"Perfect" Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Perfect" Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday December 19, 2013 @05:33PM from the look-at-how-round-it-is-man dept.

astroengine writes "New measurements of the electron have confirmed, to the smallest precision attainable, that it has a perfect roundness. This may sounds nice for the little electron, but to one of the big physics theories beyond the standard model, it's very bad news. 'We know the Standard Model does not encompass everything,' said physicist David DeMille, of Yale University and the ACME collaboration, in a press release. 'Like our LHC colleagues, we're trying to see something in the lab that's different from what the Standard Model predicts.' Should supersymmetrical particles exist, they should have a measurable effect on the electron's dipole moment. But as ACME's precise measurements show, the electron still has zero dipole moment (as predicted by the standard model) and is likely very close to being perfectly round. Unfortunately for the theory of supersymmetry, this is yet another blow."

150 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 17:36 · Score: 0

Unfortunately for the theory of supersymmetry, this is yet another blow.
Ok, but why? Anyone care to explain this for me?
1. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Tablizer · 2013-12-19 17:42 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Because since protons prefer round, smooth booties, they won't date neutrons, which then fly off into space to shop. Didn't you learn anything in science class?
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by ljhiller · 2013-12-19 17:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhbqIJZ8wCM
3. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Rosyna · 2013-12-19 17:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because string theory isn't science!
4. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA
  
  The standard model predicts that the electron has exactly zero dipole moment, meaning it is perfectly symmetrical. However, should supersymmetry exist, the dipole moment of the electron should be greater than zero, pushing the negatively-charged particle into a a more and more elongated shape.
5. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by ByteSlicer · 2013-12-19 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Because string theory isn't science!
  Sure it is. It's abstract mathematics.
6. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by msobkow · 2013-12-19 23:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, but the summary nor the article explain why supersymmetry is a question or an issue in the first place, just that the evidence doesn't support the theory. What does the theory it disproves mean/change?
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
7. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  Does this explain why the precise shape of an electron matters?
8. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  Science is applied mathematics.
9. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by RabidReindeer · 2013-12-20 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because since protons prefer round, smooth booties, they won't date neutrons, which then fly off into space to shop. Didn't you learn anything in science class?
  Neutrons just don't want to get involved.
10. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Talderas · 2013-12-20 00:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So basically.... evidence supports the standard model and someone's pet theory that they are hoping will make them the next Einstein has evidence that is contrary to it?
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
11. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by confused+one · 2013-12-20 01:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You're too lazy to check Google or Wikipedia for articles on Supersymmetry, why should we take the time to explain something you obviously can't take the time to read about.
12. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by gtall · 2013-12-20 01:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  An aspect of science is applied math as the AC below mentioned. More particularly, we should be somewhat cautious in treating math as physics. Physics is describable in math, but it isn't math. And the mathematics of a physical situation functions more like an analogy. It says "that works like this"...and usually it does that to some epsilon because we can only measure up to a certain energy. One can think of a physical theory described in mathematics as an idealization. The math is very precise, the real world is not necessarily.
13. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Ha! As if you could explain it at all. No one knows what this stuff is, not you, not the journalists who writes the story, and apparently, not even the scientists themselves.
14. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by msobkow · 2013-12-20 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  What I'm not interested in is smug assholes claiming "it's in the summary" when it's not.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
15. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  It is easy to shop when they can't charge you. Bazinga!
16. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 03:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This is a good question. There are a number of theoretical and empirical motivations for supersymmetry, including the existence of dark matter, the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, and the hierarchy problem in particle physics. I don't fully understand all of these myself. However, this short video released by my collaboration tries to explain some of them at a basic level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIflReRmynk.
17. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by realmolo · 2013-12-20 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be implying that somehow mathematics are not sufficient for describing the "real" world, and that is simply not the case.
  Mathematics are the language of the universe, as far as we can tell.
18. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by nedlohs · 2013-12-20 03:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It says that supersymmertry predicts a larger dipole moment, that's why it would be in question.
  If you want to know why supersymmetry makes that prediction then you aren't going to get that in a new article or a slashdot post. There are lots of resources available for learning SUSY, or jump in the deep end with something random like http://www.springer.com/physics/particle+and+nuclear+physics/book/978-4-431-54543-9
19. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be implying that somehow mathematics are not sufficient for describing the "real" world, and that is simply not the case.
  Mathematics are the language of the universe, as far as we can tell.
  I agree. A better statement might be that our understanding of mathematics is not sufficient for describing the "real" world. The problem is not math itself.
20. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by CreatureComfort · 2013-12-20 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The trouble is that Mathematics can describe ANY universe, not just the one we happen to be able to perceive.
  
  Math is great at describing perfect theories that fail to pan out in real life, but that are perfectly self consistent in the theory and equations. Just look at all of the great, and completely wrong, models offered in super-symmetry, string, and all the other Grand Unified Theories that mathematically are perfectly sound, but are disproved by actual experiment.
  
  This is why Physics, e.g. "science" > Math.
  
  --
  "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
  Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
21. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You seem to be implying that somehow mathematics are not sufficient for describing the "real" world, and that is simply not the case.
  Mathematics are the language of the universe, as far as we can tell.
  Speaking as a person who does mathematical modeling for a living, I can tell you that a mathematical model is definitely only an approximation for the real world. There is no such thing as a perfect model due to the limitations of our knowledge and our inherent inability to model every single detail in the world. There are huge stochastic effects that we can only approximate statistically (a deterministic model would require a near infinite number of parameters, and even it would be an overfit because we cannot measure or determine the all underlying phenomena).
22. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Tyler+Durden · 2013-12-20 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Mathematics cannot be the language of the universe as the vast majority of the universe does not communicate any ideas. The parts of it that do is an insignificant, tiny portion that includes us and whatever other self-aware/reasoning beings that may be out there.
  What mathematics is are a set of insanely great tools that we use to create models helping us to describe the universe. One thing we've learned from math is that self-referential systems tend to have issues that can crop up in spots. And it's hard to get more self-referential than a subset of the universe trying to understand the whole thing.
  Saying that mathematics is sufficient to describe the real world, no matter how successful it has been at it so far, is awfully presumptuous.
  
  --
  Happy people make bad consumers.
23. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by ByteSlicer · 2013-12-20 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  My point was that mathematics is a science. That it is a formal science instead of a natural science is a different matter all together.
24. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by mcgrew · 2013-12-20 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  It's a bit complex to squeeze into a slashdot summary. Here's what has to say about it. This article, written by Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler, does a better job of explaining it in layman's terms, I found it to be an excellent article. I'd had only the vaguest idea what it was about before reading it.
  Now I have a much less vague idea, but reading an article by a physicist doesn't magically turn you into one.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
25. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by mbkennel · 2013-12-20 06:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Supersymmetry solves an enormous number of problems in particle physics, except for experimental facts.
26. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  You're too lazy to check Google or Wikipedia for articles on Supersymmetry, why should we take the time to explain something you obviously can't take the time to read about.
  Calm down Dr Cooper. I ask because I'm not as smart as you, and what came back went over my head. Now if you're not smart enough to figure out how to dumb it down for me, there's no shame in that. I've already admitted my own stupidity. But you didn't have to be a douche about it.
27. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by hchaos · 2013-12-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately for the theory of supersymmetry, this is yet another blow.
  Ok, but why? Anyone care to explain this for me?
  In simple terms (that I hope are accurate), supersymmetry is one of the predictions made by string theory (although the concept of supersymmetry pre-dates string theory). I believe there are other theories that incorporate supersymmetry as well. So, if the predictions made by supersymmetry don't hold up, any theory that is based on it will need to be revised or abandoned.
28. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Tyler+Durden · 2013-12-20 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  To defend Mathematics a bit, it does tend to advance much more quickly than Physics since it isn't hampered by the restrictions of the real world.
  Just think of General Relativity and non-Euclidean Geometry. Often times when a new scientific concept is created/discovered and a model is required to flesh it out, all you need to do is look around existing mathematics and, oh look, there's an app for that.
  
  --
  Happy people make bad consumers.
29. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Kartu · 2013-12-20 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  On a side note:
  "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is comprehensible" said Einstein.
  I never fully got why it was a big deal, but I'm pretty sure "comprehensible" in this sentence is about describing it in math.
  See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences
30. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by nitehawk214 · 2013-12-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because string theory isn't science!
  A more accurate statement is that string theory is math not physics.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
31. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by coolsnowmen · 2013-12-20 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically proved otherwise.
32. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by steelfood · 2013-12-20 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is why Physics, e.g. "science" > Math.
  Your logic is wrong (as well as your use of e.g., which means "for example"). The only thing you've concluded is that physics != math. By your own words, math can describe any universe. In that case, only one math describes ours. We haven't quite worked out what that math is, but that's why all these competing physics theories exist.
  There are no competing math theories, because mathematics isn't trying to describe reality.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
33. Re: Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-21 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Tachyons anyone?
34. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by HellCatF6 · 2013-12-21 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is an EXCELLENT video. Thanks for the link.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIflReRmynk
35. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by IHateEverybody · 2013-12-21 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  More accurately, The Standard Model is the best theory we have right now but it's incomplete since it doesn't account for gravity and has a lot of parameters that are just there without a good explanation for them. Supersymmetry is an idea that is the basis for a lot of people's pet theories because it helps explain a lot of what the Standard Model does not by bringing in a lot of extra particles.
  Those particles, if they exist, make other particles like the electron behave just a little differently than they do under the Standard Model. And this experiment provided evidence that supports the Standard Model and rules out a number of Supersymmetric pet theories. Whether or not it will rule them all out remains to be seen.
  
  --
  Does this .sig make my butt look big?
36. Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite - string theory in the broadest sense is systematically describing the consequences of a universe in which the fundamental objects of matter are extremely small vibrating one-dimensional objects and in particular focuses on constraints on their behaviour such that they reproduce the *seemingly* point-like fundamental particles of the Standard Model.
  One can write down an arbitrary but specific string theory that does not match the Standard Model especially closely, and then explore the consequences of the divergence from the SM; this is generally called "Beyond the Standard Model" (BTSM) theoretical physics.
  One of the many BTSM approaches is to introduce superpartners to each of the particles in the standard model. A subset of those approaches is to introduce symmetries into the superpartners such that the behaviours or characteristics of the already-known particle and its not-yet-observed superpartner share a symmetry. There are plenty of physical symmetries available, but in most models that reasonably get categorized as supersymmetrical (SuSy) are related through a particular type of fermionic interaction called a supercharge. In such models, each known (SM) particle that obeys the spin statistics for bosons has a more-energetic superpartner that obeys the spin statistics for fermions, and each known particle that obeys the spin statistics for fermions has a more-energetic superpartner that obeys the spin statistics for bosons. The additional energy explains why the superpartners will only be seen in high-energy interactions.
  The mathematics of this area of string theory are much more computationally intensive than that of the SM (which is a particular flavour of a relativistic Quantum Field Theory), but they offer a few interesting equivalences that SM mathematics do not, namely the treatment of the fermionic interaction relating the SUSY partners to one another as not just a quantum field, but as a spacetime-like manifold. Rather than treating the interaction as mass-energy that deforms spacetime, one can therefore treat it as a feature of spacetime itself, usually by considering extra dimensions (that must be carefully arranged such that we don't notice them on a day-to-day basis locally, or when looking at objects in the sky, or when doing SM-scale experiments). This has been very handy for studying gravitation, because it lets one trade off a fully artificial and completely wrong model of a type of space-time with a large dark energy component with an even more fully artificial and completely wrong model of a quantum field theory. In particular, for some high-energy situations in which gravity is important, one can (more tractably) attempt to model the gravitational interactions using conformal field theory mathematics (i.e., string theory) where the mathematics of general relativity become extremely burdensome; alternatively, one could use the mathematics of general relativity to examine some sets of particularly difficult problems in quantum (or string) field theories.
  So even though SUSY is probably not a viable model of the universe, it was always a reasonable one, and the careful study of the implications of its underlying assumptions have helped understand reasonable models of the universe that are effective above the length scales at which strings would exist (if they exist at all).
  Somewhat importantly, that SUSY "is probably not a viable model of the universe" is certainly not a complete statement of the consensus of theoretical physicists - there is still a fair amount of state space in which some flavours of superparticles might be hiding, and the searches have not eliminated some flavours of supersymmetry which have a radically different relationship between the known partners and their superpartners.
  Finally, the elimination of SUSY (or indeed of anything fairly closely related to it) does not ruin the fundamental idea of string theory, however non-SUSY string theories that match the standard model to current experimental levels are harder to come by.
ACME by Tablizer · 2013-12-19 17:37 · Score: 5, Funny

"ACME collaboration"?
Then just bang the electron on the head with an ACME anvil, and it will grow lumps.

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:ACME by staffdirector · 2013-12-20 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  "ACME collaboration"?
  Then just bang the electron on the head with an ACME anvil, and it will grow lumps.
  Exactly my strategy!
  
  --
  Staff Director for http://www.referensys.com one of the most trusted sources for SEO. Marketing a better way!
2. Re:ACME by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't we learned yet? The ACME anvil will be more likely to hit you on the head!
It's a heisenberg moment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 17:47 · Score: 4, Funny

If you measure it, an electron is perfectly round. The rest of the time it's kind of oval.
1. Re:It's a heisenberg moment by Tablizer · 2013-12-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was cat shaped. Damned physicists won't be consistent.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:It's a heisenberg moment by Crimey+McBiggles · 2013-12-20 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the electron is classically depicted as being blue, and happens to participate in the formation of crystal structures. /joke>
  
  --
  Crimey
3. Re:It's a heisenberg moment by palion · 2013-12-21 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  You mean egg-shaped. An electron is not flat, last time I looked.
  
  --
  Well, well
Time for some really new physics by EmperorOfCanada · 2013-12-19 17:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have been on the edge of my seat waiting for something genuinely new. Something like when people were discovering that atoms were made up of even tinier bits. Or that quantum was not just a mathematical nicety but way cooler. Each of these fairly "academic" discoveries then opened up whole new trains of thought that led to lasers, solid state electronics, nuclear reactors, etc.

So what wonderful physics is hiding out there waiting to be discovered and open up a whole new world to us?

Personally my biggest recent letdown were the FTL neutrinos that turned out to be bogus. I was genuinely hoping that something cool revealing itself. But alas. My favorite today is that entanglement and wormholes might have some relationship. Minimally that will result in some cool sci-fi if not actual science.

Personally I don't mind if ultraspherical electrons shut down a bunch of pet theories. They didn't seem to be making much progress and thus the door has been opened to explore something new. Maybe there is some guy trying to get his doctorate showing that supersymmetry is a load of rubbish but hasn't been able to get much traction because the entire panel got their doctorates in supersymmetrical related ideas and in order to defend his thesis he has to first set fire to theirs.
1. Re:Time for some really new physics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 19:02 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I have been on the edge of my seat waiting for something genuinely new.
  
