Slashdot Mirror


Beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics

tanmay writes "As time moves on, the case for supersymmetry keeps getting stronger. Physicsweb is reporting about an experiment that measures the relation between the spin of the muon and its magnetic moment, called the g-factor. The latest experiment is described as the most significant deviation to date between experiment and theory in particle physics, thus offering the clearest hint so far of new physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation."

47 comments

  1. Third post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This one makes no mention of Janet Jackson's breast.... er. oops.

    How 'about that G-factor?

  2. About time... by tjmsquared · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course, we could have learned this about 10 years ago if the U.S. had not revoked the funding for the superconducting supercollider. I was a physics student at the time and interested in particle physics, and it's sad to see that we are just now starting to recover from that decision.

    1. Re:About time... by hcg50a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is false. They didn't need the SCSC to make this discovery. They did it at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which does not have a particularly high energy collider.

      All they did was refine some data from the 1970s experiment, which leads to the startling conclusion that the Standard Model is not a perfect description.

      Most tee vee shows like Nova assume that the only way to show that the Standard Model is not a perfect description is by using higher and higher energy colliders (like the SCSC).

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
    2. Re:About time... by dtolman · · Score: 3, Informative
      Does that also mean that they don't really need the Large Hadron Collider to confirm this?

      That a well crafted experiment at a smaller collider could positively confirm it?

    3. Re:About time... by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

      hcg50a (690062) sez: "All they did was refine some data from the 1970s experiment..."

      No, they ran an entirely new experiment with equipment and analysis techniques that were more sensitive.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    4. Re:About time... by hcg50a · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't *need* the Large Hadron Collider to confirm it, but if they did use it, they could not only confirm it, but refine the measurements further and probably learn all kinds of other things at the same time.

      It's like using a small telescope vs using a large one: A small telescope may confirm something, but a larger one will tell you a lot more about it.

      A "well crafted experiment at a smaller collider could" indeed positively confirm it.

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
    5. Re:About time... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      If RHIC doesn't count as a high energy collider, what exactly would be considered "High Energy"?

      Smashing heavy ions at 99.95% the speed of light to produce trillion-degree temeratures isn't "High energy"?
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:About time... by DrLudicrous · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually, in a sense, it was Bush. Bush the Elder that is. Though it was a Democratic Congress at the time that actually killed the bill if I remember correctly.

    7. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, becuase we know the repubs are all on the level...

    8. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We cosmic ray physicists scoff at your puny accelerator energies.

  3. Re: String theory by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 0, Troll
    1) string theory

    Take a string and tie a slipknot. Then insert a loop of the string into the loop of the slipknot you just tied. Then repeat by inserting another loop into your new loop. Repeat this until you have a chain of about 80 loops.

    2) superstring theory

    Put a loop into the loop before the last loop you made. Then put a loop into both the loop before that and the current loop. Continue backwards until youcomplete another row. A smooth hook shaped stick makes this easier. Make 22 more rows for a total of 24. The dimensions ( 80x24 ) are pleasing to the eye.

    3) supersymetry

    Notice that the left side is the same as the right side, and the top half is the same as the bottom half. If you don't have a hamster in need of a blanket, pull the string until the whole thing unravels. What fun! Try it with the universe.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  4. Re: String theory by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

    Except completely not.

    --
    I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  5. Nuclear physics Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taco, can you spare some time to whip up a Slashdot clone so the poor physicists can have a place to post stories like this one?

    1. Re:Nuclear physics Slashdot? by jabberjaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmm, while I do admit that that would be nice there already is PhysicsWeb, BottomQuark, and the Physics Forums. If anyone else can add to this list please do!

  6. Quark Dance by Veramocor · · Score: 2, Funny
    All this supersymetry makes me want to dance,

    quark dance that is.

    Quark Dance!

    --
    Veramocor
    1. Re:Quark Dance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a very sick man.

  7. Finaly by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Funny

    we can learn what happened before 10^-17 seconds a.b.b. and what is realy happening on Planck scale. It is pleasant worrying about problems like these.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  8. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right. There aren't 11 dimensions. There are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days in a single rotation of Earth. Are you educated stupid? You must be if you contradict me.

  9. Posters should RTFA by menscher · · Score: 5, Informative
    As time moves on, the case for supersymmetry keeps getting stronger.
    No, it just hasn't been shown to be wrong yet.
    Physicsweb is reporting...
    How about "Physicsweb reported" (on Jan 8)...
    ...the most significant deviation to date between experiment and theory in particle physics...
    2.8 sigma may be the most significant to date, but it's not particularly significant.
    We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation.
    No, it needs to run for a few years. And then it is only guaranteed to add constraints to the space of theories, not to prove/disprove any.

    This isn't to say that the g-2 experiment is useless; only that we shouldn't get too excited about it yet. Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention. Until then, it will just around speculation. Oh yeah, and yes, I am a particle physicist. But I'm just a lowly theorist. The experimentalists working on g-2 are down the hall.

    1. Re:Posters should RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than your final argument, the previous 3 are just cheap shots.

    2. Re:Posters should RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least once in a while we get tidbits of "informed" data on articles posted in Slashdot as opposed to the rabid foamings that are the norm around here.

      My thanks to menscher for putting the hype in perspective.

  10. Supersymmetry, Superschmmetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to believe in Supersymmetry, but where are all the Squarks? Where are the Sleptons? Where are the Photinos, Zinos, and Higgsinos? And more importantly, if we can detect Janet Jackson's left breast, then shouldn't we be able to see her right breast as well?

    1. Re:Supersymmetry, Superschmmetry by Orne · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... then shouldn't we be able to see her right breast as well?

      The faster the velocity of the left breast, the less attention we have to locate the position of the right one... also known as Heisenberg's Wife Principle.

    2. Re:Supersymmetry, Superschmmetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey....lookit the !!!!!!!!!!
      Wait a minute,........bright shiny...,must have!

  11. Re:Hmmm by cujo_1111 · · Score: 0

    It all depends on if you have zoom and instant replay on your TV. Replay it enough times and a nerd would get a hardon over that small glimpse...

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  12. Re: String theory by cujo_1111 · · Score: 0

    Sounds more like knitting to me...

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  13. Where's my squark? by psifishdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We will know for sure if supersymmetry holds it's ground by 2007, when the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation.

    We'll know for sure that supersymmetry holds it's own when we find an selectron. However, I find it odd that we have a standard modle full of particles, but yet have not found any of their sparticles. Is it that sparticles are beyond the range of todays accelerators or is it that they don't exist? The only thing for certain is that it will ensure employment for a few particle physicists.

    --

    Long live Schrodinger's cat...
    1. Re:Where's my squark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't IBM find 'em back in the '60s? We had a Selecetric typewriter... i just assumed it was powered by a current of selectrons.

    2. Re:Where's my squark? by barawn · · Score: 3, Informative

      However, I find it odd that we have a standard modle full of particles, but yet have not found any of their sparticles.

      So do I, but then I realize that supersymmetry is a "well-conceived theory" - that is, it has enough parameter space to just about completely avoid ever being disproved. :)

      I can't remember who it was, but at a seminar here a while ago, one of the presenters said "Supersymmetry predicts a huge number of particles... half of which have been discovered."

      I was amused.

  14. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colliding hard-ons? Gaaaaaaay.....

  15. Zero Point Energy and other Rants. by jameskojiro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I just want them to find out if there is anyway to prove without a doubt that it exists. Also a way to capture some of that matter and it's antiparticles that are supposedly popping in and out of existance everywhere around us.

    I also want them to create a new form of matter and not another unstable form that only hangs around for a billionth of a second! I want some exotic forma of matter to be created that we can build stuff out of like cars, boats, planes, bridges etc....

    They always make stuff in the lab that only lasts a few billionths of a second, wht not make some weird matter that will last for a while...

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  16. What we shouldn't try to find out. by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

    I don't think we should try to find out what the mass of the Higgs-boson particle is. Bad things tend to happen when you do that!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:What we shouldn't try to find out. by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1
      I don't think we should try to find out what the mass of the Higgs-boson particle is. Bad things tend to happen when you do that!!!

      Look on the bright side. Now that we know the Large Hadron Collider will commence operation in 2007, we can all save a few bucks by declining those extended warranties.

  17. G-stuff by mbstone · · Score: 1, Funny

    As we here at Brookhaven celebrate having found the value of the G-factor, we would like to enlist the help of Slashdot readers in a related problem, namely, finding the exact coordinates of the G-Spot.

    Oops, wait, this is Slashdot....

  18. Stop it all, NOW! by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I had a dream that they are gonna find intelligent beings inside of atoms, and that companies will start outsourcing to those beings, ruining yet more tech jobs. Stop the colliders before it is too late!

    Maybe I should've cut down on Dr. Suess as a kid. That and those supersize spicy barritos result in some funky dreams.

    1. Re:Stop it all, NOW! by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      If they have access to OUR jobs, then give me access to THEIR cost of living

      Don't worry. It's coming. Mostly because when you have access to a low cost of living you also will be entrenched in a low standard of living. We're on a race to the bottom, in case you can't see it for the cheerleading coming from the corporate media. Society is splitting between the CEOs and the slave labor. Which group will you be in?
      Hurrah! "Free trade" for everybody!

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  19. Sigma Sigma Sigm^z Damn! by mynameis+(mother+... · · Score: 1
    Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention.

    Man you theorists have it easy! Imagine if you guys had to hit six sigma like the working world!

    FYI To the lucky ones to have never had to deal with stats or TQM:

    3 "Sigma" is ~70,000 screwups in 1,000,000 opportunities to screwup

    6 "Sigma" is ~3.5 screwups per 1,000,000 opportunities to screwup.



    Next week "Epsillon and Mu - It's all greek to me"
    1. Re:Sigma Sigma Sigm^z Damn! by menscher · · Score: 1
      Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention.
      Man you theorists have it easy! Imagine if you guys had to hit six sigma like the working world!

      Uhh, I didn't say we only do 3 sigma. I said that people start paying attention at 3 sigma. Here's a rough sketch of how it works:

      • Less than 1 sigma deviation: data "agrees"
      • 1-3 sigma deviation: data is "consistent"
      • 3-5 sigma deviation: "evidence" for something strange going on
      • Greater than 5 sigma deviation: "discovery" of something new
      Obviously these aren't taken exactly -- groups may bend the rules slightly. For example, the two papers that reported on the "observation" of the top quark reported 4.8 sigma and 4.6 sigma deviations. It's done this way because they don't watch the data approach 5 sigma, but rather collect it (blindly; without looking at it) and then do an analysis and see what they get. When they get a result like 4.8 sigma it's reasonable to say that's closer to 5 than to 3.
    2. Re:Sigma Sigma Sigm^z Damn! by mynameis+(mother+... · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I forget the ;) after my 6' comment. It was meant tounge in cheek.

      See in industry, IMNSHO, 6 sig is essentially crap. I was poking fun at 'only' 3 sigma mentality, while trying to help people 'visualize' [in a less abstract way] what was being discussed.
      Just like when xSP's offer 99.99% uptime.["But Crapspace's SLA is only 99.95!", etc.]

      'Aaa, sodesne!,

      I stand corrected

      I hadn't ever made the mental leap[ok shuffle forward] to what you posted above. I guess it shouldn't be shocking that PHB buzzspeak can actually be meaningful elsewhere.


      Now if 'social scientists' would only adopt those same standards...
  20. Re: String theory by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    Actually it's crocheting..

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  21. Re:Whatever by Pergatory · · Score: 1

    Since you're obviously a genius beyond our comprehension, would you mind explaining why it is that String Theory is so absurd? How about offering a better explanation instead of throwing unfounded insults at another? I don't personally believe in M-Theory either but if you're going to throw out claims like this you had better be prepared to back them up with facts or at least theories. To declare that the most complicated and least-disproven unified theory ever thought up is myth or "random imagination" is naive on your part and only proves your ignorance. It is, in fact, this type of random imagination that keeps bringing us closer to the truth!

  22. G-factor? Q-factor? X-factor? by systemBuilder · · Score: 1

    Q-factor is a commonly used term in bicycling, it means the width of a crankset from pedal eye to pedal eye, typically 130 mm - 140 mm. I think that its unsurprising that physicists are now able to measure G-factor. We have been able to measure Q-factor for a long time.

    I think that physicists should work on inventing new termnology rather than borrowing it from established fields such as bicycling.