Does the Higgs Boson Decay Into Dark Matter?

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
If you like to discuss theoretical physics while sitting around the bar sipping your drink, you now have a topic worth of your highbrow interests. The really big question after the discovery of the Higgs bosun is whether or not the God Particle decays into dark matter.

But while the Standard Model has been tremendously successful, it does not explain the gravitational force that keeps galaxies from flying apart.
 
There’s also the problem that the Higgs has a relatively low mass, quadrillions of times less than seemed natural to some researchers.
I was under the impression that the Higgs was precisely where it was supposed to be. Maybe off by a bit but certainly not 10^15 lighter, if that were the case there would be no point searching for it because the LHC can't currently get anywhere close to energy levels that high. If these "some researchers" think the HIggs is too light, perhaps the search for this dark matter is equally silly.

We can't detect dark matter, gravitinos are hypothetical, hell gravitons are as well, article states we've already observed a HIggs decay.
 
I was under the impression that the Higgs was precisely where it was supposed to be. Maybe off by a bit but certainly not 10^15 lighter, if that were the case there would be no point searching for it because the LHC can't currently get anywhere close to energy levels that high. If these "some researchers" think the HIggs is too light, perhaps the search for this dark matter is equally silly.

We can't detect dark matter, gravitinos are hypothetical, hell gravitons are as well, article states we've already observed a HIggs decay.

I thought we observed the higgs boson via it's decay products, not directly. If these researchers are inferring the observed decay indicated something too light, then perhaps they are saying there must be a dark matter component it decays into. It goes along with the dark matter theory and universal expansion (galaxies aren't moving as fast as they should so there must be something else holding them together).
 
I thought we observed the higgs boson via it's decay products, not directly. If these researchers are inferring the observed decay indicated something too light, then perhaps they are saying there must be a dark matter component it decays into. It goes along with the dark matter theory and universal expansion (galaxies aren't moving as fast as they should so there must be something else holding them together).

Well yeah, we infer from decay because the mean lifetime is so short that light can't cross an atomic diameter in that time (i.e. impossible to actually track in any way directly). But what do we look for with dark matter? Dark matter supposedly is stable. Gravity is not detectable on those mass scales, plus we don't even have an idea of what dark matter is made of, so it confuses me to think that there is some decay process that we can look for that infers darkmatter.
 
Ummm, so we theorize a thing, set up a multi-billion$ test, get a result that is off a bit, and then start making up theories about why ...

Rather than consider maybe we were just plain wrong in the first place OR didn't actually detect the thing theorizes in the first place OR etc, etc, .... we just look for more fudge factors to back up the theory or the original fudge factors.

Science!! :rolleyes:
 
They need something to do while the LHC is being upgraded. There is probably quite a bit of data to go through.

Whatever happened to some of the string theories(m-theories) that I thought predicted the gravitons?(close loop strings)

I would love to visit the LHC!
 
Ummm, so we theorize a thing, set up a multi-billion$ test, get a result that is off a bit, and then start making up theories about why ...

Rather than consider maybe we were just plain wrong in the first place OR didn't actually detect the thing theorizes in the first place OR etc, etc, .... we just look for more fudge factors to back up the theory or the original fudge factors.

Science!! :rolleyes:

That was not what happened.

They did discovered Higgs boson, which is the experimental evidence to support this Higgs idea. In science, new discoveries will often lead to new questions as we attempt to dig deeper into how nature works. It doesn't mean the previous chapter remains unresolved, they were concluded but we're merely asking new questions.

The discovery of Higgs boson closed the old chapter about where do fundamental particles get their masses. But now you have this new particle to study, you then try to understand it's characteristic. What this particular group of physicist is trying to do, is to explain why this new particle have such a low mass. When you find something new, and it has a characteristic you've never observed before, you will naturally ask questions about it.

But this doesn't mean they were wrong about Higgs mechanism, Higgs mechanism have been experimentally verified. This is a new question they are asking.
 
They need something to do while the LHC is being upgraded. There is probably quite a bit of data to go through.

Whatever happened to some of the string theories(m-theories) that I thought predicted the gravitons?(close loop strings)

I would love to visit the LHC!

The upgrade is almost finished and operations should resume in the next couple months iirc.
 
Ummm, so we theorize a thing, set up a multi-billion$ test, get a result that is off a bit, and then start making up theories about why ...

Rather than consider maybe we were just plain wrong in the first place OR didn't actually detect the thing theorizes in the first place OR etc, etc, .... we just look for more fudge factors to back up the theory or the original fudge factors.

Science!! :rolleyes:

not-sure-trolling-just-stupid_139837985169.png
 
Didn't they say something like 2 years ago that Dark Matter probably isn't even a thing?
 
Didn't they say something like 2 years ago that Dark Matter probably isn't even a thing?

I'm sure someone sometime did say that, hell there are a group of people who believe dark matter can be accounted for in some other way MOND theory is one of said ideas, however as it stands the accepted notion is that dark matter is a thing.
 
Hmm... I have to say it. :D

"Dark Matter still cannot be explained! Where is your God Particle now?"
 
Didn't they say something like 2 years ago that Dark Matter probably isn't even a thing?

