Slashdot Mirror
Physicists Detect Whiff of New Particle At the Large Hadron Collider (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit quotes a report from Science Magazine: For decades, particle physicists have yearned for physics beyond their tried-and-true standard model. Now, they are finding signs of something unexpected at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's biggest atom smasher at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. The hints come not from the LHC's two large detectors, which have yielded no new particles since they bagged the last missing piece of the standard model, the Higgs boson, in 2012, but from a smaller detector, called LHCb, that precisely measures the decays of familiar particles. The latest signal involves deviations in the decays of particles called B mesons -- weak evidence on its own. But together with other hints, it could point to new particles lying on the high-energy horizon. "This has never happened before, to observe a set of coherent deviations that could be explained in a very economical way with one single new physics contribution," says Joaquim Matias, a theorist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain. B mesons are made of fundamental particles called quarks. Familiar protons and neutrons are made of two flavors of quarks, up and down, bound in trios. Heavier quark flavors -- charm, strange, top, and bottom -- can be created, along with their antimatter counterparts, in high-energy particle collisions; they pair with antiquarks to form mesons. In their latest result, reported today in a talk at CERN, LHCb physicists find that when one type of B meson decays into a K meson, its byproducts are skewed: The decay produces a muon (a cousin of the electron) and an antimuon less often than it makes an electron and a positron. In the standard model, those rates should be equal, says Guy Wilkinson, a physicist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and spokesperson for the 770-member LHCb team. The new data suggest the bottom quark might morph directly into a strange quark -- a change the standard model forbids -- by spitting out a new particle called a Z9 boson. That hypothetical cousin of the Z boson would be the first particle beyond the standard model and would add a new force to theory. The extra decay process would lower production of muons, explaining the anomaly.
Was that you? Go to the bathroom man!
Atoms are pretty big.
I can smell it.
It's a new particle that is the result of the decay of a bottom quark called the farton.
Obvious, really.
Can someone provide a description of the smells of the various standard particles?
I had a quantum burrito for lunch. The worst thing was that as soon as I opened the wrapper the wave form collapsed and it got all over my cloths.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If we do live in a simulation, I wonder if particle accelerators could eventually find the loose pieces that don't add up; the holes in the matrix.
62?
And can you even accept that time travels forward? and since its just our measure of the passage of an effect, cause-effect must run forward in time? So you can't have particles going backwards in time.
The only real difference in matter is plus and minus. Anti matter vs matter? Same matter, different charge. Different particles? Some combination fo charge.
1. So take two particles. One plus, one minus.
2. Spread them around in a simulation.
3. They form spinning dipoles.
4. The dipoles 'kick' each other and some will synchronize the spins.
5. Those stick together along the spin axi.
6. You get unstable chains of these twisting dipoles forming. The twists ripple along the chain.
7. At certain lengths, the ends twist in compatble modes, and the ends of those join up forming stable hoops.
8. Each hoop has a two spinning modes (twist along its axis and rotate).
9. Try accelerating that hoop in a magnetic field, what happens.....yep, this is where the magic number c comes from.
10. What happens when two hoops hit.... splits or joins, depends on the twist frquency.
11. So now form each of the standard model particle from hoop combinations..... yep can.
12. Do you have forces that are strong FAR away and weak close up? No but you have the net effect of two forces that do that... no more need to make weird forces, or invent particles to exchange forces.
So if you can build the world with just two particles, why are there 61?...62?... 63.... 64... or perhaps, dare I speak this heresy? It's just a broken model. Like someone had made a model to predict moire fringes without understanding its an interaction between the limits of human vision and lines on sheets of plastic. Instead they think they're actually seeing black blobs jump around. Predicting the size and probabilty of where the blob will appear next.
Jeeves follows Higgs.
Physicists Detect Whiff.
Quarks, by way of Joyce, is just an old word, a unit of measurement, obsolete these days.
Whiffle is another old word, first attested to four centuries back. It made an appearance again in Connecticut some six decades ago, in a game invented from Stickball, called Whiffleball. This has since been commercialized as Wiffle ball.
Whiff or Whiffle is actually a great name for this dingus, and in the trend established by Gammasphere at LBL, the LHCb might be called Whiffleball, although pictures conjure up not much more than something used for trapping Voles.
Force awakens. I hope it's the FTL force we have all been waiting for.
Wake me up when these scrubs invent a way to time travel. So I can go back in time and prevent slavery from ever being a thing in the USA. I'll be a hero to every black person in the USA.
Went better than my last date. Hats off to you smart kids
..over on physicforums.
https://www.physicsforums.com/...
Scientists at CERN do not want to talk about what they do at all and once in a while they suddenly say they've discovered something which turns out to be something regular much later.
And then the cycle continues. Come on, CERN... come up with one good thing.
A year and a half ago, a 3.5 sigma 750 GeV bump appeared in the LHC data. New physics was heralded and a hundred theoretical papers attempting to explain it appeared. It was a statistical fluke and disappeared as more data was collected.
Now we're faced with a 2 sigma anomaly and the shouts of new physics are once again repeated. This is even more likely to be noise.
Physicists have been predicting new physics for 30 years. It was a major justification for the promotion of the LHC project. Nothing has been found. There's a lot of desperation at work here. It's sad.
For a good summary of all of this from a CERN experimentalist who called the 750 GeV noise, see Tommaso Dorigo
I'll be honest, I wish I understood this, but I don't.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is all BS as it was about the boson that they didn't find at all.
I think that particle physics has advanced far enough, and humans should wait for 100 years, before building bigger particle accelerators, as the world economy slowly grows.
