Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Latest findings on the Muons

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733

    Latest findings on the Muons

    Is this yet confirmed?
    https://youtu.be/kBzn4o4z5Bk


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    22,199
    It will take another year or two to "confirm" it to 5 sigma... but it seems very likely.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    It will take another year or two to "confirm" it to 5 sigma... but it seems very likely.
    Ok. So they're at 4.2 and we're waiting for 5. Thanks!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,477
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Apparently not. That story just repeats what was reported in April.
    “Today is an extraordinary day, long awaited not only by us but by the whole international physics community,” Graziano Venanzoni, co-spokesperson of the Muon g-2 experiment and physicist at the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics, said in an April statement.
    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Apparently not. That story just repeats what was reported in April.Grant Hutchison
    Ok. Overhyped story again... Sorry.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733
    Ok we're up to sigma 3 now:

    https://www.sciencealert.com/physici...lhc-experiment


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,851
    So it needs better verification before taking it seriously. As always, I (and many others) would love to see the day when we could move beyond the standard model and we can take the next step in developing new science. But, I’ve seen too many hopeful claims that turned out to lead to nothing to get worked up over these stories. If and when there is verification then I will get excited.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733
    Good. CQ will need to rename the ATM section to: "Candidate Theories". Lol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,869
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Good. CQ will need to rename the ATM section to: "Candidate Theories". Lol.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    CT is already take by another section of the forum.

    All candidate theories are usually against the mainstream. ATM is not a negative description, it's an accurate one.

    There was a brief period of time where I made the case for changing the name because "ATM" was a term in climate change. That abbreviation usage rapidly fell out of favor, so I was totally off base in requesting that change. I've been wrong before. It will probably happen again.
    Solfe

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,477
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Good. CQ will need to rename the ATM section to: "Candidate Theories". Lol.
    Three-sigma is just three-sigma. Significance testing is not some kind of ratchet that cranks steadily towards higher significance the more data you collect.
    There's a reason particle physicists are not particularly impressed by three-sigma.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Three-sigma is just three-sigma. Significance testing is not some kind of ratchet that cranks steadily towards higher significance the more data you collect.
    There's a reason particle physicists are not particularly impressed by three-sigma.
    Sorry I posted quickly and I forgot they were already at sigma 4.2 according to the original video.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,477
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Sorry I posted quickly and I forgot they were already at sigma 4.2 according to the original video.
    Your link from a few days ago says it was three-sigma in March, with LHCb undergoing an upgrade since then, so no new data coming in.
    I'm not planning on sitting through the video you linked to in April, which presumably relates to the "three-sigma" March results, but you may want to review it to find out where the inconsistency comes from.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    CT is already take by another section of the forum.

    All candidate theories are usually against the mainstream. ATM is not a negative description, it's an accurate one.

    There was a brief period of time where I made the case for changing the name because "ATM" was a term in climate change. That abbreviation usage rapidly fell out of favor, so I was totally off base in requesting that change. I've been wrong before. It will probably happen again.
    Or not. Or both. That is the problem with quantum physics, you are never sure if you are right, wrong, or both.
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,671
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Your link from a few days ago says it was three-sigma in March, with LHCb undergoing an upgrade since then, so no new data coming in.
    I'm not planning on sitting through the video you linked to in April, which presumably relates to the "three-sigma" March results, but you may want to review it to find out where the inconsistency comes from.

    Grant Hutchison
    The video quotes both a three and a 4.2 sigma, depending upon who is reducing the same data from the previous experiments. They are looking at differences in about the eight level of precision; the three sigma was returned by the most robust calculations in terms of, I don't know, tetramegagigocycles?
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •