46 ms·
Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
- Mo3 4y ago> but to borrow a German idiom, don’t eat the headlines as hot as they’re cooked. I'm German and I have never heard this before, but I like it.
- mikub 4y agoI think it's reffering to "Nichts wird so heiß gegessen wie es gekocht wird", which translates to "Nothing get's eaten as hot as it get's cooked.".
- LegitShady 4y agoExcept overnight oats
- qsi 4y agoSimilarly in Dutch, de soep wordt niet zo heet gegeten als ze wordt opgediend. In this case it's soup that's not eaten as hot as it is served.
- ethbr0 4y agoIs soup popular in Dutch cuisine? Honestly asking. Etymologies of aphorisms (especially multiple cultural ones) fascinate me.
- dtech 4y agoNot particularly popular, especially nowadays. "Snert", a thick pea soup with pork, is a classic winter dish though.
- galgalesh 4y agoIn Dutch-speaking Belgium, soup used to be a staple of our diet. Every meal started with soup when I was young.
- Mo3 4y agoEen Nederlander zegt tegen zijn vrouw: “Johanna, giet een liter water bij de soep, we hebben gasten!” (I'm German, but I live in the Netherlands. I absolutely love these jokes between you)
- jacquesm 4y ago'Ober, mijn bord is nat.' 'Dat is uw soep, m'neer.' 'Ober, deze soep smaakt naar afwaswater.' 'Hoe weet u dat, meneer?'
- Mo3 4y agoAhhhh, that. I only ever heard it being used in relation to imagining bad future events that turn out far better than expected.
- samstave 4y agoGerman is an interesting tongue... Einstürzende Neubauten - the band, but the word means "a new building thats always in disrepair" (or so I was told)
- Mo3 4y agoNah, it means "collapsing newly constructed buildings", lol. Einstürzend = collapsing Neubauten = made of "Neu"=new and "bauten"=buildings
- jhgb 4y agoIt's definitely a Czech idiom - "nic se nejí tak horké, jak se to uvaří". But apparently German has this, too: https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/es_wird_nichts_so_hei%C3%9F_gegessen,_wie_es_gekocht_wird https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/es_wird_nichts_so_hei%C3%9F_g...
- Mo3 4y agoThat reminds me, I saw something similar on this Ukrainian music video about Bayraktar drones too. Timestamp 0:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo
- selimthegrim 4y agoIt appears the Russians are getting their soup warmed even hotter than the cooking temperature.
- Aaargh20318 4y agoDutch has something similar: “ de soep wordt nooit zo heet gegeten, als zij wordt opgediend” (The soup is never eaten as hot as it was served).
- kalimanzaro 4y ago"the headlines never get as hot on the plate as they did in the pan." --English speaker trying to make sense of it
- treeman79 4y agoIs that like the German Christmas Pickle tradition that no Germans have heard of? https://youtu.be/Sb0qu_RjQ6I https://youtu.be/Sb0qu_RjQ6I
- Mo3 4y agoThat was excruciating. Just like the "Oktoberfests" that take place in America. It's a shit-show.
- davrosthedalek 4y agoThey also tend to be in the wrong month.
- Mo3 4y agoDepends, when are they? The real Oktoberfest starts mid September. (Don’t ask.)
- davrosthedalek 4y agoWell, they often start in October instead of ending just at the start of it.
- mellosouls 4y agoOther recent discussions on the subject fwiw: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30955033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30955033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977931
- olaf 4y agoto paraphrase a german …
- PaulHoule 4y agoSupersymmetry is simple in the context of string theory, which is where it came from. Write it down for particles and it is as godawful mess.
- photochemsyn 4y agoWell this is kind of funny and I mostly agree so TLDR: > "I’m afraid all of this sounds rather negative. Well. There’s a reason I left particle physics. Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal progress or for progress in any other discipline of science. The only reason we still hear so much about it is that a lot of funding goes into it and so a lot of people still work on it, most of them don’t like me. But the disciplines where the foundations of physics currently make progress are cosmology and astrophysics, and everything quantum, quantum information, quantum computing, quantum metrology, and so on, which is why that’s what I mostly talk about these days." The popular science literature is also full of string theory this and god particle that, and it's really not very satisfying or illuminating. If people want to get into this general subject, I'd recommend instead Stephen Hawking's compendium of classic papers on quantum physics, with commentary, "The Dreams That Stuff is Made Of."
- beezle 4y agoThere are a lot of other areas of physics, some even involving the use of colliders, that are in better position and value to make discoveries that either advance our understanding and/or have applied/commercial application. One example is the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven. The money spent nationally and globally on these types of facilities are a fraction of what goes to LHC or, not long ago, the Tevatron at Fermilab.
- photochemsyn 4y agoYes, those kind of projects have a lot more uses and deserve more funding and attention. Stanford's Linac Coherent Light Source is another example: > "The Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC takes X-ray snapshots of atoms and molecules at work, revealing fundamental processes in materials, technology and living things."
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoMoin. > "The European XFEL is a research facility of superlatives: It generates ultrashort X-ray flashes—27 000 times per second and with a brilliance that is a billion times higher than that of the best conventional X-ray radiation sources." [bzzt bzzt bzzt] https://www.xfel.eu/facility/overview/index_eng.html https://www.xfel.eu/facility/overview/index_eng.html
- pigtailgirl 4y agospace time covered this well a few days back-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw&ab_channel=PBSSpaceTime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw&ab_channel=PBSSp...
- shadowofneptune 4y agoWhat implications would this discovery have if the evidence for it was overwhelming? The article talks about super-symmetry, but couldn't it be also possible that we get out of it just some small revisions to the standard model?
- msarchet 4y agoMy understanding is that the mass relates to particles that the w boson would have to interact with during collisions for it to have the mass that was measure. Our known model doesn't predict this which means there might be particles that we haven't found in our current model. Which is where the super symmetry comes from
- thayne 4y agoHistorically, that is usually what happens. This wouldn't be the first time the standard model was adjusted to fit observed phenomena, and it probably won't be the last.
- SubiculumCode 4y agoIt is not my field, but the post, the video, has all the markings I see of outrage influencers on youtube: acting like they know better than everyone else, making broad swipes and claims, posting monetized videos with exaggerated eye popping photo covers, and the whole "I used to be them but saw the light and left schtick.", claims of scientists lying, without the honesty of naming names. Well, I'd rather get this kind of review from a review article in a solid journal than this tabloid.
- pessimizer 4y agoDon't respond to tone rather than content, especially if you're in no position to evaluate the content. Otherwise you'll fall for horseshit spoken in a tone you like.
- SubiculumCode 4y agoJudging a book by its cover is actually not the worst strategy for picking a book. And I WAS responding to the content; content like accusing scientists of lying, content like silly photos designed to get you to click. edit: To sum in Bayesian terms, the prior probability of reading a good book is greater if the publisher had sunk money into a high quality cover, because they believe in its content, while a trashy cover might be the only thing a trash book could obtain. Likewise, the prior probability of bullshit is greater if the tone is shrill, accusatory, and exaggerated, while the prior probability of quality content is greater if the scientific commentary is academic, serious, and professional.
- stevenhuang 4y agoBayesian reasoning has its limits. If one is lazy and don't think to reconsider when warranted, it's often accidentally used as a crutch. Works in most cases I grant you that, just user beware. > "The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken" - Bertrand Russel
- simulate-me 4y agoI feel like this was too much a diatribe on why supersymmetry is not a good solution and didn't spend enough time on evaluating what the actual implications are of this result holding.
- mannykannot 4y agoOn the one hand, it does not strike me as unreasonable to point out that experience suggests that this, too, will turn out to be an experimental or methodological error. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to point out that this result, if correct, would not validate supersymmetry (if that is, in fact, the case.) On the other hand, the fact that supersymmetry isn’t a theory, but a property of a class of models that can be tweaked to fit a broad range of experimental results (again, if that is, in fact, the case) does not rule out the possibility that the LHC could have found evidence that strongly supported one specific theory that happens to be supersymmetric. Hossenfelder seems to be saying that the LHC definitively ruled out what was considered to be the most plausible candidate(s), which would imply there was at least one such falsifiable theory. Allegations of incompetence or mendacity should not be made lightly, and unless the promoters of the LHC routinely said supersymmetry in general might be disproved, the allegations seem unwarranted.
