particle physics

[Anonymous No.10505127]

so /sci/, what is the future of particle physics?

will we figure out what dark matter is made of? will we find supersymmetry? Z’ bosons? will we understand neutrino masses or the muon g-2 anomaly?

will the FCC get built? what about the ILC or CLIC? is CEPC dead? will DUNE succeed?

there are no good physics threads on sci right now btw

[Anonymous No.10505161]

No.

[Anonymous No.10505164]

>>10505127
No.

[Anonymous No.10505166]

Not in our lifetime with current funding.

[Anonymous No.10505169]

Never ever no matter how hard we try.

[Anonymous No.10505187]

>>10505127
Nein

[Anonymous No.10505192]

>will we figure out what dark matter is made of?
Maybe, some of the next gen dark matter detectors look quite sick. The new Solar Axion Telescope is gunna be cool and XENONnT sounds v impressive. Even if they don't find anything they'll surely point us in the right direction

[Anonymous No.10505334]

>>10505192
i thought the CERN Solar Axion Telescope already ran for many years and found nothing right? do you mean the International Axion Observatory?

[Anonymous No.10505447]

>>10505127
There are no gravitons. there are only fluxes in space and time.

[Anonymous No.10505452]

>>10505447
>t. QFTlet

[Anonymous No.10505945]

>>10505334
Yes the new one

[Anonymous No.10505958]

>>10505447
Fluxes are the particles. Lrn2qft

[Anonymous No.10506189]

Muon g-2 is ongoing, it'll almost certainly be the first on the list to have a definite answer

[Anonymous No.10506197]

>>10505447
>every field we've discovered and precisely investigated has been quantized, but the one really weak field we can't investigate closely enough to see quantization is definitely continuous and classical

Sure

[Anonymous No.10506235]

>>10506197
this is what happens to noobs who fall for the Roger Penrose meme

[Anonymous No.10506291]

>>10505127
>the future of particle physics?
The high energy crowd of professional physicists surely criticizes me saying, "He doesn't know the first thing about the Standard Model." Actually, though, I do know the the first thing about it, pic related. It's the HE crowd that doesn't know the first thing about it: why is it configured like that? They might know the second through the millionth thing about Standard Model but they literally don't know the ~first~ thing about it: why are there these fundamental particles instead of some other set of fundamental particles. I know why we have the particles we have, I wrote about it here:
>Quantum Structure
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

2013 was a productive year me. I literally wrote down the analytic form of electrogravity, the holy grail of classical physics applications, just a month or two before I discovered the "first thing" about the standard model of particle physics:
>Geometric Cosmology
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1301.0032

Both of these papers are quite short, 5 and 4 pages respectively.

[Anonymous No.10506296]

>>10506197
Einstein showed about 100 years ago that gravity is not a field at all but rather is derived from the curvature of spacetime. Maybe the reason we can't find the quantum of the gravity field is because there is no gravity field?

[Anonymous No.10506307]

>>10506296
Relativity is not a theory of everything. It can't explain many quantum phenomena.
Einstein was wrong, Bell's Theorem proves that.

[Anonymous No.10506315]

>>10506291
lol jon, wtf man. tldr on viXra:1302.0037 is basically your cosmology model has two time dimensions and then you can do some counting that gives you 20 fundamental particles? eight of which are claimed to be spin-1 bosons? do you realize that LHC ran for 4 years and your theory of more SM bosons didn't work out? do you just deny experiment now?

>We express gratitude to CaptainPickard for making the LSD that spurred this inquiry.
seriously dude. just... sigh. is LSD what caused your mental illnesses to start? let me guess, you got into hallucinogens while you were hanging out with the Occupy "intellectuals", right?

[Anonymous No.10506333]

>>10506296
The metric IS the gravity field. There's a reason people call the gauge potential the connection.

[Anonymous No.10506334]

>>10506296
This is a common misconception of how quantum field theories work. General relativity is still described by fields: the metric tensor at each point in spacetime forms the fundamental field of GR, and the Riemann tensor at each point makes up a field characterizing the curvature at each point in spacetime, which can be considered the "gravitational field." GR is a field theory that exhibits gauge symmetry, so it can in principle be quantized, and if it is, it will necessarily have a spin 2 gauge boson (the graviton) due to its gauge symmetry.
Given every other field is quantized, and gravity just happens to be too weak to have a chance at seeing the quantization, most physicists fully expect gravity to really be quantized, and the graviton to exist.

[Anonymous No.10506345]

>>10506291
Based schizo

[Anonymous No.10507401]

750 GeV bump