New Result From Large Hadron Collider Challenges Leading Theory in Physics – Cannot Be Explained by Our Current Laws of Nature

LHCb Experiment Cavern at LHC

LHCb experiment cavern at LHC. Credit: CERN

Imperial physicists are part of a team that has announced ‘intriguing’ results that potentially cannot be explained by our current laws of nature.

The LHCb Collaboration at CERN has found particles not behaving in the way they should according to the guiding theory of particle physics – the Standard Model.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts that particles called beauty quarks, which are measured in the LHCb experiment, should decay into either muons or electrons in equal measure. However, the new result suggests that this may not be happening, which could point to the existence of new particles or interactions not explained by the Standard Model.

“It’s too early to say if this genuinely is a deviation from the Standard Model but the potential implications are such that these results are the most exciting thing I’ve done in 20 years in the field.” — Dr. Mitesh Patel

Physicists from Imperial College London and the Universities of Bristol and Cambridge led the analysis of the data to produce this result, with funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council. The result was announced today at the Moriond Electroweak Physics conference and published as a preprint.

Beyond the Standard Model

The Standard Model is the current best theory of particle physics, describing all the known fundamental particles that make up our Universe and the forces that they interact with.

However, the Standard Model cannot explain some of the deepest mysteries in modern physics, including what dark matter is made of and the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the Universe.

Researchers have therefore been searching for particles behaving in different ways than would be expected in the Standard Model, to help explain some of these mysteries.

Dr. Mitesh Patel, from the Department of Physics at Imperial and one of the leading physicists behind the measurement, said: “We were actually shaking when we first looked at the results, we were that excited. Our hearts did beat a bit faster.

“It’s too early to say if this genuinely is a deviation from the Standard Model but the potential implications are such that these results are the most exciting thing I’ve done in 20 years in the field. It has been a long journey to get here.”

Building blocks of nature

Today’s results were produced by the LHCb experiment, one of four huge particle detectors at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

The LHC is the world’s largest and most powerful particle collider – it accelerates subatomic particles to almost the speed of light, before smashing them into each other. These collisions produce a burst of new particles, which physicists then record and study in order to better understand the basic building blocks of nature.

The updated measurement questions the laws of nature that treat electrons and their heavier cousins, muons, identically, except for small differences due to their different masses. 

According to the Standard Model, muons and electrons interact with all forces in the same way, so beauty quarks created at LHCb should decay into muons just as often as they do to electrons.

But these new measurements suggest the decays could be happening at different rates, which could suggest never-before-seen particles tipping the scales away from muons.

Very Rare Decay of a Beauty Meson

Very rare decay of a beauty meson involving an electron and positron observed at LHCb. Credit: CERN

Imperial PhD student Daniel Moise, who made the first announcement of the results at the Moriond Electroweak Physics conference, said: “The result offers an intriguing hint of a new fundamental particle or force that interacts in a way that the particles currently known to science do not.

“If this is confirmed by further measurements, it will have a profound impact on our understanding of nature at the most fundamental level.”

Not a foregone conclusion

In particle physics, the gold standard for discovery is five standard deviations – which means there is a 1 in 3.5 million chance of the result being a fluke. This result is three deviations – meaning there is still a 1 in 1000 chance that the measurement is a statistical coincidence. It is therefore too soon to make any firm conclusions.

“We know there must be new particles out there to discover because our current understanding of the Universe falls short in so many ways.” — Dr. Michael McCann

Dr. Michael McCann, who also played a leading role in the Imperial team, said: “We know there must be new particles out there to discover because our current understanding of the Universe falls short in so many ways – we do not know what 95% of the Universe is made of, or why there is such a large imbalance between matter and anti-matter, nor do we understand the patterns in the properties of the particles that we do know about.

“While we have to wait for confirmation of these results, I hope that we might one day look back on in this as a turning point, where we started to answer to some of these fundamental questions.”

It is now for the LHCb collaboration to further verify their results by collating and analyzing more data, to see if the evidence for some new phenomena remains. The LHCb experiment is expected to start collecting new data next year, following an upgrade to the detector.

Reference: “Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays” by LHCb collaboration: R. Aaij, C. Abellán Beteta, T. Ackernley, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, H. Afsharnia, C.A. Aidala, S. Aiola, Z. Ajaltouni, S. Akar, J. Albrecht, F. Alessio, M. Alexander, A. Alfonso Albero, Z. Aliouche, G. Alkhazov, P. Alvarez Cartelle, S. Amato, Y. Amhis, L. An, L. Anderlini, A. Andreianov, M. Andreotti, F. Archilli, A. Artamonov, M. Artuso, K. Arzymatov, E. Aslanides, M. Atzeni, B. Audurier, S. Bachmann, M. Bachmayer, J.J. Back, P. Baladron Rodriguez, V. Balagura, W. Baldini, J. Baptista Leite, R.J. Barlow, S. Barsuk, W. Barter, M. Bartolini, F. Baryshnikov, J.M. Basels, G. Bassi, B. Batsukh, A. Battig, A. Bay, M. Becker, F. Bedeschi, I. Bediaga, A. Beiter, V. Belavin, S. Belin, V. Bellee, K. Belous, I. Belov, I. Belyaev, G. Bencivenni, E. Ben-Haim, A. Berezhnoy, R. Bernet, D. Berninghoff, H.C. Bernstein, C. Bertella, A. Bertolin, C. Betancourt, F. Betti, Ia. Bezshyiko, S. Bhasin, J. Bhom, L. Bian, M.S. Bieker, S. Bifani, P. Billoir, M. Birch, F.C.R. Bishop, A. Bitadze, A. Bizzeti, M. Bjørn, M.P. Blago, T. Blake, F. Blanc, S. Blusk, D. Bobulska, J.A. Boelhauve, O. Boente Garcia, T. Boettcher, A. Boldyrev, A. Bondar, N. Bondar, S. Borghi, M. Borisyak, M. Borsato, J.T. Borsuk, S.A. Bouchiba, T.J.V. Bowcock, A. Boyer, C. Bozzi and M.J. Bradley et al., 22 March 2021, High Energy Physics – Experiment.
arXiv: 2103.11769

144 Comments on "New Result From Large Hadron Collider Challenges Leading Theory in Physics – Cannot Be Explained by Our Current Laws of Nature"

  1. Xinhang Shen | March 23, 2021 at 6:49 am | Reply

    No matter whether the current result of this experiment is true or not, Standard Model is definitely wrong because its theoretical base, Einstein’s special relativity is wrong, which introduces a fake time through Lorentz Transformation to replace our physical time measured with physical clocks.

