W heavy
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: W heavy
Just for information because the Guardian didn't give the numbers, they measured it at 80,433.5 MeV/c² instead of 80,379 MeV/c².
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: W heavy
I’m looking forward to all the amateur physicists who will step forward with their own theories about this.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: W heavy
It's not clear to me how tightly constrained the W mass was, given how many free parameters there are in the Standard Model, or how hard they fudged it to make it seem the currently accepted value was "predicted".
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: W heavy
The BBC sensibly reminds us that 2 other experiments, though less "accurate", excluded a discrepancy of this size.
After the faster-than-light neutrinos, and various other things that quickly went away once brought into the limelight, you think they'd hang back a bit on the "we've found new physics". Or maybe they tried to make a sober report and the excitement got added in by others.
Re: W heavy
We know there a gaps (like the 70% matter that's Dark), and the discrepancy between the measurements of the Rate of Expansion of the universe, so we're definitely looking at 'new physics' being needed; whether this 'old physics' is a hint of where there's an overlap is what's significant.
But as dyqik says, did we really know the 'expected' value to 1 7 parts in 10,000?
But as dyqik says, did we really know the 'expected' value to 1 7 parts in 10,000?
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: W heavy
I'm not up on standard model calculations, but I expect that we did know that. Although all of the standard model isn't all as precise as QED, I'll remind you that QED makes predictions for certain quantities to better than 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000.Gfamily wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:01 amWe know there a gaps (like the 70% matter that's Dark), and the discrepancy between the measurements of the Rate of Expansion of the universe, so we're definitely looking at 'new physics' being needed; whether this 'old physics' is a hint of where there's an overlap is what's significant.
But as dyqik says, did we really know the 'expected' value to 1 7 parts in 10,000?
But I'd look for experimental discrepancies before looking for new physics. Different particle accelerators work in different ways, and the detectors on them aren't built the same way, and run different (but overlapping) code, different (but overlapping) calibrations, etc.
Re: W heavy
I've not looked at this yet, but I expect the report is similar to the faster than light neutrinos one in tone, which was "we've found this in a large chunk of data, we've tried checking everything we on the experiment can think of, so maybe it's new, or maybe one of you clever buggers can think of something we missed".IvanV wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:39 amThe BBC sensibly reminds us that 2 other experiments, though less "accurate", excluded a discrepancy of this size.
After the faster-than-light neutrinos, and various other things that quickly went away once brought into the limelight, you think they'd hang back a bit on the "we've found new physics". Or maybe they tried to make a sober report and the excitement got added in by others.
Re: W heavy
If anyone's interested in a PopSci explanation of how this level of prediction can be made, I suggest reading Nicholas Mee's book "Higgs Force: The Symmetry-Breaking Force that Makes the World an Interesting Place" which mainly looks at the ways that our modern view of physics is based on how symmetries are created and broken, but which also describes how QED allows those predictions to be made.
It also includes details of the Higgs Field/Force.
A review
https://popsciencebooks.blogspot.com/20 ... e.html?m=1
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!