beecee

Breaking the rules: Heavy chemical elements alter theory of quantum mechanics

Recommended Posts

Dubbelosix    6

Yes people tend to call any model we end up with, the standard model. I don't deny this.

3 hours ago, beecee said:
  1. Let me say again that to my knowledge the subject tells me that the standard particle model of physics enables us to understand the physics of matter and the forces. It is deemed as far as I understand it, as very successful in its verified predictions, ( the Higgs and more)  but remains incomplete.eg: As yet we do not know why there was apparently a slight excess of matter over anti matter near the BB...or why it doesn't account for gravity. But that doesn't mean it is wrong and we should throw it out...You have been asked for examples of scenarios/observations that are not explained by the standard model. 

I also firmly believe that anything anyone feels like claiming on a science forum, if it is not mainstream, will face critical review as it should. It's great you take physics seriously, so too did Fred Hoyle, and like Fred Hoyle you must accept criticism if it is due.

 

 

I like constructive criticism. I have had plenty of that from others posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordred    884

Ok Pentaquarks and Diquarks were predicted using the SM model long before their discovery.

However we don't add particles despite predictions to the SM model until we have identified them in experiments.

It isn't patchwork so much as a safety net. Just as none of the supersymmetric particles are added to our model of particles, despite being predicted.

No physics nor formulas need changing, to predict Pentaquarks so it is part of the SM model not added to the SM model. The particle itself is simply been confirmed. The model itself requires no changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dubbelosix    6

See, this is were there are disagreements. I noted the other day, that pentaquarks were theoretically suggested only after the discovery of the quark. The discovery of the quark was what founded the standard model - and of course - predictions are made. I also made clear, predictions and extensions like the Pentaquark are added upon their discovery, but by definition, these additions to an otherwise, preliminary sketch of reality. As you said, this is not true patch work. Physics has a remarkable ability to predict beyond its own current model. It happens all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4770
15 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Really ... why are you acting so ... retarded, when I am sure you are not? The standard model, means the original model we started with.

!

Moderator Note

Hey! This is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE! If you don't know what the definition of "retarded" is, please don't misuse it. Just as you don't seem to understand how theories gain their strength by constant testing and refinement, if you don't know you should ask questions rather than make snarky assertions.

I'm not sure why you've become so uncivil of late. Is it really because your ideas and knowledge are being questioned? I suggest you check your ego at the door and accept that nobody here is interested in anything but discussing mainstream science in the most meaningful way we can. If you can't obey our most important rule, this site may not be for you. There are science discussion sites that will let you get away with this kind of behavior, but we aren't one of them.

Report this post if you disagree, or PM me or another staff member, but don't bother discussing this in-thread. Civility isn't an option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordred    884
10 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

See, this is were there are disagreements. I noted the other day, that pentaquarks were theoretically suggested only after the discovery of the quark. The discovery of the quark was what founded the standard model - and of course - predictions are made. I also made clear, predictions and extensions like the Pentaquark are added upon their discovery, but by definition, these additions to an otherwise, preliminary sketch of reality. As you said, this is not true patch work. Physics has a remarkable ability to predict beyond its own current model. It happens all the time.

 

 It breaks down to how one describes something as outside a model.

The only correct answer is "Can the mathematical basis, provide an accurate prediction"

So having a model that without any changes to its underlying mathematical formalism. Then applying those same rules, 

(in this case the Eightfold Wayen, via the conservation laws of the Eightfold baryon octect and meson nonet. Ie charge, spin, parity, mass, energy/momentum, color, isospin, flavor.

Think that's all of em but might be missing one or teo)

Anyways the mathematical basis behind these conservation laws, provide us with the means to predict what particles are possible.

So simply detecting one that the Eightfold Wayen can and did predict isn't new beyond finally being able to measure it.

Something outside the standard model would require something ie a new conservation law etc, that the current mathematical basis cannot answer/nor predict.

As far as Pentaquarks are involved I for one read the mathematical basis for their prediction long before finally being measured.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dubbelosix    6

I know loads of examples which have been listed in the beyond standard model extensions. Consider the glueball. Again this is classed as an exotic form of matter... The article at wiki on physics beyond the standard model erroneously states that glueballs haven't been discovered, and yet they have. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103227.htm

For me, beyond the standard model physics, was never about breaking physics, or laws, though this could be the extreme case. Here is some very recent news about a possible breakdown in standard model physics:

https://press.cern/update/2017/04/lhcb-finds-new-hints-possible-deviations-standard-model

What I find interesting, is that the way wiki treats the issue of beyond the standard model seems similar to me. For instance, gravity is listed as beyond the standard model investigations, because it is not accounted for in the standard model, though this isn't meant to mean gravity will use some physics defying principle. 

Dark matter and Dark energy are both considered beyond the standard model because the standard model, according to wiki, because the standard model does not account for the mass, though you will have posters here argue that all there is, is the standard model - in which case, I ask what is the point of this literature, than to simply notice, the standard model has many new parameters it once never had; extensions to laws that abide physics. 

 

Wiki does seem to be clear about listing predictions as part of beyond the standard model physics, this must include discoveries like the pentaquark, gluon and other forms of exotic matter.

 

''Theoretical predictions not observed[edit]

Observation at particle colliders of all of the fundamental particles predicted by the Standard Model has been confirmed. The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model's explanation of the Higgs mechanism, which describes how the weak SU(2) gauge symmetry is broken and how fundamental particles obtain mass; it was the last particle predicted by the Standard Model to be observed. On July 4, 2012, CERN scientists using the Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson, with a mass of about 126 GeV/c2. A Higgs boson was confirmed to exist on March 14, 2013, although efforts to confirm that it has all of the properties predicted by the Standard Model are ongoing.[12]

A few hadrons (i.e. composite particles made of quarks) whose existence is predicted by the Standard Model, which can be produced only at very high energies in very low frequencies have not yet been definitively observed, and "glueballs"[13] (i.e. composite particles made of gluons) have also not yet been definitively observed. Some very low frequency particle decays predicted by the Standard Model have also not yet been definitively observed because insufficient data is available to make a statistically significant observation.''

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

Edited by Dubbelosix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strange    2478
18 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

The article at wiki on physics beyond the standard model erroneously states that glueballs haven't been discovered, and yet they have. 

Possibly.

Quote

For me, beyond the standard model physics, was never about breaking physics, or laws, though this could be the extreme case. Here is some very recent news about a possible breakdown in standard model physics:

Now that is (possibly) something beyond the standard model. Finally. Thank you.

22 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

For instance, gravity is listed as beyond the standard model investigations, because it is not accounted for in the standard model

Yep. Because "beyond the standard model" means "not accounted for in the standard model".

It doesn't mean "defying physics". (What does that even mean?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dubbelosix    6

Well, initial reports of the Higgs boson that I can remember was that it appears to be nonstandard, that is a Higgs not predicted by the standard model. I haven't read much more than this but did find this article which references that the Higgs has raised questions whether it is standard after all. 

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1490272/files/plb.726.564.pdf

 

There's loads of things not specifically predicted by the standard model but have been added later. Or there have been extensions or predictions of the standard model, which in their own right, has extended the standard model. 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/328308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordred    884

 The related articles to the standard model extensions can be started here. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405097

in essence the minimal standard model extensions applies the right hand rule to all rotations.  Further can be found SO(10) via the Pati-Salam groups.

 Yes Higgs is extended for same reasons above. It is more complexely a quaturnion field. Each quaturnion is modelled as a seperate field as well and has its specific interactions to the particles you listed. 

 Wiki link has a bit  ( lol page is rather lacking)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension

 

The CPT violations in and of itself is a large topic.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now