How does LHC prove there isn't higgs particle?
We scientists know that matter is made up atoms, and atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And we recognize that protons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles called quarks. Would probing deeper uncover particles even more fundamental? We don’t know for sure. We do have something known as the standard model of particle physics, which is excellent at explaining the interactions among subatomic particles. The standard model has also been used to expect the existence of previously unknown particles. The last particle to be found this way was the Higgs boson, which LHC researchers observed in 2012.
But according to me there’s a hitch. “The standard model doesn’t give an explanation for everything,” “It doesn’t provide an explanation for why the Higgs particle actually exists. It doesn’t explain in detail why the Higgs boson has still the mass and decays that it does
In fact, the Higgs turned out to be a heck of a lot less massive than predicted — theory had held that it would be about “a quadrillion times heavier than it’s far,” The mysteries don’t end there. Atoms are known to be electrically neutral — the positive charge of the protons is cancelled out by the negative charge of the electrons — but as to why this is so,, “Nobody knows.
Here may be some explanation by us "where From mass came in the Universe? did the mass originate from a zero rest mass particle in Higgs field "Published in Research and review journal of Space science and technology VOl 5 Issue 3 2016 URL https://www.slideshare.net/…/research-reviews-journal-of-sp…
Warm Intergalactic Medium(WHIM) and Dark Energy? Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: A
Physics and Space Science Volume 17 Issue 1 Version 1.0 Year 2017
5] Where From the mass came in the Universe ? did the mass Came from a zero rest mass particle in the higgs field?
No force is more familiar than gravity — it’s what keeps our feet at the ground, after all. And Einstein’s theory of general relativity offers a mathematical method for gravity, describing it as a “warping” of space. But gravity is a thousand billion trillion trillion times weaker than the other three known forces (electromagnetism and the two forms of nuclear forces that operate over tiny distances). According to us
One possibility — speculative at this point — is that in addition to the 3 dimensions of space that we observe each day, there are hidden extra dimensions, perhaps “curled up” in a way that makes them impossible to detect. If these ten extra dimensions exist — and if gravity is able to “leak” into them — it may give an explanation for why gravity appears so weak to us.
“it could be that gravity is as strong as those other forces however that it gets rapidly diluted by spilling out into these other invisible dimensions,” . Some physicists hoped that experiments at the LHC might give a touch of these extra dimensions — but so far, no luck
Please See the articles published by us What is Gravity? Is it a force Generated by a Zero mass particle ! If it is a force then 1] why we can not measure Gravity or speed of Gravity?
Please click on Ask a Nobel Laureate with David Gross URL https://www.youtube.com/watch…
4] Why does time seem to flow only in one direction?
Since Einstein, physicists have thought of space and time as forming a four-dimensional structure known as “space-time.” But space differs from time in some very fundamental ways. In space, we’re free to move about as we wish.
(For example, a broken teacup has more entropy than an intact one — and, sure enough, smashed teacups always seem to arise after intact ones, not before.) Entropy may be rising now because it was lower earlier, but why was it low to begin with? Was the entropy of the universe unusually low 14 billion years ago, when the Big Bang brought it into existence?
For some physicists, including Caltech’s Sean Carroll, that’s the missing piece of the puzzle. “If you can tell me why the early universe had a low entropy, then I can explain the rest of it,” he says In Whiteson’s view, entropy isn’t the whole story. “To me,” he says, “the deepest part of the question is, why is time so different from space?” (Recent computer simulations seem to show how the asymmetry of time might arise from the fundamental laws of physics, but the work is controversial, and the ultimate nature of time continues to stir passionate debate.)
please read our article
1] Space Time Concept
Some answers may come when the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) starts collecting data in 2026. DUNE will analyse a beam of neutrinos — tiny, charge less and nearly mass less particles — fired from Fermilab to the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, some 800 miles away. The beam will include neutrinos and anti neutrinos, with the aim of seeing if they behave in the same manner — thus potentially providing a clue to nature’s matter-antimatter asymmetry.
please Read our articles published in Science Journal
Where Went the Anti matter?
2] : Symmetry or Breaking the symmetry- what was the laws of nature?
3] URL https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search…
4] Where Went the Anti matter?
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php…5. What happens in the gray zone between solid and liquid?
We now have two overarching theories to explain just about every physical phenomenon: Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity) and quantum mechanics. The former is good at explaining the motion of everything from golf balls to galaxies. Quantum mechanics is equally impressive in its own domain — the realm of atoms and subatomic particles.Trouble is, the two theories describe our world in very different terms. In quantum mechanics, events unfold against a fixed backdrop of space-time — while in general relativity, space-time itself is flexible. What would a quantum theory of curved space-time look like? We don’t know, says Carroll. “We don’t even know what it is we’re trying to quantize.”
That hasn’t stopped people from trying. For decades now, string theory — which pictures matter as made up of tiny vibrating strings or loops of energy — has been touted as the best bet for producing a unified theory of physics. But some physicists prefer loop quantum gravity,
Once life took root on our planet, some 4 billion years ago, it spread everywhere. But how life evolved from non-living matter stays a mystery. Mark Bowler / Nature picture Library/Getty photos
what makes life so hard for physicists to study? Anything that’s alive is “far from equilibrium,” as a physicist might put it. In a system in equilibrium, one component is pretty similar to every other, with no flow of energy in or out. (A rock would be an example; a box full of gas is some other.) Life is just the opposite. A plant, for example, absorbs sunlight and uses its energy to make complex sugar molecules while radiating heat returned into the environment.
Understanding these complicated systems “is the incredible unsolved problem in physics,” says Stephen Morris, a university of Toronto physicist. “How do we deal with these far-from-equilibrium systems which self-organize into amazing, complicated things — like life?”
Read our Published article Tachyon- Faster than Light Particle Exist in Our Universe or an Imaginary Mathematical Particle International Journal of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Space Science Pages: 12-29
| Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2015
For the relativistic formula for the kinetic energy, ordinary subatomic particles are confined in an infinite well of velocity of Light [c]. So it may be however considered that Faster than Light Particle (FTL) speed phenomenon may exist in this Universe. On the other hand to day even physicists and particle physicist do not consider that Faster than light particles (FTL) exists. The FTL particle is called “Tachyons” the name coined by G. Feinberg  in 1969. There had been many search by various experiments for FTL but most of them showed negative for their existences. It may be that light particles created inside the atomic nuclei which has the nonzero rest mass less than 10-32 kg has the probability of almost unity to transfer into FTL. The electron neutrinos and muon neutrinos also have been observed as FTL state but they have mass and if the rest mass of the neutrinos emitted in proton smashing at speed of light is less than 10-32 then it may be travelling as FTL and there is possibility of existences of Tachyons.
2] Particles break light-speed limit Tachyon is an mathematical Imaginary particle that may moves faster then Photons (Light particles) in the universe and yet to be discovered #27107 Published online 22 September 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.554
9] What was before the Big Bang?
When Edwin Hubble declared that the Universe was continually expanding, Einstein was so perturbed that he reportedly called his inclusion of the Cosmological Constant in the Theory of General Relativity the “biggest blunder” of his life. The blunder was his assumption that the Universe was a static, unchanging place. The expansion of our Universe implies that its diverging inhabitants, like the diverged rivulets from a pinched hose, can be traced back to a single point. The Universe was then determined to have been conceived from a stellar explosion, the first cosmological event, a Big Bang.
If the Universe was infinite and everlasting, then every line of sight would end up on the surface of a star, such that the night sky would be as radiant as the surface of the Sun. This is, of course, not the case, to account for which, stars mustn’t shine before a certain time. The discovery that the Universe has a beginning, nearly 14 billion years ago, is so profound that it led Stephen Hawking to claim it to be “probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.
However, one cannot help but wonder what caused this Bang itself? Which is another way to ask what existed before it?That question, however, is too vague. Physicists narrow it down by scrutinizing only certain aspects of it, such as speculating what prior phenomenon would cause our Universe to exhibit the properties it currently has. One perplexing peculiarity is the Universe’s astonishing order. The Universe, for some mysterious reason, exhibits very low entropy or disorder, and since entropy increases with time, the Universe must have logically begun with an even lesser entropy. A pre-Big Bang theory must account for why it started out this way. Amongst all the theories, I have enumerated only two of the most important ones. However, these are speculations, not verified facts, but the genius and rigor behind them nonetheless illustrate nature’s acquiescence to outrageous and downright weird possibilities, if, of course, the math allows.
A universe with a beginning implies that it must have an end. Cosmologists refer to this as the Big Crunch, an apocalyptic event where the Universe becomes too crowded and crumbles under its own mass. In the scenario, at some point, gravitational contraction triumphs spacial expansion and pulls every mass toward one single point, developing into a monstrous black hole.The theory called Big Bounce predicts that our universe sprouted from the collapse of a previous Universe when it collapsed into a singularity and then “bounced back” to produce ours. Singularities are extremely notorious cosmological phenomena. Currently, no branch of physics can explain their behavior. Not only does Einstein’s General Relativity break down at such an infinitesimal scale, but particle physics at an infinite density is also beyond the understanding of the Standard Model of quantum physics. The Big Bounce especially violates General Relativity, as there seems to be no apparent reason why a black hole would abruptly transmute into a white hole. Some believe that our reasoning is incomplete and there must be a new, undiscovered field that converts contraction into expansion.A unified theory, however, could be of some help. The entailed physics, which is highly esoteric, is a combination of classical and quantum physics called quantum cosmology. It has slyly found a way to predict the “bounce” without encountering a singularity. Quantum cosmologists speculate that the Big Crunch did not contract into a singularity but to a slightly larger, primitive point of finite volume and density where the quantum effects of gravity reached their zenith and became so extremely repulsive than an entirely novel Universe bounced back from the dead as this repulsive force thrust everything hither and thither.
The theory was coined in the 1960s and gained a fair amount of traction in the 80s and early 90s. Despite its inability to explain how the Universe began with a low entropy, the theory can explain how it assumed a flat and uniform structure. In fact, it requires forward-moving time with decreasing entropy, which I’ve already mentioned is not possible.Supporters of the Big Bounce theory predict that the birth of our Universe is a part of a recurrent cycle of Crunches and Bangs. However, a Big Crunch seems unlikely, as Dark Energy is expanding the Universe at exorbitant rates. A Heat Death seems to be more plausible.
see URLs 1] http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html
9] Is there Multi Universe?
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) recorded in the 1960s was indelible proof of the occurrence of the Big Bang. It was the residual heat, the first rays of light emanating from that explosion, whose wavelength was now stretched to microwaves. However, cosmologists were baffled by how uniform the map was. The isotropy gives a hint as to why the Universe is so ordered.The CMBR is a sumptuous map that represents indelible proof of the occurrence of the Big Bang. One can quite easily observe the map’s uniformity implying the isotropy of the primordial Universe
Objects reach a temperature equilibrium by distributing their heat to a nearby object or their surroundings until their lowered temperature and the recipient’s elevated temperature become equal. However, the map’s uniformity seems impossible, since accomplishing an equilibrium between astronomical distances is constrained by the speed of light — it cannot be achieved instantaneously.
Schrödinger Cat's Experiment's Interpretation and Parallel Universe or Multiple Universes
Rupak Bhattacharya1, Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya*, Upasana Bhattacharya, Ritwik Bhattacharya, Rupsa Bhattacharya, Ayishee Mukherjee, Dalia Mukherjee, Hindol Banerjee, Debasis Mukherjee5, Ronok Vyas6 * Research & Reviews: Journal of Space Science & Technology
ISSN: 2321-2837(online), ISSN: 2321-6506(print) Volume 5, Issue 1
Quantum mechanics provides us most fundamental descriptions of our most early universe,
but there is a long-standing debate amongst theoretical physicists about what all these
mathematics really mean in real world? The present three-dimensional (3D) universe, we
humans experience daily since our birth, is probably just one of an enormous numbers of
essentially classical worlds, and all quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of
repulsions that prevented many universes (Multiverse) from having identical physical
configurations like ours. Probabilities arise only because of our human ignorance as to which
in our world an observer occupies a position in space time. This picture is all that is needed to
explain bizarre quantum effects such as particles that can tunnel through solid barriers and
wave behavior in double-slit experiments or in a warm hole. Our many-interacting-universes
approach hinges on our assumption that interactions between deterministically evolving
worlds cause all quantum effects. Each world is simply the position of particles in threedimensional
space time, and each would evolve according to Newton’s laws, if there were no
inter world interactions. A surprising feature of human approach was that the formulation
contains nothing that corresponds to the mysterious quantum wave functions, except in the
formal mathematical limit in which the number of worlds becomes infinitely large.
Conversely, Newtonian mechanics corresponds to the opposite limit of just one world. Thus,
our approach should incorporate both classical and quantum theory. As few as two
interacting worlds can result in quantum like effects, such as tunneling through a barrier.
Many interacting worlds theory (MIW) explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite
number of universes in the early time shared the same space and time as ours. They show that
the theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to
explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of multiverse theory
that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all
overlaying each other in the same space and time. The fine tuning of parameters required to
reproduce our present day universe suggests that our universe may simply be a region within
an eternally inflating super-region. Many other regions beyond our observable universe might
have existed in earlier times with each such universe governed by a different set of physical
parameters and laws. Collision between these regions, if they occurred, should have left
signatures of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) but have not been seen
yet. We assess different mechanisms for this residual emission and conclude that although
there is a 30% probability that noise fluctuations may cause foregrounds to fall within 3σ of
the excess, there is less than a 0.5% probability that foregrounds can explain all the excess.
A plausible explanation is that the collision of our universe with an alternate universe, whose
baryon to photon ratio is a factor of ∼4500 larger than ours, could produce enhanced
Hydrogen Paschen-series emission at the epoch of recombination. Future spectral mapping
and deeper observations at 100 and 217 GHz are needed to mitigate systematics arising from
unknown galactic foregrounds and to confirm this unusual hypothesis. After careful analysis
of the spectrum of the CMB, Chary et al. found a signal that was about 4500x brighter than it
should have been, based on the number of protons and electrons. Scientists believe that this
existed in the very early universe. Indeed, this particular signal, an emission line that arose
from the formation of atoms during the era of recombination is more consistent with a
universe whose ratio of matter particles to photons is about 65x greater than our own. There
is a 30% chance that this mysterious signal is just noise, and not really
Hitherto, the scientific community has reached a consensus that the Big Bang erupted from a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics break down, rendering only crude accounts of possibilities beyond it. Right now, without a Theory of Everything, a theory that would hopefully unite classical and particle physics, science can only beat around the bush; it cannot predict without any uncertainty how our Universe began
Copy Righted material to ProfDr Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya under IPR Copy Right Acts sections-306/301/3D/107/1012/ RDF and Protect Intellectual Property Right ACT of USA-2012. Don't try to infringe, to avoid huge civil/criminal proceedings in IPR Court: