Did the W Boson Just Break Physics? The Mass Anomaly

[@BaalFridge]

Physicists are the only professionals who get hyped by being wrong about their entire life's work and I think we should all inspire ourselves from that perseverance.

[@Cd3]

I don't think they're all like that.. Especially when they're at the top. Humility only goes so far.

[@waify2678]

Academic physicists are probably the reason we have been stuck on the same problems so long. They refuse to believe that anything but string theory could even possibly be true. Go ahead try it and then you'll see. If you try to pursue literally anything but exactly what the schools want you to, your career will be dead faster than a squirrel crossing a highway. It's sad. They are absolutely not hyped about being wrong, and they are so audacious with their power that they actively discredit anything but their precious theories as "fringe physics". Good luck getting funding as well xD. The whole system is a fucking joke honestly and the only people that seem to be making any real progress at all these days are the ones who leave it all behind and go into privately funded research.

[@SgtSupaman]

It's more like them getting excited about what they were taught (aka info submitted by someone else) was wrong. This gives them an opening to make their own discoveries, which could later also wind up being wrong (which will more than likely not "hype" the ones that made said discoveries, but just the other physicists that now have a chance to submit their own work).

[@maythesciencebewithyou]

@@extavwudda Most people who consider themselves skeptics aren't skeptics. Instead they are mostly anti-mainstream and want their own biased crackpot theories or religious beliefs to be true.

[@willharvey9188]

True, except Pilots and people that work in disarming explosive ordinances

[@donkee011]

This is an ASMR of indecipherable facts, hurled towards my unsuspecting brain.

[@jakublizon6375]

Oh they're decipherable. Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you're plenty intelligent enough to learn, understand, and appreciate particle physics, or any subject. You don't need to be a genius except to have a good idea how QFT works.

[@mackenzieonyx7586]

lmao 🙂🙂

[@ArvinAsh]

Haha...Well, I'm glad to help the world rid itself of their insomnia.

[@donkee011]

@@ArvinAsh don't get me wrong. I love and very much appreciate your videos. But that evening I was particularly drowsy, and being tucked in a safe blanket of science was a very calming experience 🙂

[@WyrdSyster]

The wise man attempts to teach us the arcane secrets, regardless of our capacity, or lack thereof.

[@picksalot1]

Thanks for keeping us informed about this finding. It will be an interesting exercise to see how scientists use our current technology to understand the issue.

[@fibo12358]

Wonderful vid!

[@jamesraymond1158]

Arvin's understanding of these complex issues is amazing.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Another amazingly clear explanation for us lay people, on a fairly complicated subject, without dumbing it down. Much appreciated.

[@jacob_90s]

Honestly one of my favorite things from your videos is that you'll admit there could be something we're missing. I never lose respect for a scientist as quickly as when I have to suffer through some dogmatic SOB who gets their feathers ruffled when anyone hints that there might be something they're missing.

[@robertw1871]

Admitting something might not be complete or fully understood is the exact definition of science… It’s always trying to change its mind when better facts and information come along…. It’s been ridiculously rare the last few decades that’s it’s even been close to wrong though… This is pretty exciting stuff, evidence that something could be incomplete….

[@neeneko]

I don't know.. pretty much the only time I see physicists, as you say, getting their feathers ruffled over such hints are when the hints are just thinly veiled attempts to lend credibility to crack pot theories. It is rarely just any old hint, but specific ones that are part of pseudoscience from people upset that physics do not see their obvious greatness or want to listen to reasons their pet theory is bunk.

[@arthurs5099]

So you respect all physicists. One who would be dogmatic is just really bad at his job or lived before the 20th century.

[@neeneko]

@@arthurs5099 Ironically, often when I see posts with that kind of rhetoric, the only physists they DO respect are the dogmatic ones who can not take criticism because they are 'fighting academics!'

[@arthurs5099]

@@neeneko yes always! In France we have a lovely prick named idris aberkhane i think he s the champ. Just talking about dogmatism says long about your position.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Here thanks to Sabine! I'm looking over some of your more interesting looking videos, and have enjoyed what Ive seen, so far! It would be SO cool if it were a clue to new science! That's where new discoveries, new knowledge come from. That's always a good thing! Thanks for these videos! 🖖🏼🙂👍🏼❤️❤️

[@AMERICANPATRIOT1945]

Arvin Ash, Thank you for another amazing, well thought out, carefully researched, and properly presented video. The presentation in this video not only presents a potentially groundbreaking result, it also lays bare the general scientific method used to discover that result, and how science discovers truth, and corrects accepted truth when new truth is discovered. It is the careful experiment, measurement, test, and observation process which enables discovery of accurate theories and models for how our universe actually works. This is called scientific method. I wish more people, especially religious and political devotees, would watch your videos so they can discover that there are scientific methods for discovering actual truth which are far superior to the ancient and outdated methods of religion and politics.

[@johnlee587]

Well said

[@ringberar]

Thank you so much for your posts Arvin. I’m not even joking it was so pleasant to just fall asleep to your videos on the couch last night and sort of doze in and out. I appreciate how calming and yet exciting and entertaining your videos are

[@ArvinAsh]

Haha. Well, anything to help your insomnia! Thank you my friend.

