That's why we need to see some observational data to support Herod's god-alien-ILF hypothesis.
Published February 10, 2015
Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have detected two never-before-seen subatomic particles. These Ξb particles were predicted by the quark model and estimated to have masses roughly six times that of the proton, but previous experiments have not run at high enough energy to produce these massive particles. The detections offer new precision measurements of the Ξb masses, which will place tighter constraints on particle physics theories.
Quarks come in three families: up/down, strange/charm, and bottom/top. In 2007, physicists observed the first particle with one quark from each family: Ξ−b, consisting of one bottom, one strange, and one down quark, giving it a negative charge of −1. However, this is just the lowest mass version of this three-family quark combination. Quark theory predicts the existence of two higher mass cousins of Ξ−b, called Ξ′−b and Ξ∗−b, which are characterized by their spin of 1/2 and 3/2, respectively.
To confirm the existence of these short-lived Ξ−b particles, the LHCb experiment at CERN looked for evidence of Ξ−b decays in data from proton-proton collisions at energies of 7 and 8 tera-electron-volts. Specifically, they investigated decays into a neutral Ξ0b and a negatively charged pion (π−). They observed signatures for two particles at masses of 5935 and 5955 mega-electron-volts, corresponding to Ξ′−b and Ξ∗−b. The results came as a surprise, as many models predicted that the Ξ′−b was not massive enough to decay through this route, and a search at another CERN experiment had not found the equivalent decay of a closely related particle Ξ′0b. Using the new, very precise mass measurements, theorists will be able to improve their models—specifically those that predict the mass of other quark-based particles.
This research is published in Physical Review Letters.
–Michael Schirber
No need to behave so defensively, Frank. Nobody's going to gut or anything. Relax!
I just hope you keep not throwing yourself in front of those rather persistent and hard-body illusions called 'buses'... You could hurt yourself really bad.
Math is talking about another reality altogether, which calls for its own concepts.
This seems to vindicate my perception that the big bang singularity is more of a limit (in the math sense of a value that a function can get very close to but never reach) than an actual event.
Are you saying that your philosophy is talking about another reality altogether?
Yes, words may assume different meanings depending on the context. As long as you actually can define those different meanings (as I did in my post to FBM), you should be fine. Can you?
I don't care for your meaningless examples. You cannot DEFINE what you mean by 'know' in different contexts?
You probably have no idea what exact difference you have in mind...
I haven't seen a definition from you. Examples that mean very little, yes. I don't think you actually know much about that difference. You just 'feel' that there is a difference of meaning. Otherwise, you would be able to explain it rationally.
And of course, you absolutely CANNOT repeat that definition one more time, since you hate to repeat yourself, as we all know...
<giggles>
Hahaha... How to fill a full post with hot air.
I admit a penchant for mocking. Some people around here make that penchant very hard to resist, though.
Including those who postulate differences that they are totally incapable of explaining or defining...
...or those pontificating about how they know so well that it's impossible to know anything...
Much mental garbage gets dumped on this MB.
