Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The Standard Model is not enough or "Should CERN build a larger collider or not?"

#1
C C Offline
The Standard Model Is Not Enough, New LHC Study Shows
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...a44b81170b

EXCERPTS: The Universe, according to our best understanding, just doesn’t add up. Wherever we look — from tiny subatomic scales all the way up to planetary, galactic, or even cosmic ones — we find that everything is overwhelmingly made of matter, rather than antimatter. We have a remarkable story of how our Universe came to be the way it is today: the hot Big Bang, as well as an understanding of how the particles that exist in our Universe behave: according to the rules of the Standard Model. But they can’t explain the Universe we know we actually inhabit.

The laws of physics, as we know them, aren’t perfectly symmetric between matter and antimatter, instead displaying subtle but important differences. These differences are [...] In a fascinating new paper, the LHCb collaboration has made the best measurement ever of one of the key parameters needed to create a Universe filled with matter. Here’s what we’ve learned...

[...] Why would you care about whether these individual symmetries are conserved or violated? Because violating these symmetries is a necessary ingredient for creating a Universe that has different amounts of matter and antimatter in it. Back in 1968, Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov realized that even in a Universe that starts off with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, you can wind up with more matter than antimatter so long as you meet three conditions...

[...] It’s a particularly good test of the Standard Model to make these measurements, because with multiple particles (and antiparticles) decaying in multiple different ways, you could have decay parameters that don’t lead to a consistent picture. There are more possible transitions than there are free parameters, and that’s why doing experiments are so important: your theory makes predictions, but only by experimenting can you test just how good your theory is.

[...] It’s vital, as the LHC currently undergoes its high-luminosity upgrade and the world agonizes over whether to build a new, more powerful collider, to remember what’s at stake. We’re trying to understand the most fundamental components of our Universe: how they behave, what they are, and where they come from. The way we do that is through direct experimental tests. While on the one hand, we know the Universe must have gotten its matter somehow (just as it must’ve gotten its dark matter, somehow), the other hand has yet to reveal exactly where it came from.

The Standard Model continues to be mind-bogglingly successful at predicting what the full suite of these experiments should deliver, but has so far failed to reveal a hint as to how these big mysteries might be resolved. We know the Standard Model can’t be all there is to the Universe, but it works so thoroughly well with each test we throw at it. Each piece of new data we collect is a chance to stumble upon the place where it finally breaks down; an incremental step towards an inevitable revolution. The only question is whether we’ll give up before we get there... (MORE - details)


The next large collider is a bad investment
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/1...-make.html

Particle Physicists Continue To Make Empty Promises - Sabine Hossenfelder

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/9qqEU1Q-gYE

EXCERPTS: What ticked me off this time was a comment published in Nature Physics, by CERN Director-General Fabiola Gianotti and Gian Giudice, who is Head of CERN's Theory Department. It’s called a comment, but what it really is is an advertisement. It’s a sales pitch for their next larger collider for which they need, well, a few dozen billion Euro. We don’t know exactly because they are not telling us how expensive it would be to actually run the thing. When it comes to the question what the new mega collider could do for science, they explain:

“A good example of a guaranteed result is dark matter. A proton collider operating at energies around 100 TeV [that’s the energy of the planned larger collider] will conclusively probe the existence of weakly interacting dark-matter particles of thermal origin. This will lead either to a sensational discovery or to an experimental exclusion that will profoundly influence both particle physics and astrophysics.”

Let me unwrap this for you. The claim that dark matter is a guaranteed result, followed by weasel words about weakly interacting and thermal origin, is the physics equivalent of claiming “We will develop a new drug with the guaranteed result of curing cancer” followed by weasel words to explain, well, actually it will cure a type of cancer that exists only theoretically and has never been observed in reality. That’s how “guaranteed” this supposed dark matter result is. They guarantee to rule out some very specific hypotheses for dark matter that we have no reason to think are correct in the first place. What is going on here?

[...] The tragedy is I actually like most of these particle physicists. They are smart and enthusiastic about science and for the most part they’re really nice people. But look, they refuse to learn from evidence. And someone has to point it out: The evidence clearly says their methods are not working. Their methods have led to thousands of wrong predictions. Scientists should learn from failure. Particle physicists refuse to learn... (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
C C Offline
A New Map of All the Particles and Forces
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-map...-20201022/

The INTERACTIVE MAP: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-stan...0441f4978a

INTRO: All of nature springs from a handful of components — the fundamental particles — that interact with one another in only a few different ways. In the 1970s, physicists developed a set of equations describing these particles and interactions. Together, the equations formed a succinct theory now known as the Standard Model of particle physics. The Standard Model is missing a few puzzle pieces (conspicuously absent are the putative particles that make up dark matter, those that convey the force of gravity, and an explanation for the mass of neutrinos), but it provides an extremely accurate picture of almost all other observed phenomena. Yet for a framework that encapsulates our best understanding of nature’s fundamental order, the Standard Model still lacks a coherent visualization. Most attempts are too simple, or they ignore important interconnections or are jumbled and overwhelming... (MORE)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article A vegan way to stop damage from excessive ice build-up and freezer burn (chemistry) C C 0 79 Jul 19, 2023 07:53 PM
Last Post: C C
  Heavier W boson may upend standard model + Usable wormhole if extra dimensions apply C C 0 81 Apr 8, 2022 06:09 PM
Last Post: C C
  Quantum entanglement has now been directly observed at a larger macroscopic scale C C 2 192 May 9, 2021 10:26 AM
Last Post: stryder
  Stanford researchers build a particle accelerator that fits on a chip C C 1 301 Jan 5, 2020 05:54 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Thorny Question Of Whether To Build Another Particle Collider C C 0 342 Feb 5, 2019 08:03 PM
Last Post: C C
  World running out of phosphorus + New math model can help save endangered species C C 0 295 Jan 13, 2019 09:21 PM
Last Post: C C
  Without a Proof, Mathematicians Wonder How Much Evidence Is Enough C C 3 895 Nov 2, 2018 08:23 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Has the Large Hadron Collider accidentally thrown away evidence for New Physics? C C 1 422 Sep 14, 2018 04:24 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude C C 12 1,463 Oct 29, 2017 04:15 PM
Last Post: Yazata
Lightbulb New physics model - null space framework rjbeery 13 2,127 Oct 12, 2016 02:10 AM
Last Post: Secular Sanity



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)