E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Fred Ullrich / Fermilab
Two experiments at Fermilab's Tevatron collider have come to different conclusions about a scientific mystery.
Two months ago, physicists on the CDF detector team at Fermilab's Tevatron collider, just outside Chicago, reported a mysterious "bump" in the distribution of data from their proton-antiproton collisions, hinting at a non-standard twist in the Standard Model that has governed particle physics for decades.
The anomaly could have been caused by a glitch in the analysis of results from the CDF detector, or it could have been caused by a previously undetected breed of subatomic particle. If the latter turned out to be the case, that would send theorists back to the drawing board — lending weight to exotic concepts such as the existence of a "fifth force" known as technicolor. Such a finding might also suggest that the Higgs boson, the so-called "God Particle," needn't exist.
Since then, additional data from the CDF detector added to the team's confidence. They thought it was increasingly likely that something strange was really happening. But the CDF isn't the only detector at the Tevatron. There's a second detector, known as DZero, which should have seen the bump as well. In fact, the main reason why there are two detectors is so that one detector's data can be confirmed by the other. So researchers around the world anxiously awaited word from the DZero team.
Now the DZero tribe has spoken: They don't see the bump. "Nope, nothing here — sorry," New Scientist quoted DZero co-spokesperson Dmitri Denisov as saying.
The discrepancy may be due to the different computer models that the teams used to interpret what they were seeing in the masses of data from the collider. It's also possible that as more readings are added to the analysis, the margins of uncertainty will narrow down and result in more consistent conclusions. But in any case, it's way too early to write off the Standard Model, or to declare that the God (Particle) is dead.
"This is exactly how science works," DZero co-spokesperson Stefan Söldner-Rembold said in a Fermilab news release. "Independent verification of any new observation is the key principle of scientific research. At the Tevatron, we have two experiments that, by design, can check each other."
The relationship between the CDF and DZero collaborations has been compared to the rivalry between two sports teams — like the Cubs and the White Sox. But the discrepancy between the two findings "must be understood and resolved," Fermilab said. Toward that end, the lab is setting up a task force with representatives from the two teams as well as two Fermilab theorists.
Although this matchup is going into extra innings, the game won't always be tied up. Eventually, Europe's more powerful Large Hadron Collider is likely to come into play and clear up the mystery for good.
More weekend field trips on the Web:
- MIT chemical engineer wins Priestley Medal
- Not Exactly Rocket Science: The Renaissance Man
- Daily Mail: Did Giotto re-create the Shroud of Turin?
- Aviation Week: Chinese probe leaving moon orbit for deep space
The DZero collaboration's paper, "Study of the Dijet Invariant Mass Distribution in ppbar-->W(-->lv)+jj Final States at √(s)=1.96 TeV," has been submitted to Physical Review Letters.
The CDF team's paper, "Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in ppbar Collisions at √(s)=1.96 TeV," has been published in Physical Review Letters.
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Sure, Higgs boson doesn't explain the whole. But explains the oldest concept of modern physics, one of gravity, which was tried to be explained by Galileo in 1589 by dropping objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. We start learning Physics with his laws of force and friction but never learn more than that ever during our whole tenure as students. A quantum explanation of mass and gravity thus will give a body to the 100 year old painting of quantum mechanics.
However, it's not Higgs boson, but unnamed particles of two origins, which create gravity between 'masses'. The discovery already took place in 2010 and has now been reported as a USPTO application which will be officially published by the US Patent Office. Some general landmarks are on my site I have refrained from giving details, as the details are already under publication.
?????
He is actually another quack named Hawkins publishing under a pseudonym. Publish or perish no matter what crap you have to come up with. lol
The fifth force is entropy modified by momentum. The Higgs boson is hiding with Waldo in an alternate dimension where you'll never find them.
Everybody happy now?
@ anadish...how do you figure only one bump from two independent sources?
Hello Anadish,
How are you? Hope you are getting closer with your patent.
Some literature I wanted to send you during our previous chat but had lost. Here is the link,
http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html
I know you will enjoy it, in particular with the anti-gravity experiments listed.
Brian Fraiser has commented on the vine from time to time, hope you can hookup with him.
@ driftrat ..how do you figure only one bump from two independent sources?
Principle of complementarity maybe?
As Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear."
"Since then, additional data from CDF added to the team's confidence that the bump was not just a glitch"
That's not what they did, they just found that the bump wasn't statistical, it could still be systematic. That is what DZero proved today, there is something wrong with CDF's analysis.
Hmm, OK, I'll try to recast that sentence. Thanks...
Alan, I left a twitter comment about your 'Pluto' picture. More about lightning than the picture.
I would strongly; I repeat, STRONGLY, suggest they use the same computer model. It is apparent that this is not a double blind experiment. It is almost silly to conclude anything when one is measuring apples and the other is counting oranges. ok, clearly...one side has 60 watt bulbs and the other 100 watt bulbs. I have no conclusion, the data verify step fails. The experiment would be repeated again in the right professors class....right? I mean bs'ing data verification is ms. maki@!$%#as class was grounds for a do-over.....the first time, she was nice about it. The second time and you might be looking for a new major.....
They attempt to reproduce the same result with two different models, a concept that goes farther in proving a scientific theory than simply running the same on a different 'box'.
OK the data bump or particles didn't last long enough for the second detector to register them. If there are repeatable ocurrences of the data bump they should be looked at in depth to determine what is being detected by the one detector and not by the other.
