Slashdot Mirror


Fermi Lab May Have Discovered New Particle or Force

schleprock63 writes "Physicists at Fermi Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in their data that could indicate they've found a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature. The discovery could 'be the most significant discovery in physics in half a century.' Physicists have ruled out that the particle could be the standard model Higgs boson, but theorize that it could be some new and unexpected version of the Higgs. This discovery comes as the Tevatron is slated to go offline sometime in September."

226 comments

  1. If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by elucido · · Score: 0, Troll

    A person who smoked salvia said that a black hole in reality opened up and their soul was sucked into it. Meanwhile physicists claim that black holes suck in matter and light and it can never escape.

    Maybe if more physicists smoked Salvia they'd have a better natural understanding of the universe. They would understand that salvia is an alien lifeform, a plant brought to the earth by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys to consume our souls. They would understand that our reality is an illusion and that this force they just discovered is the salvia force, the ultimate proof of alien life. The universe and existence is fake, accept it. You don't have consciousness, you are just a biological machine, please accept it.

    1. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what

    2. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 0

      Die in a fire pls, lol k thx bye

    3. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by jpedlow · · Score: 1
      All Aboard The Crazy Train!

      WOO WOO!

    4. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is dat sum copypasta?

    5. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by toastar · · Score: 1

      GP is confusing Salvia with LSD

    6. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has just opened up to a new demographic I think.

    7. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 4, Funny

      A person who smoked salvia said that a black hole in reality opened up and their soul was sucked into it. Meanwhile physicists claim that black holes suck in matter and light and it can never escape.

      Maybe if more physicists smoked Salvia they'd have a better natural understanding of the universe. They would understand that salvia is an alien lifeform, a plant brought to the earth by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys to consume our souls. They would understand that our reality is an illusion and that this force they just discovered is the salvia force, the ultimate proof of alien life. The universe and existence is fake, accept it. You don't have consciousness, you are just a biological machine, please accept it.

      Oddly enough, your post is as worth reading as the 40+ posts that came after it. You may have proved a point. God know what it is (maybe on some quantum scale you are proving that insanity is sanity at the same time) but, well done old chap.

      --
      I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    8. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot has just opened up to a new demographic I think.

      Who, crazy people? No, they've been here for years.

    9. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by wolrahnaes · · Score: 0

      Uh...wha? I've smoked salvia many times and know the crazy shit it can make you see (I've seen television characters become demons in my living room, thought that all of existence was an illusion created by rapidly moving air bubbles in a universe of folded rubbery sheets,etc.), but you seem to be taking hallucinogen "revelations" a bit too seriously.

      Don't get me wrong, drugs can be great for getting an alternate perspective on something, but you have to look at what you think you've discovered while high through the lens of reality before you can know if it's something worthwhile or just something you thought made sense at the time.

      Also, personally I wouldn't be recommending salvia to everyone. It's effects are short-lived but incredibly potent and it certainly should not be used outside of appropriate environments. The reason it's getting banned in so many states are idiots who think they can treat it like weed and end up doing something stupid/dangerous in public.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    10. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by kyuubiunl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sir, need to find a more competitive source for LSD.

    11. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by spun · · Score: 1

      Try DMT, cowboy. Makes Salvia look like a Children's Chewable Tylenol. Also, people with schizophrenia should never do hallucinogens. Most people can do them, and still know the difference between hallucination and reality. Schizophrenics, not so much.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by AhabTheArab · · Score: 1

      LSD isn't nearly strong enough.

      Ha. It's plenty strong, you just need to eat more.

    13. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Hot

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    14. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. Thus, the definition of schizophrenia.

    15. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by spun · · Score: 1

      Duh. Thus, the definition of schizophrenia.

      Oh, it should be obvious to most people, especially schizophrenics, but it isn't. They do things like Salvia and think they are talking to gray aliens.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by spun · · Score: 1

      You are deeply confused by semantics. "It's all an illusion" is an illusion, because "it" is not "that." No separation. You are not a little homonculus in your head, looking out of your eyes and listening through your ears. The present moment is real, not an illusion. Consciousness is real, not an illusion, but there is no one that has consciousness. It exists, because it is created by circumstance, but consciousness does not adhere to an individual.

      There is life to sense and measure heat. Life is real. It just isn't what you think it is, and rather than accept what it is, you have decided it is all an illusion. It is easier for some people to believe "It is all meaningless" than to take responsibility for creating meaning.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    17. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      gb2/b/

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    18. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Schizophrenics are the last people who would be able to figure that out, just like chronically depressed people would be the last to figure out that chronically depressed people shouldn't consume lots of a substance which acts as a depressant (alcohol).

    19. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      GP is confusing Salvia with LHC

      FTFY

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    20. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by KillAllNazis · · Score: 1

      Reality is a hallucination.

    21. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by spun · · Score: 1

      Although you are mostly correct, I feel just pedantic enough to point out that central nervous system depression is nothing at all like psychological depression, you may as well be comparing psychological depression to a tropical depression. Depressed people are generally cognitively capable of figuring out that using alcohol to treat their depression is a loosing battle. Schizophrenics are not generally capable of figuring out that hallucinogens make them crazier than they already are.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    22. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by spun · · Score: 1

      On one level, there's no way to tell, and therefore, it doesn't matter whether it is or not. On another level, of course it isn't a hallucination, "hallucination" is pretty much defined as "not reality" so you kind of have to redefine either "hallucination" or "reality" to make them the same thing, and then the terms become meaningless.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Well, sure. Depressed people may be depressed but they're not crazy.

      Speaking of pedantry, your post had a loosing/losing mismatch.

    24. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by spun · · Score: 1

      Oh my. I'm ashamed, I never confuse loosing and losing!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    25. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Although you are mostly correct, I feel just pedantic enough to point out that central nervous system depression is nothing at all like psychological depression, you may as well be comparing psychological depression to a tropical depression.

      And chronically depressed people should avoid hurricanes! See, it fits.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    26. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It's plenty strong! You just need to take eat more, then chase it with ayahuasca, and smoke some diviner's sage when the trip is peaking... mixed with wet.

    27. Re:If it's not the God particle, it's Salvia. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Obviously you weren't around in the late 60's and early 70's when getting the real-deal LSD was pretty easy.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. Sad to lose the Tevatron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's my favourite synchronotron and without it the only thing at least as powerful will be the LHC and there's only one of those.

    1. Re:Sad to lose the Tevatron by show+me+altoids · · Score: 1

      It's a ploy to keep the funds flowing.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    2. Re:Sad to lose the Tevatron by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Informative

      FWIW, earlier drafts of the paper were much more sensationalistic than the final draft that the collaboration approved. A large contingent of the collaboration, myself included, would have removed our names from the paper if it had done something as insane as claim discovery of a new particle. So, we specifically pushed to make the paper more scientifically honest and less effective as a "ploy to keep the funds flowing." That said, the NYT article and all the other mainstream news reports on the issue are far, far more sensationalistic than anything the analyzers ever even considered producing...