    We know time is a concept abstracted from the status changes of physical processes such as the change of the view angle of the sun, the increase of the height of a tree, the distance that a car has driven, the biological age of a person, the number of cycles of a clock, etc. All the changes of the statuses of physical processes are the products of time and changing rates. The effect of time can never be shown without the help of a status changing rate i.e. there does not exist such an ideal clock that can directly record time without the help of a physical process. Actually, every physical clock records the number of cycles of a periodical process and uses this number to indirectly calculate the elapsed physical time (i.e. T = tf/k where t is time of the reference frame, f is the frequency of the clock in that reference frame and k is a calibration constant). The number of cycles is the product of time and frequency (i.e. changing rate). In special relativity, when observed from a stationary frame, relativistic time of a moving frame does become shorter t’ = t/γ but the relativistic frequency of a clock on the moving frame becomes faster f’ = γf to make the product of relativistic time and relativistic frequency unchanged compared with that of the stationary clock: T’ = t’f’/k = (t/γ)(γf)/k = tf/k = T. That is, clock time is invariant of Lorentz Transformation, absolute and independent of reference frames in special relativity.

    It is wrong to claim that special relativity tells us that a traveling twin would become younger than the earth bound twin because, even in special relativity, the biological age of the twin is not a simple record of pure time but the aging result which is the product of time and aging rate, invariant of Lorentz Transformation as proved above, and thus the same as the biological age of the earth bound twin.

    Therefore, relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation is not our physical time but a fake time. Based on such a fake time, special relativity is wrong.

    • Agreed. Why doesn’t the scientific community see this? I believe it is because they do not understand field theory; and as such just divide everything into smaller and smaller particles. Not one of them can define, not describe, a field or define energy.

    • chronic_cynic | March 23, 2021 at 1:01 pm | Reply

      A lot of effort and big words have been put in your comment. Even though you have no clue what you’re talking about. Yes, the Standard Model and Einstein’s relativity are both incomplete. Pretty much everyone is aware and agrees with that. The reason for that incompleteness, that you’re pointing in your comment, it’s just gibberish. The Standard Model, DOES NOT have relativity as it’s base. The two components of the standard model are electroweak theory, which describes interactions via the electromagnetic and weak forces, and quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong nuclear force. Gravity, which is relativity’s main concern, is very much NOT addressed by the standard model. Since your whole premise was that relativity’s incompleteness implies Standard Model incompleteness, and since that’s nonsense, the rest of gibberish you wrote about time is moot.

      • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:42 pm | Reply

        I think you mean the general relativistic theory is classic – special relativity is complete. And quantum field theories like the Standard Model of particles are relativistic.

        There is no problem there, it is an unsupported claim by Xinhang Shen.

        Completeness and effective theory is another issue, not related to relativity as such [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization ]. Gravity too has an effective field theory, which works and suffice for cosmology [“Quantum gravity as a low energy effective field theory”, Scholarpedia].

      • What if…C-A-T really spells DOG?
        -Ogre

    • Correct.

    • It is not wrong. You say it like it is some widely accepted fact. Stop being so arrogant.

    • And why do I see this same comment on so many other articles on this website..?

      • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:45 pm | Reply

        😀 Because trolls do not care for anything than their perceived personal “truth”, no matter the topic or the new evidence – this find tests relativity well (result accords with some of the theoretical calculations).

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:35 pm | Reply

      Obviously wrong, special relativity is well tested and accepted [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity ].

      And you show no peer reviewed science to the contrary.

    • Norman rockwell | March 27, 2021 at 1:12 pm | Reply

      Well put , my good sir ; the question i put to you is . Could you build a simple A frame house ?

    • Relatively is right
      Einstein is rught.
      Ya donmo
      Boss

  2. I am no physicist but from my understanding, new particles are not the only way to account for this result if true. A breaking of some king of symmetry (sorry, not a physicist) could also cause this. This too would be an interesting result.

  3. If the Standard Model doesn’t explain dark matter or the matter anti matter asymettry problem, that’s good. Dark matter is just a fudge factor to explain the shapes of galaxies, which can be better explained by taking the gravitational pull of other galaxies into account. Chae et al measured 150 galaxies and saw distortions in galaxies near other galaxies, while galaxies far away from others could be explained withoupriest and bears a striking resemblance to the theory of Genesis in the Bible. It makes no sense for endless reasons, first of which is that the observed red shifts are isotropic, meaning the big bang had to occur at the position of the observer. There is no matter anti matter asymmetry problem once the big bang theory is discarded.

    • Isotropic expansion equally in all directions is exactly what is expected from Big Bang theory. This is a science article, please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by trying to hijack it to push creationism.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:47 pm | Reply

      Superstition. If you discuss science – where your claim is wrong, dark matter is seen by different means – you have to drop the magic act.

  4. Job 9:9 Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.
    10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

  5. over 10000 studies on dark matter (pixie dust) and no go.
    They just keep trying to bring the fairy story unicorn to life.
    to bad with all the new tech up in orbit they have seen the cold plasma/dust everywhere.
    With every paper published we inch closer to the regality of the electro-magnetic universe.
    no black holes
    no red shift (measurable)
    no dark matter
    no dark energy
    no big bang
    and according to Einstein if any one of his assumptions on relativity are proven wrong then the theory is wrong. So its one two three striker your out at the old ball game.
    for learning on the edge of the universe check out sky scholar dot come and go for the real and leave the fantasy behind. its so much more amazing then can be explained with words.