[@redims8967]

Dr. Don Lincoln lectures? Yes please! Also loved the video, I haven’t seen anyone explain it in the way of ratios! Edit: Grammar

[@BelleDividends]

Excellent explanation! Personal guessothesis: the Boson mass varies (isn't a fixed value), and it varies due to certain as of yet undiscovered environment factors that differ between the 2 colliders (CERN and and the American collider). So basically: new physics.

[@ArvinAsh]

Interesting. Thanks.

[@samuelthecamel]

What's more concerning is that some of the previous measurements don't line up with this new measurement. A systematic error is definitely possible.

[@ArvinAsh]

yes indeed.

[@metaguru7898]

Of course it is, the idea that man can figure out the complexities of the universe with any degree of certainty is laughable, let alone predict things they haven’t yet figured out…

[@MDG-mykys]

@@metaguru7898 yet

[@pwinsider007]

@@ArvinAsh  Is there such thing as curvature uncertainty? Ask Question Asked 5 years, 7 months ago Modified 5 years, 7 months ago Viewed 478 times 6 2 I was trying to reason about how could quantum mechanics be related to the space-time curvature, and I have ended up in an apparent contradiction, which puzzles me. It would be nice if someone could point out if I am mistaken. Let's say one wants to determine a distance, for instance, the position of a particle, with high precision. Then, according to the uncertainty principle, one has to sacrifice accuracy on how well the momentum of the particle can be known, so trying to resolve a distance more precisely involves an increase in momentum uncertainty. On the other hand, according to general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter present, so, if curvature is dependent on momentum, increasing momentum uncertainty should lead to increasing "curvature uncertainty"

[@Pokerface-jpg]

​@@metaguru7898 wdym, we're literally meant to be the observers of the universe

[@mikaljan]

great video as always!! thanks Arvin!!

[@GSPV33]

Thanks so much, Arvin. So glad I found this channel.

[@samwisegamgee4659]

Thanks for not dumbing down the explanation of this data. I've watched many videos on this subject in the past few months and this video (a least for me) hit a good balance of depth.

[@DrDeuteron]

very well done. It's hard to explain why the theory is so involved, as is the experimental measurement.

[@ziguirayou]

Thank you for point out that we can't completely rule out math and experimental mistakes. One of the biggest problems of particle physics is that it is not always practical to reproduce experiments by a different team with a different particle accelerator, so it is wise to be careful before jumping to conclusions.

[@SRMoore1178]

I really enjoy your videos even though I only understand about 10% of what you're talking about. Maybe 15%. Hopefully over time it will start to make more sense.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks for your Phenomenal insights into the heart of hidden reality!!

[@edwardlewis1963]

The picture @2:24 summarizes the difference perfectly! Might as well put that at the very start of the video.

[@ArvinAsh]

The error bars represent the variability of the data, one standard deviation or sigma. 7 sigma means 7 standard deviations.

[@AkashPandey-lz2rj]

Thanks sir for this content

[@chriskennedy2846]

Either way we have a huge problem. If you look at the chart at 8:48 you will see that the Atlas result (CERN 2018) has no overlap with the more recent CDF II result. That means the very method of experiment, data collection and interpretation of that data from one of these two extremely expensive collider/detectors is defective. It is okay to be imprecise when conducting physics experiments. It is another thing however to say that a result may not be completely accurate but we can at least provide the parameters (limits) of our inaccuracy with high confidence. If Atlas is correct, then it shows there is a huge concern with the ability for CDF II to arrive at competent conclusions. If CDF II is correct, then it shows there is a huge concern with the ability for Atlas to arrive at competent conclusions. Either way - someone has got some explaining to do.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Arvin explains in another comment (maybe he should have done in the video) that those results certainty is below 5-sigma, what is why they were not taken too seriously.

[@tim40gabby25]

Why not both wrong?

[@Mosern1977]

The chart only shows one sigma, not 5 sigma, which is what is required. So all previous measurements have been "in range" of the theoretical value. The new one isn't, because its uncertainty is claimed to be so low. If the uncertainty was higher, then it would be inside the 5-sigma range, and nobody would have made any fuzz about it.

[@domenicobarillari2046]

Particle physicist here: IMHO, a fabulous presentation Arvin. Look forward to seeing more of these videos - don't mean to troll, but one of the most accurate and thoughtful accounts out there, and I see that the lay public is appreciating it. Go Arvin!

