After almost two decades accompanied by technical and financial challenges, on the XNUMXth of April we heard, perhaps, exciting news from Permilab Laboratories in the United States. The experiment run for the second time was set up to measure the muon's magnetic moment and if a deviation is detected, even the smallest, it may hint at a new elementary particle in nature.
After almost two decades accompanied by technical and financial challenges, on April XNUMXth we may hear exciting news from Permilab Laboratories in the United States. The experiment run for the second time was set up to measure the muon's magnetic moment and if a deviation is detected, even the smallest, it may hint at a new elementary particle in nature.
The experiment known by its name as "Muon g-2" which is now located in the state of Illinois began in general in the state of New York in 1997. The experiment was run in two pulses (the second one started in 2001) and the initial results were revealed in 2006. The published findings were particularly surprising - the muon's magnetic moment was slightly larger than expected. The discovery made waves in the scientific community and many articles were immediately published that tried to describe the phenomenon. Despite the enthusiasm, the certainty was not great and it was decided to re-examine it. The experiment now running in the state of Illinois examines the magnetic moment more precisely to reduce the uncertainty. If the results reproduce the previous experiment, it is likely that we are witnessing the most significant discovery in the field of particles in the last decade since the discovery of the Higgs particle.
The first to identify - the muon
The muon is a particle very similar to an electron, but with a much larger mass. The electrically charged particle creates an internal magnetic field aligned in the direction of the external magnetic fields. In an experiment conducted at Fermilab, the muons move around a 15-meter ring under magnetic fields that cause their internal magnetic axis to rotate. The greater the magnetic field, the greater the rotation speed. Prof. Lee Roberts from Boston University who previously worked on this experiment tells Neitzer magazine that the purpose of the experiment is "to measure the rotation rate of the magnetic axis".
The name of the experiment does not consist of letters or random numbers, g-2 describes the difference of the magnetic moment, or in other words the degree of rotation of the magnetic axis in relation to its classical calculation. The contribution to this difference comes from the quantum behavior of the muon which sums up all the interactions of a particle with the other particles in nature. According to Robert from Neitzer magazine, the experiment "on a principle level measures everything that nature has to offer". The gap that was discovered in 2006 between theory and experiment was small but enough to cause concern among theoretical physicists. It is important to clarify the weight of this experiment - physicists around the world tend to use the measurement of the magnetic moment as the strongest proof of the existence of quantum field theory, mainly based on the measurements made on the electron. If the observation does not agree with the theory, this is of course an indication of new physics. The simplest explanation for the discrepancy is that another undiscovered particle contributes to the magnetic moment.
Along with the experiment at Fermilov, the muons have been confusing physicists for decades. One of the famous controversies in particle physics revolves around the radius of the proton. In the experiment that measured the radius of the proton, physicists used muons instead of electrons and the results showed a mismatch with their parallel experiment. also recently, the axis accelerator reported that the beauty quark does not decay to the same extent as electrons and muons. Physicists suspect that this observation indicates a new interaction mediated by an unknown particle that breaks the symmetry between them.
Skepticism and excitement
At the time the study was published in 2006 from Permilab Laboratories, the particle community was at its peak. The accelerator in the axis was prepared to run and many believed that a new particle would be discovered and support the deviation that Muon had shown. But since 2012 the Hadron Collider has not discovered any new elementary particles (unique structures have been discovered, such as rare tetraquarks, but no elementary particles have been discovered except for the Higgs). Moreover, the collected data even contradict the existence of many theoretical particles, so how do you reconcile the two? It turns out that there remains one mystery that the accelerator has not yet ruled out - the existence of another Higgs particle.
It is important to note that the theory for this also has time to develop. At first the difference was not visible at all and there was great uncertainty. Over the years, the tools for calculating the magnetic moment have developed and now we have two results. One has already been published and showed that the difference still exists, the second Looked more closely at the source of the uncertainty and showed that apparently the difference is no longer significant. It is important to note that the second paper, which focuses on the contribution of the strong interaction, has not yet been peer-reviewed and may prove to be inaccurate. Along with the theoretical articles, many skeptics actually criticize the data analysis because, according to their knowledge, Permilab did not analyze all the data in its possession. For their part, Permilev rejects the claim because the degree of accuracy in the experiment in Illinois increased significantly and compensates for the partial analysis.
Given the fact that Permilev is preparing a press conference it is likely that we will hear interesting results soon. Even if they agree with the conclusions from 2006, it is likely that the scientific community will demand to conduct an independent experiment that will strengthen this claim. With all the excitement, last Friday they almost accidentally leaked the results - the speakers broadcast live the rehearsal before the press conference. Fortunately, the problem was quickly resolved and we have to wait.
Those interested in joining the exposure event are invited Enter the link For more details or wait for a live video through the YouTube page of Permilab. The event partly contains professional scientific data and explanations.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
12 תגובות
In order for a new physics to appear, the question must be answered, what is the fundamental concept of physics?
It is very difficult to answer this question, but physical geometry has revealed to us that the fundamental concept of geometry
It has size and shape (line is the fundamental concept and has actual length and shape)
Physical geometry directs us to the fundamental concept of physics, which is energy.
Energy has a measure (quantity) as well as a form (electrical, mechanical, thermal, etc.)
The ancient concept that matter is the fundamental concept of physics must be abandoned, since matter is not a quantitative concept,
At the same time, the particle perception of matter must be abandoned.
Matter is a physical form, created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.
Passive time joins energy, and these are the two fundamental concepts of neurophysics.
The two fundamental concepts in Newtonian physics are matter and force
The two fundamental concepts in Einstein's physics are matter and energy.
Passive time is absolute rest and absolute cold, and it fills the infinite space.
Passive time is the medium of "passive time waves" which are ... the light.
From these data already emerges a single marvelous universe in an infinite space full of passive time.
The universe has the shape of a disk, and it moves in passive time at a speed of 12C, in a straight line.
Don't worry, your new physics are exciting.
Here's another two billion dollars: Go build a facility that will find out what's hidden between 3.1415 and 3.1416.
We're sure you'll find some new mathematical relationships there that will generate new mathematics time and time again.
And if you don't find it, then take 20 billion and another twenty years and explore one more digit after the dot...
Maybe the Ig-Nobel Prize to upset..
I deserve a Nobel Prize. My circumference experiment proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that pi gets smaller as the circle gets bigger, until it reaches the diameter of the earth and then starts to decrease again.
Or maybe the opposite.
aetzbar
So you admit you don't have a high school diploma ……. Amazing 🙂
This Nobel Prize is for science
You deserve a Fields Medal
After all, you also invented new mathematics
It's just a shame that you fill this forum with the nonsense you pour here.
Lowers the level of discussions below absolute zero.
This time Nisim you are right, there is no doubt that a Nobel Prize is on its way.
Enough already, take a rest... this mouth is not a physical size but a mathematical size
…1/9 +pi x 4 =1-1/3+1/5-1/7
It's called a Taylor column and it's taught in the first year of any degree in engineering or exact sciences. Or maybe 1/3 is not always 1/3..? A little humility wouldn't hurt.
aetzbar
You probably think you deserve a Nobel Prize.
Anyone who reads what you wrote - understands that you do not have a matriculation certificate.
No new physics.
In a refined way says: they play with themselves.
They burn billions on accelerators and come to nothing. Physics has been stuck for decades without any new ones.
What are the uses of these discoveries? To the common citizen?
Excited, upset.
New physics needs a new physical concept, like passive time.
New physics needs new geometry - physical geometry
Groundbreaking research that discovered a new geometry
introduction
The only way to obtain the transition number between the length of a string appearing in a circle, to the length of its circular arc, is by measuring the length of the string, and estimating the length of the arc. (The length of a bow is always greater than the length of the string)
From any combination of measurement and estimation, a transition number concept is necessarily imprecise.
Example: In a given circle, a string with a length of 32 mm was measured, and the length of its arc was estimated at 38 mm.
The inaccurate transition number between the length of the string and the length of the arc is 1.1875
The longest chord of a circle is the diameter.
The inaccurate transition number between the length of the diameter and the length of its arc is 1.5
Therefore, the inaccurate transition number between the length of the diameter and the circumference of the circle is 3
In order to obtain a more accurate transition number between the length of the diameter and the length of the circumference, we will block an elaborate multi-sided polygon (MMR) inside a circle.
After blocking a string inside a circle - each side of the string is also a chord in the circle.
Now it is possible to calculate the number of transitions from the length of the diameter of a circle that blocks the MRC, along the perimeter of the MRC and get a more accurate result than 3, like for example 3.1415
This result does not correspond to a transition number between the length of the diameter and the circumference of the blocking circle from MRC.
The number of the transition between the diameter of the circle and the circumference of the circle that blocks from MRC will be (3.1415 + a bit) because a bow is always longer than its string.
There is no answer to the question..how much is it (3.1415 + a bit) and one can only offer an estimate.
Starting the study with the transition number (3.1415 + a bit)
This transition number (3.1415 + a bit) has received a lot of attention from mathematicians and they
It was believed that it should appear in all circles, as a transitional number between the diameter and the circumference.
This belief of the mathematicians can be addressed in the following way
We do not know if this transition number appears in all circles,
(but we do know)
If it really appears in all circles, then the following equation follows from it.
The ratio of the diameters of two random circles = to the ratio of their circumferences.
And now you have to ask... Does this equation appear in reality?
To answer this question, it was necessary to invent a device that accurately measures the ratio between the circumferences of metal cylinders, the ratio between their diameters is known and is 60. (their diameters are 2 mm and 120 mm).
The name of the scope device, (HEKKEFAN)
And he discovered that the volume ratio is not 60 but 59.958
It should be noted that the said scope and exact measurement are unknown to science.
Geometrical mathematical shock following the measurement of the circumference
When the scope determined that the ratio of the circumferences is not 60 but 59.958, a conclusion immediately appeared saying that the transition number of a 2 mm diameter is slightly greater than the transition number of a 120 mm diameter.
From this conclusion it follows that the belief of the mathematicians does not exist in reality.
Mathematicians believed that the transition number (3.1415 + a bit) must appear in all circles (including of course those with a diameter of 2 mm and 120 mm), but measuring the circumference showed that this belief does not hold in reality. The transition number of 2 mm diameter,
It is slightly larger than the transition number of 120 mm diameter.
Now it is clear that there is a new geometry of circles, which requires specifying their actual diameter in a number of millimeters. If a circle with a diameter of 2 mm has a unique transition number, and if a circle with a diameter of 120 mm has a unique transition number, then each diameter of a circle (between zero mm and infinity mm) should have a unique transition number.
These unique transition numbers must be close to each other, and my guess is that they are in a narrow range, between 3.1416 and 3.164, where they obey the following rule:
The smaller the diameter of the circle, the greater its transition number.
This geometry presented as new was always there, but simply not noticed.
To distinguish it, a very precise mechanical measuring device (circumference) was needed, which can only be produced with modern, advanced mechanical technology.
This geometry deserves the name physical geometry, because it deals with closed circular lines without thickness, which appear in metal cylinders of the precision mechanical industry.
Measuring the diameters of metal cylinders, and measuring the ratio between the circumferences of cylinders, is a real physical occupation, and even so - this occupation belongs to the geometric field of circles.
Now it is necessary to distinguish between mathematical geometry and physical geometry.
The geometry of the straight line is mathematical, and its highlight is the Pythagorean theorem.
The geometry of closed circular lines (called circles) is physical, and its highlight is a formula that links the actual diameter of a circle to its transition number.
There is no connection between mathematical geometry and physical geometry,
As there is no connection between a straight line and a closed circular line.
Summary: In reality there is a known and known mathematical geometry for thousands of years,
And there exists in reality a physical geometry that the scope experiment discovered not long ago.
Username Aetzbar
3/2021
Information in YouTube videos
The pi revolution Aetzbar proves the concept of variable pi