    • gary matheson | March 24, 2021 at 8:07 am | Reply

      Mr. Bill your pixie dust comment was compelling, no doubt.
      however:
      No Black Holes, Red Shift, Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Big Bang works out to Five Strikes at the old ball park. This talk of Black this and Dark that could be construed as Racist. and naming things like Beauty Quarks is sexist and inappropriate relative to Ugly Quarks.
      Point, Set, Match.
      and I did not even mention element 115 which did not exist 25 lazar-years ago according to many cocksucker small dicked self important physicists at that time. but the damned thing occurs on the periodic table today. so to the cocksucker small dicked self important physicists today you just standby for the impending release of the tic tac et al. ufo report by the Pentagon and then explain that. you may first want to review Mr. Bob Lazar’s prior explanation from 25 lazar-years ago.

  6. Matter is theoretical and cannot be measured by a physical standard model.Time and matter are repeated over and ovrr.Our concept of relativity is based on what we can measure.neutrons,proteins and atoms form nuclei that is sub charged by an existence of ever changing morphosis in the atmosphere.

  7. What concerns me is how is all of this going to affect Pia Zadora’s career?

  8. Not A Big Brain | March 23, 2021 at 12:58 pm | Reply

    Theory then real application can vary, coincide or even contradict at times. I believe Xinhang Shen hit the nail on the preferably head. Standard Model is already wrong. Theory based on limited knowledge of the time and current set of information. “Best Guess” based on the 5% we do actually know about the universe. That leaves 95% unknown and that is a whole lot of variables…

  9. Yes but the whole point of Einstein was that time is relative & slows as it approaches excotic matter such as a black holes. Special Relatively was like a rough draft because his Theory of relatively was introduced 10 years later around 1915 but not until the orbit of Mercury & the solar eclipse if 1919. Also Einstein had to go back & learn mathematics to prove his theory along w help from his wife at that time.
    Someone kept commenting on how Einstein is wrong & talking about clocks this & clocks that. Its almost crinching how they totally miss the point of relatively. The universe doesn’t care about clocks or any other man made invention of idea for that matter. Einstein proved & still, over a 100 years Relatively has passed EVERY SINGLE TEST put forth in front of it. The fundamental nature of time itself changes in the presence of mass, for example a black hole. Its that simple.

    • WAIT a while
      einstein’s has not can not show proof that black holes exist , relativity FAILS every single test requiring measurable quantifiable tangible
      proof
      to validate it ,
      i suggest that you review your statement and make corrections as required by the facts

      what have missed after all these decades of using a bogus theory as the basis for our best science ? too much …
      time
      for
      a correction

      • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:56 pm | Reply

        “Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity
        New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” [ https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ ]

        That black holes derive from general relativity gave 1/2 of 2020 Noble Prize award in Physics.

        “The Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 was divided, one half awarded to Roger Penrose “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity”, the other half jointly to Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez “for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy.””

        [NobelprizeDOTOrg]

  10. Exactly what I was thinking!

  11. Only one canole | March 23, 2021 at 1:59 pm | Reply

    With so little known for a fact, just changing parameters of the experiment could change the result . Even the equipment could be in question in terms of interaction. Observation is everything and yet it’s what?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:58 pm | Reply

      Not fact – they have run LHC for several years, run many different experiments, rebuilt it, rebuilt the detectors, … same (but more) results.

      That is science, getting to know robust facts of nature. Not your personal fantasies about what science is.

  12. Steve Cormier | March 23, 2021 at 2:02 pm | Reply

    There’s a fundamental logical flaw in the thinking of these scientists (I wish scientists had rigorous logic training in school). The statement is that if there is a difference in how things are behaving then there must be another particle responsible. This is pure speculation based on the fact that many discoveries involved more fundamental particles. However, there is no proof that differences in behaviors must be caused by undiscovered particles. At some point you would have to either acknowledge that fundamental behaviors can be different or that there is one single particle responsible for everything which has exactly the same fundamental behaviors. Either of these is currently unprovable. I wish scientists could simply say ‘This is what we know at this time. We will trying investigate it further. Instead, partly driven by the press and the excessive worshipping of scientists, they always have to over-project what they know. The Big Bang is a perfect example of this. There absolutely no good proof of this theory. Just because objects appear to be moving away from you doesn’t mean you can project that they all started in one spot with any confidence whatsoever.

    • The Big Bang is the best explanation for the observed state of the universe. It’s not just about the fact that objects are moving away, there is also other evidence like the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation that agrees with this theory. There is also no evidence contradicting it.

      • There’s no evidence contradicting what? Background radiation proves the Big Bang? Complete BS. There could be many explanations for what we’re observing and we have nowhere near the amount of knowledge to make the leap to the Big Bang. We may live in a region of space where there’s an effect that causes that background radiation to appear to us like it’s everywhere. To claim knowledge of the ultimate origin of the universe with the knowledge we have is childishly ridiculous. We can simply say ‘we don’t know enough’ but scientists have become so pompous that they have to claim things way beyond what they know.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:04 pm | Reply

      They do have rigorous training as well as rigorous peer reviewed publications. You have neither.

      Big bang is an observed fact, based on many different observations [see my arxiv link on the comment on precision cosmology], and in fact cosmology has advanced to inflationary hot big bang theory.

      “Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they’re now nearly a full 40 years out of date.”

      [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/22/what-came-first-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=147a17b54153 ]}

      • Steve Cormier | March 25, 2021 at 8:46 am | Reply

        Hilarious. It’s a religion to you. Big Bang theory is an enormous overshoot of the knowledge we actually have. It’s an example of the hyper-conceptualizing and anti-scientific method thinking that’s taken over science. You now don’t have to ‘prove’ anything. You just come up with that dirt-bag Einstein’s ‘absolute hypothesis’ then assume it’s fact if you think you have enough evidence suggesting it might be true. You then turn it into proving a negative for those who question you–‘there’s no evidence that it isn’t true’. It’s the same for dark matter. You assume your theories of the universe must be true and then invent something to make them work out instead of admitting your theories might be wrong.

  13. This is a wrong headline. There is no discovery.
    There is a discrepancy in the data at less than 5 sigma .
    The researchers clearly stated that the discussion is preliminary and not yet verified at critical level. Many such data discrepancies disappear as more data is analyzed.

  14. John Sinclair | March 23, 2021 at 2:53 pm | Reply

    What if c-a-t really spelled dog??

  15. I notice the usual many times debunked & oft-time laughed at fruit-cake electric universe thunderbolts idiocy has slipped into the comments once again.
    How embarrassing it is that wherever real science is discussed, these cult brain washed buffoons; who are as debunkable as flat earth lunatics, peddle their craziness and banana splits comments?
    Each new discovery is a nail in the proverbial coffin for these cult con man crazies and their stupidities.
    Electric loonyvewrse begone!

    I look forward to seeing what next from the excellent work being done at the LHC.

    • What has the LHC produced as far as particle physics goes? According to David Tong in 2017 nothing. The engineering of such a beast is incredible. But what has it found? This article is about a less than 5 sigma result.

      • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:07 pm | Reply

        Why, they found the Standard Model of particles of course – see the article!

        Among other things, no new physics (yet) and a standard Huggs field, which was unknown. It was 5 years of checking 60 % of the standard models basic collision pathways.

  16. It took many years for scientists to identify homotrons as neutrons that go around blowing fuses.

  17. Nicholas Crestone | March 23, 2021 at 4:26 pm | Reply

    Xinhang Shen, Kim and others:
    Why do you post such ignorant gibberish?
    Is this comment board a meeting of nutcases?

  18. Nicholas Crestone | March 23, 2021 at 4:27 pm | Reply

    Xinhang Shen, Kim and others:
    Why do you post such ignorant gibberish?
    Is this comment board a meeting place of nutcases?

    • What did I say that was wrong? Xinhang Shen may confuse the foundation of QM. What “ignorant gibberish” did you here from me?

      • Xinhang Shen | March 23, 2021 at 6:52 pm | Reply

        Kim, the Standard Model is based on both special relativity and quantum mechanics.

        Nicholas Crestone, please present your refutation here instead of such a nonsense assertion. I will be happy to debate with you rationally.

        • Sorry if I offended you with my comment about QM. I think it is a delusional cult anyway. I believe there are two distinct cosmogonies we speak of: the modern, and in my opinion delusional, GR and QM standard model, and the ether based model. GR and QM are based on their understanding of light; which they do not understand. The ether based model is the one of Tesla, Steinmetz, and Maxwell, and gave us all the modern electrical grid and pretty much every device we now use. Pretty much nothing comes from the GR QM model.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:11 pm | Reply

          Nicholas Crestone is obviously correct and ´since you have provided no peer
          reviewed science as basis for a “rational” discussion – or better, fact based – we are done.

          I provided references to accepted physics. As for the rest of your gibberish, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

  19. Unfortunately, due to an error in syntax in one of the paragraphs in this report it is impossible to determine if the flaw was intentional or not, therefore all that follows is for not, and no serious debate is possible.

  20. Stud Among Men | March 23, 2021 at 5:35 pm | Reply

    Blah, blah, blah let’s just eat some cheetos.

  21. Does all of this matter matter? Is this a matter of fact?

  22. Why the long dissertation on what you think about the standard model? Why can’t you applaud the science in the article instead of grandstanding your own observations! That is not very polite to do to a colleague @ first commenter.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:13 pm | Reply

      ? The first comment I see is not from a scientist and it is not about the article science. Which comment do you refer to?

  23. For Xinhang, I think that the travelling illustration from Special Relativity included the speed of light in that as one approaches that speed that apparent time would slow down for the participant compared to a non-travelling Earth-bound person. Wasn’t that the basis for the Lorentz transformation theory? (More following)

  24. Such that if a moving body in space were travelling at a significant percentage of light speed away from a person on Earth moving at normal orbital speed then as the speed of the traveller increased, experienced time onboard the spacecraft would decrease and upon returning to Earth, the clocks onboard the ship and on Earth wouldn’t agree…..tested using light curvature experiments and spectrometry from starlight bending around the Sun decades ago, if I remember correctly…..have to get my glasses and the right advanced physics books:)

  25. Elijah Ahora | March 23, 2021 at 7:52 pm | Reply

    Jacob Moon and Paul Wolf are both showing their bias , one a scientism faither, with wishful thinking hunches he can’t let go of, just like Marxists with their adolescence dreams , and the other anti Lemaitre…Still they might both be the one and the same…By the way these types of measurements were already suspected, just like Moon and Wolf…Lol Shema!!!

  26. Paul Wolf 👊

  27. It’s extremely dangerous that was a play with as an all things knowledge has consequences. Every time there’s a run-up there are earthquakes volcanoes going off and weather anomalies that are horrific. As they could stall the Earth’s mantle and cause irreparable damage.

  28. Peeps, let’s be open-minded.
    The standard model is a theory based on what scientists have observed so far, but if there are variations such as this one, it has to be revised after more observations. If we don’t know 95% of the universe, no one can say that a theory is completely correct or wrong based on the 5% they know.
    What science needs the most is time.

  29. What is all this nonsense in this comment section?

    Couple of Eastern educated troublemakers arguing that special relativity is wrong because it’s hypothetical clock would be invariant? It’s a thought experiment, you guys should try it. Thinking.

    And then some Bible guy trying to fit a mythological book (that describes space as being filled with water and separated by a firmament) into the current understanding of the cosmos?

    Why are you jokers even here? Go somewhere else and let serious science people comment here instead of your garbage.

