6 ms·

This article states that the most recent measurement agrees with others over the last decade. That is simply not true. https://non-trivial-solution.blogspot.co

This article states that the most recent measurement agrees with others over the last decade. That is simply not true. https://non-trivial-solution.blogspot.com/2022/04/do-we-have-finally-found-new-physics.html https://non-trivial-solution.blogspot.com/2022/04/do-we-have...

lupire 5y ago
> this finally the sign of new physics, which we all have been hoping for? I don't understand this mindset? Why (aside from creating jobs) is it good to discover that the universe is more complicated than we knew, or that we were wrong? To me, what we want in "new physics" is explanations for unexplained phenomena, or resolutions to know problems/inconsistencies (like quantum vs gravity), or emergent effects that less to interesting applications.
- ashildr 5y ago
  > Why (aside from creating jobs) is it good to discover that the universe is more complicated than we knew, or that we were wrong? Because this would give us hints to new degrees of freedom in the current models that seem to contradict each other but otherwise work extremely well in their respective their domains. Finding a crack in those hermetically closed models would be wonderful.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  There are a lot of different teams. Some teams are working trying to resolve the Quantum Gravity problem. I doubt this is useful for them, at least for now. Other team are working in particle colliders. They get a Nobel price if they discover a new particle or a correction to the "Standard Model". Hopefully both teams will meet somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a new experiment will give a hint about how to make quantum gravity work. Perhaps a new theory of quantum gravity will predict a result that can be tested in a particle collider. Don't expect this to be soon. And there are many other teams that are working in one of the N-2 areas of Physics that are unrelated and their research is not affected by a Quantum Gravity theory or modification to the "Standard Model".
- nomel 5y ago
  > is explanations for unexplained phenomena, or resolutions to know problems/inconsistencies simply can't happen without > is it good to discover that the universe is more complicated than we knew, or that we were wrong
- macintux 5y ago
  When you know you have bugs in your code (or, in our case, an incomplete understanding of physics) finding new, unexpected behavior gives you new ways to identify the problem.
- Schroedingersat 5y ago
  We know the standard model is wrong. It explicitly calls itself out. New physics are the only thing that can guide discovery of the correct answer.
eightysixfour 5y ago
According to the chart here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/higher-w-boson-mass-hints-at-chinks-in-standard-models-armor/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/higher-w-boson-mass-... It seems to align with measurements from: * D0 I * CDF I * OPAL * ALEPH I do not know what refinements happened between D0 1/2, or CDF 1/2.
- rob_c 5y ago
  Potentially just a refinement in the strategy of the analysis and/or more compute/time. Not the first time a measurement like this was off due to poor blinding...

lupire 5y ago

> this finally the sign of new physics, which we all have been hoping for? I don't understand this mindset? Why (aside from creating jobs) is it good to discover that the universe is more complicated than we knew, or that we were wrong? To me, what we want in "new physics" is explanations for unexplained phenomena, or resolutions to know problems/inconsistencies (like quantum vs gravity), or emergent effects that less to interesting applications.

ashildr 5y ago
> Why (aside from creating jobs) is it good to discover that the universe is more complicated than we knew, or that we were wrong? Because this would give us hints to new degrees of freedom in the current models that seem to contradict each other but otherwise work extremely well in their respective their domains. Finding a crack in those hermetically closed models would be wonderful.
gus_massa 5y ago
There are a lot of different teams. Some teams are working trying to resolve the Quantum Gravity problem. I doubt this is useful for them, at least for now. Other team are working in particle colliders. They get a Nobel price if they discover a new particle or a correction to the "Standard Model". Hopefully both teams will meet somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a new experiment will give a hint about how to make quantum gravity work. Perhaps a new theory of quantum gravity will predict a result that can be tested in a particle collider. Don't expect this to be soon. And there are many other teams that are working in one of the N-2 areas of Physics that are unrelated and their research is not affected by a Quantum Gravity theory or modification to the "Standard Model".
nomel 5y ago
> is explanations for unexplained phenomena, or resolutions to know problems/inconsistencies simply can't happen without > is it good to discover that the universe is more complicated than we knew, or that we were wrong
macintux 5y ago
When you know you have bugs in your code (or, in our case, an incomplete understanding of physics) finding new, unexpected behavior gives you new ways to identify the problem.
Schroedingersat 5y ago
We know the standard model is wrong. It explicitly calls itself out. New physics are the only thing that can guide discovery of the correct answer.

eightysixfour 5y ago

According to the chart here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/higher-w-boson-mass-hints-at-chinks-in-standard-models-armor/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/higher-w-boson-mass-... It seems to align with measurements from: * D0 I * CDF I * OPAL * ALEPH I do not know what refinements happened between D0 1/2, or CDF 1/2.

rob_c 5y ago
Potentially just a refinement in the strategy of the analysis and/or more compute/time. Not the first time a measurement like this was off due to poor blinding...