The Large Hadron Collider in Geneva did not reveal the existence of the dark quark but narrowed the search space in the future
The question of what we are made of still remains open and is being studied even today by physicists. The story does not end with elements from the periodic table. The atom is also composed of more elementary elements - electrons around and protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The particles in the nucleus are also composed of more basic building blocks called "quarks" (the one who proposed the word quark was the thinker of the Torah, Gal-Man, who drew inspiration from James Joyce's book). Quarks are the smallest particles known to scientists. In fact, if we rely on the standard model that describes the elementary particles in nature and their interactions, quarks are point particles. If this is not amazing enough, we will now extend the standard model and add a new quark to it which will be called the "dark quark". This is a hypothetical (hypothetical) particle that may explain the existence of dark matter. The substance is called "dark" because it does not react to photons (particles of light) and therefore cannot be detected through telescopes, but its gravitational influence can certainly be felt.
In a recently published study, the team at the CMS detector at the Geneva Large Accelerator described how dark matter can be measured and tested for its existence using information gathered from proton-proton collisions.
Although the search did not yield a new particle, it narrowed down the possibilities for its existence.
The researchers based the experiment on a relatively simple theory that extends the Standard Model to include dark quarks. The extended model manages to explain why in some parts of the universe the density of known matter is the same as the density of dark matter. The explanation for this comes from the interaction of the dark matter and the normal matter through another particle that mediates between them. If the mediator was created in the Geneva accelerator by a proton-proton collision, it would decay into a familiar quark and a dark quark. The product of this collision will translate into a trail of normal quarks and another trail that is farther from the collision center of normal quarks created by the decay of the dark quarks. The distance comes from the decay time of the dark quarks into quarks we know.
The researchers from CMS examined the information collected from proton-proton collisions with an energy intensity of 13 tera electron-volts (a unit of measure for energy, similar to the joule) to see if there are any events indicating the intermediary particle. The result was clear and no evidence of that particle was observed. Although the result did not result in the discovery of a new particle, it allowed the researchers to narrow down the range of possibilities and we currently know that if dark quarks exist, they are not in the 400-1250 giga electron volts ranging from 5-225 millimeters before they decay. This is the first result ever published on dark quarks from a research group at the Large Hadron Collider.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
20 תגובות
I liked your article
Yosef
Well - if he only wins a million euros, I wouldn't think Verlind is right.
But 2.5 million. He *must* be right!!!
Yehuda
Believe me - I wrote much more sharply, and deleted it.
Your disdain for people who understand 1000 times more than you is shameful. You bring a theory that doesn't work, is unfounded, and contradicts all modern science - and says that scientists are idiots (in a slightly gentler language, but the intention is clear).
I have shown you numerous times that you are wrong, but you don't see it. So what is there to discuss with you? You are not willing to accept anything that contradicts your theory.
Read a bit about Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Here's a link, because I know you won't search alone:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%98_%D7%93%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%92-%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%92%D7%A8
There is a first-rate scientist, winner of the 2.5 million Euro Spinoza Science Prize. His name is Eric Verlind.
He gave a series of lectures in 2017 at the Technion. He is both a professor at Cern and at a university in the Netherlands, and formerly at one of the largest universities in the USA, something like Harvard.
He developed a theory that explains gravity by virtue of the distribution of particles in space and quantum theory.
The theory is called gravitational entropy. Behind this scientist is a series of already recognized achievements such as Verlind's algebra and gravity in string theory. In an article he published in 2016, he explains the complex of phenomena of dark matter, from quantum thermodynamics, the fact that the space itself is quantum in which the principle of entanglement exists.
His lecture at the Technion is actually very clear about how the variation of gravity is created so that it appears as dark matter without dark matter at all. The article concerns actual calculations of empirical graphs that astronomers produce.
His lectures are full of illustrative graphic diagrams so that the explanation can be understood by all levels.
He also has lectures on the subject for the general public. Since 2016, the article has been cited in about 50 citations in which leading physicists such as Lee Smolin, and of course Mordechai Milgrom, the father of the variable gravity theory. One Chinese critical article that claims that by rearranging the organs his theory converges to Newtonian gravity and not to variable gravity as he incidentally shows: variable gravity.