  30. Sub sub atomic particles.

  31. Can we dumb this down please..what is this thing? I have heard if for a couple years now and really just terrified.

  32. Shawn Marshall | March 24, 2021 at 3:38 am | Reply

    I know that I do not know what I am talking about but I do think that ‘time’ is an abstraction that people try to treat as a physical reality – it does not exist. Also, I am not at all sure that the speed of light is constant and I do feel that ‘light’ whatever it is travels in some sort of medium(unknown) that gives the wave effects. The field effects of electric and magnetic fields are very puzzling – I don’t think anyone has a fundamental understanding of them.

  33. *Grabs some popcorn
    This comment section is epic! Love the internet physicists who are all smarter than Einstein. You guys are internet gold at the very least!!

  34. The ‘Plain’ Quark. | March 24, 2021 at 4:13 am | Reply

    I see lots of talk of the so-called “beauty quark”. Typical male dominated discussion of particle physics in stunning absence of the fairer sex, &/or the unthinkable implications of the ignored “homely quark”? Huh? Eh?

  35. Lowlife A.B.N. | March 24, 2021 at 4:51 am | Reply

    Einstein IV,I think you are full of it,I dont know where you get off speaking of the Bible the way you do?,we all have been lied to our entire lives.Some of us are asleep in ways that they cannot see,the evil in this world have stolen,hidden,and also have enslaved us in many ways in which we have grown to learn is normal.There were 711 books of the Bible that were removed from the original one and in the Bible as we know it today there are only 66 that have been left to only deceive us in many ways.CERN is nothing more than a Satanic site and is built on an ancient Satanic area,I’m a very firm believer in God and I know of all the evil canals around the world who were nothing more than greedy,money hungry,pedophiles,child traffickers,and murderers who wanted nothing more than to one day have their NWO.But some of us know that they along with all their DUMBS,money and all other assets have been taken down and are in the hands of the right people.We will now have a NWO which will be in favor of Gods way and his plan,for all of us to have our sovereignty and be free of the slavery we were under and there will be no more suffering.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:24 pm | Reply

      Superstition.

      And of course we can now arguable claim that not only is your myth text man made up, there is no significant ‘gods’ magic in the universe due to the observation of flat space. That has nothing to do with “speaking” that way or this – the above is all observed fact.

      [And speaking of speaking: the sheer arrogance of magic practitioners, claiming that they know anything about nature on the basis of fantasies.]

      • Thou fool!! Thy soul will be required of thee this very night! GOD shall not be mocked!! For in the end, yes: Even your own knee shall bend and thy own blasphemous tongue shall indeed confess the True and Living GOD. Know this! May God grant thee with eyes that they may see and ears that they may hear, that thine own spiritual awakening will prevail over every binding lie of the adversary.

  36. In Al quran there is a particle mentioned ruh (twins). Al quran mentioned of Allah’s signal business that is one day of god Allah is equal one thousand years of your calculated. It has about reach 925 million times of c (light velocity) which I calculated roughly. The ruh moves like two ball pendulums. If two objects crash, the ruh has like light velocity and so one object gone disappear which it has over light velocity. The two object of ruh have spin and dilatation velocity that always changes. If spin velocity of object is low, so dilatation velocity is high.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:26 pm | Reply

      Superstition, and erroneous description of it to boot based on man made up text ‘interpretation’.

  37. That’s because there are working on a lie the big bang and the whole composition of the universe dark matter matter and dark energy is a lie from Satan to get more souls

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:28 pm | Reply

      Superstition. And poorly written such to boot. I hope you can look up “big bang” cosmology in the nearest dictionary, or else redo school.

  38. Pablo Sagalá | March 24, 2021 at 6:16 am | Reply

    I find Xinhang’s first comment deep and most interesting. Every comparative relationship involves an external invariant element for making the comparison feasible. And Lorentz’s transformations are in no way relativistic or belonging with Einsteinian mathematical depiction of nature, but previous to and independent of it. So far, Xinhang is right. Lorentz’s invariant element is a human requirement for comparison, not any form of depiction of time.

    But the last I do also find obviously undescribable inside the Angloamerican tradition, which swears for Hume’s undescribability of causation. To rapidly hint at the logical argument in it, let’s remember Sir Bertrand Russell’s refurbishing of the old Catalogue’s analysis.

    Yet my main point is still another, one belonging with History of Ideas which here I could only most succinctly point to. Iberoamerican basic science has been built on cultural differences regarding fundamental issues about time, causation and “being”. They of course do use Lorentz transforms, and in doing it they explicitly agree with Xinhang’s view of it’s “comparator” element as a fake time. But they also see “time” very differently. For a Spanish summary of a lengthy library, look for substantial fragments of Mario Crocco ‘s book (2018) entitled “Diferencias entre…” on academia.edu. For a chapter from a MIT book on some aspects of such “diferencias”, see Mariela Szirko “Effects of relativistic…” also in academia.edu Best,

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:30 pm | Reply

      Philosophy superstition (for a change). That first comment is gibberish. You add nothing else.

  39. asymmetricles | March 24, 2021 at 7:35 am | Reply

    From a layman’s standpoint, this is all very fascinating. It may, along with other scientific revelations, change our little lives forever. It may also be an immense waste of time, intellect, resources, and money. As Carl Sagan once said… “the universe is not required to be in harmony with human ambition ”
    Perhaps the efforts of brilliant people might be better used in solving practical problems. After those difficulties are resolved , then there will be the time, luxury, and funds to explore all this airy persiflage !

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:31 pm | Reply

      It was – CERN invented the web [look it up]. They are now figuring out how to do research on supercomputer clusters across the world, among other things that will help us (cloud technology).

      • asymmetricles | March 24, 2021 at 6:49 pm | Reply

        perhaps….but it remains to be seen that cyberspace and computing in general are a true benefit to mankind, or simply another mill stone. When science finally applies itself to solve common daily mundane and currently unsolved problems…then it will be free to delve into the imponderables.

  40. Daily dreamer | March 24, 2021 at 7:41 am | Reply

    It is a relieving to stumble across a comment section that decides to debate the fundamental constructs of the universe. As someone that stares at the sky and wonders if we’re all nothing more than thoughts in the giant brain of the universe (a knod to the Multiverse Theory, and touching base on the macro, micro and sub atomic aspects of our universe) people the discussions here are entertaining and delightfuly enlightening to think about.

  41. Richard Taylor | March 24, 2021 at 7:44 am | Reply

    I’ve long wondered why those who study the wonders of Heaven and Earth have not looked to the Creator for insight and explanation of how [what we call] the Universe “works”. For instance, when “light” was created, the sun, moon, and the stars: “…let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…” that light was immediately seen/present, even for stars that we today say are millions of light years away ….. meaning the light we see today is in fact *not* hundreds or millions of light years “old”, but is, in fact, much “younger”.
    I truly believe modern day science could unravel many mysteries if it would freely and open-mindedly look at the Word of God and his plan of Creation. He will happily shed Light on dark matters, and dark mysteries!

  42. Time only exists because people need…demand…something to quantify existence. I don’t think my dog cares about time other when food doesn’t happen on time. It’s like the comment if a tree falls in a forest and no one heard it, did it really fall?

  43. Actual Scientist | March 24, 2021 at 9:02 am | Reply

    Xinhan Sheng you literally are talking out of your ass. Please stay off scientific topics with clearly zero knowledge and/or schooling in the area. Would be a huge help to the people actually helping the world in the area of scientific study and breakthroughs.

  44. Actual Scientist | March 24, 2021 at 9:09 am | Reply

    Also anyone crying about Satanic evil and being “sheep”. Let me make something very clear for you. Your life is most likely boring, and you had a poor religious/upbringing in general. I’ll lay it to you straight there’s no NWO or Satanic thing really going on. The truth is you lead a rather boring life and cling to something that is similar to a fiction novel rather than focus on the years you have in your life and future. The “New World Order” bs has been debunked so many times it’s rather pathetic. The problem is the real scientists, doctors and people have REAL jobs and REAL responsibilities in life and don’t have time to sit on their little couch eat potato chips and debunk comment sections.

    Wake up. People have been bitching about NWO for 100 years or more. It’s not a thing, the world isn’t ending. Admit you have issues, see a therapist and live your damn life.

  45. It wont let me edit my comment, so

    BuffaloLove716.com/entertainment🍀

  46. LOL honestly my eyes glazed over about 15 seconds into reading the comments, pretty much the same way they did when I read the main article. All just big fancy words for I’m making s*** up. You all said it yourself you know about 5% of the universe, I would venture a guess it’s even less than that maybe a tenth of 1%.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:34 pm | Reply

      As I commented earlier, with references, we now know the universe content to 100 % at 1 % uncertainty. Study the science, then make up your opinion.

  47. Walter Bowman Russell describes the universe perfectly it is an optical light pressure thought-wave universe all is mind! Read the universal one The secret of light, atomic suicide for starters! Love to all!

  48. The kardashians proved there are black holes..

  49. Nancy K Burns | March 24, 2021 at 9:26 am | Reply

    Blah, blah blah…..call me when you can replicate the experiment that pushed photons beyond the speed of light and saw the formation of the warp bubble that Gene Roddenberry foretold.We don’t care about your theoretical bs, we want warp drive so we can get off this rock!

  50. Statistically fabricated interpretation would indicate that 12 of the nerds that commented believe it when their mothers tell them they are special and 9 of the 12 still have their mothers wash their clothes

  51. George Nearon | March 24, 2021 at 11:45 am | Reply

    Without a witness there is no universe. Without a universe there is no witness.
    George Nearon

    In Order To Be: It’s certain the universe had to make the witness. But perhaps they had to make each other.
    Ps
    One could elaborate but as John Joseph Nicholson so aptly put it, *”you can’t handle the truth”.

    *what is implied is you can’t handle the truth and stay sane. That is because you, the witness, are finite and the universe is not. However the universe in order to exist will always require a witness. Maybe like Yin and Yang?

  52. Gee the physicists dont know everything? They don’t know what dark matter is made up of? How about nothing! That’s why it’s dark. Cant the universe have empty spaces without so called scientists scratching their heads?
    Do something important…where is cold fusion? For one.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:39 pm | Reply

      CERM invented the web you comment on. Important? That depends in part on the value of your comments …

  53. Jason Cortese | March 24, 2021 at 3:03 pm | Reply

    Could someone show me what is relative about the Universe, it’s absolutely infinite because infinite means repeat and repeat means infinite. Why do you first believe you exist only to discover the concept infinite because the infinite always first believes its eyes to realize it is infinite, repeat. If you read my comment then you have always and always will read my comment, repeat.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 6:43 pm | Reply

      The basis for special relativity is the universal speed limit in various reference frames [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity ]. That makes events appears different for observers, while the law (universal speed limit) is preserved.

      “In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer’s reference frame.”

      [“Relativity of simultaneity”, Wikipedia]

      Watch the animation above the text: “Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.”

      General relativity extends that universality to all laws, by making sure that kinetic mass = gravitational mass, and all the rest follows.

  54. Torbjörn Larsson | March 24, 2021 at 5:30 pm | Reply

    It is a nice progression in decreasing uncertainty since 2014ish.

    But the significance is still lacking, the added physics seems so weak, and there are of course many alternatives for explaining all those questions.

    Their Conversation piece here: https://theconversation.com/evidence-of-brand-new-physics-at-cern-why-were-cautiously-optimistic-about-our-new-findings-157464 .

    “But we should be cautious and humble too; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    • Torbjörn Larsson,
      Some might appreciate all your comments, but I find it rude that you go on correcting others’ comments like you are grading a scientific research paper.
      And you seem very confident in doing so. FYI, not everyone thinks like you do.

