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.

 

Flaw in the Standard Model?

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Last year, it was announced that the rate of B meson decay was different than expected based on the Standard Model of physics. These experiments had to be expanded to make sure it was something other than an error that was noticed.

A new article says that a group of scientists took the data from those experiments including CERN's large hadron collider and discovered that the angle of decay was also outside of expectations of the Standard Model.

Though they are not claiming this as anything other than interesting for now, it is possible it means a new Z-prime boson exists. That particle is not expected based on the current model, so it may change physics in a huge way.




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BarefootInWinter
Excatly! The fact is the world is not as we think it is should be profound to anybody following science.

Everything in universe affects everything else. That is what we are slowly figuring out. And that is key to us getting off this rock 2 the stars!

SnF!!!



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BarefootInWinter
Last year, it was announced that the rate of B meson decay was different than expected based on the Standard Model of physics. These experiments had to be expanded to make sure it was something other than an error that was noticed.

A new article says that a group of scientists took the data from those experiments including CERN's large hadron collider and discovered that the angle of decay was also outside of expectations of the Standard Model.

Though they are not claiming this as anything other than interesting for now, it is possible it means a new Z-prime boson exists. That particle is not expected based on the current model, so it may change physics in a huge way.


I have great hopes for the discovery of new bosons.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BarefootInWinter
Though they are not claiming this as anything other than interesting for now, it is possible it means a new Z-prime boson exists. That particle is not expected based on the current model, so it may change physics in a huge way.
Nicely done opening post. You stayed away from both extremes of making it sound earth-shattering or boring, and it's somewhere in-between as you suggest. If this is confirmed it will be very interesting to see what discoveries follow.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BarefootInWinter
Last year, it was announced that the rate of B meson decay was different than expected based on the Standard Model of physics. These experiments had to be expanded to make sure it was something other than an error that was noticed.

A new article says that a group of scientists took the data from those experiments including CERN's large hadron collider and discovered that the angle of decay was also outside of expectations of the Standard Model.

Though they are not claiming this as anything other than interesting for now, it is possible it means a new Z-prime boson exists. That particle is not expected based on the current model, so it may change physics in a huge way.


hey, sounds like for you its a gambling game) How about making sense out of it all?
Do you find any of it making sense to you?


thanks



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Not really sure what you are asking...


The standard model of Physics that we currently use is a list of theories on how science understands things work on some of the smallest levels we know of. If everything is broken down to even smaller parts than just atoms, the standard model gives us an idea of how things should act and react. There are some things like gravity, which we experience, that so far can't be accounted for in the Standard Model.

So, a big part of research is looking for things that don't seem to follow that model. When do they happen? Why do they happen?

There are many discoveries that we expected to eventually find. Recently, gravitational waves were discovered. Thinking it would be impossible to ever observe them, they were still predicted. Then, we DID find them!

If this new research really does uncover a new particle, it is obviously a huge step forward...but also, it is not a predicted particle! This means it will change the basic way we look at Physics because it will change the fundamental, standard model upon which so much of our scientists work!

Discovering particles that are predicted by the Standard Model reinforces our understanding.

Discovering particles that are NOT predicted means new, changed understanding that might be key in unlocking other mysteries.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BarefootInWinter

You keep saying 'we'. Who are 'we' and how much you identify you self with 'we'?

I asked you how important to you and why, and what end goal piece you as 'we' are missing to formalise what?
Like there is a particle that puts to rest entire cosmology as done deal.
No?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
discovering new particles is to keep the funding coming and jobs intact



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BarefootInWinter

I somehow doubt that this discovery will change the basic way we look at physics. It doesn't sound like something groundbreaking, just another particle to be added to the menagerie.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Hey.



Neutrinos are as mysterious as they are ubiquitous. One of the most abundant particles in the universe, they pass through most matter unnoticed; billions of them are passing harmlessly through your body right now. Their masses are so tiny that so far no experiment has succeeded in measuring them. They travel at nearly the speed of light—so close, in fact, that a faulty cable connection at a neutrino experiment at Italy’s Gran Sasso National Laboratory in 2011 briefly led to speculation they might be the only known particle in the universe that travels faster than light.

Physicists have spent a lot of time exploring the properties of these invisible particles. In 1962, they discovered that neutrinos come in more than one type, or flavor. By the end of the century, scientists had identified three flavors—the electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino—and made the weird discovery that neutrinos could switch flavor through a process called oscillation. This surprising fact represents a revolution in physics—the first known particle interactions that indicate physics beyond the extremely successful Standard Model, the theoretical framework that physicists have constructed over decades to explain particles and their interactions.

