High energy electrons detected by ATIC project

[DrRocket]

<p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html</p><p>In the thread Dark Matter ... WTH ? , now thoroughly derailed, there was the start of discussion regarding some high energy electrons detected by researchers on the ATIC project.&nbsp; Several possible explanations were mentioned in the article for the origin of these anamolous electrons.&nbsp; One explanation involved annihilation of SUSY particles.</p><p>I had the opportunity this morning to attend a simple talk on dark matter and dark energy, but more importantly to have a brief conversation with a rather accomplished high-energy particle physicist.&nbsp; I asked him about the results that had been reported and recieved the response that I expected.&nbsp; I earlier promised to report on this conversation if I were able to have it,&nbsp; but I am not going to post in the original thread until and unless it gets back on track.&nbsp; So, I have started this thread for the sole purpose of providing the gist of my conversation, as promised.&nbsp; Here it is:</p><p>Annihilation of SUSY particles, on a purely theoretical basis, to produce electrons is not surprising.&nbsp; High energy electrons have a relatively short life (on cosmological and astrophysical scales) and therefore would have to be produces nearby (again on cosmological and astrophysical scales), meaning a few thousand light years.&nbsp; Several explanation for the electrons have been offered.&nbsp; SUSY particles are one explanation, not necessarily the most likely explanation.&nbsp; The results of the measurements are very preliminary, and data may be refined and possible explanations may change.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is NOT a confirmation of the existence of&nbsp;SUSY particles, and it is way to early to get excited.&nbsp; This is definitely a time to take a wait and see attitude.</p><p>To put this in context, the gentleman with whom I spoke is a very enthusiastic and very accomplished research physicist.&nbsp; His driving interest is particle physics.&nbsp; If there was any reason to get really excited about any observation of SUSY particles, his interest would be keen.</p><p>Now we can all take notice of an interesting result, and note that the experts are trying to figure out what it means.&nbsp; They don't know yet, and neither do we.&nbsp; We can all go back to sleep and wait for the necessary science to be accomplished before burning up the boards with outlandish speculation.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>High energy electrons have a relatively short life (on cosmological and astrophysical scales) and therefore would have to be produces nearby (again on cosmological and astrophysical scales), meaning a few thousand light years.</DIV></p><p>This distance calculation seems to "assume" that the plasma universe doesn't simply conduct such high energy electrons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Several explanation for the electrons have been offered.&nbsp; SUSY particles are one explanation, not necessarily the most likely explanation.</DIV></p><p>A) From the standpoint of emprical science, SUSY particles don't exist.&nbsp; They are a *NON* standard "hypothesis" related to a NON standard brand of particle physics.&nbsp; Not a single SUSY particle enjoys any sort of emprical support in a controlled experiment.</p><p>B) Assuming any such particles do exist, we have no idea if they live longer than a milliscond before reverting into "normal" forms of matter".</p><p>C)&nbsp; We have no idea if any SUSY particle(s) would actually be "dark" to photons, meaning they don't emit them or interfere with them in any way.</p><p>D) We have no idea if they emit any particles at annihilation, or that they decay in any way.&nbsp; Nor do we know what the energy states of such items might be were any to be found.</p><p>It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to *wildly speculate* about a high energy electron or photon coming from a *hypothetical* entity that may not last a millisecond "in the wild".&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The results of the measurements are very preliminary, and data may be refined and possible explanations may change.</DIV></p><p>It's not the "measurements" that are the problem here, it's the *interpretation* of those measurements that are the problem here.&nbsp; In other words I don't have any doubt that they actually measured high energy electrons.&nbsp; I simply think their association of these electrons with "dark matter" was unsubstantiated and unwarranted. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is NOT a confirmation of the existence of&nbsp;SUSY particles, and it is way to early to get excited.&nbsp; This is definitely a time to take a wait and see attitude.</DIV></p><p>The only way one could possibly "confirm" the existence of SUSY particles is in something like an LHC experiment with real control mechanisms.&nbsp; Nothing like a SUSY particle exists as far as we know, and in no way does a SUSY particle fit any of the necessary or claimed critieria of "dark matter".&nbsp; It isn't even a requirement or given that "dark matter" emit high energy electrons.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To put this in context, the gentleman with whom I spoke is a very enthusiastic and very accomplished research physicist.&nbsp; His driving interest is particle physics.&nbsp; If there was any reason to get really excited about any observation of SUSY particles, his interest would be keen.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I'm sure if the 'observation' in question had something remotely to do with an LHC experiment or something more emprically tangible, his reaction might have been quite different.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now we can all take notice of an interesting result, and note that the experts are trying to figure out what it means.&nbsp; They don't know yet, and neither do we.&nbsp; We can all go back to sleep and wait for the necessary science to be accomplished before burning up the boards with outlandish speculation.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What you don't seem to accept here DrRocket was the fact that even the "suggestion" that "dark matter" might be responsible for emitting high energy electrons was itself "outlandish speculation" that warranted a rebuttal.&nbsp; I wouldn't mind so much if that "outlandish speculation" wasn't posted on a NASA website.&nbsp; I simply resent the fact my tax dollars are paying to continue to spread this outlandish speculation.&nbsp; I'd prefer that NASA sticks to "emprical science", and avoid all the "outlandish speculation" about where these high energy electrons might originate.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This distance calculation seems to "assume" that the plasma universe doesn't simply conduct such high energy electrons.</DIV></p><p>Then again, there's no reason to "assume" it either. No scientific evidence has been produced that "proves" it either. In fact the only justification would seem to be a few very small scacle empirical lab experiments. Of course there's no justification to expand that to the size of galaxies, but hey, if it works in a square meter, why not the whole Universe?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A) From the standpoint of emprical science, SUSY particles don't exist.&nbsp; They are a *NON* standard "hypothesis" related to a NON standard brand of particle physics.&nbsp; Not a single SUSY particle enjoys any sort of emprical support in a controlled experiment.B) Assuming any such particles do exist, we have no idea if they live longer than a milliscond before reverting into "normal" forms of matter".C)&nbsp; We have no idea if any SUSY particle(s) would actually be "dark" to photons, meaning they don't emit them or interfere with them in any way.D) We have no idea if they emit any particles at annihilation, or that they decay in any way.&nbsp; Nor do we know what the energy states of such items might be were any to be found. </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;100 % correct. And your point is? No one has said these are SUSY particles, in fact it is not the most likely explanation given in the article. They are a possibility, because there are hypothesis (with actual physics support) which suggest they are a POSSIBILITY.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to *wildly speculate* about a high energy electron or photon coming from a *hypothetical* entity that may not last a millisecond "in the wild".&nbsp; It's not the "measurements" that are the problem here, it's the *interpretation* of those measurements that are the problem here.&nbsp; In other words I don't have any doubt that they actually measured high energy electrons.&nbsp; I simply think their association of these electrons with "dark matter" was unsubstantiated and unwarranted. The only way one could possibly "confirm" the existence of SUSY particles is in something like an LHC experiment with real control mechanisms.&nbsp; Nothing like a SUSY particle exists as far as we know, and in no way does a SUSY particle fit any of the necessary or claimed critieria of "dark matter".&nbsp; It isn't even a requirement or given that "dark matter" emit high energy electrons.&nbsp; Yes, and I'm sure if the 'observation' in question had something remotely to do with an LHC experiment or something more emprically tangible, his reaction might have been quite different.What you don't seem to accept here DrRocket was the fact that even the "suggestion" that "dark matter" might be responsible for emitting high energy electrons was itself "outlandish speculation" that warranted a rebuttal.&nbsp; I wouldn't mind so much if that "outlandish speculation" wasn't posted on a NASA website.&nbsp; I simply resent the fact my tax dollars are paying to continue to spread this outlandish speculation.&nbsp; I'd prefer that NASA sticks to "emprical science", and avoid all the "outlandish speculation" about where these high energy electrons might originate.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Of course, since you haven't read the actual Nature article, you are foaming at the mouth about something that you have no real information about. I have read it. They discussed in turn each of the baryonic and non baryonic possible explanations. They discussed each of them, and provided some compelling evidence that the choice they made is the most likely, pending more real data. The most likely&nbsp;(Not your assertion they said it WAS dark matter) was a dark matter candidate. But ya know what? It wasn't SUSY particles. So at once, your whole strawman rant has collapsed, because what you rail against, isn't even what they suggested.</p><p>They made no "outlandish speculation", in fact, which you would know if you knew what the heck you were talking about. I.E actually reading what they said. But you don't wait for that, you just go off on your "scientists are evil" rant.&nbsp;While admitting it's speculation, they justified it quite clearly. If the evidence they have accumulated is supported by future data during the next 6 or so months, they will have a very compelling case.</p><p>So might I suggest you get a few facts before you create scientific strawmen again?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>MW</p><p>Again you bash NASA (And I'm real tired of that) when they had nothing to do with the analysis of this data.</p><p>Can you prove that NASA published these results? If not, retract your constant NASA bashing immediately.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then again, there's no reason to "assume" it either. No scientific evidence has been produced that "proves" it either.</DIV></p><p>There is as much evidence of that as there is for any other "theory" about where these electrons originate, expecially a hypothetical particle.&nbsp; The point is that all we really know is that high energy electrons exist in space and they bombard our planet.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact the only justification would seem to be a few very small scacle empirical lab experiments.</DIV></p><p>Well, there are in fact "cosmology theories" that "predict" them based on "emprical experimentation", yes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course there's no justification to expand that to the size of galaxies, but hey, if it works in a square meter, why not the whole Universe?&nbsp;100 % correct.</DIV></p><p>If they bombard Earth, what makes you think they don't bombard all planets in this galaxy?&nbsp; Wouldn't we have to "scale" even emrpically demonstrateable theories sooner or later?&nbsp; I'm afraid I don't follow your criticisms.&nbsp; I'm not criticizing anyone for scaling up an emprically demonstrated idea, I'm complaining because there's no emprical link between high energy electrons and "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And your point is? No one has said these are SUSY particles, in fact it is not the most likely explanation given in the article. They are a possibility, because there are hypothesis (with actual physics support) which suggest they are a POSSIBILITY.</DIV></p><p>Any fantastic, wild speculation is "possible".