back to article The Higgs boson search continues ... into ANOTHER dimension

Now that all the fanfare over the sighting of a Higgs-like boson in the Large Hadron Collider has died down, CERN scientists have a few burning questions about the particle. The gigantic proton accelerator will be shut down this year, but physicist Paris Sphicas told The Register the boffins should be able to gather enough data …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Brett Weaver

    Oh.. alright..

    Remember light flickin' out at a constant? Well, I'm sorry... matter just does a similar thing ok? Its pretty obvious if you think it through..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Oh.. alright..


      1. Pete the not so great

        Re: Oh.. alright..

        Go back and live in your cave then

      2. John G Imrie

        Re: Oh.. alright..

        Glad to know that the smallpox virus does not matter then.

      3. Dick Pountain

        Re: Oh.. alright..

        "CERN scientists have a few burning questions about the spotted particle"

        It isn't too small to see - they can see the spots on it. Some of the others have stripes. It's all a cosmic game of pool.

        1. Ancientbr IT

          Re: Oh.. alright..

          So Einstein only had it half right - it's not dice, it's pool!

          PS Bring back Calculator Corner :)

      4. Ancientbr IT

        Re: Oh.. alright..

        So micro-organisms don't matter...? :)

      5. Stoneshop

        @Big Bumb Guy 555

        That statement would apply exclusively to your brain. Other things too small to see can and do matter.

  2. melt

    This is the best explanation of what the Higgs boson is, why it's different to the Higgs field and why it all matters:

    The Higgs Boson, Part I

    The Higgs Boson, Part II: What is Mass?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Worldwide collider project

    Is the vacuum of space good enough at reasonable altitudes to send particles right around the earth using orbiting magnets?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Worldwide collider project

      how about a giant space ring, so big that not only does it house the collider, but it's big enough to contain all the equipment for doing the experiments, and also habitable so that the scientists can live on it. Sounds like a good idea to me.....

      1. Martin Budden Silver badge

        Re: Worldwide collider project

        The only way to accurately understand how the universe works would be to get a full-scale working model and then study that. So what we need, really, is something that is just as big as the universe, looks just like the universe, and behaves just like the universe.... where could we find one of those???

    2. itzman

      Re: Worldwide collider project

      judging by cosmic rays, definitely.

      And in fact a space based instrument of magnets might be ale to capture and collimate those in order to make extremely high energy beams without the expense of having to generate them in the first place

      Hmm I should patent that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Worldwide collider project

        Think it might actually cost more and be much harder than a massive collider.

    3. illiad

      Re: Worldwide collider project

      ... so you are gonna finance it??

      But I think the interference in space would be far too much.. AFAIK isnt that the reason the LHC was build underground??

      1. Andy Fletcher

        Re: Worldwide collider project

        Short answer...yes. To get to grand unification energy, you need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system. That was Hawkings' suggestion anyway. he didn't think we'd get one anytime soon though.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Worldwide collider project

      "Is the vacuum of space good enough at reasonable altitudes"

      No. There's WAY too much still there, even several thousand miles up. Resistance from residual atmosphere and solar wind are significant factors in satellite lifespan, even at 22000 miles. When you are whizzing particles around at .99999999C you want them to hit stuff ONLY where you have detectors, and ONLY stuff that has a known make-up.

      To get the kind of quality vacuum you have in a particle accelerator, you'd have to be outside the heliopause - say hi to Pioneer and Voyager while you're there.

    5. Ancientbr IT

      Re: Worldwide collider project

      Richard Branson might be up for it - not sure about Rupert Murdoch.

      Oh, magnets - sorry, I thought you said magnates...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is there an end point?

    I'm not a particle physicist, so this may seem a silly question, but is there an end point? A point at which we will no longer find any new particles? A point at which we can explain how everything comes from nothing?

    Will we look back in 1000 years on today's notions of dark matter and think of them as we currently think of ancient beliefs that lightning was Zeus's doing?

    1. Daniel Evans

      Re: Is there an end point?

      Well, we've not reached it yet - and that's about the best answer you can get, most likely!

    2. itzman

      Re: Is there an end point?

      I don't think, philosophically, there can be an end point.

      None of these entities exist, all we have is detectable phenomena and a the superposition of a mathematical noumenon to account for them according to the presumed ubiquity of Causality.

      If you like each layer of noumenal 'reality' requires - necessitates - a further dimension in order to 'cause' it. So long as you stick to the principle that nothing happens but that something causes it. I.e. there is, implicit in the principle of causality itself, an infinite chain of causes leading in any given direction to a Prime Cause.

      In the time direction, we get the Big Bang, or God,, depending on your point of view. But what 'caused' the big bang? Or God? We have to posit some higher dimension outside the known universe, or ditch causality itself.

      Eastern mysticism does that of course. The Tao is held to be 'that which exists through itself'. The causeless cause of everything else.

      Douglas Adams posited a bunch of pan dimensional white mice..

      Pastafarians allude to multiple dimensions of tightly coiled spaghetti.

      Really its a free choice. But perhaps we should start to question why we see the world as a lot of bits interacting with each other, along law-constrained causal lines. Is it really like that? Or is that merely the best approximation we can hold in our heads to account for its observed nature?

      1. Canecutter

        Re: Is there an end point?

        In fact there is an end point. It is the point at which the energies of the interacting particles are such that their Compton radii become equal to their Schwarzschild radii. Beyond that, it is not possible, even in principle, to make build any apparatus to make sense of what (if anything) goes on.

        But that is a LONG way away from what exists at present.

        1. illiad

          Re: Is there an end point?

          here is a good interactive flash about the scale of things, from size of the galaxy down to veeeeeerrry smalll ... :)

          (you can select different 'versions' inside... :) )

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Is there an end point?

        But perhaps we should start to question why we see the world as a lot of bits interacting with each other, along law-constrained causal lines.

        "Start"? We have multiple centuries-old philosophical traditions that question causality, not to mention 90% of sophomores rediscovering the idea.

        Most of them quickly come to the conclusion that without some set of axioms to tie phenomenology to a rational description, you can say anything you want. That's of limited utility.

    3. Annihilator

      Re: Is there an end point?

      Well there doesn't seem to be one yet, but bear in mind this is all models, theories and ways of describing (pretty accurately) how the world around us works. There may well be a point at which the lower levels gets to the point where the details are irrelevant to the conditions we experience.

      It's a bit like asking "what happened before the big bang", it really doesn't matter (and in our concept of time, can't be answered), but if you consider the events to be "outside" the big bang, they could have no influence on events inside it, and thus are irrelevant to the models we need to predict our universe.

      I realise now that I've waded so far out of my depth, I'm breathing through a straw, so I'll back out now.

      1. Gordon 10

        Re: Is there an end point?

        Big Fleas have little fleas,

        upon their backs to bite them.

        Little fleas have smaller fleas,

        and so on ad infinitum.

      2. Marty

        "what happened before the big bang"

        I have a little theory on this... not based on any actual data, but would actually fit with actual probabilities...

        ok, so the universe is expanding.., we have stars being born, living their lives, and exploding, some into super novas, some into red jiants, some into white dwarfs, and some into black holes...

        black holes wander the cosmos, sucking up matter... it has a massive gravitational field so big that light cant escape...

        as time goes by, when all the stars have burned themselves out, it is likely that all that will be left is black holes wandering about, smaller ones attracted to the larger ones .... (would one black hole consume another?)

        eventually, I would imagine that there would be one black hole left, crushing and compressing the entire content of the known universe into a tiny particle with a enormous mass.... that well,,, explodes with a big bang.... scattering everything across the universe....

        maybe this has happened before.... several times....

        1. Gobhicks

          Re: "what happened before the big bang"

          ...Bang/Crunch/Bang/Crunch/... not a new idea. I recall musing on the possibility of sentient entities that might persist through Bang/Crunch cycles. Aye them were't days, lad, the days of shrooms and poses.

        2. John G Imrie

          Re: "what happened before the big bang"

          Interesting theory, with only one problem. No one has yey worked out if there is enough matter in the universe to cause it to collapse.

          One intersecting theory states that should the universe start to collapse then time would run backward.

        3. Nigel 11

          Re: "what happened before the big bang"

          Actually (in theory) black holes evaporate, albeit very slowly for large ones. (In practice, we don't have any black holes that we can observe in enough detail to know). Anyway, as they evaporate they spit out photons, and so the end-point of the universe is a sea of stable particles, mostly photons, spread very thin by the expansion of space-time.

          The other thing that seems to be happening is that the expansion of space-time is accelerating ("dark energy"). This is observational astronomy, not theory. This might mean that the ultimate end comes much sooner (relatively speaking - mere gigayears or terayears - tomorrow is unlikely but not impossible) when the velocity of every particle in the universe with repect to every other particle becomes greater than the speed of light. All interaction ceases, there are no events left to happen, the universe is done. Everything is past. Time, and "what happens next?", no longer have meaning.

          (There's no ban in relativity on purely geometric speeds in excess of the speed of light - the framework can expand faster than the speed of light. That's why we talk of the known universe, because there may be parts of the whole universe that are receding from us at greater than the speed of light, which we'll never be able to see unless the expansion slows down or reverses).

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Peter Mc Aulay

              Re: @Nigel 11

              Apart from that, the "uniform sea of low-energy photons all outside each other's light cone" final end state idea depends on proton decay, which is not demonstrated to happen. So, no Big Rip.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Ancientbr IT

            Re: "what happened before the big bang"

            As I understand it (as a non-expert) dark matter holds structures such as galaxies together while dark energy causes the accelerating expansion of the space-time in between the blobs of dark matter.

            In addition, the nature of the "foaming" universe includes pairs of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence and that normally annihilate each other - except when they're sufficiently close to the event horizon of a black hole (naked singularity), at which point one of the pair may be captured and separated from the other sufficiently that the remnant virtual particle becomes real.

            This seems to me to suggest that matter is constantly being added to space-time. If this happens outside a blob of dark matter, then there is presumably no real net effect - the new particles will simply move farther away from each other.

            However, if it happens inside the blob of dark matter, then although black holes may evaporate over a long period of time (shorter if they're microscopic) there will be a constant supply of fresh matter, potentially capable of forming new solar systems and galaxies (with new black holes) within the increasingly isolated islands of dark matter.

            There seems to be evidence for the existence of at least one or more additional dimensions (whether of space or time or both, I'm not sure), allowing the possibility of connections beyond our presently-observable universe, but whether that helps or hinders our ability to predict what is likely to happen, I don't know.

            And now I can't remember where I was going with this...:)

        4. markoer

          Re: "what happened before the big bang"

          Not every celestial object has enough mass to become a black hole.

        5. Ancientbr IT

          Re: "what happened before the big bang"

          Black holes evaporate...

      3. Nigel 11

        Re: Is there an end point?

        It's also possible to have no end-point or start-point, if time, space and any other dimensions that may exist are all cyclic.

        This is not a popular viewpoint, given the overwhelming evidence that about 20 Gyears ago, the entire universe was compressed into a very matter-dense, very hot, very small and very ordered volume. We call that the big bang. Nevertheless, it's huge leap from that, to assuming that it all originated in a mathematical singularity some tiny fraction of a second earlier. That's a leap from the unknown to the fundamentally un-knowable. From something that might one day be understood by observation and deduction, to something that absolutely cannot be.

    4. Eddie Edwards

      Re: Is there an end point?

      I've often wondered if Godel's Theorem applies. If we consider physics model X to be a mathematical system in which questions can be asked and results proved, and if physics model X includes the ability to do arithmetic within the model (i.e. using experiments to do sums), then Godel's Theorem seems to imply that physics model X has to be either incomplete or inconsistent. Incomplete meaning some questions cannot be answered; inconsistent meaning you can solve the same problem two ways and get different results.

      Science prevents physics model X from being inconsistent - if an inconsistency were found, it would be known to be a flawed model (c.f. physics model X = general relativity + standard model).

      The universe's own physics is by definition complete - every experiment has a result.

      So, if the true laws of physics are consistent, this seems to induce an infinite chain of physics models X,Y,Z, each a meta-model for the previous one (c.f. general relativity being a meta-model for Newtonian grativation) and each getting closer to, but never quite reaching, the truth.

