New Boson Appears In Nuclear Decay, Breaks Standard Model (arstechnica.com) 71
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from an Ars Technica article: In November, people started polishing a Nobel prize for a group of physicists who seemed to have found new boson. [...] This result has been cooking for quite some time. The first experimental results date back to 2015, with publication in 2016. Essentially, the scientists took some lithium and shot protons at it. By choosing the energy of the protons correctly, Beryllium in a particular excited state is produced, which quickly decays back to lithium by emitting an electron and a positron. Now, in these experiments, energy and momentum must be conserved. The lithium nucleus is quite a complicated beast and can rattle around in all sorts of ways, meaning that the electron and positron have a certain amount of freedom in the direction in which they are emitted. By contrast, the researchers observed that some electrons and positrons seem to be correlated in their emission direction. Computer modeling confirmed that this was not due to their equipment and could not be explained by the nuclear physics of beryllium, lithium, or any known background process. The correlation could, however, be explained by a new boson that decayed by emitting a positron and an electron. As long as the production was reasonably inefficient, and the mass was about 17MeV (million electron volts), then the data was beautifully explained.
It is always possible to extend our models of the Universe to include new particles, including new bosons and new forces. But, it isn't good enough to match a single experimental result. You have to match all of them. The end results are particles that look a bit like a backyard panel-beating job. Yeah, the paint matches, but you can still see the wavy patches where the filler hasn't been sanded flat. The problems arise from the mass -- 17MeV is at the low end of well-explored territory. So, why did this story flare back up again? A new paper, by the same scientists that published the beryllium results. This time, they measured electron-positron emissions from excited helium. Same experiment, different atom, but the same 17MeV boson was found. The new result is pretty strong evidence. "If the experiment has some kind of systematic error in it, then we would expect that the 'new' particle would change mass between helium and beryllium," adds Ars Technica. "It doesn't, though; the results are very consistent between experiments. That means that if it is an error, it is an unfortunately flukey one."
It is always possible to extend our models of the Universe to include new particles, including new bosons and new forces. But, it isn't good enough to match a single experimental result. You have to match all of them. The end results are particles that look a bit like a backyard panel-beating job. Yeah, the paint matches, but you can still see the wavy patches where the filler hasn't been sanded flat. The problems arise from the mass -- 17MeV is at the low end of well-explored territory. So, why did this story flare back up again? A new paper, by the same scientists that published the beryllium results. This time, they measured electron-positron emissions from excited helium. Same experiment, different atom, but the same 17MeV boson was found. The new result is pretty strong evidence. "If the experiment has some kind of systematic error in it, then we would expect that the 'new' particle would change mass between helium and beryllium," adds Ars Technica. "It doesn't, though; the results are very consistent between experiments. That means that if it is an error, it is an unfortunately flukey one."
I thought (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably.
Re:I thought (Score:4)
they were fields now, not particles?
It's strings . . . all the way down.
Keep your religion outta here. (Score:5, Funny)
Testable predictions or GTFO with your pseudoscience! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fields of wavefroms, to be precise. Not wave nor particle. Both terms are too flawed analogies.
Basically, every hill in a wave is a particle, super-weird universe rules edition that barely resembles either.
Re: (Score:1)
You ought to make it clear that this is your theory, perhaps pulled straight out of your ass, or perhaps with some actual education behind it, though there was no evidence of that in your post. In fact, nobody knows for sure what a particle is, or whether the universe is made entirely of fields according to quantum field theory, or really very much at all about what gives rise to fundamental particles. We know how they behave, not what they are, and anybody who pretends otherwise is a charlatan.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the connection between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is as follows:
Classical particles are in quantum mechanics what happens in interactions. We see particles because they interact with photons. Only the photons tell us where the particle is and how it moves. And only constant interaction with a large number of photo
Re: (Score:2)
But how they behave is what they are, isn't it?
No. Both a leaf and an iron ball fall to the ground when not supported. Is a leaf therefore an iron ball? What rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy for you that you have it all sorted out. I look forward with breathless anticipation to your paper. I will file it under "C" for crank. Thick file.
Re: (Score:2)
As physicists we think we understand chemical elements because we know how it's built out of protons, electrons and neutrons.
The understanding of quantum particles looks to me more like we were understanding chemical reactions, but didn't know what atoms actually are. It's sufficient to work with it, but we still don't really know where matter comes from, right? We still don't really know what it is made of.
I'm not writing papers on this, my level of understanding
Re: (Score:2)
so we really need to leave this question of particle-wave dualism open?
Nobody has the slightest clue what causes wave/particle duality, or if it is even a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Where you say "the formulas" a physicist would say "standard model". Might as well learn something about it. [wikipedia.org]
Philosophizing about physics only counts when you can do the math, otherwise it is armchair science. Fun for you, not informative for others. BTW, you're basically heading in the right direction, you just don't know anything. (And neither do I, but I'm ahead of you...)
Re: (Score:2)
To me this seems to indicate that it must be a reaction probability of an extended object, not a location probability of something small.
Re: (Score:1)
Bell's theorem provides a test to determine whether particles obey classical or quantum mechanics. As conformed by numerous experiments, particles obey quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics. Or to put it simply: the weirdness is real. Wave functions are far from off they table, rather they are the legs of the table. Wave functions -> quantum field theory -> standard model.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just reading a bit, and I think I'm just following the Copenhagen interpretation. Just that they speak of observations, which collapses the wave function. I instead speak of interaction with a photon. I think this is what they mean, and what is more clear.
Well, I'm sure quantum mechanics has moved ahead since then, but I don't want to bother
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to bother with the equations then don't try to reason about it. It is impossible to reason about quantum mechanics without knowing the math. I'm sure the physics community appreciates having a lay audience, but I seriously they appreciate having the internet fill up with random claims based on little more than gut feeling. Instead, just sit back with popcorn and watch the physicists at work. Politely ask questions. Clearly label any fanciful speculation as such.
Example: photons must be dis
Re: (Score:2)
And did I anywhere not write "I think" when I was speculatiing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the general model of light having particle and wane properties, and matter too, is just not satisfying, and it actually made it harder for me to understand quantum mechanics.
That's there my idea looks better to me. Redefining what a classical particle is makes everything more clear.
Well, also I think I did not have a good introduction to quantum mechanics when I studied, maybe others do that bet
Fields = particles (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
they were fields now, not particles?
Can fields be "shot"? Do they "collide"...?
Flukey boson (Score:5, Insightful)
Fictitious boson (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>won't happen because physics is infinite
Do you have anything to base that claim on? It's definitely larger than we currently understand, but I've never heard any scientist make the claim of infinite. In fact I've only heard anything remotely like it from a few philosophers and mystics that claim that we actually create new physics by looking for it, rather than discovering something that has always been at work behind the scenes.
Re: (Score:1)
The book The Secret History of the World explores this idea in detail and makes an interesting case that I will extreme summarize:
The observer paradox is a small manifestation of something fundamental to the nature of the universe.
The universe is conscious in some difficult-to-fathom way and takes extreme interest in observers.
Humans are special because we were created out of the universe's desire for observers.
Thus almost everything in the rational world actually has underpinnings of shared belief. It's t
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting idea, but how would you ever hope to establish if it were true or just a fever-dream? There's a reason science has been so successful - it's methodology offers a way to strip away most of the capacity for self-deception that comes standard with a human mind - and in the process revealed just how immense that capacity truly is. I'm firmly convinced that there are important aspects of the universe that may be forever beyond the reach of scientific analysis, but when considering them it's
Re: Fictitious boson (Score:1)
Its funny because there are two levels to your reaction. There is the deeper subconscious which reacts sympathetically and the conscious mind reaction, which is mildly uncomfortable and needs to be placated with rational things.
most esoteric teachings are merely designed to move the unproductive thinking mind out of the way. internal realizations come on their own.
youre on your way with the 'humans lie to themselves' idea. even as you wrote it you probably realized it applies to you, but rationalized it do
Re: (Score:2)
As a point in fact, I'm both a mystic and an engineer (unlicensed). I'm extremely aware of the tension between rationality and more subtle truths. But I see far, far more people who talk as you do fall into believing feel-good nonsense, than ever actually approach deeper truths.
Humans are not rational creatures, and anyone claiming otherwise is fooling themselves. And in fact pretty much everything that makes life worth living is irrational - it's our irrational animal nature that grants us the capacity
Re: Fictitious boson (Score:1)
this is all true. it takes a serious commitment, but also the ability to risk your beliefs being torn down and shattered, repeatedly.
many new agers are outright evil, insane or corrupt. these have always been the dangers of seeking a new thing.
the first step is to take no one's word for it. the second is to absorb information with a truly open mind. many things that siund like trite cliches reveal their meaning after years of study and even failure.
anyways theres no end goal, no dramatic magic powers, and
Re: (Score:2)
The human-waking dream now includes Newton ... perhaps a gateway to the conscious universe!
Great idea! With all the 8yr old girls in the world believing, then why aren't we hip deep in real unicorns and my little ponies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We really only have the realm of particles creatable by smashing shit together really hard mapped out in any detail
The problem with this is that, fundamentally, the particle interactions of "smashing shit together really hard" are exactly the same as "smashing them together and holding the parts in place for a moment". Also if ANYTHING is "emitted from the decay of a proton into an electron and positron" in ANYWAY (even particles we already know about) it would be a Nobel prize winner immediately because protons, electrons and positrons are stable as far as we know. In fact, the lifetime limit for protons is over 10E34
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe all particles "discovered" that turn out to be misinterpreted data should be classified as "bogons" and ranked in order of bogosity.
Fuck that standard model. (Score:4, Insightful)
It was already fucked up already and you know it. This just means we're getting closer to the truth and closer to formulating a more perfect model.
Re: (Score:1)
> closer to formulating a more perfect model.
Still called the Standard Model.
Standard Model wins again.
Standard Model deniers btfo.
*slow clap* (Score:1)
Dear moderatards... Thank you for your cooperation. :D
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Still, this may be a systematic error somewhere. Would not surprise if some Physics PhD student made a coding error in some late-night coding session and screwed up some library or the like. This needs independent verification. Of course, that may take a while.
Margo Reinhardt's father was right (Score:3)
This is why you need a beryllium sphere!
The Universe App was upgraded (Score:4, Funny)
How does this break the Std Model? (Score:1)
Re:How does this break the Std Model? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't sound like "broken" to me. Over-dramatic?
It's not as if anybody thought the standard model was a complete description of nature.
Relativity was almost a complete start-over from Newtonian, so I suppose you could call that a "break". Are people suggesting this may cause the standard model to be completely replaced in the same way? Or just hyperbole?
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like how a model should have predictive power, like the periodic table.
In this case, the predictive power didn't work, and the reality can't be slotted into an empty spot.
That's my IANAP understanding, don't take it as gospel.
Re:How does this break the Std Model? (Score:5, Informative)
Hints for Relativity predate it for more than two decades. In the Maxwellian equations for Electrodynamics from 1879, the (vacuum) speed of light was already introduced as a constant, hinting at a non-Euklidian spacetime. The first experiments to prove or to contradict the constance of the (vacuum) speed of light were performed in 1881, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. When this experiment (and subsequent experiments) showed that the speed of light is independend of the speed and direction of the motion of Earth, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz with the help of Henri Poincaré introduced the Aether theory of light in 1893, which is mathematically equivalent to the later Special Relativity theory. And until today we use the Lorentz transformations and the Lorentz factor in Special Relativity, predating Albert Einsteins famous paper by more than a decade.
When Albert Einstein in 1905 published his first essay in the "Physikalische Annalen", he tried to solve a known problem, thus his article was titled "On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper). It was about an apparent contradiction in Maxwell's theory. The electrodynamic interaction between a magnet and a conductor (e.g. a piece of copper wire) should only be dependend on the relative motion between both bodies, but it seems as if there is an asymmetry: Moving the magnet relative to the fixed conductor causes an electric field of a certain energy and thus induces a current within the wire, but moving the wire relative to the fixed magnet does not cause an electric field, instead it causes an electromotoric force without an associated energy, but with the same effect on the current in the wire.
Until Henri Poincaré's death in 1912, there was a bitter fight between him and Albert Einstein, who really came up with the idea of Special Relativity.
General Relativity is a generalization of Special Relativity (hence the name), as it does not only consider bodies at constant speed, but also accelerated bodies. That it supersedes Newtonian Physics is more ore less a side effect. It is not a clean-sheet start-over from Newtonian, it just happens to contain Newtonian Physics as a special case for low relative speeds and low masses.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have a 17MeV boson, or a reason for there to be one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read this instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The 2019 paper has not been peer reviewed (yet?) and some people at CERN looked for a 16.7MeV boson and found nothing:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/a... [aps.org]
There's also some reasonable criticism of some suspicious graphs here:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/a... [aps.org]
Independent replication and confirmation is needed before this should be called anything at all. It would brake a lot than just the standard model if it was correct since you'd also have to explain why no
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't "break" anything, it just seems that way to idiots who don't understand that science is based on uncertainty. They think that the existing models purports to describe everything in the Universe, when actually it only describes those things that it describes.
Re: (Score:3)
Did Maxwell's equations break Newtonian Physics?
Did Einstein's Special Relativity and subsequently GR break either Maxwell's equations and by extension Newtonian Physics?
Three big milestones (Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein) in our understanding of natural laws.
The newer models showed that the old ones did not tell the entire story. So we expanded on the old models. But th
Re: (Score:2)
>Did Einstein's Special Relativity and subsequently GR break ... Newtonian Physics?
ABSOLUTELY!
Why do you think they only teach three of Newton's six Laws of Motion in science class today? Half of Newtonian mechanics was proven to be flat-out *wrong*.
Though GR should be more specifically compared to Newtonian gravity - which was also proven flat-out wrong, but was kept around as a vastly simpler approximation sufficiently accurate for most purposes.
In this case though, I think we're *potentially* talking
Re: (Score:3)
In modern terminology, the 4th law says that inertial frames are equivalent, which still holds in special relativity. The 5th law is redundant. And the 6th law is explicitly an approximation.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on the semantics here, whether breaking means becoming utterly useless, or being still good in parts, or something else. Here I assume that the laymen understand it as the former, but that is an assumption.
You say yourself here that we're still teaching those three laws (sometimes called axioms), while the other two (as far as I know) are no longer taught. Doesn't that mean that Newtonian Physics are at least in part not broken?
I se
Re: (Score:2)
Rarely does anything become utterly useless when it breaks. Especially so when it comes to scientific theory, which by its nature was quite successful at accurately predicting lots of things in order to become accepted in the first place - and their predictions are no less accurate for those things once broken.
I think what is generally meant (by scientists) by a theory being broken, is one of two things:
a lesser break (or flaw) - "theory does not predict these observations, therefore repairs are needed".
Hot Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of those... 'we've got something we really didn't expect. We've gotten it a few times now, and don't really know what to make of it. It suggests the absurd. Can anybody see any flaws in our methodology?' moments where everyone involved is very nervous about having to redo ALL their math to try to incorporate something NEW.
And yeah, the standard model is pretty fucky. A physicist at UT Austin once explained it to me as 'well, basically we just multiplied out all the particles we had into a matrix. It describes the phenomenon but offers very few insights into it, '.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly 'absurd'
Re: (Score:3)
17MeV is at the low end of well-explored territory Hardly 'absurd'
The absurd part is that in this well-explored territory, no one ever found this particle before. It's like walking into your living room and finding a window in the wall that you've never seen before. You've been in the room a thousand times and know it really well, yet there's this major feature of the room that you've somehow never noticed, despite years of looking.
Re: (Score:3)
But if it's a horribly low-probability path, perhaps you'd only see it if you walked into that room at exactly 7:52 pm on a Sunday immediately following the second full moon in a month, and shouted "Show me the money!" Basically, if you don't have reason to suspect the chance is there, you don't really have a lot of incentive to repeat the experiment enough times for it to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a photon to me! (Score:2)
One with a different energy, of course.
But AFAIK, photons can decay into an electron-positron pair and those can annihilate into a photon. Obviously, they'd be correlated, given they are basically "the same electron" "bouncing in the time direction", mathematically speaking.
I need to read TactualFA! On MY Slashdot? I'll be damned!
Re:Sounds like a photon to me! (Score:5, Interesting)
Photons wouldn't explain the results because they can have any energy so wouldn't cause a correlation spike at any particular energy value. That would typically be explained by some unforeseen fault in the experiment, a problem with their methodology, some decay process or interaction they didn't factor into the calculations, a particle with that mass.
Because they have done this experiment twice now with completely new equipment and a different decay process and yet still see the same result would rule out the first explanation and almost certainly the second. Ever since the original result no one has found a fault in their calculations (yet) which is why all the media about a possible new boson particle.
However the question now remains why have no other experiments seen this same result. Is it because they haven't been looking in the right energy ranges? Is it really a new particle or just some new phenomenon we don't currently have an explanation for? As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It will need verification from other experimental teams before anyone starts handing out Nobel Prizes.
More reason to not bulid anymore colliders (Score:1)
The LHC cost 10 billion, and this experiment did what thousands of scientists and billions of dollars couldn't do.
Apples and oranges. (Score:2)
Good to know (Score:5, Funny)
the scientists took some lithium
Keep taking the pills, guys.
No, it didn't "Break the Standard Model" (Score:2)
No, it didn't "Break the Standard Model".
It became the Standard Model.
Same team (Score:5, Interesting)