Physicists Detect Whiff of New Particle At the Large Hadron Collider (sciencemag.org) 180
sciencehabit quotes a report from Science Magazine: For decades, particle physicists have yearned for physics beyond their tried-and-true standard model. Now, they are finding signs of something unexpected at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's biggest atom smasher at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. The hints come not from the LHC's two large detectors, which have yielded no new particles since they bagged the last missing piece of the standard model, the Higgs boson, in 2012, but from a smaller detector, called LHCb, that precisely measures the decays of familiar particles. The latest signal involves deviations in the decays of particles called B mesons -- weak evidence on its own. But together with other hints, it could point to new particles lying on the high-energy horizon. "This has never happened before, to observe a set of coherent deviations that could be explained in a very economical way with one single new physics contribution," says Joaquim Matias, a theorist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain. B mesons are made of fundamental particles called quarks. Familiar protons and neutrons are made of two flavors of quarks, up and down, bound in trios. Heavier quark flavors -- charm, strange, top, and bottom -- can be created, along with their antimatter counterparts, in high-energy particle collisions; they pair with antiquarks to form mesons. In their latest result, reported today in a talk at CERN, LHCb physicists find that when one type of B meson decays into a K meson, its byproducts are skewed: The decay produces a muon (a cousin of the electron) and an antimuon less often than it makes an electron and a positron. In the standard model, those rates should be equal, says Guy Wilkinson, a physicist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and spokesperson for the 770-member LHCb team. The new data suggest the bottom quark might morph directly into a strange quark -- a change the standard model forbids -- by spitting out a new particle called a Z9 boson. That hypothetical cousin of the Z boson would be the first particle beyond the standard model and would add a new force to theory. The extra decay process would lower production of muons, explaining the anomaly.
Bob (Score:2, Funny)
When you think about it (Score:1)
Atoms are pretty big.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fart joke in here somewhere (Score:5, Funny)
Oh sorry, that was me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That usually happens AFTER you have consumed it resulting in a big bang in your clothes.
Re: There's a fart joke in here somewhere (Score:1)
Re: There's a fart joke in here somewhere (Score:5, Funny)
He who articulated it particulated it.
Simulation (Score:2, Interesting)
If we do live in a simulation, I wonder if particle accelerators could eventually find the loose pieces that don't add up; the holes in the matrix.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If physics change just through simple observation...
They don't, at least not in the way you're implying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not done that way, even when nobody is watching,
How would you know? If you know how something is done then you were necessarily observing it in some fashion, however indirect.
Re: (Score:2)
There are things about the Universe that work because, due to uncertainty, we can't perceive them. Specifically, virtual particles transmit forces that we need. We can't detect them, but we know they're there. Not only is the Universe sticking its tongue out at us behind our back, we notice that we're being licked.
I can't believe in a God that doesn't have a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't detect them, you can't know that they're there.
You can predict that they're there. But without any observation - direct or indirect - you can't know. Accordingly, by knowing something you are an observer (however indirect) and have thus influenced it.
This is a pretty fundamental concept.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't observe them, but we can see what they do. If the cobbler goes to bed one night, and wakes up and finds new shoes made, it may not be cobbler elves, but something was there making shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an indirect observation, and doesn't tell you anything about the cause.
All you can do is rule other stuff out (and often to only certain degrees of certainty).
And that's a different thing from the observer/interaction problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is built on tons of indirect observations, and figuring out causes from effects. This is nothing new. We have a theory that explains things extraordinarily well, and it says that virtual particles do various things that hold the Universe together. Similarly, part of that theory is about the behavior of electrons. Ever see an elec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum mechanically speaking, any interaction is an "observation." To be more precise, any interaction forms an entanglement, some of which we can detect with careful enough machinery.
"Observer" is a terrible choice of phrasing that's unfortunately too far stuck to be changed at this point, but it doesn't necessarily mean an actual sentient being (human or otherwise.) And really, that should be fairly obvious since almost all of our "observations" are done by computers and other machinery and just plaste
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that explanation works, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
If any interaction counts as an 'observation' (I agree that the concept is not well enough defined to be useful) then the electrons in an atom are being constantly observed (there are constant electromagnetic interactions that have effects on the nucleons and the electrons).
If observation is the process that collapses abstract quantum states into particular position/momentum observables, then an atom shouldn't be able to exist as it i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes the hardware does not respond within spec. I've fallen through the map in first person shooters before. I've falling through the map in WoW even. He's not wrong that there is precedent for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you fell through the map and the bottom of the screen and entered the real world that really has precious little to do with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a better analogy would be to find the our-universe equivalent of WoW's dev-island. Though, if the devs in of a simulated universe were not sufficiently better to avoid needing that I would be surprized (and it could easily be 14-billion light years away from where our little solar system was had ended up after spawning).
Even if we could PROVE we were in a simulation - it does not follow that we could break out of it, it would make our minds part of that simulation - just advanced AI's within a mass
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the hardware does not respond within spec. I've fallen through the map in first person shooters before. I've falling through the map in WoW even. He's not wrong that there is precedent for this.
Falling through the map is still within the simulation. Have you ever had Mario jump out of the screen and start flicking your bean?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You've got to consider the scale of the technology too in comparison to the competence. Blizzard games can be largely simulated just by a spreadsheet and a relatively simple random number generator. Atomic level simulation of a leaf flittering in the wind blows a WOW server away. Let alone an entire universe.
If the universe is a simulation, it's much more reasonable to assume that only my own experience is being simulated. If only the things I'm presently aware of have to be simulated, the computing power required is pretty low -- particularly as I don't have the expertise to examine leaf flittering at the atomic level, and at any rate the simulation can simply alter my memory to remove any mistake that I discover. The simulation may well have only been turned on a minute ago or might reset each day before the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "it is a simulation" idea is more of a "there is an analog universe that doesn't have approximations like quantum physics and planc length minimum distances. In that fully analog (and perhaps multidimensional) universe, a simulated universe run on those analog computers would have to make shortcuts that look like our physics.
If you have a physical universe in which infinite precision of position is possible, the that opens the door up to hypercomputation.
There is a God, and he is some grad student in a
Re: (Score:2)
And the Jew/Christian/Muslims were right that He created the universe by speaking the words...
And then the Lord said, "BRB bio", but when he returned everything was fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're a simulation, we don't have laws of physics so much as we have a cosmic physics engine. Someone running the simulation can change things arbitrarily without running them through the physics engine. Someone might have a player character in the simulation and we're all NPCs. Said player character could be in some sort of God mode.
However, your typical monotheist thinks God is morally superior to people as well as infinitely powerful, and that's not a characteristic of a player. Some of my PCs
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to consider the scale of the technology too in comparison to the competence. Blizzard games can be largely simulated just by a spreadsheet and a relatively simple random number generator. Atomic level simulation of a leaf flittering in the wind blows a WOW server away. Let alone an entire universe.
And you can perfectly blend science and religion by combining the Blizzard games spreadsheet with an RNGeezus and you get players who find religion thusly:
"Holy shit! The fucking random loot box gave me another goddamn torn cloth! Bloody hell!"
This works very well for Korean MMOs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Black holes doesn't break anything. A singularity is just a very simplified mathematical model of them.
If you ever wonder what the difference between physics and math is you could always consider that we don't know if mathematics can accurately describe physics.
None of the models we have tried so far is flawless so we don't even know if reality is consistent or follows mathematical rules for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Crackers often use those to try and break into computer systems.
Have you ever heard of Stack Overlow Violation?
That's an old one that almost nobody fails to protect from anymore.
If our existence is a computer simulation, it might be possible to find a way to probe around outside of it, possibly even influence it or relocate to another memory runspace. It wouldn't be easy, but unlike the soft
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could connect to the meta-universe internet and then hack into a robot to remotely explore the real world from within our simulation. You're technically not leaving the simulation, but if you're using VR to control the robot that exists in the real world then it's practically speaking the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
but if "THAT computer" is a virtual machine, ...
running inside a virtual machine,
running inside a virtual machine,
running inside a virtual machine
Re: (Score:2)
So you're the one that controls the roomba and is responsible
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the sequence in Babylon 5, "Deconstruction of Falling Stars", in which the characters wind up in a simulation rigged for propaganda effect, and Garibaldi manages to hack the system he's in and communicate with the outside world, with catastrophic results for the simulator.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is a simulation, it might be possible to take advantage of bugs. This could manifest as magic or psychic powers (there's little difference between them, really). Telepathy could be a matter of shared variables. If I can push some of my thoughts into the physics engine, I may have flight or telekinesis. Of course, there's no way to tell from that if the Universe is weird or the code is buggy.
How many particles now? (Score:1)
62?
And can you even accept that time travels forward? and since its just our measure of the passage of an effect, cause-effect must run forward in time? So you can't have particles going backwards in time.
The only real difference in matter is plus and minus. Anti matter vs matter? Same matter, different charge. Different particles? Some combination fo charge.
