Tevatron Beams Turn On At FermiLab
skwang writes: "This press release at Fermi National Accerator Labratory (FermiLab) announces the start of "Collider Run II." FermiLab collides protons and anti-protons in order to study high-energy phyisics (HEP). One of the labs goals is to find the Higgs Boson, an elementary particle that couples with mass. More information about Run II Physics can be found at the FermiLab Web site or at the detector Web Sites: D-Zero (D0) and
Collider Detector at FermiLab(CDF)"
First things first, he experiment to which you refer is the g-2 experiment at Brookhaven ; it is an experiment to measure the anomolous magnetic moment of the muon (which is a fermion, not a boson).
The anomolous magnetic moment of the muon is a physical quantity predicted by the SM (a prediction which is itself a paramaterization of other measured quantities, and thus has some uncertanty). The g-2 experiment yielded a value which is 2.5 standard deviations away from the SM prediction.
This is a good thing for physicists (specifically the ones at Fermilab)! For one thing, no serious physicist has ever believed that the standard model is a complete description of nature. There are aspects of the universe for which the standard model cannot account (for example the obvious matter-antimatter asymmetry...).
The really exciting thing about the g-2 result and it's potential impact on the physics about to happen at Fermilab is that it is highly suggestive of new physics (i.e. supersymmetry... susy).
Think of the progress of scientific thought in the past 600 years. Newton's gravitation is a good theory; it makes predictions which mach quite well with observation (experiment). However, it is incorrect... along came Einstien's theory of gravitation, (General Relativity, which itself is a good theory, but not the correct one) which reproduces all of the predictions of Newtonian gravity, and and "does one better" by getting right what Newton got wrong (i.e. precession of the orbit of Mercury; the deflection of light by massive objects...).
So we have the standard model, which is by far the most successful physical model in human history. Yet we know it's wrong. But untill we find a better description of nature, it'll have to do.
The standard model is far from dead. It will evolve, in some sense, into a better description of nature.
I'm a graduate student who works on the experiment to which this thread is alluding. It is the muon g-2 experiment.
The post to which I am responding contains several factual errors:
Thanks,
Fred Gray
I guess this explains the splattered whale carcass and smashed flower and pot in my front yard...