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

[gary]

Article here -
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/07/28/4282311.htm




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

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

[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.

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:D

[sjastro]

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



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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(particle_physics)) 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]

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:D :rofl::D

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]

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]

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

[Eratosthenes]

what exactly do you mean Alex?

[Eratosthenes]

yes

[Chochawker]

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

[sjastro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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........

[xelasnave]

Like Malcolm I had hoped to see a mature debate .
Name calling is less than useful.
Sorry Garry I did not thank you for posting ..I now say thank you.
I started a new thread on fat particles to provide space for name calling for Peter
If you don't like a group there is no reason to bag them out.
I hope we can all get back to a nice place where we are all happy and polite.

[multiweb]

My thoughts too. Quantum physics is really at the cutting edge. Some really wacky concepts and theories out there, to the average mortal but, amazingly, it has many proven applications in real life now. That's even weirder to get your head around. :lol: And as you say, having the foresight and intellectual ability to build a machine specifically designed to test the maths and progress is just mind boggling. And they find what they're looking for too. Unreal.

[Eratosthenes]

....and what sort of particle fatness level are we looking at here Alex - ball park figure?

[xelasnave]

Peter I have no idea I hoped the thread could lead to a general discussion

[Eratosthenes]

well at the moment we are sitting on about 126 GeV for the Higgs Boson which is pretty fat.

[Shiraz]

Slightly off the science theme of the thread, but Peter raised the taxpayer cost issue. Looks like the LHC cost about the same as one nuclear powered aircraft carrier or a few new tower blocks in Qatar. It seems to me that an LHC is a way more productive overall investment than another big war machine or luxury accommodation for the super-rich.

Interestingly, the LHC beam at full power has almost no mass, but about the same energy as that aircraft carrier travelling at low speed.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080905/full/news.2008.1085.html

[xelasnave]

If the beam of the LHC were aimed at a war machine what would happen?

[Shiraz]

don't think it is likely to happen Alexander :lol:

getting back to the science, if the SM is sufficient and supersymmetry is not part of reality, does that rule out a main contender for "dark stuff" ?

[xelasnave]

I don't think it will happen but what would happen.

[xelasnave]

Let me put my question in context.
I am a layman with a casual interest in science and during a conversation with another interested layman he proposed that the L H C
probably had military implications. I could not respond.

The hunt for dark matter could change if there were a paridim shift in. our current understanding of gravity.

[Eratosthenes]

Some interesting LHC beam energy comparisons Alex:

http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/beam.htm

(very impractical way of constructing a proton beam weapon to be used in warfare when you need a 27km circular tunnel, that is under near absolute zero temperature conditions and must be under vacuum - just to melt 1 tonne of copper. Better off using gun powder or Nitro Glycerine imo. Having said that, there could be indirect discoveries from the LHC that could produce innovations in weaponry.)

[xelasnave]

The 27klm tunnel will fit in my battle star.
It would be handy to have a canon that could deliver destruction at near C.
As a layman speculation is always an option.

[Eratosthenes]

why not use a laser?

The Japanese only just fired the world's most powerful laser beam (a 2 petawatt laser burst)

http://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/laser-powerful-japan-04082015/

[xelasnave]

Well I had hoped to demonstrate that these colliders that seem to upset you have a end use and so justify to your satisfaction the tax dollars are being well spent and perhaps make you somewhat happier.

[Eratosthenes]

In the USA about half engineers and scientists work in defense related industries - weapons, espionage etc. This percentage is also quite high in other nations.

About 2% of the global expenditure on military and defense could deal with poverty around the world.

In my opinion, every "collective" cent spent needs to be ethically and morally justified. The LHC is no different - costing around 10 billion dollars.

A good example is the expenditure on plastic surgery for vanity reasons. there are queues for people in pain to have knee reconstructions, hip replacements and life saving heart by passes, and yet we have medical resources being corporately channeled so that a Hollywood actor can get their own air conditioned room, and have their lips modified and nose trimmed.

The humanist and political elements in everything we do as a society, as a collective cannot be ignore (in my view)

I think the LHC, which is the biggest machine ever constructed, has trivial and disappointingly low set goals, for the money, energy and personnel allocated to this project.

Physicists are already demanding higher energies to produce even fatter, more unstable particles.

I can think of many grander dreams that humans can try to achieve together. Many unanswered questions.....:)

[xelasnave]

When I am supreme rulerof the planet I will address your concerns.
In the mean time do not let inequities upset you we are a long way off doing it better.

[Eratosthenes]

".....the price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men"

".....we deserve the leaders we have"

(Plato ~400BC)

(incidentally Alex, I just bought a national Geographic Reflector telescope from an ALDI supermarket. Obviously poor optics, but for $119 it is ridiculous value. Its the smallest reflector I have seen on the market (76mm with 700mm FL) but has an equatorial mount with slow motion controls, 3 eyepieces, 3 times Barlow lens, moon filter, Iphone adapter for photography and erecting lens. Perfect for children learning how to use telescopes or just to have permanently set up for easy viewing. Having said that, imagine what Galileo and Newton would have done with this telescope if they had their hands on it? Gallileo's 3 refractors were between 15mm and 38mm in diameter. Newton's Reflector had a 40mm (~) mirror. So in comparison this ALDI toy is a supreme research grade optical instrument with advanced manual equatorial control system and sturdy tripod to assist the lower back)

[sjastro]

A conundrum facing Science is that one cannot prove a negative.
The adage "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" applies here.
The experiment itself could be the issue not the theory itself.

While the LHC is now operating at a centre of mass energy of around 13 TeV, well above the theoretical mass limits of the lighter supersymmetric particles, finding these particles may require the acquisition of much more data as was the case for the Higgs boson.

Unless a theory comes along that explicitly rules out the existence of supersymmetry we cannot be sure if the theory or experiment is the culprit.
Hence we can't rule out supersymmetry at this stage, either as a theory or as a dark matter candidate although it may shift the emphasis to alternative candidates.

An example of a theory which explains a null result is the absence of free quarks in particle accelerator experiments.
This non observance was finally explained by quark confinement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement) in hadrons in quantum chromodynamics theory.

Regards

Steven

[Shiraz]

thanks Steven.

Agree, nothing can ever be absolutely excluded by a process of observation, but scientific theories either flourish with success - or sink under the weight of nails in the coffin as they accrue failures in matching with observations.

My (limited) understanding is that the current research showed that the SM was capable of fully describing the observed behaviour of the bottom quark. This is not proof that supersymmetry does not exist, but rather that it is not necessary in this case. This does not rule out physics beyond the SM, but by Occam, it seems to me to be one (smallish?) nail in the coffin.

Which I guess means that we are no nearer to understanding what that annoyingly elusive dark stuff might be....

regards ray

[sjastro]

Hello Ray,

On a different tack, the various flavoured neutrinos have one foot outside the SM. (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutrinos-the-standard-model-misfits)
The SM can't explain why neutrinos oscillate between flavours.
Being non baryonic particles as is most theorized dark matter, we have some insight into dark matter even though neutrinos are unlikely candidates.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Steven I did enjoy that link it was as if you had me in mind

[Shiraz]

thanks Steven. that was a very interesting read - appreciated. regards ray

[sjastro]

Latest experimental news on neutrino oscillation.

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-fermilab-neutrinos-miles.html

Regards

Steven

[gary]

Hi Steven,

Thanks for the link. A phenomenally impressive piece of work.

Best Regards

Gary