What false hints of new physics were most notable?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around notable instances where experimental or observational evidence initially suggested the existence of new physics but was later debunked. Participants explore various cases, analyzing the reasons these hints were found to be unfounded and reflecting on the implications for future research in beyond standard model (BSM) physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant highlights the Opera collaboration's 2011 announcement of superluminal neutrinos, which was later attributed to a wiring problem in their measurement equipment.
  • Another participant discusses the 1989 cold fusion claim by Fleischmann and Pons, noting the lack of replicability and theoretical basis, leading to its discrediting within months.
  • The Pioneer anomaly is mentioned as a case where NASA scientists observed unexpected spacecraft behavior, which was later explained by thermal radiation pressure, illustrating the complexity of analyzing such phenomena over decades.
  • The 750 GeV diphoton excess from the LHC in 2015 is noted as a statistical fluke that initially generated significant interest but was later disfavored by additional data, raising questions about the pressures on physicists to publish theories on anomalies.
  • One participant recalls the pentaquark discovery by LEPs, which had theoretical backing and significant local significance, but also caused division within the community, serving as a cautionary tale for experimentalists.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the significance and implications of these cases, with no clear consensus on which examples are the most notable or what specific lessons should be drawn from them. The discussion remains open-ended, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific definitions and assumptions about what constitutes evidence for new physics, and the discussion acknowledges the complexity and nuances involved in interpreting experimental results.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to physicists, researchers in experimental and theoretical physics, and those studying the scientific process and the history of physics discoveries.

  • #31
David Neves said:
The first item on your list does not belong on the list! The reason is because any physics undergraduate with paper and pencil ca prove in five minutes than faster than light travel or communication is impossible.
This proves only that faster than light travel or communication is impossible according to existing, established theory. It cannot, even in principle, prove that the experiment was wrong. The question was about experiments which suggested new physics.

By the way, your links do not even establish that it is incompatible with established physics, but only with established metaphysics. So,
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-how-does-instantaneous-communication-violate-causality/ writes:

"But, if you accept the basic tenet of relativity, that everything no matter how it’s moving is on equal footing, then one person’s instantaneous signal is merely traveling very fast to someone else, or even slightly backward in time to another someone else." But, sorry, this means "if you accept the metaphysics of the spacetime interpretation of SR and reject, for whatever reasons, the Lorentz ether interpretation of the same SR".

In special relativity, a particle moving FTL in one frame of reference will be traveling back in time in another. FTL travel or communication should therefore also give the possibility of traveling back in time or sending messages into the past. If such time travel is possible, you would be able to go back in time and change the course of history by killing your own grandfather.
No. It would give this possibility only if there is no preferred frame. The FTL communication would have a preferred frame, and therefore violate the equivalence principle. But so what? In the strong form - that there is no real difference - it is a metaphysical belief. In the weaker, physical form there is no observable effect which allows to distinguish them. But new physics could give new observable effects which would allow to distinguish them. The FTL communication would be simply new physics, and give us an observational possibility to identify a preferred frame which is now hidden from observation.
There is a difference between a statement being factually wrong, and a statement being meaningless. The statement that the Great Pyramid of Giza has a volume of three cubic inches is factually wrong. The statement that the Great Pyramid of Giza has a volume of -45 cubic feet is meaningless because the volume of an object can not be a negative number. To claim that the velocity of a neutrino could be faster than light is a similar meaningless statement.
The only meaningless statement would be a combination of "there exists FTL communication" and "there is nothing violating Lorentz symmetry".

So, the superluminal neutrinos have their place in the list.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Updates on the experiments X17
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
11K
Undergrad Interpretations of QM vs. statistical physics as an "interpretation"?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Muon g-2 as a constraint on new physics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Admissions Exploring the Universe: Pursuing a PhD in High Energy Physics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad New muon g-2 calculation consistent with experiment
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Undergrad When should we take numerology seriously?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
Undergrad What Key Issues Should Cosmologists Address in the ΛCDM Model?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad B -> s µµ decays: Current status
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
Undergrad Progress In Calculating The HLbL Contribution To Muon g-2
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Undergrad How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K