The Standard Model and USA Today

FredGray writes: "USA Today recently posted a short story titled "1+1 does not equal muon g-2" which explains that the discrepancy between the theoretical and experimental values for the muon's anomalous magnetic moment has mostly evaporated. Unfortunately, the article completely mislays the blame for the initial discrepancy; it implies that there was a mistake in the experiment, but the problem was entirely with one small component of the theoretical calculation known as the hadronic light-by-light scattering term. As a proud member of the experimental group, I would like to ask slashdot to remind the world that we still stand by our result. We are currently analyzing a much larger data set, and we hope to publish a more precise number in the months to come."

keep peeling the onion

[DrSkwid]

and you'll find that there is no middle

If the universe is infinitly large does the converse not hold that it is also infinitely small?

the dimensionality that our perspective imposes is surely just an illusion

!ÿ£7you tell I've run out of weed?

Re:keep peeling the onion

[DrSkwid]

!ÿ£7

what the frell?

s/!ÿ£7/can /

i wish i knew how to type £ my kb is a 105-uk and i've not sussed how to change it from US in enlightenment .16

Re:keep peeling the onion

[banks]

explain your logic. i fail to see how infinite size inhertently causes infite iteration of component particles.

sounds more like pothead/hippy/new scientist reader logic to me than real science. the set all x {x>1} is iherently infinte, but does not iterate infinitely at the small end... it ends at one.

Re:keep peeling the onion

[DrSkwid]

the set

x {0 x 1} is also infinite

Re:keep peeling the onion

[DrSkwid]

bah

filtered

x {0 < x < 1}

is also infinite

Re:keep peeling the onion

[banks]

the point is moot. you can't proove that infinite size entails that the limit as x approaches the lowest end of the set is infinite by presenting examples of cases in which it does.

Re:keep peeling the onion

[DrSkwid]

You can't prove that the universe is infinite in size either but you hold that to be true.

All you can demonstrate is a series of hypotheses that don't break down under anthropomorphic mathematical analysis.

That the universe is infinte is illogical

That the universe is finite is illogical

That the universe is made up of particles with a finitely small size is illogical

That the universe is made up of particles with a infinitely small size is illogical

My ultimate position is that the composition of the universe is unknowable.

Knowledge is infinite.

Our collective capacity for discovery is finite.

.

Re:keep peeling the onion

[banks]

the universe isn't infinite in size nor mass. it has a well defined energy quatization. however, it is so large that the total effect is near infinite. the very idea that the composition of the universe is unknowable is a fallacy. the idea of unknowable fact is a holdover from 19th century mysticism. humanity traditionally reacts to the difficulty of comprehension by labeling something unknowable, obscure, occult. this kind of mysticism is the greatest obstacle to true comprehension of the universe.

heck, even in your original metaphor, the onion has a center. it'll take a lot of tears to get to the center, but if you keep working at it, you can get there.

Re:keep peeling the onion

[DrSkwid]

the idea of unknowable fact is a holdover from 19th century mysticism. humanity traditionally reacts to the difficulty of comprehension by labeling something unknowable, obscure, occult. this kind of mysticism is the greatest obstacle to true comprehension of the universe.

nope

you are talking like a unified theorist

To say that human endeavor will bring all the answers given enough time, I believe, is fallacious.

I believe we are trapped by our dimensionality.

We can only look down from our perspective and draw conclusions based in our observation.

Our 3d space & time world is our limitation.

It's simple high school stuff. Imagine we are 2d then we can only truly see 2d things. We can see the shadows of 3d objects and draw conclusions as to their cause but we can never truly know.

.

Re:keep peeling the onion

[banks]

doh. i meant all x (x>=1).

USA Today = Jerry Springer

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not bother with what USA Today says, They are idiots. The article really conceals a sub-text.

"Oh look the big brains got it wrong."

Next time worry if someone who matters says nasty things about your work. USA Today? NAH!

Unprecedented!

[nosferatu-man]

USA Today made a factual error? Never!

(jfb)

SHEESH!

[pedro]

This stuff should NOT be relegated to a 'back page'! It should be up front and center!