It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Higgs particle can disintegrate into particles of dark matter, according to new model

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Another secret of nature/ reality uncovered, ATS! Researchers at the CERN lab are now hoping to uncover the final piece of the model that explains where DARK MATTER comes from.



In recent decades, particle physicists have discovered one of the predicted particles in the Standard Model after another in their particle accelerators. The last in the series was the Higgs particle, the existence of which was confirmed by the scientists at the particle accelerator Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in 2012. This completed the Standard Model.
The problem is that there are several things the Standard Model is unable to explain, for example the dark matter that makes up a large part of the universe. Many particle physicists are therefore working on the development of new, more comprehensive models.
One of them is Christoffer Petersson, who carries out research in theoretical particle physics at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden and the Université Libre in Belgium. Together with two research colleagues he has proposed a particle model based on what is known as supersymmetry.
This model contains more elementary particles than the Standard Model, including dark matter particles. In addition, the model gives the Higgs particle different properties than the Standard Model predicts. The model proposes that the Higgs particle can distintegrate into a photon (a particle of light) and particles of dark matter. However, these properties are quite difficult to discover – you have to look for them specifically to have a chance of finding them.


I'm not a scientist but I love science, and this is huge scientific news! I'm at a loss of words....What says ATS?

phys.org...




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Do you ever get the impression that scientists are desperate to construct a dark matter reality, no matter how convoluted, simply because the alternative is not compatible with their collective 'scientistic' ideology?

👣


edit on 705ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
Do you ever get the impression that scientists are desperate to construct a dark matter reality, no matter how convoluted, simply because the alternative is not compatible with their collective 'scientistic' ideology?

The impression I get is that science is self-correcting, and the scientific process is one that is continually putting pressure on our theories of nature in order to better refine those theories.

Science knows it doesn't know everything. That's why there is still science.


I don't know if this proposed new model mentioned in the OP that contains new dark-matter particles will ultimately be included into the standard theory, but it's good for our standard theories to be constantly challenged. That constant challenging is what the scientific process is all about, and it ultimately makes for stronger theories of nature.


edit on 3/5/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

No.

Please take some time to read up and understand how research is conducted using the scientific method.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
Do you ever get the impression that scientists are desperate to construct a dark matter reality, no matter how convoluted, simply because the alternative is not compatible with their collective 'scientistic' ideology?

👣



Science is based on a feedback cycle of generating theories, experiments, analysis of results to confirm or disprove those theories. It's known that there are whole classes of sub-atomic particles. In the vacuum of space, all these particles just float around, so anything could be out there.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Interesting because they are testing the theory at CERN now. So it isn't some crack pot theory.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

Science is based on a feedback cycle of generating theories, experiments, analysis of results to confirm or disprove those theories. It's known that there are whole classes of sub-atomic particles. In the vacuum of space, all these particles just float around, so anything could be out there.


It's less well known that the pioneers of QM were powerful mystics who created, not discovered, those whole classes. Consciousness is the nature of reality, and we are co-creators.

Now science is in the hands of non-mystics who scramble around certain taboo rocks that they would rather remain unturned. The result is a convoluted mess.

👣


edit on 767Thursday000000America/ChicagoMar000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule
shakes head... no, just no.

evidence please that this is the case... preferably that extends to more than "i just know"



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

What's the alternative for the rest of us who are science newbies?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: BlueMule
shakes head... no, just no.

evidence please that this is the case... preferably that extends to more than "i just know"


Here is evidence that the founders of QM were mystics.

www.amazon.com...

Here is some of the evidence that the nature of reality is mental monism; consciousness.

www.amazon.com...

👣


edit on 772ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
It's less well known that the pioneers of QM were powerful mystics who created, not discovered, those whole classes.
In addition to not understanding the scientific method, you apparently don't know much about the history of quantum mechanics. Some of the pioneers who came up with QM didn't like what they came up with because it wasn't as intuitive as classical physics, but it was forced upon them by observation.

www.sci.utah.edu...

