• COMING SOON! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

Science!


log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I hate headlines like this. "...Shook Particle Physics to its Core!!1!!one!!!"

Folks, this is what physicists live for. Doing experiments that always end up verifying the current best model is ultimately kind of boring. We WANT there to be new stuff. Nobody is "shaken" by this. This is what we are partly hoping to find with every experiment - something new!

What, you thought physicists would spend millions and millions of dollars, and half a decade of work, and hope that nothing interesting happened? Come on! The headline fundamentally fails to understand the process of science, which is pretty crummy in science-reporting.

That said...

There's also a new result out of Kamiokande in Japan, also suggests that there's some unknown physical processes going on involving muons. Together, these are very interesting.

A couple of notes:
1) The wobbling in question here has little to do with the nature of time. At least, so far as we know.

2) Neither this, nor the Kamiokande result have any particular idea of what is happening. What they've noted is that there's a physical process that hasn't been fully explained by the current model, but they don't propose new models. Maybe it is new physics, maybe there's some higher-order effect in the old physics that isn't being handled properly. We shall see...
 
Last edited:

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
I hate headlines like this. "...Shook Particle Physics to its Core!!1!!one!!!"

Folks, this is what physicists live for. Doing experiments that always end up verifying the current best model is ultimately kind of boring. We WANT there to be new stuff. Nobody is "shaken" by this. This is what we are partly hoping to find with every experiment - something new!

What, you thought physicists would spend millions and millions of dollars, and half a decade of work, and hope that nothing interesting happened? Come on! The headline fundamentally fails to understand the process of science, which is pretty crummy in science-reporting.

That said...

There's also a new result out of Kamiokande in Japan, also suggests that there's some unknown physical processes going on involving muons. Together, these are very interesting.

A couple of notes:
1) The wobbling in question here has little to do with the nature of time. At least, so far as we know.

2) Neither this, nor the Kamiokande result have any particular idea of what is happening. What they've noted is that there's a physical process that hasn't been fully explained by the current model, but they don't propose new models. Maybe it is new physics, maybe there's some higher-order effect in the old physics that isn't being handled properly. We shall see...

The article I read (I think BBC?) suggested there might be a fifth fundamental force - I thought everyone was trying to unify them rather that find more :)

Its also amusing as in one Supers game I posited that Magic was a fifth Fundamental force whose purpose was to maintain stability between dimensions - magic was manipulation of the ‘Dimensional Field’ : ) Which also leads to the old chestnut of Magic is just Science we cant explain yet and if the standard model is wrong then at what point do Physicist decide that the current explanations for stuff are also wrong?
 

Ryujin

Hero
I hate headlines like this. "...Shook Particle Physics to its Core!!1!!one!!!"

Folks, this is what physicists live for. Doing experiments that always end up verifying the current best model is ultimately kind of boring. We WANT there to be new stuff. Nobody is "shaken" by this. This is what we are partly hoping to find with every experiment - something new!

What, you thought physicists would spend millions and millions of dollars, and half a decade of work, and hope that nothing interesting happened? Come on! The headline fundamentally fails to understand the process of science, which is pretty crummy in science-reporting.

That said...

There's also a new result out of Kamiokande in Japan, also suggests that there's some unknown physical processes going on involving muons. Together, these are very interesting.

A couple of notes:
1) The wobbling in question here has little to do with the nature of time. At least, so far as we know.

2) Neither this, nor the Kamiokande result have any particular idea of what is happening. What they've noted is that there's a physical process that hasn't been fully explained by the current model, but they don't propose new models. Maybe it is new physics, maybe there's some higher-order effect in the old physics that isn't being handled properly. We shall see...
It's sad that media continuously goes for the click-baity title, to draw people in, instead of presenting the facts that are already impressive enough, if you get a few sentences into an article. One thing that DC Comics got right, that Marvel got wrong (too many J. Jonah Jamesons and not enough Perry Whites in this world).

For example when the first quantum teleportation of photons was accomplished, all of the news articles seemed to be captioned using pictures from Star Trek. Back in 2015 they were crowing about the same thing when some German scientists "invented" a process to deconstruct and object, in one location, and then 3D print it in another. Ummmm, no. Not even close.
 

francisbaud

Villager
"If the results are true, the discovery represents a breakthrough in particle physics of a kind that hasn't been seen for 50 years, when the dominant theory to explain subatomic particles was first developed. The teeny-tiny wobble of the muon — created by the interaction of its intrinsic magnetic field, or magnetic moment, with an external magnetic field — could shake the very foundations of science.
[...]
However, a rival calculation made by a separate group and published Wednesday (April 7) in the journal Nature could rob the wobble of its significance. According to this team's calculations, which give a much larger value to the most uncertain term in the equation that predicts the muon's rocking motion, the experimental results are totally in line with predictions. Twenty years of particle chasing could have all been for nothing."

