How do they know this?!?!?

[K3NS31]

Because the size of the universe is ever expanding and thus, even if the value was correct yesterday, it certainly isn't today. Also, I do know a tad about the size of the universe (Which they're not certain about. Hell, they're not even certain about its shape) and physics in general, having had it as a major during university.
I agree that he shouldn't just blindly accept an answer, but seriously, common sense has to prevail as well.

And because I didn't want to leave it at that:

Estimated width of the universe: 156 billion light years
1 light year = 10^16 meters
Thus 156 000 000 000 x 10 000 000 000 000 000 meters
= 1 560 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 m

Now, the width of a human hair according to Wikipedia, is roughly 10−4 m. So in order for them to be able to make the above statement, they need to be able to detect a deviation of 1:15 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Now, I may be out by a decimal or two as I did this really quickly, but even then that's asking for a bit much.

Hey, you've provided an explanation of your reasoning, that's all I wanted.

 

[Picard]

Edit: Picard, that kind of blind acceptance is an insult to your nickname (assuming your nick refers to Jean Picard, the scientist, who the starship captain was later named after. Both of whom would never have simply accepted that statement, incidentally)

My homage to a great character leads me to not accept things at face value. Either I pose doubt and have someone else convince me (which no-one yet has done) or I will dismiss any absurd statement even if made by reputable scientists or by "Starfleet Command".

So I think either way I can live up to the reputation of Capt. Picard.

 

[Elimentals]

Because the size of the universe is ever expanding and thus, even if the value was correct yesterday, it certainly isn't today. Also, I do know a tad about the size of the universe (Which they're not certain about. Hell, they're not even certain about its shape) and physics in general, having had it as a major during university.
I agree that he shouldn't just blindly accept an answer, but seriously, common sense has to prevail as well.

And because I didn't want to leave it at that:

Guesstimate width of the universe: 156 billion light years
1 light year = 10^16 meters
Thus 156 000 000 000 x 10 000 000 000 000 000 meters
= 1 560 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 m

Now, the width of a human hair according to Wikipedia, is roughly 10−4 m. So in order for them to be able to make the above statement, they need to be able to detect a deviation of 1:15 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Now, I may be out by a decimal or two as I did this really quickly, but even then that's asking for a bit much.

Fixed that for you as that number change depending on who you talk to, problem is we have no clue how big it really is

 

[Knyro]

Whoops, my mistake and this will obviously remove quite a few zero's from my calculation above.

According to the article, which indeed has a somewhat sensationalistic title, they indeed have a certain degree of statistical error being taken into account. Quickly looking at it, this error seems to be significant enough to invalidate the statement that the nature of the sphere can be calculated to within the above-mentioned accuracy.

No it doesn't. From dabean's article:

So after all this work they finally arrived at their calculated value of the EDM for the electron. The value turned out to be de = (-2.4 ± 5.7stat ± 1.5syst) × 10-28 e · cm, where the first error term is from statistical uncertainty and the second is from systematic uncertainty.

Statistical error has already been taken into account so their measurement is valid. Note how large the error is in comparison to the other terms. This does not mean that their measurements are off. It means they are covering their asses to make sure that their measurement falls within some upper bound in case they are off even though the accuracy of measurement is probably better than they are reporting.

I thought you couldn't actually resolve/see an electron because it's natural wavelength while moving was longer than the particle itself... So in effect, it's more a quantum particle where it's just a little packed of waves that caries a very particular energy specifying it's mass, and properties???

Besides, how do you observe something that is so small? You can't use light, because unless you zapping the thing with Gamma rays, the light waves are waaaaaaaay to long to actually see it... (it's like putting a tooth pick in the ocean, and trying to see the effects the tooth pick has on the oceans waves). Meh, looks like a waste of 10 years to me... who actually cares about how round an electron is?

They didn't measure the electrons with lasers directly. Excerpt from this article

The researchers' experiments involved firing pulses of ytterbium monofluoride molecules between electrified plates. The scientists then used lasers to measure how the molecules twisted within these electric fields to deduce the shape of their electrons. They monitored 25 million such pulses.

The research is less about the roundness and more about the internal structure of an electron.

No it isn't.

The results of this work are important in the study of antimatter,

...

Understanding the shape of the electron could help researchers understand how positrons behave and how antimatter and matter might differ.

...

Imperial's Centre for Cold Matter aims to explain this lack of antimatter by searching for tiny differences between the behaviour of matter and antimatter that no-one has yet observed. Had the researchers found that electrons are not round it would have provided proof that the behaviour of antimatter and matter differ more than physicists previously thought. This, they say, could explain how all the antimatter disappeared from the universe, leaving only ordinary matter.

Part of the laser system used for measuring the shape of the electron

Awesome

 

[K3NS31]

snip... lots of useful info... snip...
Part of the laser system used for measuring the shape of the electron

Awesome

Thanks Knyro, some great info there.

 

[Devill]

Be careful with media articles. They tend to want to jazz up what they are reporting. But then again, math is math so if you want to scale up the dimensions you could use that figure to calculate the accuracy yourself. You're a teacher right? Get those trig maths and calculator out. ;P

Just asking does it then still fall under theoritical physics or is it seen as a "fact" after peer review?

 

[bin3]

Just asking does it then still fall under theoritical physics or is it seen as a "fact" after peer review?

hehe, no: theoretical physics doesn't mean that they only work with theories ... so yes, this would be theoretical as apposed to applied physics.

 

[Mudshark]

Great introduction to Quantum Mechanics

This is a great introduction to quantum mechanics: The Elegant Universe; Brian Greene. Read it and weep.

 

[Devill]

hehe, no: theoretical physics doesn't mean that they only work with theories ... so yes, this would be theoretical as apposed to applied physics.

Lol, I know but as soon as it is "accepted", how far does the "new" fact/proof get incorporated into the field of physics (I am just thinking that it would change a lot of things in the field of physics not true?).

This is a great introduction to quantum mechanics: The Elegant Universe; Brian Greene. Read it and weep.

I would love to but it will have to wait till the end of the year

 

[Geriatrix]

Lol, I know but as soon as it is "accepted", how far does the "new" fact/proof get incorporated into the field of physics (I am just thinking that it would change a lot of things in the field of physics not true?).

No idea. I guess it would be used as soon as it is found to be useful. Hey even disproved theories are still being studied.

 

[bin3]

Lol, I know but as soon as it is "accepted", how far does the "new" fact/proof get incorporated into the field of physics (I am just thinking that it would change a lot of things in the field of physics not true?).

I reckon so, but I'm definitely no specialist. I would think it works a bit like software / programming as well. You tend to be stuck with existing systems, and as you learn new technologies and techniques, you apply those to your system. You don't, in general, go around and throw out the whole system because of some new and interesting technology. You do look at where you might be able to apply it in the future.

So I would assume as scientists continue studying what they usually study, the impact of other discoveries are slowly worked into their current work.

But this I'm pretty sure about: No scientist can or should base their findings on one theory or fact or discovery or be that what it may. They would use different techniques, approach form totally different perspectives, and if all goes well, the different techniques will approach the same answer.

Exactly how the geometric shape of the probability field of an electron impacts other disciplines, I have no way of knowing, but I suspect it might be used a lot earlier in topological type sciences than in other sciences.

 

[Devill]

I reckon so, but I'm definitely no specialist. I would think it works a bit like software / programming as well. You tend to be stuck with existing systems, and as you learn new technologies and techniques, you apply those to your system. You don't, in general, go around and throw out the whole system because of some new and interesting technology. You do look at where you might be able to apply it in the future.

So I would assume as scientists continue studying what they usually study, the impact of other discoveries are slowly worked into their current work.

But this I'm pretty sure about: No scientist can or should base their findings on one theory or fact or discovery or be that what it may. They would use different techniques, approach form totally different perspectives, and if all goes well, the different techniques will approach the same answer.

Exactly how the geometric shape of the probability field of an electron impacts other disciplines, I have no way of knowing, but I suspect it might be used a lot earlier in topological type sciences than in other sciences.

Thanks, that was the answer / opinion I was looking for

May I ask in what field you are working?