Advertisements

Tag Archives: Particle physics

Unified Physics including Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Dark matter keeps escaping direct detection, whether it might be in the form of WIMPs, or primordial black holes, or axions. Perhaps it is a phantom and general relativity is inaccurate for very low accelerations. Or perhaps we need a new framework for particle physics other than what the Standard Model and supersymmetry provide.

We are pleased to present a guest post from Dr. Thomas J. Buckholtz. He introduces us to a theoretical framework referred to as CUSP, that results in four dozen sets of elementary particles. Only one of these sets is ordinary matter, and the framework appears to reproduce the known fundamental particles. CUSP posits ensembles that we call dark matter and dark energy. In particular, it results in the approximate 5:1 ratio observed for the density of dark matter relative to ordinary matter at the scales of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. (If interested, after reading this post, you can read more at his blog linked to his name just below).

Thomas J. Buckholtz

My research suggests descriptions for dark matter, dark energy, and other phenomena. The work suggests explanations for ratios of dark matter density to ordinary matter density and for other observations. I would like to thank Stephen Perrenod for providing this opportunity to discuss the work. I use the term CUSP – concepts uniting some physics – to refer to the work. (A book, Some Physics United: With Predictions and Models for Much, provides details.)

CUSP suggests that the universe includes 48 sets of elementary-particle Standard Model elementary particles and composite particles. (Known composite particles include the proton and neutron.) The sets are essentially (for purposes of this blog) identical. I call each instance an ensemble. Each ensemble includes its own photon, Higgs boson, electron, proton, and so forth. Elementary particle masses do not vary by ensemble. (Weak interaction handedness might vary by ensemble.)

One ensemble correlates with ordinary matter, 5 ensembles correlate with dark matter, and 42 ensembles contribute to dark energy densities. CUSP suggests interactions via which people might be able to detect directly (as opposed to infer indirectly) dark matter ensemble elementary particles or composite particles. (One such interaction theoretically correlates directly with Larmor precession but not as directly with charge or nominal magnetic dipole moment. I welcome the prospect that people will estimate when, if not now, experimental techniques might have adequate sensitivity to make such detections.)

Buckholtztable

This explanation may describe (much of) dark matter and explain (at least approximately some) ratios of dark matter density to ordinary matter density. You may be curious as to how I arrive at suggestions CUSP makes. (In addition, there are some subtleties.)

Historically regarding astrophysics, the progression ‘motion to forces to objects’ pertains. For example, Kepler’s work replaced epicycles with ellipses before Newton suggested gravity. CUSP takes a somewhat reverse path. CUSP models elementary particles and forces before considering motion. The work regarding particles and forces matches known elementary particles and forces and extrapolates to predict other elementary particles and forces. (In case you are curious, the mathematics basis features solutions to equations featuring isotropic pairs of isotropic quantum harmonic oscillators.)

I (in effect) add motion by extending CUSP to embrace symmetries associated with special relativity. In traditional physics, each of conservation of angular momentum, conservation of momentum, and boost correlates with a spatial symmetry correlating with the mathematics group SU(2). (If you would like to learn more, search online for “conservation law symmetry,” “Noether’s theorem,” “special unitary group,” and “Poincare group.”) CUSP modeling principles point to a need to add to temporal symmetry and, thereby, to extend a symmetry correlating with conservation of energy to correlate with the group SU(7). The number of generators of a group SU(n) is n2−1. SU(7) has 48 generators. CUSP suggests that each SU(7) generator correlates with a unique ensemble. (In case you are curious, the number 48 pertains also for modeling based on either Newtonian physics or general relativity.)

CUSP math suggests that the universe includes 8 (not 1 and not 48) instances of traditional gravity. Each instance of gravity interacts with 6 ensembles.

The ensemble correlating with people (and with all things people see) connects, via our instance of gravity, with 5 other ensembles. CUSP proposes a definitive concept – stuff made from any of those 5 ensembles – for (much of) dark matter and explains (approximately) ratios of dark matter density to ordinary matter density for the universe and for galaxy clusters. (Let me not herein do more than allude to other inferably dark matter based on CUSP-predicted ordinary matter ensemble composite particles; to observations that suggest that, for some galaxies, the dark matter to ordinary matter ratio is about 4 to 1, not 5 to 1; and other related phenomena with which CUSP seems to comport.)

CUSP suggests that interactions between dark matter plus ordinary matter and the seven peer combinations, each comprised of 1 instance of gravity and 6 ensembles, is non-zero but small. Inferred ratios of density of dark energy to density of dark matter plus ordinary matter ‘grow’ from zero for observations pertaining to somewhat after the big bang to 2+ for observations pertaining to approximately now. CUSP comports with such ‘growth.’ (In case you are curious, CUSP provides a nearly completely separate explanation for dark energy forces that govern the rate of expansion of the universe.)

Relationships between ensembles are reciprocal. For each of two different ensembles, the second ensemble is either part of the first ensemble’s dark matter or part of the first ensemble’s dark energy. Look around you. See what you see. Assuming that non-ordinary-matter ensembles include adequately physics-savvy beings, you are looking at someone else’s dark matter and yet someone else’s dark energy stuff. Assuming these aspects of CUSP comport with nature, people might say that dark matter and dark-energy stuff are, in effect, quite familiar.

Copyright © 2018 Thomas J. Buckholtz

 

Advertisements

Supersymmetry in Trouble?

Image

There’s a major particle physics symposium going on this week in Kyoto, Japan – Hadron Collider Physics 2012. A paper from the LHCb collaboration, with 619 authors, was presented on the opening day, here is the title and abstract:

First evidence for the decay Bs -> mu+ mu-

A search for the rare decays Bs->mu+mu- and B0->mu+mu- is performed using data collected in 2011 and 2012 with the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The data samples comprise 1.1 fb^-1 of proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 8 TeV and 1.0 fb^-1 at sqrt{s}=7 TeV. We observe an excess of Bs -> mu+ mu- candidates with respect to the background expectation. The probability that the background could produce such an excess or larger is 5.3 x 10^-4 corresponding to a signal significance of 3.5 standard deviations. A maximum-likelihood fit gives a branching fraction of BR(Bs -> mu+ mu-) = (3.2^{+1.5}_{-1.2}) x 10^-9, where the statistical uncertainty is 95% of the total uncertainty. This result is in agreement with the Standard Model expectation. The observed number of B0 -> mu+ mu- candidates is consistent with the background expectation, giving an upper limit of BR(B0 -> mu+ mu-) < 9.4 x 10^-10 at 95% confidence level.

In other words, the LHCb consortium claim to have observed the quite rare decay channel from B-mesons to muons (each B-meson decaying to two muons), representing about 3 occurrences out of each 1 billion decays of the Bs type of the B-meson. Their detection has marginal statistical significance of 3.5 standard deviations (one would prefer 5 deviations), so needs further confirmation.

What’s a B-meson? It’s a particle that consists of a quark and an anti-quark. Quarks are the underlying constituents of protons and neutrons, but they are composed of 3 quarks each, whereas B-mesons have just two each. The particle is called B-meson because one of the quarks is a bottom quark (there are 6 types of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, charge, strange plus the corresponding anti-particles). A Bs-meson consists of a strange quark and an anti-bottom quark (the antiparticle of the bottom quark). Its mass is between 5 and 6 times that of a proton.

What’s a muon? It’s a heavy electron, basically, around 200 times heavier.

What’s important about this proposed result is that the decay ratio (branching fraction) that they have measured is fully consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, without adding supersymmetry. Supersymmetry relates known particles with integer multiple spin to as-yet-undetected particles with half-integer spin (and known particles of half-integer spin to as-yet-undetected particles with integer spin). So each of the existing Standard Model particles has a “superpartner”.

Yet the very existence of what appears to be a Higgs Boson at around 125 GeV as announced at the LHC in July of this year is highly suggestive of the existence of supersymmetry of some type. Supersymmetry is one way to get the Higgs to have a “reasonable” mass such as what has been found. And there are many other outstanding issues with the Standard Model that supersymmetric theories could help to resolve.

Now this has implications for the interpretation of dark matter as well. One of the favored explanations for dark matter, if it is composed of some fundamental particle, is that it is one type of supersymmetric particle. Since dark matter persists throughout the history of the universe, nearly 14 billion years, it must be highly stable. Now the least massive particle in supersymmetry theories is stable, i.e. does not decay since there is no lighter supersymmetric particle into which it can decay. And this so called LSP for lightest supersymmetric particle is the favored candidate for dark matter.

So if there is no supersymmetry then there needs to be another explanation for dark matter.


Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Gravity

Enabling a Universe that Supports Intelligent Life

Author: Stephen Perrenod

An e-book now available through:

We are immersed in a sea of light emanating from ordinary matter that is floating, as it were, on an ocean of dark matter. The dark matter itself floats on the dark energy of the particle vacuum that in turn is in embedded within the scaffolding of space-time – which is shaped by the dark gravity effects from all matter and energy.

Table of Contents

  • Dedication
  • Foreword (by Rich Brueckner)
  • Preface and Acknowledgements
  1. Scale of the Universe
  2. The Big Bang Model
  3. Inflation
  4. Dark Matter
  5. Dark Energy
  6. Dark Gravity
  7. Future of the Universe
  • Glossary
  • References, Suggested Reading and Viewing
  • About the Author