Muon g-2 experiment returns with new precision measurement

In 2021, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab created headlines around the world: it found strong evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles and forces. Now scientists working on the experiment have a new result based on more data. They have achieved the world's most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. The new value for muon g-2 strengthens the 2021 result and doubles its precision. This sets up a showdown between theory and experiment 20 years in the making: Scientists of the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative aim to have a new, improved prediction available in the next couple of years
Muon g-2 new results 2023 press release: news.fnal.gov
Muon g-2 first results 2021 video: • Muon g-2 experiment fi...
Fermilab home page: fnal.gov
Muon g-2 experiment: muon-g-2.fnal.gov/
#gminus2
Credits:
Writers: Maxwell Bernstein, Caitlyn Buongiorno, Ryan Postel, Kurt Riesselmann
Featured scientists: Meghna Bhattacharya, Matt Bressler, Lorenzo Cotrozzi, Andy Edmonds, On Kim, Kim Overhage, James Mott
Director/editor: Ryan Postel
Production assistance: Lynn Johnson, Dan Svoboda
Graphic Design: Samantha Koch

[@tonywells6990]

If anyone is wondering, this either means some unknown physics is giving the muons a little extra magnetic moment, or it's really difficult to calculate all the possible interactions with virtual hadrons in the standard model of particle physics. There could be thousands more strong force interactions (virtual hadrons) with muons that have a big enough impact to show up in the measurements but have not been calculated yet.

[@seankelly3300]

Thank you, I was wondering just that. Do you know the implications for their findings? Will this radically change the standard model or make it more accurate?

[@tonywells6990]

@@seankelly3300 Actually the most recent computations are getting closer to the Fermilab results (from ..18 in 2020 to ..19.8 in 2023, where this Fermilab result is ..20.6 and the error bars are close) so it wouldn't be surprising if that trend continues and theory and experiment match.

[@zhinkunakur4751]

@@tonywells6990 The very existence of that trend and the magnitude of which it did makes me kinda confident that there really is no new phy here .

[@NicholasHay1982]

@@seankelly3300 Scientific American's article on these results does a pretty good job of covering the larger discussion in the Physics community. Even if this doesn't lead to "new physics" in the sense of a new quantum field, it may lead to new insights into flaws in our data-driven models, and that could lead to refinements across much of physics.

[@michaellombardi3638]

@@seankelly3300 My understanding is that there are two main possibilities. The first is that the way we are calculating the expected value could be incorrect, as it is extremely complicated and involves attempting to account for an infinite number of possible interactions with the muon. This wouldn't be that interesting and wouldn't change the standard model. The second possibility is that the muon could be interacting with an unknown type of particle. This idea is what everyone is excited about, as it would potentially create an addition to the standard model, which we haven't seen since the Higgs Boson was discovered and even that was predicted.

[@DeadTom949]

Thanks for producing these videos for the laymen like me! It's great to see some of the faces exploring the deepest mysteries of the universe!

[@duran9664]

But.. did they really have to use that meme. 😒

[@NicholasHay1982]

Congratulations and great work! It's lovely to see the faces and hear the voices behind the science. Thank you for sharing this with the world.

[@Ciguatera]

So, you like children's faces. 0:02 are you a fetishist?

[@jamesbligh6607]

Thank you Fermilab, for all your hard work!

[@MichaelChatary]

😂

[@deborahharmsen7139]

Thank you for your hard work and compliments for your achievement. So good to see that the pieces of the puzzle are coming together.

[@davidadams421]

Well done, Fermilab. I do genuinely hope all your efforts lead to something new and Nobel Prize-worthy. Good luck!!

[@TheMCCraftingTable]

Great video, and congratulations for the results!

[@yeyeTF2]

awesome achievement, looking forward to even more precision. video could've used some script review and thought organization though

[@hakantomasoglu6836]

Stellar efforts evolved there.

[@ptonpc]

Congratulations to all involved :)

[@user-mz2br7uo7u]

Great video, congratulations!

[@mikesullivan5589]

I'd be interested to see a video on why it takes so long to crunch the numbers. Thanks.

[@eveningstarnm3107]

Grab a piece of the data set and try munging it by hand. Then you'll get a feel for it.

