Now it is more likely than ever: There must be particles out there smaller than Higgs particle

Mar 21, 2014

Nobody has seen them yet; particles that are smaller than the Higgs particle. However theories predict their existence, and now the most important of these theories have been critically tested. The result: The existence of the yet unseen particles is now more likely than ever.

"I gave them a very critical review", says Thomas Ryttov, particle physicist and associate professor at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP ³ - Origins), University of Southern Denmark.

He refers to the theories, that over the last app. five years have been put forward for the existence of in the universe that are smaller than the Higgs particle. Having given these theories a critical review, he finds no new signs of weakness in them:

"There seems to be no new or unseen weaknessess. My review just leaves them just stronger", he says.

Over the past 5-8 years, a handful of theories have drawn particular interest from . They all predict that there must be one or more types of particles that are even smaller than the Higgs particle. So far it has however not been possible to prove their existence.

"Here at CP ³ - Origins, we are interested in the pursuit of such as yet unknown particles. We know that there must be a force that binds them together so that they together can create something bigger than themselves, something composite; a Higgs particle. It must happen similarly to quarks binding together to form protons and neutrons. If we can understand this force, we can explain and predict new physical phenomena like new particles", explains Thomas Ryttov.

This force is called the . It cannot be compared to gravity, which also has the ability to keep two objects close together. The effect of gravity depends on the fact that the two objects are not too far from each other, and the closer they are to each other the stronger the force of gravity will be. The strong force has the opposite effect: It is weak when two particles are close to each other, but strong - extremely strong - if you try to pull them apart.

Thomas Ryttov and his colleagues at CP ³ - Origins believe that the so-called techni-quarks can be the yet unseen particles, smaller than the Higgs particle. If techni-quarks exist they will form a natural exention of the Standard Model which includes three generations of quarks and leptons. These particles together with the fundamental forces form the basis of the observed matter in the universe.

Explore further: Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

More information: Infrared fixed points in the minimal momentum subtraction scheme, Phys. Rev. D 89, 056001, 5 March 2014.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

Dec 12, 2013

Maybe it happens tomorrow. Maybe in a billion years. Physicists have long predicted that the universe may one day collapse, and that everything in it will be compressed to a small hard ball. New calculations ...

Quark matter's connection with the Higgs

Aug 27, 2012

(Phys.org)—You may think you've heard everything you need to know about the origin of mass. After all, scientists colliding protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe recently presented stunning ...

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Cold Atom Laboratory creates atomic dance

10 hours ago

Like dancers in a chorus line, atoms' movements become synchronized when lowered to extremely cold temperatures. To study this bizarre phenomenon, called a Bose-Einstein condensate, researchers need to cool ...

Scientists create possible precursor to life

17 hours ago

How did life originate? And can scientists create life? These questions not only occupy the minds of scientists interested in the origin of life, but also researchers working with technology of the future. ...

Superconducting circuits, simplified

Oct 17, 2014

Computer chips with superconducting circuits—circuits with zero electrical resistance—would be 50 to 100 times as energy-efficient as today's chips, an attractive trait given the increasing power consumption ...

User comments : 22

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Dr_toad
Mar 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hemitite
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
I tried making sense out of this mess by reading the Phys Rev article, which is way above my pay grade as I am not schooled in supersymmetry Physics, but found no explicit references to any particles large or small.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
Another worthless stub. No information about "smaller" particles or the methodology used to eliminate or strengthen unmentioned alternatives.

Why is this here?
@Dr_Toad
perhaps it is here to piggy-back on the BICEP2 announcement? IDK
the reference material is here:
Infrared fixed points in the minimal momentum subtraction scheme, Phys. Rev. D 89, 056001
http://journals.a...9.056001

but it is pay-walled so unless you want to fork out some dough, you still cant see much other than the abstract.

Addendum: I hate this new winOS : Hemitite just showed up but not till after I posted!
@Hemitite
did you read more than the abstract?
did you have access to the full paper?
Jizby
Mar 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2014
I see, Stumpy is getting a little bit nervous from every new indicia of AWT. He already invested so much of time into its dismissal....;-) BTW Article preprint is http://xxx.tau.ac...11.0848.

