"While I'd usually trash talk the competition..." That's healthy competition. Actively supporting each other instead of undermining each other's research. I love being a part of this this society. Cheers to physics and the scientists that are studying it!

@midlander4

2 жыл бұрын

And a huge FO to science deniers - including flerfers and creationists - who have literally no idea how this beautiful stuff works.

@linkin543210

2 жыл бұрын

I think he was joking about trash talking the competition….

@andrekz9138

2 жыл бұрын

@@linkin543210 It was 100% playful. Above all else, we want to see each other succeed.

@supercobra1746

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, its not healthy competition, its actually meaning that this stuff doesn't effect anything in the world. Otherwise, it would be censorsed, cancelled, or privatized.

@Feefa99

2 жыл бұрын

there is definitely difference between competition in science and between sport fans.

When scientists say "I don't know," that's when you know things are going to get interesting, and I love it!

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

Mmm no it means they haven't got a clue just like most 20/21c science. Nothing 'new' on science since the 60s all re-hashed as original.

@midlander4

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine a xtian having the honesty to say that.

@Bob-of-Zoid

2 жыл бұрын

@@midlander4 You can say christian, because we both know they are going to try their best to mutilate anything published about it and claim it as "proof" for god. As if that psychopath imaginary freind ever existed in the first place!

@bohanxu6125

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair... they only don't know about the 0.1% disagreement between theory and experiment.

@AlexanderMoises

2 жыл бұрын

@@midlander4 you are psychotic

physicists are the only professionals who get hyped when they find find out they were wrong all along. I think everyone else should see that as an example of determination.

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

THANK YOU

@tinfoilhomer909

Жыл бұрын

phrenologists are also happy when they get it wrong.

@johnrubensaragi4125

Жыл бұрын

Definitely unlike surgeons.

@enderallygolem

Жыл бұрын

"YES! I ACCIDENTALLY KILLED THE MAN!"

@JohannPetrak

Жыл бұрын

Totally disagree - any serious (natural/technical) scientist gets hyped about this, of course, because it definitely means a paper in a highly ranked journal.

I love the honesty! At the end he says “what does it all mean?… I don’t know…” that is how I feel after watching these videos sometimes… I love them, don’t get me wrong… but sometimes I just don’t get it either…

@shiffermonster

2 жыл бұрын

Spoiler!!

@Bassotronics

2 жыл бұрын

I love physics, but sadly my 35% monkey brain can’t grasp much info.

@ferretappreciator

2 жыл бұрын

@@shiffermonster can you spoil physics??

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

He is becoming a realist. It will take time before he realeyes the anomalies

@gordianknot5625

2 жыл бұрын

Welcome to the club.

I've seen about 5 clips about this already, but there's nothing like a real scientist to put it in simple terms. Props to you mate!

@briannaw.7226

2 жыл бұрын

This is simple terms? lol

I got to meet you with my high school AP physics class back in 2004, and I was so excited by all of the talk of neutrinos at the time. Here I am, almost two decades later, just as excited to hear about another of my favorite topics in particle physics.

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

As a student or teacher?

@Mireaze

2 жыл бұрын

Lol, nerd

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 Clever question l'm wondering if he just sat back and let them brag about their research or became Particle Physicist Well never know. Note they don't want newcomers, they're trouble, for stating the obvious, so perhaps just as well if he did not.

@Jac2587

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 I was a student who thought they had everything figured out. I'm glad I didn't, or it would have been a boring 18 years.

Love that you guys maintain this channel! Always interesting, and Don is such a likable host.

@greedowins2917

2 жыл бұрын

Double props for the extra long technical narration here, that was impressive presentation stamina.

I have often thought that "unknown physics" might come into play but I say that as someone totally out of his depth in the field. However the more I learn about it the more I believe that there could be something acting in a way we cannot measure (yet) that is affecting a lot of the physics that we are currently struggling to explain.

Thank you for addressing supersymmetry, even quickly. I hadn't heard it referenced in other videos I've watched about this.

Thanks doctor Lincoln this helps to put this confusing result into some kind of perspevtive. Keep up the good work.

Great to see you Dr Don! Thank you again for a great video - looking good!

