Huge Physics Anomaly Finally Put to Test, But That Just Makes it More Confusing

[@msromike123]

"Physicists are still extremely confused, but now with more expensive equipment." Classic.

[@synaxarion]

😂😂😂

[@sameerpuranik9144]

😂😂😂 I guess they don't have ROI on the experiments costs incurred as in engineering field.

[@spaceinyourface]

Name 1 who is ?

[@javahaxxor]

😂😂😂

[@paullee9240]

😅😂🤣

[@alieninmybeverage]

Did you just reject the rejection at low confidence with low confidence?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

good summary!

[@aguspuig6615]

@@SabineHossenfelder What would that be like an acceptance with low confidence? I dont know science words

[@jeremywilliams5107]

​@aguspuig6615 we have low confidence in being able to explain it. IMHO one of the best introductions to the subject comes from a children's book: _One day, when Pooh bear was just walking along the bridge with a fir cone in his paw, in his own world, not looking where he was going (probably thinking about honey), he tripped over something. This made the fir-cone jerk out of his paw into the river. "Bother", said Pooh, as it floated slowly under the bridge. So Pooh went to get another fir cone, but then thought that he would just look at the river instead, because it was a peaceful sort of day. So, he lay down and looked at it, and it slipped slowly away beneath him, and suddenly, there was his fir-cone slipping away too. 'That's funny,' said Pooh. 'I dropped it on the other side,' said Pooh, 'and it came out on this side! I wonder if it would do it again?'_ It's this " I wonder if it would do it again" that underlies experimental physics. Something that happens only once doesn't usually count. Something that can be reproduced is considered science or knowledge. Between the two, there is an increasing level of confidence that we know what's going on.

[@doublepinger]

@@aguspuig6615 In Statistics 101, There's different "Types" of outcomes for accepting / rejecting a hypothesis by comparing it to the 'standard' that there's _no_ deviation, and you're trying to refute that. Type I and Type II errors are them, with Type I errors being a "false positive" aka "guilty because you couldn't prove them innocent". Sabine's critique was worded in a way, possibly confusing, to a layperson, where the tests and statements are a bit blended. IF there's new physics, paper 2 needed a bigger deviation to show it wasn't an experimental issue. Quite rightly, she uses the lack of review on the review (sigh) to state that if new physics are present or not, we want more significance period to make a good statement, and that if the test results get 'stuck' at a certain significance, that's a bad thing. Greater deviation, more significance -> we reject the null hypothesis. Less deviation, greater significance -> we fail to reject the null hypothesis. She raises a nice point the values of the other paper seem "just right" to explain a weird curve, so hopefully we get more data and reproducible calculations. With most of these things, anomalies are usually explained and the only places left to hide are in bigger particle accelerators or bigger telescopes.

[@zoltanlovasz1681]

I can confirm this with high confidence.

[@the10thplague]

Numerical results that don't publish the underlying code are extremely suspicious to me. A software error is easy to make and can have far-reaching consequences on the result.

[@edwardmacnab354]

Open Science would improve on that . Then anyone could pore over your work looking for mistakes

[@david_porthouse]

I believe that the solution of the Measurement Problem will take the form of a computer simulation. There obviously needs to be a means of publishing the source code so other people can check it. I am looking at Excel VBA as one means, but please tell us more about Open Science.

[@tomprice5496]

It shouldn't get past publication at all if they can't share source-code. Otherwise how can we attempt to replicate results?

[@crismonBlue]

You mean scientest that would initiate thier array with the total size of the known universe, without any value on line 1 of thier code, might make mistakes in thier programming? Wild idea!

[@maxp3141]

@@tomprice5496well, to be honest one should rewrite the algorithm too. There are far too many ways of making an error in sw that’s hard to detect.

[@budaycsaba]

I have been to that lab around 2009. They mentioned this anomaly even back then, so it took them at least 6 years to publish a paper about it.

[@TravisTellsTruths]

Crazy

[@cheeks7050]

jfc

[@ruprecht9997]

Prolly takes time to work up a 6 sigma.

