Scientists Say They Have New Evidence For The Universe

One of those baffling puzzles attempted to be solved with various expensive devices is explaining how equal amounts of matter and antimatter that was supposedly produced in the big bang. The major reason why this has been obstacle is because matter and antimatter annihilate each other.  So with nothing  left, basically all you have is energy going out into all directions which puts on damper on the evolutionary story. Labeled a work in progress, cosmologists have been hoping to discover some mechanism for asymmetry!

Experiments conducted at the collisions at the Tevatron and Large Hadron Colliders in Illinois and CERN, now claim they have found the answer. reported…

“…This latest experiment came up with an unbalanced ratio of matter to antimatter that goes beyond the imbalance predicted by the Standard Model. Specifically, physicists discovered a 1 percent difference between pairs of muons and antimuons that arise from the decay of particles known as B mesons.”

The researchers have claimed that this bias is 40 times larger than what the Standard Model predicts. A moving model is not one would call; standard but rather just the opposite. Plus, there are major flaws with this conclusion, Adrian Cho commentary indicates an experiment loaded with so much interpretation on statistical data that it makes it very difficult to discern where observational data ends and where the theory actually begins.

He writes

“So when a team reported last week that certain particles showed a huge matter-antimatter asymmetry, physicists—and the front page of The New York Times—took note, as it could be a sign of new particles. But the marginal result could be a fluke, and theorists say it’s difficult to explain why the effect is so big in this study and so small in earlier work on related particles.”

Not only that, but he believes further testing is needed with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) where it feeds a detector named LHCb that’s designed to study B mesons. Unlike the media which almost always gives these alleged findings a pass, Adrian Cho does take a cautious approach to what was concluded in the experiment.

David Berlinski’s wrote an excellent essay called, The State of the Matter. Even though Berlinski is not a creationist, nor in the intelligent design movement, he’s very good at exposing the scientific pretensions which run rampant in today’s research in science.

In his essay he states…

“What implications in all this for the grand narrative of our times?  Where do the arrows of explanation in the end point?”

“The plain truth—no trivial thing, of course—is that no one knows. It is odd and remarkable that in the face of theories that have proven inconclusive such as string theory, physicists that they must at once change the standards by which their theories are judged.”

“When it is not possible to argue the facts, lawyers quite understand, then it is necessary to argue the law.  In this the physicists have unwittingly drawn close to doctrines that previously they had rejected as frivolous.  But neither physicists disposed radically to change the law, nor physicists disposed radically to reject the change, have made arguments that have persuaded the other side.”

“And if they cannot persuade one another, surely it is unreasonable for either side to expect that they have persuaded us.”

15 thoughts on “Scientists Say They Have New Evidence For The Universe

  1. Still no anwers to the four outstanding questions, Michael ?

    Still hiding ? Still pretending the questions will just go away ?

    Well, they won’t:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    And what on earth has the matter – anti-matter asymmetry got to do with evolutionary biology (‘… the evolutionary story’) ?

  2. Eelco, don’t forget the quiz in the previous post to determine WHETHER OR NOT MICHAEL IS AS SMART AS A CAVEMAN. My bet is still that he will not be able to answer a single question correctly.

  3. The first thing to notice in Michael’s verbal farrago is that, despite the title of his blog, this experimental result has absolutely nothing to do with creationism. If you differ, Michael, please explain in what way an excess of B-mesons indicates a young age for the universe, polonium radiohalos, the existence of unicorns, or any other evidence for special creation.

    Another aspect to notice is that the effect, although large, was barely detectable. B-mesons, like cold dark matter, cannot be detected directly. (Michael denies CDM based upon that fact alone.) Why does he admit this result, which can only infer the mesons by detecting their decay products down the line? In fact, it’s worse than that. The indirect detection of B-mesons employs the Standard Model. Michael leaps on a possible error in the SM because too many mesons were detected—Yet perhaps the SM was incorrect in a way that detected too many mesons? Others (although not Michael) may remember a similar challenge to the Standard Model when too few solar neutrinos were detected. It turned out that, contrary to a previous assumption, neutrinos do have a small amount of rest mass, which allows them to change type in mid-flight. Changing a minor subsidiary assumption fixes the model–A “wrong” result makes the model stronger, more definite.

    But, since the B-meson effect is barely detectable, and contradicts previous experiments, we’ll try it again with an instrument better able to resolve the uncertainty, the LHCb detector on the Large Hadron Collider. This is what science does while creationism huddles fearfully in its dark corner. This is the exciting part of science.


    Let’s end with a short quiz, to see whether Michael understands the basics of this subject, or whether he merely reads blown-up accounts in Science Daily or the New York Times. Ready? During the “mixing” reaction involved in this experiment, two B-mesons exchange other particles that are heavier than the entire mesons themselves. Your question, Michael, is: How can this be? How can one component of a particle be more massive than the entire particle? Take your time…….

  4. Scientists Say They Have New Evidence For The Universe

    Good. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to it.

  5. If you don’t hurry, Michael, it may be too late for a review of Signature in the Cell. It’s already been trashed so thoroughly that the Dishonesty Institute has put out another book just to stanch the carnage—Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell..

    The new affliction is slimmer—only 105 pages—and to get any circulation they have to offer it as a free download.[1] This new paperweight contains essays by the usual coven—Casey Luskin,[2] David Berlinski,[3] Richard Sternberg,[4] and other DI[5] flotsam that have washed ashore in Seattle. It sounds as though the original essays have appeared elsewhere, and this “book” is merely a collection with a gaudy (digital) cover.