Now scientists are gearing up for new neutrino studies that could lead to answers to some big questions:

If you could put neutrinos on a scale, how much would they weigh?
Are neutrinos their own antiparticles?
Are there more than three kinds of neutrinos?
Do neutrinos get their mass the same way other elementary particles do?
Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe?
The answers to these questions not only offer a window on physics beyond the Standard Model, but may also open the door to answering questions about the universe all the way back to its origins.



www.symmetrymagazine.org...
edit on 12-3-2016 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
hey, sounds like for you its a gambling game)
Actually you can make a pretty good analogy of a gambling game to where the science is at now, using a roulette wheel.

Let's take a roulette wheel. What are the odds of getting 11 reds in a row if the wheel is fair? Pretty low, but in fact this can happen by random chance on rare occasion, it can happen about 361 times out of a million times. This is about where the science mentioned in the OP is at now, they could get the result they have about 337 times out of a million times just by random chance even if there's no evidence of new physics. If you ask people who hang around Las Vegas a lot I'm sure some have seen 11 reds in a row, and while it doesn't happen often, it does happen.

So what level of statistics is normally considered proof in particle physics? The standard answer is at least 5 sigma which means there's only 0.287 chances in a million of it happening by chance (or about 1 chance in 3.5 million). This is still not impossible but obviously much less likely. In the roulette wheel analogy it would be like getting 22 reds in a row, where the odds are 0.268 chances in a million of that happening (or about 1 in 3.7 million). By the way I read a piece written by a Vegas fan where he's seen 22 reds in a row happen, so scientists would prefer to get even more than 5 sigma proof if they can. I suppose when you take all the roulette wheels in vegas constantly spinning 24/7, some unlikely occurrences eventually become likely over time.


edit on 2016312 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


If you ask people who hang around Las Vegas a lot I'm sure some have seen 11 reds in a row, and while it doesn't happen often, it does happen.


'all reds' is combination as equal and unique as any other.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

11 reds in a row is only about 1 in 2000. How many rolls on a single weal are there per day?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
'all reds' is combination as equal and unique as any other.
Can you translate into any meaningful statistics?

Here's the math


originally posted by: graysquirrel
a reply to: greenreflections

11 reds in a row is only about 1 in 2000.
Yes that's in the right ballpark, one in 2770 is a better estimate using the above math, and in those terms the odds of the B meson decay statistics happening by random chance are about 1 in 2967 or you could say 1 in 3000. So statistics in this ballpark aren't certain enough to call this discovery "confirmed", but it is interesting enough to pursue and see where further research leads.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BarefootInWinter

A further issue with measurements made of our surroundings but in the other direction: the Hubble Constant

Source: Nature - Measurement of Universe's expansion rate creates cosmological puzzle

Riess's team studied two types of standard candles in 18 galaxies using hundreds of hours of observing time on the Hubble Space Telescope. “We’ve been going gangbusters with this,” says Riess.

Their paper, which has been submitted to a journal and posted on the arXiv online repository on 6 April, reports that they measured the constant with an uncertainty of 2.4%, down from a previous best result2 of 3.3%. They find the speed of expansion to be about 8% faster than that predicted based on Planck data, says Riess.
...
If both the new measurement of the Hubble constant and the earlier measurements by the Planck team are accurate, then something in the standard model has to change, Riess says. One possibility is that the elementary particles that constitute dark matter have properties that are different than currently thought, which would affect the evolution of the early Universe. Another option is that dark energy is not constant but has become stronger in recent eons.

So from the small to the large there are discrepancies between theory and observation. What they expected from what/how particles radiate is off (cosmic back ground radiation) and the rate of expansion (the Hubble Constant). And the stop gap was the idea of dark matter/energy which, now, doesn't add up in theory.

Looks like a flaw to me!



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Getting into particle physics for the money.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it, my sides are killing me.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


Another option is that dark energy is not constant but has become stronger in recent eons.


Another option is that dark anything is total BS, like a lot of mainstream science ideas. Follow the money, again.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Well, the standard models are a given in the environments and circumstances found in which the properties are displayed. Many of these interactions and changes take place right before ones own eyes... particle swaps occuring everywhere. The thing is when an experiment ceases to be objectivity and becomes subjectivity... then it becomes concept built on top of concept... all one has done was climb into a rabbit hole building their own ladder but... as someone has said in the WE sense? Well, every sentient being in some way shape or form contributes or has to the total knowledge base.

