Daily News


Scientists at FermiLab, as many of you may know by now, may have found a new sub-atomic particle, one that may have to do with explaining mass, and one that may signal a new force in physics:

Fermilab particle discovery could lead to a new physics

Note carefully what is being said in this article: if - and it's at this stage a mighty big if - this discovery turns out to be a genuine new particle - then it throws the standard model of quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory in history, into a cocked hat, for Fermilab's new particle has not been predicted by the theory, whereas other particles long sought by scientists in confirmation of the standard model, the Higgs boson or so-called "God particle," have not.

But it's still too early to tell if this Fermilab result is real, or merely a statistical anomaly, as the following article suggests:

New Subatomic Particle: Real or Anomaly?

It may seem an odd procedure to editorialize on a potential new scientific discovery, but on this one I cannot resist the temptation to do so, for while I love the standard model and its unparalleled march of success, I can't help but wanting something to come along and rock the boat a bit, to "throw a spanner into the works" as the British are wont to say, just for the sheer fun of watching the whole scientific process of reasoning at work, live, and not on Memorex, so to speak. The discovery of such a particle with such peculiar characteristics would, as the first article implied, resolve some riddles and open new ones.

What's my intuition on this one? My intuition is that it's real, and not just an anomaly, but time, and CERN's Large Hadron Collider, will tell.


  1. Einstein as a front man standard operational procesure remember Aristode he was used in the same way to throw sand in the eyes of the semi-educated public and hold back science and serve the interests of the rich and more inportantly the powerful hold back and enslave the majority of the populations around the world that why all the libraries of other people when they had the chance to were distroyed that why what is taught in schools resemble the world of 1984 than reality.

  2. ah… more particles and sub-particles… that search for the fundamental “object” as the basis of matter/energy/consciousness… could there also be common link to biology, psychology, history, social cycles?

    right now i am getting deep into Joseph’s book, Babylon;s Banksters and today’s topic takes us back to core physics, which JPF, posits in this book as being linked to socio-economic cycles and the root of age-old alchemy.

    here are some links to a possible link between all of the above — Microvita Theory, introduced by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, is still in development/research phase, one might say, not being a full-blown exposition… or perhaps, more is really known, but less is said, until human beings are ready, both personally and collectively, to integrate and process it… (not to say that the dark side has not already made considerable headway in these directions anyway)…




  3. The “Q” physics march was off step to begin with since they were using faulty math among other things – you know – Maxwell’s original vs the edited version etc. It has to come out sometime…do you suppose this is a disclosure time of sorts?

    1. hoo boy, you raise an interesting point. Is there a mathematician on board
      here (don’t look at me, i don’t do math, some people don’t do windows, i don’t
      do math) who could re work the math on subatomic particles using quarternion

  4. I would question the “unparalleled march of success” statement. Given that the standard model cannot understand fully half of the documented effects of magnetism alone, I would put it a long, long way from success.

    We have to remember that human scientists are billions of years behind the Universe in understanding, and with all the politics, economic, ego, and other interference, it will be one heck of a long time before they catch up.

    There are those who say that all particles are statistical anomalies. Keely predicted the structure of the proton 50 years before “science” figured it out, but because he didn’t use the “correct” language or have the right connections, he was considered a flake. His approach to subatomic worlds was based on harmonics, and he made predictions (one hallmark of true science) which have come true.

    I firmly believe that the “standard model” is a castrated system designed to hold back progress, not take us forward. I feel strongly that Einstein’s 1905 paper was produced to give the elite a pseudo-science anchor for public consumption, and to mask the insights of Whittaker’s 1903 and 1904 papers. Whittaker was far brighter and more capable than Einstein (as were many other scientists of the time), yet he is hardly remembered (like Tesla), while people fawn all over Einstein, who was a second rate, plagiarizing hack. It is an obvious PR operation.

    Stop and think about it – just exactly what did Einstein do to earn “top scientist” status? He basically wrote three papers of any import, most of the contents of which were stolen ideas already in circulation, and had considerable help even with those. Even his famous E=Mc2 equation was supposedly published in an Italian journal by someone else at least one year before he supposedly came up with it. The famous eclipse expedition which supposedly “proved” relativity was actually a huge failure, with the sky being clouded over most of the time, and little photographic data actually being produced, almost none of which backed up the “proved” statement. Obvious PR scam again.

    We see this all the time today – Pons and Fleishman get pilloried for publishing outside of “the proper” journals, while the clown who supposedly discovered HIV (and also stole material) did exactly the same thing and was extolled as a great and wonderful hero. (He avoided peer-review because the last time he tried the same sort of “miracle virus” claim, it was shown quite clearly that he simply had contaminated samples and extremely poor lab processes. He was trying to prove that cancer was caused by a virus carried by blacks and prostitutes. Sound a little familiar? He is obviously one of the elite’s fair haired boys.)

    Where would we be if we (the great unwashed – useless eaters) had the real science? How much further could we have progressed with better tools?

  5. The timing of this article is remarkable. At a time when the world is questioning the use of nuclear energy…..along comes a new particle that POSSIBLY hints at a saviour. Could this particle have been known for a long time but now the time is ripe to start introducing some of these exotic physics? Since information of this kind is heavily controlled,if not totally, then one must wonder the significance of such a release. I think I’m correct in saying, as per your Babylon Banksters…. the choices are to maintain the closed system and perpetual war and conflict…. or to open it up a little and venture out into space. Only time will tell 🙂

  6. Possibly a controlled release of information that overlaps with black world techniques.

    Sort of akin to what Chirstine wrote: Seems to me that it’s usually better to figure out how to open the door instead of simply ripping the door off its hinges. Door opening is usually much more informative, and uses less energy, than bashing.

  7. “In the ensuing explosions, many different combinations of exotic particles are created.”

    and that may be all that it ever is, creating fragments of previously unfragmented larger particles, that normally tend to break one way, but sometimes another.

    A long time ago, I came up with the idea, that the vast majority of the particles
    in an atom that turn up only when you smash the major subatomic particles,
    is just, well, broken glass so to speak. that they do not exist outside of abnormal
    conditions. I unfortunately used the word “artificial” when speaking to a teacher
    about this, and he answered that they have been detected in space, but the
    situation would be the same, that they are the product of stressors that fragment
    atoms and subatomic particles, and do not exist in a normal healthy atom.
    Except perhaps as like flaws in a diamond or something like that, characteristic
    tendency to fragment into something that is normally an intact part of the larger
    solid diamond, wine glass, whatever. the shape, and microscopic flaws in
    the breakable will control the shape of the fragments when it breaks. But the
    thing itself is not a hodge podge of the pieces it breaks into, before it breaks.

    Does this make any sense, Dr. Farrell?

Comments are closed.