[@الحياةوالعدم]

The problems and suffering of millions of people are increasing daily due to governments and companies’ reliance on mass transport planes because they are large planes and depend on human leadership for the plane Therefore, aircraft manufacturers, technicians and engineers must design small, self-flying aircraft in order to transport travelers directly from their homes to the homes of their mistresses in faraway countries. And here are these problems and suffering due to aircraft that depend on human leadership 1/The first problem is that the majority of young people cannot travel because of the large financial costs due to the costs of travel procedures such as taxis in order to complete travel procedures such as passports, booking airline tickets and air transportation costs 2/The second problem is the long distances, exhaustion, fatigue, transportation crisis, and the search for taxis in order to complete travel procedures. Sometimes taxi drivers refuse to deliver passengers to the required areas. 3/The third problem is the lack of air transportation services for travelers from their homes to the homes of their mistresses. Therefore, young men and women suffer from psychological problems, anxiety, depression and pain after distances because of these three problems. Therefore, we suggest that engineers design self-flying planes that contain artificial intelligence technology, imaging techniques, and temporary storage of personal card information for travelers in order to send passenger information over the air to aircraft control agencies In government centers and institutions for monitoring, and This is in order to remove the problems of travel procedures for travelers (and also ask you to send these problems, suffering and suggestions to technicians, engineers and officials in mechanical and technical engineering departments in institutes and universities)

[@ArvinAsh]

I appreciate that. Glad you enjoyed it!

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@GururajBN]

Your enthusiasm for the subject is infectious! Many thanks. Dr Sabine Hossenfelder is dismissive of this new “discovery”.

[@ebrelus7687]

Despite this video being right that standard model is a joke that brought no real new breakthroughs only more new variables in old equations instead of simplifying & merging theories.

[@tim40gabby25]

Not dismissive - cautious. She's not wrong, imho.

[@tonywells6990]

@@ebrelus7687 Particle physics is hard and takes decades for new discoveries. The Higgs field was theorized in the 60's and took around 50 years before Higgs bosons were discovered, and that is not the end. There may be more Higgs fields which might have some bearing on the W boson mass. What's the point of all of this? Trying to discover how the universe works as you say yourself. It just may take hundreds more years!

[@ilmmall]

Was thinking the same but my understanding is so little that they could be making all up and I wouldn't even notice but I guess at least got the gist of it which is nice..

[@ebrelus7687]

@@tonywells6990 my concern is that focusing on this path which is path of unbelievable investments in adding new variables that don't really produce any new inventions in real lives of humanity while laughing out, ignoring or directly blocking other theories & approaches from being tested may by overly centralisation effect with damaging open scientific debate & wasting huge potential to make grand breakthrough by simply fixing old errors & misconceptions, without cosmic gear and massive facilities as it was in time of Einstein and Tesla. Because of forced consensus we miss such stormy debates as these two had. Nothing really impressive was invented since those two... Nothing on level of radio, AC. We may fool ourselves that easiest to discover things were already discovered and only complex stuff left but it's for me more like getting highjacked by cult of much weaker modern mind that became more a celebrities & bigdata noise computing interpreters than hard empirical world observers & truthseekers.

[@leisuretime9177]

Thank you Arvin, another great video

[@PetraKann]

Excellent presentation of a recently published result in Physics.

[@guiller7150]

Hi Arvin hope you can see this comment. Wouldn’t you agree that will be interesting to explore the possibilities of what we can do if we ever find out something (a particle) capable of traveling faster than light. -Would it be possible to see into our own past? -Would it be possible to see what’s inside of a black hole? It will be amazing to hypothesize about this and pick your brain on this matter. Regards and thanks for all the great videos and topics you’ve covered.

[@ArvinAsh]

hmm...might make for an interesting video.

[@thehappypittie]

Such a great video! Stuff like this gets me so excited!

[@samatha1994]

Great description, informative, exciting and interesting.

[@Psychonaut165]

Out of all the physics channels I understand nothing about this is my favorite

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU DR.ARVIN ASH...!!! Professor LINCOLN , A Great teacher ...I am a Great Courses student too...!!!

[@ArvinAsh]

Wonderful!

[@srfhdx5584]

Starting a physics degree later this year… pretty good time to get one. Broken standard model and fusion energy seem like there are gonna a be a fair few jobs about

[@rippergamingofficial3128]

I want to come and learn and work under you bro. I am so excited about science.

[@julioguardado]

Brilliant as usual. I think this is the first time I've heard a discussion about the standard model that mentioned the gaping holes of dark matter and dark energy in the current version.

[@juliusdavies2005]

You need to follow Sabine Hossenfelders channel. She has been talking about this for some time.

[@julioguardado]

@@juliusdavies2005 Done. I love her delivery and the way she says Einstein. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@breakingthewall2112]

@@juliusdavies2005 Electric Universe model is what we should be looking at

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

Add to this the recent weirdness with muons like the g-2 and LHCb experiments and it seems that we are getting close to cracking something in the standard model.

[@breakingthewall2112]

Should have been cracked a long time ago. So many holes in it might as well be swiss. Check out the Electric Universe model and the Thuderbolts project

[@lifesacardgame6454]

Brilliantly explained.

[@brennanhilsher9276]

Very well made and easy to follow video

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

First Moun g-2 and now this. Interesting times.

[@dannypope1860]

Great video, as always!

[@marcellorossini5490]

Heartfelt thanks to you scientists and researchers who allow all mankind to grow. - In a world where there is so much darkness, you are truly the brightest lights.

[@Gunth0r]

This is an unhealthy glorification of scientists and an unnecessarily dramatic view on the world.

[@marcellorossini5490]

@@Gunth0r The world is already very unhealthy thanks to ignorant and corrupt politicians as well as uncontrolled dictators. If everything were decided by scientists who truly love Earth conservation, things would be 100 times better.

[@Gunth0r]

@@marcellorossini5490 no, the philosopher-kings! All power to the philosopher-kings!

[@marcellorossini5490]

@@Gunth0r Philosophers are just great thinkers. Scientists KNOW reality. The former would be all day arguing and even arguing and would hardly make important decisions. The seconds after a few debates would be able to make decisions because math is NOT an opinion. Politicians are conditioned by self-interest and for the most part they are lawyers so they are used to lying. I remain of the opinion that scientists (only those who really have at heart the nature and the salvation of the planet and therefore "our" salvation) would be the best rulers. :-)

[@Gunth0r]

​@@marcellorossini5490 A political class of scientists would give us a society with too great a focus on scientific advancement. A lot of people are already struggling because technologies are developed at such a pace that businesses and regular people have no way to stay knowledgeable or ride the technological wave and be able to compete in the workforce or even as a consumer. You also make the claim that scientists are less corruptible. Show me the research? Additionally, you assume that a greater focus on nature and the "preservation of the planet" would lead to less societal problems. There's no basis for that claim. In fact, many solutions so far have only created new problems. I believe in a governing body that is diverse, comprised of all walks of life. Not an elite lobbyist cabal in cahoots with the banksters. Not a "superior" class of scientists or philosopher-kings. Just enough different people who balance each other out and complement each other. Again, putting any group of people on a pedestal, romanticizing them like you do "light in a sea of darkness", is immature, offensive to everyone else who's making this world a better place by other means and ultimately shows that you're no scientist yourself, because there's absolutely no basis for the claims you make.

[@zukodude487987]

I have never understood the weak force or how it works. I understand gravity, electromagnetism and the strong force, but the weak force i never understood. People say its radiation but that doesnt help me understand how radiation is a force.

[@ArvinAsh]

See this video I made for an explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rovUendnr7igZs0

[@breakingthewall2112]

Check out the Electric Universe model and realize there is no such thing as weak or strong for just electromagnetic interactions between particles

[@zukodude487987]

@@breakingthewall2112 I dont care about unified theories i wanna know what constitutes the weak force in the classical sense.

[@imphysics7190]

Love you sir 💓. Great contribution for creating love for physics,

[@RickClark58]

It is only a matter of time before this or other discoveries start chipping away at the Standard Model. Just because a theory is good at predicting things in its domain doesn't mean it is correct. Just at look at Newton and Einstein. We need to have the Standard Model break, otherwise we simply aren't going to make any meaningful progress toward a unified field theory. I am subscribed to Fermilab as well and in their video they flatly say that they don't know what this means but it is quite exciting. This just proves in my mind that we need both good theories and good experiments and you can't have one without the other.

[@ebrelus7687]

More variables not necessarily help getting closer to unify different theories. BTW we make no progress, some small group thinks they make progress, the rest never saw the original data nor calculated it themselves and have any expertise to confirm it as legit... So we only believe in some abstract progress that has no impact on our lives in reality where since death of Einstein & Tesla we do not see many new real inventions... We see recycling of all kinds of old ideas. I'm generalising but we do are stuck like sheep in narrow scope with only a few big fancy themes as AI, Big Data, Blockchain, Quantum equations, Genetic drugs. We still do not fly to job, can't desaltify sea water effectively, produce natural quality food without unnatural chemicals, pesticides on mass & environmentally neutral (for soil, animals & humans not for abstract climate that's ever changing), we still eat from unhealthy plastic, we still build stuff from fossil fuels without even 50% of healthy recycling rate & reuse, our biom, diet & fertility is degenerating every decade faster and faster. Who cares what happens on level of atoms if we can't even safely figure out how to keep our own health and live in sync with nature our mother not sacrificing industrial capacity which let us stop being farmers & afford not living in cities like rats in cages being stressed to death & chained to minimal material needs.

[@ArvinAsh]

I don't think it's incorrect. It is just not complete.

[@pwinsider007]

@@ArvinAsh  Is there such thing as curvature uncertainty? Ask Question I was trying to reason about how could quantum mechanics be related to the space-time curvature, and I have ended up in an apparent contradiction, which puzzles me. It would be nice if someone could point out if I am mistaken. Let's say one wants to determine a distance, for instance, the position of a particle, with high precision. Then, according to the uncertainty principle, one has to sacrifice accuracy on how well the momentum of the particle can be known, so trying to resolve a distance more precisely involves an increase in momentum uncertainty. On the other hand, according to general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter present, so, if curvature is dependent on momentum, increasing momentum uncertainty should lead to increasing "curvature uncertainty"

[@jessiferri2922]

Very much enjoyed this video.

[@andrewporter1868]

I'm not sure exactly how the standard model is formulated, but one good theory after much consideration would be a single universal particle of motion that, when built upon itself, creates the many variations of motion we observe in the same way that numbers are modeled.