    However, the critics are much more interesting than the DI flacks. In particular Jeffrey Shallit is a noted expert in information theory, and Steve Matheson is a Christian developmental biologist who is now engaged in an extensive chapter-by-chapter deconstruction of SitC. They actually know what they’re talking about, whereas Meyer clearly does not.

    But, download the book from DI if you must. Did I mention it comes with a free subscription to their newsletter?


    [1] I didn’t order one, because you have to swallow along with it a subscription to one of the DI’s newsletters. Hey, the BP oil spill is bad enough; we don’t need any more dreck oozing from the murky depths.

    [2] Who couldn’t find the wristbone on Tiktaalik even when it was labeled in a drawing.

    [3] Who pretends not to be an epigone of the said DI.

    [4] The Smithsonian fired me!! Help!!

    [5] Michael may also be interested in knowing that the DI is a big fan of Russia, and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s autocratic style of government. You could look it up.

  6. Olorin/Downes

    “If you don’t hurry, Michael, it may be too late for a review of Signature in the Cell. It’s already been trashed so thoroughly that the Dishonesty Institute has put out another book just to stanch the carnage—Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell…”

    Currently, I’m unable to read the free book, I signed up for it about two days ago but have yet to get a link on where I can download it, your link for it doesn’t work either.

  7. Well huh. i didn’t save the link I used before, but it was probably to the home page for the book. The following link is to the actual download page:

    I didn’t actually download the book, because of the mandatory newsletter subscription that goes along with it. (This is sort of like the garbage hauler’s guarantee—Double your trash back if you’re not satisfied.) If you download it, let me know if the newsletter offers a way to kill the subscription later.

    Again, time is of the essence. Francisco Ayala has alreadfy torn into it, at Biologos.

  8. Olorin,

    That link works, same place where I signed up for the subscription, but have still haven’t been able to download it. I know you like to read a filtered version of it rather than reading it yourself regardless if you agree or disagree with it.

  9. Aw c’mon. I’ll read the original, just as I did for Signature in the Cell. And Design of Life, and Darwin’s Blaclk Box, and OIcons of Evolution, and The Edge of Evolution, and The Design Inference—I have my own copies of these and more.

  10. ‘Fess up, Michael. I’d wager 100 coulombs that you haven’t read Endless Forms Most Beautiful, or Relics of Eden, or Your Inner Fish, or The Making of the Fittest, or The Selfish Gene, or The Ancestor’s Tale,or The Greatest Show on Earth—much less have your own copy. (Notice that I said “or,” not “and” above.)

    I might even essay another 10 coulombs that you don’t have a copy of,Miller & Levine’s classic text, Biology (Prentice Hall, 29004), despite your claim to have “studied biology for 18 years.”

    Let’s essay into your own territory, Michael. Do you have a personal copy of Design of Life? How about The Design Inference or No Free Lunch? Have you even read these two books that are essential to understanding Meyer’s Signature in the Cell?


    After you have come clean on biology, we can start on cosmology. Say, with P. James E. Peebles’ classic, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton 1993), which is now staring at me from its shelf across the room.

    ‘Fess up, Michael. You have no background in science whatsoever. All you know is whet Answers in Genesis drools into your mouth.

  11. Olorin . . . . . . . . . on June 1, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Eelco, don’t forget the quiz in the previous post to determine WHETHER OR NOT MICHAEL IS AS SMART AS A CAVEMAN. My bet is still that he will not be able to answer a single question correctly.

    Three days, and counting. Tick . . . . Tick . . . . Tick . .. . Tick

    Not a single answer. Reason #78.7 that cavemen laugh at creationists.

  12. One of those baffling puzzles attempted to be solved with various expensive devices ….

    Michael cavils over the $120M cost of the Tevatron. Well, if its only purpose were to disprove creationism, perhaps that would be a bit extravagant. After all, creationists themselves have not spent a dime in research themselves. However, the Tevatron has been in successful operation for a decade, and has provided metric tons of data toward theories in several branches of theoretical and applied physics.

    The ironic part is that, because of his utter lack of background knowledge, Michael misses the trly stupendous costs of other projects that are not now operational and perhaps never wuill be.

    $120M? Pshaw. The national Ignition Facility was begun in 1997.It is now five years behind schedule, and the initial cost has quadrupled to $3.3B. (NIF was in the news recently, but Michael apparently didn’t notice.) Another project, ITER, begun in 2006, is not expected to be functional until 2019, even if everything goes according to schedule. The initial budget of $7B is already expected to double to $14B. And, of course, this technology has never worked in previous smaller projects.

    Yet Michael gets his knickers in a twist over an instrument that costs orders of magnitude less, and is fully operational.

    Go figure.

  13. Olorin: “P. James E. Peebles’ classic, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton 1993), which is now staring at me from its shelf across the room.”

    Don’t let it stare at you, read it ! Wonderful book.

  14. Oh but I have read it. The date of my copy was 22 Feb 1999, and every page has eyeball tracks on it.

    Many new discoveries have been made since it was written, yet it remains the go-to book for fundamental principles. Well—Peebles practically invented the field of physical cosmology.

    There is another connection as well. Peebles was born in my wife’s home town, just two years afterward.

    I’ve often wondered why Peebles doesn’t get the press that seems to envelop some other leading cosmologists. Although he himself was a prolific innovator, perhaps he is thought of as a summarizer—like J.S. Bach in another field.

  15. @Olorin:
    I think that’s because Jim Peebles is a fairly modest Canadian (hailing from the empty bit of Canada), and far more interested in the science than in the press !

    I’ve met him quite a few times now, and he is a very friendly, thoughtful person, with a great sense of humour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s