to larceny and/or lying to try to complete their self ordained “planet saving” mission.

As a result there are so many stories of what many would conclude are con-artists – where the kernel of their claims was in fact true and indeed O/U, some even self running. There have also been real con-artists with nothing but smoke and mirrors too which further poisons the well.

My point in the aside is there is a real danger to believing your discovery can “save the world” and almost all who succumb to this end up like Rossi and others. But that does not mean their initial discovery was false.

Back to my bench verification of LENR: It was based on the work of Celani. His was much simpler than Rossi’s. Celani found specially treated CuNi wires (he used Constantan), in a reactor with hydrogen, heated electrically by running current through the wire, produced excess heat (COP greater than 1). And there are simple transmutation routes between natural Ni and Cu isotopes that afford this anomalous gain.

28Ni62 plus 1H = 29Cu63 (numbers before element are subscript and after are superscript)


28Ni64 plus 1H = 29Cu65

The former by the mass difference numbers can yield 164.3MW-hr for every 62 grams of that nickel isotope transmuted to copper. And the latter yields 200 MW-hr for every 64 grams Ni converted to Cu.

We set up the reactor, the calorimetry and rigorously tested and calibrated things. Then set about testing cores based on Celani’s papers and works. We chose slightly different route than Celani, and used Monel metal as our substrate. (an alloy of 67% Cu and 33% Ni)

Monel is widely used and available in wire, mesh, strip, pipe, tubing, sheet and plate form.

We used a difference method to create the microstructure on the monel surface – i.e. etching, either mechanically like media blasting, and electrochemically. Those resultant cores did perform, but poorly. Then we took from other research we had done, and decided to add Raney Nickel to the surface by flame spraying.

Our combination after 30-40 different core fabrication attempts was with Monel strip, spirally wound on a borosilicate glass rod, in a high vacuum reactor with electrical feed thru’s, and a simple water calorimeter on the exterior of this high vacuum reactor vessel. We etched the Monel with SiC media blasting, flame sprayed with fine Raney nickel powder and dissolution of the Al from the Raney alloy in HCl. Bottled lab grade Hydrogen was the gas used after evacuation of the reactor, and some heat run-in to insure no contaminant vapors.

The best runs produced a verifiable 143% gain in output heat vs electrical input. And it was repeatable.

We abandoned this line of research because we had already achieve far higher COP with other, simpler methods (and it was privately funded research looking to make something commercially viable)

Note: at this time it is unlikely any commercially viable O/U technology will emerge to supplant conventional energy generation such as hydrocarbons or conventional nuclear. It is real, but the problem with my “Aside” above is because almost all manifestations of tapping this underlying quantum “sea of energy” that O/U devices do; (no laws are violated – COP=1 is only for Closed Systems, and these tap underlying quantum energy reservoirs thus are not closed and can operate at higher than 1 COP as do air conditioners) all manifestations are not commercially viable as yet. Almost all are merely demonstrations of the principle(s), or novelty level power.

This makes the Messiah Syndrome go on steroids – because once you have seen it with your own eyes on the bench – your craving to save the world goes off the Richter scale! But if your discovery can only make tiny power levels – your perspective gets warped the more you want to “save the world” – and you may say or do things that are more wishful thinking than pragmatic to say the least. Many folks who have stumbled upon real O/U have descended into larceny and lying as a result.

Reply to  D Boss
April 11, 2021 2:01 pm

re: “Celani found specially treated CuNi wires (he used Constantan), in a reactor with hydrogen, heated electrically by running current through the wire, produced excess heat (COP greater than 1).”

Getting close to a Dr. Mills CIHT “cell” (which produced so-called O/U (I hate that term) heat), but you knew that … right? RIGHT?

Last edited 1 year ago by _Jim
Steve Z.
April 8, 2021 5:34 am

Charles Rotter wrote: “The article is well worth a read and a nice distraction from politicized EVERYTHING.

The New York Times comment section did not get your memo, Charles.

Two of the first ten NYT comments were about the “diversity” of scientists and despicable anti-science voters!

Reply to  Steve Z.
April 8, 2021 7:39 am

Yup. The NY Slimes is gonna politicize anything & everything — it’s a requirement.

D Boss
April 8, 2021 6:40 am

The Standard Model has been junk for some time! When you have to “invent” some unknown [dark] mass and energy to splain things your “model” predicts, you have a BIG clue your model is incorrect, or was founded with one or more wrong precepts.

You don’t fix it with ever more incredible atom smashers, you go back to the beginning and see what/if any of the initial precepts are wrong and start over.

An analogy:

If you did not know what an F4 Phantom was, or even what flight was, or fossil fueled turbine engines, etc, could you reconstruct what this object was before this impact from only the debris? Could you deduce what the science of aerodynamics was from the collision debris if it was completely unknown beforehand?

Of course not! All these asinine pronouncements about sub atomic particles from near light speed collisions – are akin to finding a spec of metal from an impact of a rocket sled into a concrete block, and stating unequivocally that it was from an M12 bolt off a Mercedes SL500.

[deductions from atom smashers is] Hogwash!

Curious George
Reply to  D Boss
April 8, 2021 7:44 am

Dear D, the Standard Model only describes known particles, not the rest.

Reply to  Curious George
April 8, 2021 3:01 pm

re: “Dear D, the Standard Model only describes known particles, not the rest.”

Hmmm … characteristics of ‘curve fitting’ and with zero predictive capability. IOW, explains or, shows some numerical relationship of ‘particles’ with what we’ve seen so far, because, we saw it, then, figured out the ‘fudge factor’ adjustment coefficients necessary to make it ‘fit’ within our standard model …this means you have to SEE something new before we KNOW it exists … correct? But, from our ‘model’ we don’t have the means to show *where* something might be because we don’t use any the known laws of physics (Newton, Maxwell) to construct our ‘model’ … our model does not know first principles in physics?

Last edited 1 year ago by _Jim
Jim Whelan
Reply to  D Boss
April 8, 2021 10:41 am

Dark matter and energy come from astronomical observations and cosmological speculations, not particle physics. And they are simply placeholder names for observations whose explanation is currently unknown. They may be something new or something mundane.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  D Boss
April 8, 2021 1:28 pm

D Boss,

You seem to have greatly confused the Cosmological Standard model (lambda-CDM theory) with the quantum mechanics Standard Model. It is cosmology where dark energy and dark matter are postulated. Quantum mechanics and the Standard Model has no such need of those cosmology things… at present.

Indeed it is trying to unite the two that is the Holy Grail of Physics.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 3:34 pm

re: “It is cosmology where dark energy and dark matter are postulated. Quantum mechanics and the Standard Model has no such need of those cosmology things”

Nor would it seem to provide a road map (have predictive power) to point out where this ‘dark matter’ might exist or be ‘placed’.

Nice little model you have there … Sit Ubu sit. Nice model …

D Boss
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 9, 2021 5:14 am

Fair enough on mixing the two. Cosmology though is more like science fiction guessing. Though I would argue the Cosmologists and pure Physicists use the same incorrect precepts in my view.

There are enough observed phenom that are not explained by either standard models that should make their belief or adherence suspect at best and dismissed at worst.

The fact we cannot reconcile wave-particle duality, relativity, quantum mechanics etc – shows there are some serious and fundamental flaws in the theories and as yet no holy grail TOE [Theory of Everything].

My point is you cannot begin to comprehend what rules govern the essence of matter and the upper and lower case forces by smashing matter to bits and analyzing the fragments – no more than you could discern the operating principles of flight and operation of the F4 Phantom after high speed collision.

What if gravity is not what we think it is? What if stars are not really powered by our incomplete notion of nuclear fusion? (what if nuclear fusion and fission are resultants of this more primary energy source?)

I don’t wish to drone on, but if we’ve gotten some fundamental things wrong, you cannot get back to the path of truth by continuing. You have to go back to that/those early forks in the road and re-examine the choices made.

