Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brookhaven Probing Unknown Form of Matter (Maybe)

Posted by michael on from the animal-vegetable-mineral dept.

boowax writes "The New York Times (free registration required) reports that there may be a new type of matter according to researchers at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. This apparently has come from interpretation of data gathered from work with muons and discrepancies between predicted wobble and the actual affect. Their are doubters though, who claim that the difference comes from problems with the calculations used for prediction and not a separate form of matter."

30 comments

  1. Huh by SpatchMonkey · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm about as excited for this as I was when cold fusion 'may' have been proved viable.

    Come on, this is just flimsy.

    1. Re:Huh by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, it's flimsy for now. Note this:
      Theorists who are not involved in the research, but whose computational results must be used to interpret it, have recently uncovered errors and uncertainties in their own work. For that reason, the Brookhaven experimenters say they are not ready to claim they have proved a new form of matter exists.
      They aren't claiming anything yet. They have something that MIGHT point to this new matter. And they're not just pulling this out of their asses either. Supersymetry theory claims that each matter particle has a corresponding "supersymetric" particle, a kind of a shadow particle. squarks, sleptons and the like are expected by this theory. Of course, this is just one of a few theories trying to supplement or overthrow the standard model, and has not nearly been proven.

      Don't make snide comments at people who are releasing experimental data without a conclusion. Right now, all they're saying is that they are measuring a .6 wobbles/sec difference from what they expected, that's it. They aren't claiming anything else yet. Eventually they will either make such a claim when they have enough solid data, or they will drop it due to lack of information or because they believe it is false.
      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  2. Matter matters by eyepeepackets · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, but the article suggests some interesting questions:

    "What does it matter?"

    or

    "Does the new matter matter to hatter?"

    or the obvious, "What's the (new) matter?"

    Yes, the article is certainly weak, mostly due to the fact that, as the one fella in the article says, it's all somewhat premature.

    Perhaps the most important point made in the article is the one about the Bush administration killing funding for the research: Where do the Bushies think all the new technology they can lock up for corporations comes from, anyway?

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  3. Unknown form of matter... by broken_down_programm · · Score: 1

    ...thought they were talking about the bit of stuff that's always left over after you eat the last sardine in the tin.

  4. You'd fail class if you tried this by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

    In a weird reflection of the boundless complexity of modern physics, top theorists from around the world were still sending conflicting calculations to the Brookhaven team in the hours before the new findings were disclosed yesterday afternoon at the laboratory.

    So why did they release it? I mean, the work isn't finished, so what gives?

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:You'd fail class if you tried this by FredGray · · Score: 3, Informative
      So why did they release it? I mean, the work isn't finished, so what gives?

      What happened yesterday is that our collaboration announced our experimental result based on the data that we took in the winter of 2000. We have spent about two years staring at that data, and we are confident that we have extracted the right number from it. Consequently, we announced it yesterday and we are preparing a paper to submit to a journal.

      However, there is another side to the story. Other groups do theoretical calculations of what the standard model predicts we should measure in the absence of any "new physics." The confusion at the moment is on their side.

    2. Re:You'd fail class if you tried this by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      The confusion at the moment is on their side.

      Thanks. The article made it sound like you had only made an initial run and were waiting for a second opinion.
      Or, it could have said what you wrote, which would have been clearer. There's a big difference between, "Would you look at this?" and "Holy cow, take a look at THIS!"
      Good luck.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    3. Re:You'd fail class if you tried this by FredGray · · Score: 2

      I agree that the New York Times article does not portray the situation accurately. I actually think that USA Today did a better job: their article.

    4. Re:You'd fail class if you tried this by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      You're right. That's a much better description and explanation of the circumstances.
      The NYT article made it sound like you couldn't get your facts straight. The USA Today article sounds like a cautious, noteworthy scientific observation.
      Obviously a big difference.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
  5. NYT's Login by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use this: nospam:nospam

    1. Re:NYT's Login by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, we need more of this.

  6. this is new york... by Aniquel · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's on Long Island. Of course they're going to discover new forms of matter. Hell, I discover new forms of matter just walking down the streets of NYC.

  7. hurry up before the budget runs out by raduga · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Read to the end of the article, to find the Real Problem.

    Meanwhile, the experimenters have a more immediate worry: the Bush administration has decided to end their financing after this year.

    --
    First, nothing begins if not opening
    1. Re:hurry up before the budget runs out by FredGray · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Meanwhile, the experimenters have a more immediate worry: the Bush administration has decided to end their financing after this year.

      The situation is a little more complicated that that. The President's budget did cut all funding through the Dept. of Energy for high-energy physics running at the Brookhaven AGS. This affects at least one other current experiment besides ours.

      The House did not add any of this funding back into their version of the budget. There are credible rumours that the Senate will add $50 million to the Dept. of Energy Office of Science budget in their version, which could conceivably be directed to Brookhaven. So, there's still a reasonable hope for additional data-taking this fiscal year.

  8. More informative article by mcelrath · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here is a far more informative article, straight from the horse's mouth. (I hate it when lay journalists "distill" the actual information down to nothingness and don't provide a reference to the original source...anyway) And Here is the experiment's home page, with a nice plot of the measurement.

