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

[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 (Marc)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I started a new thread on fat particles to provide space for name calling for Peter
.

....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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

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

[Shiraz (Ray)]

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/2008/0809...2008.1085.html

[xelasnave]

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

[Shiraz (Ray)]

don't think it is likely to happen Alexander

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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

Some interesting LHC beam energy comparisons Alex:

http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern...reach/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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/t...apan-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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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.

".....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]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

...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" ?

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 in hadrons in quantum chromodynamics theory.

Regards

Steven

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by 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 in hadrons in quantum chromodynamics theory.

Regards

Steven

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Hello Ray,

On a different tack, the various flavoured neutrinos have one foot outside the SM.
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