The world's most powerful particle accelerator may have already shown signs of supersymmetry
Physics is at a dead end. The path followed by physicists for decades, known as the "Standard Model", came to a triumphant end in 2012: researchers found the last particle in the model that had not been discovered until then, the Higgs boson. The standard model does an impressive job of describing the behavior of the known particles, but it fails in other places, such as in explaining what dark matter is. This is why many physicists turned to another theory: supersymmetry, or SUSY.
The SUSY model hypothesizes that every known particle has a heavier partner, and this hypothesis makes it possible to explain dark matter. Some versions of this model also explain why the Higgs boson, which gives mass to other particles, has a mass of the discovered size.
But the scientists chasing these exotic particles at the world's most powerful particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the CERN laboratories near Geneva, have so far come up short. This led quite a few scientists to doubt the very existence of supersymmetry. "Many people are pessimistic," says David Curtin of Stony Brook University.
Two teams of researchers recently hypothesized that physicists may have simply missed SUSY's tracks. This may occur if the supersymmetric particles do not reveal themselves dramatically because their mass is just the size to cause them to decay and decay into ordinary particles with energies that go unnoticed and other supersymmetric particles that also escape detection. If this is the case, supersymmetric particles simply get lost in the flux of particles created in the most common processes that fit the standard model. "The signs of supersymmetry may be hiding right under our noses," says Curtin, who is one of the teams.
This could explain the slight excess of two particles detected at the LHC in 2011 and 2012, before the accelerator was shut down for an upgrade. In two preliminary copies of papers presented in June 2014, each of the teams claims that the supersymmetric partner of the "top" quark, hence the name stop, as well as two other supersymmetric particles, may explain these observations. They add that the mass of these supersymmetric particles is in the mass range suitable for explaining the mass of the Higgs boson.
However, other researchers believe that underestimating some processes of the standard model may explain at least some of the excess. "It is too early to think that these measurements are likely markers of new physics," says Dave Charlton, a member of one of the LHC teams that measured the excesses.
The issue may be resolved in 2015 when the upgraded proton accelerator resumes its operation. "We're all eager to discover signs" of SUSY, says Anne Nelson, a theoretical physicist at the University of Washington who was not involved in either study. "At this point I'm cautious," she says, but adds that "strong signals start with small hints."
The article was published with the permission of Scientific American Israel
More on the subject on the Hidaan website: a series of official tours of Sarn by Avi Blizovsky
- CEO Capt. Rolf Hoyer: My dream is to find the first particle of dark matter
- The door leading to the big bang
- Professor Eliezer Rabinovitch: Will we sail only if we know that America is across the ocean?
- Prof. Elam Gross - the discovery of the Higgs is the beginning of the new science of the 21st century
- The Israeli researcher participating in the search for new physics
- Searching for the tau particle
91 תגובות
Look Mr. Israel, there is some periodicity of the smallest particles
Honorable Mr. Israel, and if the pull is the return of the particle in time from the center which is created by the repulsion, duplication and inflation of the space into three dimensions, maybe it is not the clearest but that is how it connects, with respect
A day after the discovery of the Higgs particle, there was an article in the Ma'ariv newspaper in which Prof. Elam Gross was interviewed and he said in it: "Now it will be possible to write the complete mathematics necessary for scientists like me to understand how galaxies are formed and how stars are formed." This mathematics was written and published by George Spencer Brown in the book "Laws of Form" which can be obtained on Amazon for 25 euros.
Yoda
If I understood your claim correctly, the simple universe model is a gaseous model that includes collisions between the particles as in gas.
But in gas we will not get a pull between two stretched sails with a small distance between them, nor a wind. With Lesage we will get an attraction between two close masses, and this is because of the absence of collisions between the particles, which is different from a gaseous model.
The simple universe can be explained by the high free movement distance between the particles, but the problem is that there is gravitation even between small particles at a small distance, so it doesn't work out.
There is an adequate explanation for the friction problem. If you want, meet "at Lesage" in front of "Cafe Tzviki" when there is no wind, and I will explain the matter to you.
Israel Shapira
Peace
Answer your question:
Question: "pressure difference is proportional to R and not to R squared".
R is measured from where to where? Why? Why is the pressure difference proportional to it and not to its square?
Answer: R is measured as the distance on a line from the center of the galaxy between two points. For example, if there is a star that is 20,000 light years away and the other is 30,000, then R equals 10,000. To understand the issue of pressure difference I bought some books on weather and got the following points: In short, the pressure difference is proportional to the distance and is quite close to linear in a barometric outlet. As if in space there is a large barometric depression with the galaxy itself with the gas clouds around it at the bottom of the depression. The rotation of the galaxy itself is virtually unaffected by the mass of the galaxy, and there is no need for dark mass and energy.
The pressure difference in different galaxies shows a wonderful correlation in their behavior.
Question: "Just like a leaf that rotates in a hurricane, it has no friction with the wind around it, that is, the particles themselves also cause the particles themselves to rotate."
Apollo orbits the moon, which orbits the earth, which orbits the sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy.
So according to you, each such system is in its own private hurricane that is not related to the larger hurricane that is happening around it through the larger system?
Answer: If you think about the fact that every hurricane often comes with tornadoes and whirlwinds, it will be understandable to you? So I really don't care about Apollo if after a few hundred years it falls and the same goes for Phoebus and Domus of Mars. Regarding the moon, if there is a certain friction, it is almost certainly canceled out by La Sage particles that constantly flow into the system. There is certainly room for further investigation.
Question: At Lesage, by the way, there is no wind.
Answer: Le Sage didn't think about it, but pressure difference always makes wind and gas always has turbidity in it. Le Sage didn't think about "turbidity" either. Turbidity will cause the formula of gravitation and any electro-magnetic phenomenon propagating in space, which will decrease more than by the square of the distance. Le Sage did not take into account that his particles also collide with each other. I in the simple universe did refer to this.
