- #36
CDF measures W mass higher than predicted
- #37
mfb
Mentor
- 36,394
- 13,465
The university of Pisa has created a postdoc position dedicated to W mass measurements with CMS.
They want to avoid most systematic uncertainties by using less model-dependent measurements. That needs much more statistics, but it avoids the limitation to low-pileup runs so CMS can use far larger datasets.
They want to avoid most systematic uncertainties by using less model-dependent measurements. That needs much more statistics, but it avoids the limitation to low-pileup runs so CMS can use far larger datasets.
- #38
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
- 30,264
- 16,066
The LHC is a completely different kettle of fish. You have many, many more W's which is good, Each W event is on top of dozens of other events, which is bad. There are also some subtleties involving calibrating on the Z.
- #39
ohwilleke
Gold Member
- 2,201
- 1,179
There is a new preprint from the Tevatron-LHC W boson mass working group which is basically reanalyzing the reanalyzed Tevatron data (although it purports to reanalyze all of the results) with the predictable result that the Tevatron measurement is adjusted downward to a value closer to the rest of the measurements (although it appears that only part of the process of adjustment has been completed).
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.12365
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.12365
- #40
- 20,004
- 10,653
- #41
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
- 30,264
- 16,066
It's a conference proceedings, not a paper, so what can be learned from it has the usual limitations/
To be clear, this is NOT, as some people have claimed, a reanalysis. It is an early step of averaging multiple measurements. It says so on the very first line. Furthermore, as the paper itself says on the very first page is that this step is to get all the experimental results to use the same reference model.
One of the complications here is that "the W mass" is neither well-defined at the level of precision needed to be interesting, nor is it the quantity of theoretical interest. That is the electroweak component of the W mass, which granted, is 99.9+% of the contribution, but is more in the category of "parameter of the theory" than "physical quantity".
So if the resolution to all of this is that the pre-averaginhg corrections move the CDF results closer to the average, it would not be wrong to say that the issue is not the fundamental physics, but the differences in what exactly is being measured.
Well, to be fair, it had only two directions it could move in.
To be clear, this is NOT, as some people have claimed, a reanalysis. It is an early step of averaging multiple measurements. It says so on the very first line. Furthermore, as the paper itself says on the very first page is that this step is to get all the experimental results to use the same reference model.
One of the complications here is that "the W mass" is neither well-defined at the level of precision needed to be interesting, nor is it the quantity of theoretical interest. That is the electroweak component of the W mass, which granted, is 99.9+% of the contribution, but is more in the category of "parameter of the theory" than "physical quantity".
So if the resolution to all of this is that the pre-averaginhg corrections move the CDF results closer to the average, it would not be wrong to say that the issue is not the fundamental physics, but the differences in what exactly is being measured.
- #42
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 41,753
- 19,299
Thread closed for moderation.
- #43
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 41,753
- 19,299
The thread has run its course and will remain closed. Thanks to all who participated!