Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics 47

Posted by michael from the twice-as-good-as-regular-symmetry dept.
tanmay writes "As time moves on, the case for supersymmetry keeps getting stronger. Physicsweb is reporting about an experiment that measures the relation between the spin of the muon and its magnetic moment, called the g-factor. The latest experiment is described as the most significant deviation to date between experiment and theory in particle physics, thus offering the clearest hint so far of new physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics More

Beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics

Comments Filter:

  • About time... (Score:2, Informative)

    by tjmsquared ( 702422 )
    Of course, we could have learned this about 10 years ago if the U.S. had not revoked the funding for the superconducting supercollider. I was a physics student at the time and interested in particle physics, and it's sad to see that we are just now starting to recover from that decision.

    • Re:About time... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hcg50a ( 690062 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2004 @04:21PM (#8173799) Journal
      This is false. They didn't need the SCSC to make this discovery. They did it at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which does not have a particularly high energy collider.

      All they did was refine some data from the 1970s experiment, which leads to the startling conclusion that the Standard Model is not a perfect description.

      Most tee vee shows like Nova assume that the only way to show that the Standard Model is not a perfect description is by using higher and higher energy colliders (like the SCSC).

      • Re:About time... (Score:3, Informative)

        by dtolman ( 688781 )
        Does that also mean that they don't really need the Large Hadron Collider to confirm this?

        That a well crafted experiment at a smaller collider could positively confirm it?

        • Re:About time... (Score:4, Informative)

          by hcg50a ( 690062 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2004 @04:45PM (#8174130) Journal
          They don't *need* the Large Hadron Collider to confirm it, but if they did use it, they could not only confirm it, but refine the measurements further and probably learn all kinds of other things at the same time.

          It's like using a small telescope vs using a large one: A small telescope may confirm something, but a larger one will tell you a lot more about it.

          A "well crafted experiment at a smaller collider could" indeed positively confirm it.

      • Re:About time... (Score:3, Informative)

        by DynaSoar ( 714234 )
        hcg50a (690062) sez: "All they did was refine some data from the 1970s experiment..."

        No, they ran an entirely new experiment with equipment and analysis techniques that were more sensitive.
      • If RHIC doesn't count as a high energy collider, what exactly would be considered "High Energy"?

        Smashing heavy ions at 99.95% the speed of light to produce trillion-degree temeratures isn't "High energy"?
        =Smidge=

  • Quark Dance (Score:2, Funny)

    by Veramocor ( 262800 )
    All this supersymetry makes me want to dance,

    quark dance that is.

    Quark Dance! [quarkdance.org]

  • Finaly (Score:4, Funny)

    by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2004 @05:26PM (#8174587)
    we can learn what happened before 10^-17 seconds a.b.b. and what is realy happening on Planck scale. It is pleasant worrying about problems like these.

  • Posters should RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by menscher ( 597856 ) <[menscher+slashdot] [at] [uiuc.edu]> on Tuesday February 03, 2004 @06:15PM (#8175080) Homepage Journal
    As time moves on, the case for supersymmetry keeps getting stronger.
    No, it just hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
    Physicsweb is reporting...
    How about "Physicsweb reported" (on Jan 8)...
    ...the most significant deviation to date between experiment and theory in particle physics...
    2.8 sigma may be the most significant to date, but it's not particularly significant.
    We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation.
    No, it needs to run for a few years. And then it is only guaranteed to add constraints to the space of theories, not to prove/disprove any.

    This isn't to say that the g-2 experiment is useless; only that we shouldn't get too excited about it yet. Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention. Until then, it will just around speculation. Oh yeah, and yes, I am a particle physicist. But I'm just a lowly theorist. The experimentalists working on g-2 are down the hall.

    • Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention.

      Man you theorists have it easy! Imagine if you guys had to hit six sigma [isixsigma.com] like the working world!

      FYI To the lucky ones to have never had to deal with stats or TQM:

      3 "Sigma" is ~70,000 screwups in 1,000,000 opportunities to screwup

      6 "Sigma" is ~3.5 screwups per 1,000,000 opportunities to screwup.

      Next week "Epsillon and Mu - It's all greek to me"

      • Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention.

        Man you theorists have it easy! Imagine if you guys had to hit six sigma like the working world!

        Uhh, I didn't say we only do 3 sigma. I said that people start paying attention at 3 sigma. Here's a rough sketch of how it works:

        • Less than 1 sigma deviation: data "agrees"
        • 1-3 sigma deviation: data is "consistent"
        • 3-5 sigma deviation: "evidence" for something strange going on
        • Greater than 5 sigma deviation: "discovery" of something n
        • Sorry, I forget the ;) after my 6' comment. It was meant tounge in cheek.

          See in industry, IMNSHO, 6 sig is essentially crap. I was poking fun at 'only' 3 sigma mentality, while trying to help people 'visualize' [in a less abstract way] what was being discussed.
          Just like when xSP's offer 99.99% uptime.["But Crapspace's SLA is only 99.95!", etc.]

          'Aaa, sodesne!,

          I stand corrected

          I hadn't ever made the mental leap[ok shuffle forward] to what you posted above. I guess it shouldn't be shocking that PHB

  • Where's my squark? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by psifishdot ( 699920 ) on Tuesday February 03, 2004 @07:57PM (#8175912) Homepage
    We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation.

    We'll know for sure that supersymmetry holds it's own when we find an selectron. However, I find it odd that we have a standard modle full of particles, but yet have not found any of their sparticles. Is it that sparticles are beyond the range of todays accelerators or is it that they don't exist? The only thing for certain is that it will ensure employment for a few particle physicists.

    • Re:Where's my squark? (Score:4, Informative)

      by barawn ( 25691 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @01:52AM (#8177793) Homepage
      However, I find it odd that we have a standard modle full of particles, but yet have not found any of their sparticles.

      So do I, but then I realize that supersymmetry is a "well-conceived theory" - that is, it has enough parameter space to just about completely avoid ever being disproved. :)

      I can't remember who it was, but at a seminar here a while ago, one of the presenters said "Supersymmetry predicts a huge number of particles... half of which have been discovered."

      I was amused.
  • I just want them to find out if there is anyway to prove without a doubt that it exists. Also a way to capture some of that matter and it's antiparticles that are supposedly popping in and out of existance everywhere around us.

    I also want them to create a new form of matter and not another unstable form that only hangs around for a billionth of a second! I want some exotic forma of matter to be created that we can build stuff out of like cars, boats, planes, bridges etc....

    They always make stuff in the

  • G-stuff (Score:1, Funny)

    by mbstone ( 457308 )
    As we here at Brookhaven celebrate having found the value of the G-factor [bnl.gov], we would like to enlist the help of Slashdot readers in a related problem, namely, finding the exact coordinates of the G-Spot [findthegspot.com].

    Oops, wait, this is Slashdot....
  • Q-factor is a commonly used term in bicycling, it means the width of a crankset from pedal eye to pedal eye, typically 130 mm - 140 mm. I think that its unsurprising that physicists are now able to measure G-factor. We have been able to measure Q-factor for a long time.

    I think that physicists should work on inventing new termnology rather than borrowing it from established fields such as bicycling.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close