Theorum has long been spouted on the same as religious dogma when that occurs? Wheres objectivity? Oh it climbed away on that conceptual ladder of subjectivity Alice a long time ago. Belief does not dictate any reality, it is a variable of possibility.

Time being relative to the observer? Works in a subjective space objectively one can be aware, that many biased realities based on rote concepts and understandings and not actual experience of reality beyond bias makes reality unobservable. There can be repeated effects observed but taking them as a constant instead of a statistical varible? Then all ladders must be reexaminded for base objectivity. Its like how religions have similarities and shared concepts but still dogmatic and belief based for the most part. The senses fail... would a super conductive metal read the same surface temperature as a base metal or a thermometer made of those metals or materials? Nope, why? Because the variables have all changed so what we take as a constant is actually 1+1=X but 1+1=X is also simply a variable.

Math is also a theory so try and remember there are no such thing as a constant... all is impermanent except the word impermanent even then it is still conceptual based on a bias of a percieving ego... so knocking it to WE means equality or having a hand on contact with phenomina and adding our sense too it whether that sense makes any? Im sure the verdict is still out.

But lets say this the ripples observed were not gravity as it is but a disturbance to show gravity. Are the waves on water water? Yes but they show a disturbance. We really didnt have to wait for this magic rare event... neptune rolls towards the sun off the standard pole because hello water... just like when the moon pulls a bulge over the ocean causing a high spot and the tides is exactly how much water is pulled towards it...

So ffs keep the ego bias out of it stop with the being a subject to subjectivity keep objectivity on every subject and never ever stop observing the phenominal and reality just happens and unfolds around you based on chain reactions of events that came from the unknowable first cause to the present and will continue to infinitium whether one is conscious of it occuring or not. Stepping outside of the rote biased reality shows the chain reaction in action and there comes a balance where energy is based on contact down to the smallest to the largest, a conglomerate of particles is just that an exchange of energy between them. Matter is simply different particle densities of waves normally shown as light or sound, but that only covers two types of contact, there is touch or collision of contact and then the others used to discriminate what was that contact?

The effect has been labeled for an idea relatible to that experience of contact with other life forms bearing consciousness, percieved and impercieved at different densities. Water to fish is no different than us walking through air, the air particulate is less dense than the water particulate, which means the glass is neither half full nor half empty it simply carries more or less density or gravity like feather vs bolwing ball... put both in space? which falls towards a larger mass quicker? Trick question... charge the two and aim it towards something with a like charge.

Obviously, varible taken as facts? Um depends and now wrap yourself in one because this $h!t is reality but it is and it isnt until we conceptually grasp in order to name form for a self and other affirmation so we have a conglomerate of consciousness for a concensious as to what is a base reality to be percieved and in agreement...

Suchness out.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

On 28 June, the LHCb collaboration reported the observation of three new "exotic" particles and the confirmation of the existence of a fourth one in data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
...
But, in the last decade several collaborations have found evidence of the existence of particles formed by more than three quarks. For example, in 2009 the CDF collaboration found one of these, called X(4140) – where the number in parentheses is its reconstructed mass in megaelectronvolts.
...
While the X(4140) had already been seen, the observation of the three new exotic particles with higher masses, called X(4274), X(4500) and X(4700), has been announced for the first time. Even though the four particles all contain the same quark composition, they each have a unique internal structure, mass and their own sets of quantum numbers.

Source: Phys.org, July 5, 2016 - LHCb unveils new particles.

LHC "beauty" (LHCb) is investigating the beauty quark and firing around lead ions looking at matter/anti-matter compositions in the resulting collisions (those numbers in parenthesis).

From CERN LHCb Experiment


The interest in these four states is also that they are the only known exotic candidates which do not contain u and d quarks, which are the lightest quarks and those which human beings and the matter around us are made of. As such, they may be more tightly bound than other exotic particles.

CERN: LHCb Experiment (public)

So new "exotic" particles and they do not have the "up" or "down" quarks! At the LHCb page they have a graph and it is evidently visible--hey, that's new! So we have more data just making the waters a little more muddy. What is going on?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

They are tetra-quark resonances, they don't need to have up or down quarks.

Mesons are bound quark anti-quark pares
Baryons are bound sets of 3 quarks

It had been theorized for a while that it could be possible to form stable 4 quark bound particles. However that they would be somewhat rare, and heavy.

The new particles in question that do not have up or down quarks likely contain strange, charm, and bottom quarks, possibly top but i don't think they are heavy enough

No real new physics as such, but new configurations and new ways of figuring out if the physics we already have a good theory for, works for these new particles.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join