

Subatomic particles that appear to defy Standard Model - lrondanini
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/subatomic-particles-appear-defy-standard-100950001.html#prEdvzd

======
tobias2014
Is it this paper they are talking about?
[http://inspirehep.net/record/1380182](http://inspirehep.net/record/1380182)

"This result, which is the first measurement of this quantity at a hadron
collider, is 2.1 standard deviations larger than the value expected from
lepton universality in the Standard Model."

To see how much this is relevant see for example
[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-
sigmaw...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-
that/)

Usually physicists claim "evidence" for something at 3 standard deviations and
"discovery" at 5 standard deviations.

~~~
nitrogen
I think you may be conflating deviation from expectation, which is just a
percentage dependent on the width of the distribution, with statistical
significance. An experiment with 5 std. dev. significance[0][1] could still
confirm a value that is 2.1 std. dev. above the center of the range[2] that
was originally predicted.

Corrections welcome.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Experiment....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Experiment.2C_industrial_and_hypothesis_testing)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance#Strin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance#Stringent_significance_thresholds_in_specific_fields)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#/media/File...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#/media/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg)

~~~
grkvlt
No, he is right. In particle physics standard deviation from the normal
distribution of results is used to show that a result is significant and new
(i.e. a previously unknown partcle) rather than just random noise.[1][2] The
'sigma' notation is then used to show how many standard deviations away the
result is, such as in the Higgs discobery, when a '5 sigma' standard was used
to confirm discovery. [3]

The references linked probably explain this a lot better than I have.

    
    
        [1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/
        [2] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8752/standard-deviation-in-particle-physics
        [3] http://understandinguncertainty.org/explaining-5-sigma-higgs-how-well-did-they-do

------
dr_zoidberg
I'm not a physicist, but I do follow physics news regularly and have a fair
bit of understanding. From what I remember, many physicists are not entirely
satisfied with the Standard Model and have been "looking to replace it" for
quite some time, the main problem being that it was still the best at
describing reality (or experiments results, which is about the same for
physics).

Could somebody who is into the field answer how relevant this is, and/or
perhaps point to a better source? The article is quite thin on substance, for
example, that diagram of the LHCb experiment without caption feels weird, as
if it had something to do but we're not even told!

~~~
ISL
We're not so much looking to replace the Standard Model (it works very well),
but rather trying to figure out if there's something more, and preferably less
complicated, under the hood. There are lots of hints that there's something
more, and everyone is looking hard in lots of places to discover the next
scrap of the treasure map.

If the tau were indeed found to exhibit substantially different decay
properties from the muon, it would be major news within fundamental physics.
The stated statistical significance of the result is quite low, you'll want to
wait for more data (which are imminent at LHCb).

A different experiment, BaBar, also sees a similar excess, and the experiments
roughly agree. Taken together, the results are near the threshold for
"evidence for", but not "discovery of" a new result.

One upside to experiments with leptons (electrons, muons, and taus) is that
they're simpler to understand. Anything involving hadronic physics (quarks,
gluons, and the zoo of particles made from them, like protons and neutrons) is
comparatively difficult to understand.

TL;DR: Stay tuned. The result is of potential importance, but not yet, and
could fluctuate away.

~~~
poelzi
No it doesn't:

[http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf](http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf)
[http://www.cosmology.info](http://www.cosmology.info) <\- the other papers
referenced

[http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php](http://lenr-
canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php) sorry, 4000+ papers and many replications
are enough for me.

then, unified theories like strings theory is absurd and not even a physical
one.

0 explanation of electro gravity effects (Q-Thruster to start with).

...

And then BAM:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE)

I'm standing on the right side and the model I have adapted makes actually
sense, so, no, it is nigher good, nor does it explain everything.

[http://www.helical-structures.org/anal_algorithm.gif](http://www.helical-
structures.org/anal_algorithm.gif)

------
poelzi
If you look critically at the standard model it does not make much sense at
all. I studied physics and philosophy some years ago. Some time ago I stumbled
across the Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified theory (BSM-
SG) from Stoyan Sarg and it rocked my world view like nothing else. For me
this is Gallilo/Darwin/Einstein all over again, ignored or reticulated by the
general community but far more advanced and precise. Even the Newtonian
worldview was 100 years earlier already discovered but ignored. It even makes
classically sense, not just mathematical.

From my perspective and this is also the general perspective of philosophy of
science, not much changed in the last hundreds of years how we approach
science. People hat to change the model they think in, because it takes a lot
of time. In fact, it even got worse. Hardly anyone in science understands the
fundamental problems of determining truth value and how hard it actually is.
Some of the test methods have fundamental flaws, for example: A negative
replication is no prove that it does not work in general, it only proves that
the exact atom configuration you are running does not work. If there is any
unknown unknown, which you can't know, you can't know if the replicated
experiment contains all necessary requirements.

Most don't understand the difference between mathematical and classical logic,
that are the building blocks of science.

It takes a critical position that takes time to get, but I got a very critical
view on science in general. Not the scientific method, but the implementation:
the humans doing science. Having experienced how the broader scientific
community actually ticks, understood how many psychological phenomena
influence the scientific process.

Some weeks ago I was at a hacker camp and attented
[https://media.ccc.de/browse/conferences/camp2015/camp2015-68...](https://media.ccc.de/browse/conferences/camp2015/camp2015-6870-detecting_echoes_from_the_dawn_of_time.html#video)

So, after the talk I approached her, see seems very confident that the big
bang happend, which I these days absolutly not, in fact, for me its as absurd
as the flat world theory ;) So, I asked her about the alternative cosmology
group and some of the phenomena they reference to, good read:
[http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf](http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf)

Having read nearly all of the papers they reference to, I go with their
conclusion. The Big Bang did not happen.

She know none of the phenomena they reference to, none. Last year they found
another quasar cluster btw, not as big as the one referenced, but they are
more common it seems (is logical for me).

The problem is how we teach science, we highlight the stuff that makes sense
in the model we are teaching, and ignoring the findings that do not make
sense, until you reach a point where you can't. The point where the standard
model made sense is long gone but as the saying brings it to a point:

Theories die out, when the last advocate dies.

