Experiment Confirms a Crucial Property of Electrons, Unfortunately

Gizmodo ^ | 10 Oct, 2017 | Ryan F. Mandelbaum

[MtnClimber]

When it comes to physics, fewer things are more exciting than proving something wrong. Proving theories wrong has led to entirely new fields of study. The fruits that come from wrongness can be so rewarding that scientists devote a considerable amount of time to probing well-known theories, hoping to find a crack.

But a team of JILA physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado, Boulder is reporting that, once again, the theory was right—specifically, the Standard Model of particle physics and its prediction of just how spherical the distribution of an electron’s charge really is. Researchers haven’t gotten their experiments down to the sensitivities of the theory yet, but they’re getting closer. This leaves less room for deviation and less room for more interesting things they were hoping to see beyond the Standard Model.

“We know that the Standard Model can’t be completely correct, said William Cairncross, a Ph.D student at the University of Colorado Boulder, in an interview with Gizmodo. “There are things that we see in the large-scale universe that can’t be explained, like different amounts of matter and antimatter or things like dark matter and dark energy.”

In this specific case, the researchers are aware that an asymmetry in how the electron’s electric charge is distributed means it should behave differently forwards versus backwards in time, said Cairncross. They’re hoping to find this asymmetry so that, in a circuitous way, it could help explain other mysteries of the Universe, like why even though every kind of particle has an antiparticle, scientists still observe way more regular matter than antimatter. Unfortunately, the scientists who performed this latest experiment still did not uncover the desired asymmetry.

Electrons are single points without a real size,

[MtnClimber]

The Standard Model is surprisingly accurate.

[Raycpa]

“Proving theories wrong has led to entirely new fields of study”

Unless you’re talking climate science.

[Hootowl]

But...but that was settled science!

[farming pharmer]

The Standard Model is surprisingly accurate.

So was Newton's until Einstein came along.

[MtnClimber]

Climate change is an anti-civilization religion of the left. Those in this religion do not believe data or real science. They do believe in repressing advanced society.

[eyedigress]

Help me out here Climber.

I’m going out to the sub-ether. How does a wave always match polarity guidance regardless of bounce or distance?

[eyedigress]

I speak of the + vs - effect and it always works?

[eyedigress]

I vision a round polarity that matches my radio waves.

[MtnClimber]

I took a class in wave particle duality in college, but that was long ago and I do not know the details of current research.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Climate science is only a conjecture.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

I wonder what Dr. Sheldon Cooper has to say about this.

[BenLurkin]

Didn’t the recent Higgs Boson particulars show that it has an unaddressed discrepancy?

[plsjr]

It’s just another step in the process ...

(see tag)

[eyedigress]

I’ll share something with you.

There is NO calculation that explains the reason why it works.

[TigersEye]

You beat me to it.

Proving theories wrong has led to entirely new fields of study. The fruits that come from wrongness can be so rewarding that scientists devote a considerable amount of time to probing well-known theories, hoping to find a crack.

None of the above applies the the #FakeScience of Climate Change.

[Moonman62]

So was Newton’s until Einstein came along.

...

Or until somebody noticed Mercury’s orbit wasn’t what it was predicted to be.

This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit was first recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier. His reanalysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun’s disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton’s theory by 38 (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43” by Simon Newcomb in 1882).

[libh8er]

You could call climate change Islam and it would basically mean the same thing.

[ctdonath2]

Everybody wants to be the next Einstein.

[FredZarguna]

I can't put my finger on my notes at the moment, but I believe James Clerk Maxwell had already fired the first salvos against Newtonian Physics a few years before that. Very close to 1859, it became obvious before Maxwell first published his unified theory of the electromagnetic field that electromagnetic induction was what would later come to be known as Lorentz Invariant and that Newtonian Mechanics was not.

There was even a period before the Special Theory of Relativity when physicists would say "everything obeys Newtonian mechanics, except for electric current."