A Major Physics Experiment Just Detected a Particle That Shouldn't Exist

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This usually means that we haven't got the faintest.

Maybe some remnants of alternate dimension that exists exactly where we are and we don’t know it. I know very little about such matters outside of what I read online and watch on television. But the show “Fringe” comes to mind where they discovered an alternate dimension exactly like ours, only with alternate outcomes. So...’what if’, this particle is like a shadow particle from a hidden dimension?

It’s fun to think about. I don’t fantasize about scripts from tv shows coming true to life, but it was the best comparison I could think of.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Particle that you are all talking about its what we call a ghost particle it as the ability to pass from one dimension to another its like a safe part particle it see thats all is ok then moves on with out affecting things

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You will always have folks that would deny anything that upset their own self-applied apple cart
Scientists are much like politicians in that respect.

Who is denying what?

Where ?

So what is the point of you posts? Trolling?

a reply to: Raggedyman

People who interpret the scientific evidence often misuse the evidence or make it appear to be more relevant than it is. They do this to secure future funding for research. Much of the evidence does not match the interpretations of it as it is being applied

And you are right, most scientists know they are learning, it is the public that is misusing the evidence, especially those who profit by misusing it.

Interesting how no one here is actually discussing the data, paper or experiments, and yet everyone has an opinion of what is right or wrong.

What these detectors/experiments are doing is looking at neutrinos from different sources, identifying the different types based upon what the detectors see compared to the physics models.

Basically ICECUBE is looking at high energy neutrinos from cosmic rays and the atmosphere. What they do is they look at the energy spectrum of electron like and muon like events. The theoretical models (built and tuned with years of data and different independent experiments). The contention is an excess at low energy. That there are more electron like events than anti-electron like events. At the higher energies, everything fits perfectly within the standard neutrino oscillation framework.

IceCUBE don't see the excess

miniBOONE do

So what could be going on? Well several things, and is mostly in systematics of how well we understand the model, and the possibility of new physics. Understanding what is going on with the underlying model is very important, and there are lots of smaller experiments around the world being conducted in order to nail and hammer down the models. In neutrino physics one of the biggest issues is so called, "Final State Interactions"

what this is is that when a neutrino interacts with a nucleus, it is interacting with compound nuclear material, not a single proton or neutron. As such, what comes out in the final state is not obvious, and at low energy, lots of interesting stuff can happen... for example, you can produce a pion in the nucleus which interacts and decays within the nucleus and can fake a different event type. These effects are a large area of uncertainty in neutrino physics right now.

All is not lost, there are experiments happening around the world which aim to figure out these processes... I was involved in one of them, though I had to move on for personal reasons. The one i was involved in was looking at Argon as a detector target. The reason is that now energy neutrino data with argon is sparse... i think the world data set comes from a single experiment, and is 3-4 data points in the important region of interest.

The worlds next largest oscillation experiments are using liquid argon, and such, in order to lower the systematic, that argon data set for interactions across a wide energy range are very important.

So is it something real? unknown, a future experiment with higher statistics might be able to tell us for certain. There are other methods of searching for a sterile neutrino however, one of which is looking at distortions in the beta decay spectrum of different elements. Tritium is one that the KATRIN experiment is looking at... and there is a fairly recent development that i know is being worked on with Argon beta decay.


also, on the 'job security and money' front... Physics doesn't pay that amazingly and most of the follow-up experiments are conducted by other researchers... its interesting how the language used is like there is one place that has a group of the same people doing experiments one after the other after the other... its really not the real picture.

a reply to: chr0naut

How do you detect something that doesn't interact with any detection equipment?

I dunno, I don't have time for this today...
I'll worry about this later.

originally posted by: tempestking
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Particle that you are all talking about its what we call a ghost particle it as the ability to pass from one dimension to another its like a safe part particle it see thats all is ok then moves on with out affecting things

Who is we, you and the Mandella folks?

a reply to: odzeandennz

I can relate to that.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

sterile neutrinos

i guess i have flipped my wig now

all i keep hearing is gay marriage...

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: chr0naut

How do you detect something that doesn't interact with any detection equipment?

I dunno, I don't have time for this today...
I'll worry about this later.

They do interact - just gravitationally, not electromagnetically. So you have to design measurement systems that depend on the force of gravity.

