Time at the LHC
As Tommaso Dorigo and many others have already pointed out, the official start date for the LHC is tomorrow! Unfortunately, it is therefore obligatory for theorists to make predictions today. So far these have mostly been along the lines of
Can we do any better? Tony Smith's composite Higgs is a possibility, but many approaches would lay claim to it. Is there something distinctive that might arise from a more Galoisian gravity? What truly new $p = 5$ process might we observe? The first possible experiment along these lines that came to my mind has nothing to do with the LHC. The difficulty is in imagining a material that could create a field quite unlike the usual suspects. A high temperature ceramic superconductor is one possibility. Having eliminated magnetic fields, one could look for Stern-Gerlach type pentuplet splittings of monoenergetic electron (or muon) beams.
I predict that the surprises (besides a lack of fairy field and sparticles) will mostly come in the analysis of multijet processes, where QCD predictions fail spectacularly. If I wasn't such a scatter brain, I would still be working on operad combinatorics for QCD.
there will definitely be supersymmetrywhich isn't really a prediction at all, since it doesn't specify measurable parameters which have meaning for experimentalists. According to Woit, the predictions of Veltman include no fairy field and the realisation that string theory is mumbo jumbo.
Can we do any better? Tony Smith's composite Higgs is a possibility, but many approaches would lay claim to it. Is there something distinctive that might arise from a more Galoisian gravity? What truly new $p = 5$ process might we observe? The first possible experiment along these lines that came to my mind has nothing to do with the LHC. The difficulty is in imagining a material that could create a field quite unlike the usual suspects. A high temperature ceramic superconductor is one possibility. Having eliminated magnetic fields, one could look for Stern-Gerlach type pentuplet splittings of monoenergetic electron (or muon) beams.
I predict that the surprises (besides a lack of fairy field and sparticles) will mostly come in the analysis of multijet processes, where QCD predictions fail spectacularly. If I wasn't such a scatter brain, I would still be working on operad combinatorics for QCD.
posted by Kea | 6:35 PM
15 Comments:
My prediction is: no Higgs; no new particles; "Higgsless" models of electroweak symmetry breaking become the new theoretical industry.
Oh yes - and I predict that, since some of the stringy Higgsless models use braneworlds, this wil be considered evidence of extra dimensions.
My prediction is that Higgs exists. Actually as several p-adically scaled up variants.
There were recent estimates for tge mass based on different data sets: favoured values around 80 and 130 GeV if I remember correctly. Intriguingly, these values happen to correspond to quite near to two TGD predictions corresponding to primes near 2^k are 91 GeV for k=96 and 129 GeV for k=94 (masses scales come quite generally as powers of square root of 2).
TGD predicts also scaled up variant of hadron physics corresponding to Mersenne prime M_89 (ordinary hadron physics corresponds to M_107). The mass scale is by a factor 512 to larger than for ordinary hadron physics. This means also quite short life times. One might hope that this hadron physics begins to be visible at LHC.
Hi Mitchell and Matti. Of course, I don't think there's a Higgs (fairy field) because (a) mass just doesn't arise from gauge theory (b) there is no obvious candidate in the braid diagrams and (c) the current experimental evidence (eg. double beta decay) is against its existence.
Matti, yes, given the evidence for Dark Matter, new particles seem likely. But if p=3 operators are required for mass quantum numbers, and d=6 describes the SM set, the lowest 'dimensions' capable of yielding further masses are (a) d=12: another spin splitting of SM, which could be interpreted as SUSY, but there is no obvious reason for new masses given the single factor of 3, and (b) d=9: these might be too heavy - gee, Carl, we need to calculate some numbers.
09 09 08
I cannot wait to see the results. I am inclined to believe in the Higgs as I have been indoctrinated to do so. However, what we don't find may shed much insight into other theoretical predictions! What an exciting time for physics!
Of course, a crazy, but I think not unlikely, scenario is the appearance of ordinary Helium He4 with a mass of 3.7274 GeV, making the LHC a fusion machine.
Hi Mahndisa! Yes, it is an historic day. And a beautiful sunny day here, so I'm off for a walk ...
Mahndisa! You're blogging again!
Kea,
some comments.
a) In my framework Higgs is not enough. It gives the dominating contribution to gauge boson masses (the group theoretical explanation mW/mZ mass ratio is very strong argument supporting Higgs and gauge symmetry picture).
p-Adic thermodynamics gives fermion masses (there are no generalized Feynman diagrams allowing vacuum expectation value in fermion sector). This means that couplings of Higgs boson to fermions can be much weaker than in standard model. This does not make the detection of Higgs easier.
I do not know about generally accepted evidence for double beta decay (meaning Majorana neutrinos and conservation of neutrino number modulo 2only).
b) I do not believe that dark matter has anything to do with wimps of any kind and I do not expect that dark matter would be discovered in LHC: I suggest learning some TGD and starting to do new biology;-)! The hypothesis is that dark matter corresponds to a hierarchy of macroscopic phases with nonstandard value of Planck constant involving a generalization of the notion of imbedding space to a book like structure with particles at different 8-D pages of the book and thus having no local interaction vertices. This implies "relatively darkness" (enough for darkness as we know it experimentally). There are photon exchange interactions and interactions via classical fields so that dark matter can be in principle photographed and manipulated and bio-systems are doing this all the time with biologically important ions being in large hbar dark phase.
c) The hypothesis has led amazing connections with biology and elementary particle physics. The last outcome is a prediction (not only reproduction) of the basic structures of biology at the level of physics of dark and possibly also p-adically scaled variants of baryons. Unique analogs of DNA, RNA, and of amino-acids, genetic code, and the analogs of replication, transcription and translation mechanisms appear at the level of dark nuclear physics based on dark baryons for scaled up dark QCD type theory. In this framework biology provides a classical representation of dark baryon and nuclear physics (nuclear string model predicts that nuclei are nucleon strings analogous to DNA and amino-acid sequences) by mimicking it chemically. The questions such as "What were the first replicators?" find totally unexpected answer.
d) The prediction of genetic code correctly deserves boldfacing since it means a precise identification of the mapping of codons to amino-acids as a physical correspondence mapping neutral dark baryons of given total quark spin and color flux tube spin to representatives of same spin representing analogs of amino-acids. It also means correct prediction for the numbers of amino-acids coded by given number of codons. I have constructed several number theoretical models for the code and know how difficult this is even when one is happy with mere reproduction of numbers.
e) The motivation for the idea was the fact that DNA codons consists of three nucleotides (you have mentioned number 3 many times!) and low lying baryons consist of three quarks between DNA codon (u and d). Quantum entanglement between quarks resp. color flux tubes is responsible for the representation of information and quantum codons do not have a decomposition analogous to the decomposition of classical codons to nucleotides. Quantum words do not decompose to letters!
Thanks for the comments, Matti. I certainly agree that the frontier of experimental physics is not just the LHC, but new interdisciplinary things such as you mention, which should be testable against TGD and other data based theories.
A cross-over lesson from another field, Immunology & Viruses (i.e., "Interdisciplinary Science"), which is relevant to the current issue at hand..potential LHC results:
Mullis VS Baltimore/Fauci
Kary Mullis (Nobelist, inventor of PCR/Polymerase Chain Reaction, surfer dude ala G. Lisi), is publicly critical of David Baltimore (Nobelist, Caltech President) & Anthony Faucci (NIH/National Inst of Health Director), who have claimed that HIV is the SINGLE CAUSATIVE agent for AIDS. Mullis simply did a literature check, & COULDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE of such paper! Here is the bottomline: the whole HIV -> AIDS thing has been OVERSIMPLIFIED ("single causative agent"), where in fact it's the result of the _collective effect_ of various actions. (phenomenology). You might have heard of a thing called "Complex Systems" & Complexity (Murray Gell-Mann's fascination with this subject, led to his departure from Caltech & formation of the Santa Fe Inst with his friend David Pines of UIUC..I went to high-school with his son & daughter, btw). Well, apparently this is what should be studied by the "Powers to Be" (Baltimore & Fauci), the status-quo. There is a direct tie-in to this faux-pas & grant funding. Now, that's a familiar story!! Research being corrupted by grant funding pressures.
Okay, I get the impression the same thing is happening in Particle Physics. The causation is the result of _collective effect_ of lots of phenomenon, & the data we have so far is just too sparse (under-corrected). I like the phrase:
"Nature is predictably UNPREDICTABLE"
"Nature is full of surprises"
It's way too early in the game (data set is small) to make any sensible predictions. It's the old story: data is accumulated, theories are made,..
..all of a sudden there is a REALLY PECULIAR data-point (surprise!), that lies outside the "performance curve" of existing theories, thus perplexing theorists.
It creates more questions (than answers), & theories are modified (or thrown out altogether). I like that analogy of successive unpeeling of onion skins, it seems to go on ad infinitum..no end in sight. I think we're early in the "onion skin peeling game", & the core (TOE) is a distant reality.
Again, I defer to the beginning lesson. Scientists tend to try to oversimplify a solution to the problem. Like in Geology (eons & eons of successive phenomenon, create what we see today), it's the result of a collective set of actions (phenomena). I'm kinda excited these days about Kea's vision of a Category Theory Inst (trying to develop a concept for an R&D Inst myself, write a proposal, & get it funded), & I think it should be framed generally as a more general R&D Inst
[ obviously including Complexity, Mathematics, Computation, Physics..the latter three were discussed in another thread about S. Wolfram/C. Adami..CA/Cellular Automata & Digital Life ]
This proposal would get the attention of some established/powerful researchers, & THAT'S how to get Kea's Category Theory Inst off & running. Linking it to a generalized theory of study, as opposed to a niche-field (Category Theory only). I.e., like in Biological Evolution, it was the "generalists" (not the "specialists") who survived. There's that famous German mathematician who said:
"Wann muss generalizierien!"
[ one must generalize! ]
Chimpanzee, category theory is not a niche field: it is already at the frontier of research in mathematics, physics, computer science, genetics, philosophy and probably other fields too. My institute would be a category theory institute, with about 10 permanent staff (+ visitors, postdocs and hostel researchers) from different fields, but all working with category theory. Anyway, this is OFF TOPIC!!
According to Peter Woit's blog linked in this entry, Veltman said
"... I [Veltman] don’t trust the theory behind ... the Higgs particle ...".
Could Veltman be bitter that he did not understand or support t Hooft's work (when t Hooft was Veltman's student) establishing the renormalizability of ElectroWeak/Higgs theory?
IIRC, t Hooft told Veltman that he had a proof of renormalizability, but Veltman did not believe or support him, and t Hooft's work would have been lost to the world of physics if Ben Lee had not taken to trouble to study t Hooft's work and announce to the physics community that t Hooft's work was valid.
IIRC, hard feelings still remain between t Hooft and Veltman.
On another point,
Kea, you mention ceramic superconductors and gravity-related phenomena. Are you familiar with the work of Graham et al at U. Canterbury on superconductor frame-dragging experiments related to the work of Tajmar et al? If so, what do you think of their work?
Tony Smith
Hi Tony, I think Veltman's old mistake is a mistake anyone could make, and there is no reason to think that affects his judgement regarding the Higgs.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the UC work, which is pretty shocking, but I never found the time to bug them into taking me through it. And now I'm not in Chch anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home