Comments on: Just Blessed!!!!!!! http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/ private thoughts of a physicist and chessplayer Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:26 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: A new physicist on the scene « A Quantum Diaries Survivor http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-43570 A new physicist on the scene « A Quantum Diaries Survivor Tue, 29 May 2007 13:21:03 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-43570 [...] of her daughter Madeline Jane. Chris has worked with me in the group that recently produced a new measurement of the b-jet energy scale from a fit of the peak of Z decays to b-quark pairs. He gave an important contribution to our work [...] [...] of her daughter Madeline Jane. Chris has worked with me in the group that recently produced a new measurement of the b-jet energy scale from a fit of the peak of Z decays to b-quark pairs. He gave an important contribution to our work [...]

]]> By: Borborigmi di un fisico renitente » Ancora tracce del bosone di Higgs? Il sottile confine tra le chiacchiere da bar e la dichiarazione pubblica http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30533 Borborigmi di un fisico renitente » Ancora tracce del bosone di Higgs? Il sottile confine tra le chiacchiere da bar e la dichiarazione pubblica Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:21:30 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30533 [...] (Dorigo) fa qualche alluzione un po’ azzardata: se nei dati di Conway ci fosse veramente il bosone di Higgs, allora dovrebbe fare capolino anche [...] [...] (Dorigo) fa qualche alluzione un po’ azzardata: se nei dati di Conway ci fosse veramente il bosone di Higgs, allora dovrebbe fare capolino anche [...]

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30314 dorigo Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:46:21 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30314 Hi John, I agree with you - but only after we take in consideration background systematics (which can be perfected, by the way). Indeed, the rumors of this MSSM Higgs have been exaggerated - but ain't it nice ? We at least get the interest for this thing going! Cheers, T. Hi John,

I agree with you – but only after we take in consideration background systematics (which can be perfected, by the way). Indeed, the rumors of this MSSM Higgs have been exaggerated – but ain’t it nice ? We at least get the interest for this thing going!

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: John Conway http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30285 John Conway Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:22:57 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30285 Tommaso, congratulations, nice analysis! But as for a Higgs signal, do the math - your analysis has no sensitivity for a Higgs signal at the level of the one seen in the tau pair analysis. We've already excluded what you might have been able to see! See my post over at <a href="http://cosmicvariance.com" rel="nofollow">Cosmic Variance</a>... Cheers, John Tommaso, congratulations, nice analysis! But as for a Higgs signal, do the math – your analysis has no sensitivity for a Higgs signal at the level of the one seen in the tau pair analysis. We’ve already excluded what you might have been able to see!

See my post over at Cosmic Variance…

Cheers,

John

]]> By: Another Higgs bump? Not so fast… | Cosmic Variance http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30284 Another Higgs bump? Not so fast… | Cosmic Variance Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:17:24 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30284 [...] from CDF, which, now that it has been approved, is public. Tommaso Dorigo’s blog has a more in-depth look at that. But I think that is even more of a stretch than our two-sigma excess. The reason is [...] [...] from CDF, which, now that it has been approved, is public. Tommaso Dorigo’s blog has a more in-depth look at that. But I think that is even more of a stretch than our two-sigma excess. The reason is [...]

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30241 dorigo Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:54:04 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30241 Hi Andy, thank you! (My name is Tommaso, Tony is a welcome commenter here). I agree, there is nothing real in my plot - but indeed, there could be space for 100ish events at 160 GeV, take a look at my post from today where I have a blowup of that region ;-) Cheers, T. Hi Andy,

thank you! (My name is Tommaso, Tony is a welcome commenter here).

I agree, there is nothing real in my plot – but indeed, there could be space for 100ish events at 160 GeV, take a look at my post from today where I have a blowup of that region ;-)

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: Andy http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30232 Andy Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:32:35 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30232 Congratulations, Tony. I did the Z->bb analysis at D0, so I know how much work goes into this. As for the 160 bump, looking at your plot, I don't see any. Congratulations, Tony.
I did the Z->bb analysis at D0, so I know how much work goes into this.
As for the 160 bump, looking at your plot, I don’t see any.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30030 dorigo Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:37:04 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30030 Hello Tony, I want to address your questions in a separate post, since they also address the issue of the 160 GeV Higgs "signal" found by CDF. Cheers, T. Hello Tony,

I want to address your questions in a separate post, since they also address the issue of the 160 GeV Higgs “signal” found by CDF.

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30029 dorigo Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:35:58 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30029 Hi Kea, thank you for the kind remarks... The details of the plot have been chosen by Julien, and his is the merit (I did give a few suggestions, to be fair). Top mass measurements released now or about to be released for winter conferences will not use the new measurement of the jet energy scale. I hope that starting with summer 2007 results we will see analyses using the information we extracted. However, there is some work to be done on understanding the extrapolation from jets in our dataset and jets used for top mass reconstruction. Not much anyway. Cheers, T. Hi Kea,

thank you for the kind remarks… The details of the plot have been chosen by Julien, and his is the merit (I did give a few suggestions, to be fair).

Top mass measurements released now or about to be released for winter conferences will not use the new measurement of the jet energy scale. I hope that starting with summer 2007 results we will see analyses using the information we extracted. However, there is some work to be done on understanding the extrapolation from jets in our dataset and jets used for top mass reconstruction. Not much anyway.

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: Kea http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30013 Kea Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:56:43 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30013 Congratulations! And I must say I'm very impressed by the clarity of the diagram, even down to the choices of colour. Do you have a ballpark timescale on new top quark mass uncertainties? Congratulations! And I must say I’m very impressed by the clarity of the diagram, even down to the choices of colour. Do you have a ballpark timescale on new top quark mass uncertainties?

]]> By: Tony Smith http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30003 Tony Smith Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:48:04 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/just-blessed/#comment-30003 Thanks very much for posting the blessed CDF Z-> bb plot. It seems to resemble very closely the D0 plot, including what you had described as "... an excess at 160 GeV ... a bump at 160 GeV ...", when you take into account shifting the mass scale so that the Z peak is at the accepted value of the Z mass. Since D0 and CDF not only do independent analysis work, but also take independent data sets, it seems likely to my naive mind that the "bump" around 160 GeV should be something real. Would realistic statistical arguments agree with the conclusion that the bump is probably real ? If it is real, what would it be likely to be ? Are W pairs ruled out as already being included in background calculations ? Could it be the first sighting of the Higgs ? Enjoy the Mayan riveira. I hope the weather is good. Tony Smith Thanks very much for posting the blessed CDF Z-> bb plot.

It seems to resemble very closely the D0 plot, including what you had described as “… an excess at 160 GeV … a bump at 160 GeV …”, when you take into account shifting the mass scale so that the Z peak is at the accepted value of the Z mass.

Since D0 and CDF not only do independent analysis work, but also take independent data sets, it seems likely to my naive mind that the “bump” around 160 GeV should be something real.

Would realistic statistical arguments agree with the conclusion that the bump is probably real ?

If it is real, what would it be likely to be ?
Are W pairs ruled out as already being included in background calculations ?
Could it be the first sighting of the Higgs ?

Enjoy the Mayan riveira. I hope the weather is good.

Tony Smith

]]>