Jump to content

Extended Field Theory


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Axion said:

I embedded the video part where clearly is pointed Our SPM Is Cracked

Not according to the video*. Emphasis mine:

Quote

Lepton universality is a base assumption of the standard model, and if that is wrong, then so is the standard model and so is our understanding of particle physics.

Note the "if".

"Could the Standard Model Be Wrong?" does not equal "The standard model is wrong." And the fact that an accepted model has known limitations also does not mean it is "dead" or "gone". 

*) Source: your link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQjXHoZitU0&t=230s

 

Side note: the research is interesting! I'm curious about future results and publications from Cern and LHC regarding lepton universality.

Edited by Ghideon
added "known limitations"
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note You don't get to say that here unless you can support it, which you've proven you can't. Try to force this assertion again and you can take some time off on susp

I brought certain quotes and question and You didnt answer on them directly just evaded the answer stating magnetic monopoles are not particles, now when I pointed that particle physics is in vacuum Y

true ... defacto the models are derived from and postulated by some theory, thus the same should be measurable so we would say its law, now, as we can see recently measurements got wrong with the stan

7 hours ago, Axion said:

I embedded the video part where clearly is pointed Our SPM Is Cracked

First of all, YouTube videos are not valid sources of scientific information - not even if the information given happens to be correct. So I did some quick research on the current state of affairs in the field (this isn’t my area of expertise), and here’s a good summary:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06229.pdf

The upshot is that the current indications for there being some violation of LU come in at a statistical significance of, on average, around \(4 \sigma\), and are seen only for the case of b-quark decays. Other quark decay processes are perfectly in line with SM predictions. This is not sufficient evidence yet to call a new discovery, since the statistical significance level is not high enough. At the very least this will require more such experiments in order to acquire a larger data set.

All this being said, there are indeed tantalising hints that some new physics may perhaps be going on, pending further investigation. However, should this turn out to be the case, then this would in no way invalidate the Standard Model, which quite evidently works very well - it would simply require an extension to the model which provides a suitable mechanism to explain these findings. Note also that it is just as possible that these findings are not due to new physics at all, but could arise from our mathematical difficulties in treating QCD non-perturbatively.

On a very high level, let me reiterate that we have known for a long time already that the SM in its current form is in all likelihood merely an effective field theory that provides an approximation to something more fundamental. As such no physicist in their right mind would expect the current SM to be the final word on the matter of particle physics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that SM is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe. This is similar to the situation in classical mechanics - Newtonian physics is still successfully used (and taught in schools), even though it’s just a low-energy low-velocity approximation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Markus Hanke hm Your post sounds like robayla response, let me be clear I am not particle physicist, nor physicist as a matter of fact, but reading what they say think that You are not right eg.  here is more sincere logic ...

  • [1] "This would certainly give particle physics a kick in the pants. Mark Wise says it doesn’t fit into “the story line that the theorists tell”"

or here are more euphemistic lines ...

  • [1] "A shake-up in the Standard Model would be huge." ... "All these converging lines of evidence make an increasingly compelling case that something is systematically fishy. “If [the deviations] turn out to be real,” says BaBar spokesperson and University of Victoria professor Michael Roney, “it would be kind of weird if they weren't related.”" ... "Roney sums up the skepticism: “You don’t bet against the Standard Model.”" ...  "The evidence is even harder to swallow given how far lepton universality is from theorists’ expectations of where cracks in the Standard Model might show up. “There’s sort of a story line that the theorists tell,” Wise says, and “this isn’t in the story line.” What’s worse, the proposed explanations for the leptons’ behavior seem ad hoc and unsatisfying. “The kind of models that can fit the…anomalies don’t really do anything else at first sight,” Ligeti says. “For example, they don’t get you any closer to understanding what dark matter might be.”"

and here is correct reasoning that indeed opens room for huge revisiting of our current physics, altho I dont believe the academia will be openminded enough to let the alternative theories to roll on, but as usual will chase the rabot hole altho is already fact that the same is not there!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Axion said:

@Markus Hanke hm Your post sounds like robayla response, let me be clear I am not particle physicist, nor physicist as a matter of fact, but reading what they say think that You are not right eg.  here is more sincere logic ...

On the contrary, what you posted is perfectly consistent with "no physicist in their right mind would expect the current SM to be the final word on the matter of particle physics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that SM is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe."

Much like Newtonian works just fine at low speeds and one need not invoke Einstein's theory of relativity, and at macroscopic scales QM need not be invoked. One could just as easily say the lay of the land ca 1900, was no physicist in their right mind would expect Newtonian physics to be the final word on the matter of mechanics. However, when such a more fundamental model is found, this still will not mean that Newtonian physics is abandoned; after all, we know it works extremely well within the energy levels we can currently probe.

And here it is more than 100 years later, and we see this is true: we still use Newtonian physics. We know that there's more to it at the scale of the small and fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2021 at 7:16 AM, Markus Hanke said:

So I did some quick research on the current state of affairs in the field (this isn’t my area of expertise), and here’s a good summary:

Thanks for posting the link. It looks worth to read through* and the introduction har a good description: 

Quote

Despite its tremendous success in describing all present measurements, the SM can only be regarded as the low-energy, effective, incarnation of a more global theory. For example, the SM cannot account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry currently present in the Universe, it does not provide a Dark Matter candidate and it does not explain its own gauge group structure, the charge assignment of the fermions or the mass hierarchy between the different families. A more global theory that extends the SM at higher energies and shorter distances could provide an answer to some of these questions, which are at the core of modern particle physics.

@Axion the above looks to me as similar to Newton -> Theory of relativity. A new theory will be an extension and standard model predictions will still be applicable within its known limitations. Just as Newton laws of motion will continue to be used at low relative velocities.

 

*) I'l need to gather some knowledge do get through the the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Ghideon @swansont think we went too offtopic and would propose to open new threa, altho how this one in offtopic part of the forum maybe it wont hurt if we continue hear to argue about the unstandard model probably with that name indeed could still exist :D

here is another nice definition whats happening from the opening of this linked video > the standard model is fundamentally mistaken ...

I know SM is too big to fail, and we as civilization are on many field in such mirage, yep living on planet with finite resources chasing exponential economic growth, its same with the standard model because for long time its in place it will be extending for continual symmetrical mathematical poetry and imagination So it would find excuses for the measurements that dont support the model, as is said in the last link just an idea, now You are telling me look dollar is stable yeas as fictive as it could be that stability, but which only rests on particular agreement but not on reality!

now when measurements dont supports the mathematical and theoretical juggling, I can freely say to me more useful would be funding of every alternative theory in same amount as the current SM particle physics, altho it would need some time the current attention discrepancy to be leveled , stil it would be interesting to hear even for simple ideas as theories, but as i can see here for a while that will not be case ...

 

Edited by Axion
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Axion said:

altho how this one in offtopic part of the forum

There is no such thing as an 'off topic' part of ScienceForums.

I seriously suggest you get a full understanding of this rule before you proceed further with anything.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Axion said:

@Ghideon @swansont think we went too offtopic and would propose to open new threa, altho how this one in offtopic part of the forum maybe it wont hurt if we continue hear to argue about the unstandard model probably with that name indeed could still exist :D

here is another nice definition whats happening from the opening of this linked video > the standard model is fundamentally mistaken ...

 

No, I'm not going to watch videos without a decent summary of them, as required by the rules...

7 minutes ago, Axion said:

I know SM is too big to fail, and we as civilization are on many field in such mirage, yep living on planet with finite resources chasing exponential economic growth, its same with the standard model because for long time its in place it will be extending for continual symmetrical mathematical poetry and imagination So it would find excuses for the measurements that dont support the model, as is said in the last link

...and double so for obvious crackpottery.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, studiot said:

There is no such thing as an 'off topic' part of ScienceForums.

tell that to mathematicians :D here we need compactness and viewability, coz I still wait on answer to my prime question ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axion said:

tell that to mathematicians :D here we need compactness and viewability, coz I still wait on answer to my prime question ...

The issues with how the initial question was formulated have been pointed out. And answers have been provided. Mine are here:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124534-extended-field-theory/?do=findComment&comment=1170617

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124534-extended-field-theory/?do=findComment&comment=1170641

(Other members have also answered.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Axion said:

You are not right eg.  here is more sincere logic

In what way am I “not right”, exactly? As I have pointed out to you, the statistical significance figure currently stands at roughly 4σ , that’s not enough to establish LU violations as being physically real just yet. That’s just how it is. You find the raw data in the link I gave, so you can verify the figure yourself.

If these violations are verified to be physically real by doing future measurements, then this will be a very exciting find - discovering new physics is the pinnacle of every physicist’s life, and thinking this is somehow perceived as a “threat to dogma” is simply ridiculous. No genuine physicist thinks this way. Personally I cannot wait to learn whatever structure underlies the Standard Model, and/or GR, though it’s perhaps unlikely to happen within my lifetime. Either way, the SM will continue to be used for cases where it is known to work well, just like Newtonian gravity continues to be used alongside GR, and classical mechanics alongside QM. 

Remember the purpose of physics: it makes models to describe aspects of the world. It is not about some notion of “truth”. Hence, a model will continue to be used for a specific purpose as long as it is useful, internally self-consistent, and delivers results that are in line with what we see in the real world.

Are there any known issues with the Standard Model? Most certainly - here is a list of the most obvious ones. It is precisely these issues that provide an impetus for continued research, both in the theoretical as well as experimental domains. I think this is all very exciting, because historically you‘ll find that the phase when the limitations of an existing model are better understood generally precedes important new discoveries and paradigm shifts. 

14 hours ago, Axion said:

altho I dont believe the academia will be openminded enough to let the alternative theories to roll on

This is simply not true. If you look at the link I gave above, you will find in it not just a listing of the limitations of the Standard Model, but also a number of alternative models (not an exhaustive list). These alternatives continue to be extensively researched, and are taken seriously by the scientific community. However, as it stands, there isn‘t enough evidence in favour of any of these, and also, some of the alternatives come with problems of their own. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ghideon all answers I've got are negative but rests on SM thus not answering my what-if question!

@Markus Hanke hm definitely You are finding excuses but defacto the mainstream physics is in vacuum, trying to say the vacuum void is present its like saying wait we will build bigger colider and we will prove that SM is correct, in case of SM my argument in this thread is its not valid excuse so it wouild be rejected the proposed notion that divB=0 now with the detection of g'monopoles becomes dviB>0

if You are concerned on SM viability please open new thread and we can examine how big reflex has the LU inconsistency as measurement! dont forget that at stake is not just physics with this discrepancy between SM and LU but also the humanistic elitism as technocracy who was claiming till now how the scientific superiority is indisputable and need that claim to be postponed until they introduce true technocratic system on west, I know this as political reflex dont have nothing to do with the physics, but gives answer why SM will be streched and reshaped further altho defacto is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Axion said:

all answers I've got are negative but rests on SM thus not answering my what-if question!

It answers the what-if. SM will remain and extended. Or if you will, SM will be a low energy approximation of a new theory. A good analogy is the comparison with Newton->Relativity, also posted several times.

If you are not happy with the answers, can you post the question in a clear and concise way without making claims? Just the question? 

I'll try again:

A "true"* magnetic monopole would be a new elementary particle, and would violate Gauss's law for magnetism ∇⋅B = 0. A monopole of this kind has never been observed in experiments. If such a monopole was ever observed in an experiment, how would that affect the Gauss's law and the state of the standard model?**

Is the above what you intended to ask? 

 

As for your comments regarding dogmas, elitism etc that is not by experience from scientific community. Any hint at new science beyond the current models or theories means an opportunity to get the Nobel prize and/or to be in the history books. 

 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ghideon no it dont need to be particle I am continually saying this, it could be wave of some fringe energy as is already observed ...

and please open new SM thread we can argue about the validity of SM as approximation of new theory, You are aware that this sounds like my toy knife will be one day surgical blade, no it wont tho that dont means You cant try doing operations with toy knife, let me see You can for sure spread mayo on bread :D

about scientific elitism and dogmas, hm, are You aware how ridiculed are all alternative theories on basis of mainstream trend in this case SM, electric universe is one extremely bashed like this, yes one pseudoscience saying to all other you are pseudoscience, simply theory is theory but power principle is above all so who has become somehow authority he is imposing what is or not mainstream trend or imminent truth for academic and public following, but all of that is wrong how public money are spent on just one idea, so wrong like with m'rna immunization vs natural CBD one ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be illogical me to spam in this thread about SM but till someone open new sm'sos'thread I really find interestingly the reasoning of Alexander Unzicker [1][1][1] I wonder how Tesla in its own time was arguing against Einstein :D let me be precise general relativity is one point of view but as is extended its proving that is not the main even less complet understanding of the nature life and reality ...

sorry for this mine offtopic jump'in but the point is if indeed magnetic monopoles as assumption exists in nature seen through the current science, then we can say scalar waves or energy is more than plausible, now is that case evenif I knew when cant be postulated theoretically and expressed mathematically even less like that detected by measurements then what the use of me juggling with assumtions!? so I'll rest till physics postulate new model so I can try to point what kind of technology would be needed so such waves could be detected and harnessed i.e. mine interpretation of those sensors transponders transducers etc. for what I think we need just our bodies, but how focus is now drawn to SM pseudoscience we are too far from bioresonance grasp [1][1][1] as in physics so as biology and chemistry, thus for now we need new en'masse theoretic debate around alternatives and till after experimental work ...

I know laughing is comforting, freely use it, but take my word this paradigm shift would/will be A Life Less Ordinary for many ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Axion said:

no it dont need to be particle I am continually saying this, it could be wave of some fringe energy as is already observed ...

Ok. Please define " wave of some fringe energy". 

 

2 hours ago, Axion said:

You are aware that this sounds like my toy knife will be one day surgical blade, no it wont tho that dont means You cant try doing operations with toy knife, let me see You can for sure spread mayo on bread

A toy knife will be useful within its area of applicability, as a toy or to spread mayo, even when better knifes are available. The toy knife does not suddenly stop working when new and better knives are created or discovered. Just as Standard Model will be useful when future progress with new theories adds to our knowledge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Please define " wave of some fringe energy".

I will not act physicist and defining hot water here, but will urge You follow already established patterns of research, in this case about radiant energy ...

or similar alike propositions

and obviously for more answers maybe I should start asking questions elsewhere ... just not sure whether I'll need to repeat all that SM talks like here ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Axion said:

sorry for this mine offtopic jump'in but the point is if indeed magnetic monopoles as assumption exists in nature seen through the current science, then we can say scalar waves or energy is more than plausible, now is that case evenif I knew when cant be postulated theoretically and expressed mathematically even less like that detected by

You’ve been told a number of times to distinguish between the two different phenomena dubbed monopoles, but this does not follow; you have presented no physics argument leading from the premise to the assertion. This is a science discussion site. We request science discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Axion said:

I will not act physicist and defining hot water here, but will urge You follow already established patterns of research, in this case about radiant energy ...

None of your sources seems to define "radiant energy" or "wave of some fringe energy".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

None of your sources seems to define "radiant energy" or "wave of some fringe energy".

I pointed to radiant energy and those sources explain to some extent the Tesla notion [1][1][1] again I am not postulating new theory, for that as I said You should ask others and pointed who that might be ... btw its not true there is not word of RE, here is excerpt of the EricD book p.212/206 ...

Quote

The monophasic dielectric forces developed through the work of Nikola Teslanullify relativistic relations. Tesla, through a unique space-time hysteresis electri-cally "grounded" to a zero order Galilean coordinate system. It is also the cathoderay projector tubes utilized by Tesla in his atomic studies also nullify relativisticrelations. Tesla’s remarks about "radiant matter" indicate the existence of cosmicrays of immense penetrating power moving fifty (50) times faster than the velocityof light (Le Sage particles). Here Albert Einstein is in direct contradiction withthe experimental researches of Nikola Tesla, and in complete ignorance of the ex-perimental researches of J. J. Thompson. Einstein "layed his egg" in the "nest ofFaraday". From here it is that "Theoretical Physics" is henceforth divorced from"Electrical Science". In turn Theoretical Physics made a "Where" of Maxwell, the"offspring" of Faraday.

... You stuck to my assumption as I am knowing what kind of force is in question, I guess, I just say that the observed phenomenon as magnetic monopole (as observed in 2009 first time (without the need to be particle)) could be other thing, so again the question is would then that observation change the maxwells equation, just imagine it, will then divB=0 became divB<>0 ... I cant ask simpler than this as what if ...

Edited by Axion
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Axion said:

the observed phenomenon as magnetic monopole (as observed in 2009 first time (without the need to be particle)) could be other thing, so again the question is would then that observation change the maxwells equation, just imagine it, will then divB=0 became divB<>0 ... I cant ask simpler than this as what if ...

The answer is still no.

The 2009 discovery is not what divB=0 excludes, so the realization of the Dirac monopole does not require any change to the laws of physics, seeing as it was predicted by the existing laws of physics.

Is this sufficient, or do you need it written out yet again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

50 minutes ago, Axion said:

Tesla’s remarks about "radiant matter" indicate the existence of cosmicrays of immense penetrating power moving fifty (50) times faster than the velocityof light (Le Sage particles)

"Radiant matter" as described above is not connected to the magnetic monopoles in the 2009 experiment* and will not be part of an explanation of the possible violation of LU mentioned in this thread. Does that answer your "what if" question? 

Nothing moves faster that the speed of light in vacuum so I guess Tesla was wrong in this case. Or maybe the book is not drawing correct conclusions from Tesla's work. Or it is a work of fiction, it does not describe something that can be reproduced. 

*)https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/haog-mmd090209.php

Edited by Ghideon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@swansont that is Your interpretation by the agreed existing "laws of physics" which didnt get us further than exploitation and destruction as civilization!

 

@Ghideon the problem what connects my what-if notion to the 2009 gm'observation and those after is the true understanding how things works in our universe, as EricD said the Sun (Stars) are portal from where that energy comes, thus the same is not nuclear, but until our current understanding of physics dont fundamentally change You will argue here through the current mainstream scientific dogmas as if they are final, but what they are is just agreement upon certain methodologies of calculations and expressions which excluded radiant energy i.e. socalled aether ...

 

  • last night I listened to some popular interview with Janko Mihelich member of the the slovenian NT ngo, if someone translated it in english it would be very useful for any newbie about radiant energy, I'll say not just as theory explanation of RE (radiant energy) but also comparison to the current scientific dogmas! JankoM gives very precise explanations from the speed of light to bigbang normally seen through radiant energy, where he sees it as life energy explained as neutrino spin (consistent of positron and electron) in spiral path (spiral wave) in electromagnetic field i.e. the spiral is between the current and the field, what he is postulating as basic interpretation through the "coulombs inverse square law" [1][1][1]
Edited by Axion
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Axion said:

the problem what connects my what-if notion to the 2009 gm'observation and those after is the true understanding how things works in our universe, as EricD said the Sun (Stars) are portal from where that energy comes, thus the same is not nuclear, but until our current understanding of physics dont fundamentally change

I am curious about ideas about physics, that's why I entered this discussion. And a discussion requires some common ground for instance a common set of definitions or some current knowledge as a staring point. That seems to be out of reach in this case. 

 

8 hours ago, Axion said:

You will argue here through the current mainstream scientific dogmas as if they are final, but what they are is just agreement upon certain methodologies of calculations and expressions which excluded radiant energy i.e. socalled aether ...

(Don't try to tell me how I will argue regarding current ideas. Of course current mainstream is not "final", there will be progress. I'm currently working in computer science; progress, evaluating new good ideas and adaption to scientific progress is unavoidable.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2021 at 5:13 AM, Axion said:

I know SM is too big to fail, and we as civilization are on many field in such mirage, yep living on planet with finite resources chasing exponential economic growth, its same with the standard model because for long time its in place it will be extending for continual symmetrical mathematical poetry and imagination So it would find excuses for the measurements that dont support the model, as is said in the last link just an idea, now You are telling me look dollar is stable yeas as fictive as it could be that stability, but which only rests on particular agreement but not on reality!

now when measurements dont supports the mathematical and theoretical juggling, I can freely say to me more useful would be funding of every alternative theory in same amount as the current SM particle physics, altho it would need some time the current attention discrepancy to be leveled , stil it would be interesting to hear even for simple ideas as theories, but as i can see here for a while that will not be case ...

The scientific delusions you seem obsessed with are really silly. Science in all its forms, are disciplines in eternal progress. Alternative theories, if they have any basis, still need to run the gauntlet, just as the mainstream established theories already have. And obviously some alternative theories are simply impossible and against the current laws of physics. Why you cannot see this imo, reflects your probable anti mainstream stance, just for the sake of it. Sometimes we call this "tall poppy syndrome"You really need to do better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.