    This is simply a fantastic experiment. The level of precision they have acheived is phenomenal, and they should all be commended for their efforts. The fact that the experiment was cancelled is a great tragedy. These kinds of experiments are a cheap way to look for new forms of matter. They won't tell you what the new matter is, but they will tell you it's there. They do this by very accurately measuring things that are easy to measure (like the muon's magnetic moment, or "g-2"), which are changed very slightly by the presence of new matter. The complimentary experiments are The Tevatron and The Large Hadron Collider which may be able to directly produce the new kinds of matter (if the new matter isn't too heavy) and thus identify it and study its properties.

    From a theoretical point of view, it is very easy to "screw up" this measurement. That is to say, if you write down a new theory that has almost any kind of new matter, it gives a contribution to the muon's g-2. This is why there was so much excitement last year when they announced a deviation from the Standard Model. One must remember however that the community's accepted standard for a "discovery" is 5 standard deviations between the measurement and the prediction. The top quark discovery had more than 5 standard deviations signal over background. I cannot find numbers on their home page but it appears from their plot that their measurement is around 2 standard deviations.

    Practically speaking, 2-standard deviation measurements pop up and then disappear all the time in physics. This is why we require the stringent "5-sigma" rule.

    -- Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    1. Re:More informative article by mike3411 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good post, but your sig's incorrect.
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; --> 1 = +/- 1
      I prefer:
      1/3 = .3repeating, (1/3)*3=1, .3repeating*3=.9repeating, .9repeating = 1.
      our math system sucks.

      --
      Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    2. Re:More informative article by FredGray · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is simply a fantastic experiment.

      Thanks! (I'm a grad student on this experiment.)

      I cannot find numbers on their home page but it appears from their plot that their measurement is around 2 standard deviations.

      We compared the "world average" result against three recent published standard model evaluations by different authors. The discrepancies between our experimental result and these calculations range from 1.6 to 2.6 standard deviations.

      We should have a preprint available very soon now, by the way; we finished debating the last few words at a teleconference a few hours ago.

    3. Re:More informative article by mcelrath · · Score: 2

      What's the word on the funding cut? Is it political or have you guys exhausted the experiment's capability?

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    4. Re:More informative article by FredGray · · Score: 3, Informative
      Definitely just politics--our measurement is clearly still limited by statistical rather than systematic errors. In the 2000 data that was just published, the statistical uncertainty was 0.7 ppm compared to about 0.4 ppm of systematics. That 0.4 ppm will almost certainly be reduced even further in the analysis of the 2001 data set, and presumably in any future data taking.

      Additional running time for our experiment was endorsed last year by the BNL program advisory committee. The budget cut was at the Presidential level, and it affects all DOE-funded high-energy physics at the Brookhaven AGS. This includes not just our experiment but also one of the high-profile rare kaon decay search experiments.

    5. Re:More informative article by mike3411 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      way to fail to read my post, the first part of my comment was exactly what you just said, that x^2=y^2 does not mean x=y. as for the second part, .9repeating shouldn't (imho) equal 1, since they're two different numbers. Granted, .9repeating is infinately close to 1, but there _is_ a difference between a number that is infinately close to another number, and that number itself.

      --
      Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    6. Re:More informative article by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      Could you move the experiment to a beam at CERN or somewhere if you could get funding there but not in Europe?

    7. Re:More informative article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/3 = .3repeating, (1/3)*3=1, .3repeating*3=.9repeating, .9repeating = 1.

      I agree with the last guy. Our math system doesn't suck, you just don't understand it. At the beginning, you said that .3 repeating times 3 was equivalent to 1. It's not. It's equal to .9 repeating. SO, your "equation" should look like this.

      1/3 = .3repeating
      (1/3)*3=.9repeating
      .3repeating*3=.9repeating
      .9repeating = .9repeating

    8. Re:More informative article by mike3411 · · Score: 1

      good job proving .9repeating = .9repeating, you retard, you failed to point out any flaws in my calculations.

      --
      Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  9. heavy thoughts by orangesquid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The studies appear to confirm similar findings the scientists reported last year. The research involves muons, rare subatomic particles similar to electrons but 207 times as heavy.

    Ah, but these heavy "muons" are more common in America, where fast food and steakhouses abound.

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    1. Re:heavy thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wondered if others would see my comment as amusing, or as obnoxious. I probably should've added a trailing winking-smiley.

      My friends ask why I never post much, or usually post anon; it's simpe; people always misinterpret me because tone-of-voice doesn't carry through e-mail, and it seems some guys expect the worst.

      Of course, if this was a comment about Canada, it would have been +5 Funny (except that fast food's home is really the US of A, so it wouldn't be true...)

      I suppose there's some overweight fast-food-addict slashdot-reader out there who was personally offended.

      Moderation should not be done that way. It is not what one person finds amusing, thoughtful, or offensive: it is what one person believes his peers may find amusing, thoughtful, or offensive.

      I'm probably just not smart/funny enough for this crowd :(
      Everybody who reads this will think I'm a bitch, too...

  10. probing by skydude_20 · · Score: 1

    Brookhaven Probing Unknown Form of Matter(Maybe)

    i remember my doctor saying something about this at my last appointment

    --
    Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
  11. Bush right to cancel the experiment by Skyshadow · · Score: 1
    After all, as W will tell you, there are only four sorts of matter: fire, water, air and earth.

    Duh.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Bush right to cancel the experiment by mcelrath · · Score: 1
      But...does Dubya know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

      Oh...wait...I forgot, dancing is evil.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.