IM Egdall Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Some interesting news out of CERN on the quark-gluon soup of matter just after the big bang: http://news.discovery.com/space/lhc-collision-new-form-matter-cern-121128.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Higgs boson 2 ? Edited November 28, 2012 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Higgs boson 2 ? No. Nothing like that mentioned in the article. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think that unexpected phenomenon described further is a normal ranges. In any case I'm really not surprised of this result observed : “Somehow they fly at the same direction even though it's not clear how they can communicate their direction with one another. That has surprised many people, including us,” This means that the energy goes faster than light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think that unexpected phenomenon described further is a normal ranges. In any case I'm really not surprised of this result observed : “Somehow they fly at the same direction even though it's not clear how they can communicate their direction with one another. That has surprised many people, including us,” This means that the energy goes faster than light. "It's not clear" just means they don't know what's going on yet. You're reading too much into the statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) This is the proof of the direct evidence than the energy owing provides that quantum entanglement (mono checkpoint bounds at only one database) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement ... just means they don't know what's going on yet. I had already started to understand the system since a long time now. It's the information that I expected, and expect more in the coming weeks. The entanglement is the constitutional basis I had settled in my writings in French. The problem that the French refuse, is that I include a hypothetical particle up to millions of times the speed of light. Yes this reprensente the "particle's energy". We have let time take Its course. I say that for me ; we are not press. Friendly. Arnaud Ps : however the last time the same story has cost me one "point" here : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70595-what-generates-gravity/page__st__20__p__714153#entry714153 Edited November 28, 2012 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 This is the proof of the direct evidence than the energy owing provides that quantum entanglement (mono checkpoint bounds at only one database) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement I had already started to understand the system since a long time now. It's the information that I expected, and expect more in the coming weeks. The entanglement is the constitutional basis I had settled in my writings in French. The problem that the French refuse, is that I include a hypothetical particle up to millions of times the speed of light. Yes this reprensente the "particle's energy". We have let time take Its course. I say that for me ; we are not press. Friendly. Arnaud Ps : however the last time the same story has cost me one "point" here : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70595-what-generates-gravity/page__st__20__p__714153#entry714153 I'm responding in the context of accepted physics, not your personal conjecture. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 hi swansont. You're right. I told my story. I assure you I did not mean it at all. just this new was not a surprised to me. I had given the reasons that I should not have detail in this thread. Really sorry. Sincerely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Interesting. A quark-gluon plasma/ soup, or just a gluon plasma/soup, are both theoretical entities, but to make such an assertion from this data seems like a leap involving much speculation also Edited November 29, 2012 by pantheory 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts