BREAKING: Muon g-2 Experiment shows that Muons not behaving like standard model of physics proposes?

  • A new publication at PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS reveals new experimental data from the Muon g-2-Experiment at Fermilab.

    It has measured an unexpected behaviour of the Muons:


    https://journals.aps.org/prl/a…03/PhysRevLett.126.141801


    See also the official announcement from Muon g-2 yesterday:

    https://theory.fnal.gov/events…2-experiment-at-fermilab/


    Having Muon-catalyzed fusion in mind, what implications could this have?

  • This other article, based on a paper appearing in Nature today, seems to give a slightly different spin to the story...

    Not sure how to put that into perspective, especially given the rather definite theoretical predictions over the past years preceding this new measurement.

    The muon's magnetic moment fits just fine
    A new estimate of the strength of the sub-atomic particle's magnetic field aligns with the standard model of particle physics

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2021/04/210407114159.htm

    (The underlying publication : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03418-1)

  • Pallas from the abstract 'Moreover, the methods used and developed in this work will enable further increased precision as more powerful computers become available.'


    why do we need experiments if we can do simulation? 'To eliminate our reliance on these experiments, here we use ab initio quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and quantum electrodynamics simulations to compute the LO-HVP contribution. '


    and we will keep simulation (given more powerful computers) until our calculations fit the data.
    And as always using very expensive hardware puts us in the league where our results can not be reasonably reproduced.

  • I have been aware of these results for a while, and since then, several media have taken it up in a more or less sensationalistic way, but can’t recall exactly where I saw it first. Probably, just probably, it was in one of the daily e-mails I receive from Medium.

    When I read it, didn’t give me the impression that is was much of a big deal anyway as it was something that anyone who has already achieved the awareness that the SM is past its prime, wouldn’t be surprised that something finally wasn’t going to fit in the mathematical Frankenstein monster. Since Wyttenbach has shown that many of what is perceived as particles are resonances, I think the SM is a collection of misinterpretations.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I have been aware of these results for a while, and since then, several media have taken it up in a more or less sensationalistic way, but can’t recall exactly where I saw it first. Probably, just probably, it was in one of the daily e-mails I receive from Medium.

    When I read it, didn’t give me the impression that is was much of a big deal anyway as it was something that anyone who has already achieved the awareness that the SM is past its prime, wouldn’t be surprised that something finally wasn’t going to fit in the mathematical Frankenstein monster. Since Wyttenbach has shown that many of what is perceived as particles are resonances, I think the SM is a collection of misinterpretations.

    Do they accelerate "resonances" in the collider or particles to crash into each other? ;) Why not use experimental particle physics to proof the one or the other weak or wrong point in todays SM? Wouldn't that help to come to new physics?

  • ArsTechnica article.

    https://arstechnica.com/scienc…hysics-from-20-years-ago/


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    DR Brian Keating discusses

    experiment with DR Dan Hooper.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Do they accelerate "resonances" in the collider or particles to crash into each other?

    They of course accelerate particles! It's all about what they measure during the collision with targets.


    But collisions only act on the shape/envelope of particles. Double axes 1x1 resonances (e.g. Ivelev) tell much more about the true structure.

  • This whole muon g/2 business becomes pretty hard to follow, with publications having dozens of co-authors ordered alphabetically, with the unintended result that the two major muon g/2 experiments are now by "Abi et al" (Fermi) and "Abe et al" (Japan)...

    Abi : Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm (April 2021)

    Abe : A new approach for measuring the muon anomalous magnetic moment and electric dipole moment (results in 2026)


    Then, hundreds of theoreticians get together to publish the definitive theoretical prediction for this value, only to see a rival group astutely timing a Nature article with a competing prediction, claiming everything can be explained with their theory...

    Aoyama : The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model

    Borsanyi : Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD


    In the meantime, all these models are built upon a "ramshackle structure" that was never meant to last, according to its co-inventor, Freeman Dyson. A most insightful summary of this space is by Consa : Something is Rotten in the state of QED, where the author expertly dissects the myth that the theory has ever had any true predictive power.

  • That happens when you build a nice, perky and elegant looking math model that you are certain “it must be how things are in nature”and then spent countless billions and a few decades to prove it was “right”. Somehow you have to prove it, no matter what, because the model is right, ain’t it?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Somehow you have to prove it, no matter what, because the model is right, ain’t it?

    Be aware: Most things you did learn in standard model physics classes will disappear sooner or later (might need many funerals..) . The original flaw goes back to Einstein with the anti symmetric stress energy tensor - later used in QED too. This idea just works for empty space but never for mass or any mass field interaction.

    This is just one, but basic, basic reason why QED/GR fail for mass like models...

  • Thrilling muon result shakes up physics


    Muons — massive, unstable cousins of the electron — seem to be more magnetic than the standard model of particle physics predicts. If this result holds up, it could ultimately force major changes in theoretical physics and reveal the existence of completely new fundamental particles. The Muon g – 2 experiment upheld sensational findings, first announced in 2001, that showed the muon’s magnetic moment — a measure of the magnetic field it generates — is slightly larger than theory had predicted. The results are “extremely encouraging” for those hoping to discover other particles, says physicist Susan Gardner.


    Nature | 6 min read

    Flummoxed? Physics magazine explains it in cartoon form.

  • In 1998, physicists at Brookhaven, including Dr. Polly, who was then a graduate student, set out to explore this cosmic ignorance by actually measuring g-2 and comparing it to predictions. The value of g they obtained disagreed with the Standard Model’s prediction by enough to excite the imaginations of physicists — but without enough certainty to claim a solid discovery. Moreover, experts could not agree on the Standard Model’s exact prediction, further muddying hopeful waters.


    Nothing actually changed from these days. Muon anomaly is composite effect of many small corrections, most of them are introduced arbitrarily, despite that they're already violate Standard model. This is just the problem with epicycle approach to physics: once you start with it, then you may actually never end with fitting data to experiments and occasional violations may never get revealed or confirmed with certainty.

    Quote

    The muon's magnetic moment fits just fine A new estimate of the strength of the sub-atomic particle's magnetic field aligns with the standard model of particle physics

    This just illustrates, that with using powerful-enough computers most of approximations (like the Lamb-shift and one/two loop corrections to Feynman diagrams) which already violate QED can be incorporated into it in such a way, this theory may not get actually violated.

  • Quote

    I think Siegel explains it very well in the Forbes article.

    Although this makes its magnetic moment comparatively smaller than the electron’s, it means that other contributions, particularly from the strong nuclear force, are far greater for the muon. Whereas the electron’s magnetic moment shows no mismatch between theory and experiment to better than 1-part-in-a-trillion, effects that would be imperceptible in the electron would show up in muon-containing experiments at about the 1-part-in-a-billion level.

    Strong force inside of muons? It applies to quarks, but muons don't have them. The g-2 stuff of muon are matter of QED, not QCD..

  • I checked, well , we are of course on a forum involving LENR field.

    Ok, Holmlild said his works are only classic fusion, however it appears as recently, that some links could appear with Lenr according to his main reporter here can.

    I could have the same reasoning with Muons.

    Nice to learn recent evolvements in this way but what 's about links between Lenr and Muons ??