&nbsp; &nbsp; There isn't even a basis for claiming that "dark matter" emits eletcrons at this energy state *unless* you're talking about SUSY particles because there is no other proposed brand of "dark matter" that could do that nifty trick, at least in theory, if not in a real lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course, since you haven't read the actual Nature article, you are foaming at the mouth about something that you have no real information about. I have read it. They discussed in turn each of the baryonic and non baryonic possible explanations. </DIV></p><p>What "non baryonic" possible explanations?&nbsp; There aren't any *non baryonic* brands of matter that empirically exist Wayne!&nbsp; That's the whole point. There is no "dark matter" that can be composed of non baryonic brand of matter because none exist that haven't already been identified. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They discussed each of them, and provided some compelling evidence that the choice they made is the most likely. Pending more real data was a dark matter candidate. But ya know what? It wasn't SUSY particles.</DIV></p><p>So what was it Wayne?&nbsp; What emprically demonstrated non baryonic form of "dark matter" they they choose in the end to emit these high energy electrons?&nbsp; Which emprical experiment did they cite to back up this claim?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So at once, your whole strawman rant has collapsed, because what you rail against, isn't even what they suggested.</DIV></p><p>My arguement has not collapsed, in fact it's worse than I thought evidently.&nbsp; What exactly was the bases they used for claiming that *any* brand of non baryonic matter emitted these eletrons?&nbsp; At least SUSY theory has *some* theortical basis.&nbsp; I don't even know of any other non bayonic brands of "dark matter" that ever predicted the emission of any particles, including electrons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They made no "outlandish speculation", in fact, which you would know if you knew what the heck you were talking about.</DIV></p><p>I know for a fact they never produced a single high energy electrons from a single piece of 'dark matter".&nbsp; That is a fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.E actually reading what they said. But you don't wait for that, you just go off on your "scientists are evil" rant. </DIV></p><p>Er, you must have missed the speech about neutrino 'scientists'.&nbsp; You muat have missed all my posts that have been complimentary of NASA and it's missions.&nbsp; You must have missed a whole lot of what I've posted to believe that I think all scientists are evil, but of course you don't actually believe that, it was simply a cute strawman.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While admitting it's speculation, they justified it quite clearly.</DIV></p><p>You can't "justify" a statement like this without emprical support of concept.&nbsp; They don't have any emprical evidence that any form of "dark matter" ever emitted any electrons, let alone electrons at this energy state.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the evidence they have accumulated is supported by future data during the next 6 or so months, they will have a very compelling case.</DIV></p><p>Compelling case?&nbsp; Are you for real? The only way they could make a "compelling case" to support this statement is to do so in something like an LHC "experiment" complete with control mechanisms.&nbsp; You can't just point at a distant observation and claim "dark matter did it and here's the math to prove it".&nbsp; Science requires "qualification", not simply "quantification".&nbsp; This isn't going to get resolved in six months or even six years.&nbsp; LHC is the instrument on Earth or in space that could back up this claim.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So might I suggest you get a few facts before you create scientific strawmen again?</DIV></p><p>That facts are clear Wayne. No forms of "dark matter" have ever been show to emit electrons, let alone high energy electrons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again you bash NASA (And I'm real tired of that) when they had nothing to do with the analysis of this data.Can you prove that NASA published these results? If not, retract your constant NASA bashing immediately. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>NASA has this stuff on their website.&nbsp; They are not innocent victims here, they are intentionally spreading this wild speculation on their website.</p><p>FYI I support NASA far more than "bash" them.&nbsp; I complain about specific issues, but overall I'm quite happy with NASA.&nbsp; I just wish they'd stick to real science and lay off the wild guessing. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then again, there's no reason to "assume" it either. No scientific evidence has been produced that "proves" it either. In fact the only justification would seem to be a few very small scacle empirical lab experiments. Of course there's no justification to expand that to the size of galaxies, but hey, if it works in a square meter, why not the whole Universe?&nbsp;100 % correct. And your point is? No one has said these are SUSY particles, in fact it is not the most likely explanation given in the article. They are a possibility, because there are hypothesis (with actual physics support) which suggest they are a POSSIBILITY.Of course, since you haven't read the actual Nature article, you are foaming at the mouth about something that you have no real information about. I have read it. They discussed in turn each of the baryonic and non baryonic possible explanations. They discussed each of them, and provided some compelling evidence that the choice they made is the most likely, pending more real data. The most likely&nbsp;(Not your assertion they said it WAS dark matter) was a dark matter candidate. But ya know what? It wasn't SUSY particles. So at once, your whole strawman rant has collapsed, because what you rail against, isn't even what they suggested.They made no "outlandish speculation", in fact, which you would know if you knew what the heck you were talking about. I.E actually reading what they said. But you don't wait for that, you just go off on your "scientists are evil" rant.&nbsp;While admitting it's speculation, they justified it quite clearly. If the evidence they have accumulated is supported by future data during the next 6 or so months, they will have a very compelling case.So might I suggest you get a few facts before you create scientific strawmen again?&nbsp;MWAgain you bash NASA (And I'm real tired of that) when they had nothing to do with the analysis of this data.Can you prove that NASA published these results? If not, retract your constant NASA bashing immediately. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I was under the impression that it was the intent of the mods, including yourself, to limit the posting of pseudoscientific crap like EU theory to The Unexplained.&nbsp; While I thought this thread, as I started it had as its subject matter some rather mainstream science, and in fact the direct opinion of a high-energy physics expert on the reported findings, Mozina has apparently hijacked yet another thread.</p><p>This is not acceptable.&nbsp; I'm outa here too.&nbsp; And I started this to get away from a hijacking!!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wayne, please close this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I was under the impression that it was the intent of the mods, including yourself, to limit the posting of pseudoscientific crap like EU theory to The Unexplained.&nbsp; While I thought this thread, as I started it had as its subject matter some rather mainstream science, and in fact the direct opinion of a high-energy physics expert on the reported findings, Mozina has apparently hijacked yet another thread.This is not acceptable.&nbsp; I'm outa here too.&nbsp; And I started this to get away from a hijacking!!&nbsp;Wayne, please close this thread. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How in the world is it a "hijack" of your thread to expect emprical support of the claim that these high energy electrons were in some way related to "dark matter"?&nbsp; Hoy. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Annihilation of SUSY particles, on a purely theoretical basis, to produce electrons is not surprising. </DIV></p><p>That SUSY particles actually exist in nature would be "surprising" DrRocket.&nbsp; That they "produce" anything would also be quite "suprising".&nbsp; In fact it would be worthy of Nobel for the first one to demonstrate it and be able to *reproduce* it in "controlled experiments".</p><p>Before you start slinging around insults towards cosmology theories, maybe you should take a better look at the glass house you live in. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I was under the impression that it was the intent of the mods, including yourself, to limit the posting of pseudoscientific crap like EU theory to The Unexplained.&nbsp; While I thought this thread, as I started it had as its subject matter some rather mainstream science, and in fact the direct opinion of a high-energy physics expert on the reported findings, Mozina has apparently hijacked yet another thread.This is not acceptable.&nbsp; I'm outa here too.&nbsp; And I started this to get away from a hijacking!!&nbsp;Wayne, please close this thread. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Actually, no, I would rather save it, because I thought the article was quite interesting.</p><p>michael you have been repeatedly warned not to hijack threads into either EU fests, or just as bad, your line by line argument with mainstream science. I will consider what action to take in this thread; it may be deleting your anti mainsteram monolog, it may be closing the thread. As you have been told, you want to swim upstream against all the physicists and astronomers &nbsp;in the world, we have given you a place to do that.</p><p>In the meantime, be aware that your repeated hijacking (into useless microdiscussions unrelated to the topic) are under examination by the moderation team.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>michelmozina.</p><p>In case it was not clear before let me restate:</p><p>The community will no longer allow you to create such hash out of hard science threads that they need to be moved to "the Unexplained".&nbsp;You have&nbsp;12 hours,&nbsp;to copy your posts and move them, to a new thread that you create in the Unexplained, where we have (and so far will continue) allowed you great latitude (more than we should) in posting unsupported "science"<br /><br /><strong>You have been warned to confine your eternal megaparsing threads to the Unexplained</strong>. No matter what the subject. It is no longer negotiable.<br /><br />You of course are permitted to participate in ANY threads where you can support your comments in a succinct manner. You no longer will be permitted to cause serious threads to become useless. The choice is yours.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>michelmozina.In case it was not clear before let me restate:The community will no longer allow you to create such hash out of hard science threads that they need to be moved to "the Unexplained".&nbsp;You have&nbsp;12 hours,&nbsp;to copy your posts and move them, to a new thread that you create in the Unexplained, where we have (and so far will continue) allowed you great latitude (more than we should) in postsing unsupported "science"You have been warned to confine your eternal megaparsing threads to the Unexplained. No matter what the subject. It is no longer negotiable.You of course are permitted to participate in ANY threads where you can support your comments in a succinct manner. You no longer will be permitted to cause serious threads to become useless. The choice is yours.Wayne <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>THANK YOU.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How in the world is it a "hijack" of your thread to expect emprical support of the claim that these high energy electrons were in some way related to "dark matter"?&nbsp; Hoy. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have absolutely no understanding of theoretical astrophysics or theoretical anything for that matter.&nbsp; As I said, your views are archaic and you need to catch up with the rest of us who realize that a theory can be true without a lab experiment.&nbsp; You never explained why you believe in star formation when we can't create a star in a lab(please don't, for my headache's sake).&nbsp; For the life of me, I have no idea why you are not banned yet.&nbsp; It definitely speaks to the patience of the moderators here. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Regarding the article, the paper would most likely be rejected had it not covered all its bases.&nbsp; If something that we observe is predicted by a theory and the paper author does not mention it, they are bound to be rejected for not being up to date in their field.&nbsp; It would not be surprising if at least one of the referees reviewing this paper specialized in dark matter or a related field...thats the way it works.&nbsp; Publishing requires a broad knowledge of every accepted theory related to the subject of your paper.&nbsp; Now, you may say "then why don't they reference Alfven?"(please don't)...Alfven's theories only predict such things according to you.&nbsp; I have not seen ANYTHING directly from Alfven that supports your arguments that is well-founded in physics.