[@User53123]

I think that's it too. Or something along those lines. All bosons are probably just some momentum and not actual particles, so the "mass" is probably going to vary. sometimes.

[@andrewporter1868]

​@@User53123 Particle simply means a fundamental unit or smallest part, so they can still be called particles. A particle of pure motion would have the basic perfections of oneness, uniqueness, and constancy, yet as finite creatures, falling short of the ideal of these. Oneness in that everything wants to be one, hence gravity and basic attraction. Uniqueness in that each particle is distinct, so this contradicts oneness to create repulsion. Constancy in that every particle wants to remain in its current state of being, hence Newton's Laws. In other words, this fundamental particle seeks to be, so to speak, the perfections of God, continuously in each moment of its being.

[@User53123]

Well, my argument is sort of with terminology then. If we are going to name particles, we shouldn't be naming momentum. It is misleading. Particles that are confined in a magnetic sphere are obviously real particles but we don't name the momentum energy created by a baseball hitting a wall, and it doesn't make sense to name other momentum either. Anyway that's how I feel about it.

[@andrewporter1868]

@@User53123 Fair enough.

[@djdrack4681]

...and yet we can't resolve wave-particle duality to a level that answers why we (currently) see the duality, and what is actually going on. Many of these equations rely on measuring the particle, but not its waveform counterpart: fundamentally a flaw regardless of the underlying processes that cause the duality.

[@putinimpotent2044]

Let’s see - the results from DO I, L3, OPAl, and ALEPH didn’t agree with the SM predictions either, even with error bars. Seems like this “anomaly” has been staring at the Standard Model for decades, but particle physicists can’t admit when they’re wrong. The answer must be the elusive “super symmetry.” 🙄

[@StephenJohnson-jb7xe]

I have often thought that our inability to explain a lot of things could possibly be due to an incomplete picture. If we are not yet able to detect everything involved, that would go along with your third option "unknown physics". As for the first option the "math is wrong" it wouldn't be the first time we have had equations that accurately predict what we observe but were eventually shown to be wrong and perhaps as we are able to peek deeper we will tweak the math a little more.

[@breakingthewall2112]

Too much math is the problem and forgetting to use scientific analysis not mathematical acrobatics to make the theory work

[@umami0247]

It seems we are getting into new physics territory what that actually means not sure. I do believe we are in the just beginning stages of understanding physics. In fact I'd say we know less than we know which will be exciting for new physicist to try and figure out how and why things work. Great information and presentation as always.

[@stephenzhao5809]

2:34 look more closely at the standard model and in particular the electroweak theory, which is a key component of this model. The electroweak theory is essential for several reasons: First, it's a theory that unites two fundamental forces, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. 2:46 ... 7:00 So, what does this mean? There are three possible explanations: ... 9:10 This could be the most exciting solution. ... 2:34 look more closely at the standard model and in particular the electroweak theory, which is a key component of this model. The electroweak theory is essential for several reasons: First, it's a theory that unites two fundamental forces, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. 2:46 ... 7:00 So, what does this mean? There are three possible explanations: ... 9:10 This could be the most exciting solution. ... [BTS pp says] Accordingly, in the beginning there were two big-bangs (Totally Three if considered that since Singularity The Primordial), corresponding with two accelerating expansions of universe the whole, we have the distribution of God's stuff, 60% (Dark Energy) vs 40% (Dirac Sea), you particle physicists may adjust or fine-tuning your Standard Model in your will. Shalom!

[@CaptainPeterRMiller]

Thank you Arvin Ash. More openings into our wonderful Universe.

[@thelearner4552]

Make a video on how loop quantum gravity rejects the concept of time in the theory . btw love your Videos simple but not easy. 👍🏻

[@quantumofspace1367]

The physical quantum vacuum must be discrete and at the same time continuous. The physical vacuum must be from chaos, in which the fractals of quantum wave oscillations are scattered. The physical vacuum must be rolled up and at the same time unfolded. For this physical vacuum, it is necessary to build a physical model from a quantum of membranes assembled into a “sphere” like “rose” buds.

[@bikassolanki8105]

Dear Arvin ji, Do you think present day theories are correct? Are you really convinced with Higgs field ? Personally what do you think?

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, because they make accurate predictions, which can be verified.

[@bikassolanki8105]

@@ArvinAsh I strongly disagree with interpretations. Can we have a discussion?

[@dreamr4c3r]

There may certainly be a missing variable in the math equation that would become very close to 1 or 0 (thereby cancelling themselves out) for the other particles, but very precisely predict the value of the W boson - possibly by some graviton interaction - if it were inserted into the equation

[@skilltreebusybee]

3 theres an sub atomic current as that current changes in its oslatetion It effects things on the atomic an subatomic level Think of it as interdemental osmosis but the membrane is a demental barer and the pressure on the sub atomic level side is created a back flow but in the context of the magnetic field strength reajusting as the source of the increase of the mas

[@atypocrat1779]

New physics is always exciting. A working fusion reactor would be exciting too.

[@pbp6741]

The sun has entered the chat.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@pbp6741 - Underrated reply.

