The W boson mass is exp(-4pi^2) of a Planck mass

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the mass of the W boson, specifically a proposed relationship involving the Planck mass and an exponential factor. Participants explore the implications of this relationship, its numerical accuracy, and the validity of using numerology in scientific reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a numerical coincidence between a calculated W boson mass of 85 GeV and a measured mass of 80.4 GeV, questioning if this has been previously examined.
  • Another participant references a related thread discussing coincidences and mentions renormalization group arguments that suggest certain expressions should be of order unity if G is the ultimate cutoff.
  • A request for clarification on the symbols used in the exponential expression is made, indicating a need for deeper understanding.
  • A critical perspective is offered, arguing that numerology is not a valid scientific approach and highlighting the significant discrepancy between the calculated and measured W boson masses, suggesting that the proposed relationship is not robust.
  • The same critical participant points out that electroweak radiative corrections, particularly from the top quark, significantly affect the W boson mass, further complicating the proposed numerological relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the numerological approach to understanding the W boson mass, with some defending the exploration of coincidences while others criticize it as unscientific. The discussion remains unresolved with competing views on the significance of the proposed relationship.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and implications of the proposed relationship between the W boson mass and the Planck mass, as well as the role of electroweak corrections in determining the W boson mass.

franoisbelfor
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Almost: the result is 85 GeV, the measured mass is 80.4 GeV.
Is there anybody who has ever looked at this coincidence?

François
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there is a thread about this kind of coincidences, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46055

For exponential times the Planck mass, there are usually renormalization group arguments: "one expects that Me*sqrt(G)*Exp(1/alpha or similar) to be of order unity, if G is the ultimate cutoff "
 
arivero said:
For exponential times the Planck mass, there are usually renormalization group arguments: "one expects that Me*sqrt(G)*Exp(1/alpha or similar) to be of order unity, if G is the ultimate cutoff "

Can you explain the symbols in the expression? Thank you already!

François
 
First, numerology is hardly the path to understanding science. It's beloved by crackpots who spend a great deal of time finding simple, or in some cases complex, wholly unmotivated relations between measured quantities. Indeed, in many cases even when better measurements show that these relationships are spurious, the proponents cling to their ideas.

Second, your calculation gives 87.381 +/- 0.004 GeV. The measurement is 80.398 +/- 0.025 GeV. That's 280 standard deviations away, hardly "almost". With such a large number of possible expressions, surely you could have done better than getting within 9% of the measured value. Why 4 pi^2? Why not (283/45)^2?

Third, electroweak radiative corrections, mostly due to the top quark, pull the mass of the W up. Without them, the W would weigh 77.5 GeV. That makes your numerology even worse.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K