advertisement


Physics News: The Muon g-2 Experiment

Hook

Hook

Blackbeard's former bo'sun.
By no means an expert, but it is interesting to read how physicists are reacting to these new measurements. It appears to some to suggest that there may be a fifth fundamental force, or a previously undiscovered subatomic particle, that science currently knows nothing about!

Early days, but if the results are confirmed (if the researchers can eliminate the very low odds of these being fluke readings), then this could be an extremely significant discovery.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ysics-news-the-muon-g-2-experiment-explained/

https://news.sky.com/story/a-fifth-...as-been-suggested-by-muon-experiment-12269355
 
Hook said:
By no means an expert, but it is interesting to read how physicists are reacting to these new measurements. It appears to some to suggest that there may be a fifth fundamental force, or a previously undiscovered subatomic particle, that science currently knows nothing about!

Early days, but if the results are confirmed (if the researchers can eliminate the very low odds of these being fluke readings), then this could be an extremely significant discovery.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ysics-news-the-muon-g-2-experiment-explained/

https://news.sky.com/story/a-fifth-...as-been-suggested-by-muon-experiment-12269355
Click to expand...
Here's a slightly more detailed article from Nature magazine:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00833-2

Whenever a story like this breaks, I check out Peter Woit's blog, Not Even Wrong. He has a good track record of deflating hype:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12292

This Forbes artice makes the same sceptical point:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-new-physics-from-the-latest-muon-g-2-results

The two main reasons for scepticism are:

1. The difference between experiment and theory is 4.2 sigma; 5 sigma is needed to claim a genuine new discovery.

2. The prediction from existing theory is itself contentious, so the apparent divergence with experiment might not be significant after all.

The second point is probably the most important. The fundamental difficulty is that the existing model of particle physics makes it hard to calculate theoretical predictions (because the strong nuclear force is so damn complicated). Thus, there is some disagreement about what current theory actually predicts.

Still, it's a fascinating development, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. God knows, high energy physics needs a lucky break!
 
Last edited:
They do admit the 4.2 sigma point, which is good.

There is something very wrong with physics that needs undetectable dark matter, you might as well say that God is inflating the universe
 
davidsrsb said:
They do admit the 4.2 sigma point, which is good.

There is something very wrong with physics that needs undetectable dark matter, you might as well say that God is inflating the universe
Click to expand...
Stating the confidence level is mandatory these days. You don't get published or taken seriously without it.

Dark matter... yes, that's one of the biggest anomalies in modern physics but it's important to realise that it's a label for a problem, rather than an accepted theory. It stems from some observations that are hard to explain using known physics (e.g. the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, gravitational lensing). All around the world, thousands of physicists are trying to figure out what dark matter is. I was one of them a few summers ago when I made my own tiny contribution to the LZ dark matter experiment.
 
droodzilla said:
Dark matter... yes, that's one of the biggest anomalies in modern physics but it's important to realise that it's a label for a problem, rather than an accepted theory.
Click to expand...
Reminiscent of some the pronouncements coming out of the human genome project in the 90s when they found only 3% of it coded for actual proteins and someone was bold nough to declare the other 97% ‘junk DNA’.
 
TheDecameron said:
I’m expecting a cable marketing breakthrough. How long before we get ‘muon g-2/ cryogenically frozen for longer to lock in all that dark matter goodness’?
Click to expand...
I'm surprised more hi-fi manufacturers don't make kit that only runs on muons. Electrons are for plebs.
 
droodzilla said:
Dark matter... yes, that's one of the biggest anomalies in modern physics but it's important to realise that it's a label for a problem, rather than an accepted theory. It stems from some observations that are hard to explain using known physics (e.g. the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, gravitational lensing). All around the world, thousands of physicists are trying to figure out what dark matter is. I was one of them a few summers ago when I made my own tiny contribution to the LZ dark matter experiment.
Click to expand...

I was chatting to dad last weekend about this, we are both fascinated by the topic although not physicists, more engineers. He is quite the sceptic on Dark Matter but was much happier accepting it as a name for a problem. Very cool that you have been involved with this project, I always whished I had the ability in maths and physics to take it higher.
 
droodzilla said:
All around the world, thousands of physicists are trying to figure out what dark matter is. I was one of them a few summers ago when I made my own tiny contribution to the LZ dark matter experiment.
Click to expand...

Are you OK with the idea that 'dark matter' isn't any kind of particle, but a misreading of the way gravitation and GR are used to describe things? Particularly when large distances, etc, are involved.
 
If for a moment we assume that there is dark matter it may actually exist in a dimension that we don't see. According to string theory there are 10 dimensions of which we see 3. The other 7 might be tightly curved around a superstring at the Planck length or expanded like our own dimensions but we don't see them. However the force of gravity will be felt.

If we imagine a 3D Universe that has life on 2D Worlds that would appear like a large sheet of glass. The inhabitants would only see their own 2 dimensions across and along but not see up. We could then have a Universe of several sheets of glass one above the other but none of the inhabitants can see along that dimension. However they would experience the force of gravity.

Fun no?

Cheers,

DV
 
Darth Vader said:
If for a moment we assume that there is dark matter it may actually exist in a dimension that we don't see. According to string theory there are 10 dimensions of which we see 3. The other 7 might be tightly curved around a superstring at the Planck length or expanded like our own dimensions but we don't see them. However the force of gravity will be felt.

If we imagine a 3D Universe that has life on 2D Worlds that would appear like a large sheet of glass. The inhabitants would only see their own 2 dimensions across and along but not see up. We could then have a Universe of several sheets of glass one above the other but none of the inhabitants can see along that dimension. However they would experience the force of gravity.

Fun no?

Cheers,

DV
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing because I don’t have the necessary brain, but I do have some questions. My questions come from a brain that likes a picture and has a deep suspicion of the various squiggles and random letters and numbers that some people call maths.

qu 1. If dimensions are infinite in that up, down, sideways and time go on forever, how can we have dimensions that only exist at a micro level and sealed within a sub atomic world? Or are we talking about entire universes sealed within a quantum universe?

qu 2. If we need unimaginable extra dimensions and /or universes to make sense of the maths, isn’t it likely that the maths is flawed?
 
davidsrsb said:
They do admit the 4.2 sigma point, which is good.

There is something very wrong with physics that needs undetectable dark matter, you might as well say that God is inflating the universe
Click to expand...

Only undectectable to this insect in its stage of understanding of the universe.
 
That assumes that 'gravity' can extend into those dimensions whilst light can't. However this tends to imply that the 'force of gravity' can't simply be a perfect 'Newton Law' one in terms of how it varies with distance, etc. But in GR it isn't, of course, a force or a field, but the shape of things.

FWIW my own suspicion is that large scale rotations of high (in universe terms) mass densities (like galaxies) cause an effect. But then I tend to start off from a different place to many theorists, perhaps because I'm not one. :)
 
ks.234 said:
qu 1. If dimensions are infinite in that up, down, sideways and time go on forever, how can we have dimensions that only exist at a micro level and sealed within a sub atomic world? Or are we talking about entire universes sealed within a quantum universe?

qu 2. If we need unimaginable extra dimensions and /or universes to make sense of the maths, isn’t it likely that the maths is flawed?
Click to expand...

a1: The 'dimensions' may be infinite (define infinity first, though) but the interactions may be limited to give ranges.

a2: No, you can have lots of 'dimensions' but not all of them behave in the same way as 'classic geometry' a la Euclid, etc.

Beware of theorists who generalise the meaning of a word without you noticing. :)
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Are you OK with the idea that 'dark matter' isn't any kind of particle, but a misreading of the way gravitation and GR are used to describe things? Particularly when large distances, etc, are involved.
Click to expand...
Or that it's dark energy.

I think most humans have huge conceptual difficulty accepting things they don't understand. Hence religion...
 
Dark Energy is, of course another label theorists stick on a jar which contains 'dunno'. 8-]

Hands up who knows Mach's Principle? (Hint: Nothing to do with the speed of sound.) :)
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
a2: No, you can have lots of 'dimensions' but not all of them behave in the same way as 'classic geometry' a la Euclid, etc.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on that a little? (In language a simpleton like me can understand!) Not sure, or I can’t see, how the same dimension can act differently? Is up not always up, and sideways always sideways?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top