"God Particle" May Be Five Distinct Particles

[Analog]

The "God particle" may actually be five distinct particles, evidence from a new atom-smashing experiment suggests.
Called the Higgs boson, the theoretical particle has been long sought by physicists who think it's responsible for all mass in the universe—hence the name God particle.

It's also one of the targets of experiments by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which began smashing subatomic particles together at half its maximum power in March.
According to the widely accepted standard model of physics, all particles acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson.
But some theories say that the Higgs boson is not one, but multiple, particles with similar masses but different electrical charges.
Now, researchers at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, say they have found more evidence for this multiple-particle theory.
In an experiment called DZero at the lab's Tevatron particle collider, scientists recently found that collisions of protons and antiprotons produced pairs of matter particles more often than pairs of antimatter particles.
The difference was tiny—less than one percent—but it can't be explained by a standard model that assumes the existence of a single Higgs boson, said study co-author Adam Martin, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab.
"It's a really small effect, but it's still much bigger than if you turn all the cranks with all the original rules in the standard model," Martin said.
"The standard model with just the one Higgs particle is too minimal to explain the DZero result."
The DZero results can, however, be explained if scientists assume the Higgs boson is actually five particles—an extension of the standard model called the two-Higgs doublet model.
"When we extend the standard model, we put in new particles and new interactions," said Martin, whose results were published recently on the physics-research website arXiv.org.
"These new interactions can even treat matter and antimatter differently and therefore lead to bigger effects in experiments."
Multiple God Particles "Quite Provocative"
If multiple Higgs bosons exist, they may interact with matter differently, which could in turn lead to new kinds of undiscovered physics beyond the standard model, scientists say.
"A lot of the schemes for extending the standard model include as a first step adding [more Higgs boson particles]," Martin said.
Chris Quigg is a theoretical physicist, also at Fermilab, but he was not involved in the study.
Though "quite provocative," the results are still preliminary, Quigg stressed.
"I know of nothing to make me explicitly doubt the result, but when something is so unexpected and yet so subtle it bears taking time and taking a deep breath," Quigg said. "It's important not to jump up and down too soon about this."
If Martin's team is correct and the Higgs boson is actually five different particles, then it should be detectable by the LHC in Switzerland. (See Large Hadron Collider pictures.)
"In our interpretation," study co-author Martin said, "these Higgses cannot be too heavy, so we should definitely see them during the LHC era."
David Evans, a physicist at the University of Birmingham and the head of the LHC’s ALICE project, added by email, "I personally think it is unlikely that we have five different Higgs particles.
"But if this was proved correct, it would make the LHC even more exciting."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...hadron-collider-lhc-higgs-boson-god-particle/

 

[ElFenix]

it'd be really funny if fermilab stole the hardon collider's thunder.

 

[Kadarin]

So all the religions have it entirely wrong and there are actually five gods?

 

[coloumb]

Awesome - I've always wanted a scientific explanation for the Force... ie: midichlorians.

Science is going to eventually explain everything about the known universe and prove that religion is nothing but a way to put the fear of god particle into people's minds.

 

[DrPizza]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

(Link to pdf of the paper)

 

[Regs]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

(Link to pdf of the paper)

Is that what smart people call calculus?

 

[Patranus]

And what makes up each of those 5 particles?

 

[destrekor]

Awesome - I've always wanted a scientific explanation for the Force... ie: midichlorians.

Science is going to eventually explain everything about the known universe and prove that religion is nothing but a way to put the fear of god particle into people's minds.

I think it's going to be impossible to explain away a false solution.

Science is going to continue providing more answers to the "How?" question, but I don't think there will ever be a scientific answer to the "Why?" question.

Does it matter? No, not at all; yet more people, however, place the Why as far more important than the How.
It all falls under the assumption that there is a rhyme and a reason for life existing, an ultimate reason we all exist and everything we see is the way it is.
Screw science, it tells us we are meaningless, unimportant products within a world devoid of purpose.

While that is almost entirely certain, many humans refuse to accept it. For some reason, some people feel it would take away everything from our lives.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And what makes up each of those 5 particles?

The Higgs boson is, theoretically, an elementary particle much like a quark or lepton so they don't consist of any smaller particles, if that's what you are asking. The variation of each Higgs 'flavor,' for lack of a better word, is based on their theoretical charge, color (much like quarks are assigned colors), and spin.

