3 ms·

>The task before the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative is to solve these dilemmas and update the 2020 data-driven SM prediction. Two new publications are planned. The

by moelf 2y ago

>The task before the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative is to solve these dilemmas and update the 2020 data-driven SM prediction. Two new publications are planned. The first will be released in 2025 (to coincide with the new experimental result from Fermilab). This will describe the current status and ongoing body of work, but a full, updated SM prediction will have to wait for the second paper, likely to be published several years later. a bit unsatisfying, basically the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative which gave us the 2020 prediction that turned out to be wildly different from FNAL measurement is going to publish an updated version of the prediction after FNAL releases their final result. it means the Theory Initiative will have a target that will never move to aim for when working out their final SM prediction

addaon 2y ago
> it means the Theory Initiative will have a target that will never move to aim for when working out their final SM prediction Sure, and this breaks some level of independence between this two workstreams -- it seems unlikely that the Theory Initiative will publish a number that diverges further from the experimental side. But on the other hand, we're going to be in a world where there are two theoretical estimates, one based partially on empirical methods and one based on lattice methods, and these are going to diverge. So the obvious next task for the theory group is to (a) explain why these diverge and (b) explain why the lattice method is the more accurate one. Which likely will lead to more work for the experimentalists to explain why the inputs to the empirical methods didn't generalize. Plenty to still learn here.
panda-giddiness 2y ago
Essentially all of the theory research (specifically, lattice QCD calculations) since the previous white paper in 2020 have been conducted blinded, and at any rate, the deadline to be included in the theory average has already passed. It would take an act of extraordinary brashness to fudge the numbers now.
ForOldHack 2y ago
But if you observe the observation, does it change both obervations? or just yours? ( Im kiddin ). FermiLab is doing some great amazing work. We have references: https://cerncourier.com/a/new-muon-g-2-result-bolsters-earlier-measurement-2/ https://cerncourier.com/a/new-muon-g-2-result-bolsters-earli...

by moelf 2y ago

addaon 2y ago

> it means the Theory Initiative will have a target that will never move to aim for when working out their final SM prediction Sure, and this breaks some level of independence between this two workstreams -- it seems unlikely that the Theory Initiative will publish a number that diverges further from the experimental side. But on the other hand, we're going to be in a world where there are two theoretical estimates, one based partially on empirical methods and one based on lattice methods, and these are going to diverge. So the obvious next task for the theory group is to (a) explain why these diverge and (b) explain why the lattice method is the more accurate one. Which likely will lead to more work for the experimentalists to explain why the inputs to the empirical methods didn't generalize. Plenty to still learn here.

panda-giddiness 2y ago

Essentially all of the theory research (specifically, lattice QCD calculations) since the previous white paper in 2020 have been conducted blinded, and at any rate, the deadline to be included in the theory average has already passed. It would take an act of extraordinary brashness to fudge the numbers now.

ForOldHack 2y ago

But if you observe the observation, does it change both obervations? or just yours? ( Im kiddin ). FermiLab is doing some great amazing work. We have references: https://cerncourier.com/a/new-muon-g-2-result-bolsters-earlier-measurement-2/ https://cerncourier.com/a/new-muon-g-2-result-bolsters-earli...