[@alephnull6691]

That burn has a temperature higher than planck's.

[@johndoeofficial4357]

Man, you're awesome

[@hfkazal1734]

thanks

[@The_NASA_GUY]

The outcome will be exciting no matter what it is. Of course, new physics would be awesome.

[@smellthel]

This is sick

[@jmanj3917]

1:46 So then, this means that we are now sure that the proton actually Does decay? What's the half-life?

[@Eztoez]

So the Standard Model is unraveling finally. Do we need to re-think the Higgs ? Where is the graviton ? Why does everything need a field ? Is there any experimental evidence to prove String Theory ? What if Gen Relativity and QM can never be aligned? What will it take to accept that there are limits on our knowledge - like understanding the nature of a black hole singularity (forever beyond our grasp)

[@alnilam2151]

{W}ell I do knot kno but something certainly created a {stir} or could b a {W}obble... who knows when threshold is a fineline2cross: ie if it can be X'd? Though I think knot; just ask a Black White or Dark whole, they know all about pressure!

[@alajjana]

What if the results from CERN do not match the results from Fermilab?

[@ArvinAsh]

If their results are more in line with prior conventional results, as I suspect will happen, then Ferimlab results are likely wrong.

[@teashea1]

Good presentation

[@SeanBunker]

So if you put aside the theory that quarks are as small as particles get along with neutrinos according to the law of conservation of ass and energy how small could a particle get if you could control removing or adding energy to such small particles to either decrease the size of the particles or increase the size of a particle how small does it seem like a particle could get factoring in that a photon has zero mass and does have energy so wavelength frequency and energy would be in play along with amplitude so theoretically what types of properties would have to go into play to properly conserve enegy and mass to increase or decrease mass times infinite?

[@jmanj3917]

Hopefully it'll end up as just one correction of many, as we slowly make narrower the range of predictions for every single particle...

[@biggerandbetterthings7222]

Damn this shoulda been my science fair project! To late awez :(

[@LuisAldamiz]

Try the Doomsday Device, never fails, mwahahaha!

[@biggerandbetterthings7222]

@@LuisAldamiz Haha,, only if it works!

[@Theunspokentruth77]

Science is not absolute, it changes over time. What we perceive as truth today may not be the truth tomorrow.

[@petertwiss356]

Can someone explain why the boson is 80x more massive than a proton yet it comes out of a proton? I realize when they use the term mass, it's units is in energy, I am just confused with this detail, thx

[@ArvinAsh]

The mass of the W boson also has a probability. In Beta decay a W boson with a very small mass is ejected. This is why it takes a relatively long time for a neutron to decay.

[@marcellorossini5490]

Dear Professor ... just one question: is the matter (or mass) that we perceive "only" a particular form of energy? I think so. I have an old engineering degree and in my day physics textbooks were prehistoric compared to today. But if the universe was born from a very hot and highly concentrated point of energy and only with the subsequent cooling and inflation did matter "appear", if we look closely, the mass that composes us and what we touch and see would be "only" a transient phase of energy transformations. So "everything" is energy and studying the fundamental particles is like trying to understand a building by studying it starting from the upper floors without studying the foundations. Unfortunately, those foundations are not reachable by us since they are at Planck's size, which is about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron. Perhaps the "theory of everything" should be based solely on the study of the fundamental energies that at Planck's level determine the "fabric" of space. Perhaps we need to start over and overcome many anthropocentric conceptions that limit us. Maybe we need to invent a new math. If you can respond to my crazy thoughts, I will be truly grateful. With infinite respect.

[@ArvinAsh]

I think your thoughts are valid. Mass is ultimately a form of energy, mostly binding energy in the nucleus of atoms.

[@marcellorossini5490]

@@ArvinAsh Thanks for the reply. You are really kind as well as capable of making very interesting videos that stimulate the fearful minds of us mere mortals. The fact that our baryon matter is only a particular and transient form of energy is probably the simplest explanation of why there is only less than 5% of the total in the universe. The day that we humans will be able to deeply understand why and what happens to the Planck dimension length, we will finally be able to compose the famous equation of everything. Maybe I cross over into science fiction, but that day it will certainly be possible to manipulate reality and therefore to "create" matter at will. That day man will be god and will perhaps be able to create other universes where intelligent beings will grow up who will perhaps pray to a divinity (us) that they will never be able to see. I know it's a dream .... but dreaming is wonderful. Dreaming is a form of energy that emanates from the brain and is the greatest magic in the entire universe. No equation can ever explain the magic of dreams. You too professor make us dream with your videos and for this I thank you. With esteem and gratitude ...from Rome-Italy.

[@Boogaboioringale]

Arvin Ash : Also referred to as “confined “ energy.

[@breakingthewall2112]

Spot on. Everything in the Universe is electrical in nature and mass is not even a valid description of it. Check out the Electric Universe model and you will find what you are looking for

[@marcellorossini5490]

@@breakingthewall2112 OK. But not "electric universe" but "universal and primordial energy". Electricity is something else ... it assumes the passage of electrons and electrons have mass so they are NOT primordial and CANNOT power the fabric of space to Planck's dimension. Strings (if they really exist) are about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron ... they are totally different concepts.