Dark matter is still the prevailing theory. Nobody has been able to come up with a modified theory of gravity that consistently matches up with both galaxy rotation speeds and the behavior of interacting galaxies. It looks like we're dealing with unknown matter of some sort that gives galaxies additional mass rather than something to do with the physics of gravity over huge distances.
 

yea... i couldnt pick between the two, either. he just used a PC and the internet, two of mankind's crowning technological achievements of our lifetimes, to complain about brilliant minds attempting to further explain how things work.

i uh.. i got nothin.
 
Ummm, so we theorize a thing, set up a multi-billion$ test, get a result that is off a bit, and then start making up theories about why ...

Rather than consider maybe we were just plain wrong in the first place OR didn't actually detect the thing theorizes in the first place OR etc, etc, .... we just look for more fudge factors to back up the theory or the original fudge factors.

Science!! :rolleyes:

Exactly Science!!!!!!
 
Ummm, so we theorize a thing, set up a multi-billion$ test, get a result that is off a bit, and then start making up theories about why ...

Rather than consider maybe we were just plain wrong in the first place OR didn't actually detect the thing theorizes in the first place OR etc, etc, .... we just look for more fudge factors to back up the theory or the original fudge factors.

Science!! :rolleyes:

Though that isn't technically what happened, its still better than the classic copout explanation "because God".
 
Dark matter is still the prevailing theory. Nobody has been able to come up with a modified theory of gravity that consistently matches up with both galaxy rotation speeds and the behavior of interacting galaxies. It looks like we're dealing with unknown matter of some sort that gives galaxies additional mass rather than something to do with the physics of gravity over huge distances.

I see... when I saw that, I thought it was more of a kind of break through but my memory sucks, so I could just be remembering it wrong.
 
I was under the impression that the Higgs was precisely where it was supposed to be. Maybe off by a bit but certainly not 10^15 lighter, if that were the case there would be no point searching for it because the LHC can't currently get anywhere close to energy levels that high. If these "some researchers" think the HIggs is too light, perhaps the search for this dark matter is equally silly.

We can't detect dark matter, gravitinos are hypothetical, hell gravitons are as well, article states we've already observed a HIggs decay.

This is why physics is so depressing. Where are the breakthroughs? It seems like most of the low hanging fruit has already been plucked, and the rest is either beyond our capabilities to test or against the known laws of the universe.


We can't go ftl, warp drives even if workable require some sort of exotic matter we don't even know exists, so we are trapped in this infinitesimal slice of the cosmos. Everything adds up to a depressing empty dead end of a future.

The most exciting discoveries are not purely theoretical, they are those that have practical benefits, either now or down the road. And when I look at the state of physics, I don't see it opening any new frontiers of human capabilities any time soon.
 
We can't go ftl, warp drives even if workable require some sort of exotic matter we don't even know exists, so we are trapped in this infinitesimal slice of the cosmos.

Not necessarily. Time dilation at relativistic speeds makes the universe accessible. When you get close to the speed of light you start experiencing time more slowly rather than moving through space more rapidly. At constant 1g acceleration you could cross the whole galaxy in something like 20 years ship time.

Even if traveling at speeds where relativity becomes important is impossible the universe is still accessible. 10% the speed of light seems to be possible with nuclear pulse propulsion and similar methods. At that speed you could reach nearby stars in 40-60 years. It might take us a few centuries to get to the point technologically where we can build ships reliable enough for the trip, but that's just an engineering problem.
 
Though that isn't technically what happened, its still better than the classic copout explanation "because God".

Whoa

How is dark matter/dark energy any different than God?

It can't be seen.
It can't be felt.
It can't be detected.

But its what holds the universe together. Trust us. Have faith. It's there. No really. It's there. You just have to believe us even though there is no way we can prove it to you.

Only difference is Dark matter/energy is not given credit for touchdowns.
 
Whoa

How is dark matter/dark energy any different than God?

It can't be seen.
It can't be felt.
It can't be detected.

But its what holds the universe together. Trust us. Have faith. It's there. No really. It's there. You just have to believe us even though there is no way we can prove it to you.

Only difference is Dark matter/energy is not given credit for touchdowns.
It can't be seen, yet we have maps where it is
It can't be felt, except as a gravitational source
It can't be detected, but we infer where it is based on the first two "can'ts"
 
Whoa

How is dark matter/dark energy any different than God?

It can't be seen.
It can't be felt.
It can't be detected.

But its what holds the universe together. Trust us. Have faith. It's there. No really. It's there. You just have to believe us even though there is no way we can prove it to you.

Only difference is Dark matter/energy is not given credit for touchdowns.

They're both attempts to explain currently unknown phenomena. The difference is that scientists don't pretend to know for certain if their particular explaination is correct. No faith is demanded. I don't know of any scientists who claim to have a deep personal relationship with dark matter and its laws.
 
It can't be seen, yet we have maps where it is
It can't be felt, except as a gravitational source
It can't be detected, but we infer where it is based on the first two "can'ts"

That's like saying the bible proves God exists.

I mean, you know, it's inferred and all.

No one knows what exerts those forces. It cannot be measurably proved.

It's a scam. Just like religion. Just smarter people getting you to give them money.
How many trillions will the next collider cost, that wont prove jack shit. Shameful really.

But, we'll still somehow be convinced that just a few more electron volts will roll back the curtain on the universe and another trillion will be shoved in a hole in the ground while "scientists" jack us off with another set of experiments that just don't quite get there.
 
They can say pretty much anything they want. Who going to (or can) spend a few billion dollars to contradict them.
 
Back
Top