      OTOH, with quantum weirdness and all, it may be that the universe is not consistent (in the sense of Godel's Theorem) since the same question can give different answers at different times. In that case, there could be a complete theory of everything, only thanks to quantum weirdness.

      And perhaps that ultimately explains why the universe has to have quantum weirdness.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is there an end point?

      Given what we know and what we theorize, the smallest things that make any sense to talk about are one Planck length big. That's about 1.6*10^35 meter - about 1/(5*10^19 ) of the "width" of a proton, so we have a long way to go before we get that small.

      And the assumption that the Planck length is the limit is due to our current understandings of gravity and mass at small scales - and we KNOW we don't have a good theoretical model that merges General Relativity (gravity) with Quantum Mechanics (mass and small stuff). When we find that theory that lets us deal with both in the same set of equations without it blowing up in our face with infinities and negative probabilities, we may discover that you cannot get that small, or that you can get much smaller, or that there are more dimensions in Heaven and Earth than are drempt of in our philosophies.

  5. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

    Mirror universe particles...

    ...will be recognisable due to their little goatee beards.

    1. Annihilator
      Thumb Up

      Re: Mirror universe particles...

      You guys, are my best friends, through thick and thin, we've always been together.

    2. The Original Cactus

      Re: Mirror universe particles...

      I have a little goatee beard. Now I understand why everything here is backwards!

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Mirror universe particles...

        I've got a bearded goat - brother.

  6. frank ly

    Not yet confirmed:

    "...questions about the spotted particle." , "...the spotted Higgs-like boson ..."

    It is not certain that the spotted Higgs boson has been observed. It could be the lesser-spotted, the striped or the tufted boson. Further and more detailed observations and measurements are need.

    1. Syed

      Re: Not yet confirmed:

      Not to mention the unladen mass of an African boson vs a European boson.

      1. Ancientbr IT

        Re: Not yet confirmed:

        ...or the North American boson...

        ...or the boson of the lifeboat...

    2. itzman

      Re: Not yet confirmed:

      As long as its not the dreaded double horned triple breasted Boson of Eroticon V, we can all rest easy in our beds.

      1. ~mico

        Re: Not yet confirmed:

        >double horned

        do want!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I note that someone has drawn a picture of a dinosaur head on the wall in the top photo

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      It's a dinosaur-like head. We're not yet sure whether it is the expected dinosaur head, or something more exotic like a dragon. We have to make some more measurements first.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. BoldMan

          Re: re dinosaur head

          Here be Dragons! or Welshmen... not sure which is more scary!

      2. Sam 15

        "It's a dinosaur-like head. We're not yet sure whether it is the expected dinosaur head, or something more exotic like a dragon. We have to make some more measurements first."

        Probably drawn by somebody who spent ages on that platform waiting for the next train.

    2. Dave 126

      Well spotted... a dinosaur head in profile, wearing sunglasses. On the wall on the left of the first photo.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Large smelly animals

    Higgs Bison

  9. Loyal Commenter Silver badge


    I was reading the other day in New Scientist that there are actaully already signs of anisotropy in the particle's decay, which lend support to supersymmetry.


    The article is behind a paywall, but IIRC the general gist is that observations so far show more decays into pairs of photons and fewer into other particles (I think it was B-mesons) than expected for the Standard Model.

    1. Nigel 11

      Re: Anisotropy

      Not yet at enough sigmas to even justify calling it a hint. Well, that if the lines in the New Scientist graphic were the conventional length of one sigma. Hopefully they'll have a better idea before the CERN upgrade commences.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So we have the higgs field, which is what gives things mass, essentially defining them as things rather than just pretty lights, and the higgs boson which is the particle that transports the higgs field, which floods the universe and is everywhere, communicating this existence of mass...

    ... is it just me, or have they re-invented luminiferous aether?

    1. Julz

      No it's not just you, we have...

    2. Nigel 11


      More like the non-luminiferous aether. Photons do not interact with the Higgs field, therefore remain massless, and consequentially can exist only by travelling at the speed of light. Photons (and maybe gravitons, if they exist) are the only things which do NOT disturb the Higgs field.

  11. Silverburn

    In the lab one day..

