[math-fun] Ain't no more matter particles, found them all?
Otto Eberhardt & 6 others: Impact of a Higgs Boson at a Mass of 126 GeV on the Standard Model with Three and Four Fermion Generations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,24 (2012) 241802 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1101 Press release: http://www.kit.edu/visit/pi_2012_12398.php QUOTE “But why does nature have second and third generations, if these are hardly needed? And are there maybe more generations of particles?”, ask the main authors of the article, Martin Wiebusch and Otto Eberhardt. At least, the latter question is answered: “There are exactly three fermion generations in the standard model of particle physics!” For their analysis, the researchers combined latest data collected by the particle accelerators LHC and Tevatron with many known measurements results relating to particles, such as the Z-boson or the top-quark. The result of the statistical analysis is that the existence of further fermions can be excluded with a probability of 99.99999 percent (5.3 sigma). The most important data used for this analysis come from the recently discovered Higgs particle. END QUOTE You may wonder how the hell they can rule out the existence of further particles. For example, if there were some 4th kind of lepton (the 3 known kinds are electron, muon, and tauon, the latter two being unstable) or quark, or neutrino, with huge mass-energy, then due to the postulated hugeness presumably it would have no effect on anything we are capable of observing, so it might well exist for all our experiments can tell... right? I think their reasoning is something like the following. They presume that a large fraction of the "mass" of the new particles is not mass per se, but rather is effective mass due to interaction-energy with the all-pervading Higgs scalar field. It is this "Higgs mechanism" that allows the W and Z vector bosons to have effective mass even though in Yang-Mills theory they necessarily have zero mass, thus rescuing and enabling Yang-Mills theory to be physically real. Their point: given this is the cause of the new particles having most of their mass, the Higgs is going to have something to say about that. If it were assumed to have enormous interactions, then the Higgs ought to have enough-altered physics we would have seen that, which we do not. So I think their idea is: if the new particles had small masses we would have seen them. If they had large masses due to Higgs effect, we would have seen Higgs bosons alterations that we do not. Therefore, there are no more kinds of new particles, QED. I do not know whether I believe this, and may be incompetent to decide. But it is an interesting line of reasoning. And the effects of this line of reasoning could be devastating to numerous theories of particle physics. But I see an obvious huge problem. We know that new particles must exist because of "dark matter" which has been detected gravitationally and outweighs the normal matter in the universe. If this mainstream view is correct, then this new paper yields an immediate proof that 1=0. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
On 12/14/2012 12:04 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
I think their reasoning is something like the following. They presume that a large fraction of the "mass" of the new particles is not mass per se, but rather is effective mass due to interaction-energy with the all-pervading Higgs scalar field. It is this "Higgs mechanism" that allows the W and Z vector bosons to have effective mass even though in Yang-Mills theory they necessarily have zero mass, thus rescuing and enabling Yang-Mills theory to be physically real.
Their point: given this is the cause of the new particles having most of their mass, the Higgs is going to have something to say about that. If it were assumed to have enormous interactions, then the Higgs ought to have enough-altered physics we would have seen that, which we do not. So I think their idea is: if the new particles had small masses we would have seen them. If they had large masses due to Higgs effect, we would have seen Higgs bosons alterations that we do not. Therefore, there are no more kinds of new particles, QED.
I do not know whether I believe this, and may be incompetent to decide. But it is an interesting line of reasoning. And the effects of this line of reasoning could be devastating to numerous theories of particle physics.
But I see an obvious huge problem. We know that new particles must exist because of "dark matter" which has been detected gravitationally and outweighs the normal matter in the universe. If this mainstream view is correct, then this new paper yields an immediate proof that 1=0.
I think that is the reasoning, but it may leave sterile (right-handed) neutrinos as the viable candidate for dark matter. Brent
Perhaps Erik Verlinde is right after all--that gravity--including that caused by "dark matter"--is a result of the holographic universe that is pumped up by information that is stored (or at least reflected) on the surface surrounding any simply-connected volume. In fact, "dark energy" might also fall out of his theory, as well. If you believe in inflation and the holographic universe at the same time, you must agree that during inflation, something pumped gigantic amounts of information into the universe in such a way that its volume & therefore surface area had to expand enough so that there was enough surface area to represent all of that new information. If "dark energy" is responsible for the continued expansion of the universe, then that dark energy is associated with a source of additional information. Here's some paragraphs about Verlinde from the New York Times, July 12, 2010: "Its hard to imagine a more fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of life on the Earth than gravity, from the moment you first took a step and fell on your diapered bottom to the slow terminal sagging of flesh and dreams. "But what if its all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality? "So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases. "For me gravity doesnt exist, said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he cant fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity emerges, the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms. "Looking at gravity from this angle, they say, could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues of the day, like the dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together." At 01:09 PM 12/14/2012, meekerdb wrote:
I think that is the reasoning, but it may leave sterile (right-handed) neutrinos as the viable candidate for dark matter.
Brent
On 12/14/2012 6:52 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
Perhaps Erik Verlinde is right after all--that gravity--including that caused by "dark matter"--is a result of the holographic universe that is pumped up by information that is stored (or at least reflected) on the surface surrounding any simply-connected volume. In fact, "dark energy" might also fall out of his theory, as well.
If you believe in inflation and the holographic universe at the same time, you must agree that during inflation, something pumped gigantic amounts of information into the universe in such a way that its volume& therefore surface area had to expand enough so that there was enough surface area to represent all of that new information. If "dark energy" is responsible for the continued expansion of the universe, then that dark energy is associated with a source of additional information.