I have come across a different TOE that so far as I’ve been able to test it, holds water. I am glad mainstream science is finally getting closer to realizing their standard models are insufficient to splain the myriad anomalies and problems with their theories…

Reply to  D Boss
April 11, 2021 2:19 pm

re: “shows there are some serious and fundamental flaws in the theories and as yet no holy grail TOE [Theory of Everything].”

I wouldn’t want to impede your progress, but, you could obtain a bit of an intellectual ‘leg up’ on your competition (and the ‘forces of darkness’) by reviewing what has been achieved via the predictive power in a TO(most)E called GUTCP. Don’t let the ‘hogwarts’ at Wicked-pedia be your guide, either.

April 8, 2021 6:44 am

OT. Martian rock

Volcanic or meteorite ?
(… part of little green man’s fossilised scull)

Last edited 1 year ago by vuk
Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 8:34 am


Nick Schroeder
April 8, 2021 6:58 am

“The result, physicists say, suggests that there are forms of matter and energy vital to the nature and evolution of the cosmos that are not yet known to science.”

No, REALLY??????

Is that even possible??????

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
April 8, 2021 3:37 pm

re: “Is that even possible??????”

Dependence on 100 yr old concepts (badly in need of updating/revision) can do that …

April 8, 2021 7:29 am

Are all these experiments performed in a cloud chamber? And more importantly are the cloud(s) in the picture of Reidar Hahn/Fermilab, at the head of this post/article, an actual photo or an artist’s rendering?

Mike O
April 8, 2021 9:06 am

Another wrong model?

Joel O’Bryan
April 8, 2021 9:38 am

Fermi Lab needs to hire some Climate Scientists and put them on the problem. They’ll have that wonky muon data behaving per theory in no time.
Don Wuebbles at Univ of Illinois is nearby, no doubt he‘d bring his considerable experience ignoring inconvenient data and uncertainty to rectify this muon data v. theory discrepancy.

Rud Istvan
April 8, 2021 10:34 am

There is maybe something unknown about muons (higher mass electrons). The Fermilab maybe concerns magnetic spin off a little bit from Standard model prediction. But there is also a report out of CERN LHC about the ratio of electrons to muons produced in collisions. Standard model says should be 50-50, but the experimental data (good now only to 3 sigma when the particle physics standard is 5) is 80-20 in favor of electrons.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 8, 2021 2:49 pm

They are telling us that there is only one ‘electron’/field since beginning and will be to the end of our universe, with another two dozen or so other fields permeating vacuum of space. However, our problem is lack of a understanding of the zero-point energy of vacuum, hence we ‘think’ we and everything else is made of particles and not simply result of a chance in the energy fields interactions.

Reply to  Vuk
April 8, 2021 3:40 pm

re: “our problem is lack of a understanding of the zero-point energy of vacuum”


Who buys into such things? On its face “ZPE of a vacuum”, this fails …

Mr. Lee
April 8, 2021 1:07 pm

The Standard Model is known to have its limitations. The problem is that it correctly explains so much, it is difficult to come up with a replacement that improves upon the predictive power…as, say, general relativity improved upon Newton’s law of gravity.

April 8, 2021 1:26 pm

re: “A Tiny Particle’s Wobble Could Upend the Known Laws of Physics”

The “tiny wobble” might do it, but VOLUMES of data* showing the Hydrino exists won’t? Shirley, who is jesting?

*Including papers the last couple years involving gas chromatography and EPR (Electron Paramagnetic Resonance).

Last edited 1 year ago by _Jim
William Astley
April 8, 2021 4:36 pm

Particle physics theory follows Astronomy.

I would look at the paradoxes in Astronomy and the paradoxes on the earth (geological paradoxes, like the cyclic abrupt change of the geomagnetic field that has been found in the paleo record to correlate with cyclic abrupt climate change) for the next big scientific breakthrough.

Astronomers have found complex active objects in the Universe.