[@OmateYayami]

It doesn't matter whether Atlas experiment had bigger error bars than CDF 2... The important part is they don't overlap by large margin. So, some result is fluked or is testing different stuff regardless of the SM. If you order a stick, you can't be measuring same thing as your pal and say I think it's 6 feet +- 1inch while they say their measured same stick as 5' +- 2". Regardless of how the stick maker specified it. To me the experiment disagreement is a bigger issue than SM inconsistency because it undermines confidence in the experimental methods.

[@8dgrooves334]

I did a thought experiment , help me with if its' right -EPR paradox suggests that according to relativity nothing may travel faster than the speed of light , not even information -Lets' do an experiment -Take two entangled particles say a and b -separate them to the ends of universe -lets' say you are observing 'a' -once you observed 'a' you will come to know that 'b' has an opposite spin and entanglement breaks and 'b' takes the opposite spin -This results in information travelling faster than the speed of light -So heres' a catch , we know that for making a wormhole we need so much energy and gravity should be very weak and here we are talking bout quantum scales where gravity is weak and it wouldn't take so much energy for creating one -so lets' say that at the instant of observation a heavily unstable wormhole was created at both the ends gathering the surrounding energy and was evaporated at the same instant . -This way information didnt' travel at the speed or faster than the speed of light and hence relativity is not violated and can this be a piece of similarity between the quantum realm and the relativistic realm we live in??

[@thcoura]

I will require investment in a new and independent measurement with the same precision or better. Preferably with a different methodology

[@BuilderBob1]

I just signed into Wondrium and watched a few of Professor Sean Carroll's lectures on the Higgs Boson before watching this. What a coincidence the sponsor is.

[@thcoura]

I smell a Nobel prize if the measurement is confirmed by another team.

[@lakadnikulasph]

When our universe expands well enough that everything is so far away that you can no longer see anything anymore when you look up, new big bangs will occur. This big bangs came from some of the black holes and did not necessarily occur at the same time. Basically, space pulsates like beating hearts.

[@simonmultiverse6349]

That's right. You've got to have bang for the buck. This is the arms manufacturer's mantra. *BANG* for the BUCK. BANG for the *BUCK* . When arms manufacturers get more BUCKS, what do they do? They make MORE BANGS, of course! *BANG* for the BUCK. BANG for the *BUCK* oooo *BANG* for the BUCK. BANG for the *BUCK* ooooo...ooo *BANG* for the BUCK. BANG for the *BUCK* *BANG* *FOR* *THE* *BUCK*

[@TheInevitableHulk]

Can this mass discrepancy of the W Boson give any insight into the G discrepancy of the Muon from last year?

[@ArvinAsh]

It is not clear that the two results are related.

[@kataseiko]

I have just one question about those formulas in the first 6 minutes.. Why are there so many corrections?

[@ArvinAsh]

Because the mass of any one particle is affected by the mass of other particles.

[@andrewpaul8732]

These fluctuations in the field that we perceive as mass - are these analogous to how we perceive electrons as being "spherical"? Their influence is nearly the same in all directions so we say it's spherical when in reality it isn't the shape of a sphere. Are we calling these partials "bosons" and picturing them as objects when in reality they are fluctuations in a field that have an effect in the macro world and aren't free floating objects at all. New this trying to wrap my head around new concepts

[@ronerrodrigues8600]

Hi, in QFT may you can have 2 different fields interfering itself ?

[@ArvinAsh]

Two fields can exchange energy. That's how for example two photons can create an electron-positron pair.

[@dziban303]

Thanks Marvin

[@MrMurlik]

Could you please explain how particles gain their masses, what role does Higgs mechanism play there and if inertial mass is always equal to gravitational mass then how does Higgs affect the gravity?

[@ArvinAsh]

This video explains how the Higgs mechanism works: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2GYh35mpbiWbas

[@MrMurlik]

@@ArvinAsh thank you but it fails to explain how Higgs mechanism explains the gravity.

[@SomeOneOneOne]

Cool channel.. subbed!!

[@godinhos7797]

I have one sujestion: the mass and mass Energy equivalence equation is incomplete, E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² is only true if Angle between particle and it's motion is ortogonal, if the Angle between motion of particle and particle arranging is not orthogonal the relativistic Standard equation for mass not works, The real equation is. m' = mo•(γ² + tg²(θ))/γ(1 + tg²(θ))

[@godinhos7797]

Latter i can show how i derivaded that equation, so the mass and mass Energy equivalence deppens on enviroment and position, arrangement between particles like tg(θ), θ is the distance position angle between charges or masses and motion direction

[@bartsonson]

coming up right now!

[@MrElvis1971]

It will be a long time before we even get close to these errors.

[@jmanj3917]

7:30 But...Shouldn't the measured values of Those bosons Also be adjusted during the mathematical operation, in order to show how (if) Their masses are being influenced during the time of measurement, including that of the Higgs boson? 10:00 Ah! OK.