[@andrearaimondi882]

The short answer is that we passed from physical address books to digital ones because there were too many names to write down.

[@NikkiTrudelle]

Can I just like mop the floors there or something? I’d love to be close to this research it’s so interesting

[@thomas6502]

Congratulations!

[@advance_sci_tech_SK_IITBombay]

Exciting Results

[@davesutherland1864]

When the first set of results were released there was a 'BMW' calculation that actually agreed with the measurements. This report improves the accuracy of experimental result, but there is no mention of any advancement in the theoretical prediction.

[@quasar9999]

congratulations on this amazing work!

[@ghoshabir4]

How much does the new reading deviate from the theoretical expectation? Has the sigma value increases?

[@PunitGandhi1984]

5 sigma for these results I believe

[@ghoshabir4]

@@PunitGandhi1984 I don't think so, Five sigma would have been a news of a new discovery

[@fermilab]

For more information on how the new experimental result for muon g-2 differs from the 2020 theoretical prediction for muon g-2: kzbin.infoiMB1znns4lQ?feature=share&t=3312

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating.

[@beamshooter]

This is incredible… so close

[@elgoog7830]

How often does 'variable change,' give you guys results, that were never anticipated/calculated?

[@LittleBoobsLover]

hello what about gBar experiment? Did you drop the antimatter and measure it?

[@jessicamorgan3073]

Congratulations everyone!

[@Broken_robot1986]

I wish the annoying music was gone. Great to see the researchers.

[@devindaniels1634]

I agree with you in full. The music makes it harder to hear and understand the researchers.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

I worked at BNL on that huge magnet . Excellent 👍

[@duran9664]

So help me out here.. 🧲 + 🧬 + 🧲 = I assume sneaking into Fermilab & sleeping the night in the meddle of this gigantic magnet should turn me into magneto? 🤔

[@vincentrusso4332]

What was Edward Witten's response to the newer measurement?

[@milanrai3607]

Congratulations .

[@RichardJBarbalace]

From an engineering point of view, we are wondering if you could do a video explaining how any systematic errors are prevented. This one mentions the "parka", presumably to isolate the accelerator from earth's magnetic field and any other fields from nearby equipment, as well as the calibration of the magnets, but does not go into any details. It seems that the system would need to test other particles with known magnetic moments to rule out systematic errors and confirm there is only an anomaly in the muon.

[@zack_120]

6:09 - So the new results basically just confirmed the previous data with a bit small error but similar average.

[@fiercemonkey1]

Finding that Cutting edge of physics and zooming in on that fine rupture point requires hard work and scientific integrity. 🫡 Who knows, using the understandings wrought here maybe one day we could have devices that use “muon” systems in everyday day devices, for the benefit of all of humanity. 😊 safer x rays anyone? Or perhaps sensors that can detect with a high degree of accuracy the topography of the earth, and heck fusion power is a lot easier if you can use a super accurate muon cannon. 😎 if we can find new ways of harnessing the muon by probing its boundaries humanity can be one step closer to cheap abundant energy. Super impressed by that ring of epicness y’all have over there and keep up the hard science! o7 👋😎

[@83hd15]

So this is really interesting and a mind-blowing achievement, but for my own comprehension of its importance, can anyone give me some of their thoughts on what possibilities this new information might unlock? My first thoughts are manipulation of materials to the tune of anti gravity etc, or putting this theory on the shelf and using what has been learnt to rapidly test the next theory.

[@doublecrossedswine112]

So, we have the standard model which explains a lot. Then we have general relativity, gravity, and quantum mechanics which explain a lot. But they aren't tied together in any way. So we search for a theory of everything. To do this we look for anomalies. We need to find things that do not work the way our theories predict. Normally a theory is hurt by such discoveries but in this case we already know our theories are incomplete so the errors give us major clues. This is a major clue. Like finding a footprint at a murder scene. What this will achieve if it leads us to a theory of everything? Haha, well, I've only got a bachelors but I don't think anyone on this planet can answer that. But I'll say this, the discovery of the quantum world completely revolutionized our world. Smart phones, PCs, etc. So I'd imagine a theory of everything would be very substantial for our technology. Sorry I can't answer your question. I just wanted you to have a better idea of what and why so you'd know the question you are asking is nearly impossible to answer. Anyone giving you an answer should be met with skepticism and fact checking.

