Every strange quark needs one up and one down quark to form a baryon. Sum: 2. They are removed because they don't contribute much to nuclear reactions according to the authors. Same in equation 14.ChrisVer said:For 13 they write -2ns for removing hyperons... why 2? and why removing them from the baryon density?
cube137 said:Please share references of "WHAT IFs" regarding the higgs. If supposed the higgs coupling could be overridden and canceled or controlled variably (without producing billions of Fahrenheit to remove the higgs field).. all masses of matter would vanish? Is the effect same as turning all matter into light? So all would travel at light speed? Or would there be collapse of the atoms and disintegration of cohesion of the molecules?
Is it explained there? I can not see any comment about if the pion is massless or massive (if massless, the strong nuclear force has infinite reach, does it) not about the number of different nucleons of the same mass.cube137 said:Anyway I found the reference of the technical details what would happen to the atoms if the higgs field were zero
arivero said:it could be a separate thread.
arivero said:Hmm I had not noticed that it WAS already a separate thread, let me link it here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/imagining-a-higgsless-universe.882072/
There are still the intermediate cases with only the third generation massive or only the top quark massive.
cube137 said:I just want to know what is the purpose of the 2nd and 3rd generation particles
cube137 said:Thanks. I was thinking how to create a separate thread about higgless world without being banned. Good to know it already existed. Now for the goal of this thread. I just want to know what is the purpose of the 2nd and 3rd generation particles. I thought they could create stable worlds but many here gave good arguments why they can't. But why 3 generations. What would happen if there were no 2nd and 3rd generation particles. Would molecules and atoms still be stable or coherent or couldn't they exist at all?
nikkkom said:However, my hunch is that existence of three generation still awaits its explanation.
For me, most curious are the unexplained mass relationships between generations: Koide formula for leptons, its weaker quark cousins, top quark to Higgs Yukawa coupling being equal to exactly 1.00 within experimental measurement errors. There should be a reason for these.
cube137 said:With only the Higgs discovered and possibly nothing more for the entire LHC run and even newer colliders in the future and for the duration of all physicists lifetimes. I guess the best thing theoretical physicists do (lacking any experimental guidance) is just guess.
Also top quark is heavier than higgs.. what do you mean exactly 1.00. I know meaning of Yukawa coupling, please elaborate.
nikkkom said:Not at all. There is still much to do for experimentalists: measuring masses of particles, especially higgs, top, bottom, tau with higher precision. Measure neutrino masses. Measure CKM and PNMS matrix elements. Measure production and decay cross-sections and branching ratios. Muon magnetic moment. Proton spin distribution. And so on...
Yukava couplings of fermions are ##y_f = \sqrt{2}m_f/v##, where v is Higgs VEV. For top, yt = 0.996 +- 0.006
cube137 said:But the above are just "more precise measurement".
And later, exactly those more precise measurements lead to quantum mechanics, which revolutionized physics (and chemistry). Discoveries don't have to happen at higher energies, they can also occur at increased precision.cube137 said:But the above are just "more precise measurement". I remembered the words of Lord Kevin in the 1800s "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.".
The right place for new ideas are publications. We can then discuss the publications here (sometimes preprints are acceptable). Skipping the publication part doesn't work.cube137 said:If you have some ideas. Please post some in the BSM forum.
Well, we won't get more than about an order of magnitude precision with the LHC. The ILC could make even more precise measurements (~15 MeV, 10-4 precision).nikkkom said:More precise measurements can give hints for new theories. If after more precise measurement top's Yukava will be not ~0.996(6), but say ~0.99999993(11), then it's clearly a hint that it's really exactly 1, and more theorists will start seriously looking for explanations why.
mfb said:The right place for new ideas are publications
mfb said:And later, exactly those more precise measurements lead to quantum mechanics, which revolutionized physics (and chemistry). Discoveries don't have to happen at higher energies, they can also occur at increased precision.The right place for new ideas are publications. We can then discuss the publications here (sometimes preprints are acceptable). Skipping the publication part doesn't work.Well, we won't get more than about an order of magnitude precision with the LHC. The ILC could make even more precise measurements (~15 MeV, 10-4 precision).
nikkkom said:However, my hunch is that existence of three generation still awaits its explanation.
