Timeline for Experimental status/test possibilities for baryon number conservation in LHC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 16 at 15:09 | history | bounty ended | Jarek Duda | ||
| S Apr 16 at 15:09 | history | notice removed | Jarek Duda | ||
| Apr 12 at 16:25 | answer | added | David Bailey | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 10 at 19:24 | answer | added | Thomas | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 9 at 15:49 | answer | added | rob♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Apr 9 at 14:31 | history | bounty started | Jarek Duda | ||
| S Apr 9 at 14:31 | history | notice added | Jarek Duda | Draw attention | |
| Apr 9 at 6:54 | comment | added | Jarek Duda | If baryon number is ultimately conserved, then more baryons than antibaryons could not be produced in Big Bang - requiring e.g. cyclic model, baryon number surviving Big Bounces. That is interesting hypothesis, but requiring more evidence to be certain - and nearly only LHC approaches such conditions: could evaluate its probability by analyzing large statistics. | |
| Apr 9 at 6:01 | comment | added | anna v | plasma existing at the beginning to give the large violation observed, then it will become interesting to design an experiment and see if there is baryon violation or not. | |
| Apr 9 at 5:59 | comment | added | anna v | At present particle physicists depend on the fact that the standard model fits almost all data , and experiment at the limits to find contradictions and new physics. Baryon violation with the present SM is very improbable within the measurement possibilities of LHC instrumentation. Lets say it is a small effect. It is not attractive enough to go to the expense of an experiment with the large statistics needed to experimentally detect it, if it is there. Now if a cosmological theory comes up with a method of how , a small elementary particle interaction effect can be amplified by the | |
| Apr 9 at 5:41 | comment | added | Jarek Duda | Maybe it was Big Bounce with the same baryon number before ... but we don't know, and the duty of scientists is to search for evidence to try to answer such questions. Not finding proton decay in room temperature water, it might just require conditions closer to where it is hypothesized: baryogenesis and Hawking radiation - on Earth only colliders get close to such conditions. If it is technically possible (?), how to convince them to try to systematically analyze such statistics - maybe to improve evidence that baryon number is indeed ultimately conserved (or not)? | |
| Apr 8 at 18:48 | comment | added | anna v | I am trying to say that baryon violation in elementary particle interactions, even if there, is experimentally too small to add up to the baryon violation needed to describe the evolution to the present universe. At the same time it is too small to affect the standard model which is the gauge that is used for deciding particle experiments. | |
| Apr 8 at 17:40 | comment | added | anna v | I guess I am trying to say that iff a cosmological theory can come up with : at the beginning of time plasma had a high probability of evolving without antibaryons to describe the universe we live in, even if the standard model limits to small values of baryon violation, I expect the scientific community of elementary particles will come up with an experiment to test baryon violation. At present there is no incentive. | |
| Apr 8 at 10:34 | comment | added | Jarek Duda | @annav The mentioned ALICE article says: "for every 1000 produced protons, approximately 986 ± 6 antiprotons are produced" - sure the differences would be tiny, but with large enough statistics should be verifiable (?) | |
| Apr 8 at 9:12 | comment | added | anna v | I cannot think of a way , but that does not mean much. I expect that if there were significant violations, the predictions of the standard model that depend on baryon number conservation would be falsified, so it will be, if it exists, a small effect , not enough for cosmological models. | |
| Apr 8 at 4:10 | comment | added | Jarek Duda | @annav, so how could more baryons than antibaryons be created in Big Bang? How could black holes evaporate through massless radiation? How could e.g. X82 X-2 get orders of magnitude higher power than explainable? As scientists we shouldn't assume it, only try to ask nature: test it - and LHC seems a natural place for that. Couldn't they e.g. calculate statistics like in this recent ALICE article to confirm or deny that the number of baryons before and after collisions is the same? (at least statistically) | |
| Apr 8 at 3:51 | comment | added | anna v | the present standard model of particle physics is an encapsulation of data and observation of particle physics , from where the SU3xSu2Xu1 group symmetry emerged . This is absolutely dependent on the axiomatic assumption of baryon number conservation.All interactions and decays measured up to now do not violate it at all, afaik. | |
| Apr 7 at 13:12 | history | asked | Jarek Duda | CC BY-SA 4.0 |