New data contradicts accepted standard model of particle physics
The uncertainty of science: After years of analysis, physicists have refined their measurement of the mass of one important subatomic particle, and discovered that its weight violates the accepted standard model of particle physics, threatening to overthrow it entirely.
W bosons are elementary particles that carry the weak force, mediating nuclear processes like those at work in the Sun. According to the Standard Model, their mass is linked to the masses of the Higgs boson and a subatomic particle called the top quark. In a new study, almost 400 scientists on the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) collaboration spent a decade examining 4.2 million W boson candidates collected from 26 years of data at the Tevatron collider. From this treasure trove, the team was able to calculate the mass of the W boson to within 0.01 percent, making it twice as precise as the previous best measurement.
By their calculations, the W boson has a mass of 80,433.5 Mega-electronvolts (MeV), with an uncertainty of just 9.4 MeV either side. That’s within the range of some previous measurements, but well outside that predicted by the Standard Model, which puts it at 80,357 MeV, give or take 6 MeV. That means the new value is off by a whopping seven standard deviations.
Further cementing the anomaly, the W boson mass was also recently measured using data from the Large Hadron Collider, in a paper published in January. That team came to a value of 80,354 MeV (+/- 32 MeV), which is comfortably close to that given by the Standard Model.
Personally, I always take this level of physics with a great deal of skepticism. The data involves a lot of assumptions and uncertainties. That other researchers came up with a different number illustrates this.
Nonetheless, these results could suggest that the standard model, the consensus theory for decades, is either incomplete, or wrong. The former would be more likely, but no possibility should be dismissed. And even if wrong, much of that model still works so well any new model must include large parts of it.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The uncertainty of science: After years of analysis, physicists have refined their measurement of the mass of one important subatomic particle, and discovered that its weight violates the accepted standard model of particle physics, threatening to overthrow it entirely.
W bosons are elementary particles that carry the weak force, mediating nuclear processes like those at work in the Sun. According to the Standard Model, their mass is linked to the masses of the Higgs boson and a subatomic particle called the top quark. In a new study, almost 400 scientists on the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) collaboration spent a decade examining 4.2 million W boson candidates collected from 26 years of data at the Tevatron collider. From this treasure trove, the team was able to calculate the mass of the W boson to within 0.01 percent, making it twice as precise as the previous best measurement.
By their calculations, the W boson has a mass of 80,433.5 Mega-electronvolts (MeV), with an uncertainty of just 9.4 MeV either side. That’s within the range of some previous measurements, but well outside that predicted by the Standard Model, which puts it at 80,357 MeV, give or take 6 MeV. That means the new value is off by a whopping seven standard deviations.
Further cementing the anomaly, the W boson mass was also recently measured using data from the Large Hadron Collider, in a paper published in January. That team came to a value of 80,354 MeV (+/- 32 MeV), which is comfortably close to that given by the Standard Model.
Personally, I always take this level of physics with a great deal of skepticism. The data involves a lot of assumptions and uncertainties. That other researchers came up with a different number illustrates this.
Nonetheless, these results could suggest that the standard model, the consensus theory for decades, is either incomplete, or wrong. The former would be more likely, but no possibility should be dismissed. And even if wrong, much of that model still works so well any new model must include large parts of it.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
I’m way out of date on my physics, but I’ve never heard that the standard model meets the “explain” criteria of a true theory. Eg. they can say that certain sub-particles carry the weak nuclear force, but can’t truly explain what the weak nuclear force is, nor what is about those sub-particles that make them carry it. It’s more of a spreadsheet, where they know that each cell needs to have a sub-particle or force in it, and they can work backwards and say “well, we know that this particle is part of this other particle, so it must have a mass in the range of x or the other particle would mass more, etc.” but there is no explanation of what mass truly is, and if there is a reason that particle has x rather than y.
Unless this points to FTL, antigravity, or new energy-I really don’t care.
Jeff Wright, If this is correct, it creates a situation somewhat akin to “The Crisis in Physics” of the late 19th Century. If it is correct, it points to the need for further study and the direction it should take. Just as no one could predict General and Special Relativity in 1900, so too, it’s impossible to say where this may take us. It may well have an impact on your concerns, we just don’t know,
It will probably be expensive. Colliders, like HLLVs, are never big enough. Large Hadron a consolation prize for SSC. The idea of a weakless alt-universe is interesting. Of more concern are linear earthquakes SMU thought were from strangelets tearing through.
We can’t find 95% of the Universe. The W Boson being a little heavier than anticipated is the least of the “problems” in physics.
Icepilot makes a very good point.
I agree entirely Icepilot…. When first conceived, both dark energy and dark matter were placeholders until we figured out what we have got wrong. I’ve always thought that the fact they have become doctrine is, well somewhat fishy…
“New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology”
Sabine Hossenfelder (September, 2021)
https://youtu.be/JETGS64kTys
10:49
“The standard model of physics is broken…”
Dr. Peter Woit and Lex Fridman
December 2021, (excerpted from the full show Number 246)
https://youtu.be/-qdJg3WCyUU
3:00
Zman, space nerds: Like it or not there are “Things” (An intelligence or a force of some kind) in this universe that are detectable to some degree by humans but appear to be beyond our everyday ability to comprehend and to properly understand *IT* / them and where *IT* / they come from and what they or *IT* is up to.
This is just a fact and there are evidences of this condition that apparently run throughout our known history (And I would assume before our known history). Its apparently a fact, as crazy as it sounds, and many are either unwilling or unable do to their situation to recognize it.
Makes you uncomfortable? Think its crazy? You know its true but are unable to say so? *IT* does not care, Is what it is.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-news/were-closing-in-on-them-ufo-expert-on-new-pentagon-findings/?msclkid=0728efcbb81211eca136568a7fe4e9b9
Ask Bob Bigelow, I think you would agree that he is a valid, stone cold, serious as a heart attack fellow space nerd.
From Skin Walker ranch: https://youtu.be/yL7sgE4Jw5w
From cattle mutilation, to UFO’s, to Orbs intelligently controlled, to strange animals / entities, its out there.
The only conclusion? There is something existing in this universe over and above what we are able to scientifically detect and understand. And you can ask Bob Bigelow if you don’t believe me.
https://www.newsweek.com/skinwalker-ranch-ufo-sightings-uap-robert-bigelow-poltergeist-1491532?msclkid=7ca1c168b81411ec9d405174008db9dc
Bigelow bought the ranch and had a team of scientists working there to try to figure it out. Did he?
This is one more example that for a great amount of todays “known science” it is not known, it is “believed” or fits the model and or observations to a comfortable amount.
To be accurate I think scientists need to add the phrase …”we believe” or “we think” to their pronouncements. This may become a bit cumbersome but I think it will continuously remind those who seek the truth about nature that they don’t always know and need to keep questioning lest their “knowledge” house of cards collapses.
“To be accurate I think scientists need to add the phrase …”we believe” or “we think” to their pronouncements. This may become a bit cumbersome but I think it will continuously remind those who seek the truth about nature that they don’t always know and need to keep questioning lest their “knowledge” house of cards collapses.”
But that would humble that quack Fauxi and demolish the whole idea that those who claim to practice “science” are members of an omniscient, uniquely qualified pseudo-priesthood who are entitled to have their opinions outside their narrow area of expertise (and sometimes not even then) be treated as pronouncements from on high
Chris–
You’re definitely on to something.
“Coping with Complexity”
Jordan B Peterson
(Excerpted from: 2017 Personality 18: Biology & Traits)
https://youtu.be/KdFbypaNJqw
3:47
Chris observed: “To be accurate I think scientists need to add the phrase …”we believe” or “we think” to their pronouncements.”
I had thought that was understood. Like the old math joke:
“What color is that house?”
“Well, it’s white on this side.”
Blair,
Hilarious!
tangentially, I’ll drop this in here:
“Asking A Theoretical Physicist About The Physics Of Consciousness”
Roger Penrose & Jordan Peterson (April 14, 2022)
https://youtu.be/Qi9ys2j1ncg
1:40:38