Higgs/particle interactions at high energies maybe metastable

[PB666]

http://scienceblog.com/80381/new-precise-particle-measurement-improves-subatomic-tool-for-probing-mysteries-of-universe/#bdmpsejd3ptSv3Bg.97 Edited September 30, 2015 by PB666

[sgt_flyer]

You have a knack to extract a very small part of an article to make a title - but that's a misleading title for describing the article (unless you are training to make sensionalistic news headlines, in this case you're going in the same direction as news editors )

(Unless you linked the wrong article)

The main point of the article is that they improved their measurements and calculations upon top quarks (though the article is vague if it's because they simply managed to create better detection systems, or simply refined their calculations)

The rest of the article is almost only speculation... As they are implying, their research could countradict / improve upon the standard model (by adding the interaction of higgs boson & gravity into the mix)

afterwards, it becomes even more far fetched (as, they say that those reactions could attain high energy metastability, it could destroy the universe... Although they say just after that the particles normally can't reach this state in our universe)

Edited September 29, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[PB666]

You have a knack to extract a very small part of an article to make a title - but that's a misleading title for describing the article (unless you are training to make sensionalistic news headlines, in this case you're going in the same direction as news editors )

(Unless you linked the wrong article)

The main point of the article is that they improved their measurements and calculations upon top quarks (though the article is vague if it's because they simply managed to create better detection systems, or simply refined their calculations)

The point was that their reading conforms with the average mass, but other readings using more energetic versions indicate a higher resting mass. I think implicit in the metastability is that at the beginning of the universe metastability may have existed, but as it cooled the resulting top quarks typically interacted with higgs in a conformal manner. That was my interpretation.

Remember we are trying to find things that might, under unique circumstances, violate conservation of momentum and metastability in the top quark higgs interaction could be one of these. Doesn't mean that it has any relevance for modern universe, simply means that the circumstance might exists under extreme circumstances. More to the point, if those circumstances existed again, most likely we wouldn't care because they would be inconsistent with life in general.

And so I placed that as the catch phrase in the title, that is how the article was relevant to me, and maybe relevant to other folks.

Edited September 29, 2015 by PB666

[sgt_flyer]

For me, the true point of the article is their improvements upon the measurements of the top quark is useful - having more precise values for the top quark will allow them to better isolate and measure what happens during the collision (it's easier to solve an 'equation' with more known parameters)

The rest, is, for the moment, pure speculation - their research should effectively be able to help determine the metastability - but it's not the point of the article for me.

They first need to find the correct 'tools' allowing them to confirm or infirm the metastability - and that's what they did - they improved the tools they think they need

Nothing in the article can help prove or disprove the metastability by itself

Now that they'll start using this newfound knowledge for performing other measurements, it should give us more detailed infos on what happens at these subatomic scales - not only metastability, but also to help them determine values for other elements

Now, of course we'll have different point of views on the important part of the article

But summarizing it to this title with only a link without having your own explanation onto why you think this is the most relevant part is not really useful

- now, if you had added your explanation directly with the link, it could effectively lead to a healthy debate

still, you should try to summarize the future articles of this kind you find and add your own thoughts about why you think the article is important others might have different opinions, but that's where it's interesting to read the debates between healthy opinions

Edited September 29, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[PB666]

For me, the true point of the article is their improvements upon the measurements of the top quark is useful - having more precise values for the top quark will allow them to better isolate and measure what happens during the collision (it's easier to solve an 'equation' with more known parameters)

The rest, is, for the moment, pure speculation - their research should effectively be able to help determine the metastability - but it's not the point of the article for me.

Maybe with a new more powerful electron/positron collidor they can get the energies up and take better measurements of the top quark at high energies. I wouldn't call it pure speculation, the higher energy quarks gonna need more statistical power in its measurements. Of course as we are talking the other day, its a function of getting the theory ahead of the data, better to wait on the data.