1. So take two particles. One plus, one minus.
2. Spread them around in a simulation.
3. They form spinning dipoles.
4. The dipoles 'kick' each other and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only real difference in matter is plus and minus.
I skimmed through the rest but this was the bit that pushed you over the line into nutterville. No-one who knows what they're talking about would say something that asinine. The rest merely confirms it.
I think you could honestly classify this under 'not even wrong'.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you can build the world with just two particles
If you look at string theory, there is only one "particle" -- the string. Maybe 2 if you consider open and closed strings as separate types of particle, but they're not any sort of equivalent to a positive and negative pair like you've suggested.
why are there 61?...62?... 63.... 64...
Because there are. There were hundreds before the quark model came into play which re-defined all of those mesons and bosons into just three quarks (later expanded to the six we know today.) And before that all the billions upon billions of things we see in the n
good writeup from mfb (Score:4, Informative)
..over on physicforums.
https://www.physicsforums.com/... [physicsforums.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Physicists are getting desperate (Score:3, Informative)
A year and a half ago, a 3.5 sigma 750 GeV bump appeared in the LHC data. New physics was heralded and a hundred theoretical papers attempting to explain it appeared. It was a statistical fluke and disappeared as more data was collected.
Now we're faced with a 2 sigma anomaly and the shouts of new physics are once again repeated. This is even more likely to be noise.
Physicists have been predicting new physics for 30 years. It was a major justification for the promotion of the LHC project. Nothing has been found. There's a lot of desperation at work here. It's sad.
For a good summary of all of this from a CERN experimentalist who called the 750 GeV noise, see Tommaso Dorigo [science20.com]
Re: Physicists are getting desperate (Score:5, Insightful)
"Getting desperate"?
Projecting, much?
I have news for you: this is not Silicon Valley stupid.
Lack of "innovation" (i.e. new physics) is in itself a already good result. The LHC doesn't need any new shiny discoveries to justify itself. The very action of having looked for the first time in a certain place (or energy range) and having solid confirmation that there's nothing new to see would already be an outstanding scientifical result.
And everyone at CERN knows this, as does any scientist worth their spit.
Re: Physicists are getting desperate (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of new research , knowledge and papers are coming out of LHC - you just don't hear about it because it is so esoteric. Hell even 'ancient' Fermilab is still operating and doing useful but mind-numbing-to-layman research.
Not really a Good Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of "innovation" (i.e. new physics) is in itself a already good result.
Not really. Lack of new physics means that we have no explanations for the myriad of things which need new fundamental physics to explain sch as what is Dark Matter? and why is the Higgs boson so much lighter than the scale of quantum gravity? By the end of this run in 2018 we will have covered about half the phase space that the LHC can reach and the high luminosity LHC upgrade will provide the other half...over the next ~15-20 years because increasing luminosity is not as good as increasing energy.
This is not good news because it may mean that new physics is beyond the reach of the LHC and whether the world can afford to build a new, even bigger machine is far from certain. However we have zero control of the result - either the universe works in a way where there is new physics in reach of the LHC or it does not. So not seeing anything is far from a failure...but that does not make it a good result. Indeed I have always referred to it as the LHC nightmare scenario: we find the Higgs and absolutely nothing else which leaves a lot of unanswered questions and no certainty that we will be able to build a machine to find the answers.
Re: (Score:2)
So not seeing anything is far from a failure...but that does not make it a good result. Indeed I have always referred to it as the LHC nightmare scenario: we find the Higgs and absolutely nothing else which leaves a lot of unanswered questions and no certainty that we will be able to build a machine to find the answers.
The next machine will be (would have been?) so expensive there's good reason to doubt anyone would pay for it regardless of what the LHC found that would grab headlines. I get what you are saying... results justify the spending... but diminishing returns are inevitable when scaling up the same experiment. We're going to have a hard time funding science that applies to daily life in the near-term globally... pure theoretical science doesn't need major discoveries, it needs new believers.
Re: (Score:3)
We're going to have a hard time funding science that applies to daily life in the near-term globally.
You seem to be assuming that high-energy particle physics research can't apply to daily life in the near-term globally, but you cannot support that assumption. You can't know what useful technologies may come out of the new physics discovered until the new physics has been discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the burden of proof would be on the person claiming that high-energy particle physics does indeed apply to daily life.
The exact same argument applies to this position: You can't know what the effect is until you know what the results are. Claims in either direction do not, and cannot, have any validity.
Re: (Score:2)
Particle physics is becoming more distant from daily life as time passes. Not to say there haven't been some cool knock-off technologies from the work to create the LHC in the first place, but it's increasingly unlikely as energies increase that we'll discover something productizable.
