[HN Gopher] Muon's magnetic moment exposes a hole in the Standar...
___________________________________________________________________
Muon's magnetic moment exposes a hole in the Standard Model, unless
it doesn't
Author : ColinWright
Score : 66 points
Date : 2025-02-27 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (physicsworld.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (physicsworld.com)
| moelf wrote:
| >The task before the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative is to solve these
| dilemmas and update the 2020 data-driven SM prediction. Two new
| publications are planned. The first will be released in 2025 (to
| coincide with the new experimental result from Fermilab). This
| will describe the current status and ongoing body of work, but a
| full, updated SM prediction will have to wait for the second
| paper, likely to be published several years later.
|
| a bit unsatisfying, basically the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative
| which gave us the 2020 prediction that turned out to be wildly
| different from FNAL measurement is going to publish an updated
| version of the prediction after FNAL releases their final result.
|
| it means the Theory Initiative will have a target that will never
| move to aim for when working out their final SM prediction
| addaon wrote:
| > it means the Theory Initiative will have a target that will
| never move to aim for when working out their final SM
| prediction
|
| Sure, and this breaks some level of independence between this
| two workstreams -- it seems unlikely that the Theory Initiative
| will publish a number that diverges further from the
| experimental side.
|
| But on the other hand, we're going to be in a world where there
| are two theoretical estimates, one based partially on empirical
| methods and one based on lattice methods, and these are going
| to diverge. So the obvious next task for the theory group is to
| (a) explain why these diverge and (b) explain why the lattice
| method is the more accurate one. Which likely will lead to more
| work for the experimentalists to explain why the inputs to the
| empirical methods didn't generalize.
|
| Plenty to still learn here.
| panda-giddiness wrote:
| Essentially all of the theory research (specifically, lattice
| QCD calculations) since the previous white paper in 2020 have
| been conducted blinded, and at any rate, the deadline to be
| included in the theory average has already passed. It would
| take an act of extraordinary brashness to fudge the numbers
| now.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Weren't you guys supposed to save these stories for Muonday
| Mondays? Weekend's too long of a wait?
| ge96 wrote:
| I miss Topological Tuesdays or Turing Thursdays
| dang wrote:
| [stub for offtopicness]
| librasteve wrote:
| [flagged]
| addaon wrote:
| It's worth continuing. It's a well-put-together summary
| article. Yeah, the cupcake analogy is contrived -- but it's
| as good an analogy as any other to make it clear that the
| topic of the article is the difference between a theoretical
| and experimental measurement.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Couldn't read being the undismissable cookie banner that took
| up 90% of the screen. One big button that said "accept all
| and close". I'd rather just close, thank you
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| It doesn't. I know that, without reading the piece, because
| nothing has broken the standard model.
| jzer0cool wrote:
| Enjoyed reading this and thank you for sharing.
|
| Anyone know what are inside those tubes? Thinking to create this
| with a few younger ones and want to understand any risks should
| those tube breaks and something escapes.
| drpossum wrote:
| You're not where you think you are.
| niklasbuschmann wrote:
| https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/calculation-solves-m...
|
| This article was a lot clearer for me
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-27 23:00 UTC)