There's another possibility. QM allows negative entropy, essentially entropy that is subtracted to avoid over counting the states of entangled particles. It may be that the total entropy of the universe is much smaller than it appears because of correlations that we are not taking into account. Brent
But if the holographic universe is encoding all of the information in the _surface area_, and if the total entropy is smaller than expected, wouldn't that also make the universe itself smaller than ~15Billion lightyears in radius? I'd love to hear Verlinde's ideas about black holes. Perhaps Hawking et al. are wrong, and black holes can eat info after all? At 09:05 PM 12/14/2012, meekerdb wrote:
There's another possibility. QM allows negative entropy, essentially entropy that is subtracted to avoid over counting the states of entangled particles. It may be that the total entropy of the universe is much smaller than it appears because of correlations that we are not taking into account.
Brent
The observable 'local' entropy density is far below the 'local' maximum (i.e. we're not in 'heat death'). But that is consistent with a holographic principle in which the entropy is maximum on the surface at the Hubble radius. At least I think that's the theory. Brent On 12/15/2012 4:26 AM, Henry Baker wrote:
But if the holographic universe is encoding all of the information in the _surface area_, and if the total entropy is smaller than expected, wouldn't that also make the universe itself smaller than ~15Billion lightyears in radius?
I'd love to hear Verlinde's ideas about black holes. Perhaps Hawking et al. are wrong, and black holes can eat info after all?
At 09:05 PM 12/14/2012, meekerdb wrote:
There's another possibility. QM allows negative entropy, essentially entropy that is subtracted to avoid over counting the states of entangled particles. It may be that the total entropy of the universe is much smaller than it appears because of correlations that we are not taking into account.
Brent
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12
Wikipedia states: I) << [I]f τ is any element of an imaginary quadratic field with positive imaginary part (so that j is defined) then is an algebraic integer.
and elsewhere one finds that, in particular, II) << j((-1 + sqrt(-163))/2) = (-640320)^3
which is apparently a special case of the fact that in general, III) << The value of j at an element of an imaginary quadratic field is an algebraic integer whose degree is the class number of that field.
Further, II) is apparently related to the fact that the elliptic curve C / Z[(-1 + sqrt(-163))/2)] has "complex multiplication". There seem to be ample references to books where these facts are proven, but I haven't found any to online references, or journal articles. Can anyone please either explain these facts or else point me to some online reference(s) or journal article(s) where these facts are explained? Many thanks, Dan
Look at Chapter 4 in http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.49.3926 Victor On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wikipedia states:
I) << [I]f τ is any element of an imaginary quadratic field with positive imaginary part (so that j is defined) then is an algebraic integer.
and elsewhere one finds that, in particular,
II) << j((-1 + sqrt(-163))/2) = (-640320)^3
which is apparently a special case of the fact that in general,
III) << The value of j at an element of an imaginary quadratic field is an algebraic integer whose degree is the class number of that field.
Further, II) is apparently related to the fact that the elliptic curve C / Z[(-1 + sqrt(-163))/2)] has "complex multiplication".
There seem to be ample references to books where these facts are proven, but I haven't found any to online references, or journal articles.
Can anyone please either explain these facts or else point me to some online reference(s) or journal article(s) where these facts are explained?
Many thanks,
Dan _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Thanks, Victor! Kiran's senior thesis looks very useful. --Dan On 2012-12-15, at 12:18 PM, Victor Miller wrote:
Look at Chapter 4 in http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.49.3926
Victor
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wikipedia states:
I) << [I]f τ is any element of an imaginary quadratic field with positive imaginary part (so that j is defined) then is an algebraic integer.
and elsewhere one finds that, in particular,
II) << j((-1 + sqrt(-163))/2) = (-640320)^3
which is apparently a special case of the fact that in general,
III) << The value of j at an element of an imaginary quadratic field is an algebraic integer whose degree is the class number of that field.
Further, II) is apparently related to the fact that the elliptic curve C / Z[(-1 + sqrt(-163))/2)] has "complex multiplication".
There seem to be ample references to books where these facts are proven, but I haven't found any to online references, or journal articles.
Can anyone please either explain these facts or else point me to some online reference(s) or journal article(s) where these facts are explained?
Many thanks,
Dan _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
This "holographic universe" keeps bothering me, because it is so different from classical physics. The physical size of a black hole is set by its _mass_ content, according to Schwarzchild. The physical size of a black hole is set by its _information_ content in bits, according to Bekenstein. So, either information = mass, or information = mass + "dark matter" + "dark energy" I.e., "dark matter" (and perhaps "dark energy") is the informational difference between the traditional "matter" and whatever it is that causes gravitational attraction at the largest scales. At 09:19 AM 12/15/2012, meekerdb wrote:
The observable 'local' entropy density is far below the 'local' maximum (i.e. we're not in 'heat death'). But that is consistent with a holographic principle in which the entropy is maximum on the surface at the Hubble radius. At least I think that's the theory.
Brent
On 12/15/2012 4:26 AM, Henry Baker wrote:
But if the holographic universe is encoding all of the information in the _surface area_, and if the total entropy is smaller than expected, wouldn't that also make the universe itself smaller than ~15Billion lightyears in radius?
I'd love to hear Verlinde's ideas about black holes. Perhaps Hawking et al. are wrong, and black holes can eat info after all?
At 09:05 PM 12/14/2012, meekerdb wrote:
There's another possibility. QM allows negative entropy, essentially entropy that is subtracted to avoid over counting the states of entangled particles. It may be that the total entropy of the universe is much smaller than it appears because of correlations that we are not taking into account.
Brent
participants (5)
-
Dan Asimov -
Henry Baker -
meekerdb -
Victor Miller -
Warren Smith