Jump to content

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


beecee
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, from that, I can only conclude that you don't have any examples of the standard model being changed or extended since the addition of quarks.

I just checked on Wikipedia and its (admittedly very brief) history section has the last update to the standard model being the addition of QCD to explain the behaviour of quarks.

Then it has a link to "physics beyond the standard model" which includes things like supersymmetry, preons, string theory, etc.

So I am confused about where our difference of opinion (if any) lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Yes, this is now among the many discrepancies of the standard model. There have been quite a few in the last seven years that I cannot recall them all. We have deviated some way from the standard model, this just hasn't been realised publically while yet, scientists in the background are aware of this.

Interesting discussion between you and Strange: I hope no one objects to me butting in.

My limited knowledge on 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...The BB still has some shortcomings, but the evidence to support it is overwhelming:the same goes for GR. Both have far more supporting them then any unexplained discrepencies.

Any thoughts on my brief lay person's description from either you or Strange is welcomed...or any errors, alterations and/or corrections.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

My limited knowledge on 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...

Sounds like a good summary to me.

BTW, I had never looked at the Wikipedia page on the standard model before. It has a very neat diagram summarising all the known interactions of particles:

 400px-Elementary_particle_interactions_i

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

You won't find anything inconsistent with the standard model. That isn't what this is about, you won't find anything violating the laws of physics. The standard model isn't about that, it was a very early model, or sketch if you like which we have continued to find divergences from.

Then how is a pentaquark "among the many discrepancies of the standard model."? A divergence, as you put it?

Also not being part of the standard model and violating laws of physics are distinct things. The aforementioned dark matter, and neutrinos with mass are both not part of the standard model, but they don't violate laws of physics. For dark matter it's the opposite: the laws of physics demand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sounds like a good summary to me.

BTW, I had never looked at the Wikipedia page on the standard model before. It has a very neat diagram summarising all the known interactions of particles:

 400px-Elementary_particle_interactions_i

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

Thanks....Any thoughts on why the apparent imbalance between the matter, anti matter period?

PS: I suppose if we would have had the more anti matter then matter, then today we would be calling anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter if you get my drift. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Then how is a pentaquark "among the many discrepancies of the standard model."? A divergence, as you put it?

Also not being part of the standard model and violating laws of physics are distinct things. The aforementioned dark matter, and neutrinos with mass are both not part of the standard model, but they don't violate laws of physics. For dark matter it's the opposite: the laws of physics demand it.

Strange asked a similar question.. take discrepancy to mean that anyone who holds the standard model, which was made many decades ago, holds true today, isn't itself a true statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

Strange asked a similar question.. take discrepancy to mean that anyone who holds the standard model, which was made many decades ago, holds true today, isn't itself a true statement. 

That implies that there are observations that do not fit in the standard model. Can you give an example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard model was created many decades ago, since then there have been many extensions. I am not getting into this again with you, seriously, I will uphold my offer of ignoring you if you are going to focus on silly questions, just don't have time for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

The standard model was created many decades ago, since then there have been many extensions.

I agree. However, that is not the same as it no longer holding true.

And, as far as I know, there have been no extensions since the mid-70s when QCD was added.

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

if you are going to focus on silly questions

What is silly about asking you for an example or to clarify what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up, I explained in a post way back that I know of many within the last several years. I really do give up with you. This time, I mean it.. You are actually just trying to waste my time, I have met the likes of you before... quite a few times in fact. I am no stranger to it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I explained in a post way back that I know of many within the last several years.

As you can't provide a single example, I have to assume this is not true.

So there have been no extensions to the standard model since QED and there have been no observations of anything that is not explained by the standard model. Thank you for confirming that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did, I gave you one example, what part of this don't you understand, I don't care of you. Since I came here, you challenged me (on anything that was within your capacity) and done so in annoying way. Stop replying to me, I don't care about you. Go about your business, if the place puts up with you, so be it - But I do not need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I did, I gave you one example

And that one example was solidly within the standard model; predicted decades ago.

Quote

Since I came here, you challenged me (on anything that was within your capacity) and done so in annoying way.

I'm sorry you don't like being challenged. But if you post factually incorrect statements, then I will challenge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wasn't, where was the Pentaquark required within the standard model? You are actually a dishonest person in my opinion. You do not openly admit the standard model uses parameters only required in theory. The idea a Pentaquark could even exist in nature was for many years, a speculation and at best considered beyond the standard model physics.

 

This is why I don't want to commune with you. You act dishonestly, even if you don't mean it. Aside from your arrogant nature I experienced when I came here, you have given me no reason to think you ''want to learn'' where you as you claim ''might have it wrong.'' You are, a waste of my time. And this last bit, you know at least because I am sure you are doing it intentionally. I am not silly either, so don't think I am not quick on the uptake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

No it wasn't, where was the Pentaquark required within the standard model?

Nothing is "required". Many things are possible; including the pentaquark. That is why its existence was predicted by the standard model.

Quote

You do not openly admit the standard model uses parameters only required in theory.

I'm not quite sure what that means. But of course it only uses things that are required in the theory. And those things allow pentaquarks (and all the other exotic hadrons).

Quote

The idea a Pentaquark could even exist in nature was for many years, a speculation and at best considered beyond the standard model physics.

