The standard model of particle physics may be broken, expert says

[israel socratus]

MAY 9, 2022
The standard model of particle physics may be broken, expert says
by Roger Jones,
As a physicist working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, one of the most frequent questions I am asked is "When are you going to find something?" Resisting the temptation to sarcastically reply "Aside from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole slew of new composite particles?" I realize that the reason the question is posed so often is down to how we have portrayed progress in particle physics to the wider world.
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-broken-expert.html?fbclid=IwAR1JH_T0ud5Wcl5rzTKQac1Ppe7U3JsbRNEWFB0U7m6xy9lHKHRpfROTMpA
The discovery of new LHC particles requires high energies and pure vacuum. The higher the energy and the cleaner the vacuum, the more opportunities to find new particles. Without vacuum, the LHC is a useless toy. Problem. The LHC Vacuum is a small copy of the Cosmic Vacuum, which is filled with an infinite number of different quantum particles. Therefore, the search for new particles is an endless process, and therefore the work of the LHC is Sisyphean.

[jillery]

Just as "dark" is a lack of light, and "cold" is a lack of heat,
"vacuum" is not a thing but a lack of things, including energy. So
introducing high-energy particles into a "pure vacuum" makes it no
longer "pure", by definition.

What makes vacuum important to particle accelerators is to minimize
noise from unidentified contaminants.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[israel socratus]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 8:51:01 AM UTC+3, jillery wrote:
> What makes vacuum important to particle accelerators is to minimize
> noise from unidentified contaminants.
>

You are correct, the vacuum "minimizes noise from unidentified contaminants."

[israel socratus]

===============
Particle Physics: 6 quarks + 6 antiquarks + Higgs boson + tetraquarks + pentaquarks +
leptoquarks + muons + tau + new axions + another zoo of quantum particles.
No doubt, a more powerful LHC would make it possible to find new particles.
What for?
Einstein once said: "Why do we study some many particles?
Understand really what is an electron would be enough."
Eddington once said: To a request to explain what an electron really is
supposed to be we can only answer, “It is part of the A B C of physics”.
"We know the electron by what it does, not by what it is."
So maybe it's better to understand what an electron is first,
and then all other quantum particles in the pure vacuum

[Dale]

On 5/11/2022 1:07 AM, israel socratus wrote:
> The standard model of particle physics

last time I saw it didn't have a particle for gravity

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 May 2022 07:51:06 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 5/11/2022 1:07 AM, israel socratus wrote:
>> The standard model of particle physics
>
>last time I saw it didn't have a particle for gravity
>

Actually they do. Sort of.

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Not a physics text, but it seems to be a decent overview of
the subject. Enjoy!
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 May 2022 02:10:11 -0700 (PDT), israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:21:01 AM UTC+3, israel socratus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 8:51:01 AM UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>> > What makes vacuum important to particle accelerators is to minimize
>> > noise from unidentified contaminants.
>> >
>> You are correct, the vacuum "minimizes noise from unidentified contaminants."
>===============
>Particle Physics: 6 quarks + 6 antiquarks + Higgs boson + tetraquarks + pentaquarks +
> leptoquarks + muons + tau + new axions + another zoo of quantum particles.

Perhaps, but more likely just a few more particles, to mend any breaks
and gaps in the Standard Model.

>No doubt, a more powerful LHC would make it possible to find new particles.
>What for?

Since you asked, because they're there, just like Mallory's mountains.

>Einstein once said: "Why do we study some many particles?
> Understand really what is an electron would be enough."
>Eddington once said: To a request to explain what an electron really is
>supposed to be we can only answer, “It is part of the A B C of physics”.
>"We know the electron by what it does, not by what it is."
> So maybe it's better to understand what an electron is first,
> and then all other quantum particles in the pure vacuum

My understanding is, if a "pure" vacuum existed, it would destroy our
universe.

[Dale]

On 5/11/2022 11:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 07:51:06 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 5/11/2022 1:07 AM, israel socratus wrote:
>>> The standard model of particle physics
>>
>> last time I saw it didn't have a particle for gravity
>>
> Actually they do. Sort of.
>
> Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
>
> Not a physics text, but it seems to be a decent overview of
> the subject. Enjoy!
>>

the standard particle model and general relativity are not yet together?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 May 2022 20:14:05 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 5/11/2022 11:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 07:51:06 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 5/11/2022 1:07 AM, israel socratus wrote:
>>>> The standard model of particle physics
>>>
>>> last time I saw it didn't have a particle for gravity
>>>
>> Actually they do. Sort of.
>>
>> Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
>>
>> Not a physics text, but it seems to be a decent overview of
>> the subject. Enjoy!
>>>
>
>the standard particle model and general relativity are not yet together?
>

After reading the article, all the referenced material (4
pages), and the external links, in detail, please tell us
what you think the answer to your question is.

[J. J. Lodder]

"Don't ask for the sake of asking.",
or,
"Don't ask what you already know the answer to."

Need some more proverbs?

Jan