[@devindaniels1634]

Having such loud background music can make it more difficult for people like me to be able to hear and understand the researchers. Maybe try not to add distractions for what your researchers are trying to share.

[@rickymackie2340]

excellent

[@hugolandheer7008]

Please do not mix music in this. It makes it very hard to follow for non-englisch speakers and even more when you have hearing problems. It is so incredibly interesting but so hard to follow....

[@Broken_robot1986]

I only speak English, my hearing is fine, and it's still awful. Like it's fine if they want to use it to set the tone for a few moments, but constantly playing while people are talking??? Did Nolan put this together 😂

[@wesleydeng71]

Well, this is a movie. What else do you expect?😂

[@ftumschk]

Please drop the music in future, folks. Hugely distracting.

[@adiposerex5150]

Ignore it.

[@ftumschk]

@@adiposerex5150 That's the problem - I can't. It's totally unnecessary, anyway.

[@SolaceEasy]

It's the Halftime Show. Can't wait for the Final.

[@PopeLando]

1:39 Must be big: they're getting ready to send up the Bat Signal.

[@IuliusPsicofactum]

Go Fermilab!!!!!!!!!!

[@antumurikks4861]

i hope you find new physisc and brake standard model

[@NomadicNaturePhotographer]

But what do these results *mean?* I have always been interested with theoretical Physics, but just as an amateur - this is not my field of expertise, far from it. And I just cannot comprehend, which meaning does all this have...

[@exicx]

Music is too loud :(

[@petevenuti7355]

How are muons generated for this experiment?

[@causewaykayak]

Who builds such amazing machines ??

[@williambirkholz4227]

BNL

[@causewaykayak]

@@williambirkholz4227 Sorry, what does that stand for ?

[@kamathln]

Batman. You can clearly see her holding the Batman symbol stencil at 1:39

[@Rocksite1]

Didja hear the one about a bull who had a moo-on for a cow? Me either.

[@wangtoriojackson4315]

You down with muon g yeah you know me

[@thefrenchguard6999]

MOO-ONS? *table flip*

[@ricardomotagomes]

Show !!! … To infinity and to beyond !!! … 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻 !!! … 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 !!! … 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 !!! … 🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩 !!! …

[@scotty369]

Wait till they work out it was being used at giza 😊

[@alexanderktn]

The background music is terrible. It repeats every 2 seconds and is too fast for the speakers, who generally talk slowly.

[@drewofearth6681]

2025 will be exciting!

[@MojoJOJO543]

YAY LESSGOOO MEGHNA!!!

[@freedomfighter695]

Are we going to discover the new force pf nature 😮

[@wbwarren57]

Assuming that dark matter is a particle, I have some questions: 1. Do dark matter particles (DMPs) have momentum? 2. Do DMPs have temperature? 3. Do DMPs orbit each other and regular matter? 4. Do DMP clouds have angular momemtum? 5. Does the angular momentum of DMP clouds act as a stabilizing influence on the direction of the net angular momentum of galaxies? 6. At the beginning of the universe (or shortly thereafter) did the universe as a whole (DMPs and normal matter) have a net angular momentum with a net preferred direction? 7. If the universe as a whole had a net momentum at it's beginning, is there any way that the net momentum of the universe could change in magnitude or direction? Since to change the angular momentum of an object requires the application of an EXTERNAL force and the universe is everything, where would such an EXTERNAL force come from? 8. If we look at a number of small patches of sky similar to the Hubble deep field and calculate the net angular momentum in each patch, would we expect the preferred direction of all of these angular momentum vectors to be the same? Or not necessarily? 9. If we consider the universe around Earth in terms of concentric shells, the first being from 0 to 1 billion light-years away, the second from 1 billion to 2 billion and so on, would we expect the preferred direction of the net angular momentum of each shell to be the same or could it vary over the shells?

[@Xsiondu]

Great questions the answer is yep

[@wbwarren57]

@@Xsiondu So, don’t we need another $50 billion collider for the particle physicist to work with in order to really nail down the answers to these questions? I’m sure SabineHossenfelder would agree with that!