      • Edward Armstrong | March 25, 2021 at 4:39 am | Reply

        This is a discussion site. No-one forces anyone to post on this site. Should anyone happen to post nonsense or choose to misrepresent the current state of knowledge on this site, then people who actually know the truth are very welcome to highlight that fact here.

        • Yes, I know. The reason why I said this was because many of Torbjörn Larsson’s comments didn’t look like a discussion to me.

  55. Why so many of you guys so angry? Amateurs argue, professionals debate. Take a breath. This is super cool.

  56. Holly sh*t I don’t know how I stumbled on to this site but reading everyone’s comments makes me feel like a idiot I have no clue what the he’ll you guys are talking about but keep up the good work smart guys

  57. Reverand James Gordon | March 25, 2021 at 8:57 am | Reply

    Greetings young nerds
    Og nerd

    Here..

    None of you are worried that there

    Will be a breach

    That will result in our universe

    And many others

    Blinking out of existence

    Would you like

    To know how

    We could stop it when happens?

    Every probability i see

    I see this happening…

    Ive been gone 20 years
    .

    Learning a different technology

    Ancient tech.

    Pass down through centuries

    By native story tellers and medicine men an women

    This almost happen before on the planet

    It ended a civilization then..

    This be worse…

    This is a solution

    To find it you need yo use our math our sciences to go past what we know

    Or just wait to blink out existence…

    Why they shouldnt left me to die with cancer

    In the mountains and let small minded

    Druggies attack

    And take my home and technologies..

    From what ive seen in this last year and half back

    Is that none of

    You question any exsisting theroy

    Albert Einstein was my inspiration also
    Like steven hawkings

    I will find a way to get you all to listen

    So my grandkids have a future…

  58. This is silly. Why are we building machines too detect dark matter anyways? You’re expecting a reading when by definition it will be a zero. 0+0=0.

  59. Here we are with scientists trying to explain, in human terms, things that only God can understand. Science is great but those scientists and others that refuse to acknowledge an all-kmowing, all-powerful God who is responsible for creating the universe are just denying the truth.

  60. One thing is certain, there is an endless supply of hubris commenting on this topic.

  61. Kevin Sanders | March 26, 2021 at 5:08 pm | Reply

    I often look at the big bang theory to be lacking in its truth. To me the theory is something more akin to “the sun evolves around the earth”. There have been plenty of theories that were made truths, only to be proven wrong. Even the big bang theory has changed slightly and information on it grew within 60 years. There is some things that are missing from the equation to really flesh out reality. Hopefully, this will help out in the future so we can go beyond the big bang theory. Personally, the big bang theory is just as outlandish as the creationist theory. Something else happened besides, gases and atoms super compacted together and exploded to create the universe. There are too many questions involved in this equation that simply can’t be answered, so let’s hope this will help inch closer to something more concrete.

  62. Skoochee Toothpick | March 27, 2021 at 8:02 am | Reply

    In all due respect with my experience at Lawrence Livermore Labs Berkeley labs and Stanford labs, the best reflection of your knowledge should be the fact that you know that ” you do not know the answer yet! “

  63. Mary Migrane | March 27, 2021 at 8:59 am | Reply

    At first I was intrigued, then entertained until the trolls started tapping on their keyboards.
    The Lazar comment -priceless reference.
    LHC -evil satan comment -eye rolling.
    Thank you, Larsson, for slapping morons around; I haven’t the degree of scientific knowledge you have, only the experience to be disgusted at what morons think and say about science and religion.

  64. Norman rockwell | March 27, 2021 at 1:07 pm | Reply

    Thats all well and good , my fine fellows ; but the question I put forth to you is can you build a simple A frame house or raise cattle ?

  65. Joseph Slater | March 27, 2021 at 2:09 pm | Reply

    What will probably be learned is that since the particals discovered were manmade they are synthetic psrticals.

  66. This is the great debate ones who dont believe in god but yet seek to create cause they gail to admit the bible is true. We are all gods we were created in his image but in a mans body so there are lots of side effects now we unlocked knowledge we were not ready for which is the point of the story. You have free will to do what you want but if you stay closed minded and not open to anything the knowledge is ignored, when you think you know it all then your not as smart as you think, when you dont admit the truth when its right in front of you with the warning of keep goint down the road of trying to figure out how to create and be like God as a man & there is a whole book that I can prove happened and it says he will end us again just like the flood which the signs are all over the earth it happened. You have to be stupid to say different when there are not just stories and believing from mass people but facts in stone, written and proof.

  67. I am laughing so hard at the comments. They are all relative, and sarcatic too. Almost as if they trolled and were born under the same brige. I literally have a third grade math level education. I began reading the article for a story I am writing. Thank you for entertaining me and giving me a few new ideas. Much appreciated is it April 1st?

  68. Question reality | March 28, 2021 at 12:08 am | Reply

    I’m not any kind of scientist or physicist, but I have a question. If we assume dark matter exists because of extra gravity in relation to the amount of visible matter, why can’t that just be extra gravity leaking in from visible matter but from different points in time? Considering gravity is unusually weak compared to the other forces, isn’t it likely that there is more gravity than we can perceive in our limited view. Maybe “dark matter” is gravity from regular matter over time, past and future. Meaning, gravity from all matter exists not only in the instant we perceive it but also in the past and the future at the same time. The extra gravity leaking into the present is to little for us to perceive in our limited perception and in areas as small as our local solar system. But on a macro scale, the size of an entire galaxy the little bits of gravity that leak in from the past and from the future start to add up. Consider that the universe in the instant we perceive it, is only a tiny percent of space/time and that 99% of Space/Time exists in the past and future. So even if only the tiniest fraction of gravity leaks into the present from the matter in the past and the matter in the future, it would add up to the majority of the gravity in the present when viewed on a macro scale the size of galaxies. I doubt that makes any real sense. But I have one more question. With “super massive black holes” it is thought that there has not been enough time since the big bang for them to have formed like standard black holes. In other words a collapsed star that eats the matter around it wouldn’t have had enough time to swallow the amount matter it takes to create a super massive black hole. So why couldn’t it just be that these super massive black holes always existed from the moment of the the big bang? They existed then because they were going to exist now and always have and will exist. There presence in the future leaked gravity into the past, creating the gravity well that allowed the matter of a galaxy to accumulate. These black holes and the galaxies around them started to form because they were already formed in another time. They were to form, because they already had formed and because there would be no galaxies and solar systems if they hadn’t formed. I know that doesn’t really make sense either. One more silly thought… I know it’s taboo to say there could be a God or creator, but why is it impossible to believe that an intelligent entity that is beyond our comprehension could have created this universe? A entity who exists outside of our universe in four or more dimensions and could see and perceive our entire universe from the viewpoint outside of it. A entity who would see all of space throughout all of time from the beginning to the end as a whole and be able to reach into it at any point or time and affect it. Is it really more likely that absolute nothingness suddenly and without reason had a massive explosion of unimaginable energy with no input of energy and that spit out all the right bits that just happened to create planets, suns, solar systems and glaxies? Something from nothing is scientific? There had to be something to create something. Why not intelligence?

  69. It is very entertaining to see some of you being negative about the theories and work GIANTS before us did. You speak like you collaborated to this field of work. I suggest to stop judging the shoulders you are standing on because without people like Einstein we probably wouldn’t be at this point in the research.

  70. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as smart people you should know that and stop using it to back up your arguments.

  71. God having a good time, laughing mightily

  72. I”m not as smart as you all but I believe the earthbound twin is older…the theory isn’t to explain the age of a person but the nature of time itself. The space bound twin may or not be younger but is traveling through time slower. The fact that the earthbound twin has a genetic disorder or is an alcoholic etc…should not determine the results of a scientific theory.

  73. Anonymous Stoner | March 29, 2021 at 5:17 am | Reply

    Everything is made up! Just like everything I’m about to type. All that jargon and all those hieroglyphics are completely fabricated out of thin air. All puns intended. These idots waste billions of dollars playing with dust particals. The only thing that makes them smart is they can understand their made up fantasy lingo. Ashes to ashes from dust their shall be more dust. Pretty smart how y,all figured out how to get paid for building a giant dust buster. Don’t let your Allergies affect your effects when you observe the laser show on lsd. Get with the time dialation and see for yourselves. I do not condone mind expanding use in anyway. Party on dudes.

  74. Scientists will drive themselves crazy, spend millions of dollars, and waste precious time and energy trying to understand that which is beyond our capability to understand or know. We don’t even use 13 percent of our brainpower yet the “smartest” try to quantify that which is not meant to be quantified. They demand an end to infinity, a size to mindlessness, and who are we to demand such a thing? A breath? A passing thought? All this money, time, and energy wasted trying to destroy God and make yourself the ultimate being…. And you didn’t even make yourself. Yet you sit wanting to know everything… and will never be satisfied. These scientists will die unsatisfied, discontent with their life, and for what? None of the starving have been fed, no poverty solved, and all to try and feel like God… Go mad scientists. I will sit here smiling as every attempt you make to define the divine fails. And the difference between us is one choice. Contentment in my state. Nevermind me! Go on!😊

  75. Ha,all this bickering and when broken down I see three main components, those who are truly trying to understand it all, and creation vs evolution!So I have a solution for the latter,how about”created evolution” done. Now call it a night K.

  76. Man is always learning, and his/her learning will never end. Why? Because God is infinite, and man is finite. Do you think that sixteen elements man can figure out He who knows all things before time begin?

  77. … I see lot of comments here, and that is a result of what, what, what…

  78. Tevye ben Shaul | March 30, 2021 at 10:53 pm | Reply

    Excuse my observation, but whether one is running tests on LHC or any other field of research, 2 questions are imperative: What do we know? What do we not know?
    Time is but an artificial construct; Einstein helped elucidate some of its behavior, but stopped short of robust theorizing. He drew many ideologies from Torah and used his skills to understand what he discovered, and what he did not discover.
    A dozen peer reviews of a plausible theory do not constitute established fact. True science will press the issue and proof will be the evidence.
    Time could be really a malleable illusion, only in our observable human frame of reference.
    Outside of our observation, does time exist? Is time not subject to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?

  79. Ive seen that picture in my head bedore. Its an exact model of how i figured out physics. It really opened my mind. All the new phenomenons lately that have to do with space are related.

  80. We as humans are arrogant. We will always look for answers wheather its here on earth or in the stars, we are never satisfied. There are somethings that we can’t explain and maybe its better we leave it that way. Is it possible that we are the green or gray little alien beings in the future because we have exhausted all the resources on earth and took to the stars to find other possibilities? Maybe we need to focus all our minds and money on sustainable clean energy (free energy) to make a cleaner and better earth. Maybe the collider has the tech to be a ufo. Particles traveling at the speed of light, sounds like a spaceship or time travel but very interesting.
    Fyi i’m no scientist just an average guy that likes to read about space/time and has an imagination

  81. Why do very few scientists understand that all we see and experience in the whole universe are just energy waves. Nothing is solid nor particle. Our brains just interpret this waves into meterial. If you understand this principle, we can move further easily.

  82. Mahesh khati | April 1, 2021 at 3:09 am | Reply

    World is made up of only two anti particles all other is illusion.
    https://vixra.org/pdf/1912.0171v1.pdf
    &
    https://vixra.org/pdf/2006.0033v1.pdf

  83. Mahesh khati | April 12, 2021 at 1:36 am | Reply

    Something is wrong in basic knowledge of physics. We have to revisit all theories of physics & correct it like https://vixra.org/pdf/1912.0171v1.pdf & https://vixra.org/pdf/2006.0033v1.pdf Then only we can solve problem of dark matter, dark energy, antimatter problem etc I think space is different than vacuum & many problem arises because we consider both as same.

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.