Higgs Boson disparity is "beyond what could be explained by the Standard Model"

disparity is "beyond what could be explained by the Standard Model". Surprise..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Proof that radical new understanding is required, leading to a NEW standard model? Rethink simplistic 300 year old gravity model for instance?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Relativity has already done that you ignoramus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really.

For one, no one really expects the standard model to be the end of the story. No one.

Secondly, about 75% of particle theorists believe that Supersymmetry is right, and will be discovered. These results fit pretty nicely into the framework of supersymmetry, which has 5 higgs bosons.

so we aren't really at the stage of ``rethinking'' anything. We know the standard model exists. We can test it. We expect the standard model to be wrong eventually. This may be the first evidence of a contradiction.

IF this result is correct (this is one experiment, so I'd warn against drawing strong conclusions), THEN I suspect that supersymmetry wil become even more popular, which certainly does NOT represent a drastic revision of physics.

 

What about the obvious problem of including Newton's gravity model into the quantum model?

 

It's a different problem.

 

It's a VERY BIG different problem of course, which shouldn't be so easily forgotten now all the news is about particles..

 

Why? Gravity has nothing to do with the standard model.

 

Standard Model is coming apart in the big bang area too.

As I've stated for a long time, the background radiation just doesn't get it done. All manner of fudging tries to make it.

I posted about this stuff from Fermilab in another thread this week. The DZero papers are over at http://arxiv.org/ .

Also gravitational and inertial mass are coming apart, which flies in the face of the Equivalence Principle and Relativity.

Interesting stuff.

But as has already been said, Standard Model, Big Bang, many people know these are wrong, but they are the working theories that science proceeds on until we learn more.

 

Thanks for the comon sense support Dr. Mabuse. BTW What is your gut feeling on the possibility of a particle force carrier for the gravity force as opposed to Einstein's 'rubber sheet analogy'?

 

Why the boner for Einstein? It was an analogy, not a mathematical model, and Einstein didn't know everything, hence one of his oft misconstrued quotes, which I shall refrain from posting lest it sets one of the resident theists off again.

 

Well... Elmag, weak, strong, we find duality at the quantum. There is indeed particle involved in the force. 3 outta 4. That would seem to be a trend, but this idea about gravity is really kind of a hot thing right now.

My opinion? We will find the same thing at the quantum and particle/wave duality will be found with gravity too. The Graviton will be found I would think, but we have a ways to go before technologically before we can actually find it. I think this is a consensus view in the physics community too.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this common sense view but there's a twist to the psychology if you think about it long enough: the idea of gravitons as the basic particle/wave force carriers means that Newton's declaration that "all matter attracts everything else equally in all directions" doesn't necessarily have to hold true. Einstein's imaginary rubber sheet does stick to Newton's initial idea. Okay, we know Einstein made mistakes, but the biggest one imo was assuming that Newton's simplistic "gravity is equal in all directions for a given mass" was Godgiven and sacrosanct. Do you begin to see what I'm getting at?

 

Why?

 

Something we know you do not do.

The existence or not of a graviton has nothing to do with the isotropy of space-time.

Why do you pretend to be familiar with the views of mainstream science when you know you aren't? Relativity can allow for non-isotropic space-times, independent of whether or not gravity is carried by gravitons. The universe is very close to isotropic on large scales and many of the models used in cosmology like the FRW metric as isotropic but it isn't 'sacrosanct', its a reasonable position based on observation. Its certainly been put to the test because deviations from isotropy would affect the CMB.

GR is an effective theory, it doesn't attempt to talk about quantum scales. A graviton based model can result in GR as an effective theory so your implication that either you use a graviton model or a 'rubber sheet' model is a false dichotomy. The latter is the limit of the former, as is seen in string theory which contains gravitons and those gravitons obey the same equations as the space-time of general relativity.

 

Simply because the structure of the galactic universe can be seen to involve spirals on a rotational flat plane. This is indicative of a gravitational force which could be stronger on the rotational plane. This deep field observation of galaxies and clusters wasn't available in Newton's day. If the great scientist knew of the basic shapes of the building blocks of the universe then he wouldn't have come to the conclusion that the gravity force from an object must be equal in all directions. It's that simple. Now, given the fact that a equi-gravity force doesn't fit with the new robust quantum world, there's room for re-evaluation of the very first inital assumptions made i.e. that the gravity law is not Godgiven or a mathematical truth..

 

I doubt there are any real scientists that think God keeps planets in orbit, ....

While I think that every single one thinks it's possible to model it, mathematically.

 

You've missed the point by a country mile, as usual: Newton did believe that God kept the planets in orbit! He didn't state a scientific mechanism for this mysterious force, because it was beyond his comprehension to think of one (just like yourself). Just because the people who study mathematics at school find it easy, doesn't mean that his simplistic law is a 'mathematical truth'.

 

Except that accretion disks arise in isotropic gravitational models, hence why GR and NG can be applied to galaxies etc, as well as spherical objects like stars or planets. Yes, something else could explain it but you can always say that. Until a viable alternative is presented 'could' doesn't carry any weight.

Besides galaxies are made of matter, that matter has gravity and you expect a different gravitational profile. What you're talking about, non-isotropy in space, is different, it would mean that even in the absence of the matter there's be some preferred 'plane' in the universe. There isn't. Galaxies form planes as their matter carries angular momentum and spherical galaxies would tend to collapse and move towards steady states held up by angular momentum. The central region of the galaxy doesn't 'know' there's some preferred direction in the galaxy due to mass distributions, the gravitational effect is spherically symmetric. If space has some preferred plane then all galaxies would be in the same orientation, they aren't. They form disks due to collapse and angular momentum defines the axis about which they orbit. Basic mechanics.

The solar system is approximately in a plane and if your claims were right we'd measure a deviation from the expected orbits if we predicted using spherically symmetric gravity. We don't see such deviation, its as you'd expect for isotropic gravitational effects.

Mathematical truth has nothing to do with this, its about physical postulates, they are entirely different. Something can be mathematically true but physically wrong, as physics requires models of the universe, not conceptual constructions like in mathematics. Dimensional analysis leads to Newton's gravitational formula easily (See 'An Introduction to Symmetry Analysis' by someone I forget) and we've also derived it from more fundamental concepts in GR. Its not some fudge because no one wants to work with harder maths, GR is mind blowingly more complicated than Newtonian gravity but its more accurate and thus its the focus of research, not NG.

 

To be honest, I don't read your wordy responses anymore because you consistently fail to see the wood for the trees, so-to-speak. I'll await further breakthrough findings which will arrive like a freight train in the very near future. P.S why not respond to Dark energy may not actually exist at all, scientists say?

Not professional enough for you?