[@GIRGHGH]

Why is this edited like a thriller when the result is "we're closer but only halfway done so whether this means anything is still unsolved"? Like ya, it's been a while and a lot of progress was made, but it's not really saying anything?

[@DeanBathaDotCom]

Congratulations Fermilab!

[@allisonmadrid965]

So in THEORY since it's heavy electron can we harness these MUONS to use them as free energy or create magnetic fields to shield spacecraft and use as fuel as free energy using basically universes energy as fuel ???? Anything possible

[@shawnmendes9705]

Happy to see a person from IIT, working in Fermilab.. Well sorry I m not happy to see this Brain Drain...😢

[@me-iq1vb]

That's great but what does it do? Is there a practical use for this knowledge?

[@drdca8263]

It wasn’t clear to me what the analogy of miscounting the footsteps was meant to be?

[@afd5231]

The slightest mistake in measuring something makes you lose the precision you want for your data and research

[@drdca8263]

@@afd5231 Ah, ok. I found the fact that it was describing miscounting an integer, rather than something like, not having the steps be quite of equal (all heel-to-toe) size, a little confusing.

[@GODDAMNLETMEJOIN]

It wasn't elegantly phrased, but what he was getting at was that their measurements are more precise than knowing the exact number of steps to make it around the world.

[@drdca8263]

@@GODDAMNLETMEJOIN Thanks

[@scottmerritt9877]

It’s just to give you an idea of how small 140 ppb is. FYI for 24000 mile circumference and 2000 steps/mile a 140 ppb error would be 6.7 steps.

[@vdis]

5:43 How do you go about knowing you halved uncertainty (in regards to previous results)? What's the method of how do you deal with the uncertainties you don't know about? I can't quiet connect the dots. Help?

[@drdca8263]

You have a model of your measurement process, and of the system you are measuring (with a parameter for the aspect of it you want to measure the value of), and,... you do statistics

[@rreiter]

Lets say you have a bowl and without knowing the content you pull out 3 blue balls in a row without knowing even whether the bowl contains only balls. Not very telling. You then pull out 1000 things and it turns out they are balls and 990 are blue. At this point you can be reasonable certain they are all balls and virtually all are blue. You then pull out 100,000 and it turns out they are all balls and 999,900 are blue. Now you can be extremely certain they are almost all blue balls. Statistical analysis helps quantify the actual probabilities and certainty.

[@vdis]

@@rreiter yes that's certainty of a model assumption. I'm curious about the un-certainty of the unknown quantity. The sample set outside our bias region. Think of it as "the dark" e+m as the known unknown (a model predicts its existance but we don't know how to get details) that once was an unknown unknown back when no model was predicting it. Speaking of uncertainty without distinguishing makes me believe ppl are refering to both. Come to think of it, again, they do reference previous results. So they actually are speaking of in-model uncertainty? Is that my missing dot?

[@rreiter]

@@vdis I'm not sure. I thought they meant the statistical uncertainty of the predicted value only; the error bounds would decrease as the sample size increases, hence my trivial example to illustrate. It gets complicated fast because (taking my example), you can't actually see the blue ball, you only get a value from a collection of instruments that each are imperfect in some way and you are trying to account for, place bounds on and aggregate all the imperfections into a single statistic.

[@b4l4a]

I Love Physics, seriously, but this video will make neophyte flee Physics for ever....oO

[@kamilpavelka2157]

Wonderful results, great experiment ❤ Very bad presentation form. 😢

[@Folkert.Cornelius]

So it was off from the predicted value and that has now become more certain? So does this mean definitively there's unknown particles at play?

[@nachoijp]

Not absolutely definitively yet, but it's looking a lot like that's the case

[@umi3017]

4:10 American measures in anything but metric

[@ilkoderez601]

You have to figure, those "reveal" videos that the researchers do are pretty cheesy because EVERY member of the team already knew LOL

[@williambirkholz4227]

Don't forget Brookhaven National Laboratory, we built the original!!!

