Second Particle Accelerator Test Suggests Lepton Decay Violation of Standard Model

This is actually the second test that had this result. Still the Scientists are very cautious and say even more tests will be needed to be certain. In my opinion when two different teams at two different world class facilities get the same result it is enough to say it loud and proud.

phys.org...

According to a Standard Model concept called "lepton universality," which assumes that leptons are treated equally by all fundamental forces, the decay to the tau lepton and the muon should both happen at the same rate, once corrected for their mass difference. However, the team found a small, but notable, difference in the predicted rates of decay, suggesting that as-yet undiscovered forces or particles could be interfering in the process.

and

"The experiments were done in totally different environments, but they reflect the same physical model. This replication provides an important independent check on the observations," explained study co-author Brian Hamilton, a physics research associate at UMD. "The added weight of two experiments is the key here. This suggests that it's not just an instrumental effect—it's pointing to real physics."

a reply to: stormbringer1701




Those scientists are breaking the law.

We need to stop them.

lol

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Funnily enough, I happen to perhaps hold the answer for this mysterious observation:

All particles are made of six preons. What we observe as "decay" is actually an exchange of preons, and what we observe as "generations" is actually a shift in the group-particle's direction relative to its momentum direction.

The reason why other generations of leptons decay differently from the first one is simply caused by the offset which these other generations have. The angle is causing a porportional shift in decay efficiency.

By the way nice find, S&F!

you think that's breaking the law? check this out!

phys.org...

this really is breakin' da law! think of all the weirdness this allows sneaking around under the nose of that pesky Conservation of this and that principle.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you think that's breaking the law? check this out!

phys.org...

Hm. A theory that accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiations? I admit I have reservations about that one. According to the author of the theory:

"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

I wonder if the author realizes that electrons do emit EM radiations when accelerated? And since a stable orbit does not qualify as an acceleration, then it explains why the electrons emits no photons then?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
you think that's breaking the law? check this out!

phys.org...

Hm. A theory that accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiations? I admit I have reservations about that one. According to the author of the theory:

"Ever since the beginning of quantum mechanics people have been looking for a configuration which could explain the stability of atoms and why orbiting electrons do not radiate," Dr Miroshnichenko said.

I wonder if the author realizes that electrons do emit EM radiations when accelerated? And since a stable orbit does not qualify as an acceleration, then it explains why the electrons emits no photons then?

i am pretty sure he is talking about a different type of radiation, though. there are lots of problems with electrons. like they should have infinite self energy, and due to thier orbital energy they should all frikasee every one and every thing. but with this they can have thier cake and eat it too. and also i think it means a lot of "you can't do that 'cos physics!" arguments get loop holes that satisfy the rulz but still bend the heck out of them.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Interesting read,thanks, F&S

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
There are lots of problems with electrons. like they should have infinite self energy

The speed of an electron is finite (1/137th the speed of light) and its mass is also finite (0.511 MeV) - therefore it is actually impossible for it to have infinite self energy.

and due to thier orbital energy they should all frikasee every one and every thing.

Not exactly - they are strong factors which prevents the electron from flying off.

and also i think it means a lot of "you can't do that 'cos physics!" arguments get loop holes that satisfy the rulz but still bend the heck out of them.

Well, I can certainly agree with that.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
There are lots of problems with electrons. like they should have infinite self energy

The speed of an electron is finite (1/137th the speed of light) and its mass is also finite (0.511 MeV) - therefore it is actually impossible for it to have infinite self energy.

and due to thier orbital energy they should all frikasee every one and every thing.

Not exactly - they are strong factors which prevents the electron from flying off.

and also i think it means a lot of "you can't do that 'cos physics!" arguments get loop holes that satisfy the rulz but still bend the heck out of them.

Well, I can certainly agree with that.

no the infinite self energy is not orbital
it's from modeling the electron and quanticizing it from maxwel to QED. it is often modeled as a cloud of dust made of charged particles. the infinite self energy comes from the fact that to keep it from "pewfing" requires infinite energy.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Seems to me like a problem of model more than of observation.

Remember that modern models picture the electrons as wavefunctions. If one considers the mechanism of pair production from a vacuum, then one can easily explain why electron's existence does not require infinite energy.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Seems to me like a problem of model more than of observation.

Remember that modern models picture the electrons as wavefunctions. If one considers the mechanism of pair production from a vacuum, then one can easily explain why electron's existence does not require infinite energy.

no its actually that before renormalization none of our foundational physics makes any sense. it's not the models. did ja know that in order for the standard model to work out at all it has to begin with all particles have negative energy and mass? yeah. and it is gotten ridof by a mathematical trick. before that no one had any idea how to make it even resemble reality.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Seems to me like a problem of model more than of observation.

Remember that modern models picture the electrons as wavefunctions. If one considers the mechanism of pair production from a vacuum, then one can easily explain why electron's existence does not require infinite energy.

no its actually that before renormalization none of our foundational physics makes any sense. it's not the models. did ja know that in order for the standard model to work out at all it has to begin with all particles have negative energy and mass? yeah. and it is gotten ridof by a mathematical trick. before that no one had any idea how to make it even resemble reality.

Nerd fight!



Seriously though, nice thread!

It means what they said, that there are undiscovered particles interfering with the decay rates.

Nothing to do with disproving standard model. The standard model allows them to make this prediction so it is alive and well.

Sorry to burst your stick it to the establishment bubble, but this thread title is misleading or imo, down right dishonest.

Oh well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Maybe they are leprechauns instead of Leptons.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It means what they said, that there are undiscovered particles interfering with the decay rates.

Nothing to do with disproving standard model. The standard model allows them to make this prediction so it is alive and well.

Sorry to burst your stick it to the establishment bubble, but this thread title is misleading or imo, down right dishonest.

who said that any discovery completely abolishes it predecessor theory? did relativity abolish newton? what this does is show that the standard model does not describe what is going on in leptons and that therefore there is some new physics going on in at least that blind spot. and it is such blind spots that allow for new physics. just like that discovery about electron field configuration does.

It's not dishonest it's how physics or anything else progresses.

and here is the paper on that non radiating electron thingy: www.nature.com...

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
no its actually that before renormalization none of our foundational physics makes any sense. it's not the models. did ja know that in order for the standard model to work out at all it has to begin with all particles have negative energy and mass? yeah. and it is gotten ridof by a mathematical trick. before that no one had any idea how to make it even resemble reality.

Iv done some fairly detailed courses on the standard model and it's history and iv never heard this before... please explain? Because i am fairly sure this is not the case.

If you are talking about Dirac's sea and negative energy... its not quite the same thing, the concept of anti-particles does not require negative energy or mass.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Hang on, hang on...

(checks bible)

Nope, that's not listed in there, so... it can't be real.

(snaps bible closed with bang)

Case closed. Silly scientists and their "experiments". When will they learn...

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
no its actually that before renormalization none of our foundational physics makes any sense. it's not the models. did ja know that in order for the standard model to work out at all it has to begin with all particles have negative energy and mass? yeah. and it is gotten ridof by a mathematical trick. before that no one had any idea how to make it even resemble reality.

Iv done some fairly detailed courses on the standard model and it's history and iv never heard this before... please explain? Because i am fairly sure this is not the case.

If you are talking about Dirac's sea and negative energy... its not quite the same thing, the concept of anti-particles does not require negative energy or mass.

I'll see if i can find the online version. it's from a science historian at UC fullerton. probably elsewhere also. if i find an online source i will post it.

some of the necessary historical background is unavailable in this but some of what is involved is mentioned in this excerpt:

books.google.com... =en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMI--DgpJHMxwIVRI8NCh0o2Amd#v=onepage&q=ADM%20Electron%20modeling&f=false

and from da wiki:

Negative bare mass of the electron[edit]
The mass contributed to the total mass of the electron by the cloud of virtual photons, by Einstein's second law, is positive, so the bare mass of the electron is necessarily less than its observed mass. Since the virtual photons have energies greater than twice the electron mass, so they can make the electron-positron pairs needed for charge renormalization, then the bare mass of the source electron must be negative.[24][25][26]

and in QED the math only works out if the sources side of the equation is given a negative sign. this is eliminated by the renormalization procedure. which makes the equations work out right but it's hardly descriptive of a physical process or law.