Honestly, the theory is highly speculative at this point and overlooks a much more important finding of the experiment; that particle physicists have observed significant symmetry breaking which helps to demonstrate why matter and anti-matter didn't completely annihilate each other after the big bang and why matter came to dominate the universe. iow, without symmetry breaking, we wouldn't be here. We are now finding proof of it, which is probably boring as hell to 99.99999% of people, but I think it's pretty exciting. ymmv.

 

[mjrpes3]

And what makes up each of those 5 particles?

It's particles all the way down...

 

[Proprioceptive]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

(Link to pdf of the paper)

Damnit... why'd you have to do that?? :\

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's particles all the way down...

 

[Miramonti]

The Higgs boson is, theoretically, an elementary particle much like a quark or lepton so they don't consist of any smaller particles, if that's what you are asking. The variation of each Higgs 'flavor,' for lack of a better word, is based on their theoretical charge, color (much like quarks are assigned colors), and spin.

Honestly, the theory is highly speculative at this point and overlooks a much more important finding of the experiment; that particle physicists have observed significant symmetry breaking which helps to demonstrate why matter and anti-matter didn't completely annihilate each other after the big bang and why matter came to dominate the universe. iow, without symmetry breaking, we wouldn't be here. We are now finding proof of it, which is probably boring as hell to 99.99999% of people, but I think it's pretty exciting. ymmv.

They are beginning to discover that anti-matter is actually the masculine particle of the universe simply practicing polygamy with matter. Men will be men.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

They are beginning to discover that anti-matter is actually the masculine particle of the universe simply practicing polygamy with matter. Men will be men.

What kind of masculine particle would bear to be called auntie-matter?

 

[Perknose]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

(Link to pdf of the paper)

Wow, started to read that, and I simply don't have the background for it, it was way over my head.

It's the same feeling I had some years back when I got my first (and only) subscription to Scientific American, and then realized, a couple of issues in, that far too many of the articles were beyond my ability to fully comprehend.

The article begins:

The anomalous dimuon charge asymmetry reported by the D0 Collaboration may be due to the
tree-level exchange of some spin-0 particles which mediate CP violation in Bs− ¯Bs meson mixing.
We show that for a range of couplings and masses, the heavy neutral states in a two Higgs doublet
model can generate a large charge asymmetry. This range is natural in “uplifted supersymmetry”,
and may enhance the B−! and Bs!µ+µ− decay rates. However, we point out that on general
grounds the reported central value of the charge asymmetry requires new physics not only in Bs−¯Bs
mixing but also in
B = 1 transitions or in Bd− ¯Bd mixing.

 

[Perknose]

The Higgs boson is, theoretically, an elementary particle much like a quark or lepton so they don't consist of any smaller particles, if that's what you are asking. The variation of each Higgs 'flavor,' for lack of a better word, is based on their theoretical charge, color (much like quarks are assigned colors), and spin.

Honestly, the theory is highly speculative at this point and overlooks a much more important finding of the experiment; that particle physicists have observed significant symmetry breaking which helps to demonstrate why matter and anti-matter didn't completely annihilate each other after the big bang and why matter came to dominate the universe. iow, without symmetry breaking, we wouldn't be here. We are now finding proof of it, which is probably boring as hell to 99.99999% of people, but I think it's pretty exciting. ymmv.

Thanks, TLC, for explaining that important finding in terms even I could understand. Much appreciated. :thumbsup:

 

[guyver01]

It's particles all the way down...

:thumbsup:

 

[SSSnail]

mediate CP violation in Bs

:awe:

 

[silverpig]

Wow, started to read that, and I simply don't have the background for it, it was way over my head.

It's the same feeling I had some years back when I got my first (and only) subscription to Scientific American, and then realized, a couple of issues in, that far too many of the articles were beyond my ability to fully comprehend.

The article begins:

Scientific American isn't even a journal... they're all layman's articles.

Nature is the next step up from that. It's a real journal, but the research published in it has to be simple and interesting.

This paper looks formatted for Physical Review Letters. It's top notch and the papers published there are VERY dense. Even if you do similar research to what is in the paper it can take 3-4 readings to fully grasp what they did.

 

[Miramonti]

What kind of masculine particle would bear to be called auntie-matter?

To be fair, it does get it does appear to get its @ss kicked by matter...

but in either case, good one.

 

[irishScott]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

(Link to pdf of the paper)

*Attempts to read Introduction*
/Brain Asplodes

 

[Locut0s]

The "God particle" may actually be five distinct particles, evidence from a new atom-smashing experiment suggests.
Called the Higgs boson, the theoretical particle has been long sought by physicists who think it's responsible for all mass in the universe—hence the name God particle.

