Cosmology News Physics

Subatomic particles could defy standard model?

Spread the love
LHCb experiment/CERN/LHCb

From ScienceDaily:

Subatomic particles could defy standard model?

The researchers looked at B meson decays, processes that produce lighter particles, including two types of leptons: the tau lepton and the muon. Unlike their stable lepton cousin, the electron, tau leptons and muons are highly unstable and quickly decay within a fraction of a second.

According to a Standard Model concept called “lepton universality,” which assumes that leptons are treated equally by all fundamental forces, the decay to the tau lepton and the muon should both happen at the same rate, once corrected for their mass difference. However, the team found a small, but notable, difference in the predicted rates of decay, suggesting that as-yet undiscovered forces or particles could be interfering in the process.

“The Standard Model says the world interacts with all leptons in the same way. There is a democracy there. But there is no guarantee that this will hold true if we discover new particles or new forces,” said study co-author and UMD team lead Hassan Jawahery, Distinguished University Professor of Physics and Gus T. Zorn Professor at UMD. “Lepton universality is truly enshrined in the Standard Model. If this universality is broken, we can say that we’ve found evidence for non-standard physics.” More.

As long as they are not claiming that all reality happens this way, we are cool with it.

See also: The trouble with cosmology these days.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Subatomic particles could defy standard model?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Wasn’t it a similar sort of discrepancy that led Pauli to postulate the existence of the neutrino? All material so far.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Wasn’t it a similar sort of discrepancy that led Pauli to postulate the existence of the neutrino? All material so far.

    You mean the same Pauli who considered neo-Darwinian evolution to be ‘not even wrong’*?

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

    also see entry 6 in the following article on Pauli’s rejection of Darwinian evolution

    Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution – VJTorley – 2012
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Of note:

    * The phrase “not even wrong” describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
    The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    Physics seeks to break its Standard Model, Evo Bio seeks to prop up their Standard Model.

    One is Good Science, one is Cargo Cult Science.

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    The Standard Model is on its death bed. Physicists have known of other things that challenge the model but they’ve kept quiet about it. It’s always about politics in science. For example, there is strong evidence that, contrary to the Standard Model, which requires the electron to be a pure elementary particle, the electron actually has four strongly bound constituents, each with a quarter charge. Source: Observation of a quarter of an electron charge at the nu = 5/2 quantum Hall state.

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    ppolish:

    Physics seeks to break its Standard Model, Evo Bio seeks to prop up their Standard Model.

    Only in certain subfields. In others, such as General Relativity, they have refused to budge even though the evidence against the spacetime model is overwhelming. Black holes, time travel, big bangs and wormholes sell a lot of books, I guess. Don’t kill the golden goose and all that.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    In modern materialism there are no such things as particles. Or atoms. Or the void. And it’s not space and time, it’s space-time.

    IDiots.

Leave a Reply