For me, most curious are the unexplained mass relationships between generations: Koide formula for leptons, its weaker quark cousins, top quark to Higgs Yukawa coupling being equal to exactly 1.00 within experimental measurement errors. There should be a reason for these.
cube137 said:Do you have a complete listing of coincidences as regards the 3 generations in terms of mass or other parameters?
Do you know of any savant physicist? Math Savants can see patterns that others can't (like why there are 3 generations or why SU(3)xSU(2)XU(1)). So in these desperate times where the nightmare scenario has come true, we need to avail the services of math savants!
Poster session 3 – Wednesday 6 July
P3.037 Gravitationally confined relativistic neutrinos
C Vayenas1,2, A Fokas3,4 and D Grigoriou1
1University of Patras, Greece, 2Division of Natural Sciences, Greece, 3University of Cambridge, UK, 4University of Southern California, USA
Combining special relativity, the equivalence principle and Newton’s universal gravitational law with gravitational rather than rest masses, one computes that gravitational interactions between relativistic neutrinos with kinetic energies above 10 MeV are very strong and can lead to formation of gravitationally confined composite structures. One may model the formation of such composite structures by considering three neutrinos moving symmetrically on a circular orbit under the influence of their gravitational attraction, and by assuming quantization of their angular momentum, as in the Bohr model of the H atom. The model contains no adjustable parameters and its solution leads to composite state radii close to 1 fm and neutrino velocities so close to c, that the corresponding Lorentz factor, gamma, values are of the order of 5*109. It is thus found that when the neutrino rest masses are of the order of 0.05 eV/c2, then the mass, 3(gamma)mo, of such three rotating neutrinos structures is very similar to that of hadrons (~ 1 GeV/c2). The thermodynamics of the phase condensation of neutrinos to form such structures are compared with QCD calculations for the quark-gluon condensation temperature.
Using the same approach we find that the mass of relativistic rotating Ve – e+/- pairs is 81 GeV/c2, close to that of W+/-bosons.
What I’ve been thinking about today specifically is something of a potential breakthrough in understanding our fundamental theories of physics. We have something called a standard model, but its foundations are kind of scandalous. We have not known how to define an important part of it mathematically rigorously, but I think I have figured out how to do that, and it’s very pretty. I’m in the middle of calculations to check it out...
It’s a funny situation where the theory of electroweak or weak interactions has been successful when you calculate up to a certain approximation, but if you try to push it too far, it falls apart. Some people have thought that would require fundamental changes in the theory, and have tried to modify the theory so as to remove the apparent difficulty. What I’ve shown is that the difficulty is only a surface difficulty. If you do the mathematics properly, organize it in a clever way, the problem goes away. It falsifies speculative theories that have been trying to cure a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s things like certain kinds of brane-world models, in which people set up parallel universes where that parallel universe's reason for being was to cancel off difficulties in our universe—we don’t need it. It's those kinds of speculations about how the foundations might be rotten, so you have to do something very radical. It’s still of course legitimate to consider radical improvements, but not to cure this particular problem. You want to do something that directs attention in other places.
nikkkom said:arivero's observations on Koide-like mass relations for quarks:
http://viavca.in2p3.fr/presentations/koide_formula_beyond_charged_leptons.pdf
Top quark and Higgs boson mass, their running and vacuum stability:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01222v1.pdf
Coincidences... How about these?
##\sum m_f^2 + \sum m_b^2 = v^2##
A stronger version of the above, the two parts of the sum may in fact be equal:
##\sum m_f^2 = \sum m_b^2 = v^2/2##
If the above is true, then sum of all fermions' Yukavas' squares are 1: ##\sum y_f^2 = 1##
(this should be better for vacuum stability than ##y_t=1##).
##m_W^2 + m_Z^2 = m_H^2##
##2 m_W + m_Z = 2 m_H##
The above coincidences hold within, or close to 3-sigma bounds of current experimental error bars. Getting better experimental data on masses is interesting for strengthening or disproving them.
Coincidences are interesting, but without theories explaining them they are "only numerology". How about these?
Vacuum energy is zero, therefore corrections from fermions and bosons should cancel (doesn't it mean that ##\sum m_f^2 = \sum m_b^2##?).
Higgs λ should run to exactly 0 in UV limit ("vacuum is stable").
Take these with a large grain of salt. I'm no physicist.
My understanding is that "nightmare scenario" phrase refers only to the fact that SUSY/superstring/supergravity people's hopes were dashed when LHC found no superpartner particles. I understand those guys - they spend some 30 years working on those theories, and SUSY does have very nice properties (for example, a recent paper where *five-loop* N=4 SYM was proven to be not merely renormalizable, but *finite*!). Supersymmetry would solve a lot of problems. It is a "nightmare" when you work on it for so long, and it gives you such promising results... and then it's not seen in experiments.
Re "savant physicists". I think most professional physicists are not exactly what you'd classify as "normal people" :)
How on Earth did Dirac see that relativistic electron wavefunction needs to be a four-component vector, not two-component?
Don't worry, they will crack it sooner or later.
cube137 said:Ladies and gentlemen.. we are in very dire situation now.. the Hierarchy Problem is a problem at the heart of physics.
ohwilleke said:I totally disagree. The Hierarchy Problem is an artificial construct of physicists trying to second guess Nature's determination of the physical constants of the universe. And, if the physical constants of the universe look "unnatural" this simply means that the physicists are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.
For example, if you see the origin of the Higgs mass in terms of conjectured formulas like ∑m^2f+∑m^2b=v^2 or ∑m^2f=∑m^2b=v2/2 (which may be sufficient to accomplish the cancelations that SUSY does far more crudely) then the Higgs boson mass doesn't look unnatural in the least. Similarly, if you look at the origin of the Higgs mass in terms of using renormalization to back out of a zero value at the Planck scale with an appropriate value for quantum gravity, again, there is no hierarchy problem.
Naturalness, the hierarchy problem and the strong CP problem are all faux problems of presumptuous physicists, instead of real problems with our understanding of physics. Trying to solve these non-problems just sends you down a rabbit hole and distracts you from what should really matter which is finding laws of physics that explain the empirically measured reality, rather than second guessing the laws of Nature that observation demonstrates.
Similarly, a lot of pretty bad physics is motivated by a desire to make baryon number and lepton number zero at the time of the Big Bang, but Nature is not obligated to oblige us with a universe that has those initial conditions, and all efforts to measure B and L number violating processes to truly stunning precision have come up empty handed again and again and again in multiple different contexts.
ohwilleke said:The point is that the hierarchy problem is not a "problem" in the ordinary sense of the word and therefore doesn't call for an answer.
The physical constants of Nature have various values that are a fact of life. And, as long at those particular values that really exist in Nature are internally consistent with each other (for example, leading to the sum of all possible results of each possible situation adding up to 100% in each case and not leading to contradictory answers, in which case we probably screwed up measuring something), physical constants just "are", and it is basically a category error to ask "why" they are that value and not another when they are axioms and not theorized conclusions that flow from some other axioms.
There is nothing that forbids Nature from having a dozen huge contributions to another value that almost, but not quite cancel out. Nature is under no obligation to have terms of order 1 or any other order it wishes. And, it is illogical and absurd to use a definition of "naturalness" that results in Nature being unnatural. When that happens, it means the chain of reasoning screwed up somewhere.
