LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-08-2022, 07:34 AM   #1
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 795

Rep: Reputation: 87
Trouble in "Standard Model (SM) of particle physics" Land


New measurements of W Boson mass may have 'broken' our understanding of the physics of the Universe: "Weighing the W boson
W bosons mediate the weak interaction, one of the fundamental forces in physics. Because the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics places tight constraints on the mass of the W boson, measuring the mass puts the SM to the test. The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Collaboration now reports a precise measurement of the W boson mass extracted from data taken at the Tevatron particle accelerator (see the Perspective by Campagnari and Mulders). Surprisingly, the researchers found that the mass of the boson was significantly higher than the SM predicts, with a discrepancy of 7 standard deviations. —JS" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk1781

Last edited by mjolnir; 04-08-2022 at 07:50 AM. Reason: Take out extra space in the title.
 
Old 04-08-2022, 08:22 AM   #2
jbuckley2004
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Fedora (KDE spin)
Posts: 207

Rep: Reputation: 70
Uh... this is bad news?

Naw. This is how progress is made. Watch closely now.
 
Old 04-08-2022, 12:03 PM   #3
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,214

Rep: Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987
Mathematics has Proofs because it is an abstract construct with tightly defined rules. Science is more about "disproof" than "proof" because it deals with The Real which tends to be messy and surprising. IOW Science embraces Evolution, aka Progress.

BTW thank you, mjolnir, for posting an actually scientific link instead of the all-too-common average news from some untrained journalist looking for a splashy headline for this weeks OpEd that reads "Science Upheaval: Back to the Drawing Board" as if Science == Religion. Science actually embraces updates and dismisses dogma.

Last edited by enorbet; 04-08-2022 at 12:07 PM.
 
Old 04-08-2022, 03:48 PM   #4
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 795

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 87
@enorbet Thanks. I won't pretend I understood all of it but it will be interesting watching particle physicists integrate or chip away at this possible deviation from the 'Standard Model.'
 
Old 04-08-2022, 03:50 PM   #5
teckk
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 4,052
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372Reputation: 1372
That's a lot to take in, even though I have been interested in this for a while.

Some reference videos.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1f68EWjOiw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=no3qLqUYBLo
 
Old 04-08-2022, 04:26 PM   #6
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 795

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckk View Post
That's a lot to take in, even though I have been interested in this for a while.

Some reference videos.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1f68EWjOiw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=no3qLqUYBLo
Thanks, especially enjoyed that first link. I have to admit it had been so long since I had thought much about statistical analysis that before I posted this morning I had to dig into the significance of sigma values. I found this helpful: "Explained: Sigma
How do you know when a new finding is significant? The sigma value can tell you — but watch out for dead fish."
https://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209
 
Old 04-14-2022, 07:34 PM   #7
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,764
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520
Scientific progress has never been advanced by anything that "proved that we were right." It has only been advanced by things that "suggested that we might be wrong." That the world wasn't flat. And, so on.

(And, P.S.: "Religion" has never had anything to do with "science.")

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-14-2022 at 07:38 PM.
 
Old 04-14-2022, 09:57 PM   #8
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,639

Rep: Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982Reputation: 1982
I'm gonna guess this is going to end up being some kind of measurement error. Looks like this measurement isn't really that far off from previous ones, it's just that it's (theoretically) much more precise.

https://profmattstrassler.com/2022/0...isnt-behaving/
 
Old 04-15-2022, 09:44 AM   #9
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,214

Rep: Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Scientific progress has never been advanced by anything that "proved that we were right." It has only been advanced by things that "suggested that we might be wrong." That the world wasn't flat. And, so on.

(And, P.S.: "Religion" has never had anything to do with "science.")
Hmmmmm... well technically that isn't quite so. Science functions mostly as a sort of statistical body of evidence, whether For or Against. For example, the scale of Sigma calculates the likelihood that a conclusion could be false or better described by anything else including simple chance. So currently Science accepts that there is littyle or no reality in seeking, let alone claiming 100% certainty, but 99.9999% is "close enough for Jazz". Right now, Probability is king, and that is probably true .

Oh yeah, and up until the early 20th Century many Religions actively sought Science as "knowing God's work". It's only when many started noting contradictions with dogma, meaning Religion refused to adapt or progress, that the Love/Hate relationship between Science and Religion, at least by the religious, began blossoming.
 
Old 04-15-2022, 01:39 PM   #10
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,764
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520
Galileo was forced to "recant" his position – but that didn't relocate the planets nor the sun.

I still maintain my position that "religion and science are distinct." Religion presumes a model and then accepts that model "by faith." Religion also boldly considers topics that can't be "scientifically proven." Meanwhile, science strictly adheres either to evidence-based findings or a narrowly-circumscribed branch of "the philosophy of science." (e.g. "evolution beyond the species level" falls into the latter camp.) So we have several tools with which to contemplate our world, and I find no quarrel between any of them.

I also draw a distinction between "religion" and "dogma." You won't get very far trying to tell me what "my religion" (if any) is "supposed" to be.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-15-2022 at 01:40 PM.
 
Old 04-16-2022, 12:28 AM   #11
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,214

Rep: Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987
So, sundialsvcs, do you like "canon" any better? A rose....
 
Old 04-16-2022, 07:44 AM   #12
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,764
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520
No, I don't look to anyone else to tell me what to think. Especially not about religion.

In the largely-theoretical world of subatomic physics, we are always just "one measurement away" from another source of consternation.
 
Old 04-16-2022, 01:18 PM   #13
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,214

Rep: Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987
So, sundialsvcs, is the understanding of the subatomic world as "largely theoretical" a distinction to you? Do you think what may be called Human Scale isn't largely theoretical? or do you just believe what you "see with your own eyes"?
 
Old 04-17-2022, 06:30 PM   #14
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,764
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520Reputation: 3520
Much of what we "understand" about such incredibly-tiny things is, indeed, theoretical, because we cannot directly observe them. We try to very carefully observe and then to construct mathematical and other observations which explain and are consistent with what we think we observe. From these, we construct "hypotheses" and then "theories." But there will always be another observation.

But then again, we can say exactly the same thing about Isaac Newton. One day, this young patent examiner named Alfred looked at all the accumulated data from centuries past, but he did so differently. His new findings did not per se refute Newton, but instead added an entirely new dimension to them. Maybe someday, someone in like manner will add a new dimension to Alfred's work. We should, in fact, expect that.

In science, you always have to be willing to "scrap everything and start over." Maybe just because – if you will – "God will never run out of mysteries."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-17-2022 at 06:34 PM.
 
Old 04-18-2022, 12:37 AM   #15
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,214

Rep: Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987Reputation: 3987
Actually, sundialsvcs, I was referring to the fact that everything we experience is filtered through our senses which, along with the coordinating brain, detects representative patterns. It is translation.

Take vision for example. We don't see anything as it is. We see a representation that makes sense to us on our plane. We can't see air but we can feel wind so we know we have an atmosphere and we can detect and measure it's constituents through our senses and sense enhancers/translators that extend through magnification, breakdown by spectrum, and conversion of the electromagnetic radiation of which "human visible" is only a small part.

We can't see a molecule or atom directly with our eyes because of the wavelength of visible light. It is impossible to magnify visible light enough to see an atom. However, We can build machines that can translate other wavelengths into wavelengths we can sense. In fact, I've seen plans for hobby building tunneling microscopes that the parts total ~$100 USD and one can take photos of molecules and even atoms.

It is thought that "proto eyes" were merely sensitive to the presence of light vs/ the absence of it... sounds reasonable. Such a lifeform possessing such crude sensitivity didn't need to identify a predator if it wisely just used light to signify warmth and hid from nearby shadows across it's "vision". Obviously the ability to differentiate through more acuity improved odds of survival.

Notice that at once you state that Albert's work didn't refute Newton, yet you later mention "scrap everything and start over". As the body of knowledge progresses, especially in a given area, less and less scrapping takes place. Yes it's wild and wooly out in speculation land but we hjave our own plane of scale and then some, down here on good ol' planet Earth really solid, even if our reality is "shadows on the cave wall".
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: GLnemo2 v1.9 Particle Viewer Released – Overview, Screenshots and Ubuntu Installation LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-16-2015 09:41 AM
LXer: Experimenting with the Particle Photon Board LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-21-2015 08:50 AM
LXer: Particle Code Platform May Go Open-Source LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-31-2011 01:42 AM
LXer: Advanced Effects using Blender Particle System LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-20-2010 05:41 AM
LXer: Getting Started with Blender’s Particle System LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-24-2010 04:00 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration