Evidence suggests subatomic particles could defy the standard model

August 27, 2015
In this event display from the LHCb experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, proton-proton collisions at the interaction point (far left) result in a shower of leptons and other charged particles. The yellow and green lines are computer-generated reconstructions of the particles' trajectories through the layers of the LHCb detector. Credit: CERN/LHCb Collaboration

The Standard Model of particle physics, which explains most of the known behaviors and interactions of fundamental subatomic particles, has held up remarkably well over several decades. This far-reaching theory does have a few shortcomings, however—most notably that it doesn't account for gravity. In hopes of revealing new, non-standard particles and forces, physicists have been on the hunt for conditions and behaviors that directly violate the Standard Model.

Now, a team of physicists working at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has found new hints of particles—leptons, to be more precise—being treated in strange ways not predicted by the Standard Model. The discovery, scheduled for publication in the September 4, 2015 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, could prove to be a significant lead in the search for non-standard phenomena.

The team, which includes physicists from the University of Maryland who made key contributions to the study, analyzed data collected by the LHCb detector during the first run of the LHC in 2011-12. The researchers looked at B meson decays, processes that produce lighter particles, including two types of leptons: the tau lepton and the muon. Unlike their stable lepton cousin, the electron, tau leptons and muons are highly unstable and quickly decay within a fraction of a second.

According to a Standard Model concept called "lepton universality," which assumes that leptons are treated equally by all fundamental forces, the decay to the and the muon should both happen at the same rate, once corrected for their mass difference. However, the team found a small, but notable, difference in the predicted rates of decay, suggesting that as-yet undiscovered forces or particles could be interfering in the process.

"The Standard Model says the world interacts with all leptons in the same way. There is a democracy there. But there is no guarantee that this will hold true if we discover new particles or new forces," said study co-author and UMD team lead Hassan Jawahery, Distinguished University Professor of Physics and Gus T. Zorn Professor at UMD. "Lepton universality is truly enshrined in the Standard Model. If this universality is broken, we can say that we've found evidence for non-standard physics."

The LHCb result adds to a previous lepton decay finding, from the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, which suggested a similar deviation from Standard Model predictions. (The UMD team has participated in the BaBar experiment since its inception in 1990's.) While both experiments involved the decay of B mesons, electron collisions drove the BaBar experiment and higher-energy proton collisions drove the LHC experiment.

"The experiments were done in totally different environments, but they reflect the same physical model. This replication provides an important independent check on the observations," explained study co-author Brian Hamilton, a physics research associate at UMD. "The added weight of two experiments is the key here. This suggests that it's not just an instrumental effect—it's pointing to real physics."

"While these two results taken together are very promising, the observed phenomena won't be considered a true violation of the Standard Model without further experiments to verify our observations," said co-author Gregory Ciezarek, a physicist at the Dutch National Institute for Subatomic Physics (NIKHEF).

"We are planning a range of other measurements. The LHCb experiment is taking more data during the second run right now. We are working on upgrades to the LHCb detector within the next few years," Jawahery said. "If this phenomenon is corroborated, we will have decades of work ahead. It could point theoretical physicists toward new ways to look at standard and non-standard physics."

With the discovery of the Higgs boson—the last major missing piece of the Standard Model—during the first LHC run, physicists are now looking for phenomena that do not conform to Standard Model predictions. Jawahery and his colleagues are excited for the future, as the field moves into unknown territory.

"Any knowledge from here on helps us learn more about how the universe evolved to this point. For example, we know that dark matter and dark energy exist, but we don't yet know what they are or how to explain them. Our result could be a part of that puzzle," Jawahery said. "If we can demonstrate that there are missing particles and interactions beyond the Standard Model, it could help complete the picture."

Explore further: How universal is (lepton) universality?

More information: The research paper, "Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions mathcal{B}(bar{B}^0 rightarrow Dast{+}tau-bar{nu}tau)/mathcal{B}(bar{B}^0 rightarrow Dast{+}mu-bar{nu}mu)," The LHCb Collaboration, is scheduled to appear online August 31, 2015 and to be published September 4, 2015 in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Related Stories

How universal is (lepton) universality?

June 4, 2014

Just as a picture can be worth a thousand words, so the rarest processes at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can sometimes have the most to tell us. By isolating and counting decays of B+ mesons to a kaon and two leptons, ...

LHCb's new analysis confirms old puzzle

March 23, 2015

Today, at the 50th Moriond Electroweak conference (link) (La Thuile, Italy), LHCb physicists presented their latest analysis of the rare B → K*μμ decay. The new results show deviations from Standard Model calculations.

LHC experiments join forces to zoom in on the Higgs boson

March 17, 2015

Today during the 50th session of "Rencontres de Moriond" in La Thuile Italy, ATLAS and CMS presented for the first time a combination of their results on the mass of the Higgs boson. The combined mass of the Higgs boson is ...

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

The stacked color sensor

November 16, 2017

Red-sensitive, blue-sensitive and green-sensitive color sensors stacked on top of each other instead of being lined up in a mosaic pattern – this principle could allow image sensors with unprecedented resolution and sensitivity ...

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
5 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2015
Here's the paper on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/...8614.pdf
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2015
Here's the paper on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/...8614.pdf

You know it's a collaborative effort when the name list of collaborators makes up about have of the papers length.
Hope this gets corroborated by other studies in the future. It only takes on tiny effect so that they can tease things apart on the way to new physics. Would be immensely fascinating (and could, if true, be another Nobel Prize in the making for work coming from LHC)
docile
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2015
Well, we'll just have to patch up the Standard Models! Couldn't have them falsified.

It's called ad-hockery, first by E. T. Jaynes (Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge, 2003))
arom
Aug 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
@antialias_physorg yes, I agree. However, I don't think the findings go against the Std M, but perhaps more like the SM is 'evolving'. Surely that's a possibility but then I'm not a physicist. Fascinating though.
medusa_milena
3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2015
"The Standard Model of particle physics, which explains most of the known behaviors and interactions of fundamental subatomic particles, has held up remarkably well over several decades. This far-reaching theory does have a few shortcomings, however—most notably that it doesn't account for gravity."


Because Gravity is not a particle but the effect of mass on space-time.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2015
I agree. However, I don't think the findings go against the Std M, but perhaps more like the SM is 'evolving'.

It's too early to tell whether this is a breaking change (or whether the effect isn't just a fluke - even if it is reported from two separate groups). The standard model will be abandoned if something better presents itself.
This is something people like Doug_H will never understand. In order to abandon a theory you first have to have a BETTER theory to hand. One that predicts the new evidence while at the same time being at least as good at predicting ALL the old evidence. And that is a tall order because the standard model has been doing a pretty good job in that regime.
inkosana
1 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2015
The standard model is based on the impossible concept that the set of relativistic coordinate transformations form a group. This is not so, since a relativistic coordinate transformation transforms a physics-event from an IRF within which it is co-moving into another IRF relative to which the event is moving. It cannot inversely transform a moving event back into the IRF within which the event is co-moving.

Einstein made this mistake when he "derived" that a moving rod contracts in length. If he did not make this blunder he could have discovered the de Broglie-wavelength already in 1905. The rod becomes longer since it gains electromagnetic kinetic-energy in order to move as an electromagnetic wave with a de Broglie wavelength.
shavera
5 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2015
medusa: Yes, technically you are correct that gravitation arises from space time. But physicists still have a problem with that too. What is the curvature created by a particle for whom you can't precisely know *both* position and momentum? You need both parts to calculate curvature. Well we know all the big stuff like stars and planets are made out of these little quantum bits, but we can only do the macroscopic curvature calculations (and even then, usually only very simplified versions because the maths are so difficult).

So, if space-time has a curvature-field like electromagnetism is an electromagnetic field, then perhaps the curvature-field has fundamental 'quanta' excitations like an electromagnetic field has photons.

I used to be in the same boat of not understanding what people meant by 'gravitons' when they talked about gravitation, since it is a curvature issue. This is the better way to think about them.
shavera
5 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2015
inkosana: you neither understand the science nor its history.

*Lorentz came up with length contraction, not Einstein.

*Relativity has survived remarkably many tests that support it.

*Your discussions about rest frames have nothing to do with any known science I'm aware of, because you can very easily transform reference frames forward and inverse. (In fact, the mathematics require this)

*In fact the problem we have right now with the Standard Model is that it's *too* good at describing reality. Like we know there are gaps in what it can explain, so we need to find some experiment that will tell us how to measure those gaps. But all these experiments keep strongly confirming the Standard Model as it is, so we aren't seeing the hints of evidence about where to start to look to resolve those open questions.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2015
Einstein made this mistake when he "derived" that a moving rod contracts in length.

So why do muons reach the Earth's surface if not for length contraction?

Also if the rod became longer you'd get a repulsive force in the following experiemnt
https://en.wikipe...f_a_wire
However an attractive force is observed (in line with a shortening of the wire)

Experiment seems to agree with Einstein, rather than you on this.
inkosana
1 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2015
Lorentz came up with length contraction, not Einstein.
It was FitzGerald and Lorentz who first proposed this absurd idea. Einstein "derived" it by means of an inverse relativistic coordinate transformation". According to Galileo's principle of relativity the latter is not physically allowed..

Relativity has survived remarkably many tests that support it.
Where have I claimed that all aspects of relativity are wrong?

Your discussions about rest frames have nothing to do with any known science
Why MUST "known science" be correct?
because you can very easily transform reference frames forward and inverse. (In fact, the mathematics require this)
But not the physics of relativity. Physics events can only be inversely transformed when the origins of the two reference frames do not move relative to one another. PLEASE read Galileo: Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein etc. did not understand Galileo's genius! Neither do modern theoretical physicists.

inkosana
1 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2015
So why do muons reach the Earth's surface if not for length contraction?
They reach it since they become longer to be a de Broglie matter-wave. This means that there exists a phase-time interval across this wave. It is this phase-time during which the muon forms that adds to the measured lifetime.

Also if the rod became longer you'd get a repulsive force in the following experiemnt
https://en.wikipe...f_a_wire
However an attractive force is observed (in line with a shortening of the wire)
The physics in this reference is wrong. Suffice to state that a relativistic coordinate of a rod is, according to Galileo, only allowed from the IRF in which the rod is stationary into any other IRF within which the rod is seen to be moving. When you use the Lorentz equations and do this transformation the rod becomes longer AND it has a phase-time interval across it owing to its de Broglie wavelength.

inkosana
1 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2015
*In fact the problem we have right now with the Standard Model is that it's *too* good at describing reality. Like we know there are gaps in what it can explain, so we need to find some experiment that will tell us how to measure those gaps. But all these experiments keep strongly confirming the Standard Model as it is, so we aren't seeing the hints of evidence about where to start to look to resolve those open questions.
You can always get good correspondence by fudging the mathematics. This is done by means of "renormalization" to obtain what the theoretical physicist wants to obtain. Such a model is not physics. It is nonsense!
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2015
But not the physics of relativity.

Nope. Any physical event survives relativistic transformations, including inverse ones. I've read up on all of these, including actual course work doing these exact calculations.

You can always get good correspondence by fudging the mathematics. This is done by means of "renormalization" to obtain what the theoretical physicist wants to obtain.


Again, says someone who's never actually done the calculations for themselves or studied what is meant by "renormalization."

cont.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2015
Look, modern science is really bloody hard. When we talk about it to people who aren't scientists, those other people often misunderstand the words we use to mean something other than what we mean by them. So when we discuss renormalization, for example, it may seem like "fudging." But when you actually do all the coursework and explanation about how you get to that point, it really isn't. It's pretty well established.

And that it *predicts* experimental results to such high degrees of accuracy speaks of its remarkable capacity to at least approximate reality. If it was all fudge-factors, then it wouldn't have any predictive power.
inkosana
1 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2015
Nope. Any physical event survives relativistic transformations, including inverse ones.
WRONG. Consider a train moving through a station at high speed and a light is switched on inside the train. This event is co-moving with the train and it is thus NOT occurring on the platform. Its coordinates on the platform is obtained from a relativistic transformation from the train to the platform. Its coordinates on the train is already on the train and it is thus stupid physics to argue that they must be transformed from an event which is not occurring on the platform into the train.

Again, says someone who's never actually done the calculations for themselves or studied what is meant by "renormalization."
What makes you think I have never studied it? I have and it is fudging based on impossible mathematics. If you require another expert in this field to confirm this, Google Chris Oakley. There are many more.

Please try and respond without throwing insults..

inkosana
1 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2015
Look, modern science is really bloody hard. When we talk about it to people who aren't scientists, those other people often misunderstand the words we use to mean something other than what we mean by them. So when we discuss renormalization, for example, it may seem like "fudging." But when you actually do all the coursework and explanation about how you get to that point, it really isn't. It's pretty well established.
Modern science is not so "bloody hard" if one understands the rules of mathematics. I have studied renormalization and it is just as impossible mathematics as Minkowski's space-time.

And that it *predicts* experimental results to such high degrees of accuracy speaks of its remarkable capacity to at least approximate reality. If it was all fudge-factors, then it wouldn't have any predictive power.
Fudge-factors are precisely used to fit experimental results to wrong physics. This is the sole purpose of renormalization. It is NOT modelling reality.
inkosana
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2015
@shavera:

"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."
— Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933

The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
— Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
ogg_ogg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2015
@shavera - I politely disagree that the listener misunderstanding our words is the problem. The problem is, imho, we aren't ABLE to convey the correct meaning with words (and semantics, of any natural language). It is analogous to the attempt to describe the color red to a person blind from birth. The words are inadequate and the listener's mind is unprepared - either, alone, is enough to prevent understanding.
I'd also guess that you are not an engineer if you believe that equations using 'fudge factors' do not have any "predictive power". They do. And what, the standard model has how many 20? 60? 90? "fudge factors"? But your point is correct that without the correct theoretical/mathematical structure (or an approximation of it), tens of thousands of fudge factors would probably be necessary.
inkosana
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2015
I am an engineer and a theoretical physicist. Although fudge factors are useful in engineering they do not belong in theoretical physics.
docile
Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
inko you are johanfprins under a different name.

