LHC -- Why no success except for the Higgs?

  • #1
Why aren’t we seeing anything. 99.99991% the speed of light. Nothing. Also why would we need and lhc the size of galaxy to see graviton? Help?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Why aren’t we seeing anything. 99.99991% the speed of light. Nothing. Also why would we need and lhc the size of galaxy to see graviton? Help?
LHC has found plenty of other stuff,too. Not just Higgs boson.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #3
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,105
4,934
Why aren’t we seeing anything. 99.99991% the speed of light. Nothing.
It appears that there's just no other fundamental particles to see beyond the Higgs boson (do note that we have discovered other particles, but they aren't fundamental). At least with the data currently gathered and analyzed. I don't how to answer your question other than that.

Also why would we need and lhc the size of galaxy to see graviton? Help?
Gravitation is extremely weak compared to the other three fundamental forces, which makes it much more difficult to detect gravitons. We we would need an immense machine to to even get a hint of individual gravitons. The details of why are beyond my level of expertise.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4
9,603
2,681
Why aren’t we seeing anything. 99.99991% the speed of light. Nothing. Also why would we need and lhc the size of galaxy to see graviton? Help?
Maybe there is nothing exciting to see? We are seeing tons of stuff, just nothing fundamental like the Higgs. Nature is as nature is - that's science - we simply try and understand nature - not get upset if it doesn't do what we may like it to do - or not like it to do. Some may really like the current situation - simply affirming the standard model - its not a worry that current theories are simply confirmed - in fact that's the most likely outcome.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #5
bobob
Gold Member
165
97
All of the standard model particles have been found. There is no theory which predicts anything definite, so the possibilities are endless and one of those possibilities is that there are no new particles to find at any energy we can attain soon or maybe ever. It's actually a bummer that the higgs was found. Had it not been found, that would have indicated new physics could be on the horizon. As it stands, no one has any idea of what to look for apart from what may be learned from studying neutrino oscillations.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #6
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
It's actually a bummer that the higgs was found. Had it not been found, that would have indicated new physics could be on the horizon.
To be honest, the Higgs - or something like the Higgs - had to be within reach of the LHC. Anything else would have been very (very!) surprising and likely required some serious revisions of how we do particle physics, not just a sign of new physics on the horizon. The "bummer", if you want to use that expression, is that what was found very much looks like a Standard Model Higgs.
 
  • #7
CWatters
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,532
2,298
People elsewhere have done experiments and got results that apparently conflict with the standard model but they are banned topics here. Perhaps one day we will see their work published in a suitably respected journal but until then.
 
  • #8
Also why would we need and lhc the size of galaxy to see graviton? Help?
Gravitons are very weakly coupled to other particles. IOW: the probability of two protons in LHC exchanging a graviton is astoundingly low. To increase it, you need to "reduce the distance between protons", IOW: you need to decrease the uncertainty of their location. IOW: you need to increase their energy. A LOT. Like, a billion billion times compared to LHC.
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,429
9,937
People elsewhere have done experiments and got results that apparently conflict with the standard model but they are banned topics here. Perhaps one day we will see their work published in a suitably respected journal but until then.
Let's not mix cause and effect her. It's the fact that they are unpublished that prohibits their discussion, not the fact that they are discrepant.
 
  • Like
Likes nrqed and bhobba
  • #10
CWatters
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
10,532
2,298
Understood.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #11
mathman
Science Advisor
7,904
461
Super-symmetry seems to be the only near term possibility for LHC to find something. So far nothing has turned up.
 
  • #12
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,652
Super-symmetry seems to be the only near term possibility for LHC to find something.
What do you base this statement on? I do not think it is correct.

Edit: If it were true, then someone should tell the ATLAS collaboration to stop producing papers like this https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02265 (random example, first I could find).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #13
or maybe there isn't such thing as graviton
 
  • #14
35,268
11,534
Super-symmetry seems to be the only near term possibility for LHC to find something. So far nothing has turned up.
There are many options. How likely they are depends on who you ask, but there are many other models predicting things the LHC could discover in the near future (even with datasets on disk already).
or maybe there isn't such thing as graviton
That would be really strange, but the LHC cannot find the standard massless graviton anyway.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #15
No it wouldn't be that strange..string theory is just a theory and not a proven one..finding the graviton would be a step closer on proving it.
 
  • #17
35,268
11,534
No it wouldn't be that strange..string theory is just a theory and not a proven one..finding the graviton would be a step closer on proving it.
This has nothing to do with string theory. The graviton should exist simply because there is gravity and quantum mechanics.
Finding the graviton would be "proof" that it exists (as much as there are proofs in physics), but the massless graviton cannot be found by any existing experiment. The LHC could find heavier graviton-like particles if they exist.

Be careful with strong statements if you are not sure they are right.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and bhobba
  • #18
9,603
2,681
This has nothing to do with string theory. The graviton should exist simply because there is gravity and quantum mechanics.
Indeed. People sometimes get a bit confused about what the issue with quantum gravity is. We do not have a theory of quantum gravity - and this is one of the major issues facing physics. BUT since Ken Wilson and the effective field theory approach we look at the issue differently:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3511

The modern view based on Wilson's work is all theories are really effective theories only valid up to some scale, which seems to be about the Plank scale where some other as yet unknown theory takes over. This means gravity is in the same boat as all the other forces/particles of the standard model. If the gravitation did not exist we would really be in deep do do because it would beg the question - why is gravity different? It may be of course - science is based on experiment - but if it did not exist it would be a momentous discovery - then again how does one prove a negative?

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #19
35,268
11,534
then again how does one prove a negative?
By producing a situation where you expect to see something, and then failing to see it. That's how all the exclusion limits work. We can make pretty clear predictions how gravitons should behave. We just cannot build detectors where we would expect to see them.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #20
Hmm okay then..but can i ask something..we know that there are 4 dimensions...at least.. and one of them is time...we also know that gravity is the curvature of space and time..and then we also know that time is quantized and space also(Planck lenght and Planck time)...couldn't that associate with graviton somehow?or that gravity is quantized.. Or am i too confused..

P.S. Excuse me for any faults..english isn't my native language.
 
  • #21
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,105
4,934
.and then we also know that time is quantized and space also(Planck lenght and Planck time)
As far as I am aware neither space nor time is quantized in either GR or the standard model of particle physics. Planck length and planck time have nothing to do with quantization unless I've missed something important.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and mfb
  • #22
As far as I am aware neither space nor time is quantized in either GR or the standard model of particle physics. Planck length and planck time have nothing to do with quantization unless I've missed something important.
okay..thank you
 
  • #23
9,603
2,681
Remember we really do not know whats going on at about or below the Plank scale. We have some possibilities like String Theory so lets look at what it says. I am no expert in it so I cant point you to any literature, just some general information I have read. String theory was developed in flat space-time, but really we should consider the more general case if it had some kind of curvature. In string theory this evidently leads to a striking result - for the string theory equations to be consistent that curvature must be exactly as specified by Einstein. This is quite a remarkable result I wish I knew the detail of, but string theory is not an easy subject so I probably will not get around to delving into the detail,

The point here though is there is no reason at all to suppose space-time has some kind of 'granular' nature at its fundamental level. Note that at present String Theory has not delivered on its promise as much as people hoped and has morphed somewhat:
https://www.ias.edu/news/cole-stringtheory-quanta

What the future may bring of course we have no way of knowing, but certainly it could easily be space-time is just as continuous as we currently suppose it is.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #24
bobob
Gold Member
165
97
To be honest, the Higgs - or something like the Higgs - had to be within reach of the LHC. Anything else would have been very (very!) surprising and likely required some serious revisions of how we do particle physics, not just a sign of new physics on the horizon. The "bummer", if you want to use that expression, is that what was found very much looks like a Standard Model Higgs.
Exactly. That was my point. Had the higgs not been found, nuclear and particle physics would have become much more interesting.
 
  • #25
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,071
8,171
Also, I think the too common idea of the LHC being "not successful" is flawed, and it's flawed because of a flawed conception what science is all about, i.e., to investigate quantitatively and precisely what's going on in Nature, and indeed that the Higgs has been found and verified in very many decay channels to behave as predicted from the Standard Model and the given masses of the elementary particles etc. after 50 years being predicted by various theorists, is a success, but not the only one. Another success is that, despite great expectations by many physicists to find "physics beyond the Standard Model" nothing was found or claimed to have been found. It shows that science if performed very well at CERN, and it's also a (somewhat unexpected )finding how well the Standard Model works after all. Despite this, there's not only HEP but also relativistic heavy-ion-collision physics going on at the LHC, and there also many interesting things have been found, like the amazing fact that light (anti-)nuclei follow the general chemical-freeze-out line as the hadrons (with a temperature of around 150 MeV) and many more details. With the current detector updates (e.g., of ALICE) I think there'll be more to come in the next few months/years.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, dlgoff, Orodruin and 1 other person

Related Threads on LHC -- Why no success except for the Higgs?

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
889
Replies
1
Views
694
Replies
33
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
803
Replies
3
Views
3K
Top