Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics

Posted by michael on from the twice-as-good-as-regular-symmetry dept.

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."

12 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  2. Quark Dance by Veramocor · · Score: 2, Funny
    All this supersymetry makes me want to dance,

    quark dance that is.

    Quark Dance!

    --
    Veramocor
  3. 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
  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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.