Yea, considering the conclusion of the article, the title may be a bit to sensational!
 





Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The article I read (I think BBC?) suggested there might be a fifth fundamental force - I thought everyone was trying to unify them rather that find more :)

You cannot unify them all if you don't know what they all are, now can you?

Its also amusing as in one Supers game I posited that Magic was a fifth Fundamental force whose purpose was to maintain stability between dimensions - magic was manipulation of the ‘Dimensional Field’ : ) Which also leads to the old chestnut of Magic is just Science we cant explain yet and if the standard model is wrong then at what point do Physicist decide that the current explanations for stuff are also wrong?

It isn't like, hey, there's this new thing, so EVERYTHING IS WRONG!!!1one!
 



freyar

Extradimensional Explorer
It's weird; this result isn't even all that shocking in the sense that it is really just a confirmation of an experiment from 20 years ago with a newer, better experiment. But we don't have many hints about possible new physics, so it is exciting. Of course, it's entirely reasonable to think our theoretical calculations (which are ridiculously hard to do) are wrong since the two ways we have to do them disagree, and one method is a lot closer to the experimental result. So maybe this isn't new physics but is teaching us about our calculations.

It's also worth noting that experiments like this don't mean that the Standard Model is "wrong," just incomplete. Explanations for stuff we know already will stay the same, just the way our explanation of how things like wheels work stayed the same when we learned about quantum mechanics and how to build cell phones with that knowledge. It's a building process.

And we've known the Standard Model is incomplete for many decades for a few different reasons. But we have very little to go on as to precisely what we need to add to it, and that's why it's exciting that the difference between theory and experiments didn't go away with a new, better experiment.
 
Last edited:



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The geocentric model of solar system is not wrong. But it does take a lot more calculations to get things right.

Well, yes and no. You seem to be confusing "model" with "coordinate system choice"

The real geocentric models of the solar system were factually wrong - if you have the stars on a fixed celestial sphere, you are wrong.

You can, if you want, do the math of gravitation taking the Earth to be in the middle of it all... if you want to give yourself a brain aneurism. But that's not a different physical model. That's using the gravitational model with a really awkward choice of coordinate system.
 

shawnhcorey

Explorer
Well, yes and no. You seem to be confusing "model" with "coordinate system choice"

The real geocentric models of the solar system were factually wrong - if you have the stars on a fixed celestial sphere, you are wrong.

You can, if you want, do the math of gravitation taking the Earth to be in the middle of it all... if you want to give yourself a brain aneurism. But that's not a different physical model. That's using the gravitational model with a really awkward choice of coordinate system.

The geocentric model is in a non-inertial frame. The coordinate system is an accelerating one. Once you take the fictitious forces into account, it gives the same results as the heliocentric model. It is not wrong; it just takes more work.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The geocentric model is in a non-inertial frame. The coordinate system is an accelerating one. Once you take the fictitious forces into account, it gives the same results as the heliocentric model. It is not wrong; it just takes more work.

I think you completely missed the point. I'm saying that doing "gravitation in another frame/coordinate system" is not a different model at all. It is the same physics, the same model, just chosen so your math is hard.

The honest-to-goodness geocentric models, before Newton, back in the time of Aristotle and Ptolemy, were factually incorrect in most of their details.
 

shawnhcorey

Explorer
The honest-to-goodness geocentric models, before Newton, back in the time of Aristotle and Ptolemy, were factually incorrect in most of their details.

I have to disagree with that. The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient mechanical computer that calculates the positions of the solar system. Reproductions of it, when given today's position of the planets, predicted their movements to the accuracy you would expect from a mechanical computer. They could predict the movement of the planets but they could not explain why they moved that way.
 

briggart

Explorer
I have to disagree with that. The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient mechanical computer that calculates the positions of the solar system. Reproductions of it, when given today's position of the planets, predicted their movements to the accuracy you would expect from a mechanical computer. They could predict the movement of the planets but they could not explain why they moved that way.
I think @Umbran's point is that the stars in Ptolemy model were supposed to be points on a sphere, so they all were at the same distance from the center of the sphere and had fixed relative positions, which is wrong regardless of whether you are in a geocentric or heliocentric coordinate system.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top