This one particle could solve five mega-mysteries of physics

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: lostbook

The article you referenced is very short and vague. It doesn’t even give the name of the particle or describe its properties. Do you have any other sources on this particle? Because there really isn’t enough from your source to even have a proper discussion.

Yes, I know. I was going to cross check with other sources but I didn't have time when I posted. I'll try to find other sources to back things up.

Here is a snippet from another article on Popular Mechanics which goes more into detail:

The theory was developed by a group of French physicists at the University of Paris-Saclay, and it introduces a few new particles in an attempt to unify multiple different theories to solve five of the biggest problems in physics: dark matter, cosmic inflation, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, and baryogenesis. All of these problems in our current physics model are in some way related to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. The theory, dubbed SMASH, expands the Standard Model of physics. The Standard Model is the catalog of every type of particle that physicists know about. Included in the model are quarks (the building blocks of protons and neutrons), electrons and neutrinos, and a number of more exotic particles like the Higgs boson. All together, there are seventeen different types of particles in the Standard Model.

Here's the link to the article:

www.popularmechanics.com...

a reply to: lostbook

Are quarks 'building blocks'?
Didn't someone say that 'atoms are not things.....they are tendencies'?

a reply to: lostbook

There's no such thing as "Dark Matter", it's a poor attempt to say "our assumptions must be correct, so in order to reconcile our failed assumptions with the data - we can invent a ridiculous illogical theory".

And claiming that "the discovery of a particle" will explain how the big bang happened is even more preposterous.

The guy who said this is all bunk to justify more funding $$$$ hit the nail on the head.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: lostbook

There's no such thing as "Dark Matter", it's a poor attempt to say "our assumptions must be correct, so in order to reconcile our failed assumptions with the data - we can invent a ridiculous illogical theory".

And claiming that "the discovery of a particle" will explain how the big bang happened is even more preposterous.

The guy who said this is all bunk to justify more funding $$$$ hit the nail on the head.

But , you forgot to mention the guy's name
Could be important
Could be a random person on a random street corner

a reply to: lostbook

The five theories targeted by the research team seek to answer four major questions and to correct a problem with another: What exactly is dark matter, what caused inflation to come about, why is a neutrino so light, and why is there more matter than antimatter? The new model also seeks to correct a theoretical problem regarding asymmetry in the strong force.

The team has named their new model SMASH for "Standard Model Axion See-saw Higgs portal inflation." The proposed particles are rho (to help explain inflation), the axion (to help explain dark matter) a color triplet fermion and three heavy right-handed neutrinos.

phys.org - Group introduces six new particles to standard model to solve five enduring problems.

arXiv:1410.3471v3 - Higgs boson pair production in the D=6 extension of the SM.

The theory goes back to 2014 and is a proposed solution for future investigation. The team took the Standard Model (SM) and extended it with 2 theoretical particles and had to move into six dimensions. They say we should be able to test this hypothesis in the future when the LHC is fitted with stronger superconducting magnets and is running at 14 TeV.

Tad bit dramatic since this has been out for over four years. Dr. Goertz must be bored! Or mad that he is not listed on the original paper PM cited in their article (his paper is linked above)!!

Side note, the just began design of the new SC magnets which be fabricated on-site at LHC.

All this expensive search for elusive sub-atomic particles - when - the one that has the most and largest effect on the universe is --- the electron! Without electrons no particles would ever be separated from the nucleus of any atom. Electrons are the cowboys of the sub-atomic world, corralling the protons, neutrons and everything making up the nucleus of any atom. Yep, its the lowly electron that keeps our universe together and functioning. It helps create magnetism and electricity among other atomic forces. Ever been shocked? Yep, electrons!

These scientists know that if ever the secret of the universe is ever revealed to the general public, their gig is up, their goose is cooked. Gigs and cooked geese? You guessed it - electrons.

Their should be a monument erected to the lowly electron, we may never see it, literally, but, we know its there and doing its eternal job.

Mr. (or Miss) Electron, I for one salute you...

God shines light. God is everything. God is everywhere. Light doesn't go anywhere, already there, already IS there.

Only way to make Gods light go anywhere, rather than already being everywhere: t raise the frequency and drop the amplitude, and create a reference point.

All "Light" reflected from this octavial center point is "Matter". All "Light" entering this point is antimatter.

a reply to: lostbook

One particle to rule them all, and one ring to find them.

originally posted by: Prene
God shines light. God is everything. God is everywhere. Light doesn't go anywhere, already there, already IS there.

Only way to make Gods light go anywhere, rather than already being everywhere: t raise the frequency and drop the amplitude, and create a reference point.

All "Light" reflected from this octavial center point is "Matter". All "Light" entering this point is antimatter.

God is all powerful until mother nature tells him to take out the trash.

I think I remember reading this article in a non pay per view site, will post it if I can find it, I think the summary is that there may be a particle called a "graviton" that makes up for gravity.

Not sure how a fundamental force can be a particle though...

Here is what I could find...

www.scientificamerican.com...

Dark matter is mostly the invisible E8-singlet state of E8xE8' heterotic superstrings. This is called shadow matter, being totally invisible and confined to a second 10-d space-time sheet separated by a narrow gap extending along the 10th dimension of space predicted by supergravity theories (or, rather, M-theory). Dark energy is all the 240 Yang-Mills gauge fields that transmit the forces between the invisible shadow matter superstrings (E8-singlet states) confined to this sheet and acting only gravitationally with superstrings of ordinary matter.
All forces other than gravity are transmitted by the 240 gauge fields of both E8 and E8'. Their messager particles form representations of certain subgroups of E8 and E8' due to spontaneous symmetry-breakdown. The most important of these is:
240 = 72 + 168,
where 72 is the dimension of the exceptional subgroup E6 and 168 is the number of gauge fields corresponding to roots of E8 that are not roots of E6.
Electrons belong to E8. They are the seventh member of an irreducible multiplet of seven basic states. Six of these are involved in the formation of quarks as bound states of three such basic states. There are three generations of this multiplet.

Instead of ad hoc introduction of undetected particles, done merely to solve some of the problem of the Standard Model, it is far less extragavant to argue that these problems arise because the assumption at the heart of the model that quarks are fundamental is totally incorrect. Instead, I have shown them to be composites of supersymmetric preons described by the group G2, one of the four exceptional subgroups of E8.
If you want evidence for three point-like constituents of quarks, I refer you to SLAC data (Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (1968), 292),* which shows that proton form factors vary as t^(-2) as t becomes very large, where t is the momentum transfer squared and this is precisely what composite quarks made up of point-like objects would predict (see end of paper by S. M. Phillips, published in Physics Letters, 84B (1979), 133).

* Yes, the evidence for composite quarks has been around for 50 years but ignored because:
1. there are other explanations for this variation in proton form factors;
2. physicists are always reluctant to propose heretical theories that upset conventional physics like the Standard Model.