New groundbreaking research may expose new aspects of the universe

Sep 04, 2013
Matin Mojaza. Credit: Matin Mojaza/SDU

No one knows for sure, but it is not unlikely that the universe is constructed in a completely different way than the usual theories and models of today predict. The most widely used model today cannot explain everything in the universe, and therefore there is a need to explore the parts of nature which the model cannot explain. This research field is called new physics, and it turns our understanding of the universe upside down. New research now makes the search for new physics easier.

"New is about searching for unknown not known from the current of the . Such phenomena are inherently very difficult to detect," explains PhD student Matin Mojaza from CP3-Origins.

Together with colleagues Stanley J. Brodsky from Stanford University in the U.S. and Xing-Gang Wu from Chongqing University in China, Mojaza has now succeeding in creating a new method that can make it easier to search for in the universe. The method is a so called scalesetting procedure, and it fills out some empty, but very important, holes in the theories, models and simulations, which form the basis for all particle physics today.

"With this method we can eliminate much of the uncertainty in theories and models of today," says Matin Mojaza.

Many theories and models in today has the problem that they, together with their predictions, provide some that scientists do not know how to set.

"Physicists do not know what values they should give these parameters. For example, when we study the Standard Model and see these unknown parameters, we cannot know whether they should be interpreted as conditions that support or oppose to the Standard Model – this makes it quite difficult to study the Standard Model accurately enough to investigate its value", explains Matin Mojaza.

With the new approach researchers can now completely clean their models for the unknown parameters and thus become better at assessing whether a theory or a model holds water.

The standard model has for the last app. 50 years been the prevailing theory of how the universe is constructed. According to this theory, 16 (17 if we include the Higgs particle) subatomic form the basis for everything in the universe. But the Standard Model is starting to fall short, so it is now necessary to look for new physics in the universe. One of the Standard Model's major problems is that it cannot explain gravity, and another is that it cannot explain the existence of dark matter, believed to make up app. 25 percent of all matter in the universe. In addition, the properties of the newly discovered Higgs particle, as described in the , is incompatible with a stable universe.

"A part of the Standard Model is the theory of quantum chromodynamics, and this is one of the first things, we want to review with our new method, so that we can clean it from the uncertainties," explains Matin Mojaza.

The theory of quantum chromodynamics predicts how quarks (such as protons and neutrons) and gluons (particles that keeps quarks in place inside the protons and neutrons) interact.

Matin and his Chinese and American colleagues now estimate that there may be a basis for reviewing many scientific calculations to clean the results from uncertainties and thus obtain a more reliable picture of whether the results support or contradict current models and theories.

"Maybe we find new indications of new physics, which we would not have exposed if we had not had this new method", says Matin Mojaza.

He believes that the Standard Model needs to be extended so that it can explain the Higgs particle, dark matter and gravity. One possibility in this regard is to examine the so-called technicolor theory, and another is the theory of supersymmetry. According to the supersymmetry theory, each particle has a partner somewhere in the universe - these have not yet been found though. According to the technicolor theory there is a special techni-force that binds so-called techni-quarks, which can form other particles - perhaps this is how the Higgs particle is formed. This could explain the problems with the current model of the Higgs particle.

Also Rolf-Dieter Heuer, director of CERN in Switzerland, where the famous 27 km long particle accelerator, the LHC, is situated, believes that the search for new physics is important. According to him, the Standard Model cannot be the ultimate , and it is only capable of describing about 35 percent of the universe. Like CP3-Origins, also CERN has put focus on weeding out old theories and search for new physics – this happening in 2015, when the accelerator starts up again.

CP3-Origins is a center at University of Southern Denmark, researching in the physics beyond the Standard Model. The center focuses on topics such as , the formation of matter in the universe, and the mystery of what the Higgs particle might consist of.

Explore further: Nuclear spins control current in plastic LED: Step toward quantum computing, spintronic memory, better displays

More information: A Systematic All-Orders Method to Eliminate Renormalization-Scale and Scheme Ambiguities in PQCD, Physical Review Letters, vol 110, issue 19. Authors: Matin Mojaza, Stanley J. Brodsky, Xing-Gang Wu.
arxiv.org/abs/1304.4631

Related Stories

What's next for particle physicists, post-Higgs?

