If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   In July of 2012, we found the Higgs Boson. But its mass was accurately predicted back in 2009. And if the theory of asymptotic safety is correct, it's the last new particle we'll ever find   (medium.com) divider line 36
    More: Interesting, particles, quantum field theory, Standard Model, top quarks, Fermions, ScienceBlogs, Particle Physics, supersymmetry  
•       •       •

2235 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Mar 2014 at 7:50 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-28 07:31:08 AM
Except, of course, for Particle Man.
 
2014-03-28 07:58:14 AM

dittybopper: Except, of course, for Particle Man.


Done in one.
 
2014-03-28 08:26:09 AM

dittybopper: Except, of course, for Particle Man.


Time to start studying garbage cans with frying pans.
 
2014-03-28 08:32:35 AM
Are there old particles in the attic somewhere that we'll find, Subby?
 
2014-03-28 08:39:04 AM
"All these particles are so interdependent on one another that if the top quark - the heaviest of all standard model particles (and some 185 times the mass of the proton) - were twice the mass it actually is, every proton in the Universe would be 20% heavier than the protons that actually exist! ?"

A top quark is more massive than a proton, but protons are made up, among other things, of top quarks?

/confused
 
2014-03-28 08:45:28 AM

Feepit: A top quark is more massive than a proton, but protons are made up, among other things, of top quarks?

/confused


It's more confusing than you think. A proton is made up of two ups and a down quark. The problem is that the quarks have far lesser mass than the proton does. The mass of the proton comes from its interactions with other quarks that happens to exist inside of the proton. Like, imagine two ups and a down hooked together by gluons builds a box. That box is a proton. But it's a box- you can put things in it. So other quantum particles can pop up inside of a proton.

One of the things that makes quantum mechanics so weird is that classical particles aren't. It's not just that they're waveforms, too. It's that they're  systems in their own right.
 
2014-03-28 08:46:12 AM

Feepit: "All these particles are so interdependent on one another that if the top quark - the heaviest of all standard model particles (and some 185 times the mass of the proton) - were twice the mass it actually is, every proton in the Universe would be 20% heavier than the protons that actually exist! ?"

A top quark is more massive than a proton, but protons are made up, among other things, of top quarks?

/confused


When you consider the anti-mass of the other particles it balances it out.
 
2014-03-28 08:47:49 AM
From CERN's own website: "...it's not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture."

Sounds like your model needs work. I hate it when when the science community writes an article with a "mission accomplished" message. Your mission is never accomplished.
 
2014-03-28 08:57:27 AM

cards fan by association: I hate it when when the science community writes an article with a "mission accomplished" message


While that article may have been written, this article was not that one. This article simply claimed that there's a non-zero chance that there are no more particles to discover. Just because there are no naturally occurring elements left to discover doesn't mean chemistry was over. Nor does it mean we can't learn things about existing particles by using colliders. It just means our "zoo" is complete.

If it is. That's all speculative, and I'd hesitate to make big claims based on a single paper that just happened to accurately predict the mass of the Higgs boson (there were a  lot of predictions of its mass, and I'm sure plenty of them were similarly accurate). If we're being crazy speculators, I'll make the crazy prediction that there will always be new particles to discover- that at each new energy level, there's a new "octave" of particles. The only boundary is the maximum energy levels that can be achieved (which are bounded by physics), but I'll go even farther to claim that there's a Zeno's paradox element to it- that as we approach boundaries like the Beckstein bound- the particles cluster together even more closely in mass.

I just made that up, and it's nothing but arrant speculation. It'd be an interesting universe to live in, though.
 
2014-03-28 08:58:01 AM

the_cnidarian: When you consider the anti-mass of the other particles it balances it out.


So the quark is kind of like the skin of a balloon -- heavier than the overall balloon once helium is pumped inside.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-28 09:08:21 AM
The paper observes that there is a field theory of gravity that only works for a narrow range of parameters. Otherwise the math blows up. With all the weird theories that show up in Phys. Rev., it was inevitable that one would turn out to be consistent with observation.

I do support building a particle acceperator that can reach the grand unified energy scale, just to be sure.
 
2014-03-28 09:10:26 AM

t3knomanser: cards fan by association: I hate it when when the science community writes an article with a "mission accomplished" message

While that article may have been written, this article was not that one. This article simply claimed that there's a non-zero chance that there are no more particles to discover. Just because there are no naturally occurring elements left to discover doesn't mean chemistry was over. Nor does it mean we can't learn things about existing particles by using colliders. It just means our "zoo" is complete.

