ITN: LHC Shows Particles in Cahoots

[CraigS]

In the News: Finally somenews from the LHC …

Particles in cahoots

A larger than expected number of charged particles generated during the LHC’s highest energy collisions are doing something they have no business doing. Instead of flying away from the collision site in random directions, these particles are somehow paired, moving away from the point of impact at similar angles and ending up at opposite ends of the collider’s CMS detector.

It’s as if some of the particles “managed to talk to each other” immediately after their creation and stayed in contact while zooming off in opposite directions at close to the speed of light,
...
The correlation between particles almost certainly has something to do with quantum chromodynamics, the theory that governs the strong force between subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms, but it remains unclear exactly what facet of the theory provides an explanation, Roland says.

The real news here may actually be that no-one really understands quantum chromodynamics …??



Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Nah...not QCD...small walkie talkies

[CraigS]

What we need are some heavy duty strings or branes … that should do the trick !!


Cheers
PS: No offence intended towards quantum chromodynamicists …

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

What we need are some heavy duty strings or branes … that should do the trick !!


Cheers
PS: No offence intended towards quantum chromodynamicists …

And a couple of cans

[Rob_K]

As a chromedomecist, I resemble that remark!

Cheers -

[CraigS]

But did you consult yourself before making yours ??



Cheers

[avandonk]

If anyone here understands Quantum Chromodynamics I want a ten thousand page essay by next week and show all your mathematical workings. If in doubt ask me what your simple problem is and I will get back to you as your custom is important to this University.

Bert

[CraigS]

What a classic !!
You're one in a million, Bert !

Cheers

[avandonk]

No Craig just like you one in six billion! A flea on the planet. What differentiates us from slime mould is about four billion years. It took us this long to crawl out of the primordial ooze. Let us not go back there yet. I do not really care what all you lot do after I am dead.

Just do not taze me bro!

Bert

[CraigS]

Ok Bert;

I'm just about brain-dead from all this stuff today .. but … we are in the Science Forum, right ?

And your first and third statements were a demonstration of (i) the Cosmological Principle and (ii) the Perfect Cosmological Principle, respectively, right ? (Just kidding).

Are my 'Bert's University' fees due yet ?
(Not kidding).



Tasers are for torture .. better call in the forum inquisitors ..
(Where are those guys today, anyway ?)

Cheers

[avandonk]

Try doing 36 hours straight at the beamline in Japan without sleep. Have two days to sleep and do it all again. You tell that to the young ones today and they don't believe you!

Bert

[sjastro]

Quantum Chromodynamics is relatively simple.

In terms of difficulty here is my ladder (by all means not absolute).

(1) GR simple.
(2) QM simple.
(3) Quantum Electrodynamics harder.
(4) Quantum Chromodynamics harder still.
(5) Electroweak theory harder still.
(6) GUTs All very difficult.
(7) String Theory, Superstring Theory etc hardest of all.

What makes (7) so difficult it incorporates a lot of pure mathematics which is outside the scope for many physicists and applied mathematicians.

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Quantum Chromodynamics is relatively simple.

In terms of difficulty here is my ladder (by all means not absolute).

(1) GR simple.
(2) QM simple.
(3) Quantum Electrodynamics harder.
(4) Quantum Chromodynamics harder still.
(5) Electroweak theory harder still.
(6) GUTs All very difficult.
(7) String Theory, Superstring Theory etc hardest of all.

What makes (7) so difficult it incorporates a lot of pure mathematics which is outside the scope for many physicists and applied mathematicians.

Steven

Steven !

At last you're here ! (and not for an inquisition, this time).


Thanks for the above. I was actually wondering about all this … and the 'hardness' scale.
What intrigues me is how to explain numbers like (5) to (7) without leaving the impression that its all mythical mumbo jumbo ?
Perhaps they are better off not being spoken of, except by Witten et al.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Steven !

At last you're here ! (and not for an inquisition, this time).


Thanks for the above. I was actually wondering about all this … and the 'hardness' scale.
What intrigues me is how to explain numbers like (5) to (7) without leaving the impression that its all mythical mumbo jumbo ?
Perhaps they are better off not being spoken of, except by Witten et al.

Cheers

The criteria for the mumbo jumbo element being removed from a theory is when the theory is experimentally verifiable.

So for example Quantum Chromodynamics predicted the existence of quarks while Electoweak theory predicted the W and Z bosons. Neither theory can be considered mumbo jumbo.

GUTs cannot be experimentally verified as the technology is unavailable while string theories have fundamental issues as to whether they are falsifiable or not.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

while string theories have fundamental issues as to whether they are falsifiable or not.

Regards

Steven

So it may be more appropriate to refer to them as "hypothetical constructs" ?

How can this be if these are built from the ground up ?
Ie: (1) to (6) are needed in order to conceptualise (7) ?
Or are they mutually exclusive ?

Interesting.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So it may be more appropriate to refer to them as "hypothetical constructs" ?

How can this be if these are built from the ground up ?
Ie: (1) to (6) are needed in order to conceptualise (7) ?
Or are they mutually exclusive ?

Interesting.

Cheers

It raises an interesting question. If we define an object we cannot observe, does it make the object a hypothetical construct?
If the answer is yes (as our EU friends assume unthinkingly) then by definition an electron is a hypothetical construct.
We cannot directly observe an electron due to the uncertainty principle but we can measure it's properties such as mass and charge as an effect.

In fact is our modern technology ranging from computers to the electric eye is based on a hypothetical construct? I don't think so.

While we cannot directly observe the strings that make up String Theory, the effects of the strings may make the theory falsifiable.
For example QFT is unable to nail down the precise mass of the Higgs boson, but String Theory is able to accomplish this.
Is this analogous to the electron example? This is the debate.

Examples (3) to (6) are branches of QFT. String theory is not a competing theory but an extension of QFT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...m_field_theory

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Fascinating !

It seems to me that the Scientific process and its fundamental definitions may be in need of an update.

'Classical Scientific Philosophy' has been used by pseudoscientists to justify some of their theories, (mind you, using some fairly tenuous logic) and yet, it allows for hypothetical constructs as a framework for making tangible observations, leading to predictions, etc, in mainstream science.

A two edged sword for the inquisitors ? (Just kidding here .. there is a difference between the two, as Steven has pointed out with his example of the electron).

It might all just seem to be about word-play to some, but I don't think so.
We are dealing with the foundations of Science on this one.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

I wouldn't call the EU's thought processes logical, even tenuous. More like chaotic and illogical (or maybe that should be illegible).

They're more contentious than String Theory.

Actually....there's #8 to add to that list of hard...the hardest of them all. EU/PC, not because it's difficult but because it's nonsense and they can't even figure it out themselves

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...m_field_theory

Regards

Steven

An interesting page !

Hey Carl

renormalization: in particle physics the behaviour of particles in the smallest scales is largely unknown. In order to avoid this difficulty, the particles are treated as point-like objects, and a mathematical tool known as renormalization is used to describe the unknown aspects by only few parameters, which can be adjusted so that calculations give adequate results. In string theory, this is unnecessary since the behaviour of the strings is presumed to be known to every scale.

Better give up the title … or become 'a point like object' .. string's the thing … and then M-Theory … and then Ed Witten .. and then .. Witten's Hamster rules it all !!


Cheers

[CraigS]

More seriously, this relates to the 'building blocks' approach to Scientific Theory.

One surely shouldn't discredit the 'extremes' of mainstream simply because they 'have fundamental issues as to whether they are', (I'd say: may or may not be), falsifiable or not' (in the present time).

Some allowance in definitions should exist to describe this trait.

Cheers