Fuck off with this. They always do this BS of how they are going to find a new particle that demolishes the standard model yet it never pans out. Ever.
Lack of "innovation" (i.e. new physics) is in itself a already good result.
Not really. Lack of new physics means that we have no explanations for the myriad of things which need new fundamental physics to explain sch as what is Dark Matter? and why is the Higgs boson so much lighter than the scale of quantum gravity? By the end of this run in 2018 we will have covered about half the phase space that the LHC can reach and the high luminosity LHC upgrade will provide the other half...over the next ~15-20 years because increasing luminosity is not as good as increasing energy.
This is not good news because it may mean that new physics is beyond the reach of the LHC and whether the world can afford to build a new, even bigger machine is far from certain. However we have zero control of the result - either the universe works in a way where there is new physics in reach of the LHC or it does not. So not seeing anything is far from a failure...but that does not make it a good result. Indeed I have always referred to it as the LHC nightmare scenario: we find the Higgs and absolutely nothing else which leaves a lot of unanswered questions and no certainty that we will be able to build a machine to find the answers.
"This has never happened before, to observe a set of coherent deviations that could be explained in a very economical way with one single new physics contribution,"
Yes, yes it has. The neutrino is a prime example.
Just because you came up with a reply does not mean they failed to invalidate your analogy. That you failed to produce a valid counter means they succeeded and YOU failed, and your analogy is invalidated.
If we're in a simulated universe then 76 isn't a number.
Why? IT'S AN ANALOGY!!!!
Therefore you accept that since 76 IS a number we cannot be in a simulated universe?
No?
That is what the analogy is there to illustrate. Just because I claim some aspect of an analogy does not mean it's valid nonetheless.
How about the neutron? What about the photon too? And the neutrino, hmm? They all demolished the standard model. Which then became the new standard model. Which in its turn became demolished with the new discovery and then part of another new standard model.
What makes you think the economy will grow if we cut fundamental science research?
Story, I am merely further convinced that it's all BS.
It just sounds so much like excuses for sloppy experiments.
The experiments are simply too complex to obtain fundamental knowledge.
Give me a simple two slit type experiment and I'll believe you. Require billions of dollars of equipment designed by committee and I will call bullshit every time
There's 73 posts and no mention of Professor Farnsworth's Smell-O-Scope?
#DeleteFacebook
Luckily nobody is interested in your dull, uninformed opinion. Thanks anyway though.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Require billions of dollars of equipment designed by committee and I will call bullshit every time
lol your threshold for credibility is based on price? Smart. Not got the brain for complexity eh? Don't worry, other people do. Your opinion is, happily for the rest of us, irrelevant.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You want fries with that?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"He who smelled it, dealt it" is now established theory.
I've been around long enough to be confident to say complexity implies lack of understanding. Simple is better, always.
I'm also plenty smart enough. I demand simplicity when I am given complexity. My life experience tells me simple works, complex doesn't.
Complexity just means more opportunities to be wrong.
They make up everything.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Have gnu, will travel.
Now that's gonna bring some interesting insights....and particles....
There's more to fundamental science research than particle accelerators.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
To save computation we produce approximations where we set some parameters to an equation rather than simulate the forces and then let the answer work out. Yet YOUR "simulation" is running the actual percentages. Lamb shift, go look for it. It's the result of there being a probability wave rather than a set orbit. Yet it would be pointless to write the program to do this since it could just be calculated as if it WERE a defined orbit. THAT would save computation. But it's not done that way, even when nobody is watching, making the computation that IS done completely and utterly wasted.
Moreover, radioactive decay was "computed" even while there was no way to detect it. Why? If they are cutting computation costs, why bother doing radioactive decay at all until there's something able to detect it?
So your assertion "it's computational short cuts" is self-defeating. If there needed to be a saving of computational power this is the DUMBEST possible way to do it. It INCREASES computation. To no possible gain. It would be vastly simpler to cut out the quantum level fuzzy non-calculation and just keep it classical.
Photoelectric effect? POINTLESS. Until many many years later we get solar panels.
How about Pauli's positrons? WORTHLESS, except they allowed pnp transistor junctions that made the entire computer world you have today possible.
Quantum mechanics? General relativity? GPS and tunnel diodes.
The fuck are you doing on this site?
I've been around long enough to know that some things are just inherently complex, and you can't make them simpler. My life experience tells me that the drive to simplify everything produces its own brand of chaos.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Particle physics is becoming more distant from daily life as time passes.
That's not really true. Fundamental physics' applications are generally typically 50+ years away. Early particle detector technology and understanding is only just now becoming useful in medical physics with hadron therapy as well as detector technology being used in medical physics.
Go back to the development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century and it was ~50 years before this was applied to materials and led to the understanding of the transistor and integrated circuits. Even further back and Faraday's law of EM induction from 1831 did not lead to electrical generators and power in homes until the 1880's and Maxwell's equations in 1864 did not lead to regular, useful radio transmissions until the first world war.
I'll grant it is hard to see how e.g. the higgs boson will lead to a higher quality of life in 50+ years time but likewise I doubt Maxwell foresaw the rise of radio nor did Schrodinger et al foresee the development of modern information technology.
This experiment was done via internet as well. when people viewed it miles away it had the same conclusion. There is a good graph out there and a youtube video... search for it if you like, its really interesting.
[($)]
We should create our own universe via the particle accelerators. They are perfect for it. use the land inside the circle of the accelerators, create mini worlds via the sub atomic particles released in the accelerator. Sorry just a wild thought :)
[($)]