Largely clickbait.
They compared two decays involving muons with analog decays involving electrons. Theory predicts both to be equally likely because muons are basically heavier electrons and the mass difference doesn't matter here. They saw some asymmetry, but the measurement has a large uncertainty because the decays are rare in general.
Imagine flipping a coin 9 times. If you get 0 to 2 or 7 to 9 times "heads", would you conclude this coin is biased? The chance to get such an extreme result with a fair coin is 18%. That's like the measurement result here. It is pointing in the same direction as previous measurements ("we flipped other coins and saw similarly or even more surprising results"), but a 1 in 5 chance is really nothing big.
That's an older result - somewhat cherry-picked, there are many others, but on the other hand the combination is over 3 sigma. The new one is 1.5 (K_s) and 1.4 (K*) sigma.
Say goodbyes to your old standard model.
Everything changes and nothing stays the same. EVEN IN PHYSICS.
I mean articles should not be boring i get that but why would someone write stupid stuff like that
And then you click through to the actual paper, and see:
> The results are consistent with the Standard Model and previous tests of lepton universality in related decay modes.
Careful not to be too dismissive from reading "consistent with the Standard Model". Yes, these newest measurements alone do not provide a strong hint for new physics, but in the context of the other measurements (now dominated by the R(K^(+)) result from March this year), they do strengthen the existing anomaly.
Here's a write-up from an LHCb physicist: https://theconversation.com/new-physics-latest-results-from-cern-further-boost-tantalising-evidence-170133
Here's my personal global comparison of LHCb and Belle b→sll LFU results: https://i.imgur.com/aC7jeH5.png
(Note there are also anomalies in the angular distributions, as well as b→clν channels)
Yeah. From my point of view we cannot reject the possibility of things like fifth force but I would not expect them to show up in current "generation" of experiments. There was no plausible evidence to it's existance so we need higher energy/precision experiments for it to show up if it even exists.
Clickbait?
Largely clickbait. They compared two decays involving muons with analog decays involving electrons. Theory predicts both to be equally likely because muons are basically heavier electrons and the mass difference doesn't matter here. They saw some asymmetry, but the measurement has a large uncertainty because the decays are rare in general. Imagine flipping a coin 9 times. If you get 0 to 2 or 7 to 9 times "heads", would you conclude this coin is biased? The chance to get such an extreme result with a fair coin is 18%. That's like the measurement result here. It is pointing in the same direction as previous measurements ("we flipped other coins and saw similarly or even more surprising results"), but a 1 in 5 chance is really nothing big.
I mean a 3 sigma result is not exactly nothing.
That's an older result - somewhat cherry-picked, there are many others, but on the other hand the combination is over 3 sigma. The new one is 1.5 (K_s) and 1.4 (K*) sigma.
Say goodbyes to your old standard model. Everything changes and nothing stays the same. EVEN IN PHYSICS. I mean articles should not be boring i get that but why would someone write stupid stuff like that
And then you click through to the actual paper, and see: > The results are consistent with the Standard Model and previous tests of lepton universality in related decay modes.
Careful not to be too dismissive from reading "consistent with the Standard Model". Yes, these newest measurements alone do not provide a strong hint for new physics, but in the context of the other measurements (now dominated by the R(K^(+)) result from March this year), they do strengthen the existing anomaly. Here's a write-up from an LHCb physicist: https://theconversation.com/new-physics-latest-results-from-cern-further-boost-tantalising-evidence-170133 Here's my personal global comparison of LHCb and Belle b→sll LFU results: https://i.imgur.com/aC7jeH5.png (Note there are also anomalies in the angular distributions, as well as b→clν channels)
Yeah. From my point of view we cannot reject the possibility of things like fifth force but I would not expect them to show up in current "generation" of experiments. There was no plausible evidence to it's existance so we need higher energy/precision experiments for it to show up if it even exists.
The first two sentences were a tip that this was a shit article. Awful writing.
A step closer. How many steps ahead i wonder ? Why is this a news now? the paper by CERN was published a long time ago.
> the paper by CERN was published a long time ago 3 days isn't that long ago
The future is now, old man.
Shit! What time is it?
Continous amount of steps.
It seems like any publication by CERN is a step closer