  So study some physics and make a genuinely new discovery yourself! Science is not a spectator sport.
2. Re:Time for some really new physics by cold+fjord · 2013-12-19 19:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Although there has long been a connection between math and physics, as people dig further into the math they are finding some unexpected things, and ways to better understand, simplify, or extend the equations.
  Mathematicians Link Knot Theory to Physics
  A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics
  There are a number of seemingly promising developments out there that are sharpening the investigative tools as well as providing interesting new lines of investigation, as well as new data to chew on.
  Spooky Connection: Wormholes and the Quantum World
  Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
  Schrodinger’s ‘Kitten’? Large-Scale Quantum Entanglement Achieved By Two Physics Labs
  String theorists squeeze nine dimensions into three
  New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram
  Now we are developing a growing understanding of the interplay between biology and physics.
  Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
  Who knows where things may lead next? Of course people should be careful in performing experiments.
  Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
3. Re:Time for some really new physics by Tough+Love · 2013-12-19 22:04 · Score: 2
  
  The standard model does not explain why particles have the particular masses they do, so obviously a genuinely new underlying theory is waiting to be discovered even without breaking any rules or postulating new fundamental particles. Exciting enough?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
4. Re:Time for some really new physics by Spad · 2013-12-19 22:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not to nitpick, but isn't the collapse of the universe *always* closer than ever before?
5. Re:Time for some really new physics by VortexCortex · 2013-12-19 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on made of tachyons. whether your brain is organic, a positronic net, or
6. Re:Time for some really new physics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  "...very very few..."
  As in the standard proportion of fruitcakes to normal people in any given society throughout history?
7. Re:Time for some really new physics by oldhack · 2013-12-20 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Except on Tuesdays. Tuesdays are whack.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
8. Re:Time for some really new physics by jfengel · 2013-12-20 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  Not really. Right now it looks as if the "collapse of the universe" is a "never" thing that never gets any closer. The value of the cosmological constant seems to be greater than 1.
  This paper isn't about that, but about an even more obscure idea involving the false vacuum that gives rise to the Higgs field. It's a wildly speculative theory to succeed the Standard Model. That theory has a different kind of collapse involving a radical change to the Higgs field, greatly increasing the mass. This paper doesn't bring it any closer in time; rather, it's one (tiny) step closer in understanding the theory.
9. Re:Time for some really new physics by Kartu · 2013-12-20 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  A (bit outdated) joke:every 4.5 billion years physicists of the Earth gather to launch Large Hadron Collider.
10. Re:Time for some really new physics by justthinkit · 2013-12-21 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Here is some new physics. Feel free to critique it.
  
  --
  I come here for the love
11. Re:Time for some really new physics by EmperorOfCanada · 2013-12-21 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  I am sad to see that you got voted down; as your advice is solid. Over the years I have slowly been putting the math into my head to be able to finish "The Road to Reality"
  
  My simple dream is that with my extensive computer programming knowledge I might be able to put that together with what I learn to generate something genuinely new.
12. Re:Time for some really new physics by EmperorOfCanada · 2013-12-21 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Tuesdays are definitely Quantum. I often forget that they aren't a Monday and sometimes think that it is Wednesday but then am happy to find out that it is still Tuesday. So Tuesday must be a superstate of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday that collapses with the highest probability as being Tuesday.
13. Re:Time for some really new physics by EmperorOfCanada · 2013-12-21 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely but I would love to be around for a time when you have the greats of science calling BS on some new theory that very quickly becomes quite obviously the correct theory; then opening up a whole new field. I suspect that this is what excites string theorists. They really really must be dreaming of the day when someone comes up with a fairly clear and easy (read cheap) experiment that solidly is in line with a string theoretical prediction where all other theories either draw a blank or ideally predict something else.
  
  Personally I am more of a technologist so what excites me the most is that stuff should come out of a fundamental discovery. The various discoveries at the dawn of electricity almost immediately resulted in things like the telegraph, electrical motors, light bulbs, generators. Then as electromagnetic theory was fleshed out you start getting wireless transmission, and eventually vacuum tube computers. But this all sort of matured and almost stagnated until the technological spawn of quantum mechanics such as solid state electronics.
  
  So, for instance, the theory that entanglement is wormhole related is not just really cool sounding but might result in something that ends up in a gizmo which is, to me, very cool. The key being that without the solid mathematical and then experimentally tested theory that people might never suddenly go ah ha, I know something cool I can build.
Perfectly spherical? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 17:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Science is going to be really screwed when they discover frictionless planes also exist.
1. Re:Perfectly spherical? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  On the contrary, they'll all stand up and say this is what they've trained for all those years of assuming spherical cows and frictionless surfaces.
2. Re:Perfectly spherical? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm still waiting on those transistors with zero rise time and infinite resistance.
3. Re:Perfectly spherical? by Carewolf · 2013-12-20 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work if it is an electron. It has to be perfectly spherical cows, and rigid too, otherwise undergraduate physics professors are still going to be wrong.
4. Re:Perfectly spherical? by kimvette · 2013-12-20 00:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  On the contrary, they'll all stand up and say this is what they've trained for all those years of assuming spherical cows and frictionless surfaces.
  If the surface is frictionless I doubt very much that they will be doing any standing.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
5. Re:Perfectly spherical? by Sponge+Bath · 2013-12-20 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Is that the plane with all the snakes?
What about size? by byrtolet · 2013-12-19 17:58 · Score: 1