If it is. That's all speculative, and I'd hesitate to make big claims based on a single paper that just happened to accurately predict the mass of the Higgs boson (there were a  lot of predictions of its mass, and I'm sure plenty of them were similarly accurate). If we're being crazy speculators, I'll make the crazy prediction that there will always be new particles to discover- that at each new energy level, there's a new "octave" of particles. The only boundary is the maximum energy levels that can be achieved (which are bounded by physics), but I'll go even farther to claim that there's a Zeno's paradox element to it- that as we approach boundaries like the Beckstein bound- the particles cluster together even more closely in mass.

I just made that up, and it's nothing but arrant speculation. It'd be an interesting universe to live in, though.


Put me in the crazy speculator category then... It seems you've accurately described my philosophies about science in general. I'm no physicist though. However, I am an engineer and I get speculative about conclusions made based on incomplete models...
 
2014-03-28 09:13:14 AM
What about strangelets? Or is that the infectious one we don't want to find?
 
2014-03-28 09:27:31 AM

ZAZ: I do support building a particle acceperator that can reach the grand unified energy scale, just to be sure.


Wow. I'm so behind the times - I've no idea what an acceperator even is. Does it accept, then separate particles, or what's the dealy-o?

;-p
 
2014-03-28 09:31:13 AM

Feepit: the_cnidarian: When you consider the anti-mass of the other particles it balances it out.

So the quark is kind of like the skin of a balloon -- heavier than the overall balloon once helium is pumped inside.


I have no idea, really. Maybe?

I like turtles.
 
2014-03-28 09:31:49 AM

cards fan by association: From CERN's own website: "...it's not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture."

Sounds like your model needs work. I hate it when when the science community writes an article with a "mission accomplished" message. Your mission is never accomplished.


www.affordablehousinginstitute.org

It's only a model.
 
2014-03-28 09:58:37 AM
Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.
 
2014-03-28 10:11:18 AM

JolobinSmokin: Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.


Well, no, they do act like waves,  exactly. However, these waves are waves of  probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is  actually a particle.
 
2014-03-28 10:19:41 AM

uttertosh: ZAZ: I do support building a particle acceperator that can reach the grand unified energy scale, just to be sure.

Wow. I'm so behind the times - I've no idea what an acceperator even is. Does it accept, then separate particles, or what's the dealy-o?

;-p


wit acceperateth parthicul to gigigajellsth o engee
 
2014-03-28 10:24:54 AM

t3knomanser: JolobinSmokin: Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.

Well, no, they do act like waves,  exactly. However, these waves are waves of  probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is  actually a particle.


Thanks for that, I happily admit I live just to the right of mount stupid on physics. I was quoting Feynman from this little ditty you might enjoy. I love it when people give me examples like you just did, it takes me past the downward slope after mount stupid up towards actual knowledge.

Anyway enjoy

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU
 
2014-03-28 10:27:33 AM

JolobinSmokin: t3knomanser: JolobinSmokin: Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.

Well, no, they do act like waves,  exactly. However, these waves are waves of  probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is  actually a particle.

Thanks for that, I happily admit I live just to the right of mount stupid on physics. I was quoting Feynman from this little ditty you might enjoy. I love it when people give me examples like you just did, it takes me past the downward slope after mount stupid up towards actual knowledge.

Anyway enjoy

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU


Sorry try that again

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU
 
2014-03-28 10:29:44 AM

JolobinSmokin: JolobinSmokin: t3knomanser: JolobinSmokin: Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.

Well, no, they do act like waves,  exactly. However, these waves are waves of  probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is  actually a particle.

Thanks for that, I happily admit I live just to the right of mount stupid on physics. I was quoting Feynman from this little ditty you might enjoy. I love it when people give me examples like you just did, it takes me past the downward slope after mount stupid up towards actual knowledge.

Anyway enjoy

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU

Sorry try that again

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU


Yeesh, I don't like the app for posting this stuff

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU

No space between u and e
 
2014-03-28 10:51:37 AM

t3knomanser: JolobinSmokin: Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.

Well, no, they do act like waves,  exactly. However, these waves are waves of  probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is  actually a particle.


Heh. I remember the pained and eyes-glazed-over looks I got from my professors when I tried to make sense of the phase part of the wave function. (It's there, so it has to mean *something*, hidden variables or no hidden variables!)
 
2014-03-28 11:10:48 AM

dittybopper: Except, of course, for Particle Man.


Is that like Moleculo?
 
2014-03-28 11:30:24 AM
" large-scale (compared to the Planck length, at least) "

Why was this necessary?  "Oh, it's a large-scale force, but not large-scale compared to the Planck length."
 
