In DepthParticle Physics

In familiar decays, a whiff of new physics

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  21 Apr 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6335, pp. 229-230
DOI: 10.1126/science.356.6335.229

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
Publication Date - String

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Whiffs of the future and a new physics-that-is--only-mathematics

    Dear Adrian Cho:

    Do you think it is possible that physics is at "the wall" or so close to it that they can't see it? Could that bottom quark bound to a lighter type of antiquark with its ever-so-faint signal be actually pointing to a new mathematics that is roiling inside the B meson? The CERN folks certainly may want to call it a new force-carrying particle, the Z' or leptoquark (or let me get more exotic particle and call it the attoquark). I think it is much more.

    I think their mathematics is not quite inclusive enough. Where are the Planck base units? Where is Euler's number? Most of math is just not quite inclusive enough. On the flip side, Langlands and all the others on the edge treat the Planck units like migrants. I think we need to go back to 1986 with John Wheeler, looking at fluctuations, and ask,
    “Behind it all is an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium – we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?”

    If we encapsulate the universe within a mathematical grid or matrix, we have a new starting point. If we use base-2 -- it's the most simple-and-informative -- and start with the Planck Length and Planck Time, we can go to the Observable Universe and the Age of the Universe within just 202 notations. Now, that's the beginning of an operating system! The challenge is much like that which faced programmers starting a new comp...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.