Latest muon data narrows gap but leaves physics mysteries unresolved
This June, the Muon g-2 (pronounced 'gee minus two') Experiment at Fermilab in the US presented its highly anticipated final results. With data collected over three years and with the involvement of more than 170 physicists, the collaboration had measured a unique property of a subatomic particle called a muon with an unprecedented precision of 0.127 ppm, outdoing its stated goal of 0.140 ppm.
Usually, physicists check such measurements against the prediction of the Standard Model, the theory of subatomic particles that predicts their properties. If they don't match, the measured value would hint at the presence of unseen forces. But in this instance, there are two ways to make theoretical predictions about this property of the muon. One of them is consistent with the Fermilab experiment and the other is far off. Nobody knows which really is right, and an intriguing drama has been unfolding over the last few years with no clear resolution in sight.
g minus 2
The muon is an elementary particle that mimics the electron in every trait except for being 207-times heavier. Discovered in 1936 in cosmic rays, its place in the pattern of the Standard Model was, and still is, something of a mystery, prompting physicist Isidor Rabi to remark: 'Who ordered that?'
The muon carries non-zero quantum spin, which means it functions like a petite magnet. The strength of this magnet, called the magnetic moment, is captured by a quantity called the g factor. In a high-school calculation, g would be exactly 2, but in advanced theory its value drifts a tiny bit from 2 due to quantum field effects. It is this so-called anomalous magnetic moment that the Muon g -2 Experiment painstakingly ascertained.
Measurements of the g-2 of the muon were first made at CERN in Europe and the results were published in 1961 with a definition of 4000 ppm. Over the next two decades at CERN, the precision was improved to 7 ppm. Matters took an interesting trans-Atlantic turn when the Muon E821 experiment at the Brookhaven National Lab in the US took data between 1997 and 2001 and achieved a precision of 0.540 ppm, which was similar to the uncertainty in the theoretical prediction. In other words, the two numbers — the theoretical calculation and the observed value — could be meaningfully compared.
And lo and behold, they significantly disagreed.
Contrast with theory
Nothing seemed to have been amiss in the experiment, so many physicists wagered that the disagreement was a hint of 'new physics'. Numerous explanations involving theories beyond the Standard Model poured into the literature over the next two decades. At the same time, the theoretical physicists themselves got down to refining the Standard Model prediction itself, which was no mean task.
So stood affairs until Fermilab started measuring g-2 in 2017. When it had collected just 6% of the total intended data by 2021, it had already reached a precision of 0.460 ppm, comparable to E821. This first result was in such excellent agreement with E821 data that when the two results were combined, the discrepancy with theory deepened to worrying levels.
But the spectacle didn't end there. On the very day that Fermilab announced this result to much fanfare, there quietly appeared in Nature a new paper in which a group of physicists, called the Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal (BMW) Lattice collaboration, argued there may be no gap between theory and experiment values after all.
Theorists compute the muon g-2 using either (i) Feynman diagrams, a tool that has served calculations in quantum field theory for three quarters of a century, or (ii) the so-called lattice, a supercomputer simulation of spacetime as a discretised grid that represents quantum fields. Both approaches are technically very challenging in this context.
The final results at Fermilab from June are less confusing. They are consistent with their past announcements; it's their contrast with theory that is unsettled.
An old friend
The experimental setup itself was ingenious. A beam of anti-muons is injected into a 15-m-wise ring with a uniform magnetic field. There the antiparticles make circular orbits with a characteristic frequency. Meanwhile, the antiparticles' spin vectors — a fundamental property of theirs — rotate in the magnetic field and they resemble spinning tops, spinning with a certain spin frequency. The central conceit is to measure the difference between the frequency of the circular orbits and the spin frequencies. This difference carries direct information on the muon's g-2 value.
Both E821 and Fermilab operated on this principle. This is not impossible. Fermilab reused part of the E821 equipment and thus some unknown defects may have made their presence felt in the Fermilab data as well. This is why it is crucial to have a completely independent measurement by a different experimental approach. An upcoming effort at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex will do just this.
Uncertainty is an old friend of fundamental physics. It has always borne the promise of an imminent disclosure of a deep secret of nature. We wait now for the next word from theorists and hope that the jury will soon be in.
Nirmal Raj is an assistant professor of theoretical physics at the Centre for High Energy Physics in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
17 hours ago
- The Hindu
Latest muon data narrows gap but leaves physics mysteries unresolved
Can you weigh an elephant before and after it picks up a one-rupee coin, and tell the difference? You can if the measurement is precise. To detect a 4-gram coin on a 4-tonne creature, the scales must come with a resolution of at least 1 part per million (ppm). Precise measurements such as these routinely lead to startling discoveries in fundamental physics. This is what the physicist Albert Michelson meant by 'The future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals'. This June, the Muon g-2 (pronounced 'gee minus two') Experiment at Fermilab in the US presented its highly anticipated final results. With data collected over three years and with the involvement of more than 170 physicists, the collaboration had measured a unique property of a subatomic particle called a muon with an unprecedented precision of 0.127 ppm, outdoing its stated goal of 0.140 ppm. Usually, physicists check such measurements against the prediction of the Standard Model, the theory of subatomic particles that predicts their properties. If they don't match, the measured value would hint at the presence of unseen forces. But in this instance, there are two ways to make theoretical predictions about this property of the muon. One of them is consistent with the Fermilab experiment and the other is far off. Nobody knows which really is right, and an intriguing drama has been unfolding over the last few years with no clear resolution in sight. g minus 2 The muon is an elementary particle that mimics the electron in every trait except for being 207-times heavier. Discovered in 1936 in cosmic rays, its place in the pattern of the Standard Model was, and still is, something of a mystery, prompting physicist Isidor Rabi to remark: 'Who ordered that?' The muon carries non-zero quantum spin, which means it functions like a petite magnet. The strength of this magnet, called the magnetic moment, is captured by a quantity called the g factor. In a high-school calculation, g would be exactly 2, but in advanced theory its value drifts a tiny bit from 2 due to quantum field effects. It is this so-called anomalous magnetic moment that the Muon g -2 Experiment painstakingly ascertained. Measurements of the g-2 of the muon were first made at CERN in Europe and the results were published in 1961 with a definition of 4000 ppm. Over the next two decades at CERN, the precision was improved to 7 ppm. Matters took an interesting trans-Atlantic turn when the Muon E821 experiment at the Brookhaven National Lab in the US took data between 1997 and 2001 and achieved a precision of 0.540 ppm, which was similar to the uncertainty in the theoretical prediction. In other words, the two numbers — the theoretical calculation and the observed value — could be meaningfully compared. And lo and behold, they significantly disagreed. Contrast with theory Nothing seemed to have been amiss in the experiment, so many physicists wagered that the disagreement was a hint of 'new physics'. Numerous explanations involving theories beyond the Standard Model poured into the literature over the next two decades. At the same time, the theoretical physicists themselves got down to refining the Standard Model prediction itself, which was no mean task. So stood affairs until Fermilab started measuring g-2 in 2017. When it had collected just 6% of the total intended data by 2021, it had already reached a precision of 0.460 ppm, comparable to E821. This first result was in such excellent agreement with E821 data that when the two results were combined, the discrepancy with theory deepened to worrying levels. But the spectacle didn't end there. On the very day that Fermilab announced this result to much fanfare, there quietly appeared in Nature a new paper in which a group of physicists, called the Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal (BMW) Lattice collaboration, argued there may be no gap between theory and experiment values after all. Theorists compute the muon g-2 using either (i) Feynman diagrams, a tool that has served calculations in quantum field theory for three quarters of a century, or (ii) the so-called lattice, a supercomputer simulation of spacetime as a discretised grid that represents quantum fields. Both approaches are technically very challenging in this context. The final results at Fermilab from June are less confusing. They are consistent with their past announcements; it's their contrast with theory that is unsettled. An old friend The experimental setup itself was ingenious. A beam of anti-muons is injected into a 15-m-wise ring with a uniform magnetic field. There the antiparticles make circular orbits with a characteristic frequency. Meanwhile, the antiparticles' spin vectors — a fundamental property of theirs — rotate in the magnetic field and they resemble spinning tops, spinning with a certain spin frequency. The central conceit is to measure the difference between the frequency of the circular orbits and the spin frequencies. This difference carries direct information on the muon's g-2 value. Both E821 and Fermilab operated on this principle. This is not impossible. Fermilab reused part of the E821 equipment and thus some unknown defects may have made their presence felt in the Fermilab data as well. This is why it is crucial to have a completely independent measurement by a different experimental approach. An upcoming effort at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex will do just this. Uncertainty is an old friend of fundamental physics. It has always borne the promise of an imminent disclosure of a deep secret of nature. We wait now for the next word from theorists and hope that the jury will soon be in. Nirmal Raj is an assistant professor of theoretical physics at the Centre for High Energy Physics in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
Time of India
06-08-2025
- Time of India
Hidden mirror world or just imagination? Scientist says dark matter comes from this unknown plane!
The nature and origins of dark matter remain among the greatest mysteries in modern physics. While some theories point towards its existence, making up around 80% of the universe's matter, scientists still have no clear answer about what dark matter actually is. Recently, a physicist proposed two new ideas that could give a new perspective to the presently known information about dark matter. Does dark matter come from a ' hidden mirror world '? Profumo, a physicist based in the US, published a new study on July 8, 2025, in Physical Review D, where he shared an interesting idea that explores the possibility that dark matter comes from a hidden 'shadow world' that mirrors our own. In this shadow world, there could be dark versions of particles like quarks and gluons that stick together to form heavy particles, kind of like the ones that make up atoms in our universe. In the early days of the universe, these dark particles could have clumped together under gravity to form stable, super-small black holes, or similar objects that wouldn't interact with regular matter or light, but only gravity, which makes them invisible but still capable of shaping the universe. Profumo says this could explain all the dark matter that scientists believe is out there but haven't been able to detect. This idea builds on the 'mirror matter' theory that's been around for years. It suggests there might be a parallel universe running alongside ours, made up of similar particles and physics, but completely hidden, except for the tiny gravitational effects we can observe (MDPI). He also gave dark matter theories earlier A study published in May in Physical Review D by Profumo suggested a completely different idea about where dark matter might come from. He said that it could have been created as radiation from the edge of the universe, specifically during a phase of rapid expansion right after the Big Bang, known as the quasi–de Sitter phase. This theory applies quantum physics to the fabric of the expanding universe. It proposes that stable dark matter particles could have been 'frozen in' from the heat at the universe's outer horizon, like cosmic leftovers locked in place during expansion. Depending on how the early universe evolved, these particles could have a wide range of masses, from tiny to extremely heavy, close to the Planck scale. Interestingly, it doesn't require dark matter to interact with anything from the Standard Model of physics Why are these theories important According to Profumo says, 'Both mechanisms are highly speculative, but they offer self‑contained and calculable scenarios that don't rely on conventional particle dark matter models, which are increasingly under pressure from null experimental results'. These ideas don't depend on the weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) paradigm, which has not been detected so far, but are based on well-known physics principles that have been extended to new horizons. Future studies could refine these theories, as even if one or both ideas prove incorrect, they tell how innovative thinking and established physics can combine to challenge our assumptions and bring us closer to solving the dark matter puzzle.
The Hindu
30-07-2025
- The Hindu
U.S. Fermilab hit in cyberattack targeting Microsoft's SharePoint: Report
One of the U.S. Department of Energy's 17 national labs was attacked by hackers as part of a recent campaign seeking to exploit flaws in Microsoft's SharePoint software, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday, citing a department spokesperson. "Attackers did attempt to access Fermilab's SharePoint servers," a Department of Energy spokesperson told Bloomberg, referring to the U.S. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. "The attackers were quickly identified, and the impact was minimal, with no sensitive or classified data accessed," the spokesperson said, adding that Fermilab's servers are back online and running normally. Microsoft, Fermilab and the U.S. Department of Energy did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. A security patch released by Microsoft last month failed to fully fix a critical flaw in the U.S. tech giant's SharePoint server software that had been identified in May, opening the door to a sweeping global cyber espionage operation. Fermilab, established in 1967, is "America's particle physics and accelerator laboratory," according to its website. Last week, a U.S. Department of Energy spokesperson told Reuters that on July 18 a SharePoint security flaw impacted its systems, including those of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The department had stated that all affected systems were being restored.