    Boffin 1: Ok, I divided this with this...and I've got a 3 left over.

    Boffin 2: Hmmm. Long division wasn't my forte either.

    B1: If I publish this, I'll look like a muppet who can't divide.

    B2: I know - just pretend it's the sign of an "extra dimension". I've got a few sums that don't work either which I can bury in there too.

    B1: But won't someone check our workings?

    B2: Pfft. They're as good at long division as we are. Plus they don't have their own LHC to compare results to either.

    B1: ..and it'll give us an excuse for the grant extension!

    1. Martin Budden Silver badge

      Re: In the lab one day..

      Are you thinking what I'm thinking B1?

      I think I am B2!

  12. Neo2012

    False claims in the post

    The post claims that all particles except spin zero are known,so what about spin2-graviton?Why couldn't this be a chargless,masless,spin2 particle as graviton as spin can be known only after decay?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    I loved that show, although the episode where they jumped into the 'sex dimension' was lacking in some detail ;-)

    1. Euripides Pants

      Re: Sliders

      Couldn't stand the show after I found out it really wasn't about a pan-dimensional White Castle.

  14. thomas k.

    mirror universe = bleeding obvious?

    As a non-scientific type person - would that make me a noboff? - it's always struck me, in regards to the question of our universe's missing anti-matter, that the bleeding obvious answer would be a mirror anti-matter universe existing in parallel with our own.

  15. Richard Scratcher
    Paris Hilton

    If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

    The latest results from the LHC have confirmed my long-held theory about QED, the standard model and supersymmetry, namely that I'll never be able to understand them no matter how many simple analogies these so-called boffins come up with to try to explain things.

    It's like trying to teach a caveman to play scrabble.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

      It's simple. Quantum effects are just exchanges. It's not a wave or a particle. It's just an exchange of information (or energy).

      The Higgs exchanges the information or energy of mass in this case. A nice little Youtube video is here...

      (I had a mental block on QM and wave/particle stuff until I saw this video. :P )

      1. Richard Scratcher

        Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

        I was with you up to "It's simple".

    2. daniel1980

      Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

      It's my opinion that even those most intimately familiar with these theories and the experiments don't understand them. At least not in the way you're trying to.

      The thing is that when you get this deep into it, you can't explain or understand it in terms of familiar, everyday examples and analogies and if you try to then you get an imperfect picture which breaks down very quickly, leaving you more confused than when you started.

      I think one of the finest (and most essential) talents of physicists is the ability to just trust the numbers without needing to 'understand' them in the traditional sense. In the end I think that's what all of this is - a bunch of numbers and equations. The numbers and the equations work (and work very well) but they don't do you and me much good.

      That's not, in any way, to lessen the achievements of this field - quite the contrary. Humans just aren't equipped to understand these things 'properly' so we do what we can which is to understand the sub-atomic universe through mathematics. It's a spectacular testament that, even faced with an impossible task (the understanding of reality on a fundamental level,) these scientists persist anyway and in doing so, advance our knowledge and quality of life.

      SO I suppose the upshot is to just not worry - no one understands these things in that way - if they did then they could explain it to the rest of us without having to use long strings of otherwise unintelligible words. Like this from the wikipedia article on something to do with String Theory:

      "These conditions imply that the first integral Chern class c1(M) of M vanishes, but the converse is not true. The simplest examples where this happens are hyperelliptic surfaces, finite quotients of a complex torus of complex dimension 2, which have vanishing first integral Chern class but the canonical bundle is not trivial."

      That's a part of a description of a mathematical concept (a 'Calabi–Yau manifold') used as a part of string theory and is in itself something that is impossible to visualise and with no acceptable real-world analogies. The fact that such a concept even exists and its mathematics understood and in use it as mind boggling and impressive to me as (theoretical) object itself.

      1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

        Re: Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

        "The thing is that when you get this deep into it, you can't explain or understand it in terms of familiar, everyday examples and analogies"

        Indeed - a mathematician friend once tried to begin an explanation for some system with: "Imagine a 2D space. Now a 3D space. OK? Now imagine an N-dimensional space where N is greater than ..."

        We try our best to explain science stuff; it's often a fun challenge to squeeze a complex subject into one sentence. But that's for lunchtime reading, not all-night study.


