4 ms·
I think it's a matter of theory supporting observed data. They point the, "camera" at a bunch of experiments, which generates a ton of data, then it's up to the
by ManBlanket 5y ago
I think it's a matter of theory supporting observed data. They point the, "camera" at a bunch of experiments, which generates a ton of data, then it's up to theoretical physicists to explain the results. Once the results of a theory have been explained and then reproduced it stands on solid ground. I'm just speculating, of course. But that is sort of how astronomy works, at the polar opposite end of a similar field.
- dukwon 5y agoYour comment kind of implies that theorists analyse the data. (They don't even have access to it.) Analysis is the job of experimental physicists (like me) and can take years. We don't wait until we have theoretical interpretations before publishing the discovery of a new particle. In fact, our results are kept confidential until the end of the collaboration's internal review process. In the absence of leaks, the first any theorist should hear of this new particle would have been the conference talk or press release.