Off-topic II, quantum computing: a novel PLB article promotes a faster hardware for quantum computers, alongside some photon pulses running approximately a room many times. See Science Alert for a summary. Because the qubit is embedded inwards an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, the system may live easily made fault-tolerant.
Bob Henderson wrote well-nigh 2 proposed experiments to search for novel (particle) physics exterior the LHC's detectors:
How the Hidden Higgs Could Reveal Our Universe’s Dark Sector (Quanta Magazine)There may live novel Higgs-like bosons, superpartners predicted past times supersymmetry, but completely novel things – no physics beyond the Standard Model has been flora every bit of today.
In particular, Henderson mentions a 2014 newspaper proposing the milliQan experiment as well as a 2016 newspaper proposing MATHUSLA (appeared inwards PLB).
MilliQan is clearly a distortion of the holler Millikan who has performed famous crude droplet experiments to regain the value of the unproblematic charge. Helpfully enough, Millikan's holler starts alongside "milli" which is 1/1,000. ;-) Consequently, milliQ may live interpreted every bit a "tiny charge, well-nigh 1/1,000 of the accuse of the electron" or some other unproblematic particle.
The milliQan experiment should live sensitive to \(1\GeV\) particles, addition minus some 1-2 orders of magnitude, whose charges are betwixt 0.001 as well as 0.1 of the electron charge. It's fun that 1 may suggest such a affair as well as construct it. But create I believe that such fractional charges exist? I would bet No. I actually holler upwards that they don't be at all, for some theoretical principles. In particular, grand unificiation as well as similar schemes would ban such a fragmentation of the unproblematic charge. On elevation of that, I holler upwards that the Millikan experiment past times itself is a rather proficient empirical reply to the query as well as the reply it gave was that the electron accuse is the unproblematic one.
But fifty-fifty if 1 assumes that this intuition is completely incorrect as well as such particles are allowed, would they live flora past times this experiment? Would they receive got the masses that are closed to \(1\GeV\), addition minus 2 orders of magnitude? Clearly, this status reduces the probability of a regain further. While the LHC hasn't flora anything yet, it's notwithstanding totally reasonable to imagine that novel excesses all of a precipitous start to grow inwards 2017 as well as a 5-sigma regain volition live made inwards a few years.
For this novel experiment, it looks much less probable to me. But of course, if it's cheaper than state 1% of the LHC, it seems sensible to me to pay for such an experiment.
MATHUSLA, the other experiment that Henderson begins with, is named later a monster that is rumored to receive got lived 1,000 years ago. Well, fifty-fifty rumors well-nigh monsters living at the introduce are unremarkably simulated – what well-nigh monsters a millennium ago? ;-) At whatever rate, MATHUSLA is spuposed to live a big, barn-like experiment inwards which some really long-lived particles – which are invisible within the LHC as well as escape the LHC – are encouraged to decay to ordinary particles past times the hay. I didn't quite empathize whether the interior of the barn is of import as well as how.
And the ordinary particles that lawsuit from such decays of the long-lived novel hypothetical particles – whose lifetime times the speed of lite is betwixt millimeters as well as kilometers – are detected on the roof of the MATHUSLA barn. This variety of experiment is meant to live sensitive peculiarly to models alongside really extended, huge hidden sectors alongside many particles and/or their copies.
Those models are academically plausible as well as some of the arguments that they may furnish us alongside novel ways to solve the hierarchy work are plausible later a few bottles of wine. Sorry, I can't convey them without the vino because the add-on of an unnaturally large let on of sectors is a assort of fine-tuning past times itself. But I only cannot larn rid of the feeling that such experiments addressing such models are pure random guesswork. I don't actually meet the keen novel possibilities that the authors receive got discovered. In other words, I don't know what it would hateful to "independently rediscover those things" as well as I don't empathize how I could live proud well-nigh such a rediscovery. You may clearly generalize existing models inwards many ways – alter the let on of colors or factors of the guess group, colors, or generations, as well as many similar things, from 2 to three, to five, to x factorial, to infinity. I holler upwards that the lastly 2 possibilities aren't to a greater extent than natural or attractive than those smaller numbers at the beginning. At to the lowest degree without extra arguments, they don't seem to be.
Moreover, fifty-fifty if the experiment flora something, I don't holler upwards it's clear at all that 1 should state that it provides us alongside prove inwards favor of the detail models alongside extended hidden sectors that are beingness used to justify the experiment. There could likewise live "more minimal" models that contain such a novel particle – which could live added to the Standard Model separately, inwards the well-known "who ordered that" way.
But of course, I tin live incorrect well-nigh all these guesses. I tin misunderstand something important. I tin live similar Sheldon who was asked past times Howard what's the holler of the astronaut who volition larn to outer infinite alongside Howard's toilet. "Mohammed Lee," Sheldon answered because inwards the illustration of ignorance, the combination of the most frequent initiative of all holler as well as most frequent lastly holler gave him a mathematical edge. It turned out that the holler was "Howard Wolowitz". Sheldon wouldn't receive got guessed it fifty-fifty if he had a 1000000 of attempts. ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment