LHC confirms beauty quark obeys Standard Model but does not need Supersymmetry

[gary]

Originally Posted by ABC

In a new blow for the "supersymmetry" theory of the universe's basic anatomy, scientists have detected new evidence of subatomic activity consistent with the mainstream Standard Model of particle physics.

New data from ultra high-speed proton collisions at Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) showed the bottom quark, also known as the 'beauty quark' behaves as predicted by the Standard Model.

The findings are reported in the journal Nature Physics.

Article here -
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...28/4282311.htm

Originally Posted by The LHCb collaboration, Nature Physics, 27 July 2015

In the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, the decay of one quark to another by the emission of a virtual W boson is described by the 3 × 3 unitary Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix. This matrix arises from the coupling of the quarks to the Higgs boson. Although the SM does not predict the values of the four free parameters of the CKM matrix, the measurements of these parameters in different processes should be consistent with each other. If they are not, it is a sign of physics beyond the SM. In global fits combining all available measurements, the sensitivity of the overall consistency check is limited by the precision in the measurements of the magnitude and phase of the matrix element Vub, which describes the transition of a b quark to a u quark.

Paper here -
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/...nphys3415.html

Supersymmetry background -
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/supersymmetry

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Particles physicists are a funny breed - they seem to have moved away from basic science into the realm of abstract mathematical junk and metaphysics - their ignorance of reality can only be matched by the size of the detectors they want the tax payer to pay for.

Bigger detectors, longer underground tunnels, higher and higher energies to produce larger and fatter "particles" which they themselves claim to be local artifacts of "fields". They are really just interested in fields.

Giant fat particles that vanish at almost the same instance of their fabrication leaving residual waste to be detected by skyscraper sized detectors.

Nobody dares asks the question "what do you think you will find if you had an unlimited energy supply in an infinitely long evacuated circuit"??

How fat would the particle be??

Reductionist madness feeding the lunatic Physics fringe market

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Particles physicists are a funny breed - they seem to have moved away from basic science into the realm of abstract mathematical junk and metaphysics - their ignorance of reality can only be matched by the size of the detectors they want the tax payer to pay for.......


...........Reductionist madness feeding the lunatic Physics fringe market

What a nonsensical post given you don't seem to express such concerns with the discovery of the pentaquark.

..this is massive news for particle physicists and the Standard Model.

I notice that the researchers are quoting a 9σ level of confidence in their findings and data - much higher than the minimum 5σ level demanded in Particle Physics collision experiments (the recent Higgs Boson discovery was at a confidence level of 5σ)

5σ = 99.99994%

9 sigma levels has a lot of 9's

I always find it amusing that terms such as "abstract mathematical junk" are generally posited by individuals who do not even have the vaguest comprehension of the subject.

One of the unique features of particle physics is that this "abstract mathematical junk" can lead to the development of the experiment and ultimately the particle accelerator and detector designs required to find the particle that the mathematics predicts.

The Higgs boson provides an excellent example. The "abstract mathematical junk" is now taught at post graduate physics and applied mathematics levels. In 1964 when this "junk" was first revealed to the scientific world there was very little understanding as to how the Higgs boson could be "synthesized". The experimental physics ultimately developed from this "junk" which in turn led to the LHC and the subsequent discovery of the Higgs.

Strange how this "abstract mathematical junk" has led to the discovery of a particle which is a very real event.

[xelasnave]

Very useful link Steven following the blue links will take a while.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

I wonder how "fat" and unstable the new wonder freak particles will become?

What the physics community should do is invest several hundred trillion dollars into a super accelerator with a circumference of say 14000 km and search for the elusive strange Freak Fat Zoson (FFZ). An extremely fat particle - perhaps the size of a golf ball that is very unstable only lasting for 1.004 Planck times and then disintegrating into a heap of other fat slob particles which decay into detectable transient junk. Particle Physicists are the modern day Magician Priests

Paul Dirac would be turning in his grave watching them practicing scientific research

[xelasnave]

Yes Peter we should search for that fat particle...we should at lease prove it's not there.
Only good things can come of it.
The name of the game is keeping people busy what's better than what may seem crazy research.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes Peter we should search for that fat particle...we should at lease prove it's not there.
Only good things can come of it.
The name of the game is keeping people busy what's better than what may seem crazy research.

are you sure Alex?

[xelasnave]

I often contemplate being the sole ruler of the world ,or big parts thereof, and understand that one would have to build pyramids or something as noble and great so as to keep the thing running...you need to keep them busy..it's your duty to look after humans...make them happy let them do whatever research they want o
I say we should build battle stars to patrol the outter reaches of the solar system to ward off alien invasion.
But that's just me.

[xelasnave]

But sincerely Peter I think the people you speak against perhaps deserve I little more respect.
It's not fair to generalise as mid sticks to everyone.
If you could be specific maybe that would be better but that would mean naming names which is probably not wise.
I guess I am interested to know what needs changing what should we do to do better science.
In your view what is wrong that causes your comments above.

[Chochawker (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Paul Dirac would be turning in his grave watching them practicing scientific research

The same Paul Dirac who came up with some "abstract mathematical junk" that predicted the existence of anti-matter?

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I often contemplate being the sole ruler of the world ,or big parts thereof, and understand that one would have to build pyramids or something as noble and great so as to keep the thing running...you need to keep them busy..it's your duty to look after humans...make them happy let them do whatever research they want o
I say we should build battle stars to patrol the outter reaches of the solar system to ward off alien invasion.
But that's just me.

what exactly do you mean Alex?

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Chochawker

The same Paul Dirac who came up with some "abstract mathematical junk" that predicted the existence of anti-matter?

yes

[Chochawker (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

yes

OK, so at what point (or over what period) do you feel particle physics went bad?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Chochawker

The same Paul Dirac who came up with some "abstract mathematical junk" that predicted the existence of anti-matter?

Evidently he is blissfully unaware that Dirac came up with a theory of the electron which was a precursor of the "mathematical junk" he disdains so much even though he wouldn't have the vaguest comprehension even if it hit him in the face.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

thanks for the heads up Gary. Interesting times.

I think that it is quite remarkable how well the SM is standing up to scrutiny now that there is finally a machine that can really test it.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Chochawker

OK, so at what point (or over what period) do you feel particle physics went bad?

I dont think particle physics suddenly "went bad" as you put it.

Particle Physics is an interesting religion that broke away from the mainstream scientific community - the exact date is a matter of contention and only a side issue to the circus acts who erect these ridiculous voodoo particle accelerators

[Chochawker (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

I dont think particle physics suddenly "went bad" as you put it.

Particle Physics is an interesting religion that broke away from the mainstream scientific community - the exact date is a matter of contention and only a side issue to the circus acts who erect these ridiculous voodoo particle accelerators

What a shame. I had misunderstood your earlier posts and thought that it was going to lead to a potentially interesting discussion or debate.

I don't wish to get into arguments about religion, however, so I'll stop here.

A quick look at the "About Me" section of my profile will likely indicate the potential bias I might have when it comes to discussing the scientific merit of particle physics (and accelerator physics) .

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Chochawker

What a shame. I had misunderstood your earlier posts and thought that it was going to lead to a potentially interesting discussion or debate.

I don't wish to get into arguments about religion, however, so I'll stop here.

A quick look at the "About Me" section of my profile will likely indicate the potential bias I might have when it comes to discussing the scientific merit of particle physics (and accelerator physics) .

I will check out the "about me" section - hopefully by the end of the financial year, if not earlier.

incidentally, how fat do you think the particles will get if these accelerator priests continue receiving massive phallicalised ego grants and are able to continue fooling the tax payer over the next few centuries or so? ....we are sitting on about 126 GeV for the fat Higgs freak boson

[Talby (Brad)]

geez pete, you must have severely missed out with the latest grants , have a little understanding with your fellow scientists

[sjastro]

In previous threads cosmologists were the voodoo priests and clowns, now the particle physicists have been added to the list.

Now that Peter has covered the very small and very large we need someone to start a thread on the intermediate scale of physics, say solid state physics or the like.
When Peter realizes he doesn't understand these subjects either, the practitioners will also become clowns and priests.

The problem with Peter he has a deep seated resentment towards anyone who has a level of comprehension that exceeds his, and it must be particularly galling to him that some go on to make a career, the cosmologists and particle physicists being examples.

When Peter is not calling cosmologists and particle physicists, priests and clowns, he demeans their abilities by making some extraordinary comments which are so wrong that border on pure dishonesty.
Examples include physics being the easiest of the sciences to understand, classical physics being way more complicated than quantum mechanics, physicists have it easy since the mathematics does the work for them, to name a few.

Strange how Peter goes conveniently silent when challenged on these issues........