&nbsp; Why do you feel the need to stretch and twist some old scientist's theories when there are MANY reasonable theories predicting such things?&nbsp; It's just plain unnecessary. &nbsp;</p><p>You have permanently scarred me.&nbsp; I have to do my very best to remind myself every time I read one of your posts that these are your opinions and not Alfven's theories.&nbsp; It is very difficult but I must do it to keep myself from entering into a homicidal rage whenever I hear the word Alfven or electricity.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>To the guy below me...go read the "electricity is the forbidden topic" thread in the unexplained before you start making such statements.&nbsp; At least I tried to contribute to this thread by commenting why they would include a purely theoretical suggestion in the paper...all you are doing is not so subtlely sucking up to michael by "reminding" us of some lucky prediction he came up with(if you make guesses about every single thing you are bound to get something right eventually) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<p><font size="3">1.&nbsp; The old saying is that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.&nbsp; I think that describes Michael.&nbsp; Everything to him appears to be related to his EU hypothesis (there is not NEAR enough evidence to call it a theory).&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="3">2.&nbsp; I tend to skip most of his posts because they tend to long and tedious.&nbsp; But they do occasionally have good insights.</font></p><p><font size="3">3.&nbsp; For example, before Deep Impact hit, Michael was predicting that there would be very little water vapor present, much less than main stream science was predicting.&nbsp; I found it very interesting that he made a prediction and it tended to be backed up by data.&nbsp; (BTW, Michael, Dr. Rocket and Meteor, I am SOOO not interested in arguing the merits of Michael's Deep Impact theory here.)</font></p><p><font size="3">3.&nbsp; I see a lot more personal attacks at Michael, then coming from Michael (maybe it is because I skip many of his posts).&nbsp; I mean "You have permanently scarred me," give me an f'ing break.</font></p><p><font size="3">4.&nbsp; The EU theory attracts numerous crack-pots, but I don't think Micheal is one of them and he does raise interesting questions.</font></p><p><font size="3">5.&nbsp; Moderators, et al., I think it would be more boring here if Michael is banned.</font></p><p><font size="3">6.&nbsp; Michael, it would help your cause, if everyone of your posts was not&nbsp;an 18-part synopsis on why the EU is a valid theory.&nbsp; I enjoy your posts much more when you merely raise questions about data, rather than trying to then wrap everything up into your unified EU field theory.&nbsp; Einstein couldn't come up with a unified field theory, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are not going to either.</font></p>

 

[Meric]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ........2.&nbsp; I tend to skip most of his posts because they tend to long and tedious......6.&nbsp; Michael, it would help your cause, if everyone of your posts was not&nbsp;an 18-part synopsis on why the EU is a valid theory.&nbsp; I enjoy your posts much more when you merely raise questions about data, rather than trying to then wrap everything up into your unified EU field theory.&nbsp; Einstein couldn't come up with a unified field theory, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are not going to either. <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I get fustrated when I come to a Mozina post because the discussion is over and it becomes the same damn arguement as every other thread he posts in.&nbsp; Sentence for Sentence breakdown that is 2 pages long.&nbsp; I guess you have to type a lot of words to beat around the bush.&nbsp; Mozina is not interested in disussing scientific results, he is only interested in long debates on nothing.</font></p><p><font size="2">I would like to thank Dr. Rocket for posting that little overview of the discussion you had with the particle physicist.&nbsp; I am not remotely qualified to carry on the discussion, but I do enjoy following along and learning, too bad this discussion is over.&nbsp; </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#993300"><font size="2"><font color="#000000"> </font><em><font color="#000000">Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.</font></em></font></font></p> </div>

 

[kg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.htmlIn the thread Dark Matter ... WTH ? , now thoroughly derailed, there was the start of discussion regarding some high energy electrons detected by researchers on the ATIC project.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp; Looking at the article you posted it seems that the device used to detect the high energy electrons only recorded the number of them.&nbsp;&nbsp;Was there&nbsp;any data on if they came from a single source such as the ones they listed (pulsar, mini quasar, super nova or black hole)?&nbsp; Do these electrons arrive randomly over time or show&nbsp; up in bursts?&nbsp; Is it possible that they started out a higher energy from a further distance?&nbsp; Why do they travel such short distances at such high energy?&nbsp; <br />Wow I ask allot of questions.</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I get fustrated when I come to a Mozina post because the discussion is over and it becomes the same damn arguement as every other thread he posts in.&nbsp; Sentence for Sentence breakdown that is 2 pages long.&nbsp; I guess you have to type a lot of words to beat around the bush.&nbsp; Mozina is not interested in disussing scientific results, he is only interested in long debates on nothing.I would like to thank Dr. Rocket for posting that little overview of the discussion you had with the particle physicist.&nbsp; I am not remotely qualified to carry on the discussion, but I do enjoy following along and learning, too bad this discussion is over.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Meric</DIV><br /><br />Well it's not over, I'm trying to save it.</p><p>So, what is the suggested POSSIBLE source to the 300-600 Gev electrons?</p><p>Excerpt from a Review (not the research letter itself)</p><p>"This feature is located at an energy of about 620 GeV (1 GeV is 10⁹ electronvolts and, by mass&ndash;energy equivalence, corresponds roughly to the mass of a proton). And it is consistent with the type of signal expected when KK WIMP particles interact and annihilate into electron&ndash;positron pairs. (The positron is the electron's antiparticle: essentially, an electron but with a positive charge.) The process basically amounts to two KK particles disappearing from 'the dark side' and appearing in our realm in the form of an electron&ndash;positron pair. The signature electrons can then be detected and measured.</p><p class="norm">What makes the ATIC detection especially intriguing is that the 620-GeV energy of the peak is roughly the mass of KK WIMPs expected from particle physics theories⁷. But in a way, the intensity of the signal is almost too high. To explain its strength requires a large enhancement of local dark matter, such that the Solar System would be whizzing through (or at least near) an especially dense clump of dark matter.</p><p class="norm">From Nature Vol 456/20 20 Nov 2008</p><p class="norm">&nbsp;</p><p class="norm">In the Letter itself, they go into great detail about why this is the most likely among the theoretical possibilities.</p><p class="norm">The "bump" in electrons has a very specific shape indicating a cutoff above 620 Gev, exactly as would be expected.</p><p class="norm">It is also confirmed to some varying extants by observations from AMS, HEAT, BETS, PPB-BETS and emulsion chambers.</p><p class="norm">There is no <em>known</em> baryonic source for such an excess. The closest would be the Geminga pulsar, however the flux from Geminga is about a factor of 60 too low to explain the observations.</p><p class="norm">Direct production of e- e+ from annihilation is supressed for SUSY particles and would have a broad spectrum and decrease in flux up to the particle mass. That is not what it shows. In fact what is expected is a rising flux to the mass of the K-K particles, then a sharp dropoff above that energy. That is precisely what is shown.</p><p class="norm"><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/1/324a370c-69e2-4c3e-b1e5-8c000fcf0551.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>The GALPROP general electron spectrum resulting from sources across the galaxy is shown as the dashed line. The dotted curve represents the propagated electrons from the annihilation of a Kaluza&ndash;Klein particle. The dotted curve assumes an isothermal dark matter halo of 4-kpc scale height, a local dark matter density of 0.43&nbsp;GeV&nbsp;cm^-3, a Kaluza&ndash;Klein mass of 620&nbsp;GeV, and an annihilation cross section rate of 1&nbsp;X&nbsp;10^-23&nbsp;cm³&nbsp;s^-1, which implies a boost factor of ~200. The sum of these signals is the solid curve. Here the spectrum is multiplied by <em>E</em>^3.0 for clarity. The solid curve provides a good fit to both the magnetic spectrometer data^30,³¹ and calorimeter data^16,³² and reproduces all of the measurements from 20&nbsp;GeV to 2&nbsp;TeV, including the cut-off in the observed excess. All error bars are one standard deviation.</p><h1 class="page-header">FIGURE 4.&nbsp;<strong>Assuming an annihilation signature of Kaluza&ndash;Klein dark matter, all the data can be reproduced.</strong></h1><div class="container-cite"><h2 class="note">From the following article:</h2><p class="atl">An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300&ndash;800&nbsp;GeV</p><p class="aug">J. Chang, J. H. Adams, H. S. Ahn, G. L. Bashindzhagyan, M. Christl, O. Ganel, T. G. Guzik, J. Isbert, K. C. Kim, E. N. Kuznetsov, M. I. Panasyuk, A. D. Panov, W. K. H. Schmidt, E. S. Seo, N. V. Sokolskaya, J. W. Watts, J. P. Wefel, J. Wu & V. I. Zatsepin</p><p class="journal"><span class="journalname">Nature </span><span class="journalnumber">456</span>, 362-365(20 November 2008)</p><p class="doi"><span class="doi"><abbr title="Digital Object Identifier">doi</abbr>:10.1038/nature07477</span></p></div><p class="norm"><br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><h1 class="page-header"><strong><strong>Assuming an annihilation signature of Kaluza&ndash;Klein dark matter, all the data can be reproduced.</strong></strong></h1>&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The operative word in that sentence Wayne is "assuming".&nbsp; That's the part that's never been "emprically demonstrated" using "control mechanisms".&nbsp;&nbsp; "Assumptions" are not "emprical evidence". </p><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The operative word in that sentence Wayne is "assuming".&nbsp; That's the part that's never been "emprically demonstrated" using "control mechanisms".&nbsp;&nbsp; "Assumptions" are not "emprical evidence". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Agreed, that's why I left the word in there. Your railing demanding "emperical evidence" when as has been repeatedly explained to you (to no effect) is not the only way 20th and 21st science works. Your microscopic worldview that the only way to do science is lab experiments on earth has been refuted. </p><p>Mod Hat On****</p><p>DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO SUCH A DISCUSSION</p><p>There already exists such a thread which has been moved to the Unexplained, where you are free to continue it.</p><p>Mod Hat Off****</p><p>I would suggest you move this last post to that thread.</p><p>It will be deleted from this one, since it is off topic.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Agreed, that's why I left the word in there. Your railing demanding "emperical evidence" when as has been repeatedly explained to you (to no effect) is not the only way 20th and 21st science works. Your microscopic worldview that the only way to do science is lab experiments on earth has been refuted.</DIV></p><p>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/abs/nature07477.html</p><p>I had some trouble with your previous link to the actual paper in Nature, but the link above seems to work. </p><p>For the record, I never said that lab experiments were the *only* way to do science.&nbsp; That's your own quaint little strawman Wayne.&nbsp; It is going to be absolutely *necessary* to "scale" any and all empirical forces of nature to "size", irrespective of what cosmology theory or what known physical concepts we attept to apply to the universe.&nbsp; No one is denying this point.&nbsp; I have no trouble allowing anyone to "scale" the force of gravity to size because gravity is not shy around a lab.&nbsp; I may not be able to hold that scaled object in my hand, or touch it, but I know that gravity exists and I know that large gravity wells exist in space.&nbsp; I empricially know and experience that gravity exists in nature, even if I can't fully explain what it is, or what "causes" gravity.&nbsp; I can "test" it on a small scale to find it's "properties" and I can verify these "properties" in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; I can then make some reasonable and logical calculations about how these "properties" might scale to size.</p><p>FYI, this seems to be a pretty good presentation on this topic: </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory</p><p>This is in fact a SUSY related theory Wayne.&nbsp; This is an "extra-dimensional', non standard particle physics/GUT theory that is based upon the "assumed" existence of additional dimensions of reality.</p><p>The problem is that I don't have any emprical evidence that space/time is composed of five dimensions or that this hypothetical form of dark matter that is mentioned in the paper actually exists in nature.&nbsp; It is a hypothetical form of matter that does not, emprically exists in a strickly four dimensional space/time continuum. &nbsp; I have no empirical evidence to suggest that extra dimensional matter even exist in nature Wayne.&nbsp; I have no idea if this material exists or that it emits anything, let alone high energy electrons into this dimension.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, I have no idea of such material is actually 'dark' to photons, or that it has any sort of longevity.&nbsp; I don't have any idea how such particles might "annihillate", what conditions might be necessary for such an event to occur, etc. &nbsp; I certainly don't know if any 'extra dimensions' exist in nature! &nbsp; I therefore am required engage in huge "acts of faith" in something that cannot be emprically demonstrated and that may not even exist.&nbsp; I have no way to test or verify these "assumptions" of the "properties" of this presumed form of "matter", so the mathematical analysis isn't particularly helpful in resolving anything related to determining whether it actually exists. </p><p>The incredibly ironic part of all this controversy from my perspective is that this is a grand unified GUT theory (like all GUT's) that attempts to link gravity with EM fields.&nbsp; This particular one attempts to link electromagnism with gravity as a five dimensional space time manifold.&nbsp; It seems like a natural "fit" with the other theories that I actually do believe have emprical merit.&nbsp; Even were this form of multiple dimensional matter actually found to exist in LHC "experiments", it would seem to act as an electrical "power source" in four dimensional space time, and I would personally be thrilled to know that gravity and electromagnatism are directly related.&nbsp; It is not the least bit threating to any other beliefs I have.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mod Hat On****DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO SUCH A DISCUSSIONThere already exists such a thread which has been moved to the Unexplained, where you are free to continue it.Mod Hat Off****I would suggest you move this last post to that thread.It will be deleted from this one, since it is off topic. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>For the record Wayne, I've gone out of my way to participate on many other less "controversial" threads around here, and I've really tried to keep "on topic" in these threads too.&nbsp; It's really not my fault that someone found high energy electrons or that you resent me from talking about them and their presense, and the implications of their presense.</p><p>About all I can do now is "lay low" and try some less controversial topics for awhile and beg for your forgiveness for not having faith in a GUT theory that actually would fit with all the rest of my cosmology beliefs.&nbsp; It is just that I can't take that concept on "faith" alone. &nbsp; I require some emprical evidence to support the idea.&nbsp;&nbsp; In this particular case however, LHC may in fact provide us with a way to "settle" such a debate, and patience will be required. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, this seems to be a pretty good presentation on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theoryThis is in fact a SUSY related theory Wayne.&nbsp; This is an "extra-dimensional', non standard particle physics/GUT theory that is based upon the "assumed" existence of additional dimensions of reality.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No it is not, Extra Dimensional hypotheses are NOT SUSY (supersymmetric).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it is not, Extra Dimensional hypotheses are NOT SUSY (supersymmetric).&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"This feature is located at an energy of about 620 GeV (1 GeV is 10⁹ electronvolts and, by mass&ndash;energy equivalence, corresponds roughly to the mass of a proton). And it is consistent with the type of signal expected when <strong>KK WIMP particles interact and annihilate into electron&ndash;positron pairs</strong>.</DIV></p><p><br />Emphasis mine.&nbsp; You objected when I said these were SUSY related particles, but right here they are suggesting they are "WIMPS" related to the K-K unified theory.</p><p>&nbsp;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particle</p><p>Here was your statement: </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course, since you haven't read the actual Nature article, you are foaming at the mouth about something that you have no real information about. I have read it. They discussed in turn each of the baryonic and non baryonic possible explanations. They discussed each of them, and provided some compelling evidence that the choice they made is the most likely, pending more real data. The most likely&nbsp;(Not your assertion they said it WAS dark matter) was a dark matter candidate.<strong> But ya know what?<u> <em>It wasn't SUSY particles.</em></u> </strong>So at once, your whole strawman rant has collapsed, because what you rail against, isn't even what they suggested.</DIV> </p><p>It turns out that this *is* in fact a SUSY theory as I suggested. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Emphasis mine.&nbsp; You objected when I said these were SUSY related particles, but right here they are suggesting they are "WIMPS" related to the K-K unified theory.&nbsp;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particleHere was your statement: It turns out that this *is* in fact a SUSY theory as I suggested. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />No it's not, but I'm not here to argue. The only reason moderator action has been postponed is that you said you were going away for a while. If that is not true, then discussion will proceed on appropriate actions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it's not, but I'm not here to argue. The only reason moderator action has been postponed is that you said you were going away for a while. If that is not true, then discussion will proceed on appropriate actions. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>There have been several possibilities offered for the origin of the high energy electrons, including annihilation of SUSY particles.