Comments on: Science is Hard http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/ Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Anomaly at the Tevatron Might Be Something Real? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68384 Anomaly at the Tevatron Might Be Something Real? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine Tue, 31 May 2011 03:04:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68384 [...] could be explained away by a simple (although completely hypothetical) systematic error — a miscalibration of the jet energies. Bump-hunting is hard, and experiments near the end of their lifetimes are more willing to share [...] [...] could be explained away by a simple (although completely hypothetical) systematic error — a miscalibration of the jet energies. Bump-hunting is hard, and experiments near the end of their lifetimes are more willing to share [...]

]]> By: a_ray_in_dilbert_space http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68383 a_ray_in_dilbert_space Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:26:14 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68383 Although it's probably going to vanish like dreams in the dawn, this result has generated interest precisely because it is the first indication of something going on beyond the standard model . It would represent fundamentally new physics. And this is going to be as good as it gets as the Tevatron is now a memory. Although it’s probably going to vanish like dreams in the dawn, this result has generated interest precisely because it is the first indication of something going on beyond the standard model . It would represent fundamentally new physics.

And this is going to be as good as it gets as the Tevatron is now a memory.

]]> By: chris http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68382 chris Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:14:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68382 you do have a charming way of saying they screwed up the jet energy measurment ^_^ you do have a charming way of saying they screwed up the jet energy measurment ^_^

]]> By: chris http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68381 chris Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:47:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68381 thats what happens when funding runns out on a big experiment thats what happens when funding runns out on a big experiment

]]> By: Nachrichten aus der extremen Physik kompakt « Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68380 Nachrichten aus der extremen Physik kompakt « Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null Sun, 10 Apr 2011 19:07:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68380 [...] 7.4.2011; zahlreiche weitere Artikel mit unterschiedlichem Tiefgang hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier und a [...] [...] 7.4.2011; zahlreiche weitere Artikel mit unterschiedlichem Tiefgang hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier und a [...]

]]> By: New physics on Tevatron? « Symmetry http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68379 New physics on Tevatron? « Symmetry Sat, 09 Apr 2011 20:33:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68379 [...] 当然了,这并不意味这我们可以高兴地太早.这篇文章就指出,如果我们对jet能量的测量误差稍微大一些,就会发现这个峰其实也很像是实验误差导致的. [...] [...] 当然了,这并不意味这我们可以高兴地太早.这篇文章就指出,如果我们对jet能量的测量误差稍微大一些,就会发现这个峰其实也很像是实验误差导致的. [...]

]]> By: John http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68378 John Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:25:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68378 Your point is valid, but I hardly think it's fair (beyond being illustrative) to apply a rote scaling to every point there. It means not only did they get the jet energy wrong by 4%, but *in every bin* of the bump. Put differently, if we apply the same type of shift to the standard model prediction near 90 GEV, we can make it go away as well. I am *not* saying that the blip is real, nor am I saying it's energy miscalculations. I'm just pointing out that shifting *every* bin is a tad misleading.... Your point is valid, but I hardly think it’s fair (beyond being illustrative) to apply a rote scaling to every point there. It means not only did they get the jet energy wrong by 4%, but *in every bin* of the bump.

Put differently, if we apply the same type of shift to the standard model prediction near 90 GEV, we can make it go away as well.

I am *not* saying that the blip is real, nor am I saying it’s energy miscalculations. I’m just pointing out that shifting *every* bin is a tad misleading….

]]> By: Also David http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68377 Also David Sat, 09 Apr 2011 03:22:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68377 @ #7 (David) Last I heard the uncertainty in the jet energy scale at CDF was about 3%, which seems enough to reconcile this difference but I would have expected the author to include this systematic before presenting this bump as 3-sigma. There are other ways you could accidentally find a bump too, if the Monte Carlo prediction of the background was normalized incorrectly (through no fault of the author) it might skew the background subtracted result. Basically there are a lot of things that *might* cause such a bump and the best way to test it will be more data. Tellingly, CDF didn't see this bump in a similar analysis with leptons implying that any new particle would have to be very lepton shy. D0 didn't see anything either but I suspect they're going over all their data again. The LHC will hopefully be ready to release some results on a similar analysis by the end of the year, a lot of people will be very disappointed if CDF pipped them to the post. While we're on the subject I saw a very good article written at a layman's level over at io9: http://io9.com/#!5789759/has-fermilab-really-discovered-an-entirely-new-subatomic-particle Apologies for the hashbang @ #7 (David)

Last I heard the uncertainty in the jet energy scale at CDF was about 3%, which seems enough to reconcile this difference but I would have expected the author to include this systematic before presenting this bump as 3-sigma. There are other ways you could accidentally find a bump too, if the Monte Carlo prediction of the background was normalized incorrectly (through no fault of the author) it might skew the background subtracted result. Basically there are a lot of things that *might* cause such a bump and the best way to test it will be more data.

Tellingly, CDF didn’t see this bump in a similar analysis with leptons implying that any new particle would have to be very lepton shy. D0 didn’t see anything either but I suspect they’re going over all their data again. The LHC will hopefully be ready to release some results on a similar analysis by the end of the year, a lot of people will be very disappointed if CDF pipped them to the post.

While we’re on the subject I saw a very good article written at a layman’s level over at io9:
http://io9.com/#!5789759/has-fermilab-really-discovered-an-entirely-new-subatomic-particle
Apologies for the hashbang

]]> By: 8 April 2011 pm « blueollie http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68376 8 April 2011 pm « blueollie Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:48:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68376 [...] piece: “Science is Hard”. The article itself basically asks the following question: does this data present strong evidence that a new subatomic particle has been discovered? The 3-sigma bump reported by Fermilab on Wednesday has garnered a lot of attention. Understandable, [...] [...] piece: “Science is Hard”. The article itself basically asks the following question: does this data present strong evidence that a new subatomic particle has been discovered? The 3-sigma bump reported by Fermilab on Wednesday has garnered a lot of attention. Understandable, [...]

]]> By: Anonymous_Snowboarder http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/04/08/science-is-hard/#comment-68375 Anonymous_Snowboarder Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:24:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=6621#comment-68375 @charro: I'm sure 'hype' happens in other fields too but that hep gets mainstream press while many other fields do not. In any event, I have no issue with someone putting up 3 sigma preliminary results or those which will require a more extensive search by other researchers. And certainly why shouldn't experimentalists get some slack when theorists are always churning stuff out which is not five sigma and having it hyped? @charro: I’m sure ‘hype’ happens in other fields too but that hep gets mainstream press while many other fields do not. In any event, I have no issue with someone putting up 3 sigma preliminary results or those which will require a more extensive search by other researchers. And certainly why shouldn’t experimentalists get some slack when theorists are always churning stuff out which is not five sigma and having it hyped?

]]>