[@oszb]

It's called g-2 because it's what is left over when you remove the G-Factor of 2 from diracs equation right? So everything leftover after the -2 is supposedly an effect of this new force? Nice way to uncover a fundamental force, basically just panning for gold, pretty cool. (I guess you're panning for nobel prizes instead, hah)

[@ok9176]

“It’s called a mooyon”

[@inspectormills3290]

Save yourself some time and skip to 5:30

[@johnbroker327]

I listened to that whole thing, and I'm not unusually stupid but I can't figure out what the hell they're talking about 🤔

[@Bassotronics]

👍🏻😀👍🏻

[@LeftyScaevola]

It is the goddamn pions screwing things up again, The standard model calculations for this experiment depended on imput of lots of other experiment results, the result for the decay of a pair of pions was likely wrong.

[@liamroche1473]

After initially lurching to the conclusion that this indicates new physics I now realise that there is a simpler explanation. The fact that the latest experimental results reinforce the best earlier experiments and are consistent with two independent lattice QCD calculations means that the 2020 massive theoretical calculation (involving 130 theoretical physicists, I believe) is probably incorrect. Somewhere in it there is an error (or multiple errors) that explain the 5-sigma discrepancy.

[@doryiii]

The link to learn more is literally at the end of the video there if you were truly interested in learning more. The papers are linked from there too, free to read.

[@liamroche1473]

@@doryiii that being so, my belief is based simply on the estimates of the value of g-2 coming from each of the sources - empirical, theoretical and simulated. Do you agree with it?

[@jeffspaulding9834]

Couldn't watch the whole thing. Having several people take turns saying one sentence and then switching to someone else is a horrible way to do an informational video. I figure if there's anything important here, Dr. Lincoln will do a video on it.

[@sampleoffers1978]

Have scientists run simulation of how pixel or particle would identify it's circumstance if it suddenly became sentient

[@forbaldo1]

107 bots below

[@kylecarter1599]

Does the magnetic field used in the study affect the Earth's magnetic field in any way?

[@thebaryonacousticoscillati5679]

Probably not to any magnitude that needs to be worried about...

[@zhinkunakur4751]

what ? Do you mean Does the Earth's magnetic field affect the magnetic field used in the study in any way?

[@QDWhite]

For reference, the 1.5 T this generates is the same strength as a medical MRI machine. It’s just over a bigger area. I doubt there’s anything to be concerned about.

[@thebaryonacousticoscillati5679]

@@zhinkunakur4751 It will obviously interact with it in some way, but I'm sure Fermilab have accounted for it if it's actually more than negligible.

[@bckcasey]

The earth's field is present but it is parallel to the ground when it goes through our experiment. The main magnetic field we use is perpendicular to the ground. The earth's magnetic field is big enough for us to see and measure so when we are moving things around to make a uniform field, this gets taken into account. On the other side, we do not affect the earth's magnetic field. Our steal confines the field to within our ring and it is safe to stand about 5 feet from our ring even if you have a pace maker.

[@animalbird9436]

CHACHING🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑

[@juansalvemini9270]

These are the nerdiest people...in a good way

[@benkasminbullock]

Don't need to see Trevor Noah.

[@sdjhgfkshfswdfhskljh3360]

Congrats for results. But video is a mess.

[@trescatorce9497]

i am troubled by all these high energy experiments. do they measure the mass of the particles or the mass/energy equivalent of the impacting energy in the collision? . as far as i know, they generate a ton of useless papers, read only, if at all, by the "members of the choir", because they all sing the same tune. a proton has an equivalent mass/energy of about 1 GeV. an electron. about 0.5 MeV. both are stable particles. so we should devise experiments where neither of those 2 mass/energy relations are exceeded. if using antiparticles, both should be at no more than 1K. and let's see what happens.

[@eveningstarnm3107]

They're all "singing the same tune" because they're convinced they're on the right path, and they don't seem to share your concerns. Since they work on this stuff every day and you haven't justified your concern, I'll ask for their opinions.

[@andrewcoggans8314]

99 percent of ppl could not giv e toss. These ppl could say anything. And then we have idiots who pretend to understand what is being told?

[@eveningstarnm3107]

I learned from this video that there are a lot of happy people, and that Fermilab has a sufficient budget that they can employ high production values in their videos, making them somewhat entertaining, but I learned nothing about the significance of these results or what they mean. I've been given absolutely nothing to think about after the video ends.

[@doryiii]

The link to learn more is literally there at the end of the video if you're truly interested in learning more.

[@eveningstarnm3107]

@@doryiii Should I hope for better from that link? I won't be wasting my time by following it.

