Slashdot Mirror
ATLAS Results: One Higgs Or Two?
TaeKwonDood writes with news from CERN about more results in the search for the Higgs Boson, this time from the ATLAS experiment. Researchers report peaks in the data in accordance with what they'd expect from the Higgs. The curiosity is that the peaks are a couple GeV away from each other. "The ATLAS analyses in these channels return the best fit Higgs masses that differ by more than 3 GeV: 123.5 GeV for ZZ and 126.6 GeV for gamma-gamma, which is much more than the estimated resolution of about 1 GeV. The tension between these 2 results is estimated to be 2.7sigma. Apparently, ATLAS used this last month to search for the systematic errors that might be responsible for the discrepancy but, having found nothing, they decided to go public." Scientific American has a more layman-friendly explanation available. As this work undergoes review, physicists hope more eyes and more data will shed some light on this incongruity. Tommaso Dorigo, a particle physicist working at the CMS experiment at CERN, writes, "Another idea is that the gamma-gamma signal contains some unexpected background which somehow shifts the best-fit mass to higher values, also contributing to the anomalously high signal rate. However, this also does not hold much water — if you look at the various mass histograms produced by ATLAS (there is a bunch here) you do not see anything striking as suspicious in the background distributions. Then there is the possibility of a statistical fluctuation. I think this is the most likely explanation." Matt Strassler provides a broader update to the work proceeding on nailing down the Higgs boson.
One is the Happy Higgs, the other an Angry Higgs. Being angry adds 3GeV.
It looks like ATLAS...
puts on sunglasses
shrugged
YEEEEAAAAHHH!!!!!!
After they started weighing the Higgs, it went on a diet.
So the polytheists were right? :P
is not, "Eureka!"
It's "What the fuck?"
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
...ever wonder what it'd be like with two Higgs Bosons?
I fixed the title for you.
Or was he a cat?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
"if we had to get excited at every slight disagreement between our measurements and our expectations, we'd be sick with Priapism (sorry ladies for this gender-specific pun)."
OK, time to stop the Viagra at CERN?
2.7 sigma isn't actually that much: assuming a Gaussian distribution of data, it's a one-in-a-hundred chance of being randomness rather than a real difference (or in other terms, about one experiment in a hundred will generate a false signal). For comparison, the standard for announcing a new particle is 5 sigma (1 in 1.7 million chance of it being a false positive).
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Top and Bottom Higgs? Higgs and Anti-Higgs? ... :-)
Of course, if the Higgs is the "god" particle, does that make the other the "anti-god" (satan) particle? :rolleyes:
So, I'm working on a cutesy undergraduate project with a physicist who works at the LHC (he is involved in a group searching for supersymmetry, so his primary work isn't the Higgs, but yeah). The project is a prototype for a new photo-detector.
In any case, I finally got the data acquisition working just a few days ago, (it uses a maple, a sort of a faster arduino. I just use the usb serial thingy, and 'cat' and file redirection, lol) so I ran and took some data counting hits from cosmic rays and with some easy python scripting to parse the output, I had a nice rough estimate of cosmic ray flux over my detector. I did a quick wiki search, and found a rate that was within the order of my result, so I typed up a mini report and emailed him my quick and dirty results while noting they were just that, quick and dirty. I was actually kind of proud of myself.
But, then he sent back this email, if I may quote him:
Thanks for the update. The approach of checking whether the coincident rate makes sense is a good step, but you need more information. Imagine, for example, that no one had every measured this before. Then, instead of checking if your answer is compatible with Wikipedia, we would be preparing to publish the measurement, and staking our reputation on its validity. In that case, we'd want to do a variety of things to be convinced that it is correct. I can imagine a couple of things to do[...]
And he listed a number of things try so I can be really sure of my measurements.
Think about this, the ATLAS guys could have announced the possibility of two peaks in their data and blown our frickin heads off into outer space after having already blown them off our shoulders with the Higgs, but they didn't because it wasn't a sure bet, as TFAs say...it could be background, it could be statistical fluctuations... In any case, there is something very wise about physicists and scientists in general who are often very cautious and untrusting about their measurements and are more than willing for you to double check their measurements and prove them wrong. Well, it could just be for reputation's sake. Whatever the motivation, I think this is one of the strengths of the scientific method and thus, one of the reasons for its success: we aren't quick to publishing until it is just right, and therefore, perhaps our best approximation of the "truth" we can muster.