&nbsp; There may well be more possibilities offered once real scientists have had some time to analyze the data further and think about it.&nbsp; It is more than a wee bit premature to put much credence in a SUSY explanation for these 70 electrons.</p><p>Supersymmetry is really a class of theories.&nbsp;&nbsp; Supersymmetry does not require a large number of dimensions, but does not forbid it either.&nbsp; There are supersymmetric theories in 4 space-time dimension and with as many as 11 space-time dimensions.&nbsp; There are none beyond 11 dimensions.&nbsp; The issue at hand has to do with what might produce nearby high energy electrons and has nothing to do with how many dimensions might be involved in some future theory of quantuma gravity or a GUT.</p><p>The main point is that there are explanations for the observed data that have nothing to do with SUSY particles as well as observations that SUSY particles MIGHT be involved.</p><p>However there are no conjectures from knowledgable scientists suggesting that this EU crap has any bearing on the issue.&nbsp; If this thread contains any more discussiosn of EU nonsense, I will consider my effort to start a new thread to avoid just such an occurrence as a grand failure.&nbsp; It is pretty close to that now.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/abs/nature07477.htmlI had some trouble with your previous link to the actual paper in Nature, but the link above seems to work. For the record, I never said that lab experiments were the *only* way to do science.&nbsp; That's your own quaint little strawman Wayne.&nbsp; It is going to be absolutely *necessary* to "scale" any and all empirical forces of nature to "size", irrespective of what cosmology theory or what known physical concepts we attept to apply to the universe.&nbsp; No one is denying this point.&nbsp; I have no trouble allowing anyone to "scale" the force of gravity to size because gravity is not shy around a lab.&nbsp; I may not be able to hold that scaled object in my hand, or touch it, but I know that gravity exists and I know that large gravity wells exist in space.&nbsp; I empricially know and experience that gravity exists in nature, even if I can't fully explain what it is, or what "causes" gravity.&nbsp; I can "test" it on a small scale to find it's "properties" and I can verify these "properties" in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; I can then make some reasonable and logical calculations about how these "properties" might scale to size.FYI, this seems to be a pretty good presentation on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theoryThis is in fact a SUSY related theory Wayne.&nbsp; This is an "extra-dimensional', non standard particle physics/GUT theory that is based upon the "assumed" existence of additional dimensions of reality.The problem is that I don't have any emprical evidence that space/time is composed of five dimensions or that this hypothetical form of dark matter that is mentioned in the paper actually exists in nature.&nbsp; It is a hypothetical form of matter that does not, emprically exists in a strickly four dimensional space/time continuum. &nbsp; I have no empirical evidence to suggest that extra dimensional matter even exist in nature Wayne.&nbsp; I have no idea if this material exists or that it emits anything, let alone high energy electrons into this dimension.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, I have no idea of such material is actually 'dark' to photons, or that it has any sort of longevity.&nbsp; I don't have any idea how such particles might "annihillate", what conditions might be necessary for such an event to occur, etc. &nbsp; I certainly don't know if any 'extra dimensions' exist in nature! &nbsp; I therefore am required engage in huge "acts of faith" in something that cannot be emprically demonstrated and that may not even exist.&nbsp; I have no way to test or verify these "assumptions" of the "properties" of this presumed form of "matter", so the mathematical analysis isn't particularly helpful in resolving anything related to determining whether it actually exists. The incredibly ironic part of all this controversy from my perspective is that this is a grand unified GUT theory (like all GUT's) that attempts to link gravity with EM fields.&nbsp; This particular one attempts to link electromagnism with gravity as a five dimensional space time manifold.&nbsp; It seems like a natural "fit" with the other theories that I actually do believe have emprical merit.&nbsp; Even were this form of multiple dimensional matter actually found to exist in LHC "experiments", it would seem to act as an electrical "power source" in four dimensional space time, and I would personally be thrilled to know that gravity and electromagnatism are directly related.&nbsp; It is not the least bit threating to any other beliefs I have.For the record Wayne, I've gone out of my way to participate on many other less "controversial" threads around here, and I've really tried to keep "on topic" in these threads too.&nbsp; It's really not my fault that someone found high energy electrons or that you resent me from talking about them and their presense, and the implications of their presense.About all I can do now is "lay low" and try some less controversial topics for awhile and beg for your forgiveness for not having faith in a GUT theory that actually would fit with all the rest of my cosmology beliefs.&nbsp; It is just that I can't take that concept on "faith" alone. &nbsp; I require some emprical evidence to support the idea.&nbsp;&nbsp; In this particular case however, LHC may in fact provide us with a way to "settle" such a debate, and patience will be required. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Fer crissake, what is this crap all about.&nbsp; Another ginormous&nbsp;steaming pile.&nbsp; Another attempt to hijack the thread immediately following what sounded like a clear warning.&nbsp; What does it take to stop this garbage?</p><p>Just for the record GUTs do NOT link electromagnetic theory with gravity.&nbsp; GUTs are an attempt to unify the electroweak theory with the quantum theory of the strong force.&nbsp; Attempts to include gravity are generally referred to as theories of quantum gravity or the Theory of Everything.</p><p>I protest in the strongest possible terms any acceptance of this thread, in a hard science forum, as an acceptable place to discuss Mozina's EU idiocy, even if he phrases it&nbsp;in his code words of "empirical science".&nbsp; This crap has got to stop.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

This matter is under current review by Moderator staff and Administrators.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>