Particle Mystery Deepens, As Physicists Confirm That the Muon Is More Magnetic Than Predicted (sciencemag.org) 66
sciencehabit writes: A potential chink in physicists' understanding of fundamental particles and forces now looks more real. New measurements confirm a fleeting subatomic particle called the muon may be ever so slightly more magnetic than theory predicts, a team of more than 200 physicists reported this week. That small anomaly -- just 2.5 parts in 1 billion -- is a welcome threat to particle physicists' prevailing theory, the standard model, which has long explained pretty much everything they've seen at atom smashers and left them pining for something new to puzzle over. "Since the 1970s we've been looking for a crack in the standard model," says Alexey Petrov, a theorist at Wayne State University. "This may be it." But Sally Dawson, a theorist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, notes the result is still not definitive. "It does nothing for our understanding of physics other than to say we have to wait a little longer to see if it is real."
For decades, physicists have measured the magnetism of the muon, a heavier, unstable cousin of the electron, which behaves like a tiny bar magnet. They put muons in a vertical magnetic field that makes them twirl horizontally like little compass needles. The frequency at which the muons twirl reveals how magnetic they are, which in principle can point to new particles, even ones too massive to be blasted into existence at an atom smasher like Europe's Large Hadron Collider. That's because, thanks to quantum uncertainty, the muon sits amid a haze of other particles and antiparticles flitting in and out of existence. These "virtual" particles can't be observed directly, but they can affect the muon's properties. Quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity predict the muon should have a certain basic magnetism. Familiar standard model particles flitting about the muon increase that magnetism by about 0.1%. And unknown particles lurking in the vacuum could add another, unpredictable increment of change. Further reading: Finding From Particle Research Could Rewrite Known Laws of Physics.
For decades, physicists have measured the magnetism of the muon, a heavier, unstable cousin of the electron, which behaves like a tiny bar magnet. They put muons in a vertical magnetic field that makes them twirl horizontally like little compass needles. The frequency at which the muons twirl reveals how magnetic they are, which in principle can point to new particles, even ones too massive to be blasted into existence at an atom smasher like Europe's Large Hadron Collider. That's because, thanks to quantum uncertainty, the muon sits amid a haze of other particles and antiparticles flitting in and out of existence. These "virtual" particles can't be observed directly, but they can affect the muon's properties. Quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity predict the muon should have a certain basic magnetism. Familiar standard model particles flitting about the muon increase that magnetism by about 0.1%. And unknown particles lurking in the vacuum could add another, unpredictable increment of change. Further reading: Finding From Particle Research Could Rewrite Known Laws of Physics.
Are there practical consequences? (Score:1)
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:5, Informative)
No, but that hardly invalidates basic research. Understanding the fundamental interactions of nature not only answers questions, but also leaves room open into the future for new applications. In the 18th century, electricity was a curiousity that made for neat parlor tricks like frogs legs jumping and hair standing up. Less than a century after those fascinating but pretty ineffectual tricks, the world was introduced to the first long distance high speed communication network. So finding physics beyond the Standard Model (which, let's be honest, physicists have suspected for decades now) may not have applications now, but if we manage to pierce the veil to higher energy physics, maybe we figure out a quantum theory of gravity, which could, in the future, have enormous technological ramifications.
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:4, Insightful)
The masses act more like it's a popularity contest.
They won't help you design or ponder about it.
They won't help you build it because you are wrong and wasting time.
They won't help you test it but instead actively push FUD trying to discredit you.
They they mock you for going against the grain if they haven't stopped you yet.
Then once you prove it all works, they demand you to give it to them for free, complain that they should be able to literally rob you of it because freedom, then call you evil for daring to keep a penny after all that hard work.
When it's time for recognition there will be none because everyone knows how "obvious" the invention is.
If you have ever built anything you'll see this process happen. When you fail over and over they notice. If you succeed it's because you are a thieving bastard robbing the kindness of society.
It's a wonder people still invent shit for other people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a wonder people still invent shit for other people.
People I think invent things because they are driven to for themselves. I have a job which ultimately involves making things (software currently). If I was independently wealthy I would spen a good chunk of my time writing code or in a workshop.
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus, what a post-modern dystopic view of science you have. Scientists generally don't give a damn about the "masses" regardless of how they think of them. And near as I can tell, the masses don't give damn about science, certainly not enough to actively discredit it . . . except for the Christian nutjobs, but they only talk to each other and normal people pay them no mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:4, Informative)
It depends. If your great invention is rounded edges like on a speed limit sign but for a phone, nobody's impressed.
OTOH, if you invent the transistor, it's worth something.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. People invent things for themselves because they're curious, idealistic, or need something that doesn't exist for their own purposes; or they invent for a select group of people who do appreciate it.
The mass market, which you've described, mostly gets crap slapped together by shysters. Yes, they deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course those funny rocks that always point the same way if you float them on a bit of wood sure came in handy when ships wanted to sail beyond the sight of land. Turns out all that gazing up at the stars paid off for that as well.
Not yet...give it a century (Score:2)
No, but that hardly invalidates basic research.
You can't really say that yet. There are certainly not practical consequences we know of yet but you could easily have said the same of Rutherford's discovery of the nucleus or Dirac's prediction of antimatter etc. at the time they were discovered. Today nuclear physics is critical to a whole host of things from power plants to diagnosing cancer with isotopes that emit positrons (anti-electrons).
Fundamental physics research needs 50-100 years of maturity before we can really see if it has practical appl
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very cool. They should call it a cow scan.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Are there practical consequences? (Score:1)
The laser was invented in the 1960's.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever mankind discovers something, one of the first ideas is to use it to throw it at other people or at least to use it to throw other things at people, may it be feasible or not. With the discovery of X rays in the late 19th century, there was the idea to throw "rays" (of whatever kind) at people, and the "death ray" was born. But there was no actual effort to build one,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we're only just starting to turn lasers into death rays, after they've spent 40 years becoming one of the most useful and versatile fundamental technologies we've ever produced.
Re: (Score:3)
Not directly, but this experiment show results [youtube.com] that possibly undermine the Standard Model. Should that result pan out, you can be sure that there are going to be a whole lot of other new areas of research developed in consequence, some of which will certainly produce practical results.
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:4, Insightful)
Elementary particle research has far reaching implications for a society dependent on ever shrinking microscopic electronics.
Re: (Score:2)
Muonics will never be as widespread because it is a short-lived particle, and the effects we are apparently seeing will never have any effect at the electron mass-energy range.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone looked into it and it seems you can make a Bitcoin miner out of the blue ones.
I'm investing and so are all of WSB.
Don't Miss Out.
onceinabluemuon.com
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:5, Informative)
Hertz had this to say when he discovered the basis of radio communication:
“It's of no use whatsoever. This is just an experiment that proves Maestro Maxwell was right—we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there.”
20 years later it allowed morse code transmission across the Altantic (at a narrow spot), 40 years later we had radio stations.
It can take time to figure things out, even when the discovery is not immediately obvious.
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:4, Informative)
Cosmic ray muons are being used to detect underground cavities and chambers [nature.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm not clear on this- do I hope that we invent the murder robots BEFORE the muon technology they can use to hunt organic rebels down in the caves, so that we can survive a bit longer, or AFTER to minimize human suffering?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to dismiss fundamental work - it's fascinating and important in its own right - but is there any technology we have or are investigating that makes use of muons?
Most of the other responses are talking about past physics discoveries that turned into a major technological breakthrough a few decades down the line (while implicitly suggesting you're somehow unaware of this).
So I take that to mean no, there is no, there is no technology we have or are investigating that makes use of muons. Well other than muon tomography [wikipedia.org].
But at some point in the future it's quite plausible we'll figure out a much more important technology based on muons specifically. Though considering
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are there practical consequences? (Score:2)
As others have mentioned, muon tomography can be used to study geological structure and do non-desrructive searches of shipping containers, for dxample, for fissile materials. Muon spin resonance can be used to study the magnetic structure if materials. They also do chemistry, so they can be used to understand properties of chemical compounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are there practical consequences? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, muon catalyzed fusion would completely change the world if we could figure out a more efficient way to generate muons.
Re: (Score:2)
Closing the Gap (Score:2)
This article [phys.org] claims that the most recent calculations (requiring hundreds of millions of CPU hours (whatever that means)) actually brought the calculations more in line with the observations over the past 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
requiring hundreds of millions of CPU hours (whatever that means)
That's the number of hours it needs to run on a CPU to do the calculation.
Re: (Score:2)
CPU hours (whatever that means)
Could we have that figure in potential Bitcoins mined please?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Don't you ever have an intelligent thought?
Cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing to confirm theories and models to high precision. It's quite another thing to look at the data, scratch one's head and think "That's funny..."
When I read stuff like this, what they're doing at CERN, other places, it tempts me to go back to school so I can be part of it.
...laura
Objoke (Score:5, Funny)
Daughter was doing science homework. ..
Me: "What is a cow's favorite elementary particle?"
Her: "..."
Me: "A Muon"
Her: "Get out."
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you are less magnetic than expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Daughter was doing science homework. ..
Me: "What is a cow's favorite elementary particle?"
Her: "..."
Me: "A Muon"
Her: "Get out."
Quality dad joke. You have done your duty properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Me: "What is a cow's favorite elementary particle?"
Eh? Americans pronounce muon like moo-on?
As an English-speaker, I'd have chosen a cat for the joke. Meow-on.
Re: (Score:2)
> Eh? Americans pronounce muon like moo-on?
We do not. Myu-on, same sound as in 'few'.
Maybe Canadians tho.
I would love to see that Zoom video (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately they found the envelopes. There was some drama and the announcement was delayed because the theorist who had the envelopes claimed to have lost them (either on the train or the dog ate them) and then wouldn't come out of his house or answer messages.
There are some clips of the zoom unveiling:
https://youtu.be/ZjnK5exNhZ0?t... [youtu.be]
This is good stuff. However... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to get the Pentagon interested, at which point the funding never ends.
Galaxy curve discrepency (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
They've been wrong for fifty years about everything.
Please return your computer, it does not work since most of it is based on what “they” have been wrong about.
I blame global warming! (Score:2)
Fifth Fundamental Force ... (Score:2)
Here is an overview video [youtube.com] from FermiLab on this muon experiment.
This BBC article says that the experiment may point to a fifth fundamental force [bbc.com].
Bit Early to Get Excited... (Score:2)
This result is certainly very interesting and the significance is certainly higher than before so this might be evidence of something. However, it is astoundingly hard
Videos on this subject (Score:1)
Why the Muon g-2 Results Are So Exciting!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Muon g-2 experiment finds strong evidence for new physics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Enjoy!
Except.. (Score:2)
Except they didn't "confirm" it. That will require years more experiments. What they did was to find it was more likely to be correct than previously demonstrated.