Thank you for taking this subject up so fast! On the edge of science 😀

What a coincidence, I grew up in West Boson!

@RemikPi

2 жыл бұрын

Boson or Boston? :D

@bennylloyd-willner9667

2 жыл бұрын

Must have been really tough to actually see how much you grew😁

@Tubluer

2 жыл бұрын

@@bennylloyd-willner9667 West Boson. It's a small town.

@bennylloyd-willner9667

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tubluer sure, I just mean it must be hard to MEASURE growth 😂 (I'm not the one asking if he meant Boston)

@Tubluer

2 жыл бұрын

@@bennylloyd-willner9667 We have no idea where West Boson is, therefore we know exactly how big it is....

Thanks for sharing this exciting news in an understandable way. For the uninitiated, could it be possible to reverse the error bars and draw a table of Experiment N vs probability bound assigned by N that the SM prediction is correct ?

The CDF measurement is a historic result. To think this could motivate a new theoretical understanding in the standard model.

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

For heaven's sake NO MORE THEORIES lets put some older theories into practice confirm them and get Nobels printed before we move on and invent more incredulous atomic models that noone accepts/understands and there is never any real proof.

@maythesciencebewithyou

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine you work for the next two decades or more on a new model which perfectly describes these result and fits everything together only for a measurement in the future to tell you that this measurement was wrong.

As there cannot be ”new boson found”, everyday in the news, and there has been a bit calmer period what comes to meganews in the quantum realm - these kind of interesting news are a lifeline for us, the lamemen science enthusiasts. Cheers and thanks from Northern Europe!

As soon as I heard the news, I knew you would be making a video on it, and I was eagerly anticipating it, moreso than any marvel movie in recent memory. So exciting!

@SciTechEnthusiasts

2 жыл бұрын

are you in some chat groups or you have any links? please add me bro I like knowing this stuff and asking questions and thinking about it.

Yes, there are many still unknowns. It is great that we still keep searching there!

So happy for all the folks at Fermilab! Wonderful to see them keep squeezing new science out of the Tevatron.

In the last graph, you should show the error weighted average of all the independent measurements along with the newly calculated s.d, and compare that to the SM prediction. Just eyeballing it, it looks pretty close.

This was also a fun video to watch. Some great thought experiments. Thanks a million Dr.Lincoln. 👍

Thanks for explaining why the LHC hasn't/is unlikely to resolve the issue. I've seen several videos about the CDF's findings and they never addressed whether the LHC could answer the question.

Refreshingly candid! Great channel.

I only half understand what you say, Don. But I fully understand your enthusiasm.

The difference to standard model estimate seems ~ 0.087%, I am surprised that this deviation already breaks down standard model.

What is amazing to me is that the CDF detector has been scrapped almost 10 years ago.

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

Precisely

How much do the previous measurements still have to be taken into consideration? Are there patterns in all the measurements that would support or oppose the new measurement, also taking into the range of the uncertainty in the measurement?

Thank you very much, for another enlightening lecture.

I'm glad that somebody understands this.

Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

Really Admire Don. I’m really impressed by his great story telling.

Thank you, Dr. Don. I've been waiting for this.

Love the way of explaning

Wrote ib physics hl 6 days ago and I actually understand what you are talking about.

Great content!Thank you!

When the W boson decays into quark and anti-quark; can this be used to find out what happens to antimatter?

What I like about Lincoln is how he can tell it exactly how it is

Can we get a video about how you condense such a complicated system down to one uncertainty?

@DrDeuteron

2 жыл бұрын

experimentationlab.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/Bevington.pdf

But doesn't an average of all the results agree with the standard model? Strongly hints that the various error bars are a tad off.

Hearing this from a member who was/is part of that scientist teams is amazing.

I really see this in a positive way, there's still a ton of things in particle physics which are kind of empirical and lacks a solid reasoning. This breakthrough looks like a positive step to make the subject more robust!

@timjohnson979

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! A chance to discover new physics. What's not to like?

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

Are you sure 🤔

@ritvikg

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnkean6852 in every other reaction particle physics have some exception regarding the conservation laws! It's a complete mess, I don't know what's not to be sure in that!

