In a landmark experiment, scientists have found new evidence that a subatomic particle is disobeying one of science’s most watertight theories, the Standard Model of particle physics. The difference between the model’s predictions and the particle’s recently measured behavior hints which the world could contain unseen forces and particles beyond our current grasp.
In a seminar on Wednesday, investigators with Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, announced the first results of this Muon g-2 experiment, which since 2018 has quantified a particle called the muon, a heavier sibling of the electron that was discovered at the 1930s.
Like electrons, muons have a negative electric charge and a quantum property called spin, which causes the particles to act like tiny, wobbling shirts when placed in a magnetic field. The stronger the magnetic field, the faster a muon wobbles.
The Standard Model, developed from the 1970s, is humanity’s best mathematical explanation for how all the particles in the world behave and forecasts that the frequency of a muon’s wobbling with intense precision. However, in 2001, the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, discovered that muons seem to wobble slightly faster than the Standard Model forecasts.
Now, two years after, Fermilab’s Muon g-2 experimentation has completed its own version of the Brookhaven experiment–and it’s seen the same anomaly. When investigators combined the two experiments’ data, they found that the odds of this discrepancy simply being a fluke are roughly 1 in 40,000, a sign that extra particles and forces could be affecting the muon’s behavior.
“This has been a long time coming,” says University of Manchester physicist Mark Lancaster, a member of the Muon g-2 collaboration, a team of more than 200 scientists from seven countries. “Many people have been working on it for a long time.”
By the strict standards of particle physics, the results aren’t a “discovery” just yet. That threshold won’t be reached until the results achieve a statistical certainty of five sigma, or a 1-in-3.5 million chance that a random fluctuation caused the gap between theory and observation, rather than a true difference.
The new results–which will be published in the scientific journals Physical Review Letters, Physical Review A&B, Physical Review A, and Physical Review D–are based on just 6 percent of the total data the experiment is expected to collect. If Fermilab’s results stay consistent, reaching five sigma could take a couple of years. “The approach to consider is sort of cautious optimism,” says Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, who wasn’t involved with the research.
Already, Fermilab’s results amount to the biggest clue in decades that physical particles or properties exist beyond the Standard Model. If this disagreement with the Standard Model persists, then the work”is Nobel Prize-worthy, without question,” says Free University of Brussels physicist Freya Blekman, who wasn’t involved with the research.
A model of everything
The Standard Model is arguably the most successful scientific theory, capable of stunningly accurate predictions of how the universe’s fundamental particles behave. But scientists have long known that the model is incomplete. It’s missing a description of gravity, for one, and it says nothing about the mysterious dark matter that seems to be strewn throughout the cosmos.
To figure out what lies beyond the Standard Model, physicists have long tried to push it to its breaking point in lab experiments. However, the theory has stubbornly passed test after test, including years of high-energy measurements at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which in 2012 found a particle that had been predicted by the Standard Model: the Higgs boson, which plays a key role in giving mass to some other particles.
Unlike the LHC, which smashes particles together to make new kinds of particles, Fermilab’s Muon g-2 experiment measures known particles to extreme precision, searching for subtle deviations from Standard Model theory.
“The LHC, if you like, is nearly like smashing two Swiss watches right into each other at high rate. The debris comes out, and you attempt to piece together what’s inside,” Lancaster says. “We’ve obtained a Swiss watch, and we observe it tick very, very, very, very painstakingly and precisely, to see whether it is doing what we expect it to do.”
The muon is just about the perfect particle to monitor for signs of new physics. It survives long enough to be studied closely in the lab–though still only millionths of a second–and while the muon is expected to behave a lot like the electron, it’s 207 times more massive, which provides an important point of comparison.
For decades, researchers have taken a close look at how muons’ magnetic wobbles are influenced by the effect of other known particles. However, the quantum scale–the scale of individual particles–minor energy fluctuations manifest as pairs of particles which pop in and out of existence, like suds in a huge bubble tub.
According to the Standard Model, as muons mingle with this foamy background of”virtual” particles, they wobble roughly 0.1 percent quicker than you’d expect. This extra boost into the muon’s wobble is referred to as the anomalous magnetic moment.
