US atom smasher may have found new force of nature

LIVE NOW

www-visualmedia.fnal.gov...

reply to post by Itop1


I left my decoder ring in my Cheerios box. What the heck are they talking about?

Originally posted by Itop1
LIVE NOW

www-visualmedia.fnal.gov...

That horrid accent is certainly not helping things...
What the hell is she talking about?

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by Itop1

 

I left my decoder ring in my Cheerios box. What the heck are they talking about?

Aint got a #ing clue lol

Originally posted by sliceNodice

Originally posted by Itop1
LIVE NOW

www-visualmedia.fnal.gov...

That horrid accent is certainly not helping things...
What the hell is she talking about?

who cares she proper fit...lol

reply to post by Cuervo


hmmm, how can i say this. Lets see, I have a god particle on my kitchen floor. BUT who knows, maybe i do have a god particle on my floor. I thought all things were of god, but apparently there is A single , GOD particle. I'M confused.

I doubt many people on ATS has the education to understand what this presentation is telling us, its proper hardcore physics stuff, but shes fit so its worth watching just for that

*Head Esplodes*

Is there an option for "English" and "Stupid" subtitles?

i though i know a bit..but i'm well out of my depth here...

HONESTLY ..i swear she just making some of that up as she goes along...lol

I can't get the live feed, maybe it's full? The message said it might get full.

Is this the paper they're talking about?

Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in ppbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV

Shes talking about the equal distribution of mass that the W-Boson emits when it is collied with its anti-matter counter-part.

Ain't got a clue what it means!

ALS

Thats just a room of lots of brainy geeks, makes me feel dumb watching it.

Her accent made it hard...


(Is that going too far? )


reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yeah that's the papers

Originally posted by cloaked4u
reply to post by Cuervo

 

hmmm, how can i say this. Lets see, I have a god particle on my kitchen floor. BUT who knows, maybe i do have a god particle on my floor. I thought all things were of god, but apparently there is A single , GOD particle. I'M confused.

But you don't even want to know what it is. You just want to pick bones about the semiotics of the name.

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
*Head Esplodes*

Is there an option for "English" and "Stupid" subtitles?

im no expert

i think they are talking about a situation were the predicted mass distrabution is different around jets that are created by w+2 iniliation but the problem is the scale for the energy from this interaction is off by about 100% this is to large to be a mistake.
there is a large inconsistency between the "model" outcome and the data sets achived
jets are created from interaction between two sub atomic particals and the energy contained in the jets is extrapalated to explain which two particales have interacted.
the jet problem seems to show the interaction created much more energy than can be explained by the existing sub atomic particles that are known

again im not up to speed on this area of resurch
and this is a guess as to what is being said
so please dont flame
im trying to understand this myself
xploder

They have not even finished compiling the data let alone complete thier analysis...

the 100% inconsistencey is incorrect
appro 7% with statistical 3% error margin
xp

edit it also seems like they are using a jet model that is commonly used and well understood
so this could can the jet tev calculation on the models is not acurite

she sounds like she struggling on that stage under questioning from all those scientists,and keeps looking for help from someone off stage...thats about all i'm getting from this live stream..lol

at least the inconsitency in the measurements are consistent
lol
the excess energy does seem to be either a model problem or there is a new particle
xp

reply to post by XPLodER


I think to put this in layman's terms what was said is:

"We saw something we didn't expect, are not sure what it is, but if it is true we were wrong about some basic assumptions."

"Now lets go figure it out!"

Does that sound about right to everyone?