I'm not a fan of how much I've seen talks of a 'fifth force'. While it's true that another force is a possibility there are many ways to add onto the new model. A new particle alone could cause...
I'm not a fan of how much I've seen talks of a 'fifth force'. While it's true that another force is a possibility there are many ways to add onto the new model. A new particle alone could cause this and would in fact be great news on its own due to how many open questions there are that the SM doesn't fix.
Not too mention that even experts aren't quite sure whether the calculations for the predictions are correct here. Figuring out a discrepancy in that would also be great, but wouldn't make for flashy headlines.
Totally agree. Yet another example of irresponsible science reporting. The new measurement is quoted as g-2 = 0.00233184110 +/- 0.00000000043 (stat.) +/- 0.00000000019 (syst.) but with all the...
Totally agree. Yet another example of irresponsible science reporting.
The new measurement is quoted as g-2 = 0.00233184110 +/- 0.00000000043 (stat.) +/- 0.00000000019 (syst.) but with all the excitement, I keep reminding myself the Superluminal Neutrino debacle of 2011 - the measurement, statistical and systematic errors were really tight and indicated faster than light particles - despite everyone knowing it must be a mistake. And indeed after a few months they discovered they had a tiny systematic error they didn't account for. I'm going to believe g-2 when an independent experiment (coughLHCcough) reproduces it
I'm not a fan of how much I've seen talks of a 'fifth force'. While it's true that another force is a possibility there are many ways to add onto the new model. A new particle alone could cause this and would in fact be great news on its own due to how many open questions there are that the SM doesn't fix.
Not too mention that even experts aren't quite sure whether the calculations for the predictions are correct here. Figuring out a discrepancy in that would also be great, but wouldn't make for flashy headlines.
Totally agree. Yet another example of irresponsible science reporting.
The new measurement is quoted as g-2 = 0.00233184110 +/- 0.00000000043 (stat.) +/- 0.00000000019 (syst.) but with all the excitement, I keep reminding myself the Superluminal Neutrino debacle of 2011 - the measurement, statistical and systematic errors were really tight and indicated faster than light particles - despite everyone knowing it must be a mistake. And indeed after a few months they discovered they had a tiny systematic error they didn't account for. I'm going to believe g-2 when an independent experiment (coughLHCcough) reproduces it
"could"
I'm tired of gossip being news.