Talk-Polywell.org

LHC Data Continues To Disagree With Supersymmetry

Posted by timothy on Sunday August 28, @12:06AM
from the good-because-I'm-not-super-symmetrical dept.

decora writes "Pallab Ghosh of the BBC reports on another piece of evidence hitting the beleaguered Supersymmetry community. Scientists at the Lepton Photon conference in Mumbai, India confirmed that extra levels of B-Meson decay have not been found in the LHC beauty experiment. Coming on the heels of a March report in Nature, this news seems to reinforce what many have suspected all along. Dark Matter is probably not explainable through massive shadow particles like squarks and selectrons, and for all practical purposes, the Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model of Physics is dead."

It was about time.

Another cherished theory down. That's two for the week.

It sounds like the physicists get to do some WORK from now on.

When are they going to give up on the sham of String/M-brane theory?

When are they going to give up on the sham of String/M-brane theory?

I hope soon. String theory is not science, it is a philosophy (you can not prove or disprove it in experiment, that is at least from what I understand).

I love that the LHC is already bringing exciting new evidence in our quest to better understanding of the universe.

When are they going to give up on the sham of String/M-brane theory?

when someone proposes a rehashed renamed ether theory?

I hope soon. String theory is not science, it is a philosophy (you can not prove or disprove it in experiment, that is at least from what I understand).

It might have been on this board, but somewhere I read a post saying it would basically take a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to test, or something like that.

Skipjack wrote:

When are they going to give up on the sham of String/M-brane theory?

I hope soon. String theory is not science, it is a philosophy (you can not prove or disprove it in experiment, that is at least from what I understand).

Not true! To my understanding, String/Brane/M approaches are easily verified. All that verification requires is a particle accelerator the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy.

After String/Brane/M - the "Darks?" Assuming the physical existence of imperceivable forms of matter and energy is nearly as far along into metaphysics as S/B/M, IMNSHO.

Skipjack wrote:I love that the LHC is already bringing exciting new evidence in our quest to better understanding of the universe.

It's certainly doing its part in service to falsifiability.

Not true! To my understanding, String/Brane/M approaches are easily verified. All that verification requires is a particle accelerator the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Yay! Lets go build one!

pardon my ignorance, but I dont really get what these energies at particle accelerators mean. Its kinectic energy right?

thus, in reality, instead of speaking that LHC accelerates particles to 7 teraelectronvolts, we could instead say the LHC accelerates particles to 99% of the speed of light?

if so, why would we need a particle accelerator the diameter of the milky way? Because we would need to accelerate the particle to 99.9999999999999999999999999% of C?

from Wikipedia

Once or twice a day, as the protons are accelerated from 450 GeV to 7 TeV, the field of the superconducting dipole magnets will be increased from 0.54 to 8.3 teslas (T). The protons will each have an energy of 7 TeV, giving a total collision energy of 14 TeV. At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 0.999999991 c, or about 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light (c).



does that means that increasing the proton´s energy only means increasing its velocity? Getting it even closer to C?

The energy of the particles in the accelerator relates to the exotic particles that can be created when the accelerated particles collide. Energy relates more directly to the experiment than velocity, and doesn't pile on significant digits like velocity approaching C.

hanelyp wrote:The energy of the particles in the accelerator relates to the exotic particles that can be created when the accelerated particles collide. Energy relates more directly to the experiment than velocity, and doesn't pile on significant digits like velocity approaching C.

the more energetic a particle is, the more exotic particles it can create upon collision

but how to make the particle more energetic? Isnt it through the speed of the particle?

My understanding is that it is not only velocity expressed as as the fractional speed of light. It is also the mass. KE= 1/2MV^2.
This is why accelerating gold particles can result in greater KE reactions than a proton traveling significantly faster. The reactions are more messy, but there may be advantages in exotic reaction frequency.

A certain threshold energy is needed for a reaction to occur, exceeding this energy has an advantage as the likelihood of the reaction can increase, and detectability of the reaction and the accuracy can go up considerably.
Consider fluorescence or the photoelectric effect. A certain energy of the photon is needed for the reaction to occur at all, once pass this energy, the reaction can increase in intensity. It is easier to detect and characterize a sample of a billion reactions than 10 reactions. Here the photon energy is not measured as velocity as that is a constant. It is not even directly measures as 1/2 MV2. Einsteins equation needs to be interposed to allow this derived value. Photon energy is generally represented as the frequency or 1/ wavelength.

There are different measures that are applicable, depending on preferences and convenience.

Dan Tibbets

In short, there are interactions that allow for several approaches to the same end.

I see, but why exactly we say we would need a particle accelerator 100 ly in diameter to test string theory, for example?

such a lenght is needed for what? Probably to accelerate particles the closest and closest possible to light speed, I suppose...

One of the aspects is confining the particles, we can produce stable magnetic fields in the neighborhood of 10 tesla, 100 tesla is explosive at current tech levels so we just can't do it. The reason the magnetic field is important is because we the magnetic lorentz force to keep charged particles moving in a circle, that is q(VxB) or simply qVB=F if the particle is moving at right angles to the magnetic field. and the amount of centrifugal acceleration required to maintain circular path is M(V^2/R)=F. So we set those forces equal and we figure out how large the radius on our particle accelerator needs to be (likely slightly modified equations are needed for relativistic case [which is what we are dealing with, but this is a good first approximation])
so qVB=MVV/R
qB/MV=1/R
MV/qB=R
so the faster and heavier your particle gets the larger R needs to be, and as a particle approaches the speed of light it gets heavier. However, to say we need a particle accelerator the size of the milkyway to test string theory is quite hyperbolic. Theoretical physicists dalliances with string theory is something that needs to happen from time to time, throwing about ideas until your colleagues start to get pissed enough to come up with testable implications to force you to put up or shut up.

AcesHigh wrote:I see, but why exactly we say we would need a particle accelerator 100 ly in diameter to test string theory, for example?

such a lenght is needed for what? Probably to accelerate particles the closest and closest possible to light speed, I suppose...

Godamn... some of the people who frequent this board need complete sense of humor transplants.