[Newsbot]

Title: Two Accelerators Find Particles that May Break Known Laws of Physics
Category: Science
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2015-09-09 08:18:39

[andyt]

I always get hung up on the idea that there are so many fundamental particles. Doesn't seem very fundamental to me. And the discussion seems to always focus on partcles, not waves. What's up with that?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I always get hung up on the idea that there are so many fundamental particles. Doesn't seem very fundamental to me. And the discussion seems to always focus on partcles, not waves. What's up with that?

You know me, putting the 'mental' back in fundamental!

These are the fundamental particles of the standard model:



These are not the hypothetical particles from the SuperSymmetry model! Things like the Pentaquark seem to suggest that the SS model might be right.

And no one talks about the 'string' theory of particle physics because it has two problems. One, it is not testable, which means it's not falsifiable, which means it's fantasy and not Science. Secondly, it's probably not a valid theory. Nothing they've tested so far agrees with the 'string' theory, and most every thing agrees with the Standard Model.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opini ... ysics.html

The problem with detecting the Higgs Boson was this: If the energy was (IIRC) 118KeV, then it would say the Standard Model was right, and there were no other particles to discover and only 4 dimensions to spacetime. If the energy was (?) 143KeV, then Supersymmetry was right, there were thousands of particles out there and 25 dimensions of space and 10^500 dimensions of vacuume. But the Higgs had to go and be right smack in the middle, at 125 KeV.

So what does that mean? Which is right?

[uwish]

very nice summary...as a physicist I couldn't have said it any better!

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

very nice summary...as a physicist I couldn't have said it any better!

You should come out to play more! Particle Physics is just an interest of mine, I don't pretend to know all the intricacies. I'd like to learn more from a pro!

[Canadian_Mind]

Can you give a brief explination of both model's Caleb?

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Can you give a brief explination of both model's Caleb?

Ok, I'll try . . .

They are actually the same model. The Standard Model consists of the above quarks that combine to form the particles we know. They are arrayed in groups that combine such that the first group are the things that stick around and don't have a charge, like nutrinos. The second group are the things that decay quickly, and the third group (Leptons), like the electron, have a charge. The three groups kind of have a border drawn around them in that diagram.

These arrangements of quarks give particles their various properties, like charges, and the ability to interact with other particles (strong, or weak force). These other quarks impart 'forces' and are called 'force carriers' or 'Bosuns'. They give matter the ability to interact with other matter. Nutrinos for example don't really interact with other matter, where electrons will interact with pretty much everything.

The thing that gives particles like the Proton mass, is the Higgs Bosun.

Supersymmetry adds some particles to the Standard Model to account for some properties that particles seem to have. It adds 'Fermions' that have 'spin' that seems to account for the affinity certain groups of particles seem to have. Supersymmetry accounts for the differences we see between the strong and weak nuclear force and the Electromagnetic force. In Supersymmetry (in the earliest universe) these forces are equal, and not so very different as we see them now.

Supersymmetry also accounts for Dark Energy and Dark Matter in the Universe. (if they exist)

[DrCaleb]

Ok, in addition, some explanation of 'quarks'.

Firstly, all those quarks above have an antimatter doppleganger. But I'll just describe the matter ones. Electrons and Positrons are Leptons, they are already quarks.

One thing about quarks is they always occur in pairs (or triplets). The seem to act opposite to particles, in that trying to dived them gets harder the further they are separated. The more energy you put into dividing them, E=MC^2 takes over and you add enough energy to create more quarks that aren't divided. Foiled again!

Here is a pretty good explanation of Quarks. Probably better than I can explain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

[DrCaleb]

So . . .going back to the article:

$1:

A Standard Model principle known as lepton universality says that all leptons should be treated equally by the weak interaction, the fundamental force responsible for radioactive decay. But when the experiments observed a large number of B meson decays, which should have produced equal numbers of electrons, muons and taus among their final products (after the different masses of the particles are taken into account), the decays actually made more taus.

So the experiment found that those three particles in green, Electron, Muon and Tau, should be created in equal numbers, but were not.