
What Secrets Lie in a Particle's Wobble? Physicists Still Can't Say.
It has been 12 years since physicists transported a giant magnetic ring down the Atlantic coast, around Florida, up the Mississippi River and across two interstates to Batavia, Ill. On Tuesday, the team behind that ring unveiled their final result: the most precise value yet recorded for the tiny wobble of a subatomic particle called the muon.
Physicists hoped that the measurement, submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters, would open a window to new types of energy and matter that so far have only been theorized.
'We want to know how our universe formed, what it's made out of and how it interacts,' said Peter Winter, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory and a spokesman for the Muon g-2 Collaboration, which ran the experiment at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, or Fermilab. The new result, he said, 'will stand as a benchmark for years to come.'
But a glaring problem remains. Physicists have predicted two distinct values for the muon's wobble but aren't sure which is correct. The new result matches one prediction, but until the other prediction can be satisfyingly explained away, scientists won't know if they have uncovered evidence of new physics.
'The Fermilab experiment is hugely successful, they did their job,' said Aida El-Khadra, a physicist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who leads the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative. 'We theorists, we still need to follow up.'
Until the dust settles, Dr. El-Khadra added, 'the jury is still out.'
Muons are similar to electrons but far heavier and unstable in nature. When placed in a magnetic field, they precess, or wobble, like a spinning top. The speed of that wobble depends on a property of the muon related to its internal magnetism, known to physicists as g.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Circle Soars In First-Ever Stablecoin IPO, Making CEO A Billionaire
Jeremy Allaire, CEO of Circle, at the Token2049 conference in Singapore in Sept. 2024. Photographer: Suhaimi Abdullah/Bloomberg Circle, the company behind the $61 billion stablecoin USDC, made a roaring debut on the New York Stock Exchange Thursday, becoming the first stablecoin issuer to go public and making CEO and cofounder Jeremy Allaire a billionaire. Shares surged as much as 235% after Circle and some of its shareholders raised nearly $1.1 billion in an initial public offering that was upsized twice amid heavy investor demand. The stock opened at $69.50, more than double its IPO price of $31, and climbed as high as $103.75. The offering included 34 million shares from Circle and other shareholders including Allaire, up from the 32 million shares announced earlier this week and 24 million initially. The IPO was priced well above its initial $24–$26 range and even its revised $27–$28. Based on Circle's 2 P.M. stock price of $86, Forbes figures Allaire has a net worth of at least $1.7 billion. BlackRock, already an investor, and Cathie Wood's ARK Investment Management, were among the reported buyers. The deal was led by JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, alongside 12 other underwriters. 'We're thrilled with the demand,' Circle CFO Jeremy Fox-Geen told Forbes. 'We saw a wide range of investor interest from traditional mutual fund complexes through to high-conviction, long-oriented pools of private capital within the broader hedge fund space, as well as various sovereign wealth funds. I think it says that the investor community is understanding that we are on the precipice of what we here call the new internet financial system.' Circle's listing arguably marks crypto's most significant public market event since Coinbase's 2021 IPO. The New York-based firm is a pure-play stablecoin business: USDC is the world's second-largest stablecoin, making up 27% of the market behind Tether's 67%. While originally used for crypto trading, stablecoins are increasingly drawing attention from financial giants and tech firms—among them Fidelity Investments, Bank of America and Meta—as rails for payments and cross-border transactions. Since launching USDC in 2018, Circle has processed over $25 trillion in transaction volume, nearly $6 trillion of which occurred in just the first quarter of 2025. The company has long positioned itself as the regulated, transparent alternative to Tether, publishing detailed reserve disclosures. In 2024, Circle reported $1.68 billion in revenue and $156 million in net income, up from $1.45 billion in revenue and $268 million in profit the year prior. But its business remains highly concentrated: More than 99% of revenue came from interest income on the cash and Treasurys backing USDC. In its S-1 filing, Circle warned that a 1% drop in interest rates could wipe out $441 million of that revenue. Fox-Geen says diversification is underway: 'We have a set of product investments which we have started monetizing recently, which range from subscription and services revenues, such as our blockchain network partnerships, through to transaction revenues, where we monetize certain of the flows across the network where users of the network wish to use a value added service which they're willing to pay for.' Those initiatives generated $20.7 million in Q1. Modest for now, but growing quickly, he noted. The company's distribution model, however, remains costly. In 2024, Circle paid over $1 billion in distribution fees—$900 million of it to Coinbase. Tether, by contrast, doesn't pay distributors to maintain dominance. The road to public markets was not a straight one. Circle scrapped a $9 billion SPAC merger in late 2022. In 2023, the company was hit by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, where it had deposited a portion of its reserves. Though Circle ultimately recovered the funds, USDC's market capitalization took months to rebound. In April, Circle reportedly fielded acquisition offers from both Coinbase and Ripple valuing the company at around $5 billion. It opted instead to go public, filing confidentially for an IPO early this year. It's likely a bet that regulatory clarity will finally be arriving, and with it, a premium for compliance. 'Becoming public has always been part of our strategy,' said Fox-Geen. 'This is a multi decade transformation of the plumbing of the financial services industry, but that understates just how profound a technology upgrade this really is.'


Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tesla Stock Drops 10% As Trump-Musk Relationship Appears To Unravel
Shares of Tesla dropped by 10% on Thursday as the relationship between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's appeared to unravel, with Musk launching attacks at the president on X and Trump suggesting to reporters at the White House criticism of his signature bill from the world's wealthiest person amounts to 'Trump derangement syndrome.' Musk has called to 'kill' Trump's policy bill, criticizing the legislation as 'massive, outrageous' ... More and 'pork-filled.' Tesla's stock fell 10.1% to around $298.52 as of around 2:20 p.m. EDT on Thursday, with losses accelerating following Trump's comment. Thursday's decline paces what would be Tesla's largest decrease since the stock plummeted 10.4% on April 4. Through more than a dozen posts on X since Tuesday, Musk has referred to Trump's policy bill as 'massive, outrageous' and 'pork-filled,' while adding, 'shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' Musk's latest criticism of the bill Thursday targeted Trump for the first time, as Musk wrote 'wise words' in response to a tweet from Trump in 2013, in which Trump said, 'I cannot believe the Republicans are extending the debt ceiling—I am a Republican & I am embarrassed!' Trump responded to Musk's recent attacks, suggesting Thursday he and Musk 'had a great relationship,' but 'I don't know if we will anymore.' $17.2 billion. That's how much was cut from Musk's fortune amid Tesla's stock slide, bringing his net worth below $400 billion to $398 billion, according to Forbes' estimates. Tesla's stock jumped 22% in May, which came as Musk said he would leave the White House and committed to serving as Tesla's chief executive for the next five years. Trump has called on Republican senators to approve his policy bill by a July 4 deadline set by Senate leadership. A stock slide for Tesla also comes as sales for the automaker declined in the U.K., Germany, Italy and China in May. Tesla's sales dropped more than 45% in the U.K., despite sales across the industry increasing by 28%. Tesla will launch a robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, in June, featuring some 20 self-driving Model Y vehicles. The service's debut in Austin follows criticism about Tesla's self-driving software and Musk's failure to disclose detailed safety and technical data about Tesla's technology. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened several investigations into Tesla's Autopilot feature over nearly a decade, including recent probes into whether Tesla's Full-Self Driving software is linked to two deaths. Musk has repeatedly said the software allows for 'full autonomy' while in a vehicle, though he has said an active driver is still required. Musk's attacks on Trump's policy bill follow his monthslong stint in the White House leading the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump and Musk have said Musk's departure happened on good terms, and that Musk would continue to be present as a Trump adviser. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump 'already knows' Musk's stance on his bill, saying 'it doesn't change the president's opinion.' Tesla's stock declined in recent months as Musk appeared to increasingly focus on his role with the Trump administration, with some analysts criticizing him for spending '110%' of his time as head of the DOGE rather than leading Tesla. After Tesla's first-quarter earnings report in April, Musk signaled he would be 'allocating far more of my time' to Tesla, though he had yet to commit to exiting his government role.


CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's autopen fixation, explained
President Donald Trump first focused on Joe Biden's use of the autopen in March, leaning into the idea that the former president's use of the tool to sign documents showed that he wasn't in charge while in the White House and that his actions were 'null and void.' At the time, conservative executive authority scholar John Yoo wagered to CNN that Trump was 'just having fun at Biden's expense.' Trump on Wednesday sought to take this outside the realm of mere 'fun.' He ordered an investigation of Biden's use of the autopen and its supposed links to Biden's 'cognitive decline.' The move is guaranteed to breathe even more life into a story that has proven to be catnip for conservative media eager to keep the focus on the alleged coverup of Biden's decline. And Trump has certainly shown a talent for seeding baseless conspiracy theories for political gain (see: birtherism and the false notion that the 2020 election was rigged, among them.) But it's difficult to see how this leads anywhere, for a few reasons. The first is that there is nothing evidently wrong or unlawful about using the autopen. In 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (under Republican President George W. Bush) conducted an extensive review of the legality of a president using the autopen. It found that 'the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7.' Trump has most often focused his autopen theory on Biden's pardons. (The idea that these are invalid would ostensibly allow Trump's Justice Department to investigate and charge the people Biden preemptively pardoned.) But there too, established legal advice from past administrations undermines the claim. A 1929 memo from the US solicitor general noted that the Constitution didn't even prescribe a method for issuing pardons. That means they don't necessarily even need to be publicly documented. (You might have heard in recent years about the prospect of 'secret' pardons.) And the memo explicitly says that pardons 'need not have the president's autograph.' The other key point is that many presidents have used this practice in one form or another. Thomas Jefferson bought and used such a machine back when it was first patented in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation. And even Trump himself has acknowledged using the autopen for certain things. Trump said back in March he has used it but 'only for very unimportant papers.' He specifically cited responding to people's letters. But in another case, Trump rather curiously seemed to indicate that he hadn't signed a major proclamation that bore his signature – the one at issue in his attempt to rapidly deport migrants using the Alien Enemies Act. That proclamation is a major issue in litigation that has already reached all the way to the Supreme Court. 'I don't know when it was signed, because I didn't sign it,' Trump said, adding: 'Other people handled it, but (Secretary of State) Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that.' Given the proclamation bore Trump's signature, that seemed to raise the possibility that the administration might have used the autopen for it. The White House later claimed Trump had in fact signed the proclamation and that he was instead referring to not having signed the original Alien Enemies Act. (But that argument strained credulity, given Trump cited how 'other people handled it' and the fact that the Alien Enemies Act dates to 1798. That means there is no way anyone could ever believe Trump might have signed it. The question Trump responded to also specifically referenced the proclamation, not the 1798 law.) In another way, Trump's Wednesday night memorandum isn't really about the autopen. It's about using that as a shorthand for something else entirely: what the memo calls Biden's 'cognitive decline.' Trump's order isn't just about reviewing whether any autopen signatures used by Biden were lawful; it also cites the idea that people used it as part of an effort to 'unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.' 'I'm sure that he didn't know many of the things – look, he was never for open borders, he was never for transgender for everybody, he was never for men playing in women's sports. All of these things that changed so radically, I don't think he had any idea … what was going on,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president.' This theory – if ever somehow proven – would actually matter. The 2005 Bush Justice Department memo, for instance, made clear that while presidents could outsource the signing of documents, that doesn't mean they could necessarily outsource the decisions to sign the documents. The OLC memo emphasizes that 'we do not question the substantial authority supporting the view that the President must personally decide whether to approve and sign bills.' But however compelling the evidence that Biden administration officials covered up his decline, there remains no evidence that he wasn't actually making decisions to sign things. That's taking things to an entirely different level. Biden's advisers have denied any coordinated effort to conceal from the public his deteriorating condition during the final years of his presidency. And the 2005 DOJ memo suggests it would have to prove more than just that Biden wasn't particularly engaged, but that he didn't make the final decisions. Trump was asked Thursday if he had uncovered 'anything specific' that was signed without Biden's knowledge or by people in his administration who acted illegally. Trump said, 'No.' Biden, for his part, issued some strong statements late Wednesday. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,' the former president said. 'Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' The former president also called this 'nothing more than a distraction' to obscure Republicans' push for a dicey Trump agenda bill, which features Medicaid cuts in the House-passed version. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday that this could lead to millions of people losing their health insurance. Indeed, the political utility of the theory underlying Trump's memo is readily apparent. It's wildly popular in conservative media, with Fox News already devoting dozens of stories and extensive coverage to it. That includes this week when other outlets were focused on a decidedly less helpful story for the Trump administration: Elon Musk bashing the president's domestic policy bill. It's also nearly impossible to disprove it. History suggests that arriving at actual proof of Trump's theory is often besides the point for Trump. It's about repetition and seeding doubt. And Wednesday's action is clearly in line with that history.