Slashdot Mirror

Looks like this one.

I decided to try my best to understand what's being proposed here. So I RTFA, then I read the linked articles, then I read the articles supporting those, essentially in an attempt to get to the underlying "proof" or "theory" on which this "new" proposal is built.

If you read TFA, you know that he just gave the presentation last weekend. The paper either hasn't been published yet, or it's based on one of these.

now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?

OK, but what are these "non-standard" scientists going to do differently? Do they have experiments that would be a better application of our (collective) money than an upgrade in the standard model?

Even if the standard model is somewhat wrong (it's mostly right, just like Newton's model is mostly right), then what experiments would we do differently to verify it?

these are extremely pertinent and insightful questions that i deliberately didn't ask in the reply that started this thread, as i wanted to keep it to just one (albeit long) point. if it's ok with you i'm going to do a "wandering tour" before directly answering, ok?

first thing: the standard model is "right" because as you can see from those "magic constants" listed in that link to spinor.info https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=... it's *MADE* to be "right" by virtue of the unexplained magic constants being altered and adjusted using statistical analysis to fit the available data. on the basis that there's really not a lot of point to publishing magic constants that made the standard model WRONG, would there?? :)

second thing: if you ever get a chance to meet a particle physicist (theoretical or practical e.g. working at CERN) i invite you to ask them this very simple question: what are particles *actually* made of? they won't be able to give you an answer, and there's a very simple reason why: they've been trained (mind-blinkered), through the Standard Model, to think of particles EXCLUSIVELY at one mathematical step removed i.e. in the FREQUENCY domain.

if you're not familar with this, quantum mechanics is basically about doing an FFT (fourier transform). that's really all there is to it. you move *everything* to the frequency domain, and do all math there. so Yang-Mills theory (which is the fundamental basis of modern particle physics theory) as i understand it is basically Maxwell's Equations moved to the frequency domain. https://www.google.co.uk/searc... and i *think* that perspective is confirmed by this paper here http://inspirehep.net/record/1...

so if everything's moved to a mathematical "hands-off" construct, how the hell is anyone supposed to determine what's actually *inside* particles??

where that went wrong was somewhere around the 1930s, when quantum mechanics got such amazing answers that anyone not formulating theories in quantum mechanics terms was basically left with egg on their faces. the ring model. kaluza-klein theory (which has problems raised by its answers that still haven't been addressed).

so if you want to even *start* formulating a theory that begins to predict actual particles, you need something radically different to start *from*. garrett lisi's "exceptional theory of everything" https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.077... was one paper that showed promise, with some predicted new particles, however lisi himself later worked with a mathematician to *prove* that the theory could not work https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.265...

there was another guy, john williamson, "on the nature of the photon and the electron" http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/11095... who moved Maxwell's Equations to 6D Clifford Algebra, and got some startli

Diamonds form when the carbon is under intense pressure. Then the atomic electron bonds are forced into a tetrahedral shape rather than regular hexagons like graphite or 3D shapes like buckyballs. Atmospheric temperature at the visible surface is -218C. Temperature at the icy rock core is 5100C. Inbetween it is possible there are altitudes where temperature and pressure are enough for water to form:

http://www.dailyastronomynews....
http://inspirehep.net/record/8...

... if you raise the operating temperature a couple of hundred Kelvin, then quantum docoherence and environmental scattering are going to play a role, meaning that information held in any one of the cells may simply vanish by "leaking" into a coupled environment. A little bit of thermal background radiation is enough to set such processes into motion.

I referred to the current limits (~1.2TeV for gluino versus 700GeV for stop), which is more or less corresponding to a couple of events on a small background - for both gluino and stop searches at their high-mass extremes.
Production probability (cross section) plot for 8TeV can be seen here:
http://inspirehep.net/record/1...
Couldn't find a 13TeV version quickly; but the trends are the same: much higher probability for gluino paris (~g~g in red) than for stop pairs (blue curve).
Now, when we move from 8TeV to 13TeV, for a gluino just at the limit, the production probability goes up much more than for a stop at its own somewhat lower limit.
So I'm not assuming same mass, I'm assuming a heavier gluino actually.
Of course, for a 5TeV gluino, no chance; but the same goes for a 2TeV stop - production rate too low.

The calculation in the study required 54 million processor hours on the IBM BlueGene/P supercomputer at Argonne National Laboratory, the equivalent of 281 days of computing with 8,000 processors.

And yet the entire article does not contain a single equation, much less a link to the paper. I am disappoint.

Here is a link to our paper. I'm sure you will be satisfied with the number of equations :)

Actual science... not dumbed down.

Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam