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.
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.
..over on physicforums.
https://www.physicsforums.com/...
Mosts atoms smells like plum pudding.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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."
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.
Darn you Paradox, foiled again! :D
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.
That sure is a lot of plurality.
I tend to rant.
There's 73 posts and no mention of Professor Farnsworth's Smell-O-Scope?
#DeleteFacebook
Cool story bro
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Come on, CERN... come up with one good thing.
Obviously you don't consider discovering the Higgs particle a "good thing."
That makes whatever you consider a "good thing" stupidly unrealistic. I daresay CERN would be unconcerned about your criticism. The cheek.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You sound smart. Did infowars tell you that?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
demolishes the standard model yet it never pans out. Ever.
Go ahead a link a scientist saying the LHC will 'demolish' the standard model. Thanks.
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
I'll be a hero to every black person in the USA
In the most likely scenario, nobody in the past would take you seriously and you would not change anything; you might even not survive for too long (quite hard times). But even if you were able to perform such a miraculous change and be appraised and remembered for it, nobody in the future would really care: the alternative-future black people wouldn't be able to feel any relief by knowing about someone who stopped what never happened and with what they could ever feel any close connection (like nowadays white people or black people in other countries).
If you would let slavery go for some years and then fully abolished it, you might become a hero (or, at least, lots of people would know about you). Ironic, don't you think? If you do what is absolutely best (even by promoting it as much as possible), nobody would care; but if you manage the situation adequately (= speculate with its possible outcomes), you might become a hero or even a saint. What seems to indicate that most of those who are regarded as heroes/saints might not have (voluntarily or coincidentally) performed the best possible actions under the given conditions.
DISCLAIMER: I think that time-travelling is completely and absolutely impossible. On the other hand, I do think that some theory, experiment or person claiming otherwise might appear at some point.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
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.
Inventing time travel would be the easiest part of this project.
They make up everything.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Have gnu, will travel.
There's more to fundamental science research than particle accelerators.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
But it's not done that way, even when nobody is watching,
How would you know? If you know how something is done then you were necessarily observing it in some fashion, however indirect.
There are things about the Universe that work because, due to uncertainty, we can't perceive them. Specifically, virtual particles transmit forces that we need. We can't detect them, but we know they're there. Not only is the Universe sticking its tongue out at us behind our back, we notice that we're being licked.
I can't believe in a God that doesn't have a sense of humor.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Our entire physics model is built on experiments and observations. The theoretical concepts produce predictions that we verify. String theory isn't part of generally accepted physics since it doesn't make enough falsifiable predictions.
Which is why physicists (and astrophysicists) test these things as best they can. Physics isn't a bunch of arbitrary assumptions. So far, we don't have reason to believe fundamental physics varies, and the working assumption is that it doesn't.
So far, anyway, we have no evidence that it varies.
We've introduced and used much weirder concepts than that. Dark matter solves several different problems. It's pretty well established by now.
Just like tons of other things in physics. Ever see a neutrino? The math works with some concerns. If there's matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically, at a certain density, it turns out to make the math work. There have been numerous attempts to change the math, and they haven't worked.
Making the equations balance is pointless when studying physics. Physicists use math to derive consequences of what they believe to be true, and they test those consequences. If the math is flawed, or the beliefs are, then eventually a physicist will derive something that turns out not to be true, and they'll change things. It's happened a lot.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
If you can't detect them, you can't know that they're there.
You can predict that they're there. But without any observation - direct or indirect - you can't know. Accordingly, by knowing something you are an observer (however indirect) and have thus influenced it.
This is a pretty fundamental concept.
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.
We can't observe them, but we can see what they do. If the cobbler goes to bed one night, and wakes up and finds new shoes made, it may not be cobbler elves, but something was there making shoes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's an indirect observation, and doesn't tell you anything about the cause.
All you can do is rule other stuff out (and often to only certain degrees of certainty).
And that's a different thing from the observer/interaction problem.
Science is built on tons of indirect observations, and figuring out causes from effects. This is nothing new. We have a theory that explains things extraordinarily well, and it says that virtual particles do various things that hold the Universe together. Similarly, part of that theory is about the behavior of electrons. Ever see an electron? All such observations have to be indirect. We do such and such, and that detector over there reads so and so.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
[($)]
We should create our own universe via the particle accelerators. They are perfect for it. use the land inside the circle of the accelerators, create mini worlds via the sub atomic particles released in the accelerator. Sorry just a wild thought :)
[($)]