So far. Please respond gently.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yoda
"Pressure difference proportional to R and not to R squared".
R is measured from where to where? Why? Why is the pressure difference proportional to it and not to its square?
"Just like a leaf that rotates in a hurricane, it has no friction with the wind around it, that is, the particles themselves also cause the particles themselves to rotate."
Apollo orbits the moon, which orbits the earth, which orbits the sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy.
So according to you, each such system is in its own private hurricane that is not related to the larger hurricane that is happening around it through the larger system?
Think of a steaming mug of Turkish coffee with the coffee spinning in it and say if that works out.
The planets were represented by bits of Turkish delight that fell inside by mistake.
It is also possible with a pudding bowl, so that we get gravity pudding.
At Lesage, by the way, there is no spirit.
Israel Shapira
Question: How does pressure difference gravitation solve the rotation velocity anomaly at the edges of galaxies?
Answer: Pressure difference is proportional to R and not to R squared. That settles the situation. Gravitation fades due to the turbidity of space for gravitation, therefore there is no need for rejection by dark energy.
Question: How is it different in M94?
Answer: It is not different. Same explanation.
Question: What about Feynman friction?
Answer: The big secret is that there is no friction, just like a leaf that rotates in a hurricane has no friction with the wind around it, that is, the particles themselves also cause the particles themselves to rotate. Richard Feynman was wrong when he said that a planet would rub against the particle gas of the pushing gravity.. there is no reason in the world that the pressure difference created by the particles themselves would not also act on the particles themselves. Just like a hurricane. The pressure difference created by the air particles acts not only on the leaves in the area but also on the air particles that created the hurricane. Therefore there is no friction between the particles in gravitational pushing to the planet.
And even if there is a little friction, all the time particles of pushing gravity enter the system and allow it to continue with the pressure difference.
That's the big secret. You don't need a dark mass or a plaster!
Good night
going back to sleep
Yehuda
Yoda
How does pressure difference gravitation solve the rotation velocity anomaly at the edges of galaxies?
How is it different in M94?
What about feynman friction?
Yehuda
If a claim is not easy to refute, then it is not scientific?
There is one point, which I think Albenzo disagrees with. I think that a mathematical formula is not an explanation for a physical phenomenon. If a formula explains phenomena and predicts observations then, in my opinion, there is a physical explanation behind it.
So what do you offer?
Peace and blessings be upon Israel Shapira!
Attached is a link to a YouTube video in which I explain the reason I think they determined the use of dark mass and energy in cosmology. And why my opinion is different.
Go there and enjoy and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer you.
Even if you type in Google "You Tube dark mass and energy" you will reach the same link. I'm in charge.
All the best
Yehuda Sabdarmish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Yoda
So what is the explanation for the inequality in the formulas? Pushing gravity?
Miracles
You said in your response "From what I understand, Prof. Milgrom claims that the missing gravity comes from a parallel location. It is very easy to disprove it - you will find another source of gravity...." end of quote.
Good response but its explanation is not so simple.
First of all, we will ask if the problem is a problem of gravity, then it is not. If we go to the galaxies we will find that we have two formulas that should equal one of gravitation and one of centrifugal force. And unfortunately they are not equal. To say that the solution is only gravity is a mistake. There are many other options besides gravity. Professor Milgrom himself in MOND proved through thought that is not gravity there are about 20 other possibilities for the solution. Except for gravitation and dark mass and you have to check them all. Second thing, as I said, it is not easy to disprove that it comes from a parallel location because there is no connection between us to a parallel universe. But you are on the right track.
good evening
Yehuda
Nice, so you prove what I'm saying. You do not refer at all to Milgrom's theory, which you have not read and know nothing about. You are only referring to the meaning that *you* gave to the word "twins" or "parallel". You have no idea what the mathematical structure of the Torah is, you have no idea what the interactions between the degrees of freedom are or who the degrees of freedom are. All you know is that you saw that the description for the lay audience used the words "twin universes" and you decided that according to your interpretation of this pair of words, the theory is not scientific. Your disqualification is not based at all on the content of the theory but on one single word. And I repeat the question I asked and which you ignored - if I take the exact same theory, I will not change anything in it, but in the description I will publish for it on the Weizmann Institute's website I will not use the words "parallel universes" or "twin universes", so will the theory suddenly become scientific in your eyes? After all, your entire criticism is about what can or cannot happen in parallel universes.
And please - don't get bored. You know as well as I do, and as well as anyone reading this blackout, that the reason I asked you to describe Milgrom's theory was not because I needed your help in understanding it. The reason was to reveal that you actually know nothing about her except for some layman's passwords. And you tried to create a false and misleading misrepresentation by copying information you found online. You tried to pretend that you do know something about the theory and therefore create the impression that you are in a position that allows you to criticize it. But, as we've seen, all you know about her is how to Google her and do a copy-paste. You have proven, once again, that you have no real knowledge of the subject you are talking about, and therefore your criticism is fundamentally unfounded.
Criticism, in case you've forgotten, is a word that means to get to the bottom of a matter and make a careful judgment about it. Criticizing something you don't understand or trying to understand is a joke.
Yehuda
I didn't say that common ancestry is unscientific - I said it was "funny" - like you said parallel reconstruction is "funny".
I showed you how to contradict Milgrom's idea (as far as I understand it). your reply?
Albanzo
No, I'm not saying that the universes swapped Groytons, Milgrom says and I argue that it can't be.
