5 ms·
It's over three sigma, which makes it more like 5-20% that it's not real. My money is on it being our first observed sparticle.
by madaxe_again 11y ago
It's over three sigma, which makes it more like 5-20% that it's not real.
My money is on it being our first observed sparticle.
- Steuard 11y agoThe 3-sigma that you're quoting may not account for the "look elsewhere" effect: the possibility that a comparable fluctuation might have occurred in any number of other energy levels or other decay channels. It's really hard to correct for that properly, and particle theory has a long history of promising signals melting away with more data. That's why the folks involved are being pretty cautious. Meanwhile, I'm not sure how well the observed decay mode fits with the most common supersymmetric models: I have the strong impression that it's not one that SUSY phenomenologists were expecting going in. It's going to be fun to see where this takes us! Maybe a surprise would be the best outcome of all.
- jessriedel 11y agoLots wrong with this comment. Here's one place to start: http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/true_and_false_discoveries_how_to_tell_them_apart-141024 http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/true_and...
- rubidium 11y agoI agree, and you provided a link to a nice summary of why. I do wonder, though, if there's ever been evidence from two independent detectors that ended up being false. That's a significant difference in the present situation.
- madaxe_again 11y agoThanks, that's really interesting - I was just going with the raw definition of sigma. Consider me corrected!