As an example, there is a home basement demonstrating how even small masses can warp space time. Take some petanque balls (heavy steel) and place them on a wooden frame suspended by string. Place the other two petanque balls on the ground at the same height as the original two. Then set up a timelapse camera. Gravitational attraction will cause the petanque balls to move towards each other.

If there is a slight movement, you can magnify that movement through the use of mirrors, interference patterns and highly sensitive motion detectors.

I thought they were called nintendos

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Raggedyman

People who interpret the scientific evidence often misuse the evidence or make it appear to be more relevant than it is. They do this to secure future funding for research. Much of the evidence does not match the interpretations of it as it is being applied

And you are right, most scientists know they are learning, it is the public that is misusing the evidence, especially those who profit by misusing it.

Oh absolutely agree
Though, many people outside the scientific community also think scientists know more than they do
Maybe that's what scientists want people to believe

a reply to: ErosA433

Well I have a problem with it,I hate any experiment that proves things through a negative. I think this could easily be explained by a math error. I hate when you claim a detection because you dont get the number of neutrinos your model tells you there should be. Sorry that's not science at all not until you can explain how you know this wasn't caused by background or simply an under estimation of the number of neutrinos we get with specific interactuons.

So we know neutrinos oscillate between electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. But because we cant seem to get the math to follow our model where inventing a place holder that has no interaction and why we cant detect it. Sorry again not science

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ErosA433

Well I have a problem with it,I hate any experiment that proves things through a negative. I think this could easily be explained by a math error. I hate when you claim a detection because you dont get the number of neutrinos your model tells you there should be. Sorry that's not science at all not until you can explain how you know this wasn't caused by background or simply an under estimation of the number of neutrinos we get with specific interactuons.

So we know neutrinos oscillate between electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. But because we cant seem to get the math to follow our model where inventing a place holder that has no interaction and why we cant detect it. Sorry again not science

and again you misunderstand the point. An excess in events or a deficits both give indications of something being missing. Be it our understanding of the detector response, or a hole in our theory. By your own words, the discovery of neutrino oscillation was not science if you know anything of the history of it. SO which is it? Science or not? make up your mind.

Also, you arbitrarily defining something as not science is... well its hash to be honest, what you are proposing is burying your head in the sand and ignoring any interest in solving the issue.

And what i said in my post is exactly science... you measure something, and you think, does that fit my models based upon all the experiments that came before. If the answer is no, it is your duty as a scientist to figure out why.... which is exactly what is happening.

No claim of a new particle has been made by anyone, what they are saying is that "There is something happening here at a statistically significant level in our experiment, its weird the other experiment doesn't see it, so maybe we need to take a closer look at the model differences between the experiments."
Trust me, as a scientist in the field of rare event searches, dark matter and neutrino physics, there has been little to no excitement over this, no one is claiming a sterile neutrino discovery.

a reply to: Gothmog

"Scientists are much like politicians in that respect. "

...more like religious zealots. Scientism.

my guess: its a interdimensional particle, from the same realm the control system comes from

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I guess there are very expensive tools that measure these paricles which are now making it possible to take images in area such as pyramids..or map then. A gentleman by the name of robert schoch had discussed either this or some other particle that travels through everthing during a discussion around ancient egypt and the sphinx.

a reply to: chrismarco

Completely different devices but what you are talking about there is muon tomography. The idea being that cosmic ray muons pass through material quite easily, although will stop given enough material.

So the process of mapping the inside of a structure like the pyramids is to place a detector inside or under it, and one above or ontop of it. You then look for coincidences between detectors indicating a muon passed through both, you can then count up and form a density map of muons and their angles.

What you find is that if there is a significant hollow area inside the structure, you will see more muons than for the solid structure... with enough detectors and enough repositioning, its possible to get an rough indication of internal open volumes.


The experiment above is a looking at neutrinos... which are even harder to detect... its not so much requiring a tool, more a full detector suite in the many tonnes scale.

On the microcosmic scale; on the macrocosmic scale? Just a neutral being no no more seed than what is still receiving it's ray of light.

Focal point is a spot so small one can barely tell when either inverts and passes through from one scale to another... thought is just a form passed along in a chunk called knowledge... we write many a ledger while hanging from a cliff.

Just a simple note is all we sound.