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." -- Erwin Schrodinger talking about quantum mechanics.
Those don't sound like the words of a powerful mystic creating something to me, yet he won the Nobel prize for what we now call the Schrodinger equation.

Regarding the idea in the OP, who knows if it's right or not, but with a mystery like dark matter, it's probably best to approach the mystery from several different angles and see which if any of them work out in observation and experiment.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Those don't sound like the words of a powerful mystic creating something to me, yet he won the Nobel prize for what we now call the Schrodinger equation.


But they would sound like the words of a mystic to you, if you understood the pattern of psychological development that mystics undergo. It's not an easy one, as Wolfgang Pauli strongly demonstrated.

www.amazon.com...


Regarding the idea in the OP, who knows if it's right or not, but with a mystery like dark matter, it's probably best to approach the mystery from several different angles and see which if any of them work out in observation and experiment.


Sure, but let's make sure all angles are invited to the party.

👣


edit on 779Thursday000000America/ChicagoMar000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
Interesting because they are testing the theory at CERN now. So it isn't some crack pot theory.


Good, so just how will they get pictures of this dark matter?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
ah the Book THUS true

Ok lets see here...

Some Standard Model

Some symmetry and the standard model

Some particle physics

and who can forget... jackson... Electrodynamics


TRUTH! done!


But in seriousness.... wait... no seriousness really since pretty clear that knowledge of thy enemy is fairly lacking.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
But they would sound like the words of a mystic to you, if you understood the pattern of psychological development that mystics undergo. It's not an easy one, as Wolfgang Pauli strongly demonstrated.
"Mystic" can have several meanings, such as:

www.merriam-webster.com...
-"inducing a feeling of awe and wonder"
-"having magical properties"

From what I've seen nearly all scientists feel a sense of awe and wonder about the natural universe, but very few of them think the universe has "magical properties" since the job of a scientist is to explain things in terms of natural laws instead of magic.

So, was Einstein a "mystic"? If you mean did he find the universe induced "a feeling of awe and wonder", yes, but if you mean he believed in magic and the occult, no. If people were looking for supernatural or occult explanations, why would they become scientists when scientists try to find natural explanations?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

that's the impression I have

Uhh. the whole dark matter thing. I'm all for QM being rational and not completely mystical. Although I can see some of the founder having mystical leanings. But QM makes
edit on 5-3-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
Do you ever get the impression that scientists are desperate to construct a dark matter reality, no matter how convoluted, simply because the alternative is not compatible with their collective 'scientistic' ideology?


Nope. Looks like the way science works. You observe that, while a lot of what you know is testable and predictive, there are things that don't fit. You propose a hypothesis to explain this and contrive to test it.

Sometimes, you hit the jackpot and the results cause major changes in the understanding of things. The discovery that many things are quantized in the early 1900s as an answer to 'why doesn't this black body radiate all its energy away in a bright UV flash' led to a lot of modern science.

Now what's on the table is, can they concoct a test that will support or deny the supersymmetry model over the standard model. Standard model works pretty well, with an exception being this dang ol' dark matter issue. While it would be nice to know just what is up with the dark matter thing, it would be a wonderful bit of serendipity to get a nice bonus of finding out the supersymmetry model is testable while you're at it.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
Here is evidence that the founders of QM were mystics.


If you actually read the book instead of googling for keywords, you'd find they didn't sit around making the universe quantized using Harry Potter spells or staring at the tree of life.

Magic is horse #.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
Do you ever get the impression that scientists are desperate to construct a dark matter reality, no matter how convoluted, simply because the alternative is not compatible with their collective 'scientistic' ideology?

👣



It it is string theory all over again...." Just add another dimension every time the math doesn't work".....



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

String theory is an attempt to unify orthogonal theories data under a single unified model. It doesn't matter how many dimensions or oddities string theory has, so long as it explains the data. To date, string theory is incomplete.

And this is exactly how science works. Models are built to simulate observational data, new data comes in, the model is either tweaked or superseded by a better model that explains all of the current and new data. To make it sound like some sort of fudging exercise divorced from observation is disingenuous as the reality is precisely the opposite.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join