A neutrino walks into a bar.
Although it seems like the gp misread decay.
"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X]
source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report
ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264
From what I can tell, he's claiming that CERN discriminates against non-Western people. His evidence is a budget report, where they estimate how much something will cost based on the amount of people involved. The calculation adjusts for where the people are located, and the cost is higher if they're in a Western country.
http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/11/12/first-news-from-kyot...
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5264
Talk is here (follow password instructions): http://kds.kek.jp/getFile.py/access?contribId=61&session...
"The B(s)->mu+mu- results from LHCb are out providing good agreement with the Standard Model, and new, strong limits on possible Supersymetry models"
The cause of the jump though is not a bunch of people getting together, it's someone crazy enough to throw the first stone. It's someone crazy enough to question the structure science has created. It's someone daring enough to break it all apart, for the benefit of humanity, to let us rebuild and get closer to the correct path. One person starts a revolution. All the smart people look at all the pieces that broke and see how they can fit together in a new way.
I can't see this happening in 'new physics'. Yes, they are doing amazing things, things no one has ever been daring enough to do before. But quite frankly, they aren't diverse enough to solve their own problems they created. It's incredibly hard to solve the problems you made. There are no analogies to the problems physics is asking as of yet. To get analogies, you have to have people wander into your problem and say 'Hey! I was doing something like that for my Neuroscience research yesterday, maybe there's a connection!'. We aren't going to get that though, Physics has gone too far down the hole to relate to other fields. Unless they do what they always do, and just make new ones.
The problem with physics these days is that no "sharp" new data is turning up. Instead of turning up a new family of particles in an accelerator, we find big invisible blobs of dark matter. We are getting loads of fascinating unexplained data, but there are few bright line tests that can use it to rule in or out new theories.
Huxley was right: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ygIqLJnBJI
It's not like we were never warned.
they are observing a transition from one particle to another that involves a process whose probability depends on "all particles" in some weird sense, because it includes particle-antiparticle pairs (so is affected by vacuum fluctuations?).
because of this, they have a weird situation where an experimental result depends on all possible particles (below some energy cutoff i guess).
and that is why it's a good test for standard model v super-symmetry. because super-symmetry (to be symmetric) predicts a bunch more particles. and if those are real, we would see something different.
i am not sure where i got this from, but it seemed to be implied by one of the links here...
All that said, SUSY has about 100 free parameters in the model, and all of these LHC searches hoped to find SUSY in the easiest of places, even though there is no firm prediction from the theory. Simply put, for a long time to come, SUSY can be "tuned" to remain consistent with all existing physical data.
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/lhcb_evide...
From the sound of it, many of the details won't become available until a seminar tomorrow. (Nevertheless, it sounds like this really will constrain many forms of "new physics" by quite a bit.)
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/13293t/supersymmetr...
http://motls.blogspot.cz/2012/11/superstringy-compactificati...