Jul 17, 2013

In March of last year, scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, identified the Higgs boson, the last elusive particle in the Standard Model ...

CERN experiments put Standard Model to stringent test

Jul 19, 2013

New results to be presented at the EPS-HEP conference in Stockholm, Sweden, this afternoon have put the Standard Model of particle physics to one of its most stringent tests to date. The CMS and LHCb experiments at CERN's ...

12 matter particles suffice in nature

Dec 13, 2012

How many matter particles exist in nature? Particle physicists have been dealing with this question for a long time. The 12 matter particles contained in the standard model of particle physics? Or are there ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 26

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
1.5 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
Very fascinating. I would be surprised if we can even explain today, with our current models, 35% of the universe. Maybe it should be something like 1%. Or less. That's what makes science so exciting.
MikeBowler
3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2013
One possibility in this regard is to examine the so-called technicolor theory, and another is the theory of supersymmetry.
That's nice, but both theories were http://www.scienc...-119422. This guy probably started his dissertation too soon.

in neither of those is Technicolor mentioned and in the second they only say that the results dealt major blows to supersymmetry, that's not disproving it
shavera
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2013
... in the second they only say that the results dealt major blows to supersymmetry, that's not disproving it


Exactly. Remember the run up to the first Higgs results at the LHC? We kept closing mass windows everywhere, and some people were freaking out/revelling in the thought we just wouldn't find a Higgs at all. Closing windows is a great opportunity in physics as it helps us narrow our search to what might be true.
no fate
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
New physics isn't required, just proper application of what we know. For example: Particle physics dictates that a filament of high temp hydrogen between 2 galaxies requires an equation to compute the amount of DM and the other effects present to explain how this filament exists. Experience says that a concentration of gravity as great as earth mass has no effect on ionized hydrogen but magnetic flux can accomplish the observations, based on a given tesla of flux over the distance travelled. Overthinking is just as detrimental to science as not thinking enough. The fact that we can't measure the flux means we can't confirm it is there, any more than we can confirm a concentration of DM particles is there. Experiments demonstrate how to make ions behave this way and gravity is never involved (at earth mass). If the road from problem to solution is straight there is no point in searching for an alternate route, until you see someone fly over you. That's new physics.
NikFromNYC
2.9 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2013
This article doesn't actually say anything. It just sprinkles a few contemporary topics into generic blather.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2013
The standard model is obviously insufficient to describe the universe, but that also obviously doesn't make it useful.

"A model need not be what a philosopher would seek as the 'Truth,' so long as it makes good predictions." - Rene Descartes (paraphrase).

The point is it all depends upon what you are trying to do with your model, and how much margin of error you can afford to have.

There are quite a few things which are at the very least odd, if not totally wrong about the standard model, such as how particle collisions produce other particles with masses higher than the original particle's mass. Though this "mass" may come from the kinetic energy in an accelerator, it is still somewhat silly.

Techni-quarks are proposed to explain Dark Matter, but recent studies of MOND, even reported on this same site, show that Dark Matter is not necessary.

Additionally, Dark Matter is not actually scientific, because we cannot use the conjecture of Dark Matter to make predictions for testing.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
"The most widely used model today cannot explain everything in the universe…..One of the Standard Model's major problems is that it cannot explain gravity, and another is that it cannot explain the existence of dark matter, believed to make up app. 25 percent of all matter in the universe."

Incorrect!

Too many scientists still 'assume' that aether doesn't exist. With only half the experimental set of data available, too many 'assumptions' are still being made today. That is not a true scientific method.

Just one simple experiment in our earth orbit, may solve this dilemma once and for all. And if the experimental results come back negative, then, we should start looking at the "Alternative" Science Models.

For more details on how the Standard Model 'may' actually explain gravity, dark energy, and dark matter, check out:

https://www.faceb...59787252
Doc Brown
Sep 04, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2013
Lee Smolin wrote on point The Trouble with Physics and Time Reborn. The logic started with the move against Plato, Karl Popper and most recently Taleb and Mandelbrot. We are all waiting for the incorporation of the Higgs field and boson.

I recommend to all John Baez' crackpottery index.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2013
"The theory of quantum chromodynamics predicts how quarks (such as protons and neutrons) and gluons (particles that keeps quarks in place inside the protons and neutrons) interact."

So the author believes that protons and neutrons are quarks. Interesting.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
Dear Doc,

It's all good . After building a time machine, I went back in time to catch up with you. After taking you into the Future to see all the wonderful stuff that has come out from this discovery, you were only too happy to sign over the full rights you had, to me. I have the paperwork here now.

Just a note for the Future. As much as you may think the 'Zrong' sea creatures from Europa look really cute and cuddly, please DO NOT ever hand feed them. Especially if you want to keep your little pinky.

Cheers
Koley

PS: I still owe you a night out at 'Club Galactica' too. It was a great night! :D
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2013
Closing windows is a great opportunity in physics as it helps us narrow our search to what might be true
This is just another "diplomatic" (actually hypocritical) term for the lack of quantitative prediction of theory. Such a theory cannot be falsified with experiments, so it doesn't belong into science.


Nesmysl... how about aether monsieur Franklin? Where can we test it? Enough of those swirling water surface insects shaving foam bubbles analogies, but we have yet to see any of the real stuff, don't we?

There are many reasons to assume string theory has validity, much unlike AWT.

Supersymmetry (which is not even a unique requirement for string-theory to exist) thus far has not been proven or disproven, aether has been.
main_h_don_5
1 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2013
I agree with Mr. AntonKole

atechplanet.com
rkolter
3 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2013
I gave this a 3/5 not because of the content but because of the jarring typographical and basic english errors that should have been caught in editing. The information is interesting, but the article reads like the first draft of a 12th grade science paper.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2013
Hmmm. Was it my example?

I meant no knock on particle physics by it. Nuclear physicists, anyone who deals with science of the atom, are among the most intelligent people on earth and we wouldn't know what we know today without these people. The fact that they can construct a working mathematical model to explain how DM can form the structure I alluded to indicates theoretical and mathematical abilities beyond anything I am capable of.

I used that example to illustrate that it just wasn't necessary to explain the observation in this way. The Lagrangian for this system with magnetism as a conservative force is simpler than the Hamiltonian and is consistent with low density ion transport in a vector field.

If it was because used Tesla instead of Weber, I like him more.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2013
So they have a new method.

But that doesn't merit the erroneous criticism of the SM, that it doesn't incorporate all the physics we know exist. As an effective field theory it isn't supposed to predict higher energies, such as dark matter or gravity.

If anything, it is likely doing its job too well, since people have started to question its naturalness on the grounds that it seems to be extendable to higher energies. Indeed, if it doesn't build on naturalness it is instead of an effective field theory something of an isolated theory. Which means it not only isn't expected to predict new phenomena at higher energies, it is _unable_ to.

Getting back to the method improvement, pity it is mostly on technicolor, which LHC has recently rejected AFAIU, and on colors, since recent LHC results seems to make the new physics if any all about the electroweak sector instead. (See the SEARCH 2013 workshop web material.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2013
@verkle: The inflationary standard models predicts 100 % of the universe content. That isn't the problem here, we want to predict properties of the new components as well as the symmetry breaking of matter (which is not in the SM) and the neutrino masses (which are not in the SM).

@MB: Don't feed the anti-science trolls.

Speaking of science, the blow to supersymmetry is against obvious ways it should be natural, and lend its naturalness to SM. It can still be valid despite all that, latest at the planck scale.

@DH: Philosophy is inherently anti-science, as it is unfactual story telling. The ones who barks loudest wins. Plato is among the worst.

Of those mentioned I would rate Popper though, since he gave some ideas on how to model how testability (hypothesis testing) plays out between models in competition, and could be part of what is needed to predict why bayesian methods are insufficient in practice. Mandelbroth made math FWIW.
Morelli
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
Thank Phys.org and commentators here as Franklins , Teech2 in fate , Lurker2358 , AntonKole , Torbjorn , etc. I was amazed with the surprising level of intelligence and honesty in the comments here that I have never seen elsewhere . I am a layman in Physics and I'm here because I need help from open minds as these commentators for a big existential problem I'm facing . I'm just a naturalist philosopher and as such had to live isolated in the Amazon jungle. I became obsessed in finding answers to our existence here and now as humans beings and answers to the existence of this world that produced this biosphere chaotic and wild. Such chaos seemed an effect of degeneration of the mechanistic order I feel when observing the solar system, but, this order vanishes again when I watch the chaos of stars scattered randomly in the galaxy. However , the very existence of humans and their civilizations with their built environments resemble a new order flow that raised from this chaotic biosphere. This forced me to seek more information on Academic Cosmology and realize that it is just being studied by physics and theories developed only by logic Mathematics. These fields and me, as a human observer, can't grasp that where it seems chaos, there are physical vital forces at action.

