Hello,

today news regarding experiment conducted in Fermilab ( Muon g-2 experiment) seems to be very interesting:

https://news.fnal.gov/2021/04/first...xperiment-strengthen-evidence-of-new-physics/

Best regards

 

Those muons just keep misbehaving, first the LHC and now Fermilab.

Bob

 

But, but....

"Ye canny change the laws o' physics, Cap'n"

(with apologies to Scotty)

 

Hello there!

even the hint of a new fundamental particle or force that interacts differently with these different types of particles should and is wonderful progress. Sadly it will not change the laws of physics but create new ones with better jokes to go along with them

 

Somebody better make sure the cable is fully plugged in this time.

 

Somebody better make sure the cable is fully plugged in this time.

Quick! Bertha's gonna faint! Bring the smelling salts.
That's what they said about Quantum Chromodynamics.
Just more of the same Piled higher and Deeper.

 

This is what I was satirizing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

...Later the team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast.

"D'oh!...I hate when that happens."

 

This is what I was satirizing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly



"D'oh!...I hate when that happens."

That's why theoretical physicists hate experimentalists. The purpose of experiments is to CONFIRM theories, not upset the applecart!

 

That's why theoretical physicists hate experimentalists. The purpose of experiments is to CONFIRM theories, not upset the applecart!

How many theoretical physicists have you polled? Many experiments are pure (not applied) science, intended to just find things out. They were smashing particles together before they knew what would come out. I think the quark model was late in the game and was proposed *because* the experiments were showing other (unpredicted) stuff. Not unreasonable to have a theory and then go test it....Why wouldn't you? But applecart upsetting certainly isn't anathema to science.

 

Hello,

today news regarding experiment conducted in Fermilab ( Muon g-2 experiment) seems to be very interesting:

https://news.fnal.gov/2021/04/first...xperiment-strengthen-evidence-of-new-physics/

Best regards

Move along, nothing to see here.

It's not a shocker that the standard model is incomplete or flat wrong in some cases. New physics are a misnomer because no matter the refinement eventually found it will still be compatible with SM to a very high degree on everything that matters in our daily lives unless you lived microseconds from the Big Bang.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/frustrating-search-new-physics/

 

How many theoretical physicists have you polled? Many experiments are pure (not applied) science, intended to just find things out. They were smashing particles together before they knew what would come out. I think the quark model was late in the game and was proposed *because* the experiments were showing other (unpredicted) stuff. Not unreasonable to have a theory and then go test it....Why wouldn't you? But applecart upsetting certainly isn't anathema to science.

I was one for a time, but that's another story. It was Murry Gell-Mann and George Zweig that independently came up with the quark hypothesis in 1964 and confirmed by experiment four years later. The Nobel quickly followed.

 

New physics are a misnomer because

Yes! a misnomer but it paints a picture in the mind let's see here picture this!
"Atom" literally means something that can't be split.
Dark matter isn’t dark. Dark things absorb light. Dark matter is transparent
Centrifugal forces - this non-debate makes me tired just thinking about it!
The word "finite" is used all the time to mean "non-zero". And it pains me to see mathematicians wrap their head around that one. Its why I carry a pocket full of smelling salts

 

The word "finite" is used all the time to mean "non-zero".

I've never seen that one. "We need to explain the nonzero neutrino mass" is logical, implying that we expected zero mass. But "We need to explain the finite neutrino mass" implies that we expected infinite mass!

 

https://theconversation.com/proof-o...rding-to-a-new-theoretical-calculation-157829

My team’s theoretical prediction is different from the original theory and matches both the old experimental evidence and the new Fermilab data. If our calculation is correct, it resolves the discrepancy between theory and experiment and would suggest that there is not an undiscovered force of nature.

Our result was published in the journal Nature on April 7, 2021, the same day as the new experimental results.

 

I believe “serious problems in Particle Physics” is a good example of an oxymoron.

 

Skip ad to 1:00

 

Yes, I had already seen this. Multiple 4 sigma results have melted away in the past, and this one is only at 3 sigma. Not time to panic or rejoice yet.

Bob