Satire about the search for a theory of everything in physics, sometimes about the strand-spaghetti model.
Clara,I see a lot of up and down fluctuation in the data but I have no clue on how the final graphs were arrived at. Tommaso has promised an explanation by tomorrow, so let's wait and see.
Where will we make the waist ? (i.e. the Higgs)(One tailor asks one lady) I am also surprised with the complete absence of any comments about the "down fluctuations" or deeps (say, the deep at 120 GeV is quite significant -- seemingly not less than 3 sigma ! and it did not disappear with the growing statistics -- so, it is a kind of systematics). A few words about "miniature black holes eating some events" would make me a bit happier! Well, seriously, why they do not try to find some sources of systematic errors? a kind of pixelization as an aftermath of the triggering procedures, or, say, growing frozen moisture (those blizzards from The Groundhog day) on their detectors, or something else, I don't know what..
So, Clara, are you happy with Tomasso's response on his blog dated July, 9th?
Of course not. But he will say more soon, I hope.
Many jump to criticize you for asking bold questions but I support your position. An honest scientist must always be given the benefit of the doubt. Healthy skepticism is to be encouraged and hard questions are necessary. I sincerely hope that no bias was introduced when analyzing the Higgs data of 2011 and 2012 and the two collaborations have truly worked independently. If there was a bias of sorts for the mH = 125 GeV Higgs ("keep looking" effect), we ought to hopefully find out by the end of the year.
We will see at the end of the year.