The problem is when they discovered the first complex object ‘quasars’, they assumed a ‘quasar’s spectrum could be explained/made by a black hole and gas falling into the black hole because what the big bang expects. The big bang assume that there is Stuff falling into a super large ‘black’ hole in the center of every galaxy.

The first discovery of a complex active object was the Quasar, which is not star like and is not galaxy like, as there are quasars that do not have a galaxy attached to them.

Quasars if they were very, very, distance produce as much energy as 1000 of the largest galaxies found in astronomy the Cd Elliptical galaxies, one of which is found in the center of very, very, very, old clusters of galaxies that appear to be all related to each other.

Quasars are small complex objects that can be seen to be ejected from the core, out of the poles, of spiral ‘active’ galaxies.

A German astronomer Halton Arp found clouds of highly energized gas connecting a quasar and the galaxy that ejected it. Arp found the Quasar had a higher redshift than the ejecting galaxy. Arp and other found more and more instances of ejected quasars from active galaxies.

These observations indicated that the Quasar’s redshift (redshift was assumed to be velocity of the object.) changed with time as it got farther from the galaxy it was ejected from. Arp’s work has advanced by a Canadian astronomer Bell and now by a Indian astronomer who found the key calculation to prove the quasars/radio galaxies and so on are not very, very, distant objects

Arp’s observational finding of stuff getting ejected from galaxies… Was ignored because 20 years ago it was thought the Big Bang theory ‘worked’.

There is observational evidence now from the analysis of satellite radar measurements of planet orbits, that the sun is gaining mass, rather than losing mass.

A complex active object belongs in a ‘steady state’ universe. A universe where there is stuff in galaxies that makes stuff and makes atoms and does stuff.

This paper summarizes that there is no physical way infalling gas and nucleosynthesis….(the only method available in the Big Bang theory) can make the second generation of star like objects that have been found in all strange tightly packed gravitational bound, globural clusters that are younger than 1 billion years old.

A critical assessment of models for the origin of multiple populations in globular clusters

It has been found that a there was a massive creation of globural clusters in the Milky Way and Andromeda about 1 billion years ago. There is currently ‘stellar’ creation in globural clusters that are found in ‘dwarf’ galaxies that are circling the Milky Way and Andromeda.

There is evidence that sun is gaining mass, not losing mass based on the fact the orbits of the planets are changing as if the sun was gaining mass, not losing mass.

The sun could gain mass, if the sun was a star like object that is produced in a globural cluster. There is hard evidence that the starlike objects produced in globural clusters are not conventional stars.

Astrometric solar-system anomalies

The increase of the astronomical unit.

However, rather than increasing, the AU should be decreasing, mainly as a result of loss of mass to solar radiation, and to a much lesser extent to the solar wind.

The total solar luminosity is 3.845 × 10 26 W (Livingston 1999).

This luminosity divided by c 2 gives an estimated mass loss of 1.350 × 10 17 kg yr −1 . The total mass of the Sun is 1.989 × 1030 kg (Livingston 1999), so the fractional mass loss is 6.79 × 10 −14 yr −1 . Again with the factor of three from Eq. 2.1, the expected fractional decrease in the AU is 2.26 × 10−14 yr −1, or a change in the AU of − 0.338 cm/year,

If the reported increase is absorbed into a solar mass increase, and not into a changing gravitational constant G, the inferred solar mass increase is (6.0 ± 1.6) × 10 ^18 kg yr −1 . This is an unacceptable amount of mass accretion by the Sun each year. It amounts to a fair sized planetary satellite of diameter 140 km and with a density of 2000 kg m −3 , or to about 40,000 comets with a mean radius of 2000 m.

Is the physics within the Solar system really understood?

6 The increase of the Astronomical Unit
The observation From the analysis of radiometric measurements of distances between the Earth and the major planets including observations from Martian orbiters and landers from 1961 to 2003 a secular increase of the Astronomical Unit of approximately 10 m/cy has been reported [36] (see also the article [37] and the discussion therein).