Twin universes cannot exchange information or gravitons between them. Only parts of that universe can exchange information or whatever and that eliminates the possibility that somewhere else there is a solution to the dark mass.
for miracles
Me and the tree have a common ancestor but I didn't check if the idea is scientific. Let's do it now: we will look for the father of plants and we will look for the father of animals and then we will check if they have a common father. So what do you say?, the idea is scientific! Even though I still don't know the answer.
to Albenzo
It is true that I made face copies - like you, but I took from the science website and your response. Why is it forbidden, but you're right I should have mentioned it for the record. It does not change the quality of the response.
Why do you say that I did what I did later without understanding, I wrote about ten percent and ninety percent, etc. that explain what the respected Professor Milgrom meant.
Miracles
There are several attempts to disprove Wagner's continental migration
A. To show that the continents do not fit together - but what to do South America dresses beautifully in Africa
B. To show that the structure at the points of separation is similar to the structure of the land between the two continents, i.e. West Africa is similar or not to Eastern South America - so it is because even dinosaur bones are the same in both places.
third. To show that continental migration over hot spots on Earth must create a chain of volcanoes. This happened, for example, in the formation of the Hawaiian Islands
d. more and more.
Miracles indeed God can contradict logic and therefore is omnipotent therefore it is not a scientific idea.
So far
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
If I were you, when a respected professor of physics at the Weizmann Institute puts forward a theory that seems unscientific to me, I would check my understanding of the meaning of "scientific". But that's just me... and other philosophers of science too.
From what I understand, Prof. Milgrom claims that the missing gravity comes from a parallel location. It is very easy to disprove it - find another source of gravity...
Yehuda
I don't think anyone thinks God is omnipotent. The idea of an "omnipotent" God is illogical, because it says that God can contradict the laws of logic. Therefore, the idea is wrong, regardless of its "science".
Yehuda
Check out Cygnus X-1.
And regarding Wagner's "continental migration" theory - the idea is from 100 years ago. Again - explain to me, in the language of 1912 - how you disprove the theory.
And by the way - if you are so into science and respecting the process, and are proud of your honesty - maybe you should mention that you copy-pasted the text on the Weizmann Institute's website.
Note that in any case you received a substantive answer to your claim regarding the unscientific nature of the theory, but at the same time note that you only prove once again that you dismiss teachings without knowing them even a little. When asked to demonstrate understanding at the lowest and most basic level of the basic ideas, all you could do was copy-paste - quote like a parrot, which of course does not show understanding, but the opposite. Only people who do not understand at all quote verbatim websites on the Internet. And besides, you didn't have the slightest honesty to admit that's what you did.
http://heb.wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D
Yehuda
You exaggerate... You think it's "funny" so it's not true? It seems funny to me that mine and the tree outside the window have a common father.
And you are the one who claims that the idea is not "scientific"?
Yehuda,
According to what you wrote, the two universes influence each other (you wrote it in these words). Specifically, they exchange gravitons. That is, it is certainly possible to make measurements of interactions between the universes. Are you trying to say that what bothers you is the word "parallels" (which I'm not sure Milgrom used in his articles, but whatever)? After all, you yourself claim that in his theory the two universes exchange particles between them, so it is clear that information passing between them can be measured. If we remove the word "parallel" and remain with a completely identical theory in terms of the mathematical model, of two spaces that interact gravitationally, then will it suddenly become scientific in your eyes?
A respectable forum
Greetings!
It is said that according to Prof. Milgrom's new theory of relativity, the gravitational field is described by two "metrics", or two parallel space-times, which influence each other. All the matter we know is found only in the universe we know, but the gravitational "metric" of the bodies in the known universe is also affected by the "metric" of the bodies in the "twin" universe.
According to Prof. Milgrom's new theory of relativity, the gravitational field is described by two "matrices", or two parallel space-times, which influence each other. All the matter we know is found only in the universe we know, but the gravitational "metric" of the bodies in the known universe is also affected by the "metric" of the bodies in the "twin" universe. Well, what is being said here is actually that information passes between our universe with our little mass - about ten percent, to a coordinating universe where 90 percent of the mass is found, which means we see a one hundred percent effect only because ninety percent comes from another location. Then it should work out and explain why the galaxies are moving as fast as they can because additional gravitation comes from another location. And I claim that passing information, matter or gravity already turns the whole business into one universe. Therefore, the claim of an alien twin universe does not meet the test of alienness, therefore this theory contradicts the whole idea. Therefore, it is impossible to show a way to disprove the idea. Hence the idea of twin universes is not scientific. It's also a bit funny that the problem of lack of mass is tried to be explained by adding another universe that always and precisely knows where to add the required additional gravity
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You don't have to respond to me. You need to respond to substantive claims. Can you tell the forum exactly what the theory is that you declare to be unscientific? Do you admit directly, as you already admitted indirectly when you asked Nimis to explain to you exactly what Milgrom was saying, that you are digging into his ideas without studying them at all?
Dodges won't help you. Ignoring my requests or writing comments in which you explain that you are not going to answer me because I didn't stroke your ego in the way you wanted are a cowardly escape from the truth, and this is clear not only to me - but to everyone who reads the discussion here, and I suspect it is clear to you as well.
So forget me. I'm a maniac, I'm a schmuck, I'm rude. I am pompous and not nice. Not worth a comment. Now, can you put your hand on your heart and say that you have any real knowledge, beyond the slogan "gravity flows from parallel positions", about the theory that you vehemently denounce as unscientific?
to Albenzo
I saw your comment and I do not find it appropriate to respond to someone who thinks he has the right to slander me or others just because he thinks they have no knowledge. I don't want to stand the test and prove something to you.
Also, you are the one who cleaned the relationship while insulting in personal lines.
So all the best and sorry,
I prefer to exchange opinions with people who are more positive in attitude.
Why do you need my opinion, you know almost everything.