[@wasifulalam1393]

I also faced the deviation in weinberg angle.... where i had to manually adjust it................one thing i can confirm that the data is accurate...... cause i saw the same thing in calculation..... same problem was related to the meuon during the calculation of magnetic moment. These two problems are connected and I can say what is causing it. But dont know how I would say or who would listen to it.

[@Ionianverse]

Is Eternal Inflation Theory right about creation of Universe?

[@ArvinAsh]

No one knows for sure.

[@mercury9385]

Isn't there a 4th option? Couldn't the measurements of mz or cosØ be wrong? (Sorry about the typesetting)

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, I discussed that part later. But it's highly unlikely because the theoretical basis for these agrees with the data.

[@Halvaari]

Can we rule out the high weight being caused by undiscovered particles?

[@ArvinAsh]

That can't be ruled out.

[@Halvaari]

@@ArvinAsh Would such a solution be compatible with our current understanding of the standard model? Or/and is this maybe going to make scientists reconsider supersymmetry?

[@ArvinAsh]

@@Halvaari Supersymmetry can't be ruled out. It is unlikely given what the LHC has found so far, but it it's a really heavy particle, we would not have detected it. If discovered in the future, then SS would still be alive.

[@urboiii2334]

I think new type of particles formed and its mass interacting with w bosson mass bcz after the upgrade LHC can carry experiments with more energy and power than before so that means chances of new heavier particles increased

[@kennetholesen8345]

This will go away as all other deviations found in the standard model. Thats my prediction :-)

[@ArvinAsh]

You are probably right. I suspect the same, but that's just my opinion.

[@pwinsider007]

@@ArvinAsh  Is there such thing as curvature uncertainty? Ask Question Asked 5 years, 7 months ago Modified 5 years, 7 months ago Viewed 478 times 6 2 I was trying to reason about how could quantum mechanics be related to the space-time curvature, and I have ended up in an apparent contradiction, which puzzles me. It would be nice if someone could point out if I am mistaken. Let's say one wants to determine a distance, for instance, the position of a particle, with high precision. Then, according to the uncertainty principle, one has to sacrifice accuracy on how well the momentum of the particle can be known, so trying to resolve a distance more precisely involves an increase in momentum uncertainty. On the other hand, according to general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter present, so, if curvature is dependent on momentum, increasing momentum uncertainty should lead to increasing "curvature uncertainty"

[@davidklang8174]

What does the mass of the w even "represent?" The particles themselves don't truly exist except briefly in accelerators and presumably in the early universe. It's the quantum field that's doing the work. But why should the w+, w-, and even z have so much energy associated with the field excitations? It's way more energy than is involved in run of the mill quark flavor changes (yet perhaps less than would seem to be involved in a top quark decay). Whether from theory or measurement, the energy seems ill-suited for the function. Thanks for the video, btw, very nicely done.

[@ArvinAsh]

Valid questions. The fact that W and Z have mass is a result of electroweak theory. I have a video on that if you want to know more.

[@davidklang8174]

@@ArvinAsh I rewatched the electroweak video and remembered why I lost patience with it: virtual particles (and boats, balls and boomerangs). Virtual particles are an okay way to visualize what's going on (especially if one wants to draw Feynman diagrams), but as the name implies, they're, well, virtual. There's also that Uncertainty Principle notion that if they're short-range, they must be massive (which could be "true" in this case), but gluons are similarly constrained, yet massless (probably). All fascinating stuff. Thanks again for staying on top of it.

[@pwinsider007]

@@ArvinAsh  Is there such thing as curvature uncertainty? Ask Question Asked 5 years, 7 months ago Modified 5 years, 7 months ago Viewed 478 times 6 2 I was trying to reason about how could quantum mechanics be related to the space-time curvature, and I have ended up in an apparent contradiction, which puzzles me. It would be nice if someone could point out if I am mistaken. Let's say one wants to determine a distance, for instance, the position of a particle, with high precision. Then, according to the uncertainty principle, one has to sacrifice accuracy on how well the momentum of the particle can be known, so trying to resolve a distance more precisely involves an increase in momentum uncertainty. On the other hand, according to general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter present, so, if curvature is dependent on momentum, increasing momentum uncertainty should lead to increasing "curvature uncertainty"

[@aaronsummers2292]

There is a force holding the universe together which physicists will never find, but theologians we're made known to it thosands of years ago.

[@robertstapleton6919]

Perhaps all of those "insignificant" values you mentioned may have an impact on the totality of the end resulting value? As you well know...changing the initial value for a nonlinear differential equation can produce a significant difference in resulting values...why would it be any different for the ongoing summation of these insignificant values? As usual... awesome videos... thanks for all of your efforts.

[@kernal2077]

it could be that but the thing is scientists must have looked into this possibility as well, so maybe the summed final value of those insignificant values is also too insignificant.

[@robertstapleton6919]

@@kernal2077 Good point... physicists are usually pretty picky about things like that. They usually never forget to "carry the two"...lol.

[@kernal2077]

@@robertstapleton6919 haha ikr XD

[@Matt198d]

Do you think this could have anything to do with the theoretical 5th force?