There are other reasons to fund science, of course, but the LHC wasn't exactly cheap. I think the best hope for a higher-energy collider in the future is if the cost of building it decreases due to automation/robotics. And t
Re: (Score:2)
Particle physics is becoming more distant from daily life as time passes.
You're making the same erroneous assumption as the GP, that you can predict the utility of as-yet-undiscovered science.
it's increasingly unlikely as energies increase that we'll discover something productizable
Not if the product requires LHC-like energies to create, but there's no reason to believe that's necessarily the case.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the same erroneous assumption as the GP, that you can predict the utility of as-yet-undiscovered science.
Flawed argument. If you can't predict it will be valuable, don't fund it all at. Burden of proof is on the person asking for money that there will be some ROI.
But then, I think you can make some predictions based on the trends from the past 100 years.
Not if the product requires LHC-like energies to create, but there's no reason to believe that's necessarily the case.
The farther away you have to go from the conditions we face in order to find unanswered questions, the less useful those answers are likely to be.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't predict it will be valuable, don't fund it all at. Burden of proof is on the person asking for money that there will be some ROI.
That's not really how fundamental science works. It usually takes 50+ years to become useful but knowing exactly which bits will be the useful ones or how they will become useful is completely impossible to predict. However in order to be useful at all you do have to discover something so generally we make funding decisions based on how likely an experiment is to make a discovery which will advance our knowledge.
Re: Not really a Good Result (Score:2)
> usefullnes
Wrong gauge to measure fundament research by. It's about knowledge, in and of itself.
Any "useful" application with or without a "ROI" is a welcome distraction, a cherry on top, but nowhere near the core of argument pro research.
Re: (Score:2)
you can predict the utility of as-yet-undiscovered science.
To an extent, you can. I mean there's always the risk that your prediction is wrong (and you'd never even know it,) but you can make some probabilistic arguments given the enormous energy and cost the LHC requires. I mean confirming the Higgs does exactly what? Makes Peter Higgs the happiest dude on the planet for sure, and makes a lot of scientists everywhere pretty pleased that their work seems to not be complete bunk..
But in terms of real-world applicability? We're going to need a heck of a lot bette
Re: (Score:2)
Greater understanding of quantum physics means greater understanding of chemistry and material science. Observing potentially habitable planets in other systems gives us more understanding of planets in general, which we may find handy sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, as I said its still possible that something will come out of it. Just highly unlikely.
Of course as others have mentioned, the spinoffs are often incentive enough to consider the ridiculous scientific experiments. Countless things have been derived from and developed based on technology invented for the space and nuclear programs back around the middle of last century even though none of us are running around with personal reactors or living on the moon.
Similarly, development of the LHC produced a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing more about how planets work could be useful in countering global warming or other such issues.
Knowing about the Higgs means we know a little more about quantum physics, which means we'll be able to do materials science and chemistry a little better, which means someone might develop an exotic new material or chemical reaction, and that could become important. It's quite a few steps from knowing about high-energy particle physics to a better video display or whatever, but it's a plausible course
Re: (Score:2)
I mean confirming the Higgs does exactly what?
It confirms the presence of a new, fundamental field in nature which is all around us. The last time that happened it was the EM field and that discovery has lead to a huge number of applications. You are absolutely right that manipulating the higgs field at the moment requires a huge amount of effort but in the mid-19th century manipulating EM fields was not so easy either (although still a lot easier than the higgs).
Fundamental Physics Takes 50+ Years to be Applied (Score:2)
Particle physics is becoming more distant from daily life as time passes.
That's not really true. Fundamental physics' applications are generally typically 50+ years away. Early particle detector technology and understanding is only just now becoming useful in medical physics with hadron therapy as well as detector technology being used in medical physics.
Go back to the development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century and it was ~50 years before this was applied to materials and led to the understanding of the transistor and integrated circuits. Even further back an
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming that high-energy particle physics research can't apply to daily life in the near-term globally, but you cannot support that assumption. You can't know what useful technologies may come out of the new physics discovered until the new physics has been discovered.
My post is about the politics of getting a future collider approved. The opponents and competing priorities of that project don't have to prove it's philosophically impossible for that project to produce useful results. It's not implausible, and neigh, it's impossible for you to show that future promising cutting edge science won't be up against very highly irrational views of science, including funding for projects that try to prove that great-flood arks were feasible with pre-industrial technology, or tha
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I say we need more believers of fundamental science. You aren't going to convince them with arguments like "you can't prove we won't change the world!"
We're in agreement there. I misunderstood your previous post to be saying that LHC isn't going to produce anything that affects daily life, which we can't know. But I absolutely agree that trying to convince people to fund even larger projects with the argument that they might produce something practical is unlikely to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you should publish a paper proving that this theory neatly wraps up all of the unexplained observations that motivate dark matter theories and gain yourself a prestigious tenured post at a top academic institution.
I have been working on writing a paper discussing this topic for more than a year now. Is it wrong to discuss ideas before publishing?
Why would I want a prestigious tenured post at a top academic institution? I do not require money or fame; furthermore, I already have a nice, well paying job.
Thank you for attacking me Sean (Shawn?). Your denigration is very useful and open minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you should publish a paper proving that this theory neatly wraps up all of the unexplained observations that motivate dark matter theories and gain yourself a prestigious tenured post at a top academic institution.
I have been working on writing a paper discussing this topic for more than a year now. Is it wrong to discuss ideas before publishing?
Certainly not. But you have to expect that people will treat your claim of having solved a century-old problem with skepticism.
Thank you for attacking me Sean (Shawn?). Your denigration is very useful and open minded.
What attack? I don't see any attack in anything I wrote. A bit of sarcasm expressing totally reasonable skepticism, certainly, but no attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you verified your gravitational theory against other observations? I'm not all that into General Relativity, but I do know that there's some things a new theory of gravity has to explain. In what way is your gravitational theory different from MOND and other attempts to change the theory to accommodate galactic rot
Re: (Score:2)
The next machine doesn't necessarily have to be bigger.
It will if you want to exceed LHC energies. A muon collider would be a very interesting machine though. At one point I know they were worrying about such high neutrino intensities that it would pose a radiation hazard...which is a problem because neutrinos interact so rarely that they pass through the earth so it would be impossible to shield such a source.
Re: Physicists are getting desperate (Score:1)
You've managed to completely ignore the several other 2~4 sigma anomalies which all suggest violation of lepton flavour universality in B decays. This result doesn't exist in a vacuum. If it were the only one, you wouldn't be hearing about it, just like the first few weren't news.
Re:Physicists are getting desperate (Score:5, Informative)
Now we're faced with a 2 sigma anomaly and the shouts of new physics are once again repeated. This is even more likely to be noise.
From what I understand the main difference between the 750GeV bump and this anomaly is that the 750GeV was a single bump which did not have a nice-fitting theoretical explanation while still being compatible with existing measurements.
This anomaly might only ~2 sigma so far, but it is ~2 sigma in several channels, so not just "one bump", and it seems one can rather easily and naturally extend the theory to match observations.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09189 [arxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of desperation at work here. It's sad.
lol. Don't worry Donald, they'll be alright. This desperation is only in your head, after all. There was the small matter of the Higgs boson. The Higgs is about as new fucking physics as you can get, and is the newest physics for at least 30 years.
Do enlighten us what would count to you as 'something'.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a major justification for the promotion of the LHC project. Nothing has been found.
Naw, nuthin' 'cept for the Higgs boson and verification of its properties to a confidence level sufficient for most to accept the field as existing.
Clearly the diphon excess means that nothing interesting will ever come from the LHC!
Re: (Score:3)
Wish (Score:5, Funny)
So... (Score:3)
There's 73 posts and no mention of Professor Farnsworth's Smell-O-Scope [wikia.com]?
Never trust an atom (Score:2)
I patiently await ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smell-o-vision (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when these scrubs invent a way to time travel. So I can go back in time and prevent slavery from ever being a thing in the USA. I'll be a hero to every black person in the USA.
Inventing time travel would be the easiest part of this project.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yawn .... wha?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, CERN... come up with one good thing.
Obviously you don't consider discovering the Higgs particle a "good thing."
That makes whatever you consider a "good thing" stupidly unrealistic. I daresay CERN would be unconcerned about your criticism. The cheek.
Re: (Score:2)
Our entire physics model is built on experiments and observations. The theoretical concepts produce predictions that we verify. String theory isn't part of generally accepted physics since it doesn't make enough falsifiable predictions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
demolishes the standard model yet it never pans out. Ever.
Go ahead a link a scientist saying the LHC will 'demolish' the standard model. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Require billions of dollars of equipment designed by committee and I will call bullshit every time
lol your threshold for credibility is based on price? Smart. Not got the brain for complexity eh? Don't worry, other people do. Your opinion is, happily for the rest of us, irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been around long enough to know that some things are just inherently complex, and you can't make them simpler. My life experience tells me that the drive to simplify everything produces its own brand of chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
You want fries with that?