Tech News

The “Final Hope” Test for Evidence of Uncertainty


The Theory Initiative decided not to include the price of BMW in their official proposal for a number of reasons. The data-driven approach had a slight error, and three independent research groups calculated the same. In contrast, BMW’s lattice counts were not published as last summer. And while the results are consistent with the original, the definitive residual calculation that was re-emerged, has not been answered independently by another group correctly.

The Theory Initiative hypothesis meant that the hypothetical hypothesis of muon electromagnetic force had a 3.7-sigma difference with Brookhaven experimental measurement. It has established a segment of what has been the most anticipated revelation in small particles since the Higgs boson in 2012.


One month ago, the Fermilab Muon g-2 team announced it would release its first results on April 7. Physical particles were taken. Laura Baudis, a scientist at the University of Zurich, said he was “counting the days,” after waiting for 20 years for the results.

And if not – if the error is gone – some physicists fear “the end of physics,” Stöckinger said. The Fermilab g-2 trial is “our ultimate hope of testing that truly proves that physics has exceeded the standard,” he said. If not, most researchers would think that “now we have failed and we will do something other than exploring physics beyond measure.” He added, “Honestly, maybe I can do something about it.”

A group of 200 Fermilab members revealed their results six weeks ago at a Zoom event. Tammy Walton, a scientist at the club, rushed home to show off the show after working on a night shift, which is the fourth. (This new review explains the original origins, which make up 6 percent of what the experiment will find.) When the most important number appeared on the screen, pre-arranged along with prediction of Theory Initiative and Brookhaven measure, Walton was thrilled to see it higher than the old and more beautiful above it. “People will be crazy happy,” he said.

Papers describing various ideas of new physics are expected to flood Arxiv in the coming days. Furthermore, the future is uncertain. What used to be the difference between assumptions and experiments is covered by the temporary deterioration of calculations.

It’s possible that computer calculations could be wrong — that BMW ignored some of the errors. “We need to look at the statistics,” said El-Khadra, emphasizing that it is too early to find solid answers. “We need ways to make this happen, and we need to understand how they too have changed the way it has broken them down.”

That would be good news for lovers of new science.

Interestingly, although the intervention method is a method with an unknown underlying problem, theorists struggle to understand a problem that may be other than the unknown — of new science. “The need for new physics is just moving elsewhere,” he said Martin Hoferichter of Bern University, senior member of Theory Initiative.

Researchers who have been researching potential problems with data management for the past year say the same could not be true. It comes from the 30th century of the ultraprecise revolution of 35 hadronic process. But “it may be that what is said, or how it is interpreted, is misleading,” he said. Andreas Crivellin of CERN and other organizations, coauthor (along with Hoferichter) of one sheet learning this ability.


Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button