If it's spherical what's the size of that sphere?
1. Re:What about size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  radius: 2.8179403267e-15 m
  surface: 9.9786881e-29 m^2
  volume: 9.3731159e-44 m^3
  above in fuzzy logic: very tiny
2. Re:What about size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 19:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  radius: 2.8179403267e-15 m
  That is the classical answer. It is generally considered to be a point particle today.
3. Re:What about size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 22:54 · Score: 0
  
  Now you can be sure it's a _spherical_ point particle.
4. Re:What about size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  That is a pretty bold statement given the subject at hand.
  You are essentially claiming that a point is spherical.
  That is like claiming that a line is rectangular.
5. Re:What about size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  Well, short lines are rectangular on computer screens. Points are circular on news print. If the universe turns out to have finite step sizes, then points very well be spherical. I've got a spherical particle simulation for a game engine that exhibits some quantum foam like effects under pressure -- You zoom way in, and slow way down, the point clouds seem to be roiling and "popping" about, and leaving temporary voids. Of course, it's just a 4-D experimental simulation, it's not a full 7-D simulation of reality.
  Oops, wrong trans-dimensional tab!
6. Re:What about size? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-12-20 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  It has forces whose effects are spherical? Just no body (e.g. smaller particles tied together). They keep slamming electrons together with ever greater energy and only see electrical force curve deflection but never collision deflection. So they are either hideously tiny or a point.
  If a point, are they in some way the same class of thing as quarks?
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
7. Re:What about size? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Rectangular ... no, that wouldn't fit. However, if points are spherical, lines would be cylindrical, as well as planes ... but the radius of a plane is infinite, while radius of a line is same as radius of a point - epsilon.
8. Re:What about size? by blackbeak · 2013-12-20 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  Uhm, haven't you heard? Size doesn't matter.
  
  --
  Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
9. Re:What about size? by climb_no_fear · 2013-12-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid question about a "point" particle: The minimal size (diameter?) for anything would then be a Planck length, right?
10. Re:What about size? by As_I_Please · 2013-12-20 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  The summary and articles are a little vague about what the "shape" of an electron is supposed to be. As are as we know, an electron is a point particle, meaning it has zero size. What these scientists mean by "spherical" is that the electron's electric field is perfectly spherically symmetric (measured to a higher degree of accuracy than any previous measurement). This means that if you imagine a sphere with an electron at the center, then the electric field of the electron is exactly the same magnitude over the entire surface of the sphere. If the electron had a dipole component, as many supersymmetric theories predict, then the electric field of the electron would be stronger on one side of the imaginary sphere. The scientists did not measure any dipole component.
Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Greyfox · 2013-12-19 18:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

Every time I see a news item about supersymmetry, it always seems to be disproving it. Seems like the only thing the hypothesis has going for it is the universe would make a lot more elegantly designed if it was true. It seems like mostly wishful thinking to me.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by bondsbw · 2013-12-19 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  The more we learn about the reality of the universe, the more we'll come to respect its true elegance and to see how inelegant our prior theories (like supersymmetry) were.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
2. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Is that a religious statement? What if the universe is ugly, way deep down?
3. Re: Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 19:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  As long as it still puts out
4. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by sjames · 2013-12-19 21:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's a little more involved. We know that the standard model is unable to explain a few important observations (such as gravity) so it *can't* be the whole story. Any theory that accounts for gravity and dark matter/energy will be more elegant by virtue of not having holes in it.
  Supersymmetry could explain those things and fortunately makes a few predictions that we are now capable of testing. However, those aren't panning out so it must be revised and tested again. At least until someone comes up with something better to test.
5. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by fatphil · 2013-12-19 21:38 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  But the proponents of SuSy claim that their theories are elegant!
  
  Have you ever seen a Nima Arkani-Hamed talk? (there are some on youtube and elsewhere). Most annoying is that not only does he rant and rave about how wonderfully simple and elegant his supersymmetry is, but he decorates those claims with embellishments like "they must be true".
  
  Even more annoying is when a big potentially-confirming experiment is concluding, he's proud to say what result he expect that will confirm this theories, add that if he doesn't get them he'll scrap his theories, and then when the results don't confirm his theories, he shuts the fuck up briefly, and then resumes pushing the same old theories.
  
  If you want good science. Don't look in the direction of that branch of physics, you'll have more luck in psychotherapy, economics, or astrology.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
6. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Supersymmetry could explain those things and fortunately makes a few predictions that we are now capable of testing. However, those aren't panning out so it must be revised and tested again.
  Isn't that how people dealt with the theory that planets move on perfect circles? Instead of throwing the theory out once it was shown that there was no evidence for it and a lot of evidence against it they adapted it until it became impossible to describe (planets move on circles that move on circles - circles all the way down). How much money do you invest into a failed and disproven theory before resources are moved to research a different explanation?
7. Re: Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Talderas · 2013-12-20 00:38 · Score: 2
  
  Fat universes need lovin' too.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
8. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes visualising something in the wrong way is the first step to figuring out what the right way is.
9. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-12-20 02:55 · Score: 2
  
  But the proponents of SuSy claim that their theories are elegant!
  Yeah, it's elegant except for all the magical unbroken superpartners that are too energetic to exist.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
10. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2013-12-20 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly, there's no requirement in physics that the universe be elegant for it's theories easy to understand. It's perfectly plausible that planets could move on circles and on other circles and so on and so forth. Of course all this was being done in the Roman times and was an effort in keeping the Earth at the center of the universe, but if the OP notes he thinks money should be moved elsewhere then I ask where - we need better theories of the universe, and the other candidates are at the exact same level of development.
  Fortunately, theoretical physics is cheap.
11. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by blackbeak · 2013-12-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  ...he shuts the fuck up briefly, and then resumes pushing the same old theories...
  Oh, he'll come a"round" eventually!
  
  --
  Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
12. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  In all serious, I've always wondered what discoveries might not be made because of so many scientists insisting on theories that are "elegant". The universe does not appear to give a damn about what humans think is or is not elegant.
13. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  An ellipse can be modeled as an infinite series of circles on circles. Neither model is more correct. Eventually we ended up with calculus for explaining orbits, which involves computing the answers for an infinite series. Even today, we can't model more than two bodies without computing a nearly infinite series. I say "nearly", but truthfully, unless you do an infinite number of computations, you're just approximating an orbit with more than two bodies. So, you can mock people for coming up with the best model of the time and being "wrong" or you can realize all models are approximations and should be evaluated by the accuracy of their predictions and their ease of application.
14. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by sjames · 2013-12-20 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that Copernicus was working with epicycles when he developed the heliocentric model. I would call that worthwhile. I would argue that had he not "invested money into a failed and disproven theory", he would not have had his important insight. In turn, Kepler couldn't have discovered the laws of planetary motion had he been stuck in a geocentric model.
15. Re: Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Old Glory, etc.
16. Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? by IHateEverybody · 2013-12-21 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well it's been suggested that some of the Supersymmetric particles might be an explanation for Dark Matter which does appear to exist. Other than that, I'm not sure that Supersymmetry has much going for it these days.
  
  --
  Does this .sig make my butt look big?
Can anyone explain what supersymmetry is? by ceview · 2013-12-19 18:13 · Score: 1

The Wikipedia article on supersymmetry did not really seem to help within the context of the electron smoothness issue.
1. Re:Can anyone explain what supersymmetry is? by ColdWetDog · 2013-12-19 20:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Must have some rough edges.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Summary has it all wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:16 · Score: 0

Perfectly round. Isn't that the definition of super symmetry?
1. Re:Summary has it all wrong. by VortexCortex · 2013-12-19 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  Perfectly round. Isn't that the definition of super symmetry?
  Depends. Is the inside the same as the outside?
2. Re:Summary has it all wrong. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-12-20 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Perfectly round. Isn't that the definition of super symmetry?
  Depends. Is the inside the same as the outside?
  Frat boys on college campuses, near bars on Friday nights.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
After over a hundred years... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

... of models involving perfectly spherical atoms, nanoparticles, cows, planets, stars, etc, there is something ironic about an electron being too round.
1. Re:After over a hundred years... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:56 · Score: 0
  
  After over a hundred years, spherical cows still give the best milk.
2. Re:After over a hundred years... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, that'd be inelastic spherical cows in a vacuum.
Once again way over my head, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:39 · Score: 0

Once again, way over my head; but if the electron deviated from round as much as Earth, how would we measure that? If an electron had a mountain on it the size of Everest, that mountain would be so tiny, and if it had bumps that didn't really effect the charge distribution... I mean, I could go on and on. It's all so friggin' tiny. How would you measure it?
Aside from that, we were always told that the electron existed in "orbitals" and you could never really say where the electron is because it's all quantum and stuff. So. If you can't even say where it is, the whole idea of roundness seems like the least of your worries.
1. Re:Once again way over my head, but... by slew · 2013-12-19 19:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The deviations they are talking about aren't things like mountains or bumps, but a systematic non-spherical bias.
  For example, the earth isn't spherical either, it's basically a bit fatter around the equator pretty close to an oblate spheroid (e.g., an M&M is a more exaggerated oblate spheroid). Like a baseball, if the electron isn't totally spherical, you can detect a systematic bias as it's being thrown around (you can think of the LHC as throwing an electron spit-ball or a knuckle-ball).
  Although even in the standard model, the electron at some energy level probably has a detectable dipole moment (e.g., the charge wouldn't be uniformly spherically distributed in the electron), it is my understanding that it is predicted to be too small to be validated by current experiments. However, some versions of super-symmetry apparently would predict that the electron at some energy levels would have a larger detectable dipole moment . I guess these super-symmetry predictions didn't pan out.
2. Re:Once again way over my head, but... by ArsenneLupin · 2013-12-19 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  if it had bumps that didn't really effect the charge distribution...
  
