Dear Todd: Thanks for the info. Yes, I do know about the many-quark-blob report (https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/03/lhcb-observes-exceptionally-large-group-particles ). It is just a kind of ‘quark-chemistry’, having no insight for the foundation of TOE-physics.
LHC (at CERN) should report its 2016 data at two conferences in two days:
One, Aspen 2017 Winter Conference (Starts 19 Mar, Ends 25 Mar 2017, at Aspen, Colorado USA): http://indico.cern.ch/event/550030/
Two, 2017 Moriond Conference (March 18th – 25th, 2017, at La Thuile, Aosta valley, Italy: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/
Instead of commenting their reports afterwards, I will make a statement here first. The book {Nature Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcrap; 560 pages} is available limited time at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/ , and ALL issues are addressed in it. That is, there is “Nowhere to Run” by any further experimental works but to vindicate the book {Nature Manifesto}.
However, I will elaborate this statement a bit more in this post.
For the mainstream theoretical physics:
One, Standard Model: it is just a hodgepodge from the experimental data (equations are just the results of the reverse-engineering to fit the data). The only theoretical principle is the “Higgs mechanism”.
Two, BSM (Beyond Standard Model):
- SUSY, a wild guess without any empirical support, and it is a total stupidity.
- String (M-) theory, by only changing a ‘point’ into a ‘string’ and hoping for the miracle. Worse yet, without SUSY, it cannot even account for fermions. It is not just wrong as physics but is a total bullcrap.
- Inflationary scenario, another wild guess trash.
- Multiverse, the direct consequence of 1) string-landscape, 2) eternal inflation. It is further motivated by the mainstream failure of deriving the nature constants of THIS universe.
For the mainstream experimental physics (including the observational astrophysics):
First, some facts are established.
One, Planck CMB data: dark mass, dark energy, Neff, etc.
Two, some nature constants (Alpha, non-zero Cosmological Constant, vacuum boson mass (125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev), etc.)
Three, dark-flow (about 9%)?
Second, the on-going research directions:
One, with collider: searching for the BSM particles (as dark mass)
Two, with neutrino: Majorana neutrino? Seesaw mechanism? Neutrino CP violation, etc.
Three, with astrophysical observations
Four, with direct detection of WIMP
The theoretical base for the mainstream physics is now very clear, with five pillars.
One, Higgs mechanism
Two, string — point to string (increasing some hidden dimensions)
Three, SUSY
Four, inflation
Five, with WIMP
SUSY will definitely be ruled out again in these upcoming LHC data reports:
First, direct production at LHC: No.
Second, as dark matter (from LUX, AMS02, Cosmic gamma rays, etc.): No.
Third, as invisible bystander (from EDM, LHCb data): No.
Without SUSY, String (M-) theory cannot even describe fermions.
Inflation is now even denounced by some of its most important inventors (such as Paul J. Steinhardt), see {Wrong about inflation (By Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb; https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf )}. For the {Emperor’s new dress story}, it was a child pointing out the nonsense. For {inflation}, it is now declared as crap by its tailor.
The multiverse is mainly represented by Max Tegmark’s (MIT professor) book “Our Mathematical Universe”, and it is now denounced by Sheldon Glashow (physics Nobel Laureate), see http://inference-review.com/article/a-hand-waving-exact-science .
For WIMPs (dark particles):
First, via direct detection (LUX, etc.): No.
Second, via direct production at LHC: No.
Third, via AMS02 or cosmic gamma rays: No.
Four, as axions (low mass), via (PICO and CAST): No.
Five, as Sterile Neutrino (via LHC, IceCube, etc.): No.
Yet, for this upcoming LHC report, the key point will be on the Higgs mechanism (HM).
For Higgs mechanism, the following issues must be addressed.
One, it must provide masses for some fermions (not including neutrino). That is, Higgs boson must couple very strongly with its cousins (Higgs-field fermions). If this new LHC report (with almost 100 fb-1 data) can still not establish this Higgs mechanism (with the right proportion), it is time to change the name of this new boson to Vacuum Boson which decays mainly via the diphoton channel.
Two, as Higgs mechanism cannot provide the masses for neutrinos, neutrinos should be Majorana particles. That is:
First, there must be neutrinoless Double Beta Decay.
Second, neutrino and its anti-particle must be identical, cannot be distinguished.
Third, neutrinos can have inverted mass-hierarchy.
If these three are not verified in this huge data (LHC and other neutrino data), Higgs mechanism is wrong.
Three, Higgs mechanism (HM) cannot account for the dark mass. So, if WIMPs (SUSY, axions, sterile neutrino, etc.) cannot be found, HM is wrong.
Four, HM cannot account for the dark energy.
Five, HM cannot account for the new boson’s mass (125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev.).
On the other hand, for the G-theory (Nature’s Manifesto; see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/ ), all the above shortcomings of the HM are removed.
The mass-rising mechanism for ALL fermions (including neutrinos) is via the {bouncing (having momentum change) between (ghost point) and (matter universe)}. The mass-rising for bosons is caused by the bouncing between fermions. That is, neutrino is in principle not different from all other fermions (quarks and electrons, etc.).
So, neutrino (in G-theory) cannot be Majorana particle; that is,
No neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,
No inverted mass-hierarchy for neutrinos.
Furthermore, neutrino and its antiparticle must behave differently in the CP symmetry.
In G-theory, Planck CMB data (2013 and 2015) was easily derived, without any WIMP. Thus, there is no chance for these new LHC reports of seeing any WIMP.
Any correct experimental data cannot go beyond the scope of {Nature’s Manifesto}. Nowhere to Run, for sure.
Note (added on March 25, 2017): the two conferences (mentioned above) are now over, with a new set of data. The following is my comment on these two conferences.
Told you so
With 80 fb-1 data at 13 Tev. (about 10 times more than 2012), but:
No Higgs mechanism
No Majorana neutrino
No WIMPs
No SUSY
No sterile neutrino
Note: most graphs below are taken from the CERN/Aspen reports.
The Standard Model (SM), based on Higgs Mechanism (HM), cannot account for:
Neutrino masses
Dark energy/dark mass
BaryonGenesis
Mass Hierarchy
Gravity, etc.
Thus, SM needs:
SUSY (for dark mass, hierarchy, etc.)
WIMP (for dark mass)
Majorana neutrino (for neutrino mass and/or baryongenesis, etc.)
Sterile neutrino (for dark mass and/or majorana neutrino, etc.)
The missing (failure) of one item above will be a deadly blow to SM, especially its base, the Higgs mechanism. If all the above items are missing, the entire mainstream physics collapses.
But, this new data (80 fb-1 from LHC and many others) show the following.
One, NO Higgs mechanism: the b/-b quark decay channel was not even talked about.
Note (added on June 9, 2017): CMS analysis on H→ bb¯ decays at (√s = 13 TeV) with 35.9 fb−1 data (published on 2017/05/29) shows that an observed significance of 1.5σ (0.7σ expected for the standard model Higgs). That is, the Higgs mechanism is not verified, see https://cds.cern.ch/record/2266164/files/HIG-17-010-pas.pdf
Two, NO Majorana neutrino: as neutrino moves with 99.9999…% of light speed (not slowed down by the tar-lake-like Higgs field), its MASS cannot be the result of Higgs mechanism. This is why the Majorana idea came about (to give neutrino mass with seesaw mechanism, different from the Higgs mechanism). But, there are, at least, three consequences for the Majorana neutrino.
First, there must be ‘neutrinoless double beta decay’
Second, neutrinos could have inverted mass hierarchy.
Third, neutrinos MUST be their own anti-particles.
But, all these three are NEGATIVE from the newest data.
NO neutrinoless double beta decay: see https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00570
No inverted neutrino mass hierarchy: see https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03425 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03328
No Majorana neutrino by definition (being its own antiparticle), see https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160728-neutrinos-hint-matter-antimatter-asymmetry/ and http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/is-the-neutrino-its-own-antiparticle
No Majorana neutrino is very significant, as neutrino must not be different from other fermions (quarks and electrons, etc.). Thus, their mass-rising mechanism must also be the same. As Higgs mechanism (HM) cannot account for neutrino’s mass, HM must be wrong completely.
Three, NO SUSY
Higgs mechanism cannot account for the dark mass. So, it needs SUSY. In fact, SUSY is viewed as the super Penicillin for all the problems of the mainstream physics.
However, even this SUSY Penicillin cannot derive all nature constants and Planck CMB data.
Of course, the presentation shows that SUSY is not found in this 80 fb-1 data.
Furthermore, SUSY is further ruled out in the WIMP data, in the LHCb data, etc. Without SUSY, all those problems cannot be addressed in the mainstream physics.
Four, NO WIMP
The LUX data was known for 6 months. This time, the LHC data further ruled it out most of the Gev WIMPs. The exclusion line is very much reaching the neutrino floor (the yellow area).
Most importantly, the PICO data (addressing the low mass region, the axion) was also analyzed. And, it very much excludes the low mass WIMP (such as axion).
Again, the AMS02 anti-proton excess can be accounted for by the known cosmic processes (see https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/03/cosmic-collisions-lhcb-experiment and the following graph).
Five, NO way to account for new boson’s mass (125.26 +/- 0.28 Gev.)
Only G-theory can derive (calculate) this new boson’s mass.
Furthermore, the new measurement from this new data set (80 fb-1) is now closer to my (G-theory) calculation (125.46 +/- Gev.), in fact, identical.
Six, other important data:
First, NO sterile neutrino, see http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/sterile-neutrinos-in-trouble . Sterile neutrino is not a part of SUSY. It cannot play important role as dark mass neither, as neutrino is warm/hot dark matter (that is, it boils, cannot be held in a space while dark mass hugs around the visible matter). But, sterile neutrino can make neutrino being Majorana. No sterile neutrino is another strong point to rule out Majorana.
Two, NO BSM-kind of particle of any kind: any kind of BSN particle (SUSY, axion, sterile neutrino, WIMP, etc.) will be sensed at the BS0 meson decay (analyzed by LHCb). But, NO, see https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/02/standard-model-stands-its-ground .
With all the data (reports) above, the mainstream physics COLLAPES all on its own.
Predicting the death of the mainstream physics alone is indeed a good victory. But, if without a replacing theory for this dead horse, this will only be a victory of self-masturbation. Fortunately, G-theory does rescue the mainstream physics from its hellfire dungeon, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/
Note (added on May 18, 2017):
One, the newest Hubble Constant (measured with Supernovae) is 9% higher than the Planck CMB data, reported by Adam Riess on May 11, 2017, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ . This verified the G-theory prediction, see graph below:
Two, the ‘inflation-war’ was officially announced on May 9, 2017. Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb came out to denounce the ‘Inflation theory’ and to advocate the cyclic multiverse (CM), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-war/ . CM was the key point of the G-theory.
See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/guth-and-gefter-welcome-for-quoting-the-g-theory/
This web page also available as pdf file, Nowhere To Run.
Note (added on May 20, 2017): the heavily promoted China 100 Tev p-p super collider is now killed, see China-Super-Collider-analysis
For Chinese copy, see China-Super-Collider-debate 2
