![]() Similarly, positrons, pions, neutrinos, quarks and so on were each hypothesised by physicists well before they were observed in any experiment. The neutron was proposed in 1920 and discovered a dozen years later. In fact, we develop and propose new theories and new particles because there are real puzzles and open questions that our best current theory, the standard model, cannot address. Sabine Hossenfelder argues that particle physicists are far too eager to speculate about new particles, suggesting that this is done for reasons of career advancement, rather than a sincere desire to advance our understanding of the universe. Reader in cosmology, Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics What we’re testing are the principles themselves, not the particles while some of them might really exist, others are simply straw men to help us formulate useful tests. There is general disagreement about what works best, but many of the hypothetical particles mentioned in the article have been designed with useful functions in mind – breaking cherished principles of the standard model for instance, or adding new features to it. It would of course be tremendously tedious to rule out every last outlandish possibility (Hossenfelder’s octopuses on Mars, for example), and so we need a set of principles to guide us on where to look. ![]() Every impossibility proved gets us closer to a deeper understanding of the real universe it’s just as important to know that faster-than-light travel is impossible as it is to understand that light is made up of photons, for instance. Nature has an infinite capacity to surprise, and our scientific forebears learned long ago to take nothing for granted. While we’d all like to revolutionise our respective fields by discovering a new particle or otherwise, in reality, winnowing out the impossible – the particles that don’t exist – is an equally important, if painstaking, function of science. The final two sections treat a range of topics involving positron and positronium interactions with atoms and molecules.Sabine Hossenfelder ( No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless, 26 September) has missed the point of a big part of particle physics, and indeed fundamental research as a whole. The second section discusses topics involving antihydrogen and many-body phenomena, including Bose condensation of positronium atoms and positron interactions with materials. This book is organized into four sections: The first section discusses potential new experimental capabilities and the uses and the progress that might be made with them. It is virtually assured that the new experimental capabilities in this area will lead to a rapid expansion of this list. There are presently an intriguing variety of phenomena that await theoretical explanation. On the theoretical side, the ability to model complex systems and complex processes has increased dramatically in recent years, due in part to progress in computational physics. ![]() New concepts for intense positron sources and the development of positron accumulators and trap-based positron beams provide qualitatively new experimental capabilities. The timeliness of this subject comes from several considerations. The emphasis is on positron and positronium interactions both with themselves and with ordinary matter. The aim of this book (similar in theme to the workshop) is to present an overview of new directions in antimatter physics and chemistry research. This volume is the outgrowth of a workshop held in October, 2000 at the Institute for Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics at the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, MA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |