>>12957905>Any thread about this shit should be purged until we have at least 5 sigma confidence for the data.no dude, at least it's actual news and actual scientific data, much better than the thousandth /pol/ - /leftypol/ race-bait thread and "let me disprove general relativity and QFT with an MS paint drawing and no maths" schizo autism
but yes, I agree that they should have waited for a higher standard for proof before publishing the data. I listened to parts of Fermi Lab's seminar on the first results from the experiment, and they're going to run the experiment 3 additional times, with big improvements on different sources of statistical uncertainty. All the data analysis should be finished in 2022. I'm not taking any sides on whether or not they have indeed discovered something significant. However, it is not an isolated experiment making a single, un-replicated measurement, but an attempt to replicate a similar experiment from 2002 with the same result of a higher precession of muons compared to what the standard model predicts. The discrepancy with SM predictions from the 2002 experiment was replicated here and this corroborates the hypothesis of it not being a simple statistical fluke. It needs a higher standard for proof, but it is already a very interesting result, which you should keep an eye on as new data will emerge.
Here is the link to Fermi Lab's seminar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81PfYnpuOPAIf you want direct explanations of what they're doing and why, without the pop-sci autism, watch the video.
the key point is:
-the sensitivity of a particle to virtual particles scales off the square of its mass.
This makes muons, 200 times more heavy than electron and charged (easy to accelerate and confine in a loop) great candidates for the detection of unknown particles and forces which would manifest themselves as virtual particles thanks to the uncertainty principle. (1/2)