This leads me to suppose that Science are following a path that can not be correct for a Theory of Everything , because the outcome of world history we see here , the last product of its evolution , is the human being , a system that can not be limited to the field of study of Physics and can not be translated by the language of Mathematics . The human body was made by the Universe, so, the Universe itself must have the properties of life as its total configuration. The human body is made with a bone structure that can be explained by Physics , more the "soft" structure that can be explained by Biology , and now, more its super - mental structure that will be perhaps explained by Neurology. Now, in my humble layman's rationality, I think that the universe can only be explained by the sum, at least, of these three areas of study . The life and self - consciousness must have had its principles , manifested or not , since the Big Bang , and these principles must have interfered with the evolution of the universe , down to the level of their physical skeleton, and influencing it , as well as the soft part of the human body , the DNA . etc. . descended to the level of the skeletons of Cretaceous to alter them and produce skeletons of later forms.

Mathematics can be applied to biological systems like Cretaceous to unveil their exo-skeletons, however will never detect and explain its soft interior. However , an effort of mathematical thinking about what you get from exo-skeletons can leap over the soft interior , ignoring him, and resurface in front making correct predictions about the endo-skeletons of mammals. This is the value of Mathematics . Moreover , when I tried to calculate the History of the Universe from the Big Bang until the human brain as a Cartesian graph with time and space coordinates , and in the midst rolling the first system known as atom, the final figure showed that evolution is curved and non-linear. Like any long curved line can be seen as the sum of small straight lines changing direction , Mathematics takes in straight stretches but does not catch the general curve . From which must emerges a Theory of Everything .
I tried to apply what I know of the current knowledge of the biology and neurology on what I know of physics regarding academic Cosmological Theory . As a final result got a picture I call " theory " according to the Greek definition of the word and not according to the scientific definition of the word . What this picture suggests as more evident is that natural systems, such as atoms, stellar , galactic , have all vital properties that we see in human bodies , but the academic models of these systems have not found these properties. It follows therefore that physicists should make great effort to slow down their Physicist thinking and mathematical jumps back to the beginnings of biology , neurology , learning these subjects , if they really want to understand the universe and arrive at a theory of everything . If anybody has interested , my theory is called "The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life Cycles " , just google it and see the website with the theoretical models . Any criticism would be welcome as I'm not selling a worldview, I am seeking the truth, simply, at my rough salvage conditions, and here I will return to discuss our different models . Again , grateful for yours valuable informations and brilliant thoughts.
JIMBO
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2013
We shouldn't have to search for new physics; IT should search Us out, by dropping a 10 Kg anomaly right in our experimental lap. The only known such anomalies weigh grams. The obsession w/`naturalness' has only been a detour down the dead-end alley of human aesthetics, w/hypothetical potholes like SUSY, large extra dimensions, mini-black holes, axions, sterile neutrinos, dark matter, etc.
Fortunately the wheels are still on the std. model jalopy, & it runs fine. Solid evidence for the multiverse, cyclic universe, faster than light communication, matter teleportation, or time travel still awaits, & will supply the shot in the arm for new physics, solidly grounded by measurement.
PacRim Jim
1 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2013
"universe" --> "observable universe"
arenal_cantueso
1 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2013
I get the feeling your all barking up the wrong tree. When you have to look for new ways to fit your universe together then you may have been biulding your theories on an unstable foundation. Try looking at plausable reasons for gravity such as mass just gets in its way, causing a disturbance, very simple and doesn't need a lot of maths but answers most of the questions. Could dark matter be the background field that causes the effect of gravity and is it made up of a Boson type of energy, there you go, three birds with one stone, you can all go home now and rest your brains. Imagine how it must have been to be told the Earth wasn't flat and the Sun doesn't go round the Earth. Just a thought, I dont want to upset anyone.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2013
I get the feeling your all barking up the wrong tree. When you have to look for new ways to fit your universe together then you may have been biulding your theories on an unstable foundation. Try looking at plausable reasons for gravity such as mass just gets in its way, causing a disturbance, very simple and doesn't need a lot of maths but answers most of the questions. Could dark matter be the background field that causes the effect of gravity and is it made up of a Boson type of energy, there you go, three birds with one stone, you can all go home now and rest your brains. Imagine how it must have been to be told the Earth wasn't flat and the Sun doesn't go round the Earth. Just a thought, I dont want to upset anyone.


I like your new outfit,, what's the occasion? Will ya still be bringing the pretty pictures and stuffs.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2013
from Torbjorn_Larsson_OM to Doug_Huffman:

Philosophy is inherently anti-science, as it is unfactual story telling. The ones who barks loudest wins. Plato is among the worst.


Careful not to be so dogmatic and dismissive. All the Axioms in mathematics and all the Postulates and hypotheses have their genesis in Philosophical arguments and perspectives which are then treated as 'agreed starting premises' for what follows in the scientific logic/method and the mathematical logic/modeling. One is not born a scientist or a mathematician. Neither is science or maths a spontaneous thing, but something built on and springing from the earliest stage of Philosophical cogitations which result in the 'starting premises' which science and maths postulates and axioms represent. Everything is connected. Don't be so dismissive of the 'starting points' of all human thought and endeavor, yes? :)

PS: Ten seconds! This proves it! "toot" and those other "1" raters are BOT responses. Nasty mind.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2013
One is not born a scientist or a mathematician. Neither is science or maths a spontaneous thing, but something built on and springing from the earliest stage of Philosophical cogitations which result in the 'starting premises' which science and maths postulates and axioms represent. Everything is connected. Don't be so dismissive of the 'starting points' of all human thought and endeavor, yes? :)


Hey Reality man, there ya are and looking as yourself does sure. How have ya been and where have ya been?

The person ya were addressing there is probably the best read person on this forum bar none when it comes to both science and philosophy. His knowledge is encyclopedic and I suspect that he may possess an eidetic memory if there is such a thing. I'd hate for ya to get hurt playing with the big boys.

Anyhoo, I hope ya have been well, and are making progress in your great project.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2013
from RealityCheck:
One is not born a scientist or a mathematician. Neither is science or maths a spontaneous thing, but something built on and springing from the earliest stage of Philosophical cogitations which result in the 'starting premises' which science and maths postulates and axioms represent. Everything is connected. Don't be so dismissive of the 'starting points' of all human thought and endeavor, yes? :)
From Q-Star:
How have ya been and where have ya been?

The person ya were addressing there is probably the best read person on this forum bar none when it comes to both science and philosophy.

Anyhoo, I hope ya have been well, and are making progress in your great project.


"Best read" does not automatically make one "Inerrant".

Very well, thanks. Been very busy with life, family and work.

ToE going great, thanks.

You have improved. Good to see. Trust you are well as can be, Q-Star. Bye for now. :)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2013
PS: Ten seconds! This proves it! "toot" and those other "1" raters are BOT responses.


@RealityCheck
i am not so sure that they are "bots"... what i personally think is that they are puppets of users that have multiple log-ins, and that they may either pay or support others (children maybe?) to log in to these user names and go through the comments downvoting users. i suspect they downvote based upon a list (perhaps because they are making arguments that cannot be refuted by them?).
Once you get on the users bad side, they utilise toot and open (for instance, two user names that downvote almost everything) and you get the down vote... maybe even they keep these computers always on (like a kids PC) so that they can work whenever they have the chance. they seem to be available at odd hours sometimes. I've been tracking a few of them...

just speculation, mind you. but notice they NEVER comment. puppets definitely.
brownie81
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2013
Hi everyone. I have been thinking for the past 15 years that a multi univervse must be. First time posting or trying to express the thought on paper so bear with me. It seems to me that other universes could explain many discrepancies with the current theories. First is the origin of our universe. Could be collisions with parts of expanding universes collecting to create a big bang scenario. This would cause ripples as objects would be surrounding the area as the explosion happened. Is there a threshold for blackholes? Also it could explain expantion as the many other universes and objects would have a gravitational pull on everything. The new planck discoveries may support this. Just some thoughts. Please respond if you have any insight to the matter. Thank you. Ryan