Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
At first it was a quark, now it's a muon...next is bmus (Original Post) pbmus Apr 2021 OP
It would be very cool if the new sub-atomic particle was named "Bemis" ... Rollo Apr 2021 #1
The Big Theoretical Physics Problem At The Center Of The 'Muon g-2' Puzzle Judi Lynn Apr 2021 #2
Thanks JL... pbmus Apr 2021 #3

Judi Lynn

(160,526 posts)
2. The Big Theoretical Physics Problem At The Center Of The 'Muon g-2' Puzzle
Tue Apr 13, 2021, 02:47 AM
Apr 2021

Apr 13, 2021,02:00am EDT|1 views

Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Senior Contributor

In early April, 2021, the experimental physics community announced an enormous victory: they had measured the muon’s magnetic moment to unprecedented precision. With the extraordinary precision achieved by the experimental Muon g-2 collaboration, they were able to measure the spin magnetic moment of the muon not only wasn't 2, as originally predicted by Dirac, but was more precisely 2.00116592040. There's an uncertainty in the final two digits of ±54, but not larger.

Therefore, if the theoretical prediction differs by this measured amount by too much, there must be new physics at play: a tantalizing possibility that has justifiably excited a great many physicists.

The best theoretical prediction that we have, in fact, is more like 2.0011659182, which is significantly below the experimental measurement. Given that the experimental result strongly confirms a much earlier measurement of the same “g-2” quantity for the muon by the Brookhaven E821 experiment, there’s every reason to believe that the experimental result will hold up with better data and reduced errors. But the theoretical result is very much in doubt, for reasons everyone should appreciate. Let’s help everyone — physicists and non-physicists alike — understand why.

The Universe, as we know it, is fundamentally quantum in nature. Quantum, as we understand it, means that things can be broken down into fundamental components that obey probabilistic, rather than deterministic, rules. Deterministic is what happens for classical objects: macroscopic particles such as rocks. If you had two closely-spaced slits and threw a small rock at it, you could take one of two approaches, both of which would be valid.

More:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/04/13/the-big-theoretical-physics-problem-at-the-center-of-the-muon-g-2-puzzle/?sh=7fbb4017422c

pbmus

(12,422 posts)
3. Thanks JL...
Tue Apr 13, 2021, 03:44 PM
Apr 2021

The article reinforces my opinion on our measurement system... that our current system of measurement is not capable of the necessary accuracy...

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»At first it was a quark, ...