Alien Moons --'Habitable Hotspot' Prospects in New Kepler Mission Data (Today's Most Popular)
Zeta Puppis --"A Monster Star Recyling the Cosmos"

'New Physics' Observations Challenge Standard Model of Universe




"Physics beyond the Standard Model" embraces the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, neutrino oscillations, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the fact that the Standard Model itself is inconsistent with general relativity, to the point that one or both theories break down within known space-time singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons.

Now, new observations presented at the Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics in Grenoble, France, of the top quark -- the heaviest of all known fundamental particles -- could overturn the standard model.

Data from collisions at the Tevatron particle accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, suggest that some of the top quark's interactions are governed by an as-yet unknown force, communicated by a hypothetical particle not possible under the standard model called the top gluon. According to one interpretation, a top quark bound by to its anti-matter partner, the antitop, would act as a version of the elusive Higgs boson, conferring mass on other particles.

Regina Demina, a physicist at the University of Rochester in New York, and her colleagues analyzed eight years' worth of particle-collision data recorded by one of the Tevatron's two detectors, known as DZero. Top quarks produced during collisions can fly off in the direction of the accelerator's proton beam or its antiproton beam; Demina and her team discovered that more travel towards the proton beam than is predicted in the standard model of physics. A physics beyond the standard model appears to be needed to explain the discrepancy.

According to, a possible new model was suggested by Christopher Hill, a theorist at Fermilab who 20 years ago but updated in 2003 proposed how a top quark and its antiparticle could impart mass to the W and Z bosons, particles that carry the weak nuclear force responsible for radioactive decay. The work rests on an analogy with some types of low-temperature superconductors, materials that have no electrical resistance at temperatures just a few degrees above absolute zero. In some superconductors, electrons pair up, bound by particle-like vibrations in the material. The bound electrons limit the range over which the electromagnetic force can act within the material, an effect that in turn imparts an effective mass to nearby photons -- particles of light, which carry the long-range electromagnetic force and are normally weightless.

In a similar manner, Hill suggested that top quarks and anti-top quarks might pair up throughout the cosmos, bound by a force carried by an as-yet undiscovered particle dubbed the top gluon.

"It's as if the entire universe was a special kind of superconductor," says physicist Matthew Schwartz of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts who shows in a study posted online on 16 June, Schwartz that Hill's model could also account for the top-quark asymmetry observed at the Tevatron. The details have to do with the way the up quark, a component of the proton, couples with the top quark in the new theory.

The theory, reports Nature, explains the origin of mass throughout the universe as a team effort, First, the top gluon would act to make both the top quark and the antitop heavy, just like the force binding electrons in a superconductor makes nearby photons heavy. Then, the top-anti-top pair would itself explain the origin of mass throughout the rest of the universe, conferring mass, for instance, on the W and Z bosons, the carriers of the weak nuclear force. The relatively heavy mass acquired by the W and Z particles limits the range of the weak force, breaking the symmetry between this force and the long-range electromagnetic force that theorists believe exists at very high energies.

The asymmetry observed at DZero is not certain enough to constitute proof of the existence of the top gluon, but it does independently match findings reported earlier this year by researchers at the Tevatron's other detector, the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF).

Schwartz's theory is easily testable. The top gluon has a predicted energy within the current range of the world's most powerful particle collider -- the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland -- so it could be found within a year, says Schwartz.Dmitri Denisov, a spokesman for the DZero experiment, agrees that the results are similar to the directional preference of the top quark seen with CDF. He cautions, however, that the standard model of particle physics is so complicated that it is difficult to accurately describe with equations. The observed top-quark asymmetry is being compared to an imperfect surrogate for the true standard model, so the supposed discrepancy might fall within the uncertainty of the model.

A research team working with the LHC's Compact Muon Solenoid detector reported on 21 July that they see no evidence of the top-quark asymmetry. But Schwartz notes that the asymmetry is much harder to see at the LHC than at the Tevatron, because the LHC starts with an intrinsically symmetrical setup -- smashing a proton beam into another proton beam -- so it's more difficult to discern if the top quark has a directional preference at the LHC than at the Tevatron. "I suspect that you can't rule out anything with this data," he says, "and it doesn't negate any models."

The image at the top of the page suggests a surplus over Standard Model predictions of a type of particle decay called “B to D-star-tau-nu.” In this conceptual art, an electron and positron collide, resulting in a B meson (not shown) and an antimatter B-bar meson, which then decays into a D meson and a tau lepton as well as a smaller antineutrino. 

The Daily Galaxy via Nature and Scientific American

Image credit: Greg Stewart, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.


Very interesting!

Here is MY string theory.

Just like a string of Christmas lights, the more tangled we make our reality, the more difficult it becomes to make any sense of it all.

Maybe we should just use a new set!

In the summary, the author says quite clearly:
"The results are smaller than originally observed value, consistent with calculations based on SM"

and at slide #6:

"[...] all moments are consistent with the SM expectation except 1st, which has 2.1σ deviation from the NLO SM Such behavior is consistent with an exchange in s-channel of s=1 particle, which is not a parity eigenstate (Z’, or axigluon). "

It's not even worth noting a 2.1 sigma deviation. You get 1 effect like this every 100 analyses.

So where is all this fuss coming from?

see her slides here:

What I think is that this silliness will continue because we have not been able to replace nuclear with anything else. To propose 'dark stuff' as photons without the underlying of the ion field is too simple, as Miles Mathis has done.
We have these entertaining dog and pony shows because the hot pools of radiation are too scary to think about.

Deficiencies of the Standard Model are being compounded by ambiguous interpretation of experimental results in a desperate attempt to support a failing model; in not adequately explaining the majority of observable reality. An example of this is the Higgs boson where its mass cannot explain the combine mass of the top quark and its antiparticle; necessary if the Higgs is to explain the masses of ALL elementary particles.

The origin of mass stems from pure energy rolled up into absolute dense balls where distinct volumes culminate in known particles. Experimentally measured radii of particles show there is, for both composite and elementary particles, a simple correlation between their mass and size, as presented in my ‘Fundamental Principle of Mass’:

Energies involved will then go towards explaining neutrino oscillations and that so called massless particles must have volume in that they have differentiating size and mass, and although extremely small, will be proportional to the energy they carry.

There is a need, if scientific knowledge is to advance, to go beyond the current Standard Model to include explanation as to dark matter and dark energy and where gravity is also very much integral to this new model. Sometimes it necessitates or useful to take current knowledge and start again by using an established paradigm; by using a methodological approach from the most fundamental level and rebuild from there. This I have attempted as a contributive start in my paper ‘Theoretical principle model of forces’:

I like to suggest my book Two timeless theories. It explains exactly how the Universe is formed and its rather easy to understand once you've read the book. Physics is how you see it. Everything is a shape. No magic in this Universe.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)