Verlind deduces gravity, and general relativity today from quantum thermodynamics or gravitational entropy. The way to deal with a cluster of quantum particles or a space that consists of quantum finite elements is quantum thermodynamics.
His theory deserves an explanatory essay.
It is true that Vorlind himself admits that he strives for dynamic, elastic equations of space. But his results so far
convincing leading physicists.
Shame on you, Nissim, we are arguing about scientific matters and you call me a "clown"??.,
Is this your attitude to people who disagree with you??
wretched
Yehuda
Your theory doubles the number of mass types, unlike the razor you love so much.
Einstein reduced the number of types of mass, and came to the very very brave conclusion that space-time is curved.
Einstein had a lot of courage... and also integrity, knowledge and modesty...
Yehuda
You're just a clown. You draw conclusions from your lack of understanding - and then say that everyone is stupid.
"Dark matter was born in sin, the sin of relying on Newton's gravitation formula, without any physical justification, at distances billions and trillions times greater than in the solar system where it was measured"
This is simply not true. Dark matter was born from reliance on general relativity and quantum theory, theories that have been proven at distances of many billions of light years. No physical justification? Yehuda - what exactly do you understand in physics? (not that I understand much...)
Is my tone of disdain annoying? Maybe help me not to think that what you say is nonsense?
be brave? Are you talking about brave? Scientists say "we don't know, we are looking". They invent ideas and invest decades of their lives to disprove their ideas.
You - between Maccabi's games - scribble some wrong formula and say to every refutation of your theory "I don't think so!!!".
I explained to you why you are wrong many times, but it goes against your theory (and only because of that!) - it doesn't seem to you.
I showed you observations that contradict your theory, so you just ignore them.
I asked you for some details about your particles (mass, speed, dispersion) - and you did not respond.
Judah - Courage requires admitting mistakes. You have a lot of mistakes, and a complete inability to admit them.
for miracles
I will go back again and say: "Dark matter was born in sin, the sin of relying on Newton's gravitation formula, without any physical justification, at distances billions and trillions times greater than in the solar system where it was measured"
And I say again:- At speeds that exist in galaxies of several hundred kilometers per second, there is absolutely no need for the theory of relativity, and when Mrs. Vera Rubin calculated the movement of matter in galaxies in the XNUMXs, she did not need the theory of relativity to show the contradiction in movement. And when I read and learned the essence of the problem, for example in Professor Hagi Netzer's book "The Universe" (an excellent book!) it was explained there with Newton, so why do you keep repeating your erroneous claim that we need attributions to show the problematic nature of the rotational motion of the galaxies???.
We know you know the theory of relativity but believe me Newton is enough to understand the problem. Maybe for your solution you need general relativity with its four dimensions. With the pressure difference that I know exists in space, the cosmos does not need it!
The tone of disdain arising from your response Nishim is a bit infuriating but that's how you are. Kosher, but...
And we disagree on all the six sections you wrote, but it does not change the fact that the origin of the dark matter is drawing conclusions from Newton's gravitation at distances of less than a thousand light years to distances of millions and billions of light years. Ridiculous!!, and requires inventing illusory matter and illusory energy created from the emptiness of the cosmos - sorry, but "I don't see it",
Instead, miracles, we have to be brave and throw gravity in the distance!!, and this requires a lot of courage and even a reasonable risk of your workplace. But it has to be done.
So it's true that gravitation at distances proved a lot of things but... provided you change the measurements (which were measured with great effort and precision by scientists), tenfold, a hundred, or even thousands, and then you have energy and energy and whatever you want.
To me, "It doesn't seem to me"! (I already said)
Good day miracles
Yehuda.
Yehuda
You wrote
"To Joseph
I agree in principle with your words regarding the unreality of dark matter but not for the explanation of quantum thermodynamics"
Would you please explain why exactly you disagree with this theory?
Yehuda
Do you think it is honorable to declare "there is no dark matter" without giving your reasons for it? And now I see that you also understand quarks. Beautiful!!
You write "dark matter was born in sin, the sin of relying on Newton's gravitation formula, without any physical justification"
How many times have I explained to you that this is not true? What does Newton have to do with it? Einstein's formula does not exist for you?
