3 ms·

Cool research, but it's only 3.4σ so far and this decay is already predicted by the Standard Model.

• Kye 3y ago
  I thought the whole point of the LHC was to confirm the Standard Model.
  • codeflo 3y ago
    That's the new, after-the-fact justification for the project after the original goal, finding new physics, didn't happen. But to be fair, there was no way to new whether new physics would be found without looking.
    • atoav 3y ago
      I mean at this point in physics everything new has to be a variation of the classical rabbit/duck picture: Essentially the same data points but a different way to explain them that doesn't invalidate the existing findings. This means we can use any knowledge we can find and we definitly should continue testing promising alternatives — either we find something or we reduce the size of the white spots on the map — which makes exploring them easier.
  • rdedev 3y ago
    While that is true afaik a lot of scientist were hoping to find something that is not predicted by the standard model to get new ideas. I don't think that has planned out yet
  • gary_0 3y ago
    The point of an experiment is to find out what you don't already know. The LHC has previously shown low-sigma hints of non-SM physics but nothing has panned out yet. At any rate, the Standard Model has clear gaps in it (quantum gravity, dark matter, etc) so the hope is that the LHC will show hints towards filling them--although it's a long shot. 27 kilometers long, ha!
    • Kye 3y ago
      Among humanity's longest shots. Not quite Voyager or golf on the moon, but formidable.
    • senttoschool 3y ago
      >The point of an experiment is to find out what you don't already know. Not necessarily true in physics. Many experiments are done to confirm a theory or to measure a known value more precisely. Both of these intentions are highly valuable. We've done many experiments to confirm general relativity for example. But obviously, people doing the experiments would like to see a different result than the prediction and win a Nobel Prize.
  • abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    A well-designed experiment is designed to falsify the conventional theory in favor of a proposed theory. An experiment designed to confirm is not valuable at all. I can drop an apple over and over again and confirm that it obeys F = mg every time, and learn nothing of value.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • insanitybit 3y ago
      That's the same experiment over and over again. Presumably we have done many many different experiments to confirm gravity.
      • abdullahkhalids 3y ago
        Again, the experiment or observation is designed to falsify a theory, not confirm it. This is true of gravitational experiments as well. Yes, we have done many experiments or observations to try and falsify various theories of gravity. For instance, Newton's gravity was falsified (as an adequate model of the solar system's dynamics) when we observed that the precision of mercury was not what was predicted by the theory. General relativity predicted that gravitational waves exist, and we observed them, which meant that we were unable to falsify GR using that observation. But people keep trying. There are now proposals using both quantum mechanics and gravity whereby it is predicted that we can entangle gravity. Experiments are not that far into the future, which will be used to falsify these joint theories of quantum mechanics and gravity.
        • insanitybit 3y ago
          Oh, I guess I think of "designed to falsify" and "intended to confirm" as two distinct goals.
    • abdullahkhalids 3y ago
      Let me restate my point in a more nuanced fashion after also talking to someone irl. Theories are often parameterized by experimental constants. For the Standard Model, among many others, the mass of the proton is one such parameter. I assert that each different value of the parameter yields a different theory. The Standard Model is an infinite collection of theories parametrized by the proton mass and other parameters. An experiment that measures the proton mass will falsify all theories in this collection that are outside the value + error bars of the measured proton mass. There is always falsification in a valuable experiment. If you do another experiment that falsifies already discarded values of the proton mass, people will not pay attention - unless of course, you used some different techniques in your experiment which then increases our belief in the previous falsification.