/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10509494]

Why does the Standard Model have the fundamental particles it has instead of some other smorgasbord of particles?
>Quantum Structure
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

[Anonymous No.10509591]

>>10509494
>vixra
Lol

Well the gauge bosons are a natural consequence of the SU3xSU2xU1 gauge symmetry of the standard model, and the fermions are kinda just there to have different charges and weak hypercharges and masses and shit. There probably is some deeper structure with the generations though

[Anonymous No.10509815]

>>10509591
>kinda just there
pathetic, not even worth a lol

[Anonymous No.10509884]

hey jon, did you know that the higgs is not spin 1? i have proof: Z’s and W’s are massive. don’t understand? thought so

[Anonymous No.10510036]

>>10509884
An even simpler proof that the Higgs is not spin-1 is this: Higgs himself called the particle "the scalar boson." Did you know that only spin-0 particles are scalar? I bet you did.

[Anonymous No.10510044]

>>10510036
whatever jon, quit the sophistry. if there weren’t a spin 0 particle in the SM, then Ws and Zs would be massless. your shit about “the particle discovered at the LHC in 2012 is spin 1” is retarded

[Anonymous No.10510058]

>>10510044
WOW that hot opinion of yours got dubs. Here's a paper about how it could have spin-1 and there is a video out there where no less a person than Nima plainly says that it could be spin-1.

I admit that my research in the fundamentals of physics is far detached from the Standard Model and I have no idea how your W/Z mass argument works. I might add, however, that if you guys had thought more about the fundamentals instead of just swallowing whatever they spooned to you then maybe some of you guys would have solved dark energy,
>Modified Spacetime Geometry...
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0022
classical electrogravity,
>Geometric Cosmology
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1301.0032
time circuits,
>Time Arrow Spinors...
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0454
found the limits of sine and cosine at infinity
>Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1809.0234
or the disproved Riemann hypothesis
>Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

I know the top of the pyramid is exciting but I think it is not the best course of action to build on the foundation before you have a good survey of the foundation's robust stability.

[Anonymous No.10510090]

>>10510058
you forgot to link the paper (i mean a real paper) that shows how a spin-1 boson can manifest a higgs mechanism. is it a composite higgs model? there are tight limits on those already. if you don’t understand how a spin 1 boson can’t break electroweak symmetry then you’re unqualified to do particle physics

[Anonymous No.10510137]

>>10510090
>you’re unqualified to do particle physics
I don't disagree with that at all and I am not a particle physics. The only caveat that I would add is that I am highly qualified to study particle physics and quickly become a top-tier expert.

Here's the paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2288

Here's a thread about the paper that i would gladly discuss with you: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-spin-one-still-possible-for-the-higgs.673581/

Here's the video where Nima says it can have spin-1 at [1:01:55] right in the middle of making the argument about W&Z: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPW7lyHpIc

[Anonymous No.10510138]

Theoretical particle physicists are all schizos. All of them.

[Anonymous No.10510141]

>>10510090
>>10510137
In fact, if you listen for about 20 seconds, Nima says spin-1 implies a Russian doll structure which is exactly the structure of infinite complexity which led me to theorize spin-1 to begin with.

The Truth About Geometric Unity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1307.0075

[Anonymous No.10510167]

>>10510137
the ralston paper looks quite clearly to be a composite higgs model (it’s some composite state of a Z’ field if i understand correctly, and that Z magically breaks gauge symmetry??? this is what the final poster in the PF thread takes issue with, which is extremely reasonable). even so there are two things: 1) composite higgs models have been extensively searched for, and also Z’ bosons, so limited on them are much tighter now than 6 years ago. second, as nima notes in your linked talk, you can’t get this spin-1 thing to break electroweak symmetry by making it a composite of even more and more spin 1’s, in an infinite tower. (this is why he concludes the 125 GeV boson from 2012 must be spin 0, rightly) to explain that further, if the higgs is not composite, then the only way it can take a nonzero vev is if it’s spin 0 (vector particles can’t do it because of lorentz symmetry, this is a theorem of QFT [now you should understand my arguement].

now, back to your theory: this means any (finite number of) spin 1 bosons can’t break electroweak symmetry and thus they can’t give the W and Z a mass. composite highs models can dodge this, as explained in the last paragraph, but that’s not what your model is. 8 (total) spin 1 bosons just can’t do it and the W and Z’s would be massless in that case. if the higgs is fundamental (as opposed to composite) it must have spin 0 if we want massive Ws and Zs

[Anonymous No.10510178]

>>10510167
If it has spin-0 then why hasn't anyone at CERN published that result? It's been seven years now.

[Anonymous No.10510187]

>>10510178
it’s not easy to directly measure the spin of the higgs; in fact it’s ridiculously hard. but if you use your brain, then theory, as i’ve explained, renders the question trivial. the SM has overwhelming evidence in favor of it, so we follow that line of reasoning, and in that line of reasoning the higgs spin must be 0 without drastic changes. nima explains the required change would be something like the higgs being some composite state in an infinite tower of spin 1 bosons, but that it ridiculous. your theory, OTOH, is just apparently a slightly modified version of the SM, not nearly as crazy as the idea Nina says is too crazy; your theory is thus not crazy enough to be able to explain why Ws and Zs have mass. so it fails empirically.

[Anonymous No.10510195]

>>10510167
>the ralston paper looks quite clearly to be a composite higgs model
no.

[Anonymous No.10510207]

>>10510187
>it’s not easy to directly measure the spin of the higgs; in fact it’s ridiculously hard.

Given the mass at ~125GeV, this is a measurement that the LHC can make, no? Please say if LHC can or cannot make this measurement. My understanding is that it can.

[Anonymous No.10510225]

>>10510195
read the paper. well maybe you wouldn’t understand it but clearly he’s “making” a spin 0 from spin 1 Z’s, read around here:
>To make a scalar from three
field strengths

>Given the mass at ~125GeV, this is a measurement that the LHC can make, no? Please say if LHC can or cannot make this measurement. My understanding is that it can.
it can’t, at least _directly_. measuring the spin of a particle _directly_ is very tough when it has a lifetime so short that it decays before even passing through any layers of the detector. for example, do you know of any direct measurements of the top quark spin?

indirectly, however, we are testing whether the higgs is really the one Higgs et al proposed. like its yukawa couplings to all the SM particles. in a way the fact is that the W and Z have masses is an indirect confirmation of the Higgs mechanism, which requires a spin 0 higgs or else something ridiculous. your theory can’t explain W and Z masses so the whole argument is moot anyhow

[Anonymous No.10510231]

>>10510225
>which requires a spin 0 higgs or else something ridiculous.
so then you agree that spin-1 is not ruled out and you recant on your original proclamation?

>>10510225
>your theory can’t explain W and Z masses so the whole argument is moot anyhow
The standard model can't even explain why there is a W and a Z, or even why there are quark, leptons and photons. Is the standard model moot?

[Anonymous No.10510241]

>>10510231
>so then you agree that spin-1 is not ruled out and you recant on your original proclamation?
i explained that the higgs having spin-1 is ruled out except in very crazy scenarios that most people would discard out of hand (including nima). your theory is not one that qualifies as one of those scenarios.

>The standard model can't even explain why there is a W and a Z, or even why there are quark, leptons and photons.
well the fact that there is a massless photon plus one massive uncharged Z and the massive W+ and W- DOES follow from gauge symmetry plus the higgs mechanism. the lepton generations are a better example of something we just know experimentally but not theoretically. but honestly “why” questions are not always good questions. an analogously bad “why” question in physics is “why is the earth’s axis of rotation inclined with respect to its orbital axis at 23 degrees?” sometimes it just is that way and demanding an answer to every why question is silly

[Anonymous No.10510255]

>>10510241
>demanding an answer
I demand papers from CMS and Atlas that rule out those two amplitudes identified by Ralston and yet...
THEY NEVER MENTION THOSE MODEL INDEPENDENT AMPLITUDES

[Anonymous No.10510267]

>>10510255
ralston proposed Z’ bosons and a composite higgs. we looked for them and didn’t find them. also he suggests that his Z’ violates gauge symmetry, and that’s silly.

also, his theory in that 2013 paper (which means he did it in 2012 most likely, just during or before the higgs was discovered) 99% ignores electroweak symmetry breaking. it just proposes some ludicrous alternative explanation for the diphoton bump that indicated the higgs and led to the higgs discovery. his theory can’t explain W or Z masses either, without the craziness Nima talked about. considering the repeated confirmations of SM higgs couplings, higgs decays, etc. over the last 6 years, his theory is basically shit, since normal SM higgs decays/couplings have been confirmed in many many channels.

jon, you should go back to your RH threads. at least in math your shit doesn’t get ruled out quickly by nature

[Anonymous No.10510278]

>>10510267
>that’s silly.
What's silly is to give greater meaning to models than to Lorentz invariance

>can’t explain
You use this phrase a lot. What have you done to separate it from "has not yet explained"?

> your shit doesn’t get ruled out quickly by nature
You said spin-1 is ruled out by your notions of how it ought to be, not by nature

[Anonymous No.10510294]

>>10510278
Lorentz invariance is precisely what prevents spin-1 bosons from giving masses to the W and Z, as i already explained. the rest of your post is more sophistry so i will conclude my remarks, aside from one note: nothing you’ve said saves your theory from the fact that your spin-1 bosons can not explain W and Z bosons BECAUSE of lorentz symmetry. bye

[Anonymous No.10510305]

>>10510294
>tldr: while the price of tea in China remains below $5 the W and Z can't have mass
>as if there might not be some other factor, as yet unknown