Noted…

5 hours ago

skip to main |
skip to sidebar
## Friday, February 17, 2012

###
The 5% Standard Model

As the LHC's Higgs hunt continues, it's worthwhile to reflect on the current state of cutting-edge experimental particle physics, as a whole. Indeed the Higgs boson is a prediction of the Standard Model of particle physics, but as former CERN theoretical physicist John Ellis admitted, in the range 114-135 GeV the "present electroweak vacuum would be unstable for such a light Higgs in the Standard Model" forcing one to come up with new physics to stabilize it. By "new", this means physics beyond the Standard Model, such as for example, supersymmetry. Yet, let's pretend the Standard Model is nice and stable with a ~125 GeV Higgs particle. Does it tell us about every type of matter in the universe? Sadly, it doesn't. Ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy content of the observable universe, while mysterious dark matter makes up about 23%. The rest of the mass-energy content, about 72.4%, is in the form of dark energy. So cosmologically, the Standard Model doesn't seem so standard after all.

So what kind of model explains the physics of dark energy and dark matter (the 95.4% of the universe), along with the 4.6% nicely described by the Standard Model? Many theorists would agree such a model must come from a complete theory of quantum gravity. The leading contender for such a theory is M-theory, the theory underlying the 10-dimensional string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity. There also exist other theories, such as Loop Quantum Gravity, which essentially aims to "quantize" space via Wilson loop operators. Ultimately, the goal is unification of all forces and matter in the universe, using just a single theory. And this theory, in turn, should describe 100% of the universe.

Are we close to figuring out a complete theory of quantum gravity, hence a theory of all matter and forces? There are hints that we are, but as always, many hurdles are mathematical. Historically, Newton had to invent Calculus to describe motion properly. Einstein had to invoke the tools of Riemann's Differential Geometry to describe space-time curvature. And will it now be Connes' Noncommutative Geometry that will serve as the magic bullet for quantum gravity? There is evidence that it might, as the coordinates of branes in string/M-theory are naturally noncommutative. Erik Verlinde has even proposed a model for dark energy and dark matter, which as a matrix model, is an application of noncommutative geometry. From a historical perspective, the use of new geometrical mathematics has proven fruitful, so we may very well be on the verge of a new physics revolution.

As the LHC's Higgs hunt continues, it's worthwhile to reflect on the current state of cutting-edge experimental particle physics, as a whole. Indeed the Higgs boson is a prediction of the Standard Model of particle physics, but as former CERN theoretical physicist John Ellis admitted, in the range 114-135 GeV the "present electroweak vacuum would be unstable for such a light Higgs in the Standard Model" forcing one to come up with new physics to stabilize it. By "new", this means physics beyond the Standard Model, such as for example, supersymmetry. Yet, let's pretend the Standard Model is nice and stable with a ~125 GeV Higgs particle. Does it tell us about every type of matter in the universe? Sadly, it doesn't. Ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy content of the observable universe, while mysterious dark matter makes up about 23%. The rest of the mass-energy content, about 72.4%, is in the form of dark energy. So cosmologically, the Standard Model doesn't seem so standard after all.

So what kind of model explains the physics of dark energy and dark matter (the 95.4% of the universe), along with the 4.6% nicely described by the Standard Model? Many theorists would agree such a model must come from a complete theory of quantum gravity. The leading contender for such a theory is M-theory, the theory underlying the 10-dimensional string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity. There also exist other theories, such as Loop Quantum Gravity, which essentially aims to "quantize" space via Wilson loop operators. Ultimately, the goal is unification of all forces and matter in the universe, using just a single theory. And this theory, in turn, should describe 100% of the universe.

Are we close to figuring out a complete theory of quantum gravity, hence a theory of all matter and forces? There are hints that we are, but as always, many hurdles are mathematical. Historically, Newton had to invent Calculus to describe motion properly. Einstein had to invoke the tools of Riemann's Differential Geometry to describe space-time curvature. And will it now be Connes' Noncommutative Geometry that will serve as the magic bullet for quantum gravity? There is evidence that it might, as the coordinates of branes in string/M-theory are naturally noncommutative. Erik Verlinde has even proposed a model for dark energy and dark matter, which as a matrix model, is an application of noncommutative geometry. From a historical perspective, the use of new geometrical mathematics has proven fruitful, so we may very well be on the verge of a new physics revolution.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## 1 comment:

Hi kneemo,

this article is a nice interesting reading even I can get :-)

I like this site even though I have to learn some more physics and maths to better appreciate all of the fascinating stuff You write about.

Cheers, Dilaton

Post a Comment