I actually thought that the conversations between us would be more enriching.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You completely ignored my request to demonstrate that you have at least a basic knowledge of the physical theories you are talking about. In addition, you said "Regarding Milgrom, I don't think there is a different definition for a parallel-twin universe. Give me the definition you have of Milgrom and we will decide if it is scientific or not." That is, if you ask people to try Milgrom's definitions - this is evidence that you do not know what they are, that you have not studied the ideas at all.
You constantly pride yourself on your honesty and willingness to admit mistakes. If there is a shred of truth in these claims, please write, in black on white and wavy brush,
"I dismiss theories as unscientific even though I have never studied them, never bothered to read them, and I don't even know what the definitions of the terms used in the theory are."
Miracles
Regarding a binary star that one of the pair is a black hole, you convinced me that there is a point to go in and check the nature of the proof. to see if there is a failure in it. If there is no failure I will not be ashamed to repeat myself. If you know such a couple. Give me details and we will check together.
Regarding Milgrom, I don't think there is a different definition for a parallel-twin universe. Give me your definition of Milgrom and we'll decide if it's scientific or not.
You said: "The argument of "inextricable complexity" does not contradict the theory of evolution. The argument is not valid at all - because it is not scientific :)" end quote. Why is it not scientific?, I think so.
You said: "I don't have a problem with God. Or with Bigfoot. I have no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence and which explains nothing" end quote. I don't know about Big Pot but God actually explains everything! Show me one thing that cannot be explained with God Almighty?
You said: "If a theory explains something, even without unequivocal evidence, and without a way to refute it - I will accept it as a valid explanation. Of course - as long as I don't know any evidence that would contradict the theory." End quote. Give an example please and we will decide.
And regarding the migration of the continents a hundred years ago for example... The idea is strictly scientific. We will measure the distance between the continents and see if it changes or not. Today it is easy with GPS. Note that even if we haven't measured yet, the idea is scientific. It is enough that we have shown the possibility of measurement which already makes the idea scientific. Then when we confirm the idea, it will become a temporarily correct idea until the next refutation attempt. That's what there is. (:))
Note miracles for a nice thing. In all the cases where I asked you to bring me an example, this would actually turn your idea from a non-scientific idea into a scientific idea because bringing the example would be a way of trying to disprove it. How about you? Nice?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
What is the debate about a binary star being a black hole? The evidence has been there for 50 years….
Milgrom defined a parallel universe in one way, you define it in another way, then you say that Milgrom's claim is not scientific....
The argument of "unbreakable complexity" does not contradict the theory of evolution. The argument is not valid at all - because it is not scientific 🙂
I have no problem if God. Or with Bigfoot. I have no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence and which explains nothing.
But, if a theory explains something, even without unequivocal evidence, and without a way to refute it - I will accept it as a valid explanation. Of course - as long as I don't know any evidence that would contradict the theory.
The migration of the continents a hundred years ago for example.... An unscientific idea according to you.
for miracles
Your first comment has double stars we both agree, agree there is a debate between us as to whether one of them could be a black hole.
Regarding your second comment, Milgrom spoke of a parallel twin universe to ours in his words. It seems to me that the article here on the site is in knowledge. I do not believe in parallel and twin universes and I will never be able to prove that they exist and if information passes from them to us then it is one universe with everything that derives from it. Parallel universes and coordinations are only suitable for fictional films.
Regarding your third comment, this may be what Darwin said. I don't see it as a fundamental difference, eyes for example develop in the process and in stages first light sensitive cells then these cells are submerged and then you get the possibility to know the direction of the light source then a cover and so on until you reach the existing and sophisticated eyes. Today we know a little more about evolution and genes and DNA so we understand the process better.
Regarding your fourth response, there is no theory that is true!, there is a theory that can be true or temporarily true. If it is impossible to show a way to disprove it then it is a non-scientific theory and you decide if you still want to refer to it. I don't, because it reminds me of God.
Good night, going to bed!
Yehuda
Yehuda
If you insist - it is possible, perhaps, to say that a theory is not scientific if it can be proven that there is no way to disprove it (the fact that I and/or you do not know how to disprove it does not mean anything). And if you have proven that it cannot be refuted - then it is true.
Is a theory that you have proven to be true unscientific??
Yehuda
Darwin had a number of mistakes, quite serious. One of them is that an organ that could not develop in stages disproves evolution. Note - he did not say "evolved in evolution" - he said "evolved in stages".
And this - it is impossible to prove.
Yehuda
Milgrom talked about a parallel universe that affects our universe. It contradicts what you say it says ….
Yehuda
It's interesting that you talk about binary stars as existing, but say there is no evidence of black holes. This is interesting because there is evidence of binary pairs where one of the stars is probably a black hole…..
Handsome demands handsome fulfills...
Yehuda,
You talked about Milgrom's "theory of parallel universes". Please explain it to me.
Do not forget that this is a mathematical theory, with quantified quantities, logical-mathematical deductions and measurable quantities. So there's no need to recycle the jumble of words about your parallel universes. Please demonstrate that you understand what parallel universes are in this context – what mathematical objects are involved in them? How are they defined? What does the word "parallel" mean in theory? What are the degrees of freedom? If you know the theory, you should have no problem summarizing it in 3-4 paragraphs.
one, and others
The name Michael appeared when we realized that apparently every comment that appeared with his real name was censored and passed on for review and was sometimes delayed for a day because of this. Other names they used: Michael, Michael, etc. I had many confrontations with him (on scientific issues), something in the same style as with Albanzo. Now he has an active and interesting website, and he was even politically active in promoting the secular way. We are Facebook friends. I will not give any more details without his permission.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
one
He must have more important things to do.
Besides, why do you need it? When we have Nissim. He is just like him only in reverse. ))
Yehuda, if you already mentioned that "Michael" (it's funny by the way how you distort his real name...) do you have any idea where he disappeared to? He was very active here and one bright day suddenly his traces disappeared, do you have any idea what happened to him? I find it hard to believe that he still reads here and refrains from commenting (as far as I've gotten to know him).
I want to explain what is the situation with Milgrom's theories. It has two, one is a scientific theory, the MOND theory, and the other is the theory of parallel universes. which is not scientific.
Well, the MOND theory can never explain the fact that a galaxy will only rotate according to Newton's exact formula. Indeed, such a strange galaxy M94 was found in a reaction called Michael, and I agreed that it was a failure of the MOND theory. The same Michael even called Prof. Milgrom and told him about it. That is, the MOND theory was a theory that had a number of ways to disprove it and in the end it was really disproved. Although they are now also trying to fix it.
But what about his theory of parallel universes?, here from the very definition of parallel universes which are two universes that stand in their own right, it is impossible to find a way to refute it because any such attempt would require the transfer of information between the two universes, which would inevitably cause them to be defined as one universe. Therefore, parallel universes is an unscientific idea that cannot be thought of as a way to disprove it. You can say: so what, why can't this be a valid solution even without being a scientific idea? The reason is because there are endless non-scientific and even better solutions, for example God. There will also be many who will happily and joyfully join this offer of God.
Regarding evolution: it is a scientific theory! Darwin himself hid in his theory the possibility of refutation. He said: If you find one organ in all animals whose development cannot be explained with the help of evolution, then my whole theory falls. Many people claimed that it is not possible to explain a complicated organ like eyes with the help of evolution. Of course they were wrong. Evolution stood the test of other organs, for example the reality of leg bones inside the body of Leviathan.
So far.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Water, what evidence is there?? What is "trying to revive two or three people for an event without depending on other things"?
You speak in vague half-sentences like some idiot kid, get to the point and stop your stupid secret language.
Water, what evidence is there?? What is "trying to revive two or three people for an event"? What theory??
Tell me, are you able to speak clear Hebrew or do you only know how to write vague half-sentences at the level of an idiot child??
Speak to the matter already or go to write in the "People with hallucinations" forum.
Einstein
If the idea of a parallel universe provides an explanation for the lack of mass in the universe then this explanation is a confirmation of the idea.
Fossils are confirmation of evolution, but do not prove evolution.
The article that Shmulik referred to was written by smart people. If they think Zenon's paradoxes are unsolved then maybe there is something to it?
You can't be wrong, surely on a subject you don't understand?
The evidence exists, settled right now is a theory without going into too much detail, it's enough for me right now that I'm trying to revive two or three people for an event without depending on other things, //
"There is simple evidence of parallel universes and beyond them, and that's it"
Water, this is the dumbest thing I've heard recently, the accepted assessment is that the Zhe Wu field is created when information reaches a certain part of the brain via two different paths that have a tiny time difference between them, so the person experiences the event twice, a type of brain failure. How did you end up in parallel universes only God knows (the truth is neither does He).
"And regarding reviving people after time reversals - I have some experience in this, I dealt with it professionally"
Instead of rattling around in your brain, what exactly did you see, and how did you come to the subject of time reversals? (Are you talking about resuscitation after clinical death? Or about something else? You are talking very unclearly)
Look, there is simple evidence of parallel universes and beyond them, and it is a hook, and regarding reviving people after returning time - I have some experience in this, I dealt with it professionally
Miracles
I did not understand your response to Shmulik. What does "unsymmetrical" mean?
Miracles
The theory of a parallel universe is a theory that cannot be confirmed or disproved as of today. Therefore Yehuda was right when he said that the idea is not scientific.
Zenon's paradox solved.
MR explained to you before. And I remember that Albenzo also explained the solution to you not long ago.
What I did not understand is why you are happy to be among those who do not understand the solution...
Shmulik
Fascinating article. I have always been bothered by the distinction between 3 distance axes and a time axis, it seems asymmetrical to me.
And I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Zenon's paradoxes are unsolved….
I'll just leave it here:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/11/-time-is-slowly-disappearing-from-our-universe-or-is-it-timeless.html
This is an interesting article that tries to redefine "time" and solve the problem of Achilles and the tortoise, dark and intertwined energy (Israel, you will probably have to read the original article to understand the solution).
I couldn't understand the title of the article (time is slowly running out of the universe) and why it is impossible to go back in time (according to your suggestion) but it is probably my fault.
What's more, maybe you should tell the authors that Asimov has a short story in which two heroes are thrown into a place where time evaporates, just so they know
"Many do not believe in the world to come, until they have seen people rise to life after returning time and the good arrangement above"
Say Lord Maim, do you really believe in the idiotic nonsense you write? You are just amazing.
Yehuda wrote that he rejects Milgrom's words because the idea of parallel universes is not scientific. I gave an example, which I think shows that one should be careful with this statement. Not everything we believe in can be disproved.
I'm sure you can respond to this opinion in slightly more respectful language, if you wish. Try…..
Not really Einstein…
When you enter a discussion without understanding what you are talking about, you spew nonsense. And you further spice it up with profanity and slander.
good luck with that
Miracles
...It's like claiming that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is 400 kilometers in a discussion about the legacy left behind by Yitzhak Rabin... You're just talking irrelevantly.
Miracles
A: This is not what Yehuda claims. That's what you claim. And what you claim is an illogical claim.
B: It seems to me that no one understands what you are saying. The claim "Science has reduced life expectancy by a third" has nothing to do with the discussion.
einsteinzniewski
I don't understand what you are saying. Modern science has tripled life expectancy. Not good?
Anonymous (unidentified) user
You completely missed my point. The point is, according to what Yehuda says (and many others) it is a mistake to dismiss the possibility that there were humans 10 meters tall - because the assumption that there is no such person is not scientific, and since it cannot be disproved.
Miracles
The assumptions you offer - as Albenzo claimed - do advance humanity.
But as Yehuda claimed - where are we being led?
On that occasion we can assume that there is a God who brings us closer to him.
It's not science.
Miracles
Why assume that the painter had a climbing tool?
Why not assume that the height up to the ceiling - in those times - was one meter (instead of four meters as you said)?
Or, suppose he had an apprentice who was a dwarf and would carry him on his shoulders so that he would reach the ceiling and be able to draw animals while reciting poems by Rachel the poet?
Why not assume all that and instead assume what you suggest?
Albanzo
I didn't say that MOND matches the observations (I have no idea) - I'm saying two things:
1) If a theory fits the observations then it should not be dismissed outright. The fact that we didn't find dark matter doesn't mean anything. And if MOND, or Yehuda's theory, explains everything then they should not be dismissed. There is a big regret here - it is very desirable to have a mechanism after the theory. Inventing a formula that explains everything is not wisdom - similar to the Ptolemaic solar system...
2) To say that the whole idea of a parallel universe is unscientific is beside the point.
You can dismiss Judah's physics - I don't understand enough about it. I can discuss the way of thinking and the way of expression.... And that is true for each of us.
Miracles,
I didn't understand what you said at the end, and I didn't understand the context for Newton's equations. Anyway, I wasn't trying to support Milgrom. I do not know MOND in depth, and what I do know, contrary to your claim, does not agree with the observations (specifically - they have not yet found a single formulation of MOND, either through Teves or in general, that explains all the gravitational dynamics in galaxies that are now considered to have a large amount of dark matter). All I was trying to say is that when you argue with Judah about whether this or that idea is scientific or not, you are actually making a grave error. This is because you assume that the basis for his claims is valid and now the claims themselves need to be examined - what is scientific and what is not. When in fact, the whole foundation itself - his understanding of the theories, or rather the lack of understanding - is completely rotten. There is no point in the question of whether his claims regarding this or that Torah being scientific or not are true claims or not, because in the first place the things he talks about do not even mention what really happens in science.
Albanzo
It is not a matter of faith in Judah... I think Milgrom's theory is indeed valid, if it explains the observations and does not contradict something we know.
We do not know how to check whether evolution is responsible for the variety of existing species, but evolution provides an excellent explanation. What was missing in Darwin's theory was the mechanism of heredity. The discovery of the mechanism provided incredible confirmation of the theory - but the theory was good even without knowledge of the mechanism of heredity.
As far as I understand (which is very, very little) both dark matter and MOND provide good explanations for the observations. Because of the many successes of relativity and quantum theory, most physicists do not accept Milgrom's theory.
Today - I read about another theory, which provides a solution for dark matter within the standard model. So, the fact that they did not find the dark matter does not strengthen the claim that it is worth correcting Newton's equations...
Miracles,
Do you believe Judah when he tells you that MOND, and specifically the ideas of interdimensional gravitational spillover, cannot be tested? I'm asking seriously. Forget for a moment the question of whether it is scientific or not. Do you believe it faithfully represents Milgrom's theory? That he understands what he's talking about even tip-tip-tip-tip?
How fun it is to sit on your ass, not study the theory, not understand at all what it says, and not even try, but nevertheless loudly proclaim that it is not scientific! After all, since when do you have to learn something to understand it? And when do you have to understand something before passing judgment?
Yehuda, your approach to science is simply genius. I don't understand why we didn't think of this before. All those years we wasted trying to figure things out when all we had to do was settle for a popular science education (with the help of 16-year-old hairdressers), not listening to testimonies and evidence, not understanding what our fellow researchers are doing, and writing in Internet forums what is true and what is not! Think how much work we could save…
Yehuda
I do not accept the approach that what cannot be tested is not "scientific". If I make an assumption, even though I can't test it, it can certainly be used by me to investigate the world. Here is an example I made up: we discovered paintings on the ceiling of a very high cave, over 10 meters. I assume that humans never lived taller than 4 meters, so I conclude that that ancient painter had a climbing tool that allowed him to reach the ceiling. So you're saying it's unscientific to look for the climbing tools?
If you think Milgrom's solution is wrong - see why. You can't hide behind phrases like "it's not scientific..."
Please, don't turn science into a religion.
And if there is a repetition in Mond then we also enter parallel worlds, Yom Tov
Mr. Ehad, there are many who do not believe in the next world, until they have seen people rise to life after the return of time and the good arrangement above. and about
WORLD
, the scale of attraction can depend on the rate of time progress in gravity
Company, keep talking, you need experience, with respect to blowing water
for miracles
Professor Milgrom brought another solution besides the MOND theory and that is that the missing mass is in a parallel universe and we only see its gravity.... He is a professor and he is allowed to say such things. Of course, the solution is not acceptable to me because, as I explained, it is an unscientific solution!
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
From what I've read, even MOND's solution to the known problems doesn't completely solve the need for dark mass. And in addition - there are other theories that solve the problems without changing the known laws.
Water, do you really talk about these things with people outside the internet? You know someone else might think you're crazy.
Dear Mr. Sabdarmish, since I have seen and been a participant in time reversals and arranging things such as good and bad, I know that it is possible to influence objects similar to the previous reference such as near and far that look like gravity, there are nicer things such as reference to movement on axes in space and the ability to negate by time reversals In things that depend on a limited area, give the particles, for example, four dimensions of space and even make them rotate, with respect, again accept it with respect.
Yehuda
The truth is somewhere in the middle. These assumptions are based but partially. They are used as crutches, until they know how to walk.
We assume that the laws of the universe are universal, so that we have direction from where to start exploring. If we are deceived - it will not bother us
Apologies for the spelling mistakes. I'm still sleepy in the morning.
All those who believe in the ideas of parallel universes, twins or going back in time, etc. have similar ideas.
