3 ms·
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/
by 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 ago4.4 sigma ... uncertain result. You partical physicists are a funny bunch!
- computerex 8y agoNeeds to be 5 sigma
- SiempreViernes 8y agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoHere's the arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11002.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.11002.pdf Look for the discussion of backgrounds.