×

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!

Beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the twice-as-good-as-regular-symmetry dept.

Science 47

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

47 comments

Beyond the standard first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8173679)

zero post!

Wardrobe malfunction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8173714)

Isn't this project funded by the FCC as part of its wardrobe malfunction investigation initiative?

By the end of the year, we WILL know why Janet Jackson's breast popped out. It won't be until 2009 until we know why we attacked Iraq.

Hmmm (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8173722)

does anyone else find it suspecious that slashdot posts a story about janet jackson's naked boob being recorded by tivo and then posts a story about a 'Hardon Collider'? this is obviously a pitiful attempt at a joke. that boob flash was too quick for anyone to get a Hardon from.

Re:Hmmm (0)

cujo_1111 (627504) | more than 10 years ago | (#8175802)

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

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8175939)

Colliding hard-ons? Gaaaaaaay.....

Third post (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8173751)

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

How 'about that G-factor?

About time... (2, Informative)

tjmsquared (702422) | more than 10 years ago | (#8173757)

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.

Re:About time... (4, Insightful)

hcg50a (690062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8173799)

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).

Re:About time... (3, Informative)

dtolman (688781) | more than 10 years ago | (#8174021)

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?

Re:About time... (3, Informative)

hcg50a (690062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8174130)

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.

Re:About time... (2, Informative)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 10 years ago | (#8174049)

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.

Re:About time... (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8174322)

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

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

Re:About time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8186264)

We cosmic ray physicists scoff at your puny accelerator energies.

Re:About time... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8175836)

Hey, I know! Let's blame Bush for cancelling the SCSC! After all, everyone is already blaming Bush for a million other things that aren't his fault, half of them which were caused by Clinton, just like the death of the SCSC. It would be such perfect symmetry if everything could be his fault, wouldn't it? Doesn't it make us feel better to blame him? It does, right? Right? ... right? Oh, wow. The thrill is already gone. Bummer. I hope he gets re-elected so we can try and blame more stuff on him or I'll have to find some... goal in life other than to attack Bush. What were we talking about again? Partical what-chacallems? Eh, doesn't matter, screw Bush!

Signed,
A. Moderate

Re:About time... (0, Offtopic)

DrLudicrous (607375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8177053)

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

Re:About time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8179776)

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

Re: String theory (0, Troll)

A55M0NKEY (554964) | more than 10 years ago | (#8174114)

1) string theory

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

2) superstring theory

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

3) supersymetry

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

Whatever (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8174162)

As long as you can get physicists to stop bothering with the myth that is String Theory / M-Theory

"There are 11 dimensions"

It's this kind of random imagination thats keeping us from the truth.

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8174682)

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

Re:Whatever (1)

Pergatory (596016) | more than 10 years ago | (#8181940)

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

Nuclear physics Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8174309)

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

Finaly (3, Funny)

Muhammar (659468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8174587)

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.

Posters should RTFA (5, Informative)

menscher (597856) | more than 10 years ago | (#8175080)

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.

Re:Posters should RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8176844)

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

Sigma Sigma Sigm^z Damn! (1)

mynameis (mother ... (745416) | more than 10 years ago | (#8177900)

Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention.

Man you theorists have it easy! Imagine if you guys had to hit six sigma [isixsigma.com] like the working world!

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

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

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



Next week "Epsillon and Mu - It's all greek to me"

Re:Sigma Sigma Sigm^z Damn! (1)

menscher (597856) | more than 10 years ago | (#8181826)

Once things pass 3 sigma then the scientists will start to pay attention.
Man you theorists have it easy! Imagine if you guys had to hit six sigma like the working world!

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

  • Less than 1 sigma deviation: data "agrees"
  • 1-3 sigma deviation: data is "consistent"
  • 3-5 sigma deviation: "evidence" for something strange going on
  • Greater than 5 sigma deviation: "discovery" of something new
Obviously these aren't taken exactly -- groups may bend the rules slightly. For example, the two papers that reported on the "observation" of the top quark reported 4.8 sigma and 4.6 sigma deviations. It's done this way because they don't watch the data approach 5 sigma, but rather collect it (blindly; without looking at it) and then do an analysis and see what they get. When they get a result like 4.8 sigma it's reasonable to say that's closer to 5 than to 3.

Re:Sigma Sigma Sigm^z Damn! (1)

mynameis (mother ... (745416) | more than 10 years ago | (#8184284)

Sorry, I forget the ;) after my 6' comment. It was meant tounge in cheek.

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

'Aaa, sodesne!,

I stand corrected

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


Now if 'social scientists' would only adopt those same standards...

Re:Posters should RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8178959)

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

My thanks to menscher for putting the hype in perspective.

Supersymmetry, Superschmmetry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8175330)

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

Re:Supersymmetry, Superschmmetry (3, Funny)

Orne (144925) | more than 10 years ago | (#8177306)

... 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.

Re:Supersymmetry, Superschmmetry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8178972)

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

Where's my squark? (3, Insightful)

psifishdot (699920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8175912)

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.

Re:Where's my squark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8176058)

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

Re:Where's my squark? (3, Informative)

barawn (25691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8177793)

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.

Zero Point Energy and other Rants. (1, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 10 years ago | (#8175970)

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

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

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

What we shouldn't try to find out. (0)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 10 years ago | (#8175985)

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

Re:What we shouldn't try to find out. (1)

Radical Rad (138892) | more than 10 years ago | (#8177034)

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

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

G-stuff (1, Funny)

mbstone (457308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8176848)

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

Oops, wait, this is Slashdot....

Stop it all, NOW! (0, Offtopic)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 10 years ago | (#8177458)

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

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

Re:Stop it all, NOW! (1)

Red Rocket (473003) | more than 10 years ago | (#8182138)


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

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

G-factor? Q-factor? X-factor? (1)

systemBuilder (305288) | more than 10 years ago | (#8196485)

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

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