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

Let's agree it's all a mess. But l'm cynical and believe it's all cloaked in subterfuge since if all the rabbits were revealed, (research) science would simply die a death, as it should have done last century, as there is nothing new to discover, invent... He never really exlained the purpose apart from saying science would be re-written. I've heard that a million times.

@peteparadis1619

2 жыл бұрын

@@ritvikg Without exceptions what works

Third question: Are the retained results originating mainly from head-on collisions or from fender-benders between protons? actually are some specific angles ( or levels of overlaps between colliding protons ) that are expected to give the best results for given experiment , ( or in general)?

This isn't exactly good evidence against but something seems a bit odd about this measurement. Looking at the other measurements we see that they fall on both sides of the SM not the new, but more importantly several of the old measurements are 2-3 stds away from the new one. If those probabilities were independent we could combine them and see that there is a roughly equal chance that the new result is wrong vs the SM being wrong, that is even with the measurement being confirmed. I.e we will probably need a new experiment.

@EliasMheart

2 жыл бұрын

Even 50/50 of the Standard Model being wrong is quite substantial, considering the accuracy in general. If anything has sufficient evidence to get that, that is insanely good evidence. So I don't actually agree with your assessment of it being 50/50 just based on this, but I may be wrong about that, this is definitely not a field of expertise for me. Either way, if we consider your argument for the date without the new measurement, it would actually confirm the SM pretty well. Given that this new one is so narrow in error, and it is an extreme outlier in what otherwise looks like a balanced distribution, seems to be what is so interesting here. Still, I applaud you for considering the problem on a meta-level, this is important, since it allows considerations _before_ we wait 20 years for the next experiment.

Are each measurement using a different method to estimate neutrino momentum &energy? A high level of precision does not mean the high accuracy. Could there be a systematic error in the calculation of the CDFII especially since the D0II and ATLAS measurements (though less precise) are more in line with each other and the SM?

@ldbarthel

2 жыл бұрын

Definitely a possibility, although I'm sure the CDF team did their best to rule out all likely candidates. Wasn't there at least one instance where a result that didn't agree with the standard model was due to a slight deformation in the accelerator?

The answer to any question in modern physics is always ‚we need a new, larger accelerator‘. And this video doesn‘t dissapoint 😉

@NullHand

2 жыл бұрын

Well, to be honest, they are probably justified. When astronomers want to peer farther into the Universe we don't say "just try squinting harder into the scope you have.." We just build a bigger EYE.

@peteparadis1619

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong

@BlueCosmology

2 жыл бұрын

A larger accelerator is the opposite of the answer to this question. W mass measurements are worse at higher energy, not better.

I hope that my kids will work on the high energy e+ e- collider when they are grown up.

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

Try the e-roundabout instead less dangerous.

Several people mentioned the G-2 experiment, what is the relation between CDF-II and G-2 ?

I've been waiting for this video since I heard the announcement.

Hi Don, that's a very exciting result! I have two questions. 1. You said that total momentum before the collision is zero. Can you say a bit more about how that is known? 2. When a W-boson is created from an (e+, e-)-collision, can it be that sometimes other particles are created from that same collision?

@parabolicpanorama

2 жыл бұрын

I'm no physicist but from what I understand 1. Since you are colliding 2 beams in opposite directions in such a way that the collision always happens inside the detector, the total momentum of the two beams cancel out to leave 0 total momentum 2. Since energy is quantised, at each energy level of the beam, there are only so many particles that you expect to see, and the theories tell us the probability of seeing each particle. So if you run billions of collisions with billions of particles over a decade, you can have enough data to start to map out our expectations against what we observe.

@BlueCosmology

2 жыл бұрын

The total momentum before the collision *isn't* zero. The two beams don't cancel out as only a small random portion of the momentum of each beam takes part in the collision. However the total transverse momentum (momentum perpendicular to the beams) is close to zero since both beams have very little transverse momentum. Yes almost all collisions are very messy and produce many particles not just one.

I read the news, nut I was waiting for Don's Fermilab video.

THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!

