Something Weird Just Happened That We Can't Really Explain With Existing Physics (popularmechanics.com) 41
"Why did this particle mysteriously disintegrate?" asks Popular Mechanics. Slashdot reader aeropage shared their report:
Scientists have proposed a new kind of subatomic particle to explain another particle's mysterious disintegration. The kaon, a special case of meson particle, is made of one quark and one antiquark. All are part of the overall family called hadrons. When kaon particles decay, a very rare few undergo a change that has baffled scientists. Can it be explained by existing physics at all...?
If this kaon decay (de-kaon?) is validated, it represents something new in physics. The style of decay could indicate a new kind of particle altogether, or a new physical force at work to make the novel decay... Kaons have several known common ways of decaying, but the one in this paper is so rare that scientists weren't sure it existed before now. Their model predicted they'd see less than a quarter of one instance of this decay in their sample -- not four, which is a veritable fortune by comparison. What does it mean to see so many more instances?
"If confirmed, this requires physics beyond the standard model to enhance the signal."
If this kaon decay (de-kaon?) is validated, it represents something new in physics. The style of decay could indicate a new kind of particle altogether, or a new physical force at work to make the novel decay... Kaons have several known common ways of decaying, but the one in this paper is so rare that scientists weren't sure it existed before now. Their model predicted they'd see less than a quarter of one instance of this decay in their sample -- not four, which is a veritable fortune by comparison. What does it mean to see so many more instances?
"If confirmed, this requires physics beyond the standard model to enhance the signal."
Revolutionary idea (Score:1)
Re: Revolutionary idea (Score:2)
Re: Revolutionary idea (Score:5, Informative)
So far this phenomenon has been observed by ONE laboratory. So until it is replicated elsewhere, experimental error is the most plausible explanation.
Re: Revolutionary idea (Score:4, Insightful)
The Hull Hypothesis is a base assumption in whenever any quantity is measured.
As a scientist it is your duty to disprove this base assumption through more refined experiments and independent replication.
You're certainly allowed to be excited by hearing such news, but before such discoveries can gain widespread acceptance in science a certain rigor must be followed.
Re: (Score:2)
#59809218 essentially demanded from #59808880 to back up their skepticism.
And that's just not how it works in the world of science for phenomenon or hypotheses that haven't been verified by a number of independent sources through replication experiments. At least in its ideal and self respecting form science is supposed to be a slow and careful process where you are supposed to not rush it and to not jump to conclusions.
The principle here is called burden of proof or how th
Re: (Score:2)
The FTL neutrino detection was put out there as "We think this is wrong but we've done it repeatedly and can't find the problem so maybe it's real". Turned out to be a bad connector on a piece of equipment, at which point measurements went back to what was expected.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a bad fibre optics connector if I remember correctly which caused the "light signal" which they used as a reference to be delayed by those 60 nano seconds every time they used it. Meaning that what they used as a reference wasn't the speed of light to begin with.
That's an example of a systematic error due to a fault in the instruments.
Something that was expected from the very start, but where exactly the error had
Re: (Score:2)
So ... this is the god particle, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Lucifer Particle, it's constantly lying about its existence, a bit like a UFO.
Oh Crap (Score:2, Offtopic)
Their model predicted they'd see less than a quarter of one instance of this decay in their sample -- not four, which is a veritable fortune by comparison. What does it mean to see so many more instances?
Damn, the Coronavirus has mutated to the subatomic realm now, and can infect Kaons!
Something weird very likely did not happen (Score:5, Informative)
The very similar decay, K+-->pi+ nu nubar has been (barely) observed (IIRC three experiments have under 10 events between them!) and so far is consistent with the Standard Model (within large uncertanties) so if this result is correct then the new physics would have to only affect this decay and not the other which would be unusual since all you are doing is swapping a d-quark for a u-quark.
So, while it is certainly possible that there is something new here at this stage the far more likely scenario is that this is an experimental effect. The decay is ridiculously hard to observe and, even though the KOTO experiment has done an exceptional job getting this result out (I was at a KAON conference back in the mid-1990's when a theorist generated laughter for casually suggested we should go after this decay experimentally - it's that hard!) they will need to do a lot more to convince people that there is something real here.
Re: Something weird very likely did not happen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if YOU were a scientist or involved with science you ought to be aware of scientific rigor and that skepticism is a base stance whenever there is something new that hasn't been proven thoroughly already.
Not holding your breath instead of popping the champagne bottles is accepted standard in that field until more conclusive evidence is gathered.
Another small h
P.S.: This moderation is hilarious. (Score:1)
*Obviously* people like that quickly censor anything that rattles them frout of their delusion. Behavior exactly as predicted and described in my comment.
I should have known.
That's what happens, when they get mod points.
Sorry guys. It's still true, and will never go away, no matter how much your circle jerk mod-pats itself on the back for a reply they think is "smart" and "refutes" what I said.
I get it. Desperate times require desperate measures to keep the happy delusion up.
Too bad nobody outside of your l
Re: (Score:2)
I find your appellation of a female part of anatomy to some slashdot posters intriguing. Do you do this in real life, or just when women (such as your mother) are not present?
Re: (Score:2)
I find your appellation of a female part of anatomy to some slashdot posters intriguing.
GP is not making any good points, but the use of the word "pussy" in that context is not a reference to a "female part of the anatomy", but rather describing someone with the metaphor of a domesticated (pusillanimous?) pet pussy-cat, in contrast to a powerful cat like a tiger.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not do particle physics so I am curious. I looked at the paper (just plots since there were only two and they seemed pretty clear but the wording is largely imparseable to me) and it seemed as though 99.9 confidence region was intersecting the SM region. Am I right to conclude that their results are nowhere near six sigma?
meta garbage collection in the simulation Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
THe matrix doesn't try to eliminate all errors, every now and then it kills off a program and restarts it. All it's orphaned assets without valid pointers that escaped normal garbage collection get deleted when the process ends. All valid particle pointers get re-created. And the simulation can continue. As long as one does this before the excess mass builds up too much the humans can't notice it, except for a few Hippies and Micro dosing tech-bros. But no one believes what they say anyhow.
Re: (Score:1)
Without more sources for testing it's just a theory to consider.
Popular Mechanics? (Score:2)
I've got nothing against Popular Mechanics, but - isn't subatomic physics a bit far afield for them? Do they run recipe and makeup columns as well?
Re:Popular Mechanics? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I've got nothing against Popular Mechanics, but - isn't subatomic physics a bit far afield for them?
Popular Mechanics has quite a few general science articles. Topics like particle physics have been covered before.
Do they run recipe and makeup columns as well?
There are plenty of other periodicals covering those topics. But sciencey stuff is an underserved market.
Re: (Score:3)
I've got nothing against Popular Mechanics, but - isn't subatomic physics a bit far afield for them? Do they run recipe and makeup columns as well?
It's the "Something something - Scientists are STUNNED!" concept.
That way, the public can always chuckle and say "Oh those silly scientists are always stunned", the anti science people can feel vindicated, and the conspiracists can clain their conspiracy du jour
Meanwhile, all the scientists are saying "Cool!" and running to their computers or chalkboards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm patiently awaiting a disintegration ray to be designed around this.
At that point, we'd be truly able to stun those silly scientists.
Less that a quarter of one? (Score:2)
Is this a probability thing? Where they are only expecting to see it 1/4 of the time? Otherwise, this does not make sense. Either you see something or you do not see something. How do you see 1/4 of something?
Re: (Score:3)
Is this a probability thing? Where they are only expecting to see it 1/4 of the time? Otherwise, this does not make sense. Either you see something or you do not see something. How do you see 1/4 of something?
I think it means they observed 4 events, but in the time they observed they should have had a probability of 25% of seeing only one.
No single family has 2.3 kids, but the average number of kids per family over a population is not likely to be an integer.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't been exposed to modern experimental physics then? The physical world is complicated, setting up an experiment to observe something at the quantum level won't ever come back with Ya or Nah. Rather, you only get to observe a frequency of an event happening against (1) the of background quantum weirdness and (2) the limits of the theory upon which you are basing your experiment. Quantum mechanics isn't a qualitative theory in the sense that it explains anything, rather it is a quantitative theory which
It's my fault (Score:2)
...see sig.
Slashdot Science... (Score:2)
...gives me an enormous hadron!
Though I'm uncertain where it's been, or how long it'll last.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and the moment you try to measure it, it disappears.