W heavy

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
Post Reply
User avatar
nekomatic
Catbabel
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm

W heavy

Post by nekomatic » Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:05 am

The W boson is heavier than expected , apparently.
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7056
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: W heavy

Post by shpalman » Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:29 am

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.
molto tricky

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: W heavy

Post by Grumble » Fri Apr 08, 2022 8:22 am

I’m looking forward to all the amateur physicists who will step forward with their own theories about this.
A bit churlish

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7056
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: W heavy

Post by shpalman » Fri Apr 08, 2022 8:28 am

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".
molto tricky

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1210
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: W heavy

Post by IvanV » Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:39 am

nekomatic wrote:
Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:05 am
The W boson is heavier than expected , apparently.
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.

User avatar
Gfamily
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: W heavy

Post by Gfamily » Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:01 am

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?
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!

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5390
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: W heavy

Post by dyqik » Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:39 am

Gfamily wrote:
Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:01 am
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?
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.

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.

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5390
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: W heavy

Post by dyqik » Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:43 am

IvanV wrote:
Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:39 am
nekomatic wrote:
Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:05 am
The W boson is heavier than expected , apparently.
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.
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".

User avatar
Gfamily
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: W heavy

Post by Gfamily » Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:38 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:39 am
I'll remind you that QED makes predictions for certain quantities to better than 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000.
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!

Post Reply