• Emmie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Do these things actually exist or are they the best matching set of equations

      • Emmie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Did they observe them or measured effects of their hypothetical properties?

        • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          …Cristina Lazzeroni of the University of Birmingham in the UK and her colleagues have now established, experimentally observed, and measured the decay of a charged kaon particle into a charged pion and a neutrino-antineutrino pair.

          Feel free to actually read the article if more clarification is needed.

          • Emmie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            experimentally observed - yes this is the crux of the philosophical issue that makes me unable to sleep. Real or an illusion of something else altogether

            Do the things we measure are real or are just the symptoms

            • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              14 hours ago

              When you’re dealing with particle physics, unless I’m mistaken, the term “experimentally observed” means “non-wild” or “controlled environment observation” and is interchangeable with “observed” as in non-particle physics.

              Humans can’t physically observe subatomic particles, nor can we (at current) capture real-time video or anything of them. We observe the measurements and math from designed and run experientns, and present the finding we make on those events. I’m not sure we’ll have any kind of technology to catch an observation in the wild in our lifetimes.

                • just_another_person@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  Well the things themselves are real. What they e just observed about them changing states is the new part. They will present their findings, wait for peer review, and we’ll see if what they observed checks out.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    I tried reading, then simply skimming, but this is over my head and I didn’t think I could get through it comfortably. I was hoping for a paragraph that summed up a simple explanation, but if there was one, it was further in than I got. Can anyone summarize for dummies what this means for our understanding of physics?

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      There’s a particular particle, the kaon, which can be created. This particle is highly unstable, and so, decays rapidly into other particles. Ever so often, it doesn’t decay down the normal route but instead decays into a pion. This is extremely rare (6 in a billion).

      In physics, we have what’s called the “standard model”. It’s our best guess as to how physics works at the fundamental level. It’s incomplete, however, with multiple slight variations. This decay pathway is interesting because it is quite sensitive to differences between these models. By measuring the energy and ratio of the resulting mess, we can disguard some variants of the model (their predicted energy is too high or too low).

      By using a large number of little measurements, like this, scientists can home in on the most accurate “standard model” variant. This, in turn, informs work on a deeper understanding of physics.

      Basically, a decade’s work to put a single new point onto a graph. A point that only theoretical physicists care about, and might, or might not be useful down the line. Welcome to modern physics.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        To be fair those single points are important, they’ve led to things like nuclear energy and modern computers… come to think of it a lot of our modern technology is rather like the physics equivelent of exploiting an extreme edge case in a game physics engine.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I fully agree. It’s more the frustration that it now takes so much time and resources to make even a tiny bit of headway.

          My favourite example of why pure research is useful, however, is the laser. When it was invented, they had no clue what it could be useful for. It was the classic “solution looking for a problem”. It was a fun quirk of quantum mechanics that allowed thek to function. Now, they are critical in multiple areas, but for business and research.

    • BigAssFan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s just the creation of particles with an ultra-short lifespan, which then decay into other particles. Only there are more of this type than expected, but still within the tolerance of what the theory predicts. Additional tests are needed to say anything conclusive. That’s just what they normally like to do at CERN, they’re quite good at it. They also started the world wide web, back in the day.

  • rah@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    The number of kaon to pion and neutrino/antineutrino decays the team observed is higher than the 8.4 per 100 billion predicted by the Standard Model, but it’s still within the uncertainty parameters.

    So then how the fuck does that hint at new physics? Idiots.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        “One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.” ― James D. Watson, The Double Helix

        • thefluffiest@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          There’s many things in which we shouldn’t take scientists at their word indeed, but in their own field there’s a good chance they have something useful to say

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            in their own field there’s a good chance they have something useful to say

            Pity this press release wasn’t one of them.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The basic procedure at CERN is that in order to be certain about something that’s super random is to conduct the experiment trillions of times until you get a couple thousand events and you get to beat down your error. If they startseeing something, it’ll still take them a couple of years of data to prove it past their uncertainty requirements.

    • benignintervention@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      They demonstrated the event to five sigma certainty, which is significant, but it’s within the uncertainty in the standard model. If they can demonstrate the same or similar things to greater exactness, it could guide research that changes the standard model

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’re just repeating the article. Nothing you said contradicts what I said.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I thought you were legitimately confused

            I’m just curious: if I had been confused, what were you expecting would have happen if you simply repeated what the article had already stated without adding anything?

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Ultra-rare” means

    The number of kaon to pion and neutrino/antineutrino decays the team observed is higher than the 8.4 per 100 billion predicted by the Standard Model, but it’s still within the uncertainty parameters.

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    will this discovery make it easier for me to get isekai’d into another world where I’m the hero that’s going to save the world with my big d magic skillz?

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    CERN confirms ultra-rare particle transformation.

    Three Body Problem:
    Scientists commit suicide.

    IRL:
    Scientists get super stoked about “new physics”.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Wasn’t the whole thing about the scientists in the Three Body Problem that they recognised that their work was being sabotaged by something enormously more powerful?

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        No. The scientists do not figure out that things are being meddled with until much later. The scientist suicides, especially the daughter of the woman who invites the aliens, committed suicide because everything they knew about physics had been “proven incorrect”. It was all a lie, but they didn’t know that.

          • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Actually, I think your take would have made more sense. It never sat well with me that scientists would resort to suicide because they found something they could not explain…yet.

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Maybe that’s why I misremembered it. I agree, it does seem like the exact opposite to what scientists actually do upon finding something they can’t explain