Why are we still measuring the mass of the W boson | Explainer

[@nycsimon2024]

He may be the best science communicator on this CERN channel. His analogy is always spot on. I still vividly remember his analogy of 'throwing a dice repeatedly in a rabbit hole to prove the existence of an illusive rabbit who is believed to favor the number of 3' to explain the bump on the curve that proves the existence of the Higgs Boson.

[@Scientificirfann]

Where can I find his other videos 😢

[@chetnaatcern]

@@Scientificirfann You can find the playlist The Higgs Boson Discovery Explained on CERN channel

[@Scientificirfann]

@@chetnaatcern thank you 😊 I am even more happy that you are from india and working at CERN

[@dsracoon]

It is good. But let's put it like this, CERN can learn a lot with Fermilab (and others) about communication.

[@cantdropp]

Sounds jewelish

[@narrator69]

Amazing presentation of the boson's, very easy to understand. Great video.

[@shauninferno3334]

I need to check it again😂

[@MaxMakerChannel]

Well explained. Thank you!

[@Mr.Loewenzahn]

Amazing video!

[@fmontpetit]

Very well explained. Thank you so much

[@enricokine78]

Grazie per quotata bellissima presentazione. Chiara ed interessante! 🔝👏🏻

[@ShopperPlug]

would be nice if explained how exactly the measurements are taken, like what kind of sensors, hardware and devices used.

[@MaxMakerChannel]

I agree.

[@MikeWiest]

Thank you!

[@superspeedstergaming20]

Intriguing!

[@Czeckie]

good luck with measuring that w boson babes, i liked the explanation of overconstrainedness

[@pablovillasenor346]

Thank you again Piotr! You are an amazing science communicator. Greetings from Mexico :)

[@traqq]

Hey man, thanks! Cool to hear from you :D

[@daquion7830]

Pozdrowienia z Polski!

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

If I remember correctly, W bosons also can decay into a quark and an antiquark, which then both produce hadronic jets. Can't one get the mass of the W boson from the total energy contained in these jets?

[@luciddewseed3095]

yes, but the "jets" are notorious to measure properly, since they overlap so much with each other. That is to say, the hadronic channel that you are talking about is very messy because of all these jets, unlike the leptonic channel, where you just have to measure a muon and missing energy (neutrinos) to reconstruct the invariant W mass.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@luciddewseed3095 Thanks for explaining this. :)

[@ChikkuGOfficial]

Can you answer it?How Antimatter is related to W Boson?

[@blank_3768]

when antimatter annihilates it releases a lot of energy. That energy can create exotic particles like bosons.

[@BadYossa]

Interesting vid. I've heard that W Bosons pop in and out of existence (if that is the right term? - I'm a Chef, not a physicist) more times per second than the number of seconds that have existed since the Big Bang. Is this a correct?

[@tacocookie1015]

I'm a PhD student working on the CMS experiment at CERN. It sounds like you are talking about what we call "virtual W bosons." The so-called 'weak nuclear force' holds nuclei together, binding protons and neutrons in the cores of atoms. The weak force is 'communicated' we might say by the creation, exchange, and annihilation of virtual W bosons (and also Z bosons) being sent between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Technically speaking, this is a mathematical model of how this processes works, and not something we could actually experimentally verify, but when you do the quantum field theory calculations to explain these sorts of things, it could be interpreted as the exchange of W and Z bosons. This is why they're called 'virtual'. We can't see them in colliders, but we can model the weak force as being communicated by their exchange. If you count the number of these virtual W bosons that would pop in and out every second, it would be quite a lot, but it's important to remember that they're an interpretation of theory and not necessarily 'real'.

[@BadYossa]

@@tacocookie1015 Thank you so much for taking the time to write that summary. Absolutely fascinating. Really appreciate your efforts and best of success with your PHD!

[@charlottebowes7666]

@@tacocookie1015So nothing can be measured and nothing can be verified. If all you produce is nothing, what are you for… Maybe today one of you will make a mistake at work, that would be something 😎

[@drdca8263]

@@charlottebowes7666It isn’t that nothing can be measured, but that one specific thing might be only a mathematical technique, or might be real, but that particular thing can’t be measured so we can’t tell which, but, regardless, it is still useful in predicting the things we *can* measure. Well, not things *I* can measure. Things some people can measure.

[@charlottebowes7666]

@@drdca8263 Like I said, mistakes are at least something. Try that 😂😂

[@shauninferno3334]

The edge of cube got a cube was new 🤔👍

[@stefanocicala5886]

Perché 😊la trascrizione non è in italiano ? Grazie

[@ValidatingUsername]

Can you verify how many neutrinos you’re measuring from background noise or are you blocking them out somehow?

[@whocares2277]

You don't measure the neutrino directly (there is a different detector that studies neutrinos from collisions, but that's unrelated to this measurement). The collisions are symmetric, so the total momentum is zero and stays zero in the collision. If the collision products look asymmetric (particles seen flying in one direction, but nothing detected in the other) then you know a neutrino had to fly in the direction where you didn't measure particles.

[@ValidatingUsername]

@@whocares2277 I’m talking about background noise passing through the building and possibly the experiment that, since I wasn’t quite sure about the detection method, “don’t interact with matter anyway”. Like 1000 through your thumb every second?

[@whocares2277]

@@ValidatingUsername You might get one neutrino interacting with the detector every day or so, mostly with a low energy - it's completely negligible. Muons are more common (many per second), but even they don't matter when the experiments take data with collisions. Muons are used to measure the relative alignment of the detector components when there are no collisions.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Because we can.

[@alish5417]

boson sounds weird ,isnt it boson ,its comoketly doesnt in any way imply to particle physics ,the name must indicate to its mechanism at least or part of it ,but can you tell me whats the relatjon between boson and decay ,nothing ,the W decay particle ,without boson ,make it bosonless

[@edwardgrigoryan3982]

🤯

[@Slizexd]

Oh man, I need to study English more, I only understood half of what the man said.

[@MatrixVectorPSI]

So it seems a measurement of the neutrino is the actual holdup.

[@Florida79578]

before the conspricy theroiest come Current scientific theories and understanding of particle physics do not support the feasibility of creating stable portals to other dimensions or events that could end the world through particle collisions.

[@anamariatiradogonzalez]

Una obsesion por pedi

[@dxyA29192]

Beautiful! 60th viewer

[@whiteazero-nq1ox]

...hello..."what is best" ive heard it said ...

[@RampAgentX]

very strange...

[@kwgm8578]

Why is D * π = C "over constrained?" If you measure the circumference of a circle, and then measure its diameter, and then divide the circumference by the diameter, you will find the value of π. It's that simple. It's a ratio, constrained by the diameter of the circle. Give me the circle's Diameter That's all I need to compute a Circumference for that circle, but only if I use one and only one value -- the value known as π. The value is always 2.1415... This it's an irrational number that has been known and used for over 2,000 years to satisfy the relationship of a diameter to a circumference. Why isn't "constrained" an adequate term to describe this phenomenon? What does adding the descriptor 'over' add to anyone's understanding of this relationship?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

The value of pi is _not_ something which one has to determine from measurements, it's a fundamental mathematical constant which can be _calculated_. So if one knows the diameter, the circumference is nailed down, it can't have another value. So by measuring both the diameter and the circumference, the formula _is_ over constrained.

[@luizbotelho1908]

Are you really sure that the Standard model is not just a phenomenological model with artificial Higgs Mechanism , with the electromagnetism on the Standard model being a derived field and not a fundamental field and besides the Weinberg Salam Theory is not renormalizable (G t"Hooft has been intentionally misleading on this issue )? .In the standard model the fine constant 1| 137 is not fundamental but a function of others model parameters ( Vector meson mass W+,W- ,Z and the non vanishing Higgs field vacuum expectation value) ) and the quarks fields are unconfined ( flavor charges are not confined in the model as it should .Their deconfined use is just phenomenological due to the asymptotic freedom of the ill defined perturbative QCD ) . I think Weinberg Salam model may be not the final word in the modelling of the Nuclear Weak force by Quantum Field Theories .

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"besides the Weinberg Salam Theory is not renormalizable (G t"Hooft has been intentionally misleading on this issue )" You really want to claim that thousands of experts have not noticed that during the last 50 years? Seriously? "In the standard model the fine constant 1| 137 is not fundamental but a function of others model parameters ( Higgs field parameters) " Show your math. "the quarks fields are unconfined" Show your math. "flavor charges are not confined in the model as it should" Quarks are not confined due to their flavor charge, but due to their color charge. So what on Earth are you talking about? "Their deconfined use is just phenomenological due to the asymptotic freedom of the ill defined perturbative QCD" Pardon? That's incomprehensible.

[@alish5417]

to know the mass ,u measure the decay ,and tge decay splits into 2 ,so you are meaduring fake mass ,or the wrong mass ,when the original particle decays ,u measure its mass ,accordibg to the decay output ,i dont know if its a decay ,bwcause particles dont decay at all ,theoritaccly ,if someone dies ,and you measure him befor death ,and you measure him after he got decayed lets say after 10 years ,you will see that his wieght after death is nusch less than when he was still alive ,and if u dont have the original mass weight of that body befor its death ,u will never be able to know the exact original mass befor death ,what what ,MUONS ,THEY BELONG TO THE CAT RACE MEWONS

[@guypatel-j6u]

L’EXPANSOLOGIE est la science de la diffusion relativiste de la dilatation de l’espace, ce qui permet d‘expliquer la récession des galaxies et le fond cosmologique (sans big bang, sans expansion de l’univers, sans création de l’univers, sans inflation, etc…). L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique la masse manquante grâce à LA SURGRAVITE (la matière noire n’existe pas). Comme la mécanique newtonienne est toujours bonne (en 1/r2), la théorie MOND est donc fausse. L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique (le retard de) l’accélération de l’expansion par effet de marée interstructure (et donc sans énergie sombre). L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique la création de la matière dans les accélérateurs de particules grâce au PARTICULEX (et donc sans corde, ni brane, ni spineur, ni supersymétrie, ni quarks, ni tachyons, etc…). L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique que l’antimatière n’a pas disparue grâce au NEUTRINO LI-NEOSPINAL. L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique la raison de la vitesse finie de la lumière grâce au LI-NEOSPINEX. L’EXPANSOLOGIE est IMPUBLIABLE car le spinex est HYPERCOMPLEXE. L’EXPANSOLOGIE est EXOSCOLAIRE. Dès lors les accélérateurs de particules deviennent inutiles car les spinex sont définitivement INEXPERIMENTABLES. L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique le fonctionnement de la charge, de la gravité quantique, de la constante 1/137, de la constante h, de l'antimatière… grâce au SPINEX. L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique la « théorie du tout » grâce au spinex, au particulex, à l’expanso, au modèle des multistructures, etc. L’EXPANSOLOGIE explique que les multivers sont des aberrations théoriques. L’EXPANSOLOGIE ne peut être évaluée que par des SURINTUITIFS comme le furent Léonard de Vinci, Robert Hooke, Charles Darwin, Galilée, Maxwell, Einstein… (Les mathématiciens, les savants, les vulgarisateurs et les bons élèves n'auront jamais les capacités intuitives pour évaluer l’expansologie). SANS L’EXPANSOLOGIE la physique est DEFINITIVEMENT BLOQUEE. AVEC L’EXPANSOLOGIE la cosmologie se révèle être une pseudoscience. AVEC L’EXPANSOLOGIE l’astronomie sera tôt ou tard inutile. Guy Patel; Expansologue, coopérologue, intellectuologue et inventeur.

[@Coastaljaeger]

Yes, very interesting, but what do you think of the new rules in Eurovision song contest?

[@ChikkuGOfficial]

After measuring the mass of W boson, We will be able to do.........? What?

[@deathbreach3448]

Let’s see some aliens, if I’m being quite real with myself

[@nadirahmuhammad7846]

More witchcraft!

[@KaliFissure]

This model is so whack. The W boson is the action of decomposition of the outermost mass photon of a neutron into its component charges. The exterior mass photon decays. The positron attached to the mass and the electron surrounding. Positron =convergence, outflow Electron = divergence, inflow

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Show your math.

[@AtomekKotalke]

It will end in tragedy

[@blank_3768]

how???

[@halcon2134]

Explaining that in a 6-minute video is impossible, you have to explain what w is and that it mutates when it wants, etc

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

W bosons don't mutate and don't want anything.

[@drdca8263]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514”when it wants” was presumably a figure of speech

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@drdca8263 Even if it was a figure of speech, the point that W bosons don't "mutate" still stands.

[@drdca8263]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I think they might have been referring to how the weak interaction can change one type of quark to another? Not sure. Also yeah *maybe* they were just saying something nonsense, but I think it is good to try to see what reasonable thing someone might have *meant*.

[@4neo]

Don't waste your time on the negative side, if you have a game, remember that Allah has a bigger game.

[@JerryMlinarevic]

You do not need to measure anything. You have done all the experiments needed to understand it all - just stop listening to your colleagues. W+ and W- are two parts of higgs boson (oscillatronn, as I call it). They oscillate by passing through each other like two toroids, when they are inside each other you see a Z particle. They convert gravitons to photons, which are in turn converted to magnetic fields, etc. Much more detail freely available at my address (Intel).

[@whocares2277]

This is just nonsense.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"W+ and W- are two parts of higgs boson" Why do you think so? Show your math and your evidence. "They oscillate by passing through each other like two toroids, when they are inside each other you see a Z particle." Why do you think so? Show your math and your evidence. "They convert gravitons to photons, which are in turn converted to magnetic fields, etc." Why do you think so? Show your math and your evidence. "Much more detail freely available at my address (Intel)." I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

[@yotamoren818]

More like w bozo 😂