        1. Nigel 11

          Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

          Non-scientists often ask for a simplified, non-mathematical explanation. What they don't understand is that the two adjectives are mutually contradictory. Mathematics is the simplest language we've got for describing how the universe works.

          And no, we don't know why. Maybe God is a mathematician.

      2. Peter Mc Aulay

        Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

        Just goes to show that to a serious mathematician, "familiar and everyday" does not mean what it does to you and me...

      3. John 62

        Re: If you knew SUSY like I know SUSY...

        I'm reading flatland at the minute. Just got to the bit where the square explains to his grandson the relation between mathematics and geometry for 2D and the grandson asks if anything can be raised to the third. And I've seen Marcus De Sotoy's TV programme twice now where he tries to explain the hypercube in the Grande Arche in Paris, but I'm still not quite getting it.

  16. Bigpatc


    I am ready with my BFG to kick some trans-dimensional butt. Any cacodemons sighted yet?


    1. Marty

      Re: BFG

      i for one welcome our new trans-dimensional cacodemon overlords !!!

  17. anadish

    SM to FM

    SM is in trouble but till we can built all kinds of imaginable scaled up colliders, we can ward off the trouble by hope. Can we ever hope to get an FM -- the Full Model?

  18. jonathan keith
    Paris Hilton


    She's working at CERN too now? Is there no end to her talents?

  19. Mark Harburn

    This sounds a lot like...

    The force....

  20. IHateWearingATie

    And this thread is why...

    ... I love The Register...

    Mixture of obscure Si-fi references, degree level comments and random burbling, all mixed together.

    All we need now is amanfrommars to comment and the thread will be complete

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On the flip side

    What are the odds that someone will use the recently derived Higgs data to fix their version of the Standard Model, correct all those pesky infinities and end up with an equation that among other things leads to a method of building a device that jumps dimensions?


    (most likely to be based on rotating magnetic fields interacting with a pair of counterrotating superconducting disks, with an accelerometer to tune the resulting gravitomagnetic interaction so it stabilises)

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As a warning to all eastern members:

    "How should we make it attractive for them [young people] to spend 5,6,7 years in our field, be satisfied, learn about excitement, but finally be qualified to find other possibilities?" -- H. Schopper

    "The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X]

    source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report

    ISBN: 9290831693

    cheap eastern labour. dead-end carrier path.

  23. AceRimmer1980
    Thumb Up

    In another dimension?

    With voyeuristic intention?

  24. daniel1980


    ...had Kari Wurher. If you can find a reality better than that then be my guest.

  25. Britt Johnston

    Slightly related question

    Isn't it important to track the particles' fate in detail, to pay and reclaim VAT every time they cross the French/Swiss border? Some of these particles are quite expensive.

  26. Marino

    How could the scientist possibly find the "higgs", as the velocity of the traveling particles is not 100% of light?

    So the absolute total energy needed to produce, is already behind the eight ball?

    And are they also forgetting the energy it takes the person/s to "see/find" the particle into the equation?

    To get 100% of the results you first need 100% of the forces involved and not CLOSE TO.

    ABSOLUTE ENERGY equals INPUT, OUTPUT and USAGE (A.E.I.O.U) or another way to put it E/m=c2.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. Slightly related question

    Ssh, don't tell ConDem that, they will invent a "Quark Tax" or something similar to extract more money from the pockets of us poor taxpayers.

    Its bad enough with "Envirowhiner taxes" aka petrol and diesel excise duty, rumour has it that the sale of electric vehicles has been reduced in the EU thanks to the Battery Directive making the resale of used packs illegal as they now have to be recycled at a designated company.

  28. Marino


    Let me please explain my self in the formula E/m=c2.


    And by the way, the total number of humans on the planet have now reached the toatal age of the universe (or very close to, so soon "will come of age"). To explain further, the combined total of hiumans (energy to forn YOU) and the total percieved age of the universe is equal. (utilizing the inner and outer enegy) so utilizing man produced physics all energy is exhausted, (besides the individaials perception).

  29. Marino


    I the silly sausage have to corret mysel, it needs "101" to produce,100%.

This topic is closed for new posts.