Now - let's not forget why you think there is no dark matter. The only reason is that you have your own "theory". Are all the scientists who study dark matter complete losers? Don't they know something you know? Seriously?!?
And let's mention, briefly, what are the problems in your theory, problems that you ignore because they are, and I quote, "not visible to you":
1. Your theory invalidates the law of conservation of energy.
2. Your theory does not fit with special relativity
3. Your theory does not fit with general relativity
4. Your theory does not fit with quantum theory.
5. Your theory does not explain gravity on individual atoms
6. Your theory doesn't explain anything that the other theories do
This. Oh no, I almost forgot:
7. Your theory doesn't work!
Yehuda, please, a little modesty? did you understand that
All the running around dark matter seems pretty weird, and frankly pretty dark. It is assumed that there is dark matter, and therefore there is an even darker quark. Failing time and time again to follow in their footsteps, but the failures are frozen in a dark place in the mind. Narrowing range, but scraping the zero at the dark bottom of possibilities. A little of the light will repel much of the darkness, but in the darkness that has taken over, science does not try to illuminate anything, as if all the matches in the box of the scientific brain have run out, such has been the darkness in recent years. The ways of faith are hidden when it comes to the dark religion.
Only a quark will succeed in discovering and documenting a quark.
good
According to Verlind, even if they find a dark matter particle, they will explain a gap in the observed energy in a way that is not variable gravity using a force-carrying particle and a mass-carrying particle.
Apparently, if someone explains the complex of dark matter phenomena without computational dark matter, that is enough. It turns out not.
After Occam's Razor Principle failed to convince, we must look for a difference between Verlind's theories and dark matter if there is any.
to Judah That's not what I wrote. I wrote that the source of the dark matter hypothesis is found in observations at great distances
And currently there are no telescopes that would rule out the existence of "normal" material that does not radiate at these distances. If only there were such telescopes
The dark matter hypothesis may not have been needed to explain the relative velocities of the stars.
Benjamin May
You are wrong in your assertion that there should be no dark matter in the Earth region. The region of the Earth located at a distance of about 30,000 light years from the center of the galaxy should be surrounded by dark matter (if it exists) only in this way it would be possible to explain the fast movement of the sun around the center of the galaxy and the fast movement of the stars further away from the center of the galaxy.
So your claim that you are not looking in the right place is not reasonable.
to Joseph
I agree in principle with your words about the unreality of dark matter but not for the explanation of quantum thermodynamics
Shabbat Shalom to all
Yehuda
In my response I wrote: "brown stars" = brown dwarfs.
What a waste of energy for nothing. How long will it take to realize that there is probably no dark matter.
How Eric Verlind worked to convince more scientists of his theory that explains without dark matter through quantum thermodynamics. At least his effort that he does not give up should be seen as an inspiration.
Legions of scientists are dealing with dark matter.
I'm afraid that, as in the well-known joke, the successful researchers simply "look under the lamp". The common denominator for dark matter and dark energy is that the proofs of their existence are in outer space and the explanation that disproves the need for them could provide more powerful observation devices designed for outer space - if there were any. The place of the dark matter could be filled by bodies such as black holes, brown stars and interplanetary matter - and the dark energy could be replaced by universes outside the observation capacity of the existing telescopes.
There is no dark matter and no dark quark and I am always re-fascinated by the optimism of the research scientists. They always leave room for hope!
Do you remember the experiment with the xenon tuna that studied the "reality" of dark matter?, there too they found nothing but that didn't stop the researchers, they claimed it was just proof that... they needed more xenon and surely then they would be able to find it.
Now the conclusion with the test at Cern is not that there is no dark quark, we just understand that it will have to be done at higher energies.
I am reminded of an article here in Science about "definitive proof" that was found for the existence of dark matter somewhere at the beginning of the universe, and... disappointment.
Dark matter was born in sin, the sin of relying on Newton's gravitation formula, without any physical justification, at distances billions and trillions times greater than in the solar system where it was measured. We need to look for something else instead of gravitation for large distances and avoid the need for dark matter and dark energy.
In a previous article here on the science website about the stars that really like to fly in flocks, there is a picture that explains that it is not gravity that moves the stars in the high rocks, a hint that maybe it is the pressure difference that pushes them all together, as I claim.
Did you understand that?
Good Day
Yehuda