[@eingyi2500]

The lab I'm in (biology) is about to publish a paper with data gathered 12 years ago

[@rickb06]

​@@ruprecht9997uh, well BRUH, ur a 6 sigma.

[@aaronjennings8385]

Ronald Coase, "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything." Lol

[@MrStevos]

I was just typing same, when I saw yours 😜

[@nickcarroll8565]

My did always said figures don’t lie, but liars figure

[@javahaxxor]

😂😂😂

[@javahaxxor]

i guess this could be true for string theory as well. If with a small s, or with capital S, I'll let you decide

[@DrDeuteron]

@@nickcarroll8565 did he?

[@johnwollenbecker1500]

I think the lithium told the sensor to keep the change.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Lithium does that.

[@PrivateSi]

These low MeV 'particles' are just a positron-electron pair in a state of recombination being sensed at different moments in time/proximity. They should range from mass of an individual electron / positron to about the mass of a Muon... There may be slightly more (very temporarily) stable proximities (and velocities) that show up a tiny bit more often (ie. a Pion).

[@black-snow]

New Sabine video out - still no news from particle physics. Groundhog Day

[@TomTomicMic]

Groundhog Day 10,035, she is keeping us informed about the Anomalous Anomalies though like whack-a-mole with her trusty mallet, these particle physics theories were hit with three quarter power, not completely demolished, so a result of sorts!?!

[@peterjones6507]

Yes, but lots of new reasons for grant applications. So all is well.

[@Gaswafers]

Electromagnetism: Defines the behavior of positive and negative charges and is responsible for matter having defined boundaries, along with all of chemistry. Weak Force: The only process by which one type of fundamental particle can transform into another. Strong Force: Responsible for the formation of atomic nuclei, along with the tremendous amount of energy stored and released through nuclear processes. Gravity: Forms and drives the evolution of planets, stars, and galaxies. "Fifth force": Makes atoms within a very specific range(or cosmic filaments) behave in a slightly different ways under extremely contrived circumstances. Am I missing something, or is it absurd to claim that there exists undiscovered fundamental forces that do virtually nothing?

[@Milan_Openfeint]

Well, assuming you are asking seriously... if there's a fifth force, it has to be quite weak or only act under very special circumstances because otherwise we'd see it more often. However I immediately thought "did someone check the calculations?" and it looks like nobody did. So the paper could be legit but the video is a waste of time.

[@Jesse_359]

Technically there's no rule against having essentially extraneous forces in our universe. It seems weird, but there's no guarantee that all of reality must be meaningful. :D

[@silentobserver3433]

Also you should note that "fundamental particles transforming into another" only looks that way because the weak force is, well, weak, so it acts very slowly. The particles were already all there, the weak force just allows these specific particles to interact with each other. So the weak force is not that different from the supposed fifth force, it's just that you can discover weak force by looking at a chunk of uranium, and the fifth force is only giving noticeable effects in even rarer circumstances. As for being weirdly specific, weak force is also extremely weird, the only force that cares about chirality of particles for no apparent reason, and yet it's real

[@john38825]

Any new force that interacts with basically nothing would help explain why dark matter and energy isn't discoverable except through its effects on gravity

[@tinkerstrade3553]

Have you ever taken a watch apart? There's always left over pieces that never did anything but take up room.😁

[@milanstevic8424]

This would be an excellent name for a post-modern science-communication troupe: Sabine Hossenfelder and the Anomaly Theatre

[@XEinstein]

5:20 as an electrical / automation engineer it always shocks me to see how sloppy physics labs are with their wiring 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@ghost46857]

Wiring? Thought it was quantum entanglement. Silly me.

[@jondahl3161]

If you think that is sloppy then you're in for a treat : )

[@brunovandooren3762]

As someone who worked in a physics lab: that isn't really sloppy. First, those cables are meant to be connected and disconnected regularly, Ziptying everything together is going to be annoying as f. Second, those may be carrying high frequency signals, and those cables can be insanely expensive. Not only does forcing them in sharper corners risk damaging them, but sharp corners may change the frequency response of the cables. And third you might argue that they could run them through additional ducts or guides to at least make it look cleaner, but that would make all-round access to the device itself harder. Letting those cables follow natural paths that have minimum strain is often better than the alternatives. For simple things like bus connections etc these are not considerations, but cables which need to carry high frequency analog signals are a different beast.

[@wealthychef]

That Data collection animation was impressive.

[@ProofOfDragons]

2:13 Love that quote. Sabine’s paraphrasing reminds me that at any given time our understanding of the universe is nothing more than a best fit approximation. (To those curious, Ronald Coase wrote “if you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything”. )

[@FranzN57]

This reminds me of Francis Bacon's (some say: misunderstood) statement, that "the secrets of nature reveal themselves more readily under the vexations of art than when they go their own way." (Novum Organon, Book I, XCVIII).

[@robotic_automaton]

a good scientist is always a skeptic, a great scientist is a comedian

[@bikerfirefarter7280]

Laughed at, or Laughed with?

[@johnjameson6751]

A pithy observation is insightful, a nonsequitur is bemusement

[@TheOtherSteel]

Please cover anti-protonic helium, including firing anti-protons into liquid helium.

[@ColbyAzimuth]

Yes, please.

[@testboga5991]

Every lab that announces huge breakthroughs without delivering should be forced to do string theory for the next ten years as punishment and deterrence

[@pirobot668beta]

I was in High School in 1975 when String Theory was getting some attention. My Physics teacher said: "It's the perfect Theory...since it is completely un-testable, nobody can be proven wrong! People will build their careers around this sort of thing." Mr. Olson, you were more right than you knew....

[@UteChewb]

@@pirobot668beta if we could bottle that sarcasm, it would need to be stored in a secure facility.

[@aupotter2584]

It's measurement error once again, like some physicists said that they measured a higher light speed years ago. 😓

[@erlesten]

I have been missing new videos about physics anomalies - thanks! Hope for more soon :)

[@raffaeledivora9517]

As a physicist, it's so frustrating seeing plenty of comments here that seem photocopied, with most of them stemming from a single, simple fact: they don't know what a "particle" is in modern physics. If they did they'd know it's just an easy way for physicists to say "an excitation of a quantum field, which can correspond to what is called a particle in classical physics, or to a carrier of some force, or to excitations who don't last very long and cannot propagate forever, resulting from the fluctuations of said field (these are the so-called "virtual particles")". Basically it's just a way to concisely say: there's something there that interacts with our system in a way different from what we already know... which is taurological once you confirm an actual anomaly. This one 99% isn't it, the first guys probably were sloppy, the paper from the theoreticians who managed fitting that data likely wasn't correct and was pruned in peer review (notice that it is a positive sign, the system did what it is intended to and stopped bad science), and the swiss guys of the new preprint (which look like far more reliable) took the time to build a proper experiment (which needs a system where biases are under control) and are ruling it out. Kudos to them

[@entcraft44]

Just a quick note: The MEG II experiment's primary purpose is searching for the decay muon -> electron + gamma (hence the name). For this paper they just repurposed a part of their calibration setup to produce data about the anomaly.

[@edwardmacnab354]

@@entcraft44 what anomaly ?

[@donaldkasper8346]

Why would you spend millions of public grant money to disprove physics bullshit?

[@entcraft44]

@@edwardmacnab354 The one mentioned in the title, aka the X17 particle.

[@ruprecht9997]

So when detecting a particle, in this loosest sense, we're talking about a precise amount of energy, which presents itself in a particular way, which triggers a harmonic in, or resonates with some field, making it into an observation? Do all known particles have different such triggering energies, regardless of which field or domain they belong to? What would be the observation if two different fields triggered on the same energy? Is that even possible? (Still confused)

[@FredPlanatia]

would be nice if you explained a bit more of how the experiment was done and what their plot shows. I didn't even understand where the deviation from theory was. This is something that's easy for you to explain, surely, with some simple diagrams. Maybe devote less time to smileys and sound effects and more time to a succinct picture explaining the physics.

[@solokalnesaltam3015]

Interesting as always. Please consider making a video further expanding on your previous video about Webb's observations seeming to support MOND

[@dizzo95]

Beryllium serves as a source of neutrons, which might be relevant here. To transform lead into gold, you bombard it with neutrons, initiating a transmutation process. Interestingly, this ties into discoveries from about ten years ago, when physicists identified an anomaly, now called the 'ATOMKI anomaly.' This anomaly emerged from unexpected behaviors in the decays of certain atomic nuclei, challenging our understanding of physics. Researchers proposed a new particle, X17, as a possible explanation, describing it as evidence of a fifth fundamental force. A follow-up experiment has since tested the anomaly, adding yet another twist to this intriguing and complex story

[@ImogeneRichards]

Sabines humour is now reaching a sublime level. The quote about sustained mathematical cruelty is brilliant! I know it didn't originate with her,but,well spotted!!!

[@Manuel-cj9tr]

collecting Data made my day!😀thanks Sabine!

[@shmuck66]

But given the quantum effects of Pineapple on Pizza, due due to the inherent disk like properties of Pizza. We can infer that the continued expansion of the universe will lead to a bigger pizza. Further we can extrapolate that since most galaxies in the universe are disk shaped, they might too also be pizza.

[@winstonsmiths2449]

3:48, LOVE the Uncle Roger reference. Fuiyoh Auntie Sabine. You smack physics how your parents smacked you!

[@xnonsuchx]

When it comes to 'playing' with math/data, my saying is "You can massage the data all you want, but you're unlikely to get a happy ending."

[@Mycr0bi]

Proud that Hungarian physicist confuse the world since decades. :D In other hand our equipments were usually ain't the best, so curious how this limbo ends and turns out.

[@wbwarren57]

Sabine, for me, you are without a doubt, the black widow of new physics! Keep killing it!

[@axle.student]

This is interesting. I would be interested if a more simplified description of this suggests a slower or faster decay rate for some radioactive decay? (ambiguous decay rates)

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

Believing is Seeing

[@axle.student]

"And as he believed, so it was for him" - Richard Bach

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

@axle.student thank you !

[@axle.student]

@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925 :) Maybe not such a profound concept for anyone who is studied in the great philosophical works on subjective and objective reality, or for someone well studied in Psychology. For me in a past (earlier) life to read Illusions amidst my studies in theology, eastern an western mysticism as well as cultural beleif systems it felt like one of the most succinct statements/qoutes that I have ever read :) > I may often appear to criticize concepts in math and physics but what I am really eluding to is the deeper meaning behind that quote. Cognitive psychology offers a sound balance of the biological component of philosophy of mind (complimentary to). Much credit to Steven Pinker for his ability in explaining those studies in his writings.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

@axle.student thank you, when I think fast, I get it. When I think slow, it is so complex, more than I know.

[@axle.student]

@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925 Thanks :) I have always found that paradox between simplicity and complexity a little perplexing lol Take care :)

[@mike1122-o6c]

You have spent much time (not here) on the Measurement Problem. Jacob Barandes has claimed to have solved the problem by reformulating the foundations of QM in terms of non-Markovian stochastic processes. I would greatly appreciate learning your take on his work. Thanks.

[@andrewpodolio59]

"physicists are still extremely confused, but now with more expensive equipment." is a top 10 Sabine one-liner

[@as-qh1qq]

"... using Standard Nuclear Physics". The moment you said that, it piqued my ears. When data is confidently anomalous, standard theory calculation mayn't be enough.

[@markoszouganelis5755]

Thank you Sabine, (and Science), for brighten🌈 my dark part of existence!

[@ispamforfood]

😲 Sabine! I missed you! I was busy getting a couple of vertebrae fused... Ow. 😖 Good to be back home. Now I have a good reason to catch up on your videos. I can't do much else 😛 Cheers!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Watching her videos is great. Or even better, reading her books. Cheers

[@brucestafford1813]

If you can't baffle them with bullshit, dazzle them with footwork.Sabine, you are a gem.

[@trescatorce9497]

they discovered a Big Foot snow foot print in downtown Portland, OR, in July. the paper has not been peer reviewed.

[@rickh3714]

A Gigantopithecus 🏃‍♂️🏃‍♀️📃📎🦍 ate the paper.

[@eatdirt2278]

This is due to a point procedure with molecular decay: this antropic resolution for particle assimilation marks a hallmark for how particles are displayed in advanced rendering sequences.

[@michelloenneberger8146]

is Hendrik Schoen somewhere around?

[@Richard-gl7xu]

A simple thought experiment; Two particles A and B that are entangled, particle A stays on earth, particle B is inside a black hole, due to time dilation and the massive gravitational forces, when observing particle A the wave function will not be collapsed and particle B will remain unaffected, as for article B, time will be much slower. Either the wave function will be preserved and by knowing what particle A particle B will be known, or the black hole will be 'leaking' information faster than light, the final thought is Particle A in black hole A, and particle B in black hole B, now lets see what happens?

[@Tom_Quixote]

I believe the current understanding is that the gravity and time dilation won't make any difference, and you can never check what goes on inside the black hole, or at least never get the information out of there.

[@edwinscheibner7941]

Thank you, Sabine.

[@Dhrrhee3e11a76]

1:17:00 Pecorino is an eating cheese and it's eaten by itself, cold, in Tuscany very often--at least at the dozen or so restaurants I went to when I stayed there for 2 months.

[@Nsasi-j5j]

”THE ANOMALY THEATER” 😂💯😂💯

[@WonkyWiIl]

Now I understand how electrons et al get their spin. Ouch now my tongue is sore

[@joshuascholar3220]

Basically the current status of the X17 story is “Physicists are still extremely confused, but now with more expensive equipment.”

[@markh.harris9271]

Still extremely confused, but now with more expensive equipment... 😅

[@peterfreiling6963]

There is no fifth force. There is not even a fourth force, because gravity is not a force. There are only three forces plus gravity, as explained by Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

[@JohnSmith-ky2qn]

Three dimensions of space plus time 🤔

[@irhzuf]

We mean bosons man. Still people are trying to hunt quantum physics.

[@ruprecht9997]

5:20 One thing is certain: experimental physicists do not watch cable porn.

[@jamieburgess1765]

I love the way you communicate! Thank you for making these videos. BW, JB

[@jamesretired5979]

My kingdom for an ANOMALY

[@ianstopher9111]

I like that one of the dark photon experiments is called PADME.

[@Tom_Quixote]

You think it's a Star Wars reference I guess?

[@BleachWizz]

1:50 - I just thought a new particle like this would mean something like: "if you want to solve it like that it becomes a bit weird, ya know?"

[@floatocean7059]

still particles move through time, which also causes them to "wabble" when actually they are just moving along the t wave function. the t-direction particle pair hasn't been used in their maths, but humanity hasn't learnt this yet ;)

[@ZeroOskul]

The Anomaly Theatre, where the "R" precedes the "E" for no aesthetic reason... it just does.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

"re" is considered proper everywhere but the USA at this point. Oddly enough even in old english however....it was often spelled "er". The anomalies of language are as plentiful as the anomalies in physics.

[@LaurenceJohnston-e2x]

Thanks Sabine! I guess we will just have to wait a little while longer.

[@edwardmacnab354]

All I wanted to do was to learn , I didn't want to get involved in an argument .

[@rangjungyeshe]

Hi Sabine - a 6.8 sigma finding doesn't mean "a less than one in a trillion chance of it being just random noise". It means something far more boring - that, on the _assumption_ that the cause was random noise, there's a less than a trillion chance of getting at least as big a discrepancy as that observed. But of course, we're not interested in making that assumption - we want to know the chance that it's some anomalous effect, and one can only get that by applying Bayesian methods to the findings, including an estimate of the prior probability of such an anomaly. From what you say, I'd currently give the original finding a prior probability of close to zero....🤣

[@aditya_marathe]

A respectable HE physicist always uses frequentist methods 😂 /s.

[@picardcook7569]

Those two statements mean the same thing. She said it correctly.

[@FrederikFalk21]

You’re correcting Sabine and then coming up with a lacking interpretation yourself. The critical point that both of you missed is the assumption that the random noise on their data points are independent and normally distributed. You can increase the P-value referenced by several orders of magnitude just by assuming correlated noise.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Yes, you are right, I should have phrased that better, sorry 😕

[@physicsprof.9639]

no theyre hugely different. the stat sig is a raw number with no context. you need, effectively, a Baysean plausibility creedence to go to a (necessarily subjective) opinion on what I'd call "bettable odds."​@picardcook7569

[@karelcerny1813]

Cz_když se podíváte na jakákoliv data z urychlovače při srážce nevidíte rovnou křivku ale v první třetině časové osy mírný vzestup než dojde k maximálnímu výkonu.Už před dvaceti lety jsem říkal a psal že by si vědci měli vzít k urychlovači hodinky zdali se v určité vzdálenosti čas nemění nebo dokonce nevrací nazpět.

[@TomdeArgentina]

What I get is that the first paper (which is implied did have peer review) didn´t have a proper follow up by other laboratories.

[@douginorlando6260]

In unrelated news, researchers discovered ancient manuscripts proving Shakespeare’s twin brother wrote his own play called “Much Ado About Bullsheiss”

[@Jeremy-Ai]

What a relief things are confusing… the more we know the more responsible we all become. It’s natural to explore what we cannot understand. As long as remain in awe of how beautifully complex it all is to have the opportunity to examine it. This is perfectly normal. Yet does not diminish our responsibility to respect its complexity

[@sharpsheep4148]

It's great that we have a theory that allows us to explain anything, even unconfirmed "anomalies".

[@Crawzitow]

maybe the real hidden particles were the funds we got along the way

[@jaewok5G]

there needs to be a crossover meme of physicists with 'spaceballs combing the desert; we ain't found shite!"

[@MCsCreations]

Really interesting indeed! Thanks, Sabine! 😊 But yeah, let's see what happens. But I'm not holding my breath. Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@janerussell3472]

THE BIGGER THE BETTER I'm presuming that the Higgs boson ticks all the boxes, such as over 5 sigma significance, though I note the mean lifetime only reaches 3.2 sigma, 1 in a 1,000 significance. Of course they would love bigger colliders to study the cosmological constant problem; and better measurements of the top quark, to see if we're in a false vacuum or not, though it's already within plus minus 0.3. [ 172.76 ±0.3 GeV/c^2 ]

[@jjeherrera]

Interesting! I guess it was just bad statistics, although I'd hope it wasn't. We have seen so many cases like this one in recent years that we must be sceptical. The standard model is as firm as Gibraltar Rock.

[@dyson9422]

Doing physics is hard. Doing good physics is even harder.

[@rightfootlefthand]

Fitting that data with a bunch of polynomial order coefficients is quite easy

[@red.aries1444]

An Atomkin article about a subatomar particle seems to be something like a Potemkin village...

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

I typed this because I just can’t help but share my love for the word "anomaly." Seriously, it rolls off my tongue like a kid on a slip 'n slide.... just pure joy! And that long eeeeeeeeeee at the end? Repeat it a few times and see for yourself!

[@user-jp1qt8ut3s]

Nice there is still a lot of difficult work to do in the field ❤

[@richarddavis2605]

Did it really take 9 years for anyone to try and replicate the results experimentally? It would be better if people didn't write theoretical papers about results which haven't been replicated

[@raffaeledivora9517]

It's not easy, of course it takes years. Years to set up everything properly and have a reliable system (which likely the first lab didn't have) and then more years of it running to collect the data. These are low cross-section reactions

[@Tom_Quixote]

I stopped reading at "try and".

[@baomao7243]

So you’re saying… …the checkers on the checkers of the original results are sure of the uncertainty?

[@LT20354]

I wonder if there is a comprehensive table displaying how much money has been spent for different types of particle physics researches. Probably NSA can easily make one. We have seen many cases that an anomaly detection claim led to theory paper publications, research proposals, more thesis & paper publications, and finally establishes a decade-long big business. Funding agencies should be aware of this business.

[@peterhofer8998]

This is like the ending of „burn after reading“.

[@scotttovey]

I remember in grade school getting the right answer to a math problem wrong because; I didn't show my work. If physicist claim that their math proves a theory while refusing to show their math, then; they are wrong! It's the same when someone accuses their opponent in a debate of using assumptions, yet do not voice what those assumptions are. If they will not vocalize what the assumptions are, should their argument be taken seriously? No, because making unsupported accusations does not disseminate information, nor does it allow the one accused of the wrong, to properly analyze and consider whether an assumption has been made. People that do this have one game in mind. To control thought, and prevent truth from being disseminated. Grade school teachers requiring that students show their work is not just a good rule to help the teacher gauge a students math skill. It's a good rule to follow in both academia, and science to insure tax payer dollars aren't being wasted on a pile of manure.

[@johnhoey1615]

The anomaly may be in the Atomki methodology. Three different anomalies coming and going in a well studied region, and results not being peer reviewed or repeatable smacks of sloppiness, not new physics. The bigger concern is the anomaly theater this has again exposed. There's too much "eureka" and not enough "that's funny" for a healthy environment.

[@Karol-g9d]

5:26 , all wire touching , what could go wrong

[@entcraft44]

You know what's even better? The red wires are all high voltage, probably around 1000 to 2000V :D (But seriously speaking, those cables are insulated and completely fine to touch. The only problem is a potential tripping hazard, if the floor is similarly untidy)

[@Karol-g9d]

@@entcraft44 Electret like effect is the issue

[@entcraft44]

@@Karol-g9d No, there is no real issue.

[@Karol-g9d]

@@entcraft44 ok , there is no real issue then . Lol

[@crazydog1750]

“…still extremely confused, just with more expensive equipment.” I’m just an undergrad, but I feel that on so many levels.

[@ArturdeSousaRocha]

Fun fact: "Atomki" means little atoms in Polish.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

Conclusion: All dogs eat homework, no matter who's dog they are!🤯 Great scientific discovery indeed!🤓😁

[@billymcnomates7764]

Any chance of explaining how a kitchen oven temperature rise suppresses radioactive decay in a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium?

[@georgkrahl56]

Personally I only knew just one person mentioned (at the MEG II experiment). The rest of your superb talk was quite anomal to me and made me just more confused 🙂. Greetings to Malte at PSI; provide them with your detectors and let them speculate 🙂

[@piotr780]

MEG II was running by 4 years (?) and they still dont have enought data ? gosh

[@MrMSBranham]

This sounds like particle physicists throwing papers out into the world whose chief benefit is to generate interest and maybe get some budget money. Excuse my jadedness.

[@gilian2587]

You have an affinity for green rocks?

[@tchekof]

Well, that's also how you end up making discoveries. I consider it to be a worth it endeavor. Even failed research has interest, it means other scientists will know not to dig in this direction again.

[@audiodead7302]

Academic research is becoming clickbait.

[@rwesenberg]

Science papers are often a prospectus. Well, unless you are independently wealthy, someone has to pay for it.

[@foshyurgason]

That is literally how scientific research works

[@sphexism]

I don't understand any of it but I'm super hyped for the followup.

Hi Sabine. I find it difficult to get in touch with you. Please comment on hydrostatic equilibrium equation by arun. From 5.0 onwards thanks

[@DeanSmith_DigitalWeapons]

The reason is that they don't have a lot of 'data'!

[@guest1754]

Had to sneak in "expensive" before "equipment"

[@db50000]

Lol they keep trying to make sense of a simulation, hilarious 🤣

[@Ithirahad]

'Primeware' malfunctions notwithstanding, a simulation should have regular and quantifiable behaviour at some scale.

[@TOMAS-oj9hx]

Monkey business, now also available in nature sciences. Really great stuff. Scotty beam me up to Enterprise, we have to escape.

[@jaykrabiss6354]

Thanks, Sabine.

[@butsunekolifegameplay]

Another hungarian scientific topic suggestion : Miskolczi's theory about the greenhouse effect could not be caused by incerasing CO2 in athmosphere. The same MTA tried to challenge his theory but failed xD

[@linuxificator]

Maybe cause and effect got swapped? I mean, one has to be pretty confused in the first place to become a physicist. And giving a confused person more expensive equipment just adds to the confusion.

[@mz555]

physicist use a Fisherian interpretation of p-values? not the Neyman-Pearson error control interpretation? In the latter, "just collect more data" is not allowed as it is just optional stopping (a form of QRP =questionable research practice).

[@MartinJefferies-j1d]

This search for an anomaly with a particle o 12-17 MeV reminds me of the search for the planet Vulcan to explain the orbit of Mercury.

[@texasranger24]

Well, we don't understand something, so there must be another particle, force or dimension. No way we measured wrong, or did the non-replicable math wrong.

[@janerussell3472]

Here are some challenges to the Standard Model, not including the debunking of the quark, gluon , hadronisation fairy tale: 1. Neutrino Masses: Observation: Neutrinos were originally thought to be massless in the Standard Model, but experiments (such as those observing solar and atmospheric neutrinos) indicate that they have a small mass. Implication: This requires modifications to the Standard Model, as it does not currently account for massive neutrinos. Gell-Mann's model is absurd, with the mass eigenstates supposedly vibrating with each other on a 7 million mass difference between electron and tau neutrinos. 2. Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry: Observation: The universe contains far more matter than antimatter. Theoretical predictions suggest that, in the early universe, both should have been produced in equal amounts. Implication: The Standard Model does not fully explain why we see this imbalance, suggesting that there are additional processes or new physics at work. 3. Dark Matter: Observation: Roughly 27% of the universe's total mass-energy content is attributed to dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic forces-thus it does not emit, absorb, or reflect light. Implication: The Standard Model does not include a candidate for dark matter, even though many experiments are ongoing to detect potential dark matter particles. 4. Dark Energy: Observation: Observations of distant supernovae and cosmic microwave background radiation indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, attributed to "dark energy." Implication: The Standard Model has nothing to say about dark energy, presenting another gap in our understanding of fundamental physics. 5. Muon g-2 Anomaly: Observation: The magnetic moment of the muon (a heavier cousin of the electron) has been measured in experiments, and results show discrepancies from the predicted value based on the Standard Model. Implication: This anomaly could indicate new physics or additional particles that are not included in the Standard Model. 6. Baryon Asymmetry: Observation: Similar to the matter-antimatter asymmetry, there is an observed excess of baryons (protons and neutrons) over antibaryons. Implication: The mechanisms provided by the Standard Model do not suffice to explain this asymmetry comprehensively. 7. Hierarchy Problem: Observation: The mass of the Higgs boson is much lower than what would be expected from quantum corrections, leading to fine-tuning issues. Implication: This suggests that there may be new physics beyond the Standard Model (such as supersymmetry) which could provide explanations for this discrepancy. 8. Quantum Gravity: Observation: The Standard Model does not include a quantum theory of gravity, which means it cannot describe phenomena where gravitational effects are significant, like black holes or very high-energy collisions. Implication: A successful theory of quantum gravity, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity, is still a work in progress. 9. Unification of Forces: Observation: The Standard Model treats the electromagnetic and weak forces as unified but does not incorporate the strong force or gravity into a single framework. Implication: Many physicists are exploring Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) that aim to unify the fundamental forces and particles into a single theoretical framework.

[@mmandrewa2397]

It's a red flag that something is dramatically wrong if a paper is published that does not explain how it gets its results. Perhaps it should be withdrawn. It seems lazy to me to assume a paper is good if it has been peer-reviewed. Or to assume that it shouldn't receive attention if it has not been peer-reviewed. Sabine has often complained that there is something wrong with modern science. I have long thought that "peer review" is right at the heart of the problem. The problem is that "peer review" can be so easily politicized, and that papers can be accepted or rejected, often by a very small number of people, for reasons that have little to do with science. Real peer review lies in people reading these papers and understanding what is being said, and then criticizing them, or responding with other papers. Now I'm not that person. I don't understand the details of these papers. But I can understand how these things should be debated. And with the exception of the paper that didn't explain how it got its results and the emphasis being placed on whether or not a paper has been "peer reviewed" this all looks like healthy and normal science to me.