Doesn't renormalisation manifest itself in the nature of the strong force? i.e The force becomes stronger with distance, which matches observations. http://math.ucr.e...ion.html
ogg_ogg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
@inkosana " Its coordinates on the train is already on the train" Would they be on the luggage rack above the seats or in the baggage car?
inkosana
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2015
inko you are johanfprins under a different name.

Doesn't renormalisation manifest itself in the nature of the strong force? i.e The force becomes stronger with distance, which matches observations. http://math.ucr.e...ion.html


Which strong force are you talking about: Between a proton and a neutron? If the force became stronger with increasing distance there would not have been nuclear fission. Or are you talking of "quarks" bonded within a proton? There are no quarks within a proton since a proton is a single electromagnetic wave with continuously distributed energy. If it were not it would not have been possible to diffract proton and/or neutron matter-waves. John Baez's only contribution to physics is his childish "crackpot"" index.
docile
Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2015
@inkosana " Its coordinates on the train is already on the train" Would they be on the luggage rack above the seats or in the baggage car?


Of course it must be attached to the train to be an IRF for events that occur on the train. Every point position that moves with the train are coordinate points referenced to the IRF of the train. Thus a light in the train is at such a coordinate position while moving along with the train. This is simple grade 10 stuff.

Therefore when the light switches on in the train, this event does not occur on the platform since there is no light on the platform at this concomitant position when the light on the train switches on. Thus the event can only be transformed from the train to the platform and not from the platform to the train since relativistic coordinate transformations do not transform non-events on the platform into the train.
docile
Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
Slightly less choleric, it is there though it must be johan taking a different approach, elements of him are there though.

WRONG... NOT... and it is thus stupid physics to argue that they must be transformed from an event which is not occurring on the platform into the train.




Which strong force are you talking about:


The bit holding the quarks together, I thought that's what gives baryons their boundary?

But apparently there are no quarks.
inkosana
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2015
The existence of quarks inside the proton has been demonstrated already in similar way, like Ernst Rutherford demonstrated the existence of atom nuclei - simply with elastic scattering. This scattering indicates, that the interior of proton is not a homogeneous stuff. Also the proton exhibits both EM force, bot weak force applying at much smaller distance, so it's evident, it's not homogeneous stuff. The effect of quark confinement indicates, the quarks are floating inside of it in similar way, like water molecules inside of droplets, filling and forming its core at the same moment.

There is no proof whatsoever that this is so, since in the case of Rutherford there was no such thing as the concept called "asymptotic freedom". If you want to use analogies you have to prove them by comparing apples to apples and pears to pears . Hand-waving in the air is not proving anything
inkosana
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2015
the bit holding the quarks together, I thought that's what gives baryons their boundary?
Really? I have not found any scientific proof that this "thought of you" could be reality. Except Frank Wilczek who I believe became lost. Obviously if you try and pull s single wave apart it will react by forming a restoring force that increases with distance. We know this from modelling "phonon-waves" in solids.

But apparently there are no quarks.
If there were quarks, a neutron would not have been able to diffract like a wave that has continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy. Only such a wave can diffract.
docile
Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
You're confusing three different things here: the finding of atom nuclei with Rutherford, the detection of quark composites of proton and the detection of their free motion in limited volume, i.e. asymptotic freedom.
It is you who are confusing these issues since it is YOU who brought up Rutherford scattering as an analogue for the measurements which led to the wrong concept of quarks

It's the wake wave around neutrons, which diffracts (and affects the future path of neutron), not the neutrons itself. I'd say, that the Couder/Fort demonstrations made it clear before ten years already - but as I can see, the conceptual confusion still survives.
There is no "wake-wave" around a neutron, since a neutron-wave like a light-wave does not move in a medium (aether). The Couder/Fort demonstration is of waves moving in water (i.e. not of waves that DO NOT move in a medium) and is therefore irrelevant when it comes to neutron-waves..
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
I can explain the quark controversy easily with dense aether model: try to imagine the interior of dense star, so dense, that even droplet of this fluid would weight many tons. This dense fluid is superfluid, which means, it poses no viscosity .etc.
There is no experimental evidence that this model (if one can call it a logical model) can be correct; and it is well established experimentally that when it comes to electromagnetic waves, an aether does not exist. The electric-field vector and the magnetic field vector which constitute the amplitude of such a wave exist in empty space not in an aether. Furthermore the speed of light is given by the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability which is the SAME within all IRF's within zero gravity. Thus there CANNOT be a unique stationary medium (aether) relative to which such a wave moves A neutron-wave is an electromagnetic wave which has a de Broglie wavelength. This follows directly from special relativity.
my2cts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
*In fact the problem we have right now with the Standard Model is that it's *too* good at describing reality. Like we know there are gaps in what it can explain, so we need to find some experiment that will tell us how to measure those gaps. But all these experiments keep strongly confirming the Standard Model as it is, so we aren't seeing the hints of evidence about where to start to look to resolve those open questions.
You can always get good correspondence by fudging the mathematics. This is done by means of "renormalization" to obtain what the theoretical physicist wants to obtain. Such a model is not physics. It is nonsense!

Calling "nonsense" the model which gives the best imaginable agreement between theory and experiment is just backfiring. Who can take you seriously after that ?
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2015
@ Inkosana

"Why MUST "known science" be correct?"

Because if they admit they are moving in the wrong direction, the whole idea of the greatness of science and humanity turned its back on God and his laws, which are the main philosophy of humanism (luciferian doctrine) will collapse and they will see how little they know about the physical reality where we are living and how much we are depending on the will of the Creator . And the source of vanity will dry up but many people live for it. Especially those who have lost their feeling of realism. Therefore the alternative theories and world views are forbidden in the main stream scientific (actually philosophical) communities.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
Calling "nonsense" the model which gives the best imaginable agreement between theory and experiment is just backfiring. Who can take you seriously after that ?
This is the same argument that Galileo's mainstream peers used to argue that he should not call epicycles nonsense.

When a scientist uses this argument he is committing treason by violating the most important rule of science, according to which one must expect that no matter how well a theory seems to work, it can at any time be found that it is wrong! Science is NOT religious dogma. Furthermore, as any real scientist can attest to, correspondence with experiments by fudging the mathematics increases the probability that the theory is wrong. Renormalisation is such fudging.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2015
@ Inkosana

"Why MUST "known science" be correct?"

Because if they admit they are moving in the wrong direction, the whole idea of the greatness of science and humanity turned its back on God and his laws, which are the main philosophy of humanism (luciferian doctrine) will collapse and they will see how little they know about the physical reality where we are living and how much we are depending on the will of the Creator . And the source of vanity will dry up but many people live for it. Especially those who have lost their feeling of realism. Therefore the alternative theories and world views are forbidden in the main stream scientific (actually philosophical) communities.
Amen my bru! As Herbert Dingle pointed out already in the 1970's in his book ""Science at the Crossroads" the Vatican is now more open-minded about religion than the mainstream theoretical physicists are about their theories, which they developed by raping the rules of mathematics.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
Nobody says, that neutron-wave is not light wave.
What are you trying to say here?
Even the ripples around droplets in Couder/Fort demonstration are quite normal surface ripples.
Correct since they form in a medium. Light- and matter-waves (having a de Broglie wavelength) do not form within a medium.
But with compare to normal ripples they do no spread from droplets.
Waves ALWAYS move from a source
Also, the neutron-wave doesn't spread from neutron, the neutrons don't glow.
Why glow? Waves do NOT spread out from a neutron since the neutron IS an EM wave which becomes longer the faster it moves.
Could you explain without Couder/Fort demonstration, why is it so?
Why would I waste my time to explain waves which do not move in a medium, in terms of waves that do?
Could you explain the existence of some wave without environment?
What do you mean by environment? The "environment" for EM (light and matter) waves is the vacuum: No aether!.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
Light- and matter-waves (having a de Broglie wavelength) do not form within a medium.
They of course form within a medium
Maxwell's equations demand that the speed of light must be the same within any IRF. If there existed a medium, the speed of light would have been different within different IRF's since they would have moved relative to this medium.
just the fact, we cannot observe it with these waves doesn't imply this medium doesn't exist.
It is not an implication it is demanded by Maxwell's equations that there is not a medium within which EM-waves are moving.
None, this is an inherent property of EVERY medium, it remains unobservable with its own waves. If it would be observable, it wouldn't be a medium anymore - but an obstacle in this medium.
Sound waves can be measured and the air in which they move can be measured: thus this argument is not correct.

I will proceed below:
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
Waves do NOT spread out from a neutron since blah blah..Well, this just doesn't apply at the case of deBroglie waves (or "neutron-wave" as you call it). This wave has no source, neither direction of propagation - because it doesn't propagate, being standing.
Of course a de Broglie wave of a neutron has a source. It is the stationary rest-mass of the neutron within the IRF in which the neutron is stationary. Within another IRF the electron is moving and this motion is given by the Lorentz transformation from the IRF within which the electron is stationary into the IRF within which it is moving. This LT demands that the mass-energy of the electron must increase and the length of the electron must also increase in concert. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformation causes a phase-time difference across this increased length, and this manifests as the de Broglie wavelength of the wave. The moving neutron IS an EM-wave, since this is demanded by the LT that it must be so.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
That's correct. But the Maxwell's equations are just an approximative model of light in similar way, like the parabola is simplistic model of waterfall.
No they are not!! If they were we would not have had radios, TV's etc.
For example the Maxwell's theory ignores the compressibility of vacuum,
This is nonsense you cannot compress empty space.
it ignores the fact, that the vacuum is not still homogeneous environment full of tiny density fluctuations.
This is not true there are only fluctuations within the volume of an EM wave NOT in the vacuum.
And it ignores, that the mass density of vacuum is proportional its energy density in each time and space interval.
Empty space does NOT have energy!
From this reason, the Maxwell's equation cannot predict the formation of something like the photon or deBroglie wave
Maxwell's eqs cause the LT, and I have just now outlined above how the LT causes the formation of de Broglie matter-!
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
Sound waves can be measured and the air in which they move can be measured
Measured with which? With air? I would say not - for sound waves the air is fully transparent missing medium. The blind bat cannot observe neither measure the motion of air with his radar - it would need some faster waves, the propagation of which remains independent of spreading sound waves - for example the radar with radiowaves. Also the time and distance measurements must be based on sound wave spreading - not the light wave spreading - for to remain consistent with situation of light in vacuum. The dense aether model is more clever and consequential, than you may think at the first look. It requires to think exactly, not sloppily.
No! It is the epitome of sloppy thinking. Please read the appropriate sections 5 and 6 in my book: "Why does E=mc2". Just try and stop your mantra of "dense aether model". Aether does not exist and never will exist.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
This is nonsense you cannot compress empty space.
How can you explain, this empty space mediates periodic waves, after then?
It does not mediate periodic waves in vacuum
The formation of wave is always connected with some elasticity and force balance in its environment.
Only for a wave that forms within a medium. This is not the case for electromagnetic-waves.
The vacuum behaves in many other aspects like the water surface anyway - for example it mediates solitons
There is NO PROOF for this happening.
It exhibits analogy of Brownian noise
No it does not
it exhibits virtual particle field
No it does not.
and Casimir force
The model for the Casimir force is wrong: It is caused by resonance in a similar way that the van der Waals force is generated.
hillbillyvoodoo
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
For example the Maxwell's theory ignores the compressibility of vacuum,
This is nonsense you cannot compress empty space.


But somehow it can expand? somebody's got some 'splaining to do.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
Non of this is either necessary or sufficient. Really?
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
For example the Maxwell's theory ignores the compressibility of vacuum,
This is nonsense you cannot compress empty space.
But somehow it can expand? somebody's got some 'splaining to do.
Correct! A very interesting topic. But it is not possible to discuss it on this forum at this time. I have an idea why this is possible but do not like to post hand-waving ideas. I do think that this will be logically explained in terms of Maxwell's equations.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
for example it mediates solitons There is NO PROOF for this happening.
The common photons are analogy of Russel's solitons at the water surface, the scalar waves (http://phys.org/n...on.html) analogy of Falaco solitons instead. How the Maxwell theory lines up with existence of photons and anapoles? Well, I would say, it doesn't.
If you would take the time to calm down instead of foaming a the mouth and rather read my book, you will see that there are NO EM soliton-waves, since a photon-wave is a SINGLE, COHERENT, HARMONIC wave with a SINGLE frequency! Where do anapoles come into the picture?
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
Casimir force is wrong: It is caused by resonance in a similar way that the van der Waals force is generated
After then Casimir force should exhibit the same distance dependence like the van der Waals force.
Why?
But the van der Waals force is indirectly proportional the sixth power of distance, whereas the Cassimir force is indirectly proportional the fourth power of distance only. Also van der Waals forces act between induced dipoles only, whereas the Cassimir force is much more universal blah blah balh.
Many competent researchers have pointed out that the Cassimir force is MOST PROBABLY caused by the same mechanism that determines the van der Waals forces: namely resonance. For different materials the distance-relationship can be different. In fact this same mechanism is responsible for superconductiion.
inkosana
1 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
I don't think, I will really read your book, if it's so full of nonsense. Your readers should ask money back for time wasted with reading and unlearning of your misinterpretations.
I am not surprised since you are obviously not mathematically competent to read anything above kindergarten level, and you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong: Even though you have no qualifications whatsoever to argue physics on any forum. It is impossible that a person like you can argue physics-logic objectively. Therefore you will not even try to find mistakes in my book. You are too incompetent to do so. You are on a silly crusade of AWT that is a hallucination that can only exist in a demented mind. Can you really not understand that according to Maxwell's impeccable equations aether does not, and CANNOT exist?
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
not rated yet Aug 31, 2015
I have really enjoyed this conversation, thanks fellas. A big improvement on the usual dross.
It is my belief that the standard model has painted itself into a corner and requires increasingly baroque explanations. Something smells fishy.
I am totally on Inkosana's side in this discussion. Somebody has to test the strength of the foundations.
However perhaps her assertion that there is no aether is a tad overconfident. I certainly hope so.
https://www.dropb...txt?dl=0
The only refutation I have had so far was some slander about the sanity of the author, therefore it carries no weight.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 31, 2015
Well, old good grumpy J.F.Prins is finally back...;-)