The Standard Model’s forecast is only as good as its inventory of the universe’s particles, however. If the universe contains additional heavy particles, as an example, they would tweak the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon–possibly even enough to measure in the lab.
Studying the muon is”almost the most inclusive probe of new physics,” says Muon g-2 team member Dominik Stöckinger, a theorist in Germany’s Dresden University of Technology.
Muon beams and magnetic fields
The Muon g-2 experiment starts with a beam of muons, which scientists create by smashing pairs of protons together and then carefully filtering the subatomic debris. This muon beam then passes a 14-ton magnetic ring which initially was used in the Brookhaven experiment, shipped by barge and truck out of Long Island to Illinois in 2013.
As the muons go round and round this storage ring, which includes a uniform magnetic field, the wobbling muons decay into particles which slap right into a pair of 24 sensors along the monitor’s internal wall. By tracking how often these decay particles struck the detectors, researchers can find out how fast their parent muons were wobbling–a bit like figuring out how a distant lighthouse’s rotation speed by viewing it dim and brighten.
Muon g-2 is hoping to assess the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment to an accuracy of 140 parts per billion, four times better than the Brookhaven test. At the exact same time, scientists had to create the best Standard Model prediction potential. By 2017 to 2020, 132 theorists led by the University of Illinois’s Aida El-Khadra exercised that the theory’s prediction of muon wobble with unprecedented accuracy–and it was lower compared to measured values.
Because the experiment’s stakes are so large, Fermilab also required steps to remove prejudice. The experiment’s key dimensions require the exact time that its sensors pick up signals, so to maintain the scientists honest, Fermilab altered the experiment’s clock by a random number. This shift tweaked the data by an unidentified quantity that would be adjusted for just after the analysis was complete.
The only recordings of this clock-shifting random number were on two handwritten pieces of paper which were stored in locked cabinets at Fermilab and the University of Washington in Seattle. In late February, these envelopes were opened and revealed to the team, which let them figure out the experiment’s true effects on a live Zoom telephone.
“We were all really ecstatic, excited, but also shocked–because deep down, I think we’re all a little bit pessimistic,” says Muon g-2 team member Jessica Esquivel, a postdoctoral researcher in Fermilab.
The new Fermilab outcomes provide an important clue to what might lie beyond the Standard Model–but theorists hoping to find new physics do not have unlimited space to explore. Any theory that tries to explain Muon g-2’s results must also account for the lack of new particles found by the LHC.
In a few of the suggested concepts that thread this needle, the universe contains several types of Higgs bosons, not just the one included in the Standard Model. Other theories invoke exotic”leptoquarks” that will cause new kinds of interactions between muons and other contaminants. But because a lot of these concepts’ simplest versions have been ruled out already, physicists”have to sort of think in unconventional ways,” Stöckinger says.
Coincidentally, news of the Fermilab results comes two weeks after another lab–CERN’s LHCb experiment–found independent evidence of misbehaving muons. The experiment monitors short-lived particles called B mesons and tracks how they decay. The Standard Model predicts that some of these decaying particles spit out pairs of muons. But LHCb has found evidence that these muon-spawning decays occur less often than predicted, with odds of a fluke in the experiment at roughly one in a thousand.
Like Fermilab, LHCb needs more data before claiming a new discovery. But even now, the combination of the two results has physicists”jumping up and down,” El-Khadra says.
The next step is to replicate the results. Fermilab’s findings are based on the experiment’s first run, which ended in mid-2018. The team is currently analyzing two additional runs’ worth of information. If these data resemble the first run, they could be sufficient to make the anomaly a full-blown discovery by the conclusion of 2023.
Theorists also are beginning to poke and prod at the Standard Model’s forecast, particularly the parts which are notoriously tricky to compute. New supercomputer methods called lattice simulations should assist, but early results disagree slightly with some of the values that El-Khadra’s team contained in its own theoretical calculation. It will take a long time to sift through these subtle differences and find out how they affect the hunt for new physics.
For Lancaster along with his colleagues, the decades of work ahead are well worth it–especially given how much they have come.
“When you go and tell people, I’m going to try to measure something to better than one part per million, they sometimes look at you a little bit odd… and then when you say, it’s gonna take 10 years, they go, You must be mad,” he says. “I think the message is: persevere.”