31–40 of 301 posts
What is everyones favorite book on quantum mechanics (I would love understand more of the 3 generations of matter)?
Mine is Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics." But it sounds like you're really asking which book would be good for you to learn about quantum mechanics and also the Standard Model of particle physics.
The Quanta write up is a bit more neutral on this announcement. There is a computational result that was not included in the theoretical value used to bench the test against. Once reviewed, this difference may yet go back to oblivion. https://www.quantamagazine.org/muon-g-2-experiment-at-fermil...
The Quanta article explains it quite nicely. To quote their example of what has happened in the past:
> ”A year after Brookhaven’s headline-making measurement, theorists spotted a mistake in the prediction. A formula representing one group of the tens of thousands of quantum fluctuations that muons can engage in contained a rogue minus sign; fixing it in the calculation reduced the difference between theory and experiment to just two sigma. That’s nothing to get excited about.”
What is everyones favorite book on quantum mechanics (I would love understand more of the 3 generations of matter)?
And it's probably not a great beginner's text, even though it's really good.
The Quanta write up is a bit more neutral on this announcement. There is a computational result that was not included in the theoretical value used to bench the test against. Once reviewed, this difference may yet go back to oblivion. https://www.quantamagazine.org/muon-g-2-experiment-at-fermil...
https://mobile.twitter.com/dangaristo/status/137982536595107...
From Gordan Krnjaic at Fermilab:
> if the lattice result [new approach] is mathematically sound then there would have to be some as yet unknown correlated systematic error in many decades worth of experiments that have studied e+e- annihilation to hadrons
> alternatively, it could mean that the theoretical techniques that map the experimental data onto the g-2 prediction could be subtly wrong for currently unknown reasons, but I have not heard of anyone making this argument in the literature
https://mobile.twitter.com/GordanKrnjaic/status/137984412453...
With 19 free parameters in the standard model, can't they fit any experimental result by adjusting a "constant"?
I know a bit about how it is reconceptualized as space-time deformation in the context of general relativity, but that's about it.
It just seems like one of those inherently anthropocentric concepts that (potentially) holds us back from exploring something different?
With 19 free parameters in the standard model, can't they fit any experimental result by adjusting a "constant"?
Sure they can fit any experimental result that way, they can probably fit any 19 experimental results that way, but in general if you would freely adjust a constant to fit one experiment then it would stop fitting other experiments.