×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Perfect" Electron Roundness Bruises Supersymmetry

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the look-at-how-round-it-is-man dept.

Science 150

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

150 comments

Invisible unicorns in a garage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743463)

Unfortunately for the theory of supersymmetry, this is yet another blow.

Ok, but why? Anyone care to explain this for me?

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (-1, Troll)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 4 months ago | (#45743477)

It's in the summary for fuck sake.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (2, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#45744397)

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?

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744449)

Exact-fuckin'-lee. The grandparent is just being a snide asshole, stupid or both.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (0, Flamebait)

confused one (671304) | about 4 months ago | (#45744827)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744961)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#45745181)

What I'm not interested in is smug assholes claiming "it's in the summary" when it's not.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745615)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 months ago | (#45743481)

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?

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#45744587)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745281)

It is easy to shop when they can't charge you. Bazinga!

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1, Insightful)

Rosyna (80334) | about 4 months ago | (#45743523)

Because string theory isn't science!

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1)

ByteSlicer (735276) | about 4 months ago | (#45744293)

Because string theory isn't science!

Sure it is. It's abstract mathematics.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744577)

Science is applied mathematics.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (3, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about 4 months ago | (#45744917)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1)

realmolo (574068) | about 4 months ago | (#45745699)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743657)

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.

Re:Invisible unicorns in a garage (1, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#45744617)

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?

ACME (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 months ago | (#45743465)

"ACME collaboration"?

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

It's a heisenberg moment (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743501)

If you measure it, an electron is perfectly round. The rest of the time it's kind of oval.

Time for some really new physics (4, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 4 months ago | (#45743509)

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.

Re:Time for some really new physics (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743729)

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.

Re:Time for some really new physics (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#45743733)

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 [nytimes.com]
A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics [simonsfoundation.org]

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 [discovery.com]
Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time [sciencemag.org]
Schrodinger’s ‘Kitten’? Large-Scale Quantum Entanglement Achieved By Two Physics Labs [planetsave.com]

String theorists squeeze nine dimensions into three [sciencenews.org]
New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram [phys.org]

Now we are developing a growing understanding of the interplay between biology and physics.

Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature? [bbc.co.uk]

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 [phys.org]

Re:Time for some really new physics (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | about 4 months ago | (#45744175)

Not to nitpick, but isn't the collapse of the universe *always* closer than ever before?

Re:Time for some really new physics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744459)

men and women have been doing this for thousands of years -- very very few of which have reached rather intimate and communal relationship with the physics of all physics WITHIN - eg. prayer and meditation -- which can be described as the union of physical and spiritual as most human have been conditioned to perceive the connections these words imply

Re:Time for some really new physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745621)

"...very very few..."

As in the standard proportion of fruitcakes to normal people in any given society throughout history?

Re:Time for some really new physics (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 4 months ago | (#45744153)

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?

Perfectly spherical? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743517)

Science is going to be really screwed when they discover frictionless planes also exist.

Re:Perfectly spherical? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743581)

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.

Re:Perfectly spherical? (3, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 months ago | (#45744689)

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.

Re:Perfectly spherical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744423)

I'm still waiting on those transistors with zero rise time and infinite resistance.

Re:Perfectly spherical? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 4 months ago | (#45744549)

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.

OpenBSD + Truecrypt + Rip Anywhere MP3 player (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743519)

Give me an mp3 player which has the following features:

1. OpenBSD
2. TrueCrypt - choice of encrypting all of device with 1st run and in settings
3. Rip from any device - an extension to the device (like the front part of ST:TNG ship's dish which separates for example) which allows CDs to be inserted and ripped on the fly without a computer connection, and the ability to plug into any electronic device which has the ability to contain audio files, scan for, and rip any audio files - all with the option to convert them to a format of your choosing

Re:OpenBSD + Truecrypt + Rip Anywhere MP3 player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743669)

I think you may have taken a wrong turn on the front page.

What about size? (1)

byrtolet (1353359) | about 4 months ago | (#45743531)

If it's spherical what's the size of that sphere?

Re:What about size? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743597)

radius: 2.8179403267e-15 m

surface: 9.9786881e-29 m^2

volume: 9.3731159e-44 m^3

above in fuzzy logic: very tiny

Re:What about size? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743829)

radius: 2.8179403267e-15 m

That is the classical answer. It is generally considered to be a point particle today.

Re:What about size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744279)

Now you can be sure it's a _spherical_ point particle.

Re:What about size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744311)

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.

Re:What about size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744401)

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!

Re:What about size? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#45745233)

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?

Re:What about size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745367)

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.

Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (5, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | about 4 months ago | (#45743549)

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.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (0)

bondsbw (888959) | about 4 months ago | (#45743595)

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.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743671)

Is that a religious statement? What if the universe is ugly, way deep down?

Re: Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743761)

As long as it still puts out

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745695)

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.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (5, Interesting)

fatphil (181876) | about 4 months ago | (#45744079)

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.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#45745449)

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.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1)

blackbeak (1227080) | about 4 months ago | (#45745543)

...he shuts the fuck up briefly, and then resumes pushing the same old theories...

Oh, he'll come a"round" eventually!

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#45743997)

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.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744479)

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?

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744731)

Sometimes visualising something in the wrong way is the first step to figuring out what the right way is.

Re:Has Anything Ever Validated Supersymmetry? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 4 months ago | (#45745451)

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.

Summary has it all wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743593)

Perfectly round. Isn't that the definition of super symmetry?

Re:Summary has it all wrong. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#45744407)

Perfectly round. Isn't that the definition of super symmetry?

Depends. Is the inside the same as the outside?

Re:Summary has it all wrong. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#45745267)

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.

After over a hundred years... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743625)

... of models involving perfectly spherical atoms, nanoparticles, cows, planets, stars, etc, there is something ironic about an electron being too round.

Re:After over a hundred years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743713)

After over a hundred years, spherical cows still give the best milk.

Once again way over my head, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743659)

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.

Re:Once again way over my head, but... (5, Informative)

slew (2918) | about 4 months ago | (#45743749)

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.

Re:Once again way over my head, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745313)

For example, the earth isn't spherical either,

You and Websters should have a talk...

Re:Once again way over my head, but... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 4 months ago | (#45744191)

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.

Wait, it has a shape? (1)

maugle (1369813) | about 4 months ago | (#45743799)

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?

Re:Wait, it has a shape? (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 4 months ago | (#45743831)

Isn't a point a perfect sphere? In fact the most perfect sphere possible?

Re:Wait, it has a shape? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744025)

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.

Re:Wait, it has a shape? (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 4 months ago | (#45745627)

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?

Re:Wait, it has a shape? (2, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | about 4 months ago | (#45743967)

I assume they mean the force created by the electron is perfectly round, rather than the particle itself. Perhaps someone can confirm.

Re:Wait, it has a shape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744193)

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?

Re:Wait, it has a shape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744433)

Nope.
Electrons are what give things size if I remember correctly.

shape of things to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45743827)

once one types 'perfect' the rest is also subject to adjective vs. fact. why not look at grandmother moon for example

perfect sphere = super-symmetrical (1)

genocism (2577895) | about 4 months ago | (#45743861)

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.

Re:perfect sphere = super-symmetrical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744089)

It's ultra-symmetrical, so super-symmetry just won't cut it any more.

Re:perfect sphere = super-symmetrical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744239)

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.

Bad news for string theory (5, Informative)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 4 months ago | (#45744145)

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 [wikipedia.org]

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.

Re:Bad news for string theory (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 4 months ago | (#45745125)

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...

Re:Bad news for string theory (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#45745201)

Thank you!

Finally someone took the time to provide a concise explanation of WTF it means for supersymmetry to be disproven.

Re:Bad news for string theory (1)

Jmac217 (3006299) | about 4 months ago | (#45745539)

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.

smallest precision attainable (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 4 months ago | (#45744201)

smallest precision attainable does not mean what you think it does. You meant highest precision attainable

Figure it out! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45744219)

Dear physists,

Although I barely understand your articles, I am eagerly awaiting the answer. Please figure it all out soon. What if physists figure out everything? Would most physists lose their jobs.

Point Particles (1)

eric31415927 (861917) | about 4 months ago | (#45744921)

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.

quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45745527)

You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...