Comments on: Discovering new physics at LHC: a paper worth a close look

By: Dark Matter Searches at Colliders - part III « A Quantum Diaries Survivor

Dark Matter Searches at Colliders - part III « A Quantum Diaries Survivor — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:09:29 +0000

[...] reason that in the end, LHC searches will require to follow the very important two-step procedure outlined by M.Mangano in a recent paper: first establish that an anomaly exists in the data, and only after it has been demonstrated to be [...]

By: About the DAMA-LIBRA result « A Quantum Diaries Survivor

About the DAMA-LIBRA result « A Quantum Diaries Survivor — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:33:22 +0000

[...] taking a step back, and rather consider questioning the exclusions rather than the signal. Indeed, establishing a signal comes before challenging it with specific models, and the comparison of DAMA’s result with CDMS exclusion contours belongs firmly to the [...]

By: Two papers say the SM is doomed. But is it ? « A Quantum Diaries Survivor

Two papers say the SM is doomed. But is it ? « A Quantum Diaries Survivor — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:20:00 +0000

[...] be explained well by models of new physics beyond the SM”. I cannot help remembering the warnings of Michelangelo Mangano in a recent paper, where he says that the establishment of a deviation from standard model and the [...]

By: The proton structure probed by D0 « A Quantum Diaries Survivor

The proton structure probed by D0 « A Quantum Diaries Survivor — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:06:10 +0000

[...] than fits which assumed no new physics. Here is a very good example of what Michelangelo Mangano describes in his recent paper and warns us about: the assessment of a discrepancy from known physics sources and the [...]

By: dorigo

dorigo — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:56:07 +0000

Dear Michelangelo,

thanks for visiting! Lubos is a fundamentalist of his own kind – I do not even know whether he thinks fundamentalism is per se a bad idea

Cheers,
T.

By: michelangelo mangano

michelangelo mangano — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:17:23 +0000

Hi lubos, it’s not a matter of being a SM fundamentalist. I spend my life studying SM backgrounds not because I care about the SM, but because I care about what’s beyond, and because I want to make sure that we do not deceive ourselves. We are not playing here, we are exploring what nature TRULY is about. We have earned an immense credit of credibility because we never failed to properly assess the meaning of what we observe. This is what, in course of the decades, allowed to pursue our research with the support of public funds and the respect of the scientific community. We have to protect this respect, and before we go out and claim that we discovered some new fundamental law of nature we have to be absolutely sure that we are not falling victim of over enthusiasm. I am simply arguing in favour of preserving the highest standards of scrutiny, following established and successful (as I document in my paper) practices. I have witnessed many times false discoveries being announced on the basis of irrational enthusiasm and overconfidence. At a time when our field is the subject of great funding pressure, and great competition with other areas of science, the last thing we want is to embarrass ourselves with premature announcements of discoveries based on incomplete studies of the signal. I am more convinced than anyone else that the LHC will give us great discoveries. But I cannot bet on what precisely will be discovered. And I want to make sure that when we say we’ve discovered something, it will stay on the books for years to come.
I don’t believe my words will sound ludricous once new physics will be discovered, but I can guarantee to you that we shall all look ridiculous if we claim we discovered supersymmetry, and it turns out not to be true. This happened before. After UA1 “discovered” supersymmetry with the monojets, to find out few months later that it was just an underestimated background, people stopped using monojets as a tool for discovery for over 10 year. I remember spending a lot of time in the mid-90’s convincing my colleagues in CDF that monojets, if properly used, are a valuable mean of discovery, that should be pursued. This led to the first analysis of monojets in CDF, with the goal, at the time, of setting limits on light gravitinos. This effort turned out to be very timely, since it could then be used immediately to study the possible signals of large extra dimensions, after the paper by Dimopoulos and friends came out in 1997. It was just a matter of doing things well, that’s all I’m arguing for. And I can guarantee you that this is not easy, and not something that you do by just running a Monte Carlo!

By: dorigo

dorigo — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:00:05 +0000

Hi Lubos,

I do not think that Mangano is claiming one should insist on mundane explanations. Maybe I did a poor service to his paper… I think he is saying that new physics cannot and should not be on the table when assessing whether a particular effect can be interpreted in terms of known physics and statistics alone.

I am happy, though, to see you are rather reasonable in your assessment of the likelihood that some new physics will be seen. I have seen much, much steeper claims in the past – the very fact that we both bet on the matter, and in opposite direction, shows that we are considering that losing our bet is a possibility.

The difference between me and you, of course, is that I would be happy if you win your bet and I lose mine!

Cheers,
T.

By: Luboš Motl

Luboš Motl — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:27:38 +0000

Dear Tommaso,

this approach of Michelangelo – it’s not the painter, is he? – could be classified as Standard Model fundamentalism. Of course that one must be careful before he claims that he found new physics. But insisting that one must always say that the explanation is a mundane one – one that hasn’t been tried yet – is just another form of bias.

When new physics is found and when it becomes a part of the new standard picture, his words will sound ludicrous. And the probability that this will happen even with the LHC is comparable to 50%.

Best
LM

By: dorigo

dorigo — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:49:11 +0000

Hi Andrea, that's right. I do not know why. Try the ps file instead. Cheers, T.

By: Andrea Giammanco

Andrea Giammanco — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:04:48 +0000

your link to eeggmet.pdf is forbidden (or maybe the file is missing?)

“Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /~dorigo/eeggmet.pdf on this server.”