http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/04/did-w-boson-just-break-standard-model.html Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction Pages * Home * Talk To A Scientist * Comment Rules * About Saturday, April 30, 2022 Did the W-boson just "break the standard model"? [This is a transcript of the video embedded below. Some of the explanations may not make sense without the animations in the video.] Hey there's yet another anomaly in particle physics. You have probably seen the headlines, something with the mass of one of those particles called a W-boson. And supersymmetry is once again the alleged explanation. How seriously should you take this? And why are particle physicists constantly talking about supersymmetry, hasn't that been ruled out? That's what we'll talk about today. Last time I talked about an anomaly in particle physics was a few months ago and would you know two weeks later it disappeared. Yes, it disappeared. If you remember there was something weird going on with the neutrino oscillations in an experiment called LSND, then a follow-up experiment called Mini-Boone confirmed this, and then they improved the accuracy of the follow-up experiment and the anomaly was gone. Poof, end of story. No more neutrino anomaly. You'd think this would've taught me to not get excited about anomalies but, ha, know me better. Now there's another experimental group that claims to have found an anomaly and of course we have to talk about this. This one actually isn't a new experiment, it's a new analysis of data from an experiment that was discontinued more than 10 years ago, a particle collider called the Tevatron at Fermilab in the United States. It reached collision energies of about a Tera electron volt, Tev for short, hence the name. The data were collected from 2002 to 2011 by the collaboration of the CDF experiment. During that time they measured about 4 million events that contained a particle called the W-boson. The W-boson is one of the particles in the standard model, it's one of those that mediate the weak nuclear force. So it's similar to the photon, but it has a mass and it's extremely short-lived. It really only shows up in particle colliders. The value of the mass of the W-boson is related to other parameters in the standard model which have also been measured, so it isn't an independent parameter, it has to fit to the others. The mass of the W-boson has been measured a few times previously, you can see a summary of those measurements in this figure. On the horizontal axis you have the mass of the W-boson. The grey line is the expectation if the standard model is correct. The red dots with the error bars are the results from different experiments. The one at the bottom is the result from the new analysis. One thing that pops into your eye right away is that the mean value of the new measurement isn't so different from earlier data analyses. The striking thing about this new analysis is the small error bar. That the error bar is so small is the reason why this result has such a high statistical significance. They quote a disagreement with the standard model at 6.9 sigma. That's well above the discovery threshold in particle physics which is often somewhat arbitrarily put at 5 sigma. What did they do to get the error bar so small? Well for one thing they have a lot of data. But they also did a lot of calibration cross-checks with other measurements, which basically means they know very precisely how to extract the physical parameters from the raw data, or at least they think they do. Is this reasonable? Yes. Is it correct? I don't know. It could be. But in all honesty, I am very skeptical that this result will hold up. More likely, they have underestimated the error and their result is actually compatible with the other measurements. But if it does hold up, what does it mean? It would mean that the standard model is wrong because there'd be a measurement that don't fit together with the predictions of the theory. Then what? Well then we'd have to improve the standard model. Theoretical particle physicists have made many suggestions for how to do that, the most popular one has for a long time been supersymmetry. It's also one of the possible explanations for the new anomaly that the authors of the paper discuss. What is supersymmetry? Supersymmetry isn't a theory, it's a property of a class of models. And that class of models is very large. These models have all in common that they introduce a new partner particle for each particle in the standard model. And then there are usually some more new particles. So, in a nutshell, it's a lot more particles. What the predictions of a supersymmetric model are depends strongly on the masses of those new particles and how they decay and interact. In practice this means whatever anomaly you measure, you can probably find some supersymmetric model that will "explain" it. I am scare quoting "explain" because if you can explain everything you really explain nothing. This is why supersymmetry is mentioned in one breath with every anomaly that you hear of: because you can use it to explain pretty much everything if you only try hard enough. For example, you may remember the 4.2 sigma deviation from the standard model in the magnetic moment of the muon. Could it be supersymmetry? Sure. Or what's with this B-meson anomaly, that lingers around at 3 sigma and makes headlines once or twice year. Could that be supersymmetry? Sure. Do we in any of these cases actually *know that it has to be supersymmetry? No. There are many other models you could fumble together that would also fit the bill. In fact, the new CDF paper about the mass of the W-boson also mentions a few other possible explanations: additional scalar fields, a second Higgs, dark photons, composite Higgs, and so on. There's literally thousands of those models, none of which has any evidence going in its favor. And immediately after the new results appeared particle physicists have begun cooking up new "explanations". Here are just a few examples of those. By the time this video appears there'll probably be a few dozen more. But wait, you may wonder now, hasn't the Large Hadron Collider ruled out supersymmetry? Good point. Before the Large Hadron Collider turned on, particle physicists claimed that it would either confirm or rule out supersymmetry. Supersymmetry was allegedly an easy to find signal. If supersymmetric particles existed, they should have shown up pretty much immediately in the first collisions. That didn't happen. What did particle physicists do? Oh suddenly they claimed that of course this didn't rule out supersymmetry. It'd just ruled out certain supersymmetric models. So which version is correct? Did or didn't the LHC rule out supersymmetry? The answer is that the LHC indeed did not rule out supersymmetry, it never could. As I said, supersymmetry isn't a theory. It's a huge class of models that can be made to fit anything. Those physicists who said otherwise were either incompetent or lying or both, the rest knew it but kept their mouth shut, and now they hope you'll forget about this and give them money for a bigger collider. As you can probably tell, I am very not amused that the particle physics community never came clear on that. They never admitted to having made false statements, accidentally or deliberately, and they never gave us any reason to think it wouldn't happen again. I quite simply don't trust them. Didn't supersymmetry have something to do with string theory? Yes, indeed. So what does this all mean for string theory? The brief answer is: nothing whatsoever. String theory requires supersymmetry, but the opposite is not true, supersymmetry doesn't necessarily require string theory. So even in the unlikely event that we would find evidence for supersymmetry, this wouldn't tell us whether string theory is correct. It would certainly boost confidence in string theory but ultimately wouldn't help much because string theorists never managed to get the standard model out of their theory, despite the occasional claim to the contrary. I'm afraid all of this sounds rather negative. Well. There's a reason I left particle physics. Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal progress or for progress in any other discipline of science. The only reason we still hear so much about it is that a lot of funding goes into it and so a lot of people still work on it, most of them don't like me. But the disciplines where the foundations of physics currently make progress are cosmology and astrophysics, and everything quantum, quantum information, quantum computing, quantum metrology, and so on, which is why that's what I mostly talk about these days. The LHC has just been upgraded and started operating again a few days ago. In the coming years, they will collect a lot more data than they have so far and this could lead to new discoveries. But when the headlines come in, keep in mind that the more data you collect, the more anomalies you'll see, so it's almost guaranteed they will see a lot of bumps at low significance "that could break the standard model" but then go away. It's possible of course that one of those is the real thing, but to borrow a German idiom, don't eat the headlines as hot as they're cooked. Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder at 8:00 AM # Labels: Particle Physics, Physics, Video Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest No comments: Post a Comment COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG ARE PERMANENTLY CLOSED. You can join the discussion on Patreon. Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment. Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Support me on Patreon [Patreon-2] Buy my book (paid link) Recent Comments Follow me on Twitter Tweets by @skdh More about me * Sabine on Twitter * Sabine on YouTube * Sabine on Facebook * Sabine's Homepage * Sabine on Google Scholar * Sabine's ArXiv Papers Search this blog [ ] [Go!] Follow me on facebook Labels Physics (650) Science and Society (227) Video (221) Papers (220) Quantum Gravity (165) Random Thoughts (163) Astrophysics (160) Books (117) Particle Physics (112) Academia (110) Cosmology (101) Science (78) Travel (78) Philosophy (77) Distraction (70) Blog (67) Photo (56) Sociology of Science (56) Rant (49) History of Science (47) Physicists (46) Quantum foundations (42) Dear Dr B (27) Politics (24) Psychology (10) Sociology (4) Blog Archive * V 2022 (21) + V Apr 2022 (5) o Did the W-boson just "break the standard model"? o I stopped working on black hole information loss. ... o How serious is antibiotic resistance? o Is Nuclear Power Green? o How close is wireless power technology? + > Mar 2022 (5) + > Feb 2022 (5) + > Jan 2022 (6) * > 2021 (63) + > Dec 2021 (5) + > Nov 2021 (5) + > Oct 2021 (6) + > Sep 2021 (5) + > Aug 2021 (4) + > Jul 2021 (5) + > Jun 2021 (4) + > May 2021 (7) + > Apr 2021 (6) + > Mar 2021 (6) + > Feb 2021 (6) + > Jan 2021 (4) * > 2020 (84) + > Dec 2020 (6) + > Nov 2020 (6) + > Oct 2020 (10) + > Sep 2020 (5) + > Aug 2020 (7) + > Jul 2020 (5) + > Jun 2020 (6) + > May 2020 (8) + > Apr 2020 (10) + > Mar 2020 (7) + > Feb 2020 (9) + > Jan 2020 (5) * > 2019 (119) + > Dec 2019 (8) + > Nov 2019 (7) + > Oct 2019 (6) + > Sep 2019 (8) + > Aug 2019 (9) + > Jul 2019 (10) + > Jun 2019 (14) + > May 2019 (13) + > Apr 2019 (9) + > Mar 2019 (10) + > Feb 2019 (13) + > Jan 2019 (12) * > 2018 (93) + > Dec 2018 (8) + > Nov 2018 (12) + > Oct 2018 (9) + > Sep 2018 (7) + > Aug 2018 (7) + > Jul 2018 (6) + > Jun 2018 (10) + > May 2018 (7) + > Apr 2018 (8) + > Mar 2018 (8) + > Feb 2018 (4) + > Jan 2018 (7) * > 2017 (73) + > Dec 2017 (4) + > Nov 2017 (7) + > Oct 2017 (8) + > Sep 2017 (5) + > Aug 2017 (5) + > Jul 2017 (4) + > Jun 2017 (6) + > May 2017 (8) + > Apr 2017 (7) + > Mar 2017 (6) + > Feb 2017 (6) + > Jan 2017 (7) * > 2016 (76) + > Dec 2016 (7) + > Nov 2016 (6) + > Oct 2016 (5) + > Sep 2016 (5) + > Aug 2016 (7) + > Jul 2016 (4) + > Jun 2016 (5) + > May 2016 (7) + > Apr 2016 (6) + > Mar 2016 (7) + > Feb 2016 (8) + > Jan 2016 (9) * > 2015 (90) + > Dec 2015 (11) + > Nov 2015 (9) + > Oct 2015 (8) + > Sep 2015 (8) + > Aug 2015 (10) + > Jul 2015 (5) + > Jun 2015 (7) + > May 2015 (5) + > Apr 2015 (8) + > Mar 2015 (6) + > Feb 2015 (5) + > Jan 2015 (8) * > 2014 (80) + > Dec 2014 (7) + > Nov 2014 (7) + > Oct 2014 (7) + > Sep 2014 (5) + > Aug 2014 (8) + > Jul 2014 (5) + > Jun 2014 (7) + > May 2014 (7) + > Apr 2014 (7) + > Mar 2014 (3) + > Feb 2014 (7) + > Jan 2014 (10) * > 2013 (96) + > Dec 2013 (8) + > Nov 2013 (6) + > Oct 2013 (10) + > Sep 2013 (9) + > Aug 2013 (9) + > Jul 2013 (9) + > Jun 2013 (7) + > May 2013 (9) + > Apr 2013 (8) + > Mar 2013 (6) + > Feb 2013 (7) + > Jan 2013 (8) * > 2012 (126) + > Dec 2012 (8) + > Nov 2012 (8) + > Oct 2012 (8) + > Sep 2012 (9) + > Aug 2012 (11) + > Jul 2012 (11) + > Jun 2012 (10) + > May 2012 (13) + > Apr 2012 (15) + > Mar 2012 (11) + > Feb 2012 (12) + > Jan 2012 (10) * > 2011 (123) + > Dec 2011 (30) + > Nov 2011 (11) + > Oct 2011 (8) + > Sep 2011 (9) + > Aug 2011 (9) + > Jul 2011 (10) + > Jun 2011 (9) + > May 2011 (7) + > Apr 2011 (6) + > Mar 2011 (7) + > Feb 2011 (8) + > Jan 2011 (9) * > 2010 (139) + > Dec 2010 (8) + > Nov 2010 (9) + > Oct 2010 (9) + > Sep 2010 (8) + > Aug 2010 (9) + > Jul 2010 (12) + > Jun 2010 (13) + > May 2010 (13) + > Apr 2010 (15) + > Mar 2010 (15) + > Feb 2010 (14) + > Jan 2010 (14) * > 2009 (167) + > Dec 2009 (16) + > Nov 2009 (11) + > Oct 2009 (10) + > Sep 2009 (12) + > Aug 2009 (11) + > Jul 2009 (15) + > Jun 2009 (16) + > May 2009 (13) + > Apr 2009 (15) + > Mar 2009 (15) + > Feb 2009 (16) + > Jan 2009 (17) * > 2008 (267) + > Dec 2008 (37) + > Nov 2008 (19) + > Oct 2008 (24) + > Sep 2008 (20) + > Aug 2008 (21) + > Jul 2008 (24) + > Jun 2008 (23) + > May 2008 (21) + > Apr 2008 (20) + > Mar 2008 (18) + > Feb 2008 (18) + > Jan 2008 (22) * > 2007 (311) + > Dec 2007 (36) + > Nov 2007 (23) + > Oct 2007 (24) + > Sep 2007 (19) + > Aug 2007 (24) + > Jul 2007 (24) + > Jun 2007 (19) + > May 2007 (24) + > Apr 2007 (24) + > Mar 2007 (30) + > Feb 2007 (31) + > Jan 2007 (33) * > 2006 (152) + > Dec 2006 (27) + > Nov 2006 (19) + > Oct 2006 (14) + > Sep 2006 (13) + > Aug 2006 (13) + > Jul 2006 (17) + > Jun 2006 (17) + > May 2006 (10) + > Apr 2006 (11) + > Mar 2006 (10) + > Feb 2006 (1) Visitor Count free web page hit counter Feeds Blogger Atom Feed Blogger Comment Feed Feedburner Comment Feed Blogger RSS Feed [INS::INS] Powered by Blogger.