Beyond LHC: NewScientist: by Jessia Griggs

[rhody]

Beyond LHC: NewScientist: by Jessica Griggs

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427354.900-future-colliders-beyond-the-lhc.html"

Possible Particle Detection categories:

Higgs ?
Complex Higgs ?
Evidence of Supersymmetry ?
Gravitons ?
Particles associated with String Theory ?
New (not predicted) Particles ?

Possible Follow on(s) to LHC:

Super LHC
International Linear Collider
Compact Linear Collider
Very Large Hadron Collider (far future)

 

[rhody]

IMHO


Not a trained Physicist, but maybe, just maybe, Garrett Lisi's eighteen new particles in his E8 Theory will show up in supersymmetrical form. One can only hope...

 

[daschaich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_%28physics%29" ! (And not just because I'm writing my thesis on it.)

 

[Meir Achuz]

You left out (g) None of the above.

 

[xepma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_%28physics%29" ! (And not just because I'm writing my thesis on it.)

I ain't too familiar with it either, but technicolor has always appealed to me. Would love to see some progress in this field!

 

[arivero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_%28physics%29" ! (And not just because I'm writing my thesis on it.)

If it explains why the top is in the electroweak scale, then it is something to consider.

 

[arivero]

I have joked "gravitons" in one sense: an explanation of the origin of the spin 2 fundamental state of string theory. Perhaps N=8 sugra is not sugra but the product of two N=4 super yang mills. Or perhaps it is gravity at all.

 

[daschaich]

I have joked "gravitons" in one sense: an explanation of the origin of the spin 2 fundamental state of string theory. Perhaps N=8 sugra is not sugra but the product of two N=4 super yang mills. Or perhaps it is gravity at all.

I personally figured KK gravitons (i.e., extra dimensions) were what was meant...

If it explains why the top is in the electroweak scale, then it is something to consider.

Ja, the top is the bête noire of technicolor-based models. But that is the flavor problem (as opposed to EWSB), which no theory has a good handle on.

 

[arivero]

I personally figured KK gravitons (i.e., extra dimensions) were what was meant...

All in one. Get down from D=11 to D=4, the graviton creates a lot of KK components for (non chiral, ahem) gauge groups, and then still the spin 2 component survives in D=4. So explaining the KK thing should explain the surviving gravity, one would hope.

On your side I suppose you could use the KK modes to generate technicolor. After all, SU(3)xU(1) comes out when jumping from D=9 to D=4. I prefer to think that this SU(3) is our usual colour, but who knows?

Ja, the top is the bête noire of technicolor-based models. But that is the flavor problem (as opposed to EWSB), which no theory has a good handle on.

$Y_t=1.00$ is a terrible thing. Not the only horrible happening in the electroweak scale, although. I wished to have better experimental uncertainty in electromagnetic decays of mesons to be able to rule out the coincidence $\Gamma_Z/M^3_Z=\Gamma_{\pi0}/M^3_{\pi0}$. Or to narrow it :-D

 

[daschaich]

All in one. Get down from D=11 to D=4, the graviton creates a lot of KK components for (non chiral, ahem) gauge groups, and then still the spin 2 component survives in D=4. So explaining the KK thing should explain the surviving gravity, one would hope.

Sure, I'd expect lots of KK modes in string theory compactifications, but you don't need string theory to have extra dimensions observable at the LHC.

On your side I suppose you could use the KK modes to generate technicolor. After all, SU(3)xU(1) comes out when jumping from D=9 to D=4. I prefer to think that this SU(3) is our usual colour, but who knows?

Sounds a little like "http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+t+higgsless" " models that were introduced about five years ago.

 

[rhody]

You left out (g) None of the above.

clem,

After reading Discover Magazine's Oct 6 online article: "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics" http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics"

Penrose states:

Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.

After rethinking what Penrose said in the article, I should have included the category, "None of the above".

 

[Noja888]

I hope to see the "bugs" worked out of current conceptions and to bridge the gap between the big and the small. Maybe get to the deeper/real mechanisms of reality. Will they sell mini-black holes at their gift shop soon?:rofl:

quote: "Does it always smell like this? How does the wind ever get in here?"

 

[rhody]

Recent interview: Frank Wilczek
FORA.tv Series: Nobel Prize Winners
Posted 09/25/2008, 1:06:29

Video: http://fora.tv/2008/09/25/Frank_Wilczek_The_LHC_and_Unified_Field_Theory#fullprogram"
You have to suffer through a 30 second commercial first...

11:50 Dr Wilczek Defines the LHC as: Ultrastroboscopic Nanomicroscope for Studying Deep Inner Space
28:35 Introduction: Supersymmetry
29:05 Discusses: Virtual Particles, corrections to observations (at short distance) must be made, because of the distorting medium of these (simulated picture above)
35:35 Discusses Gravity and SUSY Unification
51:00 Discusses: Supersymmetry possible detection
52:00 Discusses: String / Loop Quantum Gravity possible detection

 

[Bob_for_short]

New (non-predicted) particles are very probable. No Higgs, of course.
And plenty of banal old particles to process.

 

[enotstrebor]

clem,
After rethinking what Penrose said in the article, I should have included the category, "None of the above".

(This is a side bar)

Penrose is one of the few scientist today who raises the fundamental problems with today's mathematical models to there proper level.

Read "The Road to Reality" by Penrose. If you take the fundamental problems he raises at face value you will never view the present theories the same (i.e. as fundamental).

There is a difference between a model of nature being fundamentally accurate (appearance) and fundamentally correct.

 

[rhody]

QCD: An Unfinished Symphony -- Prof. Frank Wilczek
CERN Document Server
Posted 12/04/2009, approx 33:00

Video: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1228548"

Highlights:​

10:35 Stumbled into theory of string interactions (QCD Theory)​

12:40 Lessons: focus on paradoxes and surprising simplicities​

15:35 Why does the Quark model work so well ?​

16:45 Nuclear physics gets simple, theoretically at ultra high temperatures/densities​

21:00 At very high temps, explored at RHIC, quark gluon plasma behaves as a near liquid, leads to surprising simplicity and a paradox​

21:45 Looking out from QCD: why do microscopic laws of physics look nearly the same if we run time backwards ?​

24:10 Possible solution: make equations more symmetric (Peccei-Quinn) symmetry​

26:30 Postulate a higher symmetry: Lie groups for reasonably small groups containing SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1)​

27:20 Unifying symmetry SO(10) or something close​

27:40 Difficulty of coupling strengths seen through distorting medium of virtual particles, turbulent water, requires corrections​

28:30 At high energies and short distances, exhibit extra symmetry​

31:00 SUSY Unexplained simplicities, why ~T and ~ SO(10) ?​

32:40 Missing: Good analog of powerful experimental encouragement as in the early days of QCD (Friedman-Kendall-Taylor)​

33:00 LHC may eventually provide answers​

There is a bit of overlap from the last video posted above, but for the most part it was new or (breaking) information that I had read about on this forum and from on-line sources.

Rhody...