The "hierarchy problem" is solved because all of the contributions to the total add up just so. The inputs are not moveable. They stay the same for all of eternity, in all times and places. And, as long as they add up correctly, it is all cool. The fact that some physicists think that this is ugly is a sign of their lack of sophistication and good taste, and not a "problem" with Nature that needs to be solved.
Now, it could be (and probably is the case) that at least some of the experimentally measured constants of the Standard Model could be derived theoretically from some of the other experimentally measured constants of the Standard Model, if we only knew the functional relationship between them.
For example, I would bet all of the equity in my house that the mass of the tau lepton predicted by Koide's rule and the measured values of the muon mass and electron mass are a more accurate estimate the true mass of the tau lepton than the mass of the tau lepton that is measured experimentally. And, if Koide's rule is correct, then the Standard Model has one less experimentally measured parameter.
But, relationships like those are opportunities to discover new "within the Standard Model" physics, and not invitations to say that Nature screwed it up. Nature is always right and our challenge is to come up with simplified reasons consistent with the data why Nature is right, not to sit around trying to come up with reasons why Nature is wrong, which is essentially what you are doing when you call the "hierarchy problem" a problem in the first place.
I'm not saying that physicists having Nightmares are less qualified physicists than I am. I'm saying that their natural philosophy is leading them astray, and they would be well advised to worry about something different instead.
Do you really think that it might be wrong? Are you an ILC expert now?cube137 said:And the last sentences may be wrong.. it's saying the ILC can collide at GUT energies when it can't even reach 1 TeV.
False dichotomy.cube137 said:Let's say Supersymmetry, Extra Dimensions and Scale Symmetry were categorically ruled out already. And we are left with Multiverse.
mfb said:ATLAS and CMS analyzed 0.5% of the expected ultimate LHC dataset at 13-14 TeV. At the same luminosity fraction, the Tevatron experiments were still busy searching for the top! Sure, it would be nice to have something very early, but in terms of discovery potential the LHC just started. It is way too early to claim that it won't find anything.
mfb said:It is more of the same (well, the energy might increase from 13 to 14 TeV, but that is not a large step), with more data you can see smaller signals.
Higher-energetic particles tend to produce smaller signals, so more data means you (a) can search up to higher masses and (b) can search the low-energetic range for smaller coupling strengths.
It is possible if their mixing with the other three generations is very weak. What do you mean by "example"? Mixing and coupling strengths are just physical parameters. An example is "0.001", does that help?cube137 said:To be on topic. It means there is no more possibility of seeing 4th generation particles below 1 TeV when luminosity goes from 0.5% to 100%?
Everything can appear again - ATLAS and CMS set exclusion limits based on what they did (not) see this year, but those exclusion limits are never zero. There could be a particle, if its cross section is much smaller than what the 2015 data suggested. But that means the 2015 data was a statistical fluctuation even if there is a particle.cube137 said:and no possibility of the Diphoton bump appearing again because of b which is searching only for smaller coupling strengths in the low-energetic range?
mfb said:It is possible if their mixing with the other three generations is very weak. What do you mean by "example"? Mixing and coupling strengths are just physical parameters. An example is "0.001", does that help?
Everything can appear again - ATLAS and CMS set exclusion limits based on what they did (not) see this year, but those exclusion limits are never zero. There could be a particle, if its cross section is much smaller than what the 2015 data suggested. But that means the 2015 data was a statistical fluctuation even if there is a particle.
cube137 said:At this point I just want to get your attention that I think you are misunderstanding something or underestimating something huge. The Nightmare scenario is not only for SUSY/superstring/supergravity people but for all of us. Why. First. Do you understand the meaning of the Hiearchy Problem of the Higgs or why its mass is so low in spite of quantum contributions from other particle including the Planck mass? Supersymmetry is best solution for it. If you are not into SUSY. How do you solve the Hiearchy Problem then?
The 4x4 equivalent of the CKM matrix.cube137 said:Do you have a reference what is meant by particle mixing?