Comments on: Bump Hunting (Part 2)

By: 18 months after the Higgs affair… « A Quantum Diaries Survivor

18 months after the Higgs affair… « A Quantum Diaries Survivor — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:36:48 +0000

[...] that my name would not appear. In fact, some colleagues in CDF were not happy with the blogging John Conway and I had done about the issue, and we were identified as the source of the trouble with the New [...]

By: The Atom Smashers « Peculiar Velocity

The Atom Smashers « Peculiar Velocity — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:51:36 +0000

[...] in the data that hinted that the Higgs might be within reach. (He blogged about this here and here.) We follow their excitement at the initial finding, the nervousness, apprehension, and flat-out [...]

By: Rumors about the Higgs « A Quantum Diaries Survivor

Rumors about the Higgs « A Quantum Diaries Survivor — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:28:14 +0000

[...] John Conway, a long-time Higgs hunter,Â presentedÂ a month and a half ago in the Cosmic Variance siteÂ a very nice account of his search for the Higgs boson, and the result, showing a 2.1-sigma deviation which could indeed be the start of a revolution in high-energy physics. [...]

By: appletree » Blog Archive » Carnivalia

appletree » Blog Archive » Carnivalia — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:58:39 +0000

[...] The seventh installment of Philosophia Naturalis, the quadriweekly carnival of physics and technology, is up on Geek Counterpoint; the highlight is John Conway’s two-part series about the search for the Higgs boson. The next carnival will be posted on March 29th; the carnival webpage is here. Note that although the host is not yet publicly posted on the carnival webpage, the next available hosting opportunity is on 5/24. [...]

By: Untitled « parasite blog

Untitled « parasite blog — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:58:56 +0000

[...] Bump Hunting (Part 2) | Cosmic Variance [...]

By: Chromodynamix

Chromodynamix — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:45:40 +0000

‘God’, this particle hunt is getting exciting. Like the emergence of a long lost animal from the Berea tar pits.
First forming a ‘bump’.
Two sigma is a bit ‘iffy’, but I think the LHC will 4 and 5 sigma the data after it fires up in August 2007.
Good luck!

By: urs

urs — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:25:44 +0000

Dzero had a deficit where we had an excess! [...] Their method was quite similar to ours, so it was hard to escape the conclusion that if they really had a deficit, our excess is more likely to be a statistical fluctuation.

That’s really weird, it seems.

Given that apparently any bump of the size we are talking about is something, if not statistically significant, still noteworthy enough to warrant all this attention, isn’t it an all the more remarkable coincidence that two groups see a fluctuation (of whatever sign and magnitude) at the same position?

By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Short Items

Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » Short Items — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:43:55 +0000

[...] Experimental HEP bloggers keep putting out gripping multi-part stories about what it’s like to be dealing with collider data that is not conclusive, but has anomalies that promise the possibility of something new and exciting. See the latest from John Conway and Tommaso Dorigo. [...]

By: mis 3 quarks » Breves: 30/01/07

mis 3 quarks » Breves: 30/01/07 — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:23:49 +0000

[...] Tras la pista del bosÃ³n de Higgs (en inglÃ©s) La primera parte de lo que puede ser el descubrimiento mÃ¡s esperado de la fÃsica de partÃculas. La segunda parte aquÃ. [...]

By: Rich Wilbourn

Rich Wilbourn — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:28:54 +0000

Thanks for the great post and all of the behind-the-scenes details. It’s fun to live vicariously through someone is in the hunt for the Higgs!

By: Qubit

Qubit — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:11:00 +0000

Didn’t the Titanic have one of those domes as well? At least your not in the Ocean, not yet anyway! Lets hope the higgs is no iceburg. We all know what happend to Titanic her on her maiden voyage. The best advice; stay close to Alice there’s almost one in every life boat and I guess at some point we have to see how far the rabbit hole goes!

Qubit

By: Chrononautic Log 改 » Blog Archive » Sine ira et studio

Chrononautic Log 改 » Blog Archive » Sine ira et studio — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:55:53 +0000

[...] John Conway: In our collaboration we have a very formal internal review process for getting out results. We need to document everything in advance of two presentations to the appropriate physics analysis meeting. The first presentation is called a “pre-blessing” and is where the real knives come out. The presenter is peppered with deep, probing questions about every aspect of the analysis, usually for an hour or more. Though it can seem like a blood sport at times, this is an absolutely essential part of the scientific process: if we aren’t our own worst skeptics then someone else will do it for us. [...]

By: beezle

beezle — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:55:01 +0000

arrrg! im sure you know what I meant I guess its a html tag thing.. excludes SM mH less than 114.4 sorry for the extra comment(s)

By: beezle

beezle — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:45:33 +0000

sorry line 1) should read: ..excludes SM mH

By: beezle

beezle — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:41:59 +0000

I wonder if you could comment (help?) on three things:

1) The LEP data which excludes SM mH 2 vs. the new CDF mW which suggests mH 80 +36-26 (at 68% CL) With indications that mH is considerably (my words) greater than 80 GeV/c2, why are plots such as this one from CDF used? Wouldn’t finding Higgs far away from that central value indicate a problem with our understanding?

2) Is it possible to mistake a SM Higgs for one of the MSSM Higgs?

3) What of the heavy SM Higgs ~ 160 GeV/c2 ? And why are tau not considered in the WW dilepton channel?

Apologies if I am asking terribly silly things – I only have an undergrad physics background and Perkins was long ago and well below the level of the easist of the papers at the CDF (and other) site.

By: Ed Matheson

Ed Matheson — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:33:45 +0000

John,

Could this possibly be the quote that you mentioned?

“Could anything at first sight seem more impractical than a body which is so small that its mass is an insignificant fraction of the mass of an atom of hydrogen?”
– J.J. Thomson.

If not, just ignore this comment.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:21:05 +0000

Forgot to add that I liked the article. It’s nice to see the excitement of experimental work conveyed to a larger audience…

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:18:45 +0000

For pedagogical reasons, perhaps it should be remarked that statistical fluctuations in data do not have to be quantum mechanical in nature–they occur in classical measurements as well. For example, if you try to measure the length of a table with a ruler your data will follow a Gaussian. Its spread is associated with the statistical uncertainty of the measurement, while shifts from the true length are associated with systematic errors corresponding to the ruler ticks, misalignment of ruler and table, etc.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:53:51 +0000

I feel a lot of excitement reading this knowing that we’ve got intelligent people working on the cutting edge.

By: citrine

citrine — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:23:22 +0000

John,

Thank you! Great to see you join the CV bloggers.