It's also one of the targets of experiments by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which began smashing subatomic particles together at half its maximum power in March.
According to the widely accepted standard model of physics, all particles acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson.
But some theories say that the Higgs boson is not one, but multiple, particles with similar masses but different electrical charges.
Now, researchers at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, say they have found more evidence for this multiple-particle theory.
In an experiment called DZero at the lab's Tevatron particle collider, scientists recently found that collisions of protons and antiprotons produced pairs of matter particles more often than pairs of antimatter particles.
The difference was tiny—less than one percent—but it can't be explained by a standard model that assumes the existence of a single Higgs boson, said study co-author Adam Martin, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab.
"It's a really small effect, but it's still much bigger than if you turn all the cranks with all the original rules in the standard model," Martin said.
"The standard model with just the one Higgs particle is too minimal to explain the DZero result."
The DZero results can, however, be explained if scientists assume the Higgs boson is actually five particles—an extension of the standard model called the two-Higgs doublet model.
"When we extend the standard model, we put in new particles and new interactions," said Martin, whose results were published recently on the physics-research website arXiv.org.
"These new interactions can even treat matter and antimatter differently and therefore lead to bigger effects in experiments."
Multiple God Particles "Quite Provocative"
If multiple Higgs bosons exist, they may interact with matter differently, which could in turn lead to new kinds of undiscovered physics beyond the standard model, scientists say.
"A lot of the schemes for extending the standard model include as a first step adding [more Higgs boson particles]," Martin said.
Chris Quigg is a theoretical physicist, also at Fermilab, but he was not involved in the study.
Though "quite provocative," the results are still preliminary, Quigg stressed.
"I know of nothing to make me explicitly doubt the result, but when something is so unexpected and yet so subtle it bears taking time and taking a deep breath," Quigg said. "It's important not to jump up and down too soon about this."
If Martin's team is correct and the Higgs boson is actually five different particles, then it should be detectable by the LHC in Switzerland. (See Large Hadron Collider pictures.)
"In our interpretation," study co-author Martin said, "these Higgses cannot be too heavy, so we should definitely see them during the LHC era."
David Evans, a physicist at the University of Birmingham and the head of the LHC’s ALICE project, added by email, "I personally think it is unlikely that we have five different Higgs particles.
"But if this was proved correct, it would make the LHC even more exciting."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...hadron-collider-lhc-higgs-boson-god-particle/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

(Link to pdf of the paper)

Thanks guys. LOVE to read about particle physics, right up my alley! And thanks for the offical paper Dr.P though that's a bit over my head (though I can get the jist of it).

 

[guyver01]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.4238

The anomalous dimuon charge asymmetry reported by the D0 Collaboration may be due to the tree-level exchange of some spin-0 particles which mediate CP violation in Bs− ¯Bs meson mixing.

We show that for a range of couplings and masses, the heavy neutral states in a two Higgs doublet model can generate a large charge asymmetry. This range is natural in “uplifted supersymmetry”, and may enhance the B−! and Bs!μ+μ− decay rates. However, we point out that on general grounds the reported central value of the charge asymmetry requires new physics not only in Bs−¯Bs mixing but also in
B = 1 transitions or in Bd− ¯Bd mixing.

​

​

​

:hmm:
​

 

[Locut0s]

Wow, started to read that, and I simply don't have the background for it, it was way over my head.

It's the same feeling I had some years back when I got my first (and only) subscription to Scientific American, and then realized, a couple of issues in, that far too many of the articles were beyond my ability to fully comprehend.

The article begins:

Oh that's much more difficult than SciAM. I subscribe to SciAM and read every single issue cover to cover without any problem understanding almost any of it. SciAm doesn't publish any actual papers their articles are written much more for the lay science geek/nut. The link there is to the actual scientific paper. I can only get the jist of it or a bit more/less from reading that, most of it is greek.

 

[Perknose]

Oh that's much more difficult than SciAM. I subscribe to SciAM and read every single issue cover to cover without any problem understanding almost any of it. SciAm doesn't publish any actual papers their articles are written much more for the lay science geek/nut. The link there is to the actual scientific paper. I can only get the jist of it or a bit more/less from reading that, most of it is greek.

Understood that it's not a journal, that's why I subscribed. Many articles were fine, but there were always others that, for me, were a bit above my head and for which I simply lacked the background to easily digest.

But you're in my wheelhouse when you type "jist" for "gist."