Misbehaving particles poke holes in reigning physics theory

This illustration shows a an electron and positron colliding, resulting in a B meson (not shown) and an antimatter B-bar meson, which then decays into a D meson and a tau lepton as well as a smaller antineutrino. In recent findings, physicists from the BaBar experiment found that such a decay process happens more often than predicted by the Standard Model of physics.

Misbehaving particles poke holes in reigning physics theory

The reigning theory of particle physics may be flawed, according to new evidence that a subatomic particle decays in a certain way more often than it should, scientists announced.

This theory, called the Standard Model, is the best handbook scientists have to describe the tiny bits of matter that make up the universe. But many physicists suspect the Standard Model has some holes in it, and findings like this may point to where those holes are hiding.

The more we learn the more we realize how much more there is to learn..

I'm not going to pretend to know much more than a basic rudimentary understanding of the topic but this does sound very interesting and possibly mean we may have been looking at things and expecting certain results that simply were wrong.

Hopefully some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in and give us the low down on the potential impacts of this possible discovery and realization?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Im curious as to what can be the implications/ what can the knowledge be used for once we understand all about the particles,,,,,,,

will we be able to control them in some way? ( make unlimited energy,,, or unlimited supply of food... or a new chapter of technology?)

because if not...... I think its as if we are watching static on a tv screen trying to label all the differences..

then again i have no clue what im talking about

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Im curious as to what can be the implications/ what can the knowledge be used for once we understand all about the particles,,,,,,,

will we be able to control them in some way? ( make unlimited energy,,, or unlimited supply of food... or a new chapter of technology?)

because if not...... I think its as if we are watching static on a tv screen trying to label all the differences..

then again i have no clue what im talking about

And yet, I completely understood you.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Thanks for posting your perspective

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Im curious as to what can be the implications/ what can the knowledge be used for once we understand all about the particles,,,,,,,

will we be able to control them in some way? ( make unlimited energy,,, or unlimited supply of food... or a new chapter of technology?)

because if not...... I think its as if we are watching static on a tv screen trying to label all the differences..

then again i have no clue what im talking about

i agree, i feel the same way.


i feel like when they are done "knowing" what each particle is all about, they're gunna be all like:


welp. we now know all the stuff.

and then nothing will change, or something.

*sigh* lol

peace.

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


Well with my limited knowledge, this is my take. Knowing the way particles behave wont, on its own, make those other things happen. Understanding will give us the ability to create technologies we otherwise would not be able to create though, and make advances come faster.

It's also important they are not saying the Standard model is wrong, only that it's incomplete. I am sure many people will come along saying "Standard model sucks" blah blah blah. No one claims the Standard Model is a finished product.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

 

Well with my limited knowledge, this is my take. Knowing the way particles behave wont, on its own, make those other things happen. Understanding will give us the ability to create technologies we otherwise would not be able to create though, and make advances come faster.

It's also important they are not saying the Standard model is wrong, only that it's incomplete. I am sure many people will come along saying "Standard model sucks" blah blah blah. No one claims the Standard Model is a finished product.

standard model? i don't even....


peace ^_^

Interesting perspective.....


Did the Department of Energy just change science’s famous Standard Model?

Data collected from experiments conducted over one decade ago may lead scientists to finally reconfigure one of science’s most important scientific principles: the Standard Model of particle physics.

Inside the BaBar experiment at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, researchers say experimental data shows a certain particle decay happening at a pace far exceeding that predicted by the Standard Model.

If the model doesn't fit the data, extend or replace it with a better one. Let's hope the findings can be replicated, confirmed. Science at work.

reply to post by moebius


Agreed,

It seems that some may be jumping the gun here????

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Im curious as to what can be the implications/ what can the knowledge be used for once we understand all about the particles,,,,,,,

will we be able to control them in some way? ( make unlimited energy,,, or unlimited supply of food... or a new chapter of technology?)

because if not...... I think its as if we are watching static on a tv screen trying to label all the differences..

then again i have no clue what im talking about

It can't really be known yet... of course with the first structure of the atom depicting neutrons, protons and electrons, nobody imagined it would result in the H-Bomb, nuclear energy, or even the path that is now being studied... it could mean very little or it could set the foundation for the entire world several years from now....

Originally posted by moebius
If the model doesn't fit the data, extend or replace it with a better one. Let's hope the findings can be replicated, confirmed. Science at work.

As I said in my other post, this does not say the model does not fit the data. The Standard Model is not one hypothesis, it predicts countless numbers of interactions between particles. When they encounter something that behaves differently than expected they REFINE the Model, correct the theoretical mistakes, and make the model better. This in no way is saying the Standard Model is not the correct model (whether it is or not is irrelevant), only that they have found something that means they need to refine it.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


"Data in Tension with the Standard Model"
This abstract says the BaBar observations, for certain particle decay branching fractions, exceeded Standard Model predictions by an equivalent significance of 3.4 standard deviations. It further says that the excess can not be explained in a minimal extension of the Standard Model known as the Type II Two Higgs Doublet Model. The Standard Model will require significant refinement if the BaBar data are correct.

For those of you so inclined, you will find much of the detailed technical data by exploring the links on the abstract page I linked below.

LINK: www-public.slac.stanford.edu...

Originally posted by BULLPIN
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

"Data in Tension with the Standard Model"
This abstract says the BaBar observations, for certain particle decay branching fractions, exceeded Standard Model predictions by an equivalent significance of 3.4 standard deviations. It further says that the excess can not be explained in a minimal extension of the Standard Model known as the Type II Two Higgs Doublet Model. The Standard Model will require significant refinement if the BaBar data are correct.

For those of you so inclined, you will find much of the detailed technical data by exploring the links on the abstract page I linked below.

LINK: www-public.slac.stanford.edu...

That word, "refinement", is the key. It's true, and I don't think anyone thinks the Standard Model is complete and needs no further work.

To be honest, I think most physicists already had gotten the message that the Standard Model doesn't really work when it failed to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity...hence we see all these theories, incorporating ideas ranging from grains to strings.

I guess that the "old theory" physicists shall spend their efforts on new ideas and possibly the evolution into the GUT.

Originally posted by BlackPoison94
To be honest, I think most physicists already had gotten the message that the Standard Model doesn't really work when it failed to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity...hence we see all these theories, incorporating ideas ranging from grains to strings.

I guess that the "old theory" physicists shall spend their efforts on new ideas and possibly the evolution into the GUT.

If that is true then why are the top scientists still working with the Standard Model, or are the guys at CERN chumps?