It's weird that the different experiments are all below and above the SM prediction. Normally you would think different experiments would all have the same trend. Either SM estimates are too high or too low of the real mass then the experiments would be all below or all above the SM prediction, respectively.

Thank you for your video.

Many years ago after reading a bunch of books about particle physics, most of which I didn't understand, I came up with an idea about how mass on the atomic scale causing a long dip in space, the tip has nothing to hold it so it loops back up touching "real space" forming a spinning look, this would tie the electromagnetic force with gravity. Does the measurements very at all by local gravity?

I've been wondering why we only see precision numbers + error bars. I know what they mean and why it's important to know both -- the classic target analogy. It looks like it's expressed by the distance from the expectation. Is it given by the width of the standard model calculatation bar? What am I missing?

@maevrik

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not certain of the process, but the value + error is the result of millions of measurements. The standard model should predict a single value, although some uncertainties could come from somewhere else within the standard model. I don't think it would be relevant here to understand the presented graph

@davep8221

2 жыл бұрын

@@maevrik Thanks.

Thanks for sharing!

I have seen part of the collider that got Rubia his Nobel prize for the boson discovery. CERN have kept a section of it. Awesome bit of engineering. The food in the CERN restaurant is also awesome. We visited the magnet testing facility. More awesomness. Then finally we had a talk back at base and the guy pressed a button on the wall to reveal the CERN control room. 😱.

Perhaps this indicates the start of a new understanding of our physical world along the lines of: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell (for E&M), Maxwell (for Stat Mech), Boltzmann, Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger, and so many others.

How fast does something move when it passes the event horizon? What happens to its momentum such that it can go in but not out?

If some higher-mass particle that doesn't show up in detectors (such as some dark matter component) were to be involved in the decay, could the measurements all be wrong but the calculation that compares them still be correct? ... or does the calculation directly imply that there are no other particles involved?

@parabolicpanorama

2 жыл бұрын

for each collision at each energy level, you can expect showers of different particles with different probabilities. so if you keep crunching the numbers, you should arrive at all possible combinations of particles at each energy level. in case it deviates, that means that we miss something in our calculations that should have been accounted for.

@peteparadis1619

2 жыл бұрын

@@parabolicpanorama OR, it’s all BS

@peteparadis1619

2 жыл бұрын

@Diraction It’s ALL BS.. Colliding protons together at close to c.. Let’s take a billion marbles, spin them up to .9999999999 c and bang, you get particles, BUT they are still marbles, tiny ones, but marbles.. SiO2… Collide slower and the particles are larger.. YES.. All these so called particles are still protons, pieces of them, calling them this and that and saying they decay, hell, they disappear out of your vacuum chambers view.. ALL BS.. They’re still protons, just smaller with less mass, like the marbles.. Still marbles.. Keep hitting them together faster and faster and they get smaller but they will never ever get to an ultimate size or energy because YOU can’t send them together at an ultimate speed, infinity can’t be reached, only guessed at.. It’s just so much BS to keep getting funding.. 40yrs to nowhere in particle physics.. Use that money for other stuff, like better auto batteries or fusion reactors, anything else..

Excellent video! Yours Stefan Geier, Haidholzen

Dear Don, something about why D0 II and ATLAS did not overlap with the new CDF II paper? Did they changed something in the modelling of the momentum distribution?

@luciddewseed3095

2 жыл бұрын

That is what's interesting. That CDF is out of the error bounds of even ATLAS and D0 II. This is why the CDF measurement needs to be validated by future experiments.

measure planch constant h directly from photons (or electron-positron physical dual particle spinning system), its kgm^2/s or Js or angular momentum of the ½Jw2 system

is it possible that the expansion rate of the universe could change the values over time? i mean the standard model "changing" because of the alteration of the planck scale... little by little...over time making a drastic change...eventually changing the values observed at the measurements...

@Boogaboioringale

2 жыл бұрын

Good point. Certainly possible

Dr. Lincoln, I have a problem to make sure that my question is clearly stated because the textbox does not offer ability to paste in a screenshot of the graph. But I hope for you it could be clear what graph I refer to: When the existence of Higgs boson was confirmed to exist at around 125 GeV, the graph which was published along with a tiny bump around 125 GeV contained huge peaks at around 80-90 GeV and another starting sharply at around 180 GeV and slowly diminishing towards end of the entire spectrum evaluated. Could you expand on interpretation of these two maximums?