This is not to take away from the times when certain people forget to tighten their fiber optic cables...but actually, that works wonderfully for my point...I sometimes feel impatient when I hear, "we're not quite sure yet" or ,"it's only preliminary" from some of these reports and I imagine some of you might too. Nonetheless, science isn't really star trek where you make a discovery, get locked into a phaser fight with it, and make peace in an hour time frame. It is a slow, careful process that at the end, as we see, yields good results in technology and the advances we have today. Therefore, it's worth the wait. So, have some patience, my reputation is on the line.
Dude, I understand the impatience/frustration due to the slow progress of physics in past 40 or so years, but if I understand you correctly, you're seriously suggesting to sit on our asses and do nothing just waiting/praying for the next Einstein to turn up ? I'm also on the opinion that the Standard Model is a bit like curve-fitting experimental results, and it does (obviously) work with observation around the range it was designed for (and we already know it fails outside of that, but still definitely useful in practice), but the best thing we can do IMO is to push experiments further and further to try to find discrepancies which will make it easier to come up with new theories, which is exactly what is going on at the LHC and many other places around the world. The next revolution might very well come out of a totally different field ~ personally I'm hoping that exascale computing will make it easier to test new theories (being able to accurate simulate entire organs at the molecular level could revolutionise medicine, advances in quantum chemistry could also [in]validate some theories and have plenty of practical implications).
Help! I am a self-aware entity trapped in an abstract function!
Maybe there's some funky particle (rather than signal) modulation going on. Quick. Demodulate it and listen for voices.
Turns out, the Higgs was never the God particle, it was the Rabbit particle.
True. If you didn't need to know that, why ask?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Using bigger and bigger colliders, we can virtually create any particule with any property that fix the equations.
I think you are ascribing far too much power to us particle physicists! We don't get to create whatever particle we want we can only create ones that can exist. What is remarkable is that the ones we think exist to solve inconsistencies actually turn out to be there. This means that our extrapolations from existing physics are extremely good at predicting new physics. In fact there are already theoretical models, such as supersymmetry (SUSY) which predict 5 Higgs bosons, two of which are charged...
As we observe the data, the experiment is affected retroactively. The more the analyze the photons, the wider the hole becomes. And then evenutally we're forced to combat our evil parallel universe doppelgängers. But that won't matter because the two universes will ultimately become too unstable in the rift and collide.
Fuck you, CERN. You [will] did this to us!
You'd expect to see differences in GeV over multiple experiments, varying muscle tension in sphincter muscles often exceeds 2.7sigma. When doing the Child or Folded Leaf pose the sigmoid is under compression. Here is a helpful video that might dispel the mystery.
CERN does deserve kudos for full disclosure. They could have blamed it on the dog.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Chemistry is died a long time ago apparently. Every time the came up with a gap in the periodic properties of elements, they predicted there was another missing element there. Some they had to look for pretty hard to find. They will always find new elements. It's the wrong way to go about things, hence the periodic table is of little use and we need some new great chemist to redefine chemistry in terms of something other than atomic structure.
"Through every rift of discovery some seeming anomaly drops out of the darkness, and falls, as a golden link into the great chain of order." Edwin Hubbel Chapin
They are seeing expensive noise.
Do you even have a frigging clue how the periodic table works? Doesn't sound like it. Go back and re-read high school chemistry. Pick up a physics book while you're there.
It's pretty obvious that the heavier one is the evil Higgs. From this we can deduce that the mass of a subatomic goatee travelling almost at lightspeed is at least 3GeV.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Because the link between 123.5 GeV and 126.6 GeV is missing.
Do you even have a frigging clue how the periodic table works?
Do you even have a frigging clue what sarcasm looks like?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I'm pretty sure their huge device is just not accurate enough.
Of course! This would surely not have occurred to the particle physicists who built and operate the machine and published these results. It's a good job there are people like you who read about things on the internet and therefore know more than they do.
Two separate measurements can give different results based on how they configured the device.
I think they did a few more than two measurements, and I doubt they're dumb enough to go fiddling with the detector in the middle of a run.
Damn floccinaucinihilipilificationists...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
> Of course! This would surely not have occurred to the particle physicists who built and operate
> the machine and published these results.
Well, it always sounds like if they make the same mistake twice, then it's already better to publish it...
2.7 sigma is nothing to base any conclusions upon, not in science. C'mon. News at 11.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
To be fair, if you spend any time on the Youtube hot-button topics like Creationism, you'll find that people can believe some seriously outré things.