2014-03-28 11:55:11 AM

t3knomanser: Well, no, they do act like waves, exactly. However, these waves are waves of probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is actually a particle.


Well, fark me--that's lucid. Cheers!
 
2014-03-28 12:35:28 PM

PartTimeBuddha: t3knomanser: Well, no, they do act like waves, exactly. However, these waves are waves of probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is actually a particle.

Well, fark me--that's lucid. Cheers!



If you really want your mind blown, read the first paragraph of this.
 
2014-03-28 12:44:27 PM
If the theory of asymptotic safety is correct, I'll never be asked to a Poconos cabin by twin girls ever again.

/had to canx, woe is me
 
2014-03-28 01:09:19 PM

bhcompy: dittybopper: Except, of course, for Particle Man.

Is that like Moleculo?


No.

For your edification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNT8SMlqLJA
 
2014-03-28 03:00:15 PM

Feepit: "All these particles are so interdependent on one another that if the top quark - the heaviest of all standard model particles (and some 185 times the mass of the proton) - were twice the mass it actually is, every proton in the Universe would be 20% heavier than the protons that actually exist! ?"

A top quark is more massive than a proton, but protons are made up, among other things, of top quarks?


Protons are made of up and down quarks, not top quarks.  The article is only saying that the masses of up and down quarks are related, through the laws of physics, to the mass of top quarks.

Incidentally, the mass of a proton isn't as simple as adding up the masses of its constituent quarks; you also have to include the potential energy or gluonic binding energy (through mass-energy equivalence, or E=mc^2).
 
2014-03-28 03:05:00 PM

Ambitwistor: Protons are made of up and down quarks, not top quarks.  The article is only saying that the masses of up and down quarks are related, through the laws of physics, to the mass of top quarks.


If a proton is not made up of top quarks, why would changing the mass of a top quark influence the mass of a proton?
 
2014-03-28 03:08:23 PM

t3knomanser: JolobinSmokin: Electrons act like waves, no they done exactly.  They act like particles no they don't exactly.

Well, no, they do act like waves,  exactly. However, these waves are waves of  probabilities- "the electron is probably here (or here or here)". The likely locations of the electron take on a wave-like form. When an electron exhibits particle-like behavior, it's because we've found a way to constrain those probabilities. We do this, usually, by forcing the electron to interact with another particle.

This is what really happens in the double-slit experiment. When we put a detector over one slit, we force the electron to exhibit particle-like behavior, because we've forced it to interact (or not interact) with a particle of a known position. It's still a wave, it's just that the probabilities have been so greatly constrained we can treat it like a particle. An electron, in no case, is  actually a particle.


What about the photoelectric effect? Discrete emission of electrons based on the frequency of the photon...
 
2014-03-28 03:28:06 PM

Feepit: Ambitwistor: Protons are made of up and down quarks, not top quarks.  The article is only saying that the masses of up and down quarks are related, through the laws of physics, to the mass of top quarks.

If a proton is not made up of top quarks, why would changing the mass of a top quark influence the mass of a proton?


I misspoke earlier.  It's not the mass of up and down quarks that depends on the mass of top quarks.  It's the binding energy that I mentioned earlier, which (unlike its constituent quarks) is the dominant contributor to the proton's mass.

I don't really have a good non-technical explanation why the quark masses are related to the quantum chromodynamic binding energy.  (And this is kind of outside my area of expertise.)  Suffice to say that the laws of physics require them to be related.*

* Actually, this relationship may depend on certain grand unified theories being true.  I tried to find the origins of this relationship in the scientific literature, and found a 1998 conference paper by Quigg, which does assume unification of the forces at high energy scales.  Also, that paper has the mass of the proton being related to the mass of the top quark raised to the 2/27 power.  According to that relationship, a 10x increase in the top mass would lead to a 20% increase in the proton mass.  According to TFA, it's a 2x increase.  I wonder if the article is wrong, or else they're citing a newer calculation that makes different assumptions.
 
2014-03-28 03:30:46 PM

Baryogenesis: What about the photoelectric effect? Discrete emission of electrons based on the frequency of the photon...


Bound states like electrons in atom arise from a discrete spectrum; that's another way of looking at "particles" within the wavefunction framework.
 
2014-03-28 05:03:58 PM
images.cdn.bigcartel.com
 
2014-03-28 05:14:15 PM

Optimal_Illusion: [images.cdn.bigcartel.com image 600x600]


Is that one of Fermilab's hugs bisons?

ed.fnal.gov
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report