According to Popper: an idea is scientific if it can be put to the test of refutation. All these ideas are non-scientific ideas because they cannot be put to the test of refutation, because in order to try to disprove a parallel universe we need to get information from the parallel universe in an attempt to disprove it. But, once information has passed between two bodies then they are in the same universe.
As above with going back in time, you can always go back in time and reach any result and without the ability to refute.
Once you decide to take non-scientific ideas into your research, so please simpler ideas like God, angels, mysterious powers, etc. and the business will become simpler.
good day
Yehuda
And I thought I was on drugs..
Dear Mr. One, when you turn back time, parallel universes are created with a little difference, and you can depend on the return according to properties, for example if a particle you refer to comes close to bread with a slice of chocolate, and if you
Decides to return time according to the chocolate sacrifice, show attraction, respectfully
one
do not feed the troll ….
Water, it seems to me that you are talking nonsense, are you connected to reality?
That is, independent of a certain power
It is possible to arbitrarily turn back time on anything that is, for example, the color blue, and make it have properties such as size, gravity and volume and perishable properties that depend on the return and the muscular choice that is drawn to it and attached to it in time returns, in respect of blowing water
Albanzo
Your contempt for Judah (who is no less a scientist than you) is your full right. But she is also in your heart.
It would be enough if you only referred to the technical details. But you include things you don't know like: what Judah thinks, or what Judah knows. And that's beside the point.
(Regarding the previous debate between you - the scientific method follows measured steps {as Yehuda explained to you}. And not with the assumptions "that the next step will be like the previous step" {as you tried to explain to him}).
Db
I think that Albenzo is right, but you shouldn't be so upset....
The laws of nature are true in every place, time and condition, this is the essence of the word "law". What Judah is saying, is that all the laws of nature are wrong, because they have only been tested here and now. If this is the approach, then anything is possible, and science becomes meaningless.
I also feel that I am repeating myself, but it is important to emphasize: to claim that the most basic assumptions of physics are wrong, you need a very good reason. I don't think that certain people's lack of knowledge of dark matter (Judas and I for example) is a good reason to dismiss all modern physics...
Oh, and of course we didn't address his second comment, in which he mocks the low level of proof and refers specifically to the word "concerns". Go explain to him that the only one who used the word proof here is him (the article only reports on the idea of two groups for the reason that we haven't encountered super symmetric particles yet and does not claim to prove anything to anyone) and that the person who wrote the word fears is actually the reporter at Scientific American (or the editor, I don't know ). Which again indicates that either his ability to understand is horribly low, or he lives in a fantasy world and doesn't know how to relate to reality, or he is simply lying to try to gather arguments that supposedly support his vanity claims.
bear,
1. I definitely know things that others don't. Also in general, and certainly in the context of the comments here when the vast majority of the commenters are talking about things they have no idea about. How do you think science progresses? If all the scientists know is what they knew before them, how is new knowledge accumulated? It is clear that when a person researches a certain field, he is constantly gaining new knowledge and sharing it with the scientific community.
2. Modesty is indeed a beautiful and important quality, but it should not be confused with gagging. If I know something because I've studied it for years, why don't I say it bluntly? Why not share my knowledge and research? Why don't I try to help people outside the field to know and understand it? Why would I pretend I don't know when I do? What is modest about that?
3. The comment regarding my nickname is irrelevant and even cowardly. First of all, how does my name affect the discussion? Second, I have an excellent reason not to reveal personal details. Unlike Yehuda and most of the commenters here, I am a member of the academy. It happened to me in the past (on another scientific forum) that I revealed the real details and for weeks afterwards I was "earned" harassment at work. I don't want this to happen again.
4. Yehuda does not speak to the matter at all. He is speaking. Maybe you meant to say that he continued talking about physics (so to speak) until the end while I cut the discussion short. But remember two things - first, my very first reaction to the matter. Second, you enter the discussion in the middle. The reason I broke the tools and interrupted the discussion is that every word of Yehuda's response to my response (ie, the one that starts with "Did you hear Yehuda turn on?") has already been argued by Yehuda in the past and he received detailed explanations including references to why his arguments are wrong. There are also witnesses, I'm sure that at least Nissim (who reads the comments more or less all the articles on the site, as far as I understand) can testify that not once or twice (and not even three times, if I remember correctly) I explained to Yehuda in detail what his mistakes were. The reason I interrupted the discussion is that he just ignores it. He receives an explanation of why his claims are wrong, he moves on to the next article and writes exactly the same claims. And so on. I am not interested in wasting another second on such a person.
5. You are welcome to go to old articles on the subjects of high energy physics, and specifically dark matter, and I am sure that within a few minutes you will find Yehuda making exactly the same claims he is making here, and receiving a detailed explanation of his errors from me. The gist - in case you don't have the time or energy - Yehuda's claim that dark matter is based on a discrepancy between Newtonian formulas and nothing else is nonsense. He read this claim in a book for high school students, on the first page of which it is written in white Kiddush letters that the book does not pretend to engage in physics in a professional way, but only to make an adaptation for children who do not have the tools to learn modern physics. And yet he treats the book as sacred, and claims that everything not written in it does not exist in reality. Therefore, he ignores 99% of the evidence for the existence of dark matter, which are cosmological evidence (the distribution of matter and energy in the universe can be analyzed from measurements made on the radiation emitted near the big bang) and gravitational evidence (specifically, from the phenomena of gravitational collapse). In addition, of course, he repeats like a mantra the attitude of "if we have tested a certain law only on the KDA then it is only true on the KDA and we cannot claim that it is true elsewhere". This approach not only contradicts the Newtonian model of science (and for that matter, according to which you cannot say that Archimedes' law holds in my bathtub because we have never performed an experiment in it to verify this), but it is also directly contradicted by general relativity. General relativity is based on the strong principle of equivalence and covariance which explicitly shows that the physics at any point in space obeys the same laws as any other point. Of course the theory of relativity may be wrong, but all the evidence and all the experiments point to its correctness (at least to a very good approximation). Therefore, his claims that we do not know how gravity behaves outside the solar system are not only illogical and inconsistent with the scientific method, but are also explicitly refuted by the evidence that supports the theory of relativity.
