The long-awaited first results from the Muon g-2 experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory show fundamental particles called muons behaving in a way that is not predicted by scientists’ best theory, the Standard Model of particle physics. This landmark result, made with unprecedented precision, confirms a discrepancy that has been gnawing at researchers for decades. The strong evidence that muons deviate from the Standard Model calculation might hint at exciting new physics. Muons act as a window into the subatomic world and could be interacting with yet undiscovered particles or forces. “Today is an extraordinary day, long awaited not only by us but by the whole international physics community,” said Graziano Venanzoni, co-spokesperson of the Muon g-2 experiment and physicist at the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics. “A large amount of credit goes to our young researchers who, with their talent, ideas and enthusiasm, have allowed us to achieve this incredible result.” https://news.fnal.gov/2021/04/first-results-from-fermilabs-muon-g-2-experiment-strengthen-evidence-of-new-physics/
thumb_up6thumb_downchat_bubble

More from Swiss Libertarian

Amazing how much energy an electric field can transfer even from this kind of small copper coil https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/779481997104914450?referrer=SMetzeler

119 views · May 3rd
I post this article here in the Science section, because the exact same problem affecting the publication of articles in philosophy journals and their peer review process affects scientific journals: ---------- Last month we had a very active post with readers submitting their “Philosophy Journal Horror Stories.” The following story, recounted by Nathan Salmon (UCSB), fits well with that collection. In a public post on Facebook, he writes: I received an anonymous referee report that emphatically rejected my classification of a particular contemporary philosopher as one among several who do not endorse certain views that have been attributed to them by some careless readers. The referee authoritatively declared—without a shred of textual support, yet without a trace of tentativeness—that the philosopher in question very definitely holds the views in question. So confident is the referee in fact that they declared my interpretation to be disingenuous—either that or naïve. The contemporary philosopher whose views are in dispute: Nathan Salmon. I had referred to myself in the third person for the purpose of blind review. Because of the sheer volume of submissions in analytic philosophy, any referee for a journal submission is effectively given unilateral veto power over that submission, under the full protection of professional anonymity. In my experience, the current dysfunction in the peer-review system in analytic philosophy is due in large measure, but not entirely, to simple professional incompetence, often combined with arrogance. It is also due largely to widespread serious misunderstanding of the reviewer’s assigned task, which is not to declare whether the work under review has persuaded the reviewer to relinquish their prior theoretical stance, but to make a professional assessment with regard to merit and suitability. There is also the unfortunate tendency among some to troll, especially if that can be done anonymously. Worst of all, the dysfunction is also due partly to professional abuse of the veto power for the purpose of suppression, to protect the reviewer against published criticism or to influence the narrative in the reviewer’s favor. The system of peer review in analytic philosophy is badly broken and needs to be re-imagined.
83 views · Apr 28th

This explains the climate hoax, the Wuhan virus fascism etc. to perfection!

13 views · Apr 22nd

More from Swiss Libertarian

Amazing how much energy an electric field can transfer even from this kind of small copper coil https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/779481997104914450?referrer=SMetzeler

119 views · May 3rd
I post this article here in the Science section, because the exact same problem affecting the publication of articles in philosophy journals and their peer review process affects scientific journals: ---------- Last month we had a very active post with readers submitting their “Philosophy Journal Horror Stories.” The following story, recounted by Nathan Salmon (UCSB), fits well with that collection. In a public post on Facebook, he writes: I received an anonymous referee report that emphatically rejected my classification of a particular contemporary philosopher as one among several who do not endorse certain views that have been attributed to them by some careless readers. The referee authoritatively declared—without a shred of textual support, yet without a trace of tentativeness—that the philosopher in question very definitely holds the views in question. So confident is the referee in fact that they declared my interpretation to be disingenuous—either that or naïve. The contemporary philosopher whose views are in dispute: Nathan Salmon. I had referred to myself in the third person for the purpose of blind review. Because of the sheer volume of submissions in analytic philosophy, any referee for a journal submission is effectively given unilateral veto power over that submission, under the full protection of professional anonymity. In my experience, the current dysfunction in the peer-review system in analytic philosophy is due in large measure, but not entirely, to simple professional incompetence, often combined with arrogance. It is also due largely to widespread serious misunderstanding of the reviewer’s assigned task, which is not to declare whether the work under review has persuaded the reviewer to relinquish their prior theoretical stance, but to make a professional assessment with regard to merit and suitability. There is also the unfortunate tendency among some to troll, especially if that can be done anonymously. Worst of all, the dysfunction is also due partly to professional abuse of the veto power for the purpose of suppression, to protect the reviewer against published criticism or to influence the narrative in the reviewer’s favor. The system of peer review in analytic philosophy is badly broken and needs to be re-imagined.
83 views · Apr 28th

This explains the climate hoax, the Wuhan virus fascism etc. to perfection!

13 views · Apr 22nd