  ... and this is exactly where the headline implies it wrong. If you actually read beyond the headline (merely the slashdot summary is already enough), you'd notice that this is indeed about non-roundness that does affect charge distribution. Non-uniform charge distribution would result in a dipole moment, whose absent has been noticed.
3. Re:Once again way over my head, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  For example, the earth isn't spherical either,
  You and Websters should have a talk...
Re:OpenBSD + Truecrypt + Rip Anywhere MP3 player by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 18:41 · Score: 0

I think you may have taken a wrong turn on the front page.
Wait, it has a shape? by maugle · 2013-12-19 19:44 · Score: 1

I thought that, since it wasn't made up of sub-particles, an electron was a point particle. Since when does it have a defined size, let alone shape?
1. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by myowntrueself · 2013-12-19 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't a point a perfect sphere? In fact the most perfect sphere possible?
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
2. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by ColdWetDog · 2013-12-19 20:35 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't that a rather pointless conjecture?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Twinbee · 2013-12-19 20:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I assume they mean the force created by the electron is perfectly round, rather than the particle itself. Perhaps someone can confirm.
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
4. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't a point a perfect sphere? In fact the most perfect sphere possible?
  A point has no dimension at all.
  When scientists say that the electron ia a point like particle they mean that the dimensions of the electron are negligeable with respect to the other characteristic lengths in play. But of course an electron as every other physical object is 3 dimensional in nature.
5. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  I thought that, since it wasn't made up of sub-particles, an electron was a point particle. Since when does it have a defined size, let alone shape?
  A point particle that has mass would have to be a singularity, wouldn't it?
6. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but isn't it a well rounded explanation?
7. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  Nope.
  Electrons are what give things size if I remember correctly.
8. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 00:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes in a way you are correct.
  "Thus, at non-relativistic energies the EDM [electric dipole moment] corresponds to a shift of energy levels of the electron in an external electric field E that depends on the direction of electron's spin Se. "
  More details:
  http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/electric-dipole-moments-and-new-physics.html
9. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by myowntrueself · 2013-12-20 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  A sphere has to have dimensions?
  I would have thought being 0 in all dimensions made for a perfect sphere, I mean, hey, its not a cube is it?
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
10. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Is that a problem?
11. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Sure it is... a 0 x 0 x 0 cube.
12. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by iMadeGhostzilla · 2013-12-20 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, it does not have negligible dimensions, and they are not just smaller than Planck length, they are exactly zero, according to this theory. I.e. each elementary particle (incl. electrons and quarks of which all matter is made) is a tiny force field originating from an invisible (so to speak, or maybe better said immaterial) point in space. Mass is a property of that field given by the Higgs Boson.
  It kind of makes sense, b/c if it were solid i.e. had some volume and was made of "stuff" then it wouldn't be elementary.
13. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by myowntrueself · 2013-12-20 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  no, its 0 in every direction which makes a sphere not a cube. If it was a cube then it would have corners and since its a dimensionless point how can it have corners? It has to be a sphere!
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
14. Re:Wait, it has a shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-23 20:09 · Score: 0
  
  with lengths of 0 it's not a surface or a volume at all. If you think shapes can have 0 length/size then the 0x0x0 cube is the same as a sphere of radius 0 anyway. You cant tell them apart from observation.
  a polygon with side lengths aproaching 0, or in other words corners 0 distance away basicly a circle.
  Hence infinite corners is a circle or sphere in 3 dimentions, so the cube is a circle if the size is 0.
shape of things to come by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 19:58 · Score: 0

once one types 'perfect' the rest is also subject to adjective vs. fact. why not look at grandmother moon for example
Shape? by bickerdyke · 2013-12-19 20:05 · Score: 2

How can anything have a shape that turns into an electromagnetic wave when you're not watching...

--
bickerdyke
1. Re:Shape? by some+old+guy · 2013-12-19 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  I think we call them quantum states....
  
  --
  Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
2. Re:Shape? by blackanvil · 2013-12-20 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  How can anything have a shape that turns into an electromagnetic wave when you're not watching...
  The Doctor: Don't blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast. Faster than you can believe. Don't turn your back. Don't look away. And don't blink. Good Luck.
3. Re:Shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  They don't. Would violate conservation of charge and spin. You're probably confusing electrons and photons.
  In fact, quantum theory was invented when it was realized that Maxwell's equations required electrons in orbits to emit electro-magnetic waves as they spiral towards the nucleus. They of course don't do either.
4. Re:Shape? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-21 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  How can anything have a shape that turns into an electromagnetic wave when you're not watching...
  The quantum world is stranger than Alice's Wonderland. Particles can be in two places at the same time, waves can be particles and vice versa. All this and more!
  Ask not how it can be, just assume that it can be. These are the wonders of the world of quantum.
perfect sphere = super-symmetrical by genocism · 2013-12-19 20:06 · Score: 1

A perfect sphere IS super-symmetrical so long as the cut goes through the center. Good thing I'm here to help out these scientist.
1. Re:perfect sphere = super-symmetrical by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 21:41 · Score: 0
  
  It's ultra-symmetrical, so super-symmetry just won't cut it any more.
2. Re:perfect sphere = super-symmetrical by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-19 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  Whoa whoa whoa, steady on there flyboy! We have to get to mega-symmetry first. You can't just leap straight into ultra-symmetry all willy-nilly.
3. Re:perfect sphere = super-symmetrical by Talderas · 2013-12-20 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  You can't leap into meap until you've super-sized that happy meal baby.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Bad news for string theory by Required+Snark · 2013-12-19 22:02 · Score: 5, Informative

String theory is strongly linked to supersymmetry, If supersymmetry is not found experimentally then string theory becomes much less likely. The current alternative to string theory is loop quantum gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry

For string theory to be consistent, supersymmetry appears to be required at some level (although it may be a strongly broken symmetry). In particle theory, supersymmetry is recognized as a way to stabilize the hierarchy between the unification scale and the electroweak scale (or the Higgs boson mass), and can also provide a natural dark matter candidate. String theory also requires extra spatial dimensions which have to be compactified as in Kaluza-Klein theory.
Loop quantum gravity (LQG) predicts no additional spatial dimensions, nor anything else about particle physics. These theories can be formulated in three spatial dimensions and one dimension of time, although in some LQG theories dimensionality is an emergent property of the theory, rather than a fundamental assumption of the theory. Also, LQG is a theory of quantum gravity which does not require supersymmetry. Lee Smolin, one of the originators of LQG, has proposed that a loop quantum gravity theory incorporating either supersymmetry or extra dimensions, or both, be called "loop quantum gravity II".

A whole lot of PhD dissertations, physics publications, and academic careers are on the line over this. String theory is the current favorite and loop quantum gravity the underdog. The direction of theoretical particle physics could be radically altered if the LHC doesn't find evidence of supersymmetry.

--
Why is Snark Required?
1. Re:Bad news for string theory by Sponge+Bath · 2013-12-20 02:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A whole lot of PhD dissertations, physics publications, and academic careers are on the line over this.
  All those (dipole) moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain...
2. Re:Bad news for string theory by msobkow · 2013-12-20 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you!
  Finally someone took the time to provide a concise explanation of WTF it means for supersymmetry to be disproven.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
3. Re:Bad news for string theory by Jmac217 · 2013-12-20 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's the sad truth when basing hypothesis on unproven theories. If Supersymmetry flops, as a whole, it doesn't necessarily mean that we start over from scratch. There could be some truth to each theory even though certain aspects fall through. Physics is about knowing physical law, not wishing it into existance. Wishful thinking only takes us so far and eventually conclusions need to be determined. Well it seems we're getting near the point of drawing conclusions. Picking up the working pieces of busted theories and setting them into improved hypothesis is the best we can do with our current technology. Rather than designing new theories we should focus on developing new technologies to enable the next rounds of experimentation.
4. Re:Bad news for string theory by matfud · 2013-12-20 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  A hypothosis does not require any theory or fact to define it. It is postulated so that it can be tested. If it fails the tests it needs to be revised or disarded. If it explains many observations then it may become a theory.
  Oddly supersymettry is not one concept. There are many flavours. They may all be wrong. Some may be less wrong than others.
  If you don't have people comming up with the concepts then you have little to design an experiment to test.
Poor reporting. by gdr · 2013-12-19 22:04 · Score: 1

The Standard Model doesn't predict that the electron EDM is zero.
smallest precision attainable by giorgist · 2013-12-19 22:23 · Score: 1

smallest precision attainable does not mean what you think it does. You meant highest precision attainable
1. Re:smallest precision attainable by VortexCortex · 2013-12-20 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  smallest precision attainable does not mean what you think it does. You meant highest precision attainable
  Hmm. Many existing laws are based on assumption that lower precision is correlated with highness... If you're right, it could spell trouble for prohibition.
you forgot by marcello_dl · 2013-12-20 01:28 · Score: 1

you forgot Polan... ahem, the axis of evil. The related article cites coincidence as a possible interpretation, which seems a "Galileo" moment to me.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Point Particles by eric31415927 · 2013-12-20 01:41 · Score: 1

Electrons are point particles - modelled as zero-volume and massless. They might have no physical form. I am not surprised that our measures of them indicate perfect symmetry.
1. Re:Point Particles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  if i understand correctly they are essentially measuring the charge not the physical dimensions of the electron. and some current scientific theories, such as string theory. suggests that the charge isn't entirely spherical, but is elongated and this is called the "dipole moment"
quote by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 03:06 · Score: 0

You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
If it looks round... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 04:25 · Score: 0

You're looking at it wrong.
Put Your Yo-Yo's Up.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-20 06:17 · Score: 0

you string theorists.
The Standard Model should be good for another 30 years! Bwahahahahahaaaaa!!!