Why would it be considered "beyond" the standard model when it was predicted IN the standard model? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. And is clearly untrue.

Quote

you have given me no reason to think you ''want to learn'' where you as you claim ''might have it wrong.'' 

I was hoping you would tell me something new that I didn't know. But it seems you have nothing useful to say. Apart from repeating the false statement that the pentaquark is not part of the standard model.

I will leave others to judge who is being dishonest:

Quote

The name pentaquark was coined by Claude Gignoux et al.[1] and Harry J. Lipkin in 1987;[2] however, the possibility of five-quark particles was identified as early as 1964 when Murray Gell-Mann first postulated the existence of quarks.[3] Although predicted for decades, pentaquarks have proved surprisingly difficult to discover and some physicists were beginning to suspect that an unknown law of nature prevented their production.[4]

So clearly it was always part of the standard model. And its non-existence would have required new physics beyond the standard model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just  a quote from wiki

 

''Physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.[1] Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself—the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons).

Theories that lie beyond the Standard Model include various extensions of the standard model through supersymmetry, such as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) and Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM), or entirely novel explanations, such as string theory, M-theory, and extra dimensions. As these theories tend to reproduce the entirety of current phenomena, the question of which theory is the right one, or at least the "best step" towards a Theory of Everything, can only be settled via experiments, and is one of the most active areas of research in both theoretical and experimental physics.''

 

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

 

 

so; This isn't about what is possible - the standard model is about extensions to an otherwise, preliminary sketch work of reality. Why won't you just give it a break? Why won't you accept, I just don't want to deal with you?

 

By the way, you keep quoting the Gell-Mann thing in the 1970's. The standard model was in fact formulated within those years, but depended on the existence of quarks, not so much the existence of exotic forms of matter, which a Pentaquark belongs in. 

 

''One week ago, an international team of scientists announced that they had discovered the pentaquark, an exotic, short-lived chunk of matter that had long eluded researchers. Its serendipitous discovery fills in one of the remaining gaps in the Standard Model, the prevailing but incomplete theory of particle physics, and it potentially points the way to weird “subatomic molecules” and other exotic forms of matter.''

 

https://www.insidescience.org/news/party-five-physicists-discover-long-sought-‘pentaquark’-stroke-luck

 

 

Notice, this is about ''filling in gaps...'' a silly way of saying really, we are adding extensions to a standard model.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

the standard model is about extensions to an otherwise, preliminary sketch work of reality.

You just quoted from an article called "BEYOND the standard model". That is about extensions to the standard model. The standard model can't be about extensions to the standard model. That makes no sense. 

(Note that I referenced that article before.)

Quote

By the way, you keep quoting the Gell-Mann thing in the 1970's. 

I keep quoting it because it shows that the pentaquark has always been part of the standard model. Despite your claims to the contrary. It is pretty silly to keep denying it.

Quote

Notice, this is about ''filling in gaps...'' a silly way of saying really, we are adding extensions to a standard model.

It is only filling in gaps of what has been observed, not what is in the model. It is not an extension to the standard model  It has been part of the model for more than 4 decades. (As shown by that thing I keep quoting.)

The detection of the Higgs boson was not an extension to the standard model, either. Also just confirmation of part of it. (Which took a similar amount of time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you make extensions to a standard model, without making it something it isn't, as in to mean, it is no longer actually the standard model?

 

Really ... why are you acting so ... retarded, when I am sure you are not? The standard model, means the original model we started with. Anything added to it since, have/has been by definition, extensions that have made them beyond the standard model. So many years have past, I have done much reading, I take my physics seriously.. and so, I tend to take great time with people. You have been the biggest disappointment, I cannot tolerate you any more.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

How do you make extensions to a standard model, without making it something it isn't, as in to mean, it is no longer actually the standard model?

 The standard model, means the original model we started with. Anything added to it since, have/has been by definition, extensions that have made them beyond the standard model. So many years have past, I have done much reading, I take my physics seriously.. and so, I tend to take great time with people. You have been the biggest disappointment, I cannot tolerate you any more.

  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.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

How do you make extensions to a standard model, without making it something it isn't, as in to mean, it is no longer actually the standard model?

 

Really ... why are you acting so ... retarded, when I am sure you are not? The standard model, means the original model we started with. Anything added to it since, have/has been by definition, extensions that have made them beyond the standard model. So many years have past, I have done much reading, I take my physics seriously.. and so, I tend to take great time with people. You have been the biggest disappointment, I cannot tolerate you any more.

My background would be geology rather than physics. I mention this because if  you view geology with a degree of disdain as some physicists do this next argument will likely be irrelevant to you.

Plate tectonics is an amazingly succesful model for the behaviour of the upper levels of the planet. It explains a great diversity of observations that previously were difficult to account for. This portion of the wikepedia article on plate tectonics summarises some of the highlights of the theory. Can you tell me at which point plate tectonics became something other than plate tectonics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

I did, I gave you one example, what part of this don't you understand, I don't care of you. Since I came here, you challenged me (on anything that was within your capacity) 

Welcome to science.

10 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

How do you make extensions to a standard model, without making it something it isn't, as in to mean, it is no longer actually the standard model?

Quantum mechanics and relativity have been altered substantially over time. We still call them by the same name. The standard model has similarly been fleshed out. It's still the standard model.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.