Interesting finding directly from an article at phys.org: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-evidence-subatomic-particles-defy-standard.html#jCp
"The team, which includes physicists from the University of Maryland who made key contributions to the study." Hip Hip Hooray! Science is never a done deal; it's iterative, just like anything else we eventually are able to accomplish together. The Standard Models is pretty good, but it isn't the last word about how things work.
Early days yet...... from the article..... "Any knowledge from here on helps us learn more about how the universe evolved to this point. For example, we know that dark matter and dark energy exist, but we don't yet know what they are or how to explain them. Our result could be a part of that puzzle," Jawahery said. "If we can demonstrate that there are missing particles and interactions beyond the Standard Model, it could help complete the picture." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-evidence-subatomic-particles-defy-standard.html#jCp Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-evidence-subatomic-particles-defy-standard.html#jCp
It is true that neutrinos oscillate between three different states and that this behavior was never a prediction of the Standard Model. In this way, neutrinos cannot be said to be identical to each other the way other fundamental particles seem to be. The energy and entanglement states of a neutrino seems to depend on what it has encountered along its path, including especially any time spent traversing electroweak parts of atomic structure. The recent experiments shooting neutrinos through a chord of the Earth's crust has confirmed this behavior. You may recall similar experiments done with cosmic ray muon decay as a confirmation of relativistic time dilation. Time dilation also varies at different depths of a chord through the Earth. Actually, time dilation is different everywhere, and the neutrino oscillation experiments are the first experimental confirmation of this universal dynamic.
Yes. As opposed to particles that are made of quarks, which are known as mesons (2 quarks), baryons (3 quarks) and (as from just recently) pentaquarks (5 quarks).
I like this reply, it should be considered true for all models, they are our current best description of how things work but our understandings are continually growing and evolving. We should be open to the idea they can be improved. Look at Newtonian gravity, it stood for over 200 years; I was just reading in the September Scientific American that Max Planck told Einstein in regards to working on gravity, "I must advise you against it... You will not succeed, and even if you succeed, no one will believe you." One of the things I most respected about watching some of Richard Feynman's online lectures is even when talking about quantum electrodynamics (the area of science in which he won the Nobel prize), he always mentions the possibility the science may be improved or even wrong but it is our current best understanding based on what we know. That is a pure scientific attitude.
Sure! And just as obviously that is what is happening. We are learning every day about how things work and why they work, just as we are critically analysing and debunking pseudoscience and unworkable hypotheisis, if and when needed. More like 300 years, and still stands and used to great effect.
While all that is true, the improvements/advancements will almost certainly be made through Universities and other learned institutions, with their access to the state of the art equipment which you and I do not have access to.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/accepted/8e07cYdfSd71f65779771c1232551e3be1270df73 Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions \(\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{\ast +}\tau^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\tau})/\mathcal{B}(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{\ast +}\mu^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\mu})\)
Materials in nature are both pressure and temperature dependent, with different combinations of P and T forming different phases of matter. I would guess this is universal and applies to sub particle phases. Particle accelerator data uses low pressure; lab pressure, and high energy/temperature and therefore only follows an isobar. For example, in a neutron star; extreme pressure, electrons tend to lose their distinction as an autonomous sub particle. One may not see this very often at lab pressure; anomaly.
It would have been shorter to say that you didn't understand the topic under discussion in the thread rather than demonstrating that claim. Since the claim is not extraordinary, I think people would have believed you.
The same article in pre-print form: http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08614 (PRL will release it tomorrow). More news on this: http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-signal-hints-at-cracks-in-physics-standard-model-1.18307 Similar effect seen in 2012: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802
Does the signal have any connection to neutrino oscillation? It must say something about neutrino mass and it oscillates, so, yeah. By "the signal" I mean the combined results.
Thank you for that link, it gave me a better perspective on the findings than the first article I linked, it did not contain comments like:
Yup -- when you look at hundreds of different things, just by chance some are expected to be 2-sigma events. So we have to very careful when we have only weak statistical evidence for something.