There is evidence the 2.7k signal which 50 years ago was believed to be the signature of a big bang universe.

Is actually, the emission from dust particles, that surround spiral galaxies (70% of all galaxies have been found to be in spiral galaxies).

Handedness asymmetry of spiral galaxies with z<0.3 shows cosmic parity violation and a dipole axis

Multipole alignment in the large-scale distribution of spin direction of spiral galaxies

And it has been found that spiral galaxy has been found to lineup pointing their axis in the same direction and aligning their spin in the same direction. The spiral galaxy alignment and the alignment of the 2.7K signal is in the direction of what is now called in astronomy, the axis of evil.

The strange structure in the 2.7K signal is explained as that signal is the emission of dust that is ejected from all galaxies.

The dust is aligned to a magnetic field that surrounds spiral galaxies and as the spiral galaxies are all aligned the aligned dust particles …. 2.7K emission has a strange pattern in it.

And the dust that surrounds the galaxies is aligned in a magnetic field which cause weird patterns that have been detected in the 2.7k signal.
Preferred axis in cosmologyHowever, recent observations, such as the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the motion of galaxies in the universe, the polarization of quasars and the acceleration of the cosmic expansion, indicate preferred directions in the sky.

If these directions have a cosmological origin, the cosmological principle would be violated, and modern cosmology should be reconsidered.

In this paper, by considering the preferred axis in the CMB parity violation, we find that it coincides with the preferred axes in CMB quadrupole and CMB octopole, and they all align with the direction of the CMB kinematic dipole.

In addition, the preferred directions in the velocity flows, quasar alignment, anisotropy of the cosmic acceleration, the handedness of spiral galaxies, and the angular distribution of the fine-structure constant are also claimed to be aligned with the CMB kinematic dipole.

Since CMB dipole was confirmed to be caused by the motion of our local group of galaxies relative to the reference frame of the CMB, the coincidence of all these preferred directions hints that these anomalies have a common origin, which is not cosmological or due to a gravitational effect.

Jean Parisot
April 8, 2021 7:30 pm

How can we be certain that rising CO2 levels aren’t making the muons wobble?

April 9, 2021 10:43 am

Unless Penn State models say otherwise with debate has ended bullying tactics.

April 9, 2021 9:01 pm

If you have 17 “fundamental” particles, they are not fundamental.
If you have to postulate hidden variables to explain your experimental data (e.g. colour and flavour for your quarks), then you have a model like the “Just So” stories of Kipling. They appear to provide satisfactory, even entertaining, explanations for the state of things but actually explain nothing because there is no way to confirm (or falsify) these postulates.
If you need millions of data points and then have to massage that data with a lot of very tricky statistical techniques, but still end up with a barely perceptible signal of supposedly the most important particle in the Standard Model Zoo (the Higgs boson), then you should perhaps consider tossing the lot out and starting again.

The Standard Model is in deep trouble – and has been for a long time – but too many people have too much invested in it to let go.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  CRISP
April 10, 2021 10:33 am

All we really know is that we don’t know. Things like “string theory” are pursued in the hope of making sense of it all but they also fail.Meanwhile billions of dollars of taxpayer money are spent to crash things together at ever higher energies in the belief that some kind of understanding can be found in the random debris.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Whelan
Gary Pearse
April 10, 2021 5:10 pm

Alternatively we might be able to junk the inelegant (linear thinking) hypothesis of Dark Matter. We presume to know too much and arrive at the fanciful when looking for ‘whys’ in astronomy. Space-time may be a factor that confounds shallowly thought out Euclidean/Newtonian reasoning on the need for excess mass.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 10, 2021 5:49 pm

There is no “hypothesis of dark matter” that’s just a phrase used to discuss a set of observations* whose source is acknowledged as being unknown.

*Mostly regarding the rotational speed of galaxies.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Whelan
April 12, 2021 5:56 am

The riddle is solved.
The theoretical calculations were erroneous.
there is no new physics.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights