Scientists may have discovered a new force of nature?

[mfb]

I thought you were comparing it to the reference value that leads to a large discrepancy, not another lattice calculation. The sigma values suggested that.

 

[collinsmark]

A few words of caution about potential, new physics discoveries. Some historical examples are given. (The video leads up to the new anomalies discussed in this thread.)

 

[phinds]

Nice, informative discussion. Thanks for posting.

 

[CGandC]

If one wants to read quality scientific news with technicalities ( assuming the reader has BSc in physics ) , what kind of media can you recommend?

 

[weirdoguy]

https://arxiv.org/

 

[ohwilleke]

Blogs by credentialed physicists (Twitter feeds too).

 

[ChrisVer]

A few words of caution about potential, new physics discoveries. Some historical examples are given. (The video leads up to the new anomalies discussed in this thread.)

I really liked seeing the historical examples in her videos. I find it interesting that these are not talked about much, while most of the public discussion weight goes on the "holy grail" of 5σ... But these examples are a proof that what shines is not necessarily gold... So, it made me thinking:
What is the approach one would take after observing a 5 or even a 6σ deviation from the SM expectation? Wouldn't it be called it a discovery right away? I suppose, these are set by the collaborations or the analysists beforehand (the 5σ of HEP would put most of other sciences' null hypotheses results indestructible), but the point is that their claims would directly affect the theory community worldwide (they would have an indirect verification in hand that there is BSM).

For example FNAL said during their conferences that after unblinding, whatever their result would be, that's what would be published. So, supposing they had observed a 5σ deviation to Δαμ, would that be called an "observation of LFV" right away?
The latest example from particle physics was the Higgs discovery (OK and several other bound states that are observed by LHCb every now or then). For the Higgs, it looks like the case was to call it a discovery right away, but it could be because it's a special occasion (it appeared in different decay channels and in 2 "independent" experiments at the same time).

 

[mfb]

A deviation in g-2 doesn't have to be LFV. It can be anything.
Keep in mind that systematic uncertainties and theory uncertainties are not Gaussian - they have long tails. A 5 sigma systematics/theory error is far more likely than a 5 sigma statistical fluctuation. I would have expected a careful phrasing of the result. It's not like the discovery of the Higgs boson, which was dominated by statistical uncertainties that are well understood, and of course seen by two experiments that both had ~5 sigma.