Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Beyond Standard: what will the LHC find?

  1. The Higgs

    11 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. Supersymmetry

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  3. Extra Dimensions

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  4. Black Holes

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  5. Other Physics beyond Standard

    11 vote(s)
    50.0%
  6. Nothing new at all

    7 vote(s)
    31.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Apr 27, 2006 #1
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 27, 2006 #2
    :surprised
     
  4. Apr 27, 2006 #3

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since I don't know enough to make an informed guess on what I think is most probable, I voted for what I would like to see discovered - new and completely unexpected physics. For me, this is "the glass is half full" perspective, because this might mean that radical new ideas are needed.

    By black holes, do you mean the physics of real black holes, or the physics of dual black holes (e.g., Nastase's interpretation of the RHIC fireball), or either?

    How similar are the last 2 choices in the poll, i.e., is finding nothing new (and in particular not finding the Higgs) at all evidence for other physics beyond the standard model?

    Regards,
    George
     
  5. Apr 27, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is there a "we can't predict the future" option?
     
  6. Apr 27, 2006 #5

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    that is right, or at least we can't know it.
    But we can guess. And soon enough (if LHC starts next year) we will find out which, if any, of our guesses are correct.
    I expect you must have predicted that Higgs would be found at LHC, Pengwuino, so in that case we can see if you were right:smile:

    interesting poll, kudos to Sabine
    here are my guesses about who said what

    The Higgs 3 60.00% (Pengwuino, josh, me)
    Supersymmetry 1 20.00% (josh)
    Extra Dimensions 0 0%
    Black Holes 0 0%
    Other Physics beyond Standard 1 20.00% (george)
    Nothing new at all 2 40% (Sabine, me)

    total of 5 people voted. some voted twice so a total of 7 votes
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  7. Apr 27, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't even know enough to know im making wild guesses as to what the LHC will find :confused: :confused:
     
  8. Apr 28, 2006 #7

    The mass of the Higgs boson lies between 114.4 GeV to 175 GeV at the 95% confidence level as of March, 2006.

    The Law of Averages predicts mass of the Higgs boson at 144.7 GeV with 95% confidence level.

    Reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2006
  9. Apr 28, 2006 #8

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have voted The Higgs Supersymmetry Other Physics beyond Standard and Nothing new at all. Acutally, I think we could find the four things.
     
  10. Apr 28, 2006 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I voted for Higgs and Other. Higgs because it seems pretty well supported, and Other just as a sort of lark celebrating Lisa Randall's predicted higher dimensional particles (Warped Passages). Oh shucks,:blushing: I should have clicked on extra dimensions too.
     
  11. Apr 28, 2006 #10
    Physicists have to hope that LHC will not find Higgs!
    New generation needs somethings to work on...
    Seriusly, I fear that if Higgs will be found, one wouldn't delve into Standard Model, that is not so "standard" ;-)
     
  12. Apr 28, 2006 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    :smile:
    arivero, how do you imagine results from which all those four things can be simultaneously concluded? that would be something interesting!

    I take it you mean the logical AND, and not merely the OR of those things you picked
     
  13. Apr 28, 2006 #12
    It sounds like you're saying you'd prefer if current ideas about the standard model are wrong. The goal is to figure out how nature operates, not to create new theories for their own sake.

    I'm inferring from the very last remark that you believe the higgs and supersymmetry to be virtually forgone conclusions. If so, I of course completely agree.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2006
  14. Apr 28, 2006 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    I have heard this from other physicists. I think you are saying that it would be better for the theoreticians if LHC finds no Higgs because it would challenge them to think harder and come up with different ideas.

    If that is what you mean, I suspect you are right.

    But you say also that you "fear" that seeing Higgs would make the particle theorists too sluggish and complacent.

    The image I get is of alligators who have just been fed, basking on a warm rock in the sun. OK guys, the Higgs has been seen, let's all go to the beach!

    I would not "fear" this exactly. It would not do any harm and it might be nice for them.

    ========================

    I think new physics when it appears probably has to come from papers like
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604016
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512113
    where there has been constructed a background independent QFT (no prior metric, Minkowski or other). They have, in a sense, finessed Feynman diagrams out of spinfoams, or vice versa. In a rough preliminary way, QFT has been made to emerge from a QG model of space time and matter as G->0.

    So in that view, new physics would in any case NOT from particle theorists inspired by LHC, but would come by spacetimematter theorists RECONSTRUCTING THE STANDARD MODEL ON A NEW more fundamental SPACETIME.

    In that case, if particle theorists spend a few years feeling happy that they saw a Higgs, it does not do anyone any harm, no important discoveries are missed that they would have otherwise made.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2006
  15. Apr 28, 2006 #14

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yep, I mean the AND.

    For instance, we could find that the breaking comes from some topcolor mechanism that fakes a Higgs and that diquarks couple to this composite with yukawian couplings equal to the ones of quarks, so we have supersymmetry (diquarks are spin zero), higgs (faked), nothing new (as described) and of course it is Beyond Standard. :biggrin:

    I could also suposse that the top condensation is instead due to deconstructed high dimensions (which are fake dimensions, form there the "deconstructed"). The only thing I can not imagine simultaneusly is a black hole. In fact I am intrigued about why it is between the options.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2006
  16. Apr 28, 2006 #15

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, because the distribution is not uniform. Actually it peaks in the low range.
     
  17. Apr 28, 2006 #16
    looking at "Quantum Gravity and the Standard Model"...

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113185&page=3
    But in Sundance-Markopoulou paper they open to Higgs or other mechanisms for simmetry breaking in future works...
    Sorry h-f ...

    Well, who is working on this alternative mechanism now? :confused:
    excluding Smolin&co, if we accept that

    ----------------
    see also:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=949095&postcount=467
     
  18. Apr 28, 2006 #17
    Hi George,

    I was refering to the "real" mini black holes at TeV-scale, that are possible in case the "true" fundamental Planck Scale is not at 10^16 TeV, but close to some TeV, and thus accesible at the LHC.

    See e.g.

    Steve's Scientific American article

    or this introduction, which lists plenty of further references

    What Black Holes Can Teach Us

    Best,

    B.

    PS: If you have Lisa's book, she also says some words about it.
     
  19. Apr 29, 2006 #18
    Maybe it will detect superWIMPS (i.e. the decay products of WIMPS)
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2006
  20. Apr 29, 2006 #19

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If not black holes, why not "white holes"?

    What would happen if a "mini black hole" was created? Is it a transient phenomenon? Could it be 'contained'? What if it 'fell' out of the confinement chamber - would it start sucking up matter around it?

    I imagine sometimes, what if one of the objects described as a supernovae or black hole was actually initiated by a group of scientists doing a LHC experiment.

    What if the big bang was initiated by an LHC experiment. In that sense, the universe would be like the matrix. Every many billions of years, a civilization is created and it ends up restarting the process.

    I know this is wild speculation, but ever since I heard Sheldon Glashow and Steve Weinberg talking about experiments that would shed some light on the beginnings of the universe with the Superconducting Supercollider, I began to wonder "what if they inadvertently created the Big Bang?" :biggrin: Well, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it - for sure.

    Hmmm. At least the guesses are testable - maybe. :uhh:
     
  21. Apr 29, 2006 #20

    Hans de Vries

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Beyond Standard: what will the LHC find?
  1. Beyond the standard (Replies: 10)

Loading...