      Some interesting things to note:

      • This search was done with a very tight event selection designed to get a relatively pure diboson sample. Loosening up the selection increases the number of data events involved in the analysis by (IIRC) about a factor of 8, and in this looser sample, the significance of the bump decreases to about 1 sigma, which is wholly uninteresting.
      • The feeling among the members of my particular group (one of the member institutions of the CDF collaboration) is that this is a very interesting result, but that it should be interpreted more as exposing the difficulties of / our inability to model the very large W+jets background accurately; the Monte Carlo generators are simply insufficient or are slightly incorrectly tuned. We do not really feel that this is likely to be an indication of new physics at all.

      So, long story short, there is certainly something here to be interested in. Both the theorists who write the Monte Carlo generators and the experimentalists analyzing data from the LHC experiments are paying close attention to this result, as it affects their work. We will know more after further study and work, both to improve the Monte Carlos and to look for similar effects in the ATLAS and CMS data.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    3. Re:Sad to lose the Tevatron by mangu · · Score: 1

      This sentence FTFA makes me rather dubious: "A new analysis of 10,000 proton-antiproton collisions at the Tevatron showed a weird result a couple hundred times".

      Two problems here: a "new" analysis? Does it mean it needs massaging the results? And two hundred times out of ten thousand does not necessarily mean it's statistically significant, that's 2%, to know if it's significant or not one needs more information than those two numbers alone.

      An intriguing result is in this paragraph: "Last fall, Fermilab physicists said they detected evidence for a new class of neutrino, a 'sterile' particle that only interacts through gravity. Those results came out of the MiniBooNE detector; this is is the result of a different experiment, Tevatron's CDF experiment."

      If this is true, could that be the "dark mass" particle that cosmologists need?

    4. Re:Sad to lose the Tevatron by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would strongly advise reading the actual paper (can be found on the arxiv) instead of the NYT article, which, as I mentioned, is sensational and largely content-free. There is plenty of information in the paper about how they determined the significance of the result and how the analysis (event selection etc) was done. It should answer your questions in this regard. As far as being "new", the data from these experiments is analyzed in scientifically and statistically rigorous ways all the time. It in no way involves "massaging" the data, which you can see if you read the hundreds of papers that have come out of high energy physics experiments.

      I really can't comment professionally on the sterile neutrino re dark matter. I've heard of the MiniBOONE result, and think it is very interesting, but the viability of a sterile neutrino as dark matter is pretty far afield for me. Perhaps a passing cosmologist can comment?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  3. Desertron by Toe,+The · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Still kinda miss the Superconducting Super Collider . Wonder if it could have produced results sooner.

    1. Re:Desertron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice name. Me, I prefer the super-colliding super button.

    2. Re:Desertron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in college at the time, and I remember that hearing the news of its closing down just ruined my week . . . then I got smashed as people do in college. But anyway, I really wish that had been completed. No knowing where we be now if it had been.

    3. Re:Desertron by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      It was in Texas, so it was only a matter of time before the anti-science wakos there got to it anyway.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    4. Re:Desertron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Super collider? I just met her!

  4. I know it's petty... by Deathnerd · · Score: 1

    but dammit! Proper grammar is a godsend!

    Use it!

    1. Re:I know it's petty... by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      "Physicists at Fermi Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in there data that could indicate they've found a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature."

      Where data?

    2. Re:I know it's petty... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Physicists at Fermi Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in that there data that could indicate they've found a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature."

      Fixed

    3. Re:I know it's petty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'suspicious bump' is a baby bump. One of the particles is pregnant.

      Nathan

    4. Re:I know it's petty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You owe me a monitor.

    5. Re:I know it's petty... by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      It's been a long time since I laughed at a grammar joke.

    6. Re:I know it's petty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my Grammar tells bad jokes too. I guess her generation found them funny.

    7. Re:I know it's petty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been in the south too long I didnt get it until you pointed it out :(

    8. Re:I know it's petty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there data... over in corner, under waist (sic) basket. can't you see it?

    9. Re:I know it's petty... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      "Physicists at Fermi Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in THAT there data OVER YONDER that could indicate they've found a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature. Yeeeeeeeha!"

      Better?

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    10. Re:I know it's petty... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      "Physicists at Fermi Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in that there data that could indicate they've found a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature."

      Arr, that there data be bumpy.

  5. Which is more likely . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    samzenpus doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their," or he just didn't read the summary at all?

  6. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by kylemonger · · Score: 1

    It's early to be drinking.

  7. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Consciousness is an illusion.

    Lunchtime doubly so.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  8. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 2

    Then shut up.

  9. ugh.. grammar and other thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Physicists at Fermi Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in their data that could indicate they've found a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature."

    I suck at grammar and I caught there != their. Fixed that for you.

    And this is why research for the sake of research is a good thing.

    kjb

  10. Grammar by poliscipirate · · Score: 1

    "a 'suspicious bump' in there data"

    Sigh.

    1. Re:Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should be "a 'suspicious bump' in that there data"

  11. And in your case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...doubly so.

  12. Yaay they found the Higgs Boson by slackzilly · · Score: 1

    or possibly a huge bison

    --
    - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
    1. Re:Yaay they found the Higgs Boson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did it have the GPL exception?

    2. Re:Yaay they found the Higgs Boson by slackzilly · · Score: 1

      They dont even know what they have found yet. It's a bit early to think about that.

      --
      - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
  13. New? I don't think so! by angiasaa · · Score: 1

    Either it's "Newly discovered", or it's really something that never existed before and is therefore "New". I think it unlikely that this is "New!".

    --
    Geekism is your _only_ God!
  14. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by jpedlow · · Score: 1

    Dude, this isnt your 1980's dodge van with the tinted/teardrop windows and shag carpet. And you dont have a puppy or free candy. Therefore not legit.

  15. Re:Nothing really exists. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    So when all those other people die that means what Mr. Spammer? Which universe ends then? Take your anti-materialist nonsense to some place that cares.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  16. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by mooingyak · · Score: 2

    I said salvia not alcohol. Drinking wont allow you to experience and appreciate death.

    Spoken like a man who's never drunk himself to death.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  17. It has now been named.... by levell · · Score: 4, Funny

    It shall henceforth be known as the pleaseExtendOurFunding-ion.

    OK, I jest. On a more serious (but related) note, back in 2000, when the LEP at CERN was shutting down, there were possible "hints" of the Higgs' Boson and pleas to extend the running time (which were ultimately denied so that the LHC would not be delayed).

    --
    Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
    1. Re:It has now been named.... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      And we never will know what might have come out it...

    2. Re:It has now been named.... by Phroon · · Score: 2

      It shall henceforth be known as the pleaseExtendOurFunding-ion.

      No it's far too late for something that petty, that day has already passed. The Tevatron collider run will not be extended:

      "Unfortunately, the current budgetary climate is very challenging and additional funding has not been identified. Therefore, based in part of the P5 recommendation, operation of the Tevatron will end in FY 2011, as originally scheduled." - W. F. Brinkman; Directior, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

      Fiscal year 2011 ends September 30, 2011. There is not yet a decommissioning plan.

    3. Re:It has now been named.... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I give you some slack for the jest - but seriously, that "they are only doing it for the funding" - meme is an insult to every scientist.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:It has now been named.... by hannson · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of the Oops-Leon?

    5. Re:It has now been named.... by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

      And we never will know what might have come out it...

      Demons from another dimension, I'm guessing.

    6. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be on to something. Funny how just before it shuts down they "find something".

    7. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It hurts because it's true.

    8. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows scientists love their bitches. And bitches ain't gonna pay themselves yo!

    9. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shall not pretend to be in the field, I am not. But I do know how humans and organizations work. No human or organization is 100% "scientific". There is a LOT of overhead, and part of this is politics, where stuff like this can and does happen. Yes I know it DOES happen even though I am not in the field.

    10. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously, that "they are only doing it for the funding" - meme is an insult to every scientist.

      I note that you're not actually challenging its truth.

    11. Re:It has now been named.... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      I'd be OK with this, as long as I get to be a Technowizard.

    12. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an insult to every scientist

      And a well deserved one too.

    13. Re:It has now been named.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe you speak for every scientist...

  18. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

    You know what allows you to experience death by smoking it? Carbon monoxide, for example!

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  19. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

    I can't, it's not part of my predestined thoughts :/

  20. Re:Nothing really exists. by jd · · Score: 2

    Ah, but does your brain exist? If not, then maybe the universe was never there to begin with.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I read things like "In about 250 times more cases than expected, the total energy of the jets clustered around a value of about 144 billion electron volts" I get nervous.

    This is like saying that in a series of 1M coin tosses the sequence HTTHHTTTTHHTTHHH came up 100x more often than would be expected by chance. Does that mean that any particular sequence of 8 tosses should come up 1/65536th of the time, and this one came up 1/655th of the time, or does it mean that some random sequence of results should come up 100% of the time in a random series of 16 coin tosses, and we happened to pick the random series that came up the most often in that particular set of data?

    If I mine a big set of data against 100 random hypothesis I'll be able to find about 5 that I can show to be true with 95% confidence, despite the fact that there is nothing really going on.

    The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.

    Now, these guys are probably smart, and hopefully control for this. If you want to test for 100 hypotheses and REALLY have 95% confidence, then you need to target a confidence of 1-0.05^100 for each test - at least that is how I see it (being a complete novice at statistics).

    1. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They did take into account the look-elsewhere effect, as is standard in bump-search type papers. This bump has a 3.2 sigma significance _after_ the look-elsewhere significance reduction and other systematic uncertainties.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am going to guess that as a self-admitted novice at statistics you may be worrying about some t-crossing and i-dotting they have already accounted for.

    3. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when you are a lab in need of new funding to avoid shutdown, 250 events is suddenly a lot more significant!
      Amazing how many amazing "possible" discoveries have come out of Fermilab lately while very few did for many years...

    4. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by aethogamous · · Score: 2

      10,000 collisions

      expected number of weird collisions ~ 1

      probability of seeing 250 or more weird collisions ~ 1E-1140

      That should be enough to take care of most multiple testing issues.

    5. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're discarding the fact it's science, and you use bad statistics in your analogy of tossing a coin.

      Even if you were to calculate the probability of the particular sequence of tosses you mentioned (which itself has a 1/65,536 chance itself of occurring in a 16-set string of tosses, which can possibly occur 999,985 possible times in 1 million tosses, for a total of 999,985/63,536 or 15.259 [15] times out of a million tosses - which would itself be 1500 for 100x, 15:1500 or 100x is a VERY significant deviation from you're expected results) they haven't run nearly 1 million times unless you count each particle in mass collisions, which really can't be considered as a mere consideration of noise.

      You make armchair physicists look bad, go back to writing sloppy code with you're CS major.

    6. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.

      That's not the way the vast majority of science is done. Popper was a philosopher speaking in ignorance (but I repeat myself).

      The challenge for these guys is not in the hypothesis testing, but in the cuts. You have to come up with some set of criteria for selecting "good" events in complex detectors of this kind. There is always a degree of arbitrariness in how you do that, and there have been cases in the past (the so-called 'GSI particle') where people tweaked and tuned multi-dimensional cuts to maximize peaks in the data.

      In the present case it is clear their cuts are physics-based--they are described in the paper--and that the peak structure is consistent with the resolution one would expect (the GSI particle required some very weird physics to make the narrow peak widths plausible.)

      However, the peak is also precisely in the region where their background spectra are varying most rapidly, and this is a huge red flag. It makes them sensitive to any number of minor mis-calibrations. It does NOT mean the phenomenon is not real, but if I had to make a bet on it being physics beyond the standard model or an instrumental artefact, my money would not be on new physics.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with your analogy. Given 16 coin tosses and any length 8 sequence, you'd expect the sequence to appear 8/2^8 = 1/32 of the time. (Simulate it if you don't believe me; proving it is boring statistics.) In general a length k subsequence of a length n sequence of coin tosses appears (n-k)/2^k times. Replace 2 with s if the coin has s sides.

      Anywho, I interpret the bit you quoted as saying "our theory's predicted probability distributions have an expected value for 'energy jet clustering about 144 GeV' to be 1/250th of the observed average, and the variance is small enough that this is very highly improbable". There's no mention of trying lots of hypotheses, only the implication that the standard model predictions do not match up to observation. There are several explanatory hypotheses ("new brand of Z boson", "heavy version of a gluon") but they seem to be after-the-fact attempts to explain the discrepancy. Verifying the result by repeating it, preferably at another lab with another team, is important since particle physics experiments are extremely sensitive to error--for instance, the 144 GeV mentioned in the article is about 0.000000023 Joules, and your computer consumes hundreds of Joules per second while running.

      Note that IANAPP (particle physicist), though I'm sure one day I'll at least read a technical book on the standard model. I've picked up a small amount of it over the years, and I have an interest in some advanced physics.

    8. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      You seem to have pulled those numbers from nowhere....

    9. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by jon42689 · · Score: 1

      You make armchair physicists look bad, go back to writing sloppy code with you're CS major.

      "...you're" CS major... And what are you, my friend? An English major? I should hope not.

    10. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Njoyda+Sauce · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oblig XKCD: http://xkcd.com/882/

      --

      You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
    11. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.

      The hypothesis came first. The hypothesis is, "A cluster of jet events with close energies indicates the presence of a particle with a certain mass" -- this method has been used time and again to detect new particles and is nothing new. This is just another instance of the same. If you take issue with the idea, you're pretty much going against reality because this is how new particles are, and have been, identified.

      You can quibble about statistical margins and what not, but this is not an instance of seeing something weird then grasping at straws to explain it. In the past, the explanation of such "bumps" has often been the presence of a new kind of particle.

    12. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by aethogamous · · Score: 1

      10,000 from

      "A new analysis of 10,000 proton-antiproton collisions..."

      1 and 250 from

      "showed a weird result a couple hundred times ..." and "In about 250 times more cases than expected..."

      Looking at the paper it appears these two numbers are more like 150 and 0.6, which gives 1E-722, so my guesses were only off by about 400 orders of magnitude in the result... Of course this is not how one would really analyze such data, but it is enough to suggest that multiple testing issues are not going to be a major issue.

    13. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The may is really the operative word there, it may be a new force or a new particle or it could just be something that happened. The problem though is that there's very few facilities which are capable of running those sorts of experiments. If they don't get funding it's going to be really tough to test these sorts of things to actually verify them.

      The article unfortunately confounds hypothesis with theory and what the title refers to is a theory that somebody posted to a sight, not one which has been subjected to any level of examination, just a post hoc explanation.

    14. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by caluml · · Score: 1

      Derren Brown did a TV show based on this. It was called something like The System. Well worth watching.

    15. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Scatterplot · · Score: 1

      No, the numbers will be generated a little later, but the data has traveled backwards in time because of this new force. Check the summary yesterday, it will surely have been back there by then.

    16. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Popper was a philosopher speaking in ignorance (but I repeat myself).

      That is a nice ad hominem logical fallacy.

      You may be shocked to learn that the modern scientific method was entirely the invention of philosophers. Many self-proclaimed scientists disagree with this, but that is because they have not also studied history.

    17. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by garyebickford · · Score: 2

      The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
      discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov

      This event seems to fit that bill well.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    18. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it looks like someone read xkcd today

      http://xkcd.com/882/

    19. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      in order to have a hypothesis, you need to have an observation. This is that observation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by oliverthered · · Score: 2

      "If I mine a big set of data against 100 random hypothesis I'll be able to find about 5 that I can show to be true with 95% confidence, despite the fact that there is nothing really going on."

      they call that psychiatry.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    21. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by skylerweaver · · Score: 1

      So I simulated your hypothetical experiment. I was going to use a 16 toss sequence, but it was going to take MATLAB 22 hours, so I only had it look for a 8 toss sequence.

      A coin is tossed 1 million times. Then we count the total number of times each possible 8-toss sequence occurs. Turns out that each pattern shows up about the correct number of times. No pattern even comes close to showing up 1.1x more than expected. Let alone, 100x.

      See here: http://i.imgur.com/5F391.png

      Pattern number is just dec2bin, i.e., #0 -> TTTTTTTT and #10 -> TTTTHTHT, etc.

    22. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      > The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.

      That is exactly what they were doing. Testing the hypothesis that the standard model accurately describes nature. They found it didn't, hence the need to explore it and come up with new hypothesis's to test.

      1) You start out observing something the current theory can't explain.
      2) Come up with a new theory that accurately predicts all experimental results so far, the newly observed effect, and that also predicts something new that has not been tested yet.
      3) Test the new thing that the new theory predicted. If you do observe the new effect, it lends credence to the theory.

      Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

      They are claiming to be on step one, with an inkling of step 2 being worked on. not step 3 to which your specific criticism would apply.

      On a tangent, the most commonly overlooked part of the process among cranks is the consistency part of step 2, namely that your new theory must accurately predict everything that has already been observed. I don't think it is a simple oversight, there is some metal block among cranks that keeps them from appreciating it, hence the propensity to claim they can prove Einstein wrong. Which of course doesn't make sense, he was already proven right. That doesn't mean that relativity is the final answer, it just means that it successfully predicted observed effects that the old theories didn't, and was consistent with all observed data about the world so far. (Well it breaks down at the quantum level, but so did newtons laws, so it was still a strictly better theory in that it predicted more things correctly, but still not everything)

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    23. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by emt377 · · Score: 1

      1) You start out observing something the current theory can't explain.
      2) Come up with a new theory that accurately predicts all experimental results so far, the newly observed effect, and that also predicts something new that has not been tested yet.
      3) Test the new thing that the new theory predicted. If you do observe the new effect, it lends credence to the theory.

      Except, of course, it's a hypothesis until 3 has been repeated a few times by different people; in particular by critics looking to disprove it. After it stand up to this scrutiny and organized efforts to disprove it actually fail, in the process proving it, it becomes a theory. Theory means only theologists will argue against it. But in vernacular use, theory = hypothesis.

    24. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Rollgunner · · Score: 1

      (Scientific) Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought. - Albert Szent-Györgi

    25. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      You're pulling probability distributions from nowhere now.... Whatever, the point is moot--I'm certain a random /.'er who admits his lack of understanding of statistics could poke a hole in these researcher's analysis.

    26. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by hubie · · Score: 1

      What a load that is. I think you'll find that not only "many self-proclaimed scientists" disagree with you, but so would many self-proclaimed historians, and I'd wager philosophers too. The scientific method was advanced by the people doing the science, most of whom were philosophers as well. It is really only in the last century that science and philosophy split. You may be shocked to learn that very little of it was "invented" by the navel-staring kind of philosophers. You're not confusing the scientific method (Bacon-Galileo-Descartes-etc.) with the search for truth and reality (Kant, Hume, etc.) are you?

      How did you manage to study all your Descartes and Leibniz and not know what they hell they did for a living?

    27. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to test for 100 hypotheses and REALLY have 95% confidence, then you need to target a confidence of 1-0.05^100 for each test - at least that is how I see it (being a complete novice at statistics).

      No, it's should be 1-0.05/100, not 1-0.05^100. And even that is just an upper bound. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction.

    28. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The real test is to come up with the hypothesis first, then collect the data.

      How do you think they identified the bump?
      You think they just did some random testing, saw all those things happening and just said "well, this particular bump seems a little more unexplained than all the other unexplained bumps we have no hypothesis for"?
      Without rules (hypothesis), there are no exceptions (bumps).
      They hypothesised first, collected data, then found data that didn't match the hypothesis.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    29. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by m50d · · Score: 1

      You may be shocked to learn that the modern scientific method was entirely the invention of philosophers.

      No, it was the invention of people who at the time called themselves philosophers, most of whom these days would call themselves scientists. Their actions were very different from those of modern "philosophers"

      --
      I am trolling
    30. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we can assume they have a basic grasp on statistics.....

    31. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by aethogamous · · Score: 1

      You're pulling probability distributions from nowhere now.... Whatever, the point is moot--I'm certain a random /.'er who admits his lack of understanding of statistics could poke a hole in these researcher's analysis.

      What you call nowhere I would call high school level probability theory, such as the Binomial distribution. I'm not sure if your last sentence is meant to be sarcastic or not.

    32. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no mention of trying lots of hypotheses[.]

      Sure there is! They *said* they were surprised by the result. Do you really think they went into it with:

      "Hypothesis: we will see an energy jet clustering about 144 GeV"?

      The risk is that they effectively said:
      Hypothesis: we will see an energy jt clustering about 144 GeV
      Hypothesis: we will see an energy jet clustering about 144.000001 GeV
      Hypothesis: we will see an energy jet clustering about 144.000002 GeV
      Hypothesis: we will see an energy jet clustering about 144.000003 GeV ...

      and then said "WOW, the chance of *this* clustering is so very small it MUST be significant!"

      If so, it's their bad but somewhat understandable - our brains spot patterns and then we go and start thinking they're important, and everyone gets the statistics wrong except (usually) actual statisticians.

    33. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I mean that it's not clear to me that a Bernoulli RV saying "weird" or "not weird" was used, as opposed to some continuous measure of "weirdness". For instance, if 249 cases were only slightly "weird", it might be completely unremarkable. Your quote didn't support the expectation of 1 weird result in 10,000, though perhaps the paper does support your 0.6 number. My second sentence wasn't sarcastic, it's just missing an "n't". Basically I would look at the paper, but it doesn't matter enough.

    34. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, as has become high-profile in recent months, they call that medicine, including drug discovery.

    35. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No disagreements about the reality of how hypothesis are actually formed.

      However, this is being presented as "scientists discovered something" when your argument amounts to "scientists found some data that suggests that in the future they may or may not discover something."

      I agree that bumps in noise are how a lot of science starts out. However, that is the beginning of science, and not the end.

    36. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Right, which doesn't prove any new hypothesis - it merely disproves their original hypothesis. Likely at best they can show the standard model is wrong, and that is if there is no systematic source of error, as a statistical test only accounts for random error.

      Don't get me wrong - I'm interested in where this goes. However, this is just the start of a long process.

      And again, I never claimed that the people doing the test didn't understand statistics, or that they hadn't accounted for this sort of problem. As I said, I am not a statistician. However, I see this stuff all the time in science - it is really easy to spot a pattern and think that it means something.

    37. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      if it doesn't cure it with one or two administrations, then it doesn't work.

      insulin for instance does 'cure' someone ills, as does the contraceptive pill, condom etc...

      I also found myself markably loved up after some MDMA and resolved some personal issues, and a whole load better, for months and months, after a quick sniff of K and some good medication.

      Oddly, they are starting to look into doing psychedelic therapy again.... for some strange reason they banned all the stuff that actually did work.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    38. Re:Do they account for hypothesis-mining? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      s/medication/meditation.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  22. Re:Solipsism, look it up. by puppyfox · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of that joke "Oh, I always wanted to meet another solipsist!"

    --
    The cookie told me to.
  23. What to call it? by durrr · · Score: 2

    Did we finally find the Unstoppable Force?

    1. Re:What to call it? by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Er they're pulling the funding, hellooooo ? It'll be stopped soon enough.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    2. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have that in the form of Neutrinos.

      We call it the "Screw your shit, I'm passing anyway" Force.
      That is one MEAN force.

    3. Re:What to call it? by mldi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's called Charlie Sheen.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    4. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're calling them "midi-chlor-ions".

      Ok, I'll leave now.

    5. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already has a name, though people got the wrong impression when it was announced

    6. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's called Charlie Sheen.

      Nowadays, he's more and more looking like the immovable object though.

    7. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warlocks, Tiger Blood, and Sheenomics are not to be messed with. It's like dwelving into the dark side and not getting the "good-a, gooood-a" response to your actions.

    8. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he said force, not farce...

    9. Re:What to call it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did, it was stuck behind an immoveable object

  24. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awwww snap!

  25. A useful link by jd · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...to the paper, as opposed to the commentary by PopSci on the article written by NYT by someone who really didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:A useful link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And a link to the lecture set to go live in an hour on it:
      http://vms-db-srv.fnal.gov/fmi/xsl/VMS_Site_2/000Return/video/r_livelogicindex.xsl?&-recid=573&-find=
      (posted AC, you dirty karma whore)

    2. Re:A useful link by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nobody views under a 2 any more, so if you want a link to be seen you have to post non-AC. No choice. Too b. noisy with trash talk otherwise. I'd not have seen your link at all if I didn't have a habit of expanding hidden replies on the offchance they're important.

      (And because very few people mod ACs - why bother, it won't alter their karma - important AC posts often vanish into the ether.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:A useful link by andre.david · · Score: 1

      ...to the thesis which is the basis for the paper that is cited by the newspaper that mentions...

    4. Re:A useful link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      important AC posts often vanish into the ether

      There is no such thing as ether (Michelson-Morley).

    5. Re:A useful link by jd · · Score: 1

      I could say something smark-alec about gravity wave detectors (which are the same experiment, only bigger and more expensive), but I'll limit myself to saying something smart-alec about how you can't get much more dissapeared than that.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:A useful link by jd · · Score: 1

      *starts a sing-along*
      And the postgrads of the thesis of the paper of the article of the blog of the boys who put the scintilating stitches in the britches of the witches who put the powders on the noses of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus were just passing by...

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:A useful link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with the usefulness or not of modding AC posts. The problem is the new Slashdot UI. Previously, I'd expect about a third of my posts to be modded up. Now it's down to about one in ten. There is often no indication that a post has any replies (AC or not) and since this morning, clicking on a post number doesn't show replies either (in Firefox 3.6.15 anyway). To see replies to a post I have to double right-click on the post ID and select open. WTF? Slashcode really is a piece of junk nowadays.

    8. Re:A useful link by jd · · Score: 1

      Now that is very true. It has become way too cluttered with stuff that really adds no value and/or subtracts from it. It's top-heavy. Which means, incidentally, that it's going to become increasingly hard to maintain.

      The really, really, really sad part -- there still isn't a single discussion/forum/BBS system out there that comes even close to the quality of Slashcode. I use a lot of different systems and Slashcode has them beat hands-down for quality of features and degree of flexibility.

      When a ten tonne lump of granite becomes the most agile, most dynamic, most responsive option by an astronomical margin, you know just how crap the alternatives really are.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:A useful link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then there is the 3-digiter whose great karma was forever obliterated in one fell swoop as punishment for once daring to question the "editing" behavior of the former Slashdot Overlord known as Michael Sims.

      Namely, me.

    10. Re:A useful link by bware · · Score: 1

      which are the same experiment, only bigger and more expensive

      No, they're not.

      And no, they're not.

      Well, maybe bigger. Maybe. But not a patch on more expensive.

    11. Re:A useful link by jd · · Score: 2

      I've been around from before the time of UIDs on Slashdot, but my memory of the early days is just not good enough to be able to comment on the case or offer any kind of opinion on what happened.

      What I can say, though, unfortunately, is that no board - indeed no organization involving one person or more - is going to be free of politics, controversy or undeserved consequences. That is extremely unfortunate, doubly as most "social" venues (Slashdot included) have no form of appeal and even in those places where appeal exists, it is usually limited to whether the decision was made fairly, NOT whether the decision was right. (The UK claims to be the sole exception in the world, which frightens me on so many levels.)

      This means that there will be inevitable cases of ostracization and/or punishment of the innocent, rejection of their views and observations, and support for those who would inflict such on the innocent. It is inescapable. All you can do is make such cases as rare as humanly possible.

      I believe (right or wrong) that Slashdot does better than almost any other social venue in this regard. Way better than Kuro5hin. That doesn't help if you've personally experienced one of the inevitable failures in the system, and my sympathies (for what it's worth) if you have, and in some ways it can hurt far more to be one of a far smaller group in systems which do function extremely well.

      I wish I had an answer to that. I've plenty of wild theories on social issues (not that anyone is ever likely to give a damn about them) but I have failed even to come close to imagining a system that has 100% social justice, and even if I had, there's bugger all chance of it being implemented. All I can do is what I have been doing, reading the AC replies for the occasional gem, and offering sympathy for the pointless stupid stuff in life.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re:A useful link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we "the ACs" follow through with your suggestion, why still allow AC post?

      I value my AC-ness. And I for one am not going to change my behaviour because the modders are not doing their job.

      Anyway, I usually read AC posts.

    13. Re:A useful link by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      very few people mod ACs - why bother, it won't alter their karma

      Uhhh, stroking another Slashdotter's karma isn't the point of moderation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  26. Physicists ought to be drug tested Olympic style. by elucido · · Score: 0

    Uh...wha? I've smoked salvia many times and know the crazy shit it can make you see (I've seen television characters become demons in my living room, thought that all of existence was an illusion created by rapidly moving air bubbles in a universe of folded rubbery sheets,etc.), but you seem to be taking hallucinogen "revelations" a bit too seriously.

    Don't get me wrong, drugs can be great for getting an alternate perspective on something, but you have to look at what you think you've discovered while high through the lens of reality before you can know if it's something worthwhile or just something you thought made sense at the time.

    Also, personally I wouldn't be recommending salvia to everyone. It's effects are short-lived but incredibly potent and it certainly should not be used outside of appropriate environments. The reason it's getting banned in so many states are idiots who think they can treat it like weed and end up doing something stupid/dangerous in public.

    How do we know they aren't using performance enhancing drugs? We should test all physicists for drugs when they start talking about new forces or new theories of reality.

  27. force or particle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until it's figured out, let's call it a "farticle".

    1. Re:force or particle? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      All I want to know is, can you light one of them on fire?

  28. "these guys are probably smart" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's a good guess. Probably smarter than any douche second-guessing their work on a third-rate tech blog.

  29. Re:New? I don't think so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you see the universe is just screwing with us. Since the accelerator was about to be shut down, and everyone was expecting to find the Higgs boson in the next few years, a strange new force was created, which rippled backward in time, leaving evidence of a new vector boson. Right now this is still new, in a few hundred years the ripple in the brane will reach so far into the "past" that it will have always existed.

  30. Re:Death is the end of time. Blah blah by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2

    Consciousness is an illusion.

    A meaningless statement. In order for something to be considered an illusion you must consider the possibility that something can be deceived. And in order for that something to be deceived, it must be conscious.

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
  31. Re:Solipsism, look it up. by halivar · · Score: 1

    The bus you don't see will still run your ass over.

  32. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by spun · · Score: 1

    You know what else twists facts and perspectives? Hallucinogens. Even weak ass hallucinogens like Salvia Divinorum.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  33. Re:New? I don't think so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Someone mod crap like this as troll. We really don't need these kinds of retards hanging out here.

  34. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    I bet you trust physicists don't you?
    Just like you trust priests?
    And doctors?

    But why? Why trust them? They could manipulate or twist the facts to promote any kind of perspective they wish.

    When a doctor says I'm fine, I don't believe him. When a priest tells me I'm not catholic, I believe him. When a physicist tells me not to cross the streams, I don't know what to believe. Which one is lying and why?

  35. Hardly a Result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wonder if it could have produced results sooner.

    Finding a "suspicious bump" in the middle of a steeply falling distribution of events is hardly an exciting result unless it is confirmed. Bump hunting on exactly this sort of distribution is extremely hard to do. They barely have a 3 sigma deviation and, given the number of measurements made by the tevatron a 3 sigma deviation in one is not, perhaps, unexpected. If the other Tevatron experiment, D0, confirms the result then things will be more interesting...until then I remain highly unconvinced.

    1. Re:Hardly a Result by The_Wilschon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      D0 has done this same sort of analysis, and they do not see this bump. But, their background modeling procedure involves reweighting the expected distributions (from Monte Carlo) in delta R between the jets (sort of an angular separation between the jets), which is a variable that is strongly correlated with the dijet mass. That is, their background model would be expected to have a strong tendency to fill in a bump like this. Now, which model is more correct is open to question, but it is certainly true that whether or not this bump turns out to be from real new physics (unlikely, in my professional opinion), their procedure is almost guaranteed not to find it.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  36. Re:Physicists ought to be drug tested Olympic styl by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    We should test all physicists for drugs when they start talking about new forces or new theories of reality.

    I don't think it's drugs so much as a looming expiration date for a project's funding. It's always nice to be able to point to something and say "look at this interesting new particle/force!" right before the plug gets pulled. That could get you another year or two.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  37. Dark Matter... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    No No No... I'll call it a superfluid... yeah that's sounds cool! Puff Puff Puff!

    Ya new funding, time to go get some Cheetos!

    1. Re:Dark Matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need new funding. LHC can confirm their findings later on.

  38. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by Shikaku · · Score: 1

    Dude, how can you trust yourself? Don't you know that you can lie too, even to yourself? Haven't you made a lie a reality once by saying "I did X" over and over until eventually you made yourself believe it?

  39. To Fund or Not to Fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This discovery comes as the Tevatron is slated to go offline sometime in September."

    Given the looming Friday government shutdown and any deals concocted between
    the two (or three?) opposed sides, the shutdown could come much, much earlier.

  40. Hypothesis mining? Try job security! by ChronoFish · · Score: 0

    "...Lab have found a 'suspicious bump' in their data that ***could*** indicate they've found a new elementary particle....This discovery comes as the Tevatron is slated to go offline sometime in September...."

    How convenient.

    -CF

  41. Didn't we see this article 5 days ago? by Ruvim · · Score: 1

    It also mentioned that discovery was made by a highschooler or something...

  42. Re:Death is the end of time. Blah blah by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

    Consciousness is an illusion.

    A meaningless statement. In order for something to be considered an illusion you must consider the possibility that something can be deceived. And in order for that something to be deceived, it must be conscious.

    by Tyler Durden (136036) Alter Relationship on Wednesday April 06, @03:47PM (#35737136) Homepage

    My mind just asploded.

  43. Re:Death is the end of time. Blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't seem like something Tyler Durden should say....

  44. Measurement Error by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Could it be? I mean, just maybe?

    I know it's asking a lot, but science is about repeatable results. Sadly the article does not tell us whether this happened in various different tests or a single test where they simply threw that amount of protons/antiprotons against each other. If the latter, a minimal contamination could explain it all without being the scientific breakthrough of the afternoon.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Measurement Error by toruonu · · Score: 1

      Oh you can bet that D0 is looking to repeat it now and for sure CMS and ATLAS will. It won't take long to have a confirm or deny from one of them... Being in one I already see a mass of work that has started to investigate this result and cross check it... And yes, the easiest explanation to the bump would be a shift in jet energy scale that's not even far from what they allow in the systematic errors. That shift would make the searched for di-boson peak match better and the bump would disappear... Then again, this seems like a stupid thing to miss by the CDF collaboration...

  45. yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yaaaawn...

  46. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    Consciousness is an illusion is a completely different statement from free will does not exist, though. And you seem to be particularily sensitive to Salvia. All I got out of it was a deeply relaxed Zen state.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  47. Heim Theory says its mass is 0.51617049 MeV/c by TheNarrator · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory is an alternate model of particle physics that does a pretty good job of predicting the mass of fundamental particles mathematically.

    The theory also allows for particle states that don't exist in the Standard Model, including a neutral electron and two extra light neutrinos, and many other extra states.

    What's the predicted mass of the neutral electron particle? It's 0.51617049 MeV/c.

    1. Re:Heim Theory says its mass is 0.51617049 MeV/c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Heim theory predicts neutral electron] What's the predicted mass of the neutral electron particle? It's 0.51617049 MeV/c.

      Then it's too bad that this particle is ~150 GeV/c.
        Look, man, I want FTL too. Seriously! Nobody wants to fondle alien boobies more than me, but I just don't think Heim theory is going to pan out. :(

    2. Re:Heim Theory says its mass is 0.51617049 MeV/c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the predicted mass of the neutral electron particle? It's 0.51617049 MeV/c.

      But that's a comparatively low energy, that range has been combed through by many different accelrators for years by now. I am not in particle physics (though I am a physicist), so I might be missing something here, but in my opinion that sounds like a very serious problem for Heim theory.

    3. Re:Heim Theory says its mass is 0.51617049 MeV/c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of theories around. I'm not sure why you came up with this one, considering the energy difference: 0.5 MeV in theory for a particle, 144000+ MEV observed. here.

    4. Re:Heim Theory says its mass is 0.51617049 MeV/c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which has...what to do with this alleged new particle exactly?

  48. I hope by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    I hope they have found proof of a possible levity field, that counter balances the gravity filed and will make physics so much more fun and interesting for particle theory.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  49. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or accept that thoughts are an illusion

    Am I supposed to do that without thinking? It appears you're begging the question.

  50. A new particle representing a new Force? by DdJ · · Score: 0

    If they call it the midichlorian, I'm going to have to slap someone.

    1. Re:A new particle representing a new Force? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      No silly, this is real life, not some movie. They'd call it a bion.

  51. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    Prove that they don't, genius.

    You belong in a church somewhere.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  52. Oh Goody! by b4upoo · · Score: 0

    How soon can we weaponize it and drop it on someone to help spread the glory of democracy?

  53. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    My word, you're serious.

    First off, nobody cares about your philosophy major or your drug trip or whatever it is that lead you to such sophomoric philosophical conundrums.
    Secondly, philosophy is mostly useless, solipsism and fatalism doubly so. What's the point? How does effort into either one of these topics benefit anyone?
    Third, your logic fails. And it fails HARD. I have to prove something or accept that the alternative is true? Huh?
    No, it's more like "prove all this is reality or accept that it CAN BE an illusion. You know, like, it's possible. Man.

    As far as that goes, sure, all this really could be a fantastic simulation. So? Does that change a god-damned thing?

    And uh, do you get that even if it is a simulated reality, free-will is still possible. Indeed, I'd say that would probably be the point of it all. Cause that's what I'd study if I had god's own reality simulator.

  54. Mis-calibrate everything FTW! by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    This information has been most helpful. I will be a huge contributor to the scientific community. To sum up, if the equipment is mis-calibrated, new discoveries will be made! In my lab, I will now randomly calibrate equipment on a daily basis. I expect to publish several hundred papers just this year on new physics discoveries. I could randomly select from a pool of experiments what I might be able to reveal this year, but that would just be irresponsible science!

    1. Re:Mis-calibrate everything FTW! by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      I probably deserve a "Whoosh!" for this but I'll bite anyway.

      Such a scheme would fail at the reproducibility part of the review process. You have to describe your process in the paper such that someone else can reproduce your results, if they build a correct machine that isn't mis-calibrated and then get a different result, it will then call your paper into question. Pull these shenanigans enough and people will stop publishing you and take a long, hard look at whatever university gave you your degree. Universities are very motivated to weed out the bad seeds, sometimes someone slips through the cracks.

      Of course, you may still have a valid paper if your machine was mis-calibrated and failed in a new way that no one expected before and the value of dissimating that information so others learn from your mistake is worth it.

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    2. Re:Mis-calibrate everything FTW! by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      "I probably deserve a "Whoosh!" for this but I'll bite anyway."

      The entire post was sarcasm, sorry you had to bite into it. I would like someone to prove my theory correct and they can risk their scientific credentials in the process. OTOH, I don't have any credentials so I'm hardly the one to know how to mis-calibrate expensive scientific equipment.

    3. Re:Mis-calibrate everything FTW! by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured it was probably sarcasm, but it actually isn't that far off from the anti-science or just plain science-ignorant positions that some very vocal people tend to take. (oh sci.physics.relativity, I mourne for you.). So I figured on the off chance that I can make at least one anti-science individual reconsider their views, it was worth replying too.

      Trust me, I am much happier that you were posting than sarcastically than if you were a kook who actually believed it and wanted to argue. :)

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
  55. Rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the way you combine elitism with completely-wrong in your statement "Popper was a philosopher speaking in ignorance (but I repeat myself)."

  56. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Philosophy,as a study, is dead. It's just riding the coat tails of it's own history.

    The Greeks had philosophers. There where teachers, mathematicians artists, doctors,. Great Men. Presumable with Great Women.
    As time marched on, each category got it's own specialty.
    Now science can either answer many of the great questions. The remaining ones have either been shown t be invalid, or by their nature and can not be proven true.

    Nothing but wankery these days. These days being the past 50 or so years.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  57. It's Dr. Higgins, again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That "suspicious" bump was just old Dr. Higgins hitting the table with his lunchbox again. Note: The "suspicious" bump occurs only around his lunchtime.

  58. More Discoveries are waiting to be made by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Even without the Trevatron, there are mountains of data to be dug through to find bumps and hills and scratches and wrinkles in the data. They are still finding new things in the data from LEP and from the moon material they brought back from that moon thing. So why bother if it is still online. The LHC will produce even more data and that means we have enough data in the future to play with it to the end of the world. And if not we can always built a larger thing. The device in Swiss/France is an international device with scientists from many different countries.

    Next time we built one in ... well Japan is out of the question they have an energy problem right now. And the US does not have a stable grid. The Europeans are not really sure if they should go to renewable energy or if they should blow up ehm built new nuclear plants on the edge of tectonic plates. May be Libya would be a good place. A lot of sunshine which can be used for energy at day time and the inhabitants are our friends now. At least of half of them. ;-)

  59. It is like Voyager by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    We present the new strange particle of the week, which made $SOMETHING_INCREDIBLE and transformed $OBJECT_A into $OBJECT_B which allows us to $DO_SOMETHING_EVEN_MORE_INCREDIBLE which we will use to (go home|blow up our enemies|have a warm bath).

  60. They found midi-chlorians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    May the Force be with you!

  61. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by pregister · · Score: 1

    Sure, but that lie can be tested simply by asking Ms. Alba.

  62. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

    Salvia isn't by any means a weak hallucinogen, but that doesn't mean that it's worth taking. It's in the dissociative class of hallucinogen (with DXM and fly agarics), as opposed to the psychedelic hallucinogens, like LSD, psylocybes and DMT.

  63. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

    You know what allows you to experience death by smoking it? Carbon monoxide, for example!

    Carbon monoxide ain't flammable.

  64. Re:Physicists ought to be drug tested Olympic styl by budgenator · · Score: 1

    How do we know they aren't using performance enhancing drugs? We should test all physicists for drugs when they start talking about new forces or new theories of reality.

    What would be performance enhancing drugs for a physicist, Provigil and perhaps Adderall or maybe Welbutrin?

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  65. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by budgenator · · Score: 1

    It's hard to get funding for philosophical wankery these days so most of the wankery occurs in Climatology now.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  66. Shirky's Law by ryrw · · Score: 1

    This must be the inverse to Clay Shirky's rule that as soon as an organization is set up (or in this case: about to be destroyed), the goal for which the organization began shifts to second priority, and the new primary goal is the preservation/perpetuation of the organization.

    From here(s):
    http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
    http://www.amazon.com/Here-Comes-Everybody-Organizing-Organizations/dp/1594201536

  67. Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Midi-chlorians?

  68. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 0

    STOP WANKING AT THE GREEKS!

    Yeah, ball rolling and all that put in in today standards their philosophies are complete nonsense.
    They made assumptions in their metaphysical doctrines which were pitted against actual observation.
    At what point should we have stopped Philosophical "wankery"? Just right AFTER Karl Popper perhaps?
    Sorry but stuff like ethics and logic seems pretty neat to me to keep working on.

    And its philosophical wankery that can actually give ideas in which direction to test consciousness.

    Which frankly...is still a pretty big mystery.

    --
    My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  69. what id like to see by strack · · Score: 1

    i wish there was a way to directly convert electricity into momentum.

  70. I have seen 2 explanations in physics plogs by S3D · · Score: 1

    One is Z' boson, another is technicolor model.Can some physicist explain, are they the same/related or not?

    1. Re:I have seen 2 explanations in physics plogs by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2

      They are not really the same/related, nor are they likely to be correct.

      The Z' proposal is by Dan Hooper, who neglects the fact that CDF has already excluded the possibility of a Z' with a mass below 800 GeV [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0602045]. He is also the same guy who, while not being a member of the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope collaboration, used their data to "discover" dark matter not once but twice! I've become extremely skeptical of his work, as he seems excitable and prone to early and ill-considered pronouncements.

      The technicolor proposal is a little bit more interesting. Technicolor models were a proposed alternative to the Higgs mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking, involving an additional SU(3) symmetry (that is, an additional force/interaction akin to the strong nuclear force). This was proposed very early on in the process of this paper by a Fermilab theorist who was consulted under confidentiality because the analysis was not yet finalized and approved by the CDF collaboration. The proposed process here is a techni-rho which decays to a W and a techni-pion. The W then goes to a lepton and neutrino, and the techni-pion goes to two jets.

      Nearly all of the parameter space for technicolor models has long since been excluded, but there are a few tiny corners of modified versions of the model that are still available. While it does not seem likely that technicolor will end up being the correct explanation (this is far more likely a modeling problem in W+jets than new physics), technicolor will probably be used extensively to test whether or not this is new physics. It is already implemented in most of the Monte Carlo generators, and the model is quite generic in its properties, so it really makes a very good testbed.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  71. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    I think he's referring to things like this:

    An informal statement of the argument for explosion is this: Consider two inconsistent statements, “Lemons are yellow” and "Lemons are not yellow", and suppose for the sake of argument that both are true. We can then prove anything, for instance that Santa Claus exists: Since the statement that "Lemons are yellow and lemons are not yellow" is true, we can infer that lemons are yellow. And from this we can infer that the statement “Either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists” is true (one or the other has to be true for this statement to be true, and we just showed that it is true that lemons are yellow, so this expanded statement is true). And since either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists, and since lemons are not yellow, (this was our first premise), it must be true that Santa Claus exists.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_entailment#Paradox_of_entailment

    I'm not really familiar with the field so maybe that example is outdated or something. In that case, can you give an example of an important, ongoing philosophical argument (e.g. related to consciousness)?

  72. Re:Most physicists, like priests, are... by Omestes · · Score: 1

    I've had rather severe Dissociative episodes with DMT, DXM and mescaline. So severe I put them into the same class as Salvia: "potentially fscking terrifying, use rarely and sparingly". But then again LSD and psylocybes got extremely boring by the time I hit my mid-20s.

    Salvia isn't as strong as good acid pure mescaline used to be. It is intense, but very short lived, but less intense than proper DMT either. My first, and last, experience with high doses of DXM put salvia to shame too.

    And then I got older, realized that pumping chemicals into my brain merely alters perception, and not necessarily improves it and moved on to a proper education and listening to people older and wiser than me. I'll take a well brewed Trapist, or good bourbon over hallucinogens, any day now. Not that I'm judging people who enjoy it, I just am a bit suspicious of people claiming that it enables them to see some deep ontic truth. Just like I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who claims the ascendancy of something that is invisible, unobservable, and intangible.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  73. Re:Physicists ought to be drug tested Olympic styl by ppanon · · Score: 1

    Well to be fair, in the last few years as they've been getting close to pulling the plug on the Tevatron, they've been cranking up the amount of energy they pump into it. They're pushing it close to its limits, presumably because it won't matter if they break it when it's going to be taken off-line anyways. Under those circumstances of applying higher energy levels than before, there are good reasons why they might be making new findings instead of just the cynical one of "the grant is running out".

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  74. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Menkhaf · · Score: 1

    As carbon monoxide is CO, wouldn't it make sense if it was able to somehow get hold of another O and turn into CO2?

    ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

    --
    A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
  75. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by spongman · · Score: 1

    Lunchtime doubly so.

    Very deep, you should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you...

  76. Re:Nothing really exists. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    I believe in solipsism, you insensitive clod!

    Why am I talking to myself again?!

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  77. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    At what point should we have stopped Philosophical "wankery"?

    Hmmm. Probably after that whole scientific method got going. The empirical beats the snot out of philosophical wankery.

    Study into the field of ethics is usually either boring and obvious, eg "murder is bad", or or really really scary, eg "murder isn't that bad".
    Wouldn't the study of high level logic just be mathematics?

    And its philosophical wankery that can actually give ideas in which direction to test consciousness. Which frankly...is still a pretty big mystery.

    Well that's true, but I think it's far more probable to get insight into that mystery with neuroscience, chemistry, and brain surgery. They have that whole "empirical" thing going for them.

    And if you think, even for a moment, that there's some sort of mind-body dualism and studying the brain is a waste of time or is off-target, then kindly GTFO.

  78. !New by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    If this force or particle exists, it's likely to have always been there. The word new seems inappropriate.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  79. Re:Death is the end of time. Consciousness is time by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. Probably after that whole scientific method got going. The empirical beats the snot out of philosophical wankery.

    Um, empiricism is great. But it only helps when you have a sense of what possible hypotheses there are for a given problem, what tests you should make for each hypothesis, where to look for answers when none of them pan out, etc. This is all classic scientific method of course, but in order to do it properly requires some depth of thought. The kind of thing that philosophy covers.

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.