More results from the big Hadron Collider point to the whole new physics

Update (24 March 2021): Large Hadron Collider Beauty (LHCB) is still insisting that there are no flaws in our best model of particle physics.

As explained below, previous results comparing the standard M from Dale’s expected collision data created a bizarre discrepancy by almost standard deviations, but we need a lot more information for confidence to see if it really reflects something new in physics.

Newly published data has now brought us closer to confidence, putting the results at .1 sigma; There is still 1 in 1,000 possibilities that the result of physics just what we are seeing is just erratic, and there is no new law or particle. Read our original coverage below to know all the details.

Original (31 August Gust 2018): Previous experiments using CERN’s super-sized particle-smasher, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), hinted at something unexpected. A particle called Beauty Mason was crashing with predictions that just didn’t match the predictions.

That means one of two things – our predictions are wrong, or the numbers are out. And a new approach underestimates the possibility that observations are just a coincidence, which start to excite scientists.

A small group of physicists took data on the disruption of the Beauty Mason (or B Mason for short), and examined if they changed an assumption regarding its decay that assumed interactions were still occurring after the change.

The results were more than a few surprises. The alternative approach is to dub that something really weird is happening.

In physics, inconsistencies are generally seen as good things. Strange things. Unexpected numbers can be a window into a whole new way of looking at physics, but physicists are also skeptical – you Is While the fundamental laws of the universe are at stake.

So while the experimental results do not exactly match the theory, the first is supposed to be a random bulp in the statistical chaos of a complex test. If the follow-up experiment shows the same thing, it is still considered to be ‘one of them’.

But after enough experiments, enough data can be collected to compare the probability of errors with the possibility of a new interesting discovery. If an unexpected result differs from the result predicted by at least three standard deviations, it is called a sigma, and allows physicists to see the result when they are waving enthusiastically with their eyebrows. It becomes observation.

To really attract attention, there should be discrepancies when there is enough data to push this difference to five standard deviations: 5 Sigma event is the reason for breaking champagne.

For many years, LHC has been used to create particles called masons, with the purpose of seeing what happens in the moments after its birth.

Masons are a type of drone with something like protons. Instead of incorporating three quarters into a stable structure under strong interactions, it is made up of only two – a quark and an anticark.

Even the most stable masons separate after a hundredth of a second. The framework we use to describe the construction and decay of particles – the standard model – describes what we should look for when different masons are split.

Beauty Mason is a down quark attached to a down anti quark. When microscopic properties are combined in a microscopic model, B-Mason produces decay, electron and positron, or electron-like muns and its opposite, anti-muon pairs.

The electron or mun result should be 50-50. But that’s not what we’re looking at. The results show more of electron-positron products than mun-anti-munus.

It is worth noting this. But when the sum of the results is kept ahead of the prediction of the standard model, it comes out through some standard deviations. If we consider the other effects, it could be even more – a real break from our models.

But how confident can we be that these results reflect reality, and are not just part of the sound of the experiment? Significance is shorter than the sigma of 5, which means that there is a risk that the distance from the standard model is not interesting after all.

The Standard Model Dell is a great piece of work. Formed over many decades on the basis of field principles first directed by the brilliant Scottish theorist James Clark M. Xwell, it serves as a map of the invisible field of many new particles.

But it’s not perfect. There are things we have seen in nature – from dark matter to neutrinos – that seem to be beyond the reach of the standard model structure at present.

In moments like this, physicists tweak the basic assumptions on the model Dell and see if it works better to explain what we see.

“In previous calculations, it was assumed that when Mason disintegrates, there is no further interaction between its products,” said Danny van Dyke, a physicist at the University of Zurich, in 2018.

“In our latest calculations we’ve included an additional effect: long-distance effects called charm-loops.”

The details of this effect are not for the amateur, and it is not a fairly standard model material.

In short, it involves the complex interactions of virtual particles – particles that can’t last long enough to go anywhere, but theoretically arise in the fluctuations of quantum uncertainty – and after splitting between decay products they split.

Interestingly, the significance of the discrepancy reaches 6/6 sigma by explaining the breakdown of the masons through this speculative charm loop.

Despite the jump, it’s not yet a champagne affair. More work needs to be done, including observations in the light of this new process.

“We will have enough money in two or three years to confirm the existence of incompatibility with reliability,” said Markin Krozzcz of the University of Zurich in 2018. (As you know, it’s 2021 and we’re not quite there yet, but we’re getting closer.)

If confirmed, it would show sufficient flexibility in the standard model to extend its limitations, potentially paving the way in new areas of physics.

It’s a small crack, and still won’t turn anything around. But no one said it would be easy to solve the biggest mysteries in the universe.

The 2018 study was published European Physical Journal c; The 2021 results are awaiting peer-review, but researchers are available to check on the archive.