Five Years After The Higgs, What Else Has The LHC Found?

[Strange]

Interesting article on what has been found and, just as importantly, not found by the LHC: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-years-after-the-higgs-what-else-has-the-lhc-found-95b3149751b1

 

[Scotty99]

Just curious, what did you take from the article strange?

Personally i have always felt we are looking at the current problems in the cosmos from the wrong angle, instead of trying to prove dark matter exists we should be looking at alternative theories.

 

 

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Just curious, what did you take from the article strange?

 

I thought it was an interesting status report.

22 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Personally i have always felt we are looking at the current problems in the cosmos from the wrong angle, instead of trying to prove dark matter exists we should be looking at alternative theories.

People are looking at all sorts of alternative theories. (You could start a thread on dark matter, if you like.)

We know "dark matter" (the phenomenon) exists but in some explanations the cause wouldn't be "matter"  

Edited April 23, 2018 by Strange

[Scotty99]

I think the good scientists at this point recognize dark matter is merely an incalculable property of space, but i cant blame people for trying.

I used to be super enthusiastic about the LHC but now i dont feel we are going to get any real answers from it.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I think the good scientists at this point recognize dark matter is merely an incalculable property of space

Which "good scientists" are these. Please provide references to where they have said that there is no point researching dark matter because it cannot be understood.

3 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I used to be super enthusiastic about the LHC but now i dont feel we are going to get any real answers from it.

I assume you either didn't read the article, didn't understand it or ignored what it said.

(Do your religious beliefs now mean you are rejecting all science?)

[Scotty99]

Well when i say good scientist i am merely projecting, if i can come to the conclusion that dark matter is merely a consequence of space surely others have as well. No one disagrees with the statement "dark matter exists" but as time goes on i would like to believe that many would agree with "dark matter is incalculable".

I of course read the article, but to me the most important part of the LHC from its founding moment was to either find or produce dark matter. LHC still has a purpose but i feel the importance of whats left has taken my interest down quite a few notches.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Well when i say good scientist i am merely projecting

You man "good scientists" would be ones who agree with you?

8 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

if i can come to the conclusion that dark matter is merely a consequence of space surely others have as well

What does "a consequence of space" mean? And how would you quantify this so that it can be tested?

9 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

but as time goes on i would like to believe that many would agree with "dark matter is incalculable".

As we can already calculated its effects, this seems a pretty vain hope.

9 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

but to me the most important part of the LHC from its founding moment was to either find or produce dark matter.

As far as I know, that was always a never the major objective. There are many other important things being done.

[Scotty99]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

You man "good scientists" would be ones who agree with you?

Sure, why not? I don't think what i stated in this thread is far away from what many scientists believe.

 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

What does "a consequence of space" mean? And how would you quantify this so that it can be tested?

I should have stated that in a different way, its a consequence of space only when looked at from the wrong angle. Dark matter is likely more easily explained with a different theory.

 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

As far as I know, that was always a never the major objective. There are many other important things being done.

I have been trying to keep up with news from the LHC since its inception, as far as i understand finding/producing dark matter has been at the forefront that entire time. I would not have had as much interest in the project otherwise.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Scotty99

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I don't think what i stated in this thread is far away from what many scientists believe.

Then it should be easy for you to provide references to these "many scientists".

4 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I should have stated that in a different way, its a consequence of space only when looked at from the wrong angle.

That makes less sense, not more. What "angle" should we be looking at space from?

5 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I have been trying to keep up with news from the LHC since its inception, as far as i understand finding/producing dark matter has been at the forefront that entire time.

It wasn't part of the initial goals. 

[Scotty99]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That makes less sense, not more. What "angle" should we be looking at space from?

Well, a different theory

Relativity is absolute genius but its goal is not to describe reality, merely possibilities. I think the theory that explains reality also takes cares of dark matter.

 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I think the theory that explains reality

That is outside the scope of science.

Science describes and models what we can see. 

[Scotty99]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is outside the scope of science.

Science describes and models what we can see. 

Not necessarily suggesting that, is it not possible dark matter is more easily accounted for in a non relativistic universe? I honestly dont know the answer to this, just spit balling.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Scotty99 said:

Not necessarily suggesting that, is it not possible dark matter is more easily accounted for in a non relativistic universe?

Well, the evidence for it came initially from Newtonian (non-relativistic) physics. Some evidence (e.g. gravitational lensing) requires relativity but even without relativity, there is something to explain.

[Mordred]

 As mentioned DM has non relativistic dynamics the strongest model of DM being cold (non relativistic).  It literally doesn't require GR to describe its dynamics nor does it in cosmology. 

 Its more a case of a puzzle of particle physics than cosmology. In cosmology applications the influence of DM is rather easily detected. The identification is what is daunting.

 DM if a weakly interactive particle will not be the only particle that is extremely difficult to detect. Neutrinos share many of the same characteristics though the known neutrinos are relativistic. 

 Such research by CERN the LHC and similar apparatus is one of our best hopes to identifying DM. Simply because we haven't done so yet does not preclude the possibility.

 Even so it is incredible the amount of scientific research that is still being confirmed, fine tuned, cross examined by CERN. Just because we believe we understand something (including Higgs) doesn't mean the research stops. If anything they get further studied in greater and greater detail.

 An extremely important aspect of Higgs still needing greater research is the Higgs metastability. A huge body of theories requires this key detail to confirm or overthrow countless models including a huge body of supersymmetric models. This aspect of Higgs can also overturn or confirm the potential of numerous DM and DE models.

 A little sidenote I have an unpublished personal model attempt involving Higgs that requires greater details involving its thermodynamic influences. My model is literally at a stall point due to lack of data on Higg's 

Edited April 24, 2018 by Mordred