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.

 

Mystery signal at Fermilab hints at 'technicolour' force; Higgs Unnecessary?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Mystery signal at Fermilab hints at 'technicolour' force; Higgs Unnecessary?


www.newscientist.com

The candidate particle may not belong to the standard model of particle physics, physicists' best theory for how particles and forces interact. Instead, some say it might be the first hint of a new force of nature, called technicolour, which would resolve some problems with the standard model but would leave others unanswered.

It is also able to give particles their mass – rendering the Higgs boson unnecessary.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Well, sounds like this could still be a fluke, since both detectors (CDF and DZERO) have not been able to confirm. But, it sure would be fascinating.

I wonder if this "fifth force" would be able to stop the collapse of a black hole. After neutron degeneracy pressure gives way, there is no known force that can stop collapse at that point, so we "assume" for now that it collapses to a singularity. However, maybe an unkown force, such as this technicolour force, could play a role?

From the article: "Technicolour is very similar to the strong force, which binds quarks together in the nuclei of atoms, only it operates at much higher energies."

We'll just have to wait and see if it even gets confirmed.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
didnt this turn out to be lies?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze
didnt this turn out to be lies?


Johnze,

Are you maybe thinking of this:
www.math.columbia.edu...

This post refers to something different. The msnbc article does a good job at explianing how it IS all speculative at this point. But, there are some results that need to be explained. CFD might have just been a fluke, but it sounds like nobody is sure yet. D0 couldn't replicate it, though, which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not promising either.

Here is another peice on it:
resonaances.blogspot.com...
www.math.columbia.edu...

As these articles say: "In conclusion, the 2 Tevatron experiments got into an epic standoff. One holds 4 aces in his hand. The other says it's a cheat. We need a shootout to decide who's right :-)"


edit on 11-6-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
These experiments are very exciting to me, especially their timing with everything else going on in the world right now. I don't think it's a coincidence, and if these scientists are open then this research should have more of an impact than discovering nuclear energy.

I also don't doubt that what they will discover will be very surprising and new. These big discoveries typically are.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze
reply to post by EthanT
 


www.bbc.co.uk...


That sounds like it's saying the same things as the one I posted:

"Scientists from both Tevatron experiments will now have to "compare notes" with the aim of reaching a consensus."

I wouldn't call it "lies" One experiment (D0) could not verify what another (CDF) found. This happens in science a lot.

The CDF data looks good though, as your article indicates:

"At a conference at Blois, France, on 30 May, Dr Punzi, announced that after analysing much more data, the "excess" was just below a five sigma level of certainty.
Five sigma means there is about a one-in-one-million chance that the "bump" is just a fluke and is the level generally required for a formal discovery. "

So, they got a mystery on their hands to figure out.

In the end, I suspect it's more likely CDF data was a fluke. But, if it's not, it is tantalizing to think abut.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The funny thing is that some theorists say that some aspect of particle predictions just might a bunch of lies. The math seems to get a bit crazy when pushing the bounds of science. As to whether experiments hold up in regards to verifiable results or what a theory predicts will be interesting to see.

Still you can't blame the guys at Fermilab for squeezing what they can out of the Tevatron before all the attention goes to the LHC.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


lol aye man, lies might have been a bit harsh, just the way i sumd it up. Was just the source i was going by.




top topics



 
3

log in

join