Muons may not behave as anticipated. However scientists can’t agree on what to anticipate.
By taking inventory of how the subatomic particles wobble in a magnetic discipline, physicists have pinned down a property of the muon’s inside magnet to better precision than ever earlier than, researchers from the Muon g−2 experiment reported August 10 in a seminar hosted by Fermilab in Batavia, Unwell.
Earlier measurements of muons’ magnetism haven’t aligned with theoretical predictions. These predictions come from one of the necessary and thoroughly examined scientific theories ever developed, the usual mannequin of particle physics, which describes subatomic particles and the forces that bind them.
Many physicists have hoped that the muon discrepancy is perhaps hinting at a flaw within the stalwart principle that would result in a greater understanding of the universe. However a number of current scientific surprises have muddled the theoretical prediction of the energy of the muon’s tiny magnet, making it more durable to know if the measurement is pointing to new physics or an unresolved difficulty with the prediction.
Measurements of muon magnetism have lengthy hinted at unknown particles
Muons are in the identical particle household as electrons however are about 200 occasions as huge. These short-lived particles behave like miniature magnets, every with their very own magnetic discipline. The energy of that magnet is adjusted by a wierd impact of quantum physics. Empty house is stuffed with a continuing flurry of particles that seem briefly earlier than flitting out of existence. Generally known as “digital” particles, they’ve very actual results. These transient particles alter the energy of the muon’s magnet by an quantity that may be calculated in keeping with the usual mannequin.
The exact worth of this tweak — often known as the anomalous magnetic second, or “g−2” in physics equations — is what has befuddled physicists.
Tantalizingly, particles unknown to science may shift the worth of g−2 that scientists measure. So earlier hints of a disagreement with the usual mannequin’s predictions have generated a hubbub amongst physicists.
“The muons’ habits that we’re measuring is affected by the entire forces and particles within the universe,” says Muon g−2 researcher Brynn MacCoy, a physicist on the College of Washington in Seattle. “It’s mainly giving us this direct window into how the universe works.”
The primary indication of a mismatch between the prediction and measurements of g−2 got here from an experiment at Brookhaven Nationwide Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., accomplished greater than 20 years in the past (SN: 2/15/01). Then in 2021, the Muon g−2 experiment, primarily based at Fermilab, reported its first outcomes, confirming the discrepancy (SN: 4/7/21).
Now, Muon g−2 has doubled its precision in an up to date magnetism measurement, the researchers reported within the Fermilab seminar and in a paper posted August 10 on the web site of the Muon g−2 collaboration.
“To achieve that degree of precision is basically unprecedented and actually spectacular,” says physicist Carlos Wagner of the College of Chicago, who was not concerned with the experiment. “I’m merely in awe.” The brand new measurement incorporates 4 occasions as a lot knowledge because the earlier one, amongst different enhancements that beefed up the precision.
Scientists purpose to match that measured worth to the usual mannequin prediction. However figuring out what, precisely, the usual mannequin predicts is sophisticated.
There’s a difficult step to calculating the worth of g−2
In 2020, after a lot cautious consideration, a bunch of theoretical physicists referred to as the Muon g−2 Concept Initiative got here to a consensus prediction that they may evaluate with measurements. However since then, new, contradictory data has come out from different experiments and theoretical calculations, detailed in a press release posted August 9 on the Muon g−2 Concept Initiative’s web site. That data has left the prediction unsure.
“It’s not potential to make a comparability at this level and say whether or not the usual mannequin agrees or disagrees with experiment,” says theoretical physicist Tom Blum of the College of Connecticut in Storrs.
The confusion hinges on a very difficult little bit of the calculation of g−2. Generally known as the hadronic vacuum polarization, it refers back to the adjustment ensuing from a digital photon emitted by the muon that splits right into a quark and its antimatter companion, an antiquark. Quarks are a category of particle that make up larger particles often known as hadrons, together with protons and neutrons. The quark and antiquark work together earlier than annihilating again right into a digital photon.
Scientists have provide you with two most important methods of calculating this hadronic vacuum polarization time period. The traditional approach includes utilizing sure experimental knowledge as an enter to the calculation. These knowledge come from experiments that measure how electrons and their antimatter particles, positrons, collide and produce hadrons. The outcomes of such experiments are regarded as effectively understood.
However a current experiment, CMD-3, on the VEPP-2000 particle collider in Novosibirsk, Russia, disagrees with these different experiments, researchers reported in February at arXiv.org. If this one outlier is right, that may recommend that the hints of disagreement between muon measurements and the prediction is perhaps weaker than thought.
A second approach of estimating the thorny hadronic vacuum polarization time period makes use of a technique referred to as lattice quantum chromodynamics. That approach includes mathematically splitting up spacetime right into a grid as a way to make calculations extra tractable. Scientists have solely not too long ago managed to make such calculations exact sufficient for helpful comparisons.
In 2021, a bunch nicknamed “BMW” printed their calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution in Nature. That estimate pointed to a better concord between the prediction and measurement of g−2 and disagreed with the data-driven strategy. However the approach demanded affirmation. Since then, different scientists have carried out their very own lattice calculations to test a portion of the BMW end result. These groups obtained comparable outcomes to BMW, boosting confidence within the lattice technique.
The main target has now shifted away from scrutinizing the experimental measurement and is as a substitute geared toward analyzing the disagreement amongst completely different theoretical methods.
“The experiment has delivered,” says theoretical physicist Thomas Teubner of the College of Liverpool in England, a member of the Muon g−2 collaboration. Now, to determine if muons are conserving with the usual mannequin or cracking it, it’s as much as the theoretical physicists, he says. “We have now to get our home so as.”
