4 ms·

For something this exceedingly, impossibly rare I’d expect an in-depth discussion of how this is NOT an instrument mistake or a mis-interpretation of the measur

by eps 8y ago

For something this exceedingly, impossibly rare I’d expect an in-depth discussion of how this is NOT an instrument mistake or a mis-interpretation of the measurements. There appears to be none of that.

ddavis 8y ago
If you read the paper I’m sure you’ll find the information you’re looking for. These types of experiments spend decades understanding all potential background events and trying to limit them.
- ianai 8y ago
  That’s also one of the harder things to summarize or bring to a lay audience.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
It's a 4.4 sigma detection, so not a discovery by particle physics standards. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1124-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1124-4 I've heard suggestions that the result is more of a curiosity than of fundamental importance, and that this is why they get to publish a uncertain result in nature.
- zaroth 8y ago
  4.4 sigma ... uncertain result. You partical physicists are a funny bunch!
  - computerex 8y ago
    Needs to be 5 sigma
  - SiempreViernes 8y ago
    The famous 750 GeV bump of 2016 reached a maximum significance of 4.4 before dropping down as more data was added. Particle physics has a lot of events, so locally improbable things get likely when considering the totality of the data sets.
  - smueller1234 8y ago
    The Pierre Auger Observatory, which can be described as doing astronomy using particle physics, published in Science about an exciting anisotropy at very high energies at about 2.5 sigma. (It was a prescription, so it would have been published even as a negative result but likely not in Science.) Alas, it turned out to be a statistical fluke as well. We had to publish a note to the effect later. The particle physicists in the collaboration were by and large against calling it a discovery. The astronomers (by and large) shared your sentiment about the particle physicists being curious folk. :) https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2843 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2843
- ISL 8y ago
  Here's the arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11002.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11002.pdf Look for the discussion of backgrounds.

by eps 8y ago

ddavis 8y ago

If you read the paper I’m sure you’ll find the information you’re looking for. These types of experiments spend decades understanding all potential background events and trying to limit them.

ianai 8y ago
That’s also one of the harder things to summarize or bring to a lay audience.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

It's a 4.4 sigma detection, so not a discovery by particle physics standards. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1124-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1124-4 I've heard suggestions that the result is more of a curiosity than of fundamental importance, and that this is why they get to publish a uncertain result in nature.

zaroth 8y ago
4.4 sigma ... uncertain result. You partical physicists are a funny bunch!
- computerex 8y ago
  Needs to be 5 sigma
- SiempreViernes 8y ago
  The famous 750 GeV bump of 2016 reached a maximum significance of 4.4 before dropping down as more data was added. Particle physics has a lot of events, so locally improbable things get likely when considering the totality of the data sets.
- smueller1234 8y ago
  The Pierre Auger Observatory, which can be described as doing astronomy using particle physics, published in Science about an exciting anisotropy at very high energies at about 2.5 sigma. (It was a prescription, so it would have been published even as a negative result but likely not in Science.) Alas, it turned out to be a statistical fluke as well. We had to publish a note to the effect later. The particle physicists in the collaboration were by and large against calling it a discovery. The astronomers (by and large) shared your sentiment about the particle physicists being curious folk. :) https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2843 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2843
ISL 8y ago
Here's the arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11002.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11002.pdf Look for the discussion of backgrounds.