CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

Article written: 19 Apr , 2017
Updated: 1 May , 2017

Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012, the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the existence of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this end, the Large Hadron Collider beauty experiment (LHCb) was established in 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring what happened after the Big Bang that allowed matter to survive and create the Universe as we know it.

Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing things. This includes discovering five new particles, uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry, and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring beta decay. These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press release, could be an indication of new physics that are not part of the Standard Model.

In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the decay of B0 mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon and a pair of electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are subatomic particles that are 200 times more massive than electrons, but whose interactions are believed to be the same as those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is concerned).

The LHCb collaboration team. Credit:

This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only predicts that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be produced with the same probability – with some constraints arising from their differences in mass. However, in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the decay process produced muons with less frequency. These results were collected during Run 1 of the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.

The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April 18th, at a CERN seminar, where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest findings. As they indicated during the course of the seminar, theseĀ findings are significant in that they appear to confirm results obtained by the LHCb team during previous decay studies.

This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility that new physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the Standard Model (made possible with the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012), investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e. Supersymmetry) has been a major goal of the LHC. And with its upgrades completed in 2015, it has been one of the chief aims of Run 2 (which will last until 2018).

A typical LHCb event fully reconstructed. Particles identified as pions, kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. Credit: LHCb collaboration

Naturally, the LHCb team indicated that further studies will be needed before any conclusions can be drawn. For one, the discrepancy they noted between the creation of muons and electrons carries a low probability value (aka. p-value) of between 2.2. to 2.5 sigma. To put that in perspective, the first detection of the Higgs Boson occurred at a level of 5 sigma.

In addition, these results are inconsistent with previous measurements which indicated that there is indeed symmetry between electrons and muons. As a result, more decay tests will have to be conducted and more data collected before the LHCb collaboration team can say definitively whether this was a sign of new particles, or merely a statistical fluctuation in their data.

The results of this study will be soon released in a LHCb research paper. And for more information, check out the PDF version of the seminar.

Further Reading: CERN, LHCb

, , , , , ,

6 Responses

  1. These Hadron Collider me face to toy making soap bubbles. It all fits. Straw, to the tube to accelerate the particles, when there is a collision of air and soap, blow up the foam (some new particles), which can burst and none of it remain. All return to that from which the balloon is formed.
    So in the collider. The “empty” tubes (the science of thought that are empty and do not know it’s there ether) particles are accelerated at increased magnetism. What happens in the pipes? Here ether “irritating” and he is “hooked” on the particles and transit to the collision. This, for example, proton, “fatten” the collision occurs, a new particle that decays immediately and return the lamp “homeland” in the ether. And scientists think they have found a new particle. Their muon is 200 times greater than electrons. ??
    Then why do not you call the farm to make eggs. When two balls collide, there will be “jajeion”, 200 times the size of an egg.

  2. btraymd says

    The CERN data is legitimate but the interpretation of the data is subjective. That it is at odds with the “standard model” should surprise no one. It seems that virtually all recent data from NASA missions also contradicts the model. It seems that every publication revealing this data underscores surprise at the findings and a new “mystery” requiring the rethinking of the standard model.
    The obvious conclusion is that the standard model has very little predictive value, the cornerstone of any valuable theory.
    This should not surprise anyone that looks closely at the model. It’s foundation consists of concepts that have never been confirmed despite billions of dollars and decades of research. The most notable of these unproven concepts are singularities, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and our sun being driven by nuclear fusion in it’s core. These concepts raise red flags for another important reason…..they require the abandonment of the known laws of physics and chemistry. As such, acceptance of these theories borders on religion and requires the abandonment of the scientific method.
    It’s past time that astrophysicists and cosmologists take a step back and carefully inspect the lack of value in the current standard model. Far to much effort is required to continue to create mathematical salvages every time radio telescope data refutes the model. The bizarre and illogical concepts that arise from this mathematical masturbation are serving no purpose and have reduced cosmology to virtual science fiction. The time honored triad of the scientific of observation, hypothesis and experimental confirmation needs to be rigorously applied. Mathematics is not a subsitute for this process.
    Current data needs to be correctly interpreted using the applicable bodies of scientific knowledge. It is becoming clear that a thorough knowledge of plasma physics and the principles of electrical engineering are critical for the correct interpretation of this data. Gravity and explosions cannot be exclusively used any longer. They just don’t work.
    For example, the work of Anthony Peratt at Los Alamos National Labs can no longer be ignored or ridiculed. All recent data supports his models. And his work has been experimentally confirmed at numerous plasma physic labs across the country. He clearly demonstrated the formation of spiral galaxies using electric current, plasma and magnetic fields. His models also had the necessary velocities to maintain galactic structure. Dark matter, dark energy and black holes were not required. The recent measurement of the most powerful magnetic fields ever measured surrounding galaxies by NASA missions also supports his models.
    The measurement of massive magnetic fields surrounding galactic centers (“black holes”) should also point to an electromagnetic explanation for these structures. Their emission of plasma jets, gamma and xray radiation as well as visible light should make it apparent that these bodies are electromagnetic in nature. The magnetic fields must exist with an accompanying electric current. This evidence points to the fact that these galactic centers (“black holes”) are in fact massive plasmoids.
    Once the cosmologic community begins to address and accept this information, perhaps a more rational and understandable “standard model” can be developed.

  3. btraymd says

    The most clear failing of the standard model is it’s description of the structure and function of our sun. The recent flood of data from NASA missions (i.e Ibex) has devastated the standard model and validated the “electric sun” model as published by Donald Scott.
    Before detailing the recent support for an electric model it should be first mentioned that there is absolutely no evidence that supports nuclear fusion in the core as a source of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun. It is a mystery how hydrogen or helium would exist in the core where only the heaviest elements should exist, not the lightest gases known. But a core source of energy could not possibly account for acceleration of charged particles as they approach earth…this could only happen in an electric field. A surface temperature of 5k with a coronal temp of 2 million also is inconsistent with the core as a source. Finally, infrared data from penumbra show a dark (cool) interior.
    But the evidence supporting the electric model is stunning. The last Ibex findings were published in the Astrophysics Journal Supplement, Oct 2015 in a series of 14 papers. One paper detailed a “massive river of hydrogen” flowing into the sun from extragalactic sources. The electric model both required and predicted this finding.
    The surface of the sun is now confirmed to consist of plasma and massive magnetic fields. So it seems logical to listen to plasma physicist and electrical engineers to detail it’s structure and function. Donald Scott is one of the most esteemed academic electrical engineers in the nation. He wrote the textbook used by most graduate programs in electrical engineering in the U.S. He has recently published convincing interpretations of the sun surface data which reveal that the sun surface consists of Anode tufts. This was confirmed by the Safire project, a plasma physics project directed by Dr. Michael Clarage. The detail in which their findings are described is overwhelming and irrefutable. Scott also provides clear understanding as to why “magnetic reconnection” does not occur in natural systems.
    Given the electric model for star formation, the sun’s surface of plasma and magnetic fields is easily explained and perfectly predicted. Stars form at areas of intense constriction by the magnetic fields along Birkeland currents (Z PINCH). The exact structure of these Birkeland currents was also just published by Scott and is being confirmed by the newest NASA data.
    Scott will eventually receive the Nobel for this work. Hopefully it will not be posthumously like the Nobel Birkeland received 100 years after his death.

    • Member
      Aqua4U says

      You’ve come up with the term “Mathematical masturbation” because obviously you cannot produce the maths to back your ‘theory’. That speaks volumes.

      I suggest you start over by looking up the definition of the word nutrino.

  4. joseluis says

    The electricians are back!

  5. Science still does not understand the structure of the universe, nor does he know how a matter, energy, what gravity and magnetism and how they arise then knows what is heat radiation, to form chemical elements how and why the resulting fusion and fission. But always “confirms” that the universe is expanding, there was a BB that everything obeys Einstein mirage and illusions Lorentz transformations and the like.
    Science has to accept that the universe is an infinite sphere, filled Substance ether. Of ether is formed by using the material of high vibration ether, when the strings are formed in the three spatial directions. In the cross-sections of these strings of materialized {3 kg of particles (3 quark and gluons 3), the electron and positron}, and is particularly and separately formed gluon and annihilation of electron-positron pair. This is a “liquid energy” state of matter, as a basic form of energy.
    Substances (3kg, electron, positron), the ether has a connection in the form of gravitation, which has the task of matter back, again in the form of an ether (black hole).
    In a series of processes of quark gluon plasma formed GRAVATAR, as well as other forms, such as Quasar neutron stars, where the explosion (high magnetism), forming gaseous and celestial jije, and with them the gravity, which all leads to a black hole. I was combinatorics photon positron pairs, the electron, just need to know how the same trends have also celestial bodies, just as science does not know Kepler’s laws can not explain it. For it has a logical proof or science likes to “banging his head against the wall”, because only on false grounds and rich tycoon station, because the truth can not earn anything other than the recognition of a higher level of consciousness.

Comments are closed.