Just a question to the graph at 9:17. I assume the error bars are one standard deviation wide, although 5 standard deviations is required for something to truly be considered outside of uncertainty? So all measurements are actually "in range" of each other.

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

Theory and CDF disagree by 7 standard deviations, so....

@IngTomT

2 жыл бұрын

They are one STD from the mean, so two STD wide. 5 STD give a 1 in 1744278 chance that the result is just a statistical "fluctuation" and it's highly likely that it's real. Yes they are.

@Mosern1977

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 - well theory and measurements differ. But the measurements all agree?

@Mosern1977

2 жыл бұрын

@@IngTomT - so all measurements are in "range" of each other. But not all measurements (the last and most precise one) is in "range" of the theoretical value.

@IngTomT

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mosern1977 technically they are, yes but the last one seem a little odd, I highly suspect there is something wrong with the error estimation of the last one, we will see

You look as cool as you looked in 94 Thanks for the great videos!!!

At 9:21, where the uncertainties are specified. Are those numbers after the plus/minus sign the 100% guaranteed range? But then why do some experiments not overlap with others?

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

Error bars like that have the following meaning. There is a 68% chance that the real value is in the range (mean - uncertainty) to (mean + uncertainty). Yes, that means that there is a 32% chance that the real value is outside that range.

@IngTomT

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 exactly

@johannglaser

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 Thanks a lot! I've asked this at multiple other places, but people tried to wave around, and you gave the only definite answer. Thanks, this helps a lot!

The outro was the best!!!

PicoPhysics: Boson Vs Nucleus - While in Bosons elementary particles exist in nucleus they are formed as per nuclear decay process. The two process are not same - and half-life concept of decay; which always keep a residue of original may not hold for Bosons. I believe it is possible to establish experimentally that Bosons do not decay but disintegrate.

Can you please explain how one can derive that 7sigma deviation please!

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

Take the difference between the two measurements and divide it by the sqrt(uncertainty1^2+uncertainty2^2)

@user-wt1me5kd5e

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 thank you for the answer.

It would be interesting to understand how measurements are made and how to improve them.

That's actually an excellent video.

Is the following true or not? If any 2 particles interact in any way (e.g. bounce off each other when they collide) does that mean there has to be some EQUATION that relates their motion? I assume it has to be some sort of differential equation, but maybe that is too restrictive. All I know are Coulomb's inverse square law and Newton's inverse square law of gravitation. But, wouldn't there have to be a similar equation between ANY pairs of particles? If so, what are they?

Fascinating!

Although the error bars are longer in the AELPH measurements, the value is close to the CDF II value. Has anyone looked into that? CDF II seems like a good confirmation of the AELPH value.

@samwang8749

2 жыл бұрын

The estimated mass from both experiments is similar, but because the ALEPH measurements are not statistically significant, the two experiments are saying fundamentally different things about whether the true mass differs from the theoretical mass. Therefore, you can't say that CDF II confirms or denies the ALEPH result.

@timjohnson979

2 жыл бұрын

@@samwang8749 So then, the same could be said about the other measurements with larger error bars such as DELPHI, LS, and perhaps OPAL.

When a discrepancy was found by the Muon g-2 experiment, there was some controversy as to the accuracy of the calculation. Could a similar situation exist here, that is the theory if perfect but the calculation of mass based on the theory is complex and open to error?

@ritvikg

2 жыл бұрын

I think you meant to say, calculation of mass based on experiments!

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

Yes.

@darkmath100

2 жыл бұрын

It's unlikely given the 7 sigma, that's clearly pointing to a new aspect of physics we don't understand yet. The difference isn't that unusual either given the Universe is "smaller" than it is "big", i.e. there's a lot more unknown territory between us and the Plank scale vs us and the width of the known Universe.

@drdca8263

2 жыл бұрын

@@darkmath100 I don’t follow. If the calculations were done in subtly wrong ways, then making more and more precise measurements would result in more and more significance in the difference between the measured value and the wrongly-calculated value, right? So, why would many sigmas imply that the issue isn’t in the calculation?

@darkmath100

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdca8263 I'm sure they tried to eliminate all measurement errors, they spent *years* analyzing the raw data. If they're saying there's probably new physics involved then they're probably right. Like I said this isn't surprising, when it comes to analyzing really small things we're at the Galileo just improved the telescope stage of humanity's journey into the tiniest corners of the Universe.

Given the video from Sabine just recently, it would be absolutely great if it's true, but it's more likely it will be corrected in a few months. Is that valid criticism? Also, and to quote Feynman, "It doesn't matter who's name it is who did the experiment", so it doesn't matter if someone is a so called leader in the field. Sabine also mentioned that super-symmetry can be used to explain literally everything. :)

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

It won't be corrected for a very long time. Maybe the LHC can do something, but it could be decades before it is improved. Sabine is a naysayer and has long been disillusioned with particle physics.

@ferociousmullet9287

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 'and has long been disillusioned with particle physics.' Not without good reason. Modern physics is a complete mess in endless arena's. The paper mill analogy she uses is very apt, and I feel quite right. It is also not a problem that is relegated to only the world's of particle physics. Science as an entirety is suffering from this issue.

@MOAB_MOAB

2 жыл бұрын

@@ferociousmullet9287 , Would you like some more chips to go with your Po-Mo starter?

@ferociousmullet9287

2 жыл бұрын

@@MOAB_MOAB Not sure what post-modernism has to do with anything I said, other than some pointless attempt to be edgy. But you do you, my guy.

@rossmcleod7983

2 жыл бұрын

@@ferociousmullet9287 “science as an entirety is suffering from this issue.” How is that view from the summit going? Let me guess - you are vast and contain multitudes.

Why do the graphs at the end have non-overlapping ranges? Were they all measured incorrectly?

@IngTomT

2 жыл бұрын

Error bars usually indicate a probability of around 2/3 that the true value lies in between. So they not overlapping is perfectly fine.

thank you sir

What about the Atlas result that has low uncertainty and matched theory. This new result tells that Atlas result is very wrong. Have they been any re evaluation of that Atlas measurement? That is also another way to check, isn't it?

I've been watching for this exact video for weeks.. ty so a follow-up video would be awesome.. something on where the equations of the standard model had failed,, and where the new value makes any of the other particles break,, and if the new found weight of the muon has any effect??

@_John_P

2 жыл бұрын

Or what was the blunder and how it was made.

i wish i understand this language in science. it would help a lot following what they are saying.

I love the new intro, or if it's not new for me at least it is.

It would be cool to collect previous measurements; I think I've seen them on one chart and it seems to me that most measurements indicate the W-boson turned out heavier than predicted. I got a great idea: let's built a particle accelerator designed specifically for measuring the W-boson! Also: calculating backwards to figure out neutrino momentum... is there something we could use to do more accurate measurements of neutrino's?

@DrDeuteron

2 жыл бұрын

A reliable neutrino detector would require lightyears of material (blackhole formation notwithstanding).....they are that unlikely to interact.

@JoeDai

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrDeuteron There already exists neutrino detectors though, using very large tanks of fluid IIRC

@DrDeuteron

2 жыл бұрын

right, and with a flux of 30,000,000,000,000,000 per second, they detect a few neutrinos per day. Meanwhile, Fermilab had 4,200,000 W's to work with, so you'll never detect a complete event.

@JoeDai

2 жыл бұрын

​@@DrDeuteron Rightttt oops. Plus I guess surrounding the detector with a few hundred tons of fluid isn't exactly feasible...

@SGTbocus

5 ай бұрын

The plot you are after is in this article: www.home.cern/news/press-release/physics/improved-atlas-result-weighs-w-boson#:~:text=The%20W%20boson%20mass%20came,an%20uncertainty%20of%2019%20MeV.

Second question: When we expect a particle to exist around 125 GeV why we make collisions at 7000 GeV ( or 140000 GeV ) and not at 125 GeV ?

The ALEPH result is similar to the CDF one. So someone has already claimed the standard model is not up to date before, right?

Could the missing antimatter be in the supermasive black holes?

I'd love a video on how physicists calculate the predicted masses of these particles.

The L3 measurement also disagreed with the standard model... and this new result. why is that not mentioned?

Why is it possible to measure the Z0 mass with much smaller uncertainties? (or what is the difference compared to the W mass)

Been thinking about something (and sorry if this is obvious to others). We have minimum time, planck time, minimum length planck length, so wouldn't it kind of follow that we may have minimum volume? That is, no matter (haha) how small you go, you must calculate with planck volume. This would immediately imply minimum energy as well (planck energy?). I mean, this could remove the singularity issue.

@davidraveh5966

2 жыл бұрын

I think you have a misconception of Planck length etc., it's just a definition, not a unit of absolute minimum like absolute 0 kelvin

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, you are right...or are right if quantum gravity thinking is real. In quantum gravity, if nothing can be smaller than the Planck length (which is a common thought), then there is no singularity, since the singularity has size zero. So...yeah...basically...(always assuming current thinking on quantum gravity is right).

What was the D0 measurement?

What would it cost to create a small collider only for interrogating the W boson? Any estimations? Could we make a one trick pony relatively cheaply and quickly?

@DrDeuteron

2 жыл бұрын

"small" and "80,000,000,000 volts" are mutually exclusive.

@Abah-cuh-bus

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrDeuteron it would be relatively small and inexpensive compared to the state-of-the-art ( LHC and beyond) I would think.

@IngTomT

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrDeuteron x'D

@luciddewseed3095

2 жыл бұрын

W bosons are not detected by us; we can't see them with our detectors. We "reconstruct" them from its decay products...leptons, missing transverse energy, quarks. And to detect them, you will need a bigger and powerful hermitic detector. CMS and ATLAS are such.

If i understand correctly , the mass theorized by the standard model is based on the measurement of the mass of other particules . Couldnt this theoritical mass be wrong because the measurements of the other masses werent as precise as we thought ?

could you explain how/why one accelerator is better at producing W bosons while the other is better at producing Z's what are the mechanisms involved 3:35 wont time dilation do us a favor here like with muons generated in the upper atmosphere?

I have a problem. Im reading a book by Francesco Terranova and there the values of the measured mass of the w boson has a significantly better accuracy than the ones presented here. Is there a mistake in the book or in this video? In the book the values seem to agree with the theory. Maybe some new measurements were made?

Why are the +/- deviations equal in those experiments? Sometimes they deviate a lot.

@jimskea224

2 жыл бұрын

You're right. There's usually at least a small difference but, in the paper published in Science, the + and - deviations are the same in both the statistical and systematic errors. Curious.

@JohnJohansen2

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimskea224 Thanks for answering, Jim. I find that curious and hope for some logical answers. 🙂

How can a unit of energy (kinetic in MeV) represent mass? Is it really as simple as the derivative of e from e=mc2?

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. Technically, the unit of mass is "Mev/c^2". However, we particle physicists prefer a set of units where the speed of light is 1, so all speeds are a fraction of the speed of light. That means c = 1.

@michaelblacktree

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, they use mass equivalence. Classical mass doesn't work well at the subatomic level. So they use something more convenient.

@MichelleHell

2 жыл бұрын

Have you learned about Mass Spectrometers? They can track a particle as it barrels towards a magnetic field and observing how much the particle strays from its geodesic. If charges are the same for two particles, then their differences in response to magnetic fields can be attributed to weight, and that's a better way of understanding mass of matter thag can't be weighed on a scale. Go to Wikipedia and read about Mass Spectrometers!

@IngTomT

2 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 exactly

@michaelsommers2356

2 жыл бұрын

It's really MeV/c^2, but it's always abbreviated to just MeV, because saying "over c squared" all the time is tedious, and everybody knows what you mean, anyway. Besides, c = 1.

we will have to wait centuries to understand what happens in subatomic time. I hope Sir Don Lincoln will be born in every century to make us understand this stuff.

@johnkean6852

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps an English refresher course may help you elucidate.

@SciTechEnthusiasts

2 жыл бұрын

now is it better?