Higgs Boson Decays into Dark MAtter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of the Higgs Boson decaying into dark matter particles, exploring the implications, challenges, and the seriousness of this theory within the context of current experimental physics. The scope includes theoretical considerations, experimental challenges, and the reliability of sources discussing the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express curiosity about why the theory of Higgs Boson decaying into dark matter is not taken more seriously, questioning the validity of the sources discussing it.
  • Others argue that while the idea is speculative, it is being monitored by experimentalists, and its viability will ultimately depend on experimental evidence.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty of detecting dark matter particles at the LHC, as they may not interact with detectors and would manifest as missing mass, complicating data analysis.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of experimental evidence in determining the validity of theoretical predictions over time.
  • One participant points out that the original research paper is more reliable than popular science articles, suggesting a preference for peer-reviewed sources.
  • Another participant expresses enthusiasm for the potential implications of the theory, suggesting it could address significant questions in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the theory is speculative and that experimental evidence is crucial for its validation. However, there is disagreement regarding the seriousness with which the theory is regarded and the reliability of certain sources discussing it.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in detecting dark matter due to the nature of proton collisions at the LHC, which produce a complex array of particles, complicating the identification of missing mass. The discussion also reflects varying opinions on the credibility of different sources of information.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts in physics, particularly those curious about the intersection of particle physics and dark matter research.

Quds Akbar
Messages
124
Reaction score
6
Space news on Phys.org
It's being taken seriously in the sense that the experimenters are on the lookout. But as you can read in the article, it's just a speculative shot in the dark. It's not excluded, but the likelihood is not big.

Good or bad is decided in the long term by experimental evidence that confirms theoretical predictions -- or refutes them. For some theories 'long term' can be quite a number of years (see the Higgs) and Peter Higgs was right. Supersymmetry is pretty resistant too, and string theory as well. Our 'Standard model' is also 'only' the best we have -- in this stage of human knowledge.

--
 
Why do you think it is not being taken seriously? Both ATLAS and CMS will look for the signal, that is about how serious you can be taken as a theorist without hard experimental evidence. In the end, only experiments will tell if it is viable or not.

Also, discovery.com is not a reliable source. The original paper is here http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4563 and is published in JHEP.
 
One difficulty with this kind of thing is that the LHC likely couldn't directly detect the dark matter particle. Such a particle would pass straight through the detectors, so it'd appear in the signal as missing mass. And that is extremely difficult to tease out of the data.

The problem is that the LHC collides protons, and when protons collide at high energies they produce a rather extreme mess. Here's a blog post that includes an image of one such reaction:
https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=2024&t=today

There are frequently more than a hundred particles that make it out, and many of those particles are never detected (e.g. neutrinos can pass straight through the detectors without interacting with anything). So they're not only looking for missing mass, but they have to model all of the mass that is expected to be missing from known particles, and look for a signal on top of that (a signal that may be very small indeed).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Orodruin said:
Why do you think it is not being taken seriously? Both ATLAS and CMS will look for the signal, that is about how serious you can be taken as a theorist without hard experimental evidence. In the end, only experiments will tell if it is viable or not.

Also, discovery.com is not a reliable source. The original paper is here http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4563 and is published in JHEP.
Thank you, this will help me a lot.
 
I am really passionate about the results ... it could solve a lot of ptoblems and answer lots of questions
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K