- lisper 4y agoFalsifying supersymmetry is like falsifying Ptolemaic epicycles. You can never falsify it with data because epicycles can always be constructed to fit any data set [1]. Likewise, a sypersymmetric theory can be constructed to fit any set of parameters. But fitting the data is not enough. You have to fit the data with substantially fewer parameters than data points. That's the challenge. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4H6PEcCCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4H6PEcCCA
- mannykannot 4y agoIndeed. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the promoters of the LHC were making claims that they knew could not be satisfied by it - or, perhaps, that nothing they said could reasonably be interpreted as such a claim? The trouble is, I don't know which specific claims Hossenfelder is basing her allegations on.
- acim 4y agoYes, it did. We know nothing.
- paulpauper 4y agoI dunno why this blog keeps be voted to the top. Yeah, current physics research is lacking in some areas .since when was it perfect?
- mempko 4y agomaybe just ignore the link
- mhh__ 4y agoBecause Sabine is has the bona fides to know her stuff but also a contrarian and a bit of an outcast, and she knows how to market herself. All of this combined is perfect for hackernews.
- SiempreViernes 4y agoYeah, it's weird how she transitioned from being a fairly normal popsci blogger into being a sort of lubos light.
- mhh__ 4y agoPopulism is like gravity, to paraphrase the Joker in the dark Knight.
- FollowingTheDao 4y agoYes, she is the Trump of Science. And I do not say that be be demeaning of either. While I do not care for Trump, he knows what he is doing when it comes to showmanship, and so does she.
- LordDragonfang 4y agoThis comparison strikes me as much more unfavorable than you admit, because while Trump is categorically not an expert on what he purports to be (running a successful business) Sabine is clearly an expert in her field.
- k2xl 4y agoI just started watching (and enjoying) Sabine's YouTube channel after one of her posts were shared on HN the other week. I am surprised to find so many people here have negative opinions on Sabine. I've probably seen a dozen videos about the double slit experiment but her explanation about it (and why the other videos were not precise/accurate) was really eye opening for me as a layman. Also her explanations about delayed observer not being as "weird" as people claim was also very helpful in demystifying quantum weirdnesses. She seems like a competent physicist with strong opinions that are grounded in some basis - can someone elaborate why they don't like her points of view? Are they problematic scientifically or do they just not like her style of rhetoric?
- ravi-delia 4y agoShe's a contrarian physicist. Every good physicist has one weird opinion, but she's collected every one of them and used them to beat anyone in hearing range over the head. No single take is far from the norm, but in terms of layman's content it's easy to get a really warped idea of the dominant paradigm. Honestly I think fewer people would have an issue with her if she was like 80% less abrasive, no matter how out there her ideas are. So keep watching, but be aware that there are conflicting viewpoints with more significant backing.
- analog31 4y agoI'm a physicist, but was never smart enough to grok particle physics. Today I work on measurement instruments. Still, I think breaking the standard model is a good thing. It means there's more physics to be discovered. Like Tolstoy said about happy families, successful physics theories are boring. In fact, if a fundamental theory is too successful, physicists start to get restless. The people who have a problem with breaking the standard model are those who were looking for a perfect final theory, or who wasted their time looking for its philosophical implications.
- rob_c 4y agoNo. Particle physics has shown a clear need for a clean next gen e/p collider. The author unfortunately got caught up in the grind of the field and not the context or big picture. And frankly this is exemplified by the US having an even stronger publish or perish attitude. Almost nobody ever in the field has used the phrase "god particle", at least in Europe. Thats yet another american contribution I'm sorry. Fine, leave the field, thats your prerogative, and do whats best for you. But please get back down off a soapbox and stop attacking the field that trained, educated and gave you the knowledge you have.
- 8note 4y agoHas it shown a clear need? What's the required energy needed to show the new thing, and what what need does it fill? Will the next collider solve climate change?
- saiya-jin 4y agoHowever pressing you may feel climate change is, it shouldn't be the sole focus of mankind for around trillion reason, give or take. We need progress on all fronts, hard science as much as more societal-oriented ones and everything around and in between. Just look at current world...
- rob_c 4y agoHiggs energy, discrepencies, and the need for precision higgs-science which we can only really do with a precision e/p collider rather than the dual-barral shotgun that is the LHC. The need it fills is to answer open questions about the standard model not explaining all known particle (the stuff you're made from) interactions or behaviours. Asking if it solved climate change is like me asking if your netflix subscription does. I'll ask nicely please don't be facetious.
- edgyquant 4y ago> Will the next collider solve climate change? This is an irrelevant appeal to emotion, try to engage faithfully
- 4y ago
- joseluis 4y agoI really think this paper should be more widely known, because it's eye opening: https://physicsdetective.com/something-is-rotten-in-the-state-of-qed/ https://physicsdetective.com/something-is-rotten-in-the-stat... It made me realize QED is the equivalent of a million lines spaghetti codebase that's been continually built upon, fudge after fudge since the 40s, while being sold as the best thing ever, the ultimate model of reality, etc. While it really started as a temporary solution like a bash script that should've been replaced by something more elegant... many decades ago. And now we are in this mess.
- spekcular 4y agoThe person who wrote that paper doesn't understand the basics of the field that he's talking about. For example (from the blog post): "Consa gives an analogy wherein Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan has claimed that the sum of all positive integers is not infinite, but is instead -1/12. It’s wrong, it’s absurd, but renormalization has now been accepted, and is even sold as a virtue." One when performs zeta function regularization, one gets -1/12. This isn't some mystery; it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Analytic continuation has been understood since the 1800s. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_function_regularization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_function_regularization Edit: I read more of the linked paper. The claim that Karplus and Kroll committed "fraud" is basically libel, as can be seen by reading the complete account. The worst one can say is that people didn't publish full details of calculations due to page limitations or laziness, but this is hardly a special feature of QED. For instance, Onsager famously solved the 2-d Ising model exactly in 1944 but never provided details in print, just the final solution.
- semi-extrinsic 4y agoOnsager was a bastard with omitting details. He has a 1949 paper on packing of hard rods (and other anisometric particles), which is 4 pages long, but a colleague who went through the details of the derivation spent half a year and filled a ring binder with intermediate calculations.
- 4y ago
- kristianp 4y agoThis is the tldr for me: "the mean value of the new measurement isn’t so different from earlier data analyses. The striking thing about this new analysis is the small error bar. That the error bar is so small is the reason why this result has such a high statistical significance. They quote a disagreement with the standard model at 6.9 sigma. That’s well above the discovery threshold in particle physics which is often somewhat arbitrarily put at 5 sigma." "What did they do to get the error bar so small? Well for one thing they have a lot of data. But they also did a lot of calibration cross-checks with other measurements, which basically means they know very precisely how to extract the physical parameters from the raw data, or at least they think they do. Is this reasonable? Yes. Is it correct? I don’t know. It could be. But in all honesty, I am very skeptical that this result will hold up. More likely, they have underestimated the error and their result is actually compatible with the other measurements." I think it's great that someone can tell me about the nature of the difference in the mass and whether it's likely to hold up under more scrutiny (no). I believe Sabine's judgement here as other small discrepancies have disappeared in the past.
- cryptonector 4y agoOne of the things that should be mentioned in videos like this is just how much data these particle experiments produce nowadays, or how long it takes to analyze it all, and even to write the programs to do that analysis. These things produce so much data, so fast, that the high performance computing setups needed to run particle physics are extremely interesting of their own right. Now, I'm not saying that Sabine Hossenfelder should go into detail about that, but that she should mention the gargantuan amounts of data involved because that alone should be enough to cause people to wonder just how solid these results are.
- nyc111 4y ago> Those physicists who said otherwise were either incompetent or lying or both, the rest knew it but kept their mouth shut, and now they hope you’ll forget about this and give them money for a bigger collider. This, coming from a physicist, shows how corrupt aademic physics has become. Academic physics is nothing more than old school scholasticism. > Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal progress or for progress in any other discipline of science. Another sign of scholasticism. You just write commentary on commentary to earn academic points. > They never admitted to having made false statements, accidentally or deliberately, and they never gave us any reason to think it wouldn’t happen again. I quite simply don’t trust them.