[@longlakeshore]

Good science is hard work. It's a slog.

[@robinswamidasan]

Yes, but does this video explain good science or is it just good marketing. I am not a physicist, although I have a STEM background, and I know a bit about the anomaly in the magnetic moment of the muon. This video did not add a thing to my understanding or knowledge. An utter waste of time -- a comment I am almost ashamed of making against anything in science.

[@aiacos]

@@robinswamidasan This video is just for divulgation purposes, it doesn't have any convoluted explanation since it is not needed at this level. If you want to know the latest results, you can easily watch the streaming that has been uploaded in this same channel.

[@zhinkunakur4751]

@@robinswamidasan watch the stream , they gave out more than enough i believe

[@zhinkunakur4751]

@@aiacos exactly

[@longlakeshore]

@@robinswamidasan It added to how precisely the muon is measured that's all. It's not sexy but most science isn't. Does it matter how precisely we can measure anything? That depends but the general answer is yes if we want to understand the universe large and small and everything in between.

[@panayiotisfilis7996]

Nice way to oversell a story

[@tonyrothman]

The music really is annoying, and I'm a native English speaker with acute hearing. Please remove it. It spoils your achievement.

[@aajablajaraja6460]

Never catch religious fanatics here

[@vitopascaretta]

God bless you! Find Jesus and find your answers.

[@s03074c]

其實齁…是因為你們機器是環型的然後那顆東西對磁力很敏感，所以不要覺得哪裡奇怪了，好好的關注一下人類與自然共存與人類進化的事物

[@bloodyorphan]

Finally ;-) V/c=ºC More precesion means a better proof of the speed of light ??

[@tbird81]

Had to stop this video. Do they ever get to the point?

[@sydhenderson6753]

Skip ahead to results. They refined the measurements and they still fall in the lower range of the Brookhaven results.

[@Apeiron242]

What's with that Lego hair?

[@demian8439]

It's DOPE!!

[@navinsingh1730]

Great, now figure out time travel and causality violation for me, o great scientists

[@zeton2000]

bro give it up it ain't going to happen

[@poopnakedyeah]

they did figure it out. it wont happen. get over it

[@tonywells6990]

A team of scientists came from the future and said time travel doesn't work.

[@navinsingh1730]

@@poopnakedyeah Here is the thing, so far every prediction of the einstein has been right, and the one on this has not yet been resolved. Something seems impossible or paradoxical doesn't necessarily mean it is. For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics was considered to be inviolable by most until now. Computers were considered impossible by some... And there are a lot of mysteries and equations left for us to solve. Claiming otherwise is kind of ignorant, isn't it?

[@flambambam3578]

@@navinsingh1730 The 2nd law of thermodynamics is just a statistical model generalized to everyday scales. On the atomic scale, heat energy is transferred between molecules regardless of their difference in temperature. When a system has however many illions of molecules all constantly engaging in this transfer process, we only ever see what the second law states simply because it is the most probable outcome. Same goes for entropy.

[@reneejones6330]

Halfway through the video and still nowhere near actually giving me the result. Stop wasting my time!

[@Skymand5]

It’s was discovered back in 1940

[@liftnd844]

Oh yeah how about can physicists be so off on the age of the Universe revised from 13 billion to like 26 billion years. Just an error bar like non other

[@drmaybe7680]

It's fascinating physics, but I found it a bit off-putting to have so many talking heads swapping in and out, sometimes in mid-sentence. You don't need to bend over backwards trying to make the vid cool and funky. You'll only irritate people who are interested in the results for themselves, while any peanut gallery you may gather through providing colour and movement for low-brow, thought-free goggling is surely not worth the effort. TBH I stopped watching half-way through - SNR was just too small.

[@alexojideagu]

America is obsessed with talking heads, it drives me crazy. It ruins their documentaries and other shows, and can make them unwatchable. Every 20 seconds a head commenting. Explaining rather than showing. Thankfully British documentaries avoid it, although it has spread into some more casual documentaries. Although still not anywhere near the level of US shows.

[@guff9567]

What is this AWFUL mish-mash?

[@Ciguatera]

0:02 who is the silly giggling child? I don't take children serious.

[@Skymand5]

As usually they stole information