YOU are the person who have been boring everybody for years under a multitude of names with your mantra of AWT, even though Maxwell's impeccable equations prove that there cannot be aether. And then YOU attack real thinkers in physics that they are not willing to consider your ideas. Furthermore, you then accuse other people who happen to agree on physics, of doing what you are doing: i.e. posting under different names. You also refuse to read what they argue.

In contrast, since you have been posting so much on this forum, I have looked objectively into your ideas of "dense" AWT. I have not found a single instance where you have produced any quantitative equations that can be fitted to experiment. But even so when you post something new, which is rare, I do follow it up and read it: Even a fool can sometimes make a valid point: It is thus my rule to judge content even when I find the person repelling
inkosana
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2015
I am totally on Inkosana's side in this discussion.
Thank you.

However perhaps her assertion that there is no aether is a tad overconfident. I certainly hope so.
https://www.dropb...txt?dl=0


If there is aether, the speed of light must be different in IRF's that move relative to the IRF in which the aether is stationary. According to Maxwell's equations, the speed of an EM wave is given by the inverse of the square-root of (epsilon0)*(mu0); These parameters are invariant under a relativistic coordinate transformation, Thus, there cannot be a unique stationary aether in which EM-waves move: Unless Maxwell's equations are wrong. Since we have radiaton-transmissions etc which are perfectly modelled by Maxwell's waves, I very much doubt that they can be wrong, And if they are correct, there cannot be aether.
Noumenon
not rated yet Aug 31, 2015
Hello, JohanFPrins,.... have you found a way to account for mass given your idea of the electron (and neutron) being a electromagnetic field?
Ryan1981
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
x+y=2 has an infinite set of solutions. Saying 1+1 is the only correct answer, however intuitive, is still wrong. Measuring 1+1=2 proves it is a solution, but not the only one. I think we can agree that the standard model is the best we have till now. If you feel you have something better, write an article and have it reviewed. I am however afraid that this will take you a lot of effort and so the real question here is, are you motivated enough to educate the world, or be educated by the world. Dropping a whole new theory as a reaction to an article on a website is not going to give you a nobel prize :P
docile
Sep 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
Hello, JohanFPrins,.... have you found a way to account for mass given your idea of the electron (and neutron) being a electromagnetic field?
Why has this guy not answered you? I was hoping that he would since if he claimed that the mass of a neutron and of an electron is continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy, he is correct. I would like to see how he explained it. Can you please post references to these arguments b y JohanFPrins. I have started to read his book: The Physics Delusion and find it refreshingly logical. He is not as insane as the so-called "mathematical physicists".
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
@docile: Can you please tell me which physical properties of your aether define the speed of light within this aether? And give me what Maxwell's equations are when the light-source that emits the light-wave, moves relative to the aether in which the light is propagating. Please, no hand-waving but equations! In the one case I want the differential wave-equations when the source is NOT moving relative to your fictitious aether, and in the second case the differential wave-equations when the source is moving with a speed v relative to the aether. Since you claim that Maxwell's equations are only valid when light-waves move within aether, it should be easy for genius like you to write down the equations for the two cases.
docile
Sep 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
But apparently there are no quarks.
If there were quarks, a neutron would not have been able to diffract like a wave that has continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy. Only such a wave can diffract.

Quantum Mechanics does not agree with you, so QM must be wrong. Is there anything correct in this world that was not written by you ? Answer generously.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
you claim that Maxwell's equations are only valid when light-waves move within aether, it should be easy for genius like you to write down the equations for the two cases
It would be just a rederivation of Maxwell equation from his aether model - or not? Why I should repeat the derivation, which Maxwell did before 150 years or so?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! This is the simple fact you are not able to understand since you are not mathematically competent to understand it. If an aether exists Maxwell's equations are ONLY valid for a source that is stationary relative to aether: i.e in the case when the speed of light is the same relative to the aether and the source. So "Mr. genius", derive Maxwell's equations when the source moves relative to the aether. Tell us what changes and how it changes when the source moves relative to the aether. Please use mathematics correctly like the few of us who are still competent physicists do,
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
But apparently there are no quarks.
If there were quarks, a neutron would not have been able to diffract like a wave that has continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy. Only such a wave can diffract.

Quantum Mechanics does not agree with you, so QM must be wrong. Is there anything correct in this world that was not written by you ? Answer generously.
WRONG!! Quantum mechanics, based on wave real wave equations, does agree with me. It is "quantum field theory" which is s fudged theory owing to "renormalisation" that is not mathematically allowed, which does not agree with me. And not just with me but many other competent physicists who are prevented from pointing out how badly 20th century physics went wrong. I do not include docile in the latter group since it is people like him who convinces normal people that when you disagree with the mainstream you are crackpot like docile actually is.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
Hello, JohanFPrins,.... have you found a way to account for mass given your idea of the electron (and neutron) being a electromagnetic field?
Why has this guy not answered you? I was hoping that he would since if he claimed that the mass of a neutron and of an electron is continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy, he is correct. I would like to see how he explained it. Can you please post references to these arguments b y JohanFPrins. I have started to read his book: The Physics Delusion and find it refreshingly logical. He is not as insane as the so-called "mathematical physicists".


Was that a sock-puppet skit to get me to buy your book?
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015
Can you please tell me which physical properties of your aether define the speed of light within this aether
And you can derive the speed of light with Maxwell's theory? Because in this theory the speed of light is experimental constant - it must be defined.
When a wave moves within a stationary medium it is the physical properties of the medium that determine the speed. For example for sound waves it is the elastic constants of the medium that determine the speed of the wave. You should know this before you spout about aether. So which elastic properties of aether determine the speed of light? Come on Mr. Genius, argue likea competent scientist is supposed to do! I am waiting with bated breath!
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2015

Was that a sock-puppet skit to get me to buy your book?
I did not punt my book "Why does E=mc2" did I?
mytwocts
not rated yet Sep 01, 2015
But apparently there are no quarks.
If there were quarks, a neutron would not have been able to diffract like a wave that has continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy. Only such a wave can diffract.

Quantum Mechanics does not agree with you, so QM must be wrong. Is there anything correct in this world that was not written by you ? Answer generously.
WRONG!! Quantum mechanics, based on wave real wave equations, does agree with me.

Non-relativistic QM says that neutrons diffract. The quark model does not prevent this from happening. You and NR QM do not agree on this.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2015
Non-relativistic QM says that neutrons diffract. The quark model does not prevent this from happening. You and NR QM do not agree on this.
To have diffraction you MUST have a SINGLE COHERENT WAVE with continuously distributed energy. That a coherent-SINGLE wave is required has already been known by Young, Fraunhofer, etc. A neutron which supposedly consists of quarks is not such a wave. If quarks existed you would not have had neutron diffraction.

That this is so also demonstrated by the diffraction of bucky-balls. At temperatures at which the bucky-ball consist of separate atoms it does not diffract. When cooled to a low enough temperature the separate atoms become continuously distributed EM energy (the bucky-ball becomes a SINGLE COHERENT EM-wave) and then it diffracts. Fools call this single coherent wave a Bose-Einstein Condensate of "particles".
docile
Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 02, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 02, 2015
If quarks existed you would not have had neutron diffraction
It's the deBroglie wave around cluster of quarks, what diffracts there - not the quarks itself. You're getting a bit senile, just admit it...;-)
Where has a de Broglie wavelength around a "cluster of quarks" EVER been measured experimentally? I do not even know of any experimental real-evidence that a single quark has been observed, or even more remarkably measured to diffract. You are not getting senile: For that one has to be born with a brain!
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 02, 2015
BTW The diffraction of ftalocyanine molecule has been also http://www.livesc...les.html - does it mean, that the atoms inside the ftalocyanine molecules don't actually exist? Or that it is "all the wave"?
When it diffracts it MUST be single coherent wave. If it is not, it will not diffract. This has been known for more than 200 years!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.