The Standard Model

In this case, the Standard Model in question does not refer to the Second Amendment pseudo-scholarship, but the standard model used in particle physics. Horizon has a documentary about the Higgs particle which I was deciding on recording. But, what the heck is a Higgs Particle anyway?

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.

That led me to inquire what exactly is the Standard Model in particle Physics.

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, the current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995) and the tau neutrino (2000) have given further credence to the Standard Model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a theory of almost everything.

Sound a bit familiar here? Doesn't another standard model exist which tries to pass itself off as being the definitive theory on a certain topic? That thought was in my mind when I came to the next paragraph.

Still, the Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of dark energy nor of the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity. The theory does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not correctly account for neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses). Although the Standard Model is theoretically self-consistent, it has several apparently unnatural properties giving rise to puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem.

Incomplete? Doesn't address the complete topic? Did the people who came up with the term "Standard Model" realise how appropriate their use of the term might be in relation to the fact that their "Standard Model" leaves quite a bit to be explained when someone with any knowledge approaches it? In fact, current developments are putting the Standard model of particle physics into question.

In a paper published in Physical Review Letter on December 3, 2001, theorist Dr. Michael Chanowitz at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory argues that there is currently a "lose-lose" situation for the Standard Model: the data of the electroweak theory has evolved to the point where new physics is suggested independent of whether the measurement of A^b_FB is correct or not. The reasoning is quite simple: If the measured value of A^b_FB is correct then a modification of the Standard Model is needed since the experimental result does not agree with the theoretical calculation. If the measurement of A^b_FB is not correct due to a statistical fluctuation or a systematic error then it should not be included in the analysis. However, when A^b_FB is excluded, it turns out that the predicted mass for the Higgs particle is in conflict with current experimental limits. Measurements at CERN rule out a Higgs mass below 113.5 GeV at the 95% confidence level. So even if A^b_FB is excluded, the Standard Model has only a few percent chance of being correct assuming that electroweak breaking is accomplished with a Higgs.

What does this all mean? One possibility is that the mass of the Higgs is below 113.5 GeV and has somehow escaped detection. This is unlikely but possible. Usually, extraordinary evidence is needed to establish a new theory. However, since the Higgs sector has not been experimentally confirmed, perhaps the inconsistencies in the data is telling scientists that electroweak breaking does not make use of a Higgs field. This would be an exciting and intriguing result. Until additional experiments are analyzed, the resolution to the above quandary remains unknown.

Of course, the other "standard model" has to address historical evidence to the contrary of its assertions, which it does not. In fact,the other "standard model" misinterprets and misrepresents history. But, if one isn't willing to examine too deeply, then the other "standard model" seems plausible.

On the other hand, once it is seriously examined, the other "standard model" makes absolutely no sense at all.

But, one can say the same thing about quantum physics as well.

Parallel Universes.

Part of the right’s dislike of the Elite (wow,if that isn’t a contradiction!) is their distrust of “experts”.

"Those people with all their qualifications who know all that stuff, they must be wrong! I know nothing, I must be right!"

We know about one of these people’s relationship with reality from his "military service". He was found to have not served since the units he claimed to serve in were nowhere near the theatres of combat. That probably explains why he missed the memo on the rest of reality. He’s off in his bizarre parallel universe which somehow intersects ours via the internet.

These people who claim to "love America" advocate policies that have crippled the country through their ignorance (I think this phenomenon is worse in the States). Maybe these policies do work in their universe, but they are detrimental to this one

This goes to my theory of parallel universes, which physicists have begun to suggest is more a likelihood than not. This isn't just a mad theory I have, but may be accepted scientific fact that parallel universes exist. These universes influence each other.

I think we should work on bridging the gap between reality and the better parallel universe where the solutions to these problems exist. We also need to block the influences from the negative parallel universe where these people exist. Let them destroy their world!

It makes my brain hurt to think that these people are out there.

Even worse that they manage to influence our universe from theirs.

There must be some bizarre explanation which could be provided if we had a better understanding of quantum physics as to how this influencing of our universe from a bizarre parallel universe works. I hope that someone will soon claim a Nobel Prize for working out how to block the right wing parallel universe from interfering with reality.

Brian Cox on Cern's baffling light-speed find

Overgrown kid* and Physicist Brian Cox's take on the possibility that the speed of light was broken can be found at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852

*Brian's attitude toward physics is the same enthusiasm shown by a 6 year old kid brother.

Is the speed of light really the universal speed limit?

The insight that the speed of thought is faster than light came to me a long time ago. The speed of thought, or the imagination, is faster than light because it can take you anywhere in fractions of a nanosecond.

Now it seems that at CERN, the European Centre for Nuclear Research, they have had Puzzling results because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light. Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

This puts a spanner in the works of conventional physics since the speed of light is the Universe's ultimate speed limit according to Einstein's theory of relativity, and much of modern physics depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it. Of course, we are now in the realm of subatomic particles where the rules are beginning to appear quite different.

Naturally, the traditional physicists are cautious. "We tried to find all possible explanations for this," said report author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration. "We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't," he told BBC News. "When you don't find anything, then you say 'Well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this.'"

Of course, I rather enjoy the fact that conventional physics could be limited in its scope.