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

Where can I find his other videos 😢

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

… why do you think so?

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.

@@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?

@@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.

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'.

@@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!

@@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 😎

@@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.

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

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.

"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.

Show your math.

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

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

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

This is just nonsense.

"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.