But all these things can be found in detail in previous discussions. Of course Yehuda knows all this. He also knows that he has nothing to say (because we have had this discussion many times in the past and he always returns to the same mantras, "the only reason we believe in dark matter is because there is a discrepancy between the Newtonian formulas" and "the law is only true where we have tested it experimentally" ), so his tactic is to go to the next article and write the same claims again, word for word. As if he had not already received answers to all the questions.
Avalanche
With all due respect to your knowledge of physics, you don't know something that others don't. Everything you know today is what others before you already knew.
A little modesty won't hurt you.
Yehuda, on the other hand, does not hide behind masks.
And in contrast to you, he speaks to the matter.
Of course there is a chance that there is some mistake in his words, but, you failed to point it out.
All you did was vote for Yehuda while you trash your mouth and stink up the whole discussion. And that's beside the point.
Accept this criticism and improve.
Friends - calm down...
My dear, the present proves who among us is stupid and who is not... there is no need to wait.
to Albenzo
The moment you went personal, you proved that there really is no point in arguing with you. I will not stoop to the level of your poor expression.
The future will prove who among us is stupid and who is not.
All the best!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
I may have proved to you that I'm not a stupid person, but you prove to me again and again that you actually are.
You are not worth the grinding of the keys on my keyboard.
Goodbye and Goodbye.
And also look at how the proof is defined: - "Fears", how wretched! If they have proof they will shout out loud: "We have proof!" Dear Albanzo, they are also ashamed of what they call "proof", they also understand that they are not believed more and more!
Alec "Whispers"
Good Day
Yehuda
Albanzo
Did you hear Yehuda light up?
So what do you say, do you see the proof or not?
Throughout the article I see apologies for not seeing the proof and it upsets you that Yehuda (and nowadays, many other scientists too!) do not like such a proof. I have already followed other proofs that, for the purpose of proof, a parallel universe, etc. shared the subject of dark mass.
So stop sulking Albanzo, you've proven until now that you're not a stupid person, so try to think above average.
There is no dark mass! It was created only to adjust the measured results to the gravitation formula which has been proven to be correct only in the solar system, at a distance of a thousand light years. There is no reason in the world that it would have to be true even at distances of billions of light years, distances that are billions and trillions of times.
And please, please don't go personal and don't put words in my mouth. The derby blew up yesterday enough, we don't need to blow up "Hidan", he is too expensive for us.
Come on, have a nice day and the sun will rise already!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
As usual, you heard "dark matter", got fired up, got caught up in some half-sentence and set out to tell all the physicists that they are idiots and only you know what is true.
1. SUSY is not directly related to dark matter. True, if symmetry does exist then it allows for several models to explain the nature of dark matter, but that is not why it first came up as a theoretical idea and it is not its only contribution to modern physics. Today, SUSY provides theoretical solutions to a large number of problems in elementary particle physics, starting with the problem of hierarchy, through the unification of forces into a single symmetry at high energies, and ending with its necessity for making possible the models that unify gravity and quantum theory. Unfortunately, all this is only on paper because it has not yet been observed in nature, so we currently do not know if it is a real solution to the mountain of problems that we have no other way to solve, or if it is just a mathematical idea and a sweet dream of theorists. Either way, even if tomorrow we find an alternative explanation for dark matter and conclusively prove that it does not exist, SUSY will still be a beautiful, important and necessary symmetry for solving modern problems in elementary particle physics.
2. No one is saying that SUSY particles are invisible. The reason they are looked for in detectors is because they are supposed to be visible. What was said in the article is that we may have already discovered them but didn't know it because the way they break down is too similar to other phenomena.
Whether they are difficult to detect because they are only detected at high energies and we currently have a technological problem to reach very high energies, or whether they are difficult to detect because it is difficult to separate them from other particles during decay, they are probably difficult to detect. Does that surprise you? We have been studying nature for several thousand years, researching with the Newtonian scientific method for 350 years, of which about 80 years particle accelerators have been used to study the nature of elementary particles. If any particle (super symmetric or not) was easy to detect, we would have found it already. We've been doing extraordinarily sophisticated experiments using the most advanced technology we've had for decades - it's no more than simple logic to understand that if there's something we haven't discovered yet (and it's clear to any child that there are more things we haven't discovered) they will be exactly those things that are very difficult to discover, whether Because they live in too high energies or because they hide behind other phenomena. What exactly did you expect, that in the middle of CERN there would be a particle with the sign "I am super symmetric" that no one has noticed until today?
Yehuda
I think everyone would be happy to abandon the "dark energy ... blah blah blah" for another idea that does not contradict the existing findings. The idea should of course be testable. Otherwise, what did we do?
But pay attention - the idea also needs to be explainable. For example - let's suppose that the idea is that the power in the gravitation formula is not exactly 2. Let's say 2.000000001 - the idea should be able to explain why the coefficient is like that. Otherwise, it's just a computational trick, and we've learned nothing.
So let's see what we have so far:
They try to explain where the undetectable particles of the dark mass are, so they are explained with the help of a particle called Suzy, which is... right, you guessed it, I spent visible because blah blah blah, because they are exactly the size they can be invisible
And they are exactly the size that causes them to fade and decay into ordinary particles with energies that do not receive attention and other supersymmetric particles that…. That's right, you guessed it, they too are avoiding detection. Say, dear scientists, isn't it time to throw away the idea of the dark mass?
Just disturbing thoughts after the dark Tel Aviv derby we saw today.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda