3 ms·
Well, mostly disinterested in that it's really just a more precise measurement. The "breakthrough" in this case is a ridiculously precise measurement, which is
by orclev 9y ago
Well, mostly disinterested in that it's really just a more precise measurement. The "breakthrough" in this case is a ridiculously precise measurement, which is very impressive, and is a huge step forward for particle physics as a science because it opens the door to measure even more stuff, but in this particular case it hasn't contributed anything "new" in terms of data.
There's a famous quote out there that goes something like 'the most exciting words in science aren't "Eureka", they're "that's odd"', and I feel that's highly applicable in this case. There's no "that's odd" event here, everything is exactly as expected, it all worked perfectly and produced exactly the result that was expected. That's great for affirming that all our theories are correct, and as I said this is a breakthrough in the quality of measurements we can achieve, but it's not a new mystery to explore, or an unexpected result that we can use to refine or develop new theories. Basically everything we didn't know before this experiment we still don't know, and we don't have any new data points except for having eliminated an area of uncertainty that new interesting data might have been hiding in.
- Retric 9y agoI would argue that it is odd. We assume there must be something separating matter and anti-matter, but the list of possibilities is getting really short. Sort of like a murder misery where everyone at a party has a reliable alibi. Suggesting something even odder must be going on.
- Retra 9y agoSure, but it give you no leads...