@jizface/zephir
Thanks for the paper

what makes you think I am getting nervous? especially about a philosophy that was debunked decades ago?
and how is this "indicia of aw" PHILOSOPHY?

it is only "indicia" in YOUR mind, but then again, so is water, water bugs, plasma discharges, gravity, social and mental disorders, prof that bee's can learn, and anything else that is posted here to Phys.org

and until you can provide empirical data supporting you philosophy, it is not even qualified to hold the term hypothesis, therefore it is every bit as empirical as the "belief in fairies, angels, unicorn feces or invisible friends"

thanks for sharing
Jizby
Mar 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
"no new signs of weakness".

So what about the old signs? Sure, phlogistons had no new signs of weakness either, until the rubber hit the road, i.e. testing was made. Where is their evidence?

There is nothing that begs for a composite Higgs, except wishes for new physics/solving dark matter.

I don't think this has any connection with the BICEP2 release, but coincidentally the strength of the gravitons as well as the behavior of the inflatons from Planck data supports Linde's simplest chaotic inflation theory (a quadratic potential). Tegmark is already on record for pointing that out in a post in Scientific American.

And chaotic inflation demands trans-Planckian field strengths. Which is not explicitly forbidden, still makes theorists uncomfortable, but has now a quantum gravity solution in the form of string theory axions ("axion monodromy"). And axions are then dark matter candidates, as well as originally suggested as a solution for predicting matter/antimatter symmetry breaking.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Nit: The press release is clumsily worded. These are suggestions for _new_ particles. Higgs is almost the heaviest elementary particle known, only beaten by the top AFAIK.
chardo137
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Here is the link to the paper on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0848
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
From the arxiv:
We analyze the behavior of several renormalization group functions at infrared fixed points for SU(N) gauge theories with fermions in the fundamental and two-indexed representations. This includes the beta function of the gauge coupling, the anomalous dimension of the gauge parameter and the anomalous dimension of the mass. The scheme in which the analysis is performed is the minimal momentum subtraction scheme through third loop order. Due to the fact that scheme dependence is inevitable once the perturbation theory is truncated we compare to previous identical studies done in the minimal subtraction scheme and the modified regularization invariant scheme. We find only mild to moderate scheme dependence.


"Official Notice": The 'silly self-justification season' is 'open', so 'publish or perish' offerings that ultimately boil down to assumptive/math BS 'interpretations/treatments' coat-tailing on prior assumptive/math BS 'work'. Math-turbation addiction rife! :)
DingleBerry
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2014
A Higgs particle is also a Higgs boson which are elementary particles like photons, gravitons, inflatons, etc.. I could understand if the article was talking about a Higgs field and it containing smaller components, but not a Higgs boson. Now if the article is saying there are other bosons smaller than the Higgs, then yes. But a Higgs boson made of smaller composite bosonic particles, no way man.
barakn
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
'Jizby' is the most disgusting sockpuppet name Zephir has come up with yet.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Your should know first, what this philosophy is actually about and how it differs from older, debunked ones
@jiz Zeph
well, given that you have never provided ANY empirical evidence to support it, and I got tired of wading through your pseudoscience links last year when that was all that you provided... then perhaps I DONT know all about your philosophy... BUT that is YOUR fault, as you NEVER provide empirical data for support proving that it is MORE MODERN than the oldest historical version I read
some book of Oliver Lodge
specify which- I've read from BOTH Oliver Lodge and Oliver W.F. Lodge (required in school)
Don't overestimate your intelligence
I never do, but apparently you do. is that why you never provide empirical data? Because you KNOW it will be debunked immediately?
and how does his refer to the above Topic?
be specific, ESPECIALLY how it supports your aw philosophy too. this will be interesting to see
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2014
@CptS.

Please see my post to you in: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

Goodbye.
Jizby
Mar 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2014
In AWT all particles are density fluctuations of another particle field, recursively.

Ahh...the old "It's god, because it's god" argument. Got it.
Jizby
Mar 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
I see that ubavontuba gave me a 1. That must mean ubavontuba likes Jizby.
Jizby
Mar 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2014
Please see my post to you in
@RC
saw your post, answered. |
no need to troll here too
In AWT all particles are density fluctuations of another particle field, recursively. This doesn't mean, that the lower level particles must be directly observable
@Jizz Zephir
this is all fine and dandy but offers no empirical evidence to tie it in with AW/DAW philosophy. In fact, given that AW/DAW philosophy has no empirical data in which to support it, NOR does it have any functional established maths/data in which you could make predictions to test it, it is absolutely worthless.
Therefore this is NOT an answer to ANY of my questions:
show how this ties in with AW/DAW;
show something that can be used to make predictions BEFORE the fact so DAW/AW can be tested;
show how this ties to Lodge (pick one, I dont care at this point)

AND SKIP the pseudoscience links.. I will tell you ahead of time, I will NOT wade through that again... it was verbose and nonsensical/irrational
TimLong2001
3 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
The question is, why did the BB theorists circle the wagons instead of dealing with the findings from the deep space observatory at Apache Ridge in New Mexico showing mature "granny" galaxies at the greatest distances, impossible for a universal age of 13.7 billion years?
bwmassen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2014
I need some clarification. The Higgs has more energy than many other particles (~126GeV/c^2 for Higgs vs. ~1GeV/c^2 for a proton). So the Higgs is more massive, is it just A LOT more dense making it smaller? Most of the particles studied in particle accelerators have 100+ GeV/c^2 energies. Are they all just much more dense making them smaller but heavier?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
@CaptS.
@RC
saw your post, answered.
no need to troll here too


So bringing your attention to what you may have missed is now trolling? What about your trolling even after you were made aware of the background truth/info? Is that not trolling from emotional attachment to personal rather than objective points? You now know the facts. So stop pretending that I was the one trolling when YOU made it quite clear and explicit that YOU wanted to make it PERSONAL, even though all it was from me was an opinion/caution to do your own due diligence before believing/trusting anything in that latest publish or perish' offering from mainstream 'team' that started you off on this emotional trolling binge. Calm down and stop making these lingering innuendos. Leave that to the real practiced liars you are caught up with and impressed by lately. They do it much better than you. Good luck. They are using and manipulating you. It's obvious to anyone looking in from outside. No hard feelings. :)
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bwmassen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2014
Would it not be possible to create an undiscovered particle that is larger than previously discovered particles? Just because they are heavier, must they be smaller?
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
So bringing your attention to what you may have missed is now trolling?
@rc
it is when its already been addressed, yes
What about your trolling even after you were made aware of the background truth/info
like your TROLL post about how a team published iffy science? or are you referring to your being banned form other places?

you made it personal when you attacked a team without evidence/proof/links
that is STUPID, not ignorant, but STUPID

you also know that not everyone here is a physicist
again, supports the TROLL comment I made about you, as well as you being STUPID

you continue to drag it thru the mud (without evidence)=STUPID and TROLLING

no one uses me. not even YOU. until you can provide PROOF of claims, you are just TROLLING

either provide empirical data or at least legitimate supporting proof of claims or SHUT UP and QUIT TROLLING
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :) I only posted an opinion cautioning/urging you to find for yourselves a number of obvious flaws which even mainstream are finding some of. Calm down and stop with your 'emotionally distressed' trolling and innuendoes and move on, mate. :)
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
Ego is biggest impediment to know the truth- Surrendering it, is way to Truth. But scientists obsessed with conquering motive have failed to pass the hurdle. They have discovered a lot with immense struggle but they have failed to put them together and understand universe in simplicity- They have failed to perceive the truth next to their skin. What scientists are failing to understand is the fundamental "Principle and Design" that governs the smallest particle of light to the whole universal system. They know light and energy, they know string and its dance, they have unearthed gravity wave, but they fail when it comes to figuring out what causes the wave - The truth exist next to our skin but we fail to grasp it, because our self-centered mind and its intent comes into play. The fallowing link tries to figure out these concepts and its causes by imagination under surrender to higher mind -http://www.scribd...nologies
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 24, 2014
Ego is biggest impediment to know the truth- Surrendering it, is way to Truth. But scientists obsessed with conquering motive have failed to pass the hurdle. They have discovered a lot with immense struggle but they have failed to put them together and understand universe in simplicity- They have failed to perceive the truth next to their skin. ...They know light and energy, they know string and its dance, they have unearthed gravity wave, but they fail when it comes to figuring out what causes the wave - The truth exist next to our skin but we fail to grasp it, because our self-centered mind and its intent comes into play. The fallowing link tries to figure out these concepts and its causes by imagination under surrender to higher mind

In a way you are right. However, we humans do have a tendency to see look for more than what is there...