So, Veeky Forums, what happened after this? so, they discovered the higgs boson, whats next?

Well, it seems to have matter-like effects, whatever it is. It's just a placeholder for what is being observed in the cosmos. But without any explanation for the observations, the search for any hints is worthwhile.

>it seems to have matter-like effects

Such as being invisible?

>I'm not anti-science
>I'm not, I'm not, I'm not
Yes, you are.

>t. brailent
found the brainlet

>dark matter is non-physical
wat

Such as gravitational effects. You should know that fundamental particles with 0 charge cannot interact with the electromagnetic force, i.e neutrinos are "invisible" but we still know they exist. That's not to say dark matter is definitely a new type of particle, just that it very much is possible.

After a particle is discovered the next step is usually that the Particle Data Group makes a clear statement of its properties, Higgs called his particle the scalar boson meaning it has spin-0. If the particle they discovered in 2012 has spin-1 then it is likely one of the two new spin-1 particles predicted by me

>Quantum Structure
>vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

ABSTRACT: The logical structure of the standard model is isomorphic to the geometric structure of the modified cosmological model (MCM). We introduce a new particle representation scheme and show that it is invariant under CPT. In this representation spin arises as an ordinary physical process. The final character of the Higgs boson is predicted. Wavefunction collapse, the symmetry (anti-symmetry) of the wavefunction and some recent experimental results are discussed.

...

You're confusing forces (non-physical) with matter.

That's interesting. I don't really understand enough to comment on the modified model, though. Do you think LHC might eventually lead to it?

Don't speak of things you know nothing of. There is no belief and there is no critique without understanding. All models of anything can be and generally must be represented by mathematics, otherwise you have vague concepts not fit for use.

scalar means spin=0

Well they found the last remaining thing they were expecting to find and have been struggeling ever since to find something that they didn't expect. The main point of this whole exercise was to get a glimpse at completely new physics, but so far, everything has been boring and already been predicted with current models. Even that movie accurately predicts that the higgs has a mass that is utterly fucking boring and not indicative of anything. That's a real problem because particle physics is approaching a real dead end despite the fact that we know for a fact that there's still things we don't know. We just don't see a way to find them out right now.

The graviton.

The rules of acquisition

>Such as gravitational effects
Then why hasn't our sun attracted huge clouds of dark matter already? Or Earth covered in blankets of the stuff?

Underrated

Particles are bullshit

That's a good question. So let's assume that dark matter is mostly weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs)--maybe it isn't actually, but just assume for the sake of argument. Because they don't interact electromagnetically and simply pass through visible matter and each other, the amount that would settle in our solar system is very little. Without much way to collide or emit energy, there's also not much way to shed momentum. It might initially seem wrong, but the result is a concentration on the outskirts of gravity wells, rather than at the centers. Our solar system's gravity isn't dominant enough to collect enough to be noticeable, but the galaxy's gravity very much is.

Some scientists think that they have observed dark matter aggregating in lumps and threads. Even if weakly interacting this stuff has had 10+ billion years to coalesce. So even if it somehow overlays the Earth we should still see the effect or gravitational effect of it. As far as I know we don't.

Shedding momentum is a good point yet somehow it must have in order to gather in lumps and threads. Some mechanism must be in place.

>the result is a concentration on the outskirts of gravity wells, rather than at the centers

Now that is strange.

SILENCE HERRETIC!
YOU DARE TO WRONG OUR GOD EMPEROR PARTICLE AND SPEAK VILE LIES?!
DEATH TO ALL HERETICS!

It's not "non-physical", it's just non-baryonic. It can still collide with things, it just can't bond with anything so it's hella unlikely. It still interacts with gravity and weak force, just not the electromagnetic or strong.

Like anti-matter, it's a form of matter that was theorized to exist before the observations appeared that made it a plausible explanation, save that, unlike anti-matter, we've never confirmed its existence.

But there's non-uniform amorphous gravitational masses that aren't interacting with anything else, nor reflecting or emitting anything - thus you get patterns like pic related - so it's a good bet that non-baryonic matter just turns out to be more common than initially thought.

Nothing else we've theorized about fits the picture, but clearly, there's something there. It's not like dark energy where it's uniform and you might be able to math it away - it's a mass of some sort.

>So even if it somehow overlays the Earth we should still see the effect or gravitational effect of it. As far as I know we don't.

We don't expect to see it, assuming the best guesses are accurate. 10^20 Kg is an estimate for the amount captured by the solar system after 4.5 billion years. That's only 1/100 the mass of Pluto.

Again, not intuitive, but think about the fact that background dark matter at our galactic radius should be very low and was even lower billions of years ago. It should also be traveling very fast in relation to us. Solar system escape velocity depends on distance from the Sun, but the vast majority of dark matter entering our system would greatly exceed the escape velocity and just fly off in another direction. The escape velocity of the galaxy overall is very high, lending enough force to produce dark matter orbits on the outskirts, aka a halo.

It's clear you have zero understanding of quantum mechanics or any form of particle physics nor its nature?

I think it is outrageous that the LHC has still not reported the comprehensive analysis suggested by Ralston
>The Need to Fairly Confront Spin-1 for the New Higgs-like Particle
>arxiv.org/abs/1211.2288
Spin-1 was ruled out early in LHC reports of a new particle with mass near 125 GeV. Actually the spin-1 possibility was dismissed on false premises, and remains open. Model-independent classification based on Lorentz invariance permits nearly two dozen independent amplitudes for spin-1 to two vector particles, of which two remain with on-shell photons. The Landau-Yang theorems are inadequate to eliminate spin-1. Theoretical prejudice to close the gaps is unreliable, and a fair consideration based on experiment is needed. A spin-1 field can produce the resonance structure observed in invariant mass distributions, and also produce the same angular distribution of photons and ZZ decays as spin-0. However spin-0 cannot produce the variety of distributions made by spin-1. The Higgs-like pattern of decay also cannot rule out spin-1 without more analysis. Upcoming data will add information, which should be analyzed giving spin-1 full and unbiased consideration that has not appeared before.

Here is my prediction for spin-1:
>Quantum Structure
>vixra.org/abs/1302.0037
he logical structure of the standard model is isomorphic to the geometric structure of the modified cosmological model (MCM). We introduce a new particle representation scheme and show that it is invariant under CPT. In this representation spin arises as an ordinary physical process. The final character of the Higgs boson is predicted. Wavefunction collapse, the symmetry (anti-symmetry) of the wavefunction and some recent experimental results are discussed.

I meant to point out how in the standard model one of the particles is not like the others but in the modified model they are all the same.

>LHC has still not reported the comprehensive analysis
The observational data results are public, anyone can do that analysis.

>We don't expect to see it, assuming the best guesses are accurate.
My understanding is that there is no agreement as to how (or even if) DM interacts with the 4 forces.

>10^20 Kg is an estimate for the amount captured by the solar system after 4.5 billion years. That's only 1/100 the mass of Pluto.
Gravity has the advantage that it is always attracting so why should DN accumulate in places where normal matter has coalesced into stars and planets?

>Again, not intuitive, but think about the fact that background dark matter at our galactic radius should be very low and was even lower billions of years ago.
It is however sufficiently substantial for astronomers to have detected the gravitational effect even decades ago.

>It should also be traveling very fast in relation to us.
Why?

>Solar system escape velocity depends on distance from the Sun, but the vast majority of dark matter entering our system would greatly exceed the escape velocity and just fly off in another direction. The escape velocity of the galaxy overall is very high, lending enough force to produce dark matter orbits on the outskirts, aka a halo.
Would there not be a lot of DM in-plane to the galaxy in order to produce the rotational effect that first brought about the idea of DM? By symmetry DM around the galaxy would be unlikely to have any effect.

Also: if the interaction is so small, would dark matter passing through the solar system just sink to the bottom of the Sun or even the Earth if it were captured?

>My understanding is that there is no agreement as to how (or even if) DM interacts with the 4 forces.
Consider the explanation was only what should happen in the case that WIMPs are responsible for dark matter.
>Why?
Solar system orbital velocity is 220km/s. Galaxy movement in relation to CBR is 600km/s.
>Would there not be a lot of DM in-plane to the galaxy in order to produce the rotational effect
There is a lot. We might even say 50-80% of the captured material in the disk is dark matter. But the galaxy is 90% dark matter, 10% luminous. So dark matter density is higher in the disk, but the vast majority of it is simply not in the disk.
>would dark matter passing through the solar system just sink to the bottom of the Sun or even the Earth if it were captured
Not really. It just doesn't condense over time at the kind of rate that would do that. Gas and dust trade momentum in the form of photons every time they collide. For all the mass that was captured by Earth, it was necessarily very hot early on. Dark matter seems to be exceedingly cold and likewise it's not being captured at a high rate.

>All models of anything can be and generally must be represented by mathematics, otherwise you have vague concepts not fit for use.

I'm afraid you still have vague concepts. Mathematics can only represent a small part of what it is trying to represent.

ur mum

Gravity and the "weak force" are physical are they?

"Anti-matter"? Sounds like a sneaky way of saying non-physical, without actually saying it.

>But there's non-uniform amorphous gravitational masses that aren't interacting with anything else, nor reflecting or emitting anything - thus you get patterns like pic related

If it doesn't reflect, emit or interact at all, how can you possibly measure it?

All you need is logic.

Well quantum theory actually works really fucking well, the logic you seem to be referring to must be based on your (and others') experience of the macroscopic world and isn't worth much here.

>Well quantum theory actually works really fucking well

It doesn't matter if a theory works well, it's still only a theory that is applicable to a certain abstract perspective of reality which has been arbitrarily separated from everything else.

>>Would there not be a lot of DM in-plane to the galaxy in order to produce the rotational effect
>There is a lot. We might even say 50-80% of the captured material in the disk is dark matter. But the galaxy is 90% dark matter, 10% luminous. So dark matter density is higher in the disk, but the vast majority of it is simply not in the disk.
Would the in-disk DM also be moving with a large velocity relative to normal matter?

Islam delenda est.

>Gravity and the "weak force" are physical are they?
Yes, gravity and weak force are physical (particularly weak force, which involves the exchange of fermions and bosons), and in this case, they are bonding physical particles of dark matter.

>"Anti-matter"? Sounds like a sneaky way of saying non-physical, without actually saying it.
Anti-matter is very physical, and unlike dark matter, interacts with all four forces normally, and is in every way identical to matter save that the charges are opposite, thus bad things happen when one collides with the other. We can create anti-matter and have some tiny amounts on hand.

"Non-physical" isn't really a thing in science, being one of its limitations. Either it is, or it isn't.

>have some tiny amounts on hand.
Think the record for penning antimatter is held at 17 minutes, so... Probably not at the moment.

On the other hand, bananas produce antimatter - kinda, sorta. So I suppose you could that "storage".

symmetrymagazine.org/2009/07/23/antimatter-from-bananas

But yeah, it's physical. Dark matter is also physical, just lacking in some common interactions. It can collide with matter, it just isn't very likely to happen, especially in a gravity well. It may self-annihilate when it collides with itself, but should happen very rarely, as gravity has to capture it and compress it down far enough for this to happen, as there's no strong force interactions to create atomic bonds. If I recall correctly, this is one of the theories as to why quasars put out far more energy than the galaxies feeding them could provide - they are forcing dark matter to self annihilate in their accretion discs.

There's evidence for the coupling of the Higgs boson to b-quarks, 3.6 sigma.

>vixra