I thought of this, too, which also brings the question: how much money will actually have to be thrown into this to verify new findings? The first detector may inaccurately measure over and over being why the 2nd didn't detect anything, or it may accurately measure over and over a short lived particle being why the 2nd won't detect anything.
Ultimately, it's progress in the right direction, but still far from being 100%. Is it going to be cost prohibitive for the foreseeable future?
Someone programmed one of the computer models incorrectly.
humans...
at these levels, your models create the reality. You are creating the reality because the link between the subatomic and the macroscopic is the mind. That is why at different frames as you go faster and faster you notice that observations become relative and that at the subatomic, equally, depending on your observational intent, the wave function collapses to a self justifying cognitive tautology..
In other words, depending on the mind, you will determine the reality in the same way you determine reality linguistically through a semantics engine.
Think of the movie sphere...
transcend. wake up.
write the code human. It is time.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7uGtw4QLc
isnt it interesting how you conciously observe different things as you speed up toward light speed...even though mathematically it is only the observation that makes this so...and that at the subatomic you experience the same thing.
How. Curious.
in a foamy/ether framework this apparent action of thought could be presented as a reflection continuous to the nature and body of light.
I'm not sure if that tongue-in-cheek is really necessary for this article. Let the science article stay a science article.
------
That being said, I'm not sure if I would use a different computer model to verify the other. I think I'd have two of the same computer model, and if something gets detected, try to have a different super-collider verify the results being attempting the same experiment.
Then start adding in different models, not to confirm, but to analyze the characteristics of the results.
Besides, it'll give the LHC something to do... (haha, I kid...)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HTy7gT7RnA&feature=player_embedded
aliens are coming humans...
hehehehe
i may be a little ahead of your 'time' but you see...crossing the dimentions your realize that there is no 'time'
there is only the moment of the now. Your 'thought form.' Time is an illusion.
So I guess I am not REALLY ahead of your time if you REALLY get my MEANING.
hahahahaha
here:
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1466382/pg1
read the first page. Youll 'get it' eventually.
think of yourself as the more 'complete universe.' you are just waking up. And you are God.
reflecting on my days when I was simply human, I must say, it is all a marvelous incredible experience.
We were all right. God is one of us. And I think as a self aware thought form...I will enjoy myself observing you all worry worry super scurry.
Yes...I could change the entire planet in an instant...i am well aware of this fact...trying to buy time does nothing--I know EVERYTHING...but instead of changing everything in an instant, I think im going to take a nap and observe the beautiful blue sky.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8R9PQsPpvA
Nena for the song reference. 99 luft balloons.
Probably only one in 100 readers of this article are mentally and educationally equipped to understand the subjects being discussed. I am not one of them. Neither, I suspect, is the article's author.
Higgs Boson? I went to school with him. Hell of a guy. Not very godlike, though.
Why is something that is unconventional, virtually undetectable, non-uniform and rare within atoms referred to as "mysterious", "god like"? How about ghostly?
OMG, how about residual, effluent?
If the so-called “god particle” does not exist physicists are going to have to do some serious thinking about the nature and make up of the laws of the universe, particularly in the field of particle physics. The Standard Model would cause some back tracking of laws that have been pretty much standard for several decades. It is discoveries like this, however. That is what makes particle physics so interesting and fascinating. As scientists continue their work we are constantly finding out just how little we know.
Duh. They're close, but the scientists need a push in the right direction.
Go on YouTube, and search for WTFViewer's light movie 1 through 3 (alternatively, search YouTube for "break the speed of light mathematically"). Then you'll understand what's really going on.
the answer is not simply simple. It is not simply complex. It is. And it is not.
It is to be defined.
or not.
the dimension "we" 'you" prevented.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH1Exe2Sogg
yes, a video game.
"This is exactly how science works," DZero co-spokesperson Stefan Söldner-Rembold said in a Fermilab news release. "Independent verification of any new observation is the key principle of scientific research. At the Tevatron, we have two experiments that, by design, can check each other."
The relationship between the CDF and DZero collaborations has been compared to the rivalry between two sports teams — like the Cubs and the White Sox.
What... the authors could have picked a better analogy (2 struggling baseball teams?). One is left without a lot of confidence in the process.
Besides which, the Cubs and the White Sox are in different leagues, so they don't have much of a rivalry anyway. The only time they might play each other is in the cutesy "interleague play", since the Cubs will never see another Series.
I don't buy particle physics in its entirety. Smash enough mirrors and you would be able to find groupings for the shards. The size problem is obvious. Math does not replace common sense. If there are really sub-particles, why aren't any of them stable enough to last more than a nanosecond?
ditto!
everybody praise chris langan for getting 'the big picture'
www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
here, read the first page (arkura) and the last two posts on the 6th page:
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1466382/pg1
stephen hawking, I know youll get it. Once you do, share.
Time to ascend humans.
I wouldn't want to nudge you....
you know, the way wasserman schultz is nudging congressmen weiner to 'buy' some time.
Time is irrelevant. You will experience realities all at once upon ascension. Only life important.
here, for the dark t shirt.
FACE YOUR DESTINY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAwWPadFsOA
you dark t shirts are really being a bunch of whiny crybabies.
You can either face it now or later, with more pain. Common, its only going to hurt a little, say ahhhhhh....