Are There Undiscovered Particles at Standard Model Energy Scales?

[Garrulo]

¿Why not more particles?

¿How we know that a energy scale, for example, standard model typical energies, there is not more particles?

 

[The_Duck]

We don't. Dark matter direct detection experiments are trying to detect new particles with masses comparable to the masses of standard model particles.

But if there are new particles at accessible energies, they have to satisfy a number of constraints. They can't couple too strongly to standard model particles or we would have produced them directly in accelerator experiments, or detected them in sensitive experiments like dark matter detectors, or seen them through their loop effects in precision tests of the standard model. Cosmology also provides some constraints: we can predict the implications of a new particle for the physics of the early universe and check if these implications contradict any cosmological observations (for example, see here).

 

[Garrulo]

. Cosmology also provides some constraints: we can predict the implications of a new particle for the physics of the early universe and check if these implications contradict any cosmological observations (for example, see here).

I don´t find the constraints between the technicisms of the blog (I am not astrophysical). What is the conclusion about it in the old universe situation?

 

[mfb]

What is an "old universe situation"?
The conclusion: No other particles were found wherever experiments could look for them.

If there are undiscovered particles, they have to be [really heavy] or [uncharged, without a color charge, and really weakly interacting with any other particles].

 

[Garrulo]

What is an "old universe situation"?If there are undiscovered particles, they have to be [really heavy] or [uncharged, without a color charge, and really weakly interacting with any other particles].

¿How weight is really heavy? ¿What were the typical distance for these particles?

 

[ChrisVer]

The Standard Model particle list, after the discovery of the Higgs particle, is closed and finished...
Standard Model alone cannot describe any more elementary particles...
The Dark Matter for example, is not within the Standard Model.

If any new elementary particle is to be discovered, it will be out of the Standard model...
(we already know that we must have 3 generations of quarks and leptons, we already know that the Higgs particle exists- and so the Higgs field can be used to give particles masses- and we know how interactions take place.)

 

[Garrulo]

The Standard Model particle list, after the discovery of the Higgs particle, is closed and finished...
Standard Model alone cannot describe any more elementary particles...
The Dark Matter for example, is not within the Standard Model.

If any new elementary particle is to be discovered, it will be out of the Standard model...
(

My question is about Universe, not about the Standard Model. It misses the graviton, minimally

 

[ChrisVer]

The graviton is not within the Standard Model. The Standard model cannot quantize gravity due to Renormalizability issues... In other words, we are still using GR for gravity and Standard Model for elementary particles...
What do you mean about the Universe?
As for your question about "how heavy", well, they must be heavier than the energies we have achieved in colliders (>~1-10 TeV approximately)

 

[mfb]

What were the typical distance for these particles?

What do you mean with "typical distance"?

Really heavy means out of range for current accelerators, at least of the order of a TeV.

 

[Garrulo]

As for your question about "how heavy", well, they must be heavier than the energies we have achieved in colliders (>~1-10 TeV approximately)

But, how we know that when the particles that we don´t generate in acelerators, they can´t in another in the cotidian life

 

[mfb]

But, how we know that when the particles that we don´t generate in acelerators, they can´t in another in the cotidian life

I don't understand that question.

There is always the possibility that they do not interact with other particles at all (just via gravity), then we have no way to find them in accelerators. So what? Where is the point?

 

[ChrisVer]

It's a game of energy threshold and precision measurements. Both those two have for many decades confirmed the standard model particle content (or more precisely have built up the standard model), no other particle can exist within it.
However we know that Standard Model is not the perfect model for elementary interactions. Any discovery of a new particle will indicate physics beyond the standard model...Even if you create extra particles that you cannot detect at the moment, those particles are not coming/donnot behave in a well-known physical way (that's why there is a plurality of theories dealing beyond the standard model physics, and they all act as candidates- but they are not experimentally confirmed. Some have been experimentally disproven).

 

[Garrulo]

I don't understand that question.

There is always the possibility that they do not interact with other particles at all (just via gravity), then we have no way to find them in accelerators. So what? Where is the point?

There is the point. How do we know this particles?

 

[ChrisVer]

We don't... we can just make theories containing the particles we know and some extra features and those theories may contain those extra particles in them...
Or we know of the existence of Dark Matter but we don't know its particles - we build a model trying to explain them too in such a way that it'd answer us why we haven't detected them yet.

 

[mfb]

There is the point. How do we know this particles?

Which particles?
All particles we know of have been observed (that is a trivial statement).

 

[Garrulo]

Which particles?
All particles we know of have been observed (that is a trivial statement).

Your interpretations are really convoluted. I refer to the particles that we don´t see in accelerators, no to particles that we see in their. Obviously, they exist (that is a trivial statement)

 

[mfb]

refer to the particles that we don´t see in accelerators

We don't know if there are particles we don't see in accelerators. There could be more - and actually it is expected that there are more, due to dark matter.

 

[Garrulo]

We don't know if there are particles we don't see in accelerators. There could be more - and actually it is expected that there are more, due to dark matter.

Yeah, I read about dark matter, but there are many hypothesis (even that gravity is not always r^-2 and dark matter doesn`t exist. But I refer to particles around ours that it can affect us pshychophysically and we don´t know about it.

 

[The_Duck]

But I refer to particles around ours that it can affect us pshychophysically and we don´t know about it.

Any particle that couples strongly enough to ordinary matter to affect our brains or bodies would have been discovered already: it would be produced frequently by existing particle accelerators.

 

[ChrisVer]

There are no such unknown particles that could affect us (!) but we wouldn't be able to detect them...
Even if they could affect your psychology or body, they would have to couple/interact very weak (otherwise the detectors would have seen them)... So in fact they couldn't even affect your brain or body as much as cosmic rays can...

 

[ChrisVer]

@PERFESSER particles in elementary physics are just a set of quantum numbers, and we build theories describing how these quantum numbers work (charge, spin, isospin etc etc...). A theory would be nice if it could quantize the masses (of course they appear in discrete numbers for each particles, but it would be nice to find out how this is done). That's what I'll end up thinking after all these quotations on "E=mc^2 so mass=energy so particles=energy" .
They don't "exist" (in the way that we'd see them)... we see their interactions and that's how we can distinguish between them.