Discovery, but is it a Higgs?

Jul 04, 2012 12:52

After months of equivocation ("hints"), we can finally say that we have discovered somethingIt was all very exciting. I'm not used to hearing applause in the middle of a physics presentation. And the second time (ATLAS), they were applauding the number ("5.0σ") that I helped determine ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 11

jackfirecat July 4 2012, 20:51:51 UTC
Well done, you!

As you may not be aware, the twitterverse was consumed by this news this morning. Here's a small selection.


... )

Reply


jackfirecat July 4 2012, 22:03:37 UTC
PS I liked the Telegraph take, in which they seek to cast Peter Higgs as a maverick Einsteinian outsider, as the press will do. (Does it bear any relation to reality?)

Reply

e_pepys July 4 2012, 23:47:27 UTC
Not sure (was being born at the time), but it sounds greatly exaggerated. I've heard other people talking about this idea going round soon after, so it didn't take long to go from unpublishable to an interesting idea. Also, there were 3 groups that all published similar ideas at around the same time, so Higgs was hardly a lone maverick. (His first paper was rejected, but that could have been for any number of reasons.)

Reply


brixtonbrood July 5 2012, 06:53:45 UTC
We are v impressed and have shamelessly name dropped you to the smalls, who saw it on Newsround. "we know someone who helped do the sums on that!" They were also v impressed.

Reply

brixtonbrood July 5 2012, 06:55:34 UTC
"(and if you work very hard at school maybe you too could grow up to discover fundamental building blocks of the universe and appear on Newsround)". Because there are some things that being a parent just makes you say by reflex.

Reply

e_pepys July 9 2012, 01:15:56 UTC
Thanks!

"Helped do the sums" is a pretty good description for my role. I did lots and lots of sums on lots and lots of computers to see how much we really saw it. (Or, if you prefer, I ran ensemble simulations to map the probability density function in order to calibrate the significance of the observed signal. Due to the significance of our observation, this needed 16000 computers running flat out to calculate.)

Reply


zengineer July 5 2012, 10:47:30 UTC
Trouble is if you say you have fairly probably observed something but you're not sure what it is, exactly what it does or if it is useful for anything some politician will probably say "9 BILLION FOR THAT ?!!". Whereas if you say we have made a really complicated discovery that you can't understand but it as fundamental as Newton's laws of motion or Einstein's theory of relativity they will keep quiet to avoid seeming stupid (adding in a Greek symbol always helps). The perennial problem of fundamental science.
Cynicism aside kudos to you as part of the team, for the analysis and for being more accurate rather than repeating the headline.

Reply


sharaz_jek July 5 2012, 13:57:26 UTC
Well done!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up