[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Bizarre Particles Keep Flying Out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

[vox_mundi]

C'mon, It's the beta StarGate in Antarctica.

http://www.rdanderson.com/stargate/entr ... rctica.htm

[vox_mundi]

The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard Model Particle, and Supporting Observations from IceCube

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_%2B_Gravity.svg/400px-Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles_%2B_Gravity.svg.png[/img]

Abstract

The ANITA collaboration have reported observation of two anomalous events that appear to be εcr≈0.6 EeV cosmic ray showers emerging from the Earth with exit angles of 27∘ and 35∘, respectively. While EeV-scale upgoing showers have been anticipated as a result of astrophysical tau neutrinos converting to tau leptons during Earth passage, the observed exit angles are much steeper than expected in Standard Model (SM) scenarios. Indeed, under conservative extrapolations of the SM interactions, there is no particle that can propagate through the Earth with probability p>10−6 at these energies and exit angles. We explore here whether "beyond the Standard Model" (BSM) particles are required to explain the ANITA events, if correctly interpreted, and conclude that they are. Seeking confirmation or refutation of the physical phenomenon of sub-EeV Earth-emergent cosmic rays in data from other facilities, we find support for the reality of the ANITA events, and three candidate analog events, among the Extremely High Energy Northern Track neutrinos of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. Properties of the implied BSM particle are anticipated, at least in part, by those predicted for the "stau" slepton (τ~R) in some supersymmetric models of the fundamental interactions, wherein the stau manifests as the next-to-lowest mass

[vox_mundi]

+1 Gas & onlooker




I'm bettin' there's a whole chuck of physics that's missing

[onlooker]

Vox & Gas, any insights on what exactly are the Dark matter and Dark energy? Oh and your cartoon images certainly highlight the perils and pitfalls of technology Vox. Two examples being unintended consequences and falling into the hands of the unscrupulous

[Cog]

Don't panic onlooker. Strange particles won't turn you into a conservative republican.

[vox_mundi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'V')ox & Gas, any insights on what exactly are the Dark matter and Dark energy? ...

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vox_mundi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'V')ox & Gas, any insights on what exactly are the Dark matter and Dark energy? ...

[vox_mundi]

Yes.

Gravity & mass probably have a lot more depth than the current Standard Model accounts for. And we still have to connect Gravity with the Strong and Weak forces and Electro-magnetism.

There may also be a fifth force.

Oh well. Something to keep our species busy should it elect to survive this century.

[jedrider]

I'm hoping they find an alien force buried in the Antarctic that was put there to save humanity from global warming.

But, what are the chances?

[vox_mundi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '.').. At least in regards to dark matter don't think it's a math error given the tangible observed effect of clustered galaxies. As for Dark Energy, scientists say it makes up much of the Universe and explains why large astrophysical objects are moving away from each other so rapidly, so some energetic force is propelling them in defiance of gravity

[jedrider]

What if everything we know about dark matter is totally wrong?

This type of statement no longer disturbs me, that we will find this totally alien thing that has been fooling our data for so long.

Our data doesn't appear to be going out of fashion. It is just the data. Explaining it, oh, that's the rub!

I was under the impression that Dark Energy is just what is there in the fabric of the Universe. All we can do is account for it as a number in our equations.

Isn't Dark Matter in the same category? Will someone come up with a glob of 'dark matter' that can be examined in the laboratory? I think not.

We've already smashed gazillions of particles together, and there was no dark matter. Do we need universe level energies to find dark matter? Perhaps.

[BTW: I flunked physics in college. I should have blamed it on the 'Dark' matter or energy, but I didn't know about it back then.]

[Cog]

Dark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

[jedrider]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'D')ark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'D')ark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

[vox_mundi]

A modified law of gravity correctly predicted, in advance of the observations, the velocity dispersion—the average speed of stars within a galaxy relative to each other—in 10 dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way's giant neighbor Andromeda.

The relatively large velocity dispersions observed in these types of dwarf galaxies is usually attributed to dark matter. Yet predictions made using the alternative hypothesis Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) succeeded in anticipating the observations.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a controversial alternative to general relativity, the prevailing Einstein-inspired understanding of the phenomenon of gravity, that requires dark matter to exist, but this has never been proved. MOND does not require dark matter.

The finding bolsters the case McGaugh and Milgrom made for MOND's effectiveness in predicting properties in dwarf galaxies in a paper published earlier this year. In that paper, they successfully predicted the velocity dispersion in 17 of the galaxies.

Lead author Pavel Kroupa, Professor at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, said: "There have been many premature claims on the death of MOND in very influential journals. So far, none stand up to detailed scrutiny."

Dr. Indranil Banik of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of St Andrews, and soon to be of Bonn University, said: "It is remarkable that MOND still makes such successful predictions based on equations written down 35 years ago."

Dr. Hongsheng Zhao, of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of St Andrews, said: "Our modeling of the MOND environmental effect was later confirmed by another group."

Pavel Kroupa et al. Does the galaxy NGC1052–DF2 falsify Milgromian dynamics?, Nature (2018)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0429-z

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'D')ark matter makes physics mass for the universe equations work. That doesn't mean it's real.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vox_mundi', '+')1 Gas & onlooker


I'm bettin' there's a whole chuck of physics that's missing

[vox_mundi]

Aha!

We're all living in the Matrix.