[pessimist]

What stood out to me from watching the presentation was the incredible integrity of the physicists involved. The CMS group had 2 sets of data with > 5 sigma significance, but chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly. Consider the enormous effort spent to show that the result was not some background fluke - two separate detectors, running 2 completely different means of detection, each with their own sets of computer programs verifying the results. Finally both show almost exactly the same result (although the masses are slightly different at this point)!

Given that tevatron also sees similar (although weaker) results, the confirmation is beyond doubt. And what an achievement - the first fundamental particle observed since the quarks in the 1980's! An incredible victory for theoretical models developed almost 50 years ago (no wonder Peter Higgs had tears in this eyes)!

Combining the brilliance of the theoreticians with the integrity of experimentalists is what makes science the pinnacle of human achievement (IMO), and makes me proud to be human today.

[molmalo]

> So, chose to also show weaker data that actually reduced the significance slightly

Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something. So, choosing to hide that data would've been dumb, as the two possible outcomes would have equally interesting I think: proving that the Higgs Boson does exists, or proving that it doesn't.

Beyond that, yeah, it's a good day today for science :) !!!

[pessimist]

> Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something.

A nobel prize is at stake! If ATLAS only had the results and not CMS, they would have lost the nobel. For them to put aside personal glory for science is impressive.

[Xion]

Even without the question of ATLAS vs. CMS, awarding a Nobel Prize for this will be rather challenging. At most three people can share it according to the rules, and there were literally hundreds of scientists involved in this discovery.

This is probably yet another argument in favor of the claim that Nobel Prize in its current form is antiquated and not matching the reality of modern science (especially particle physics).

[ieureur]

"At most three people can share it according to the rules"

This is wrong. It's just conventional, nothing in Nobel's will mentions this.

[tokenadult]

The language of Nobel's will (as translated into English on the official site of the Nobel Foundation):

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prize for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not."

After a settlement with Nobel's family, the foundation was set up with these rules:

"a) that the statutes, common to the prize-awarding institutions, dealing with the manner of, and the conditions for, the award of prizes as prescribed in the will, shall be drawn up in consultation with a representative nominated by Robert Nobel's family and submitted to the approval of the Crown; and

b) that there shall be no departure from the following main principles, viz: that each of the annual prizes established by the will shall be awarded at least during each five-year period from, and including, the year immediately following that in which the Nobel Foundation commences its activities, and that the amount of a prize thus awarded shall under no circumstances be less than sixty percent of that portion of the annual yield of the fund that shall be available for the prize award, nor shall it be divided into more than three prizes at most."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundatio...

From the statutes of the Nobel Foundation:

"A prize amount may be equally divided between two works, each of which is considered to merit a prize. If a work that is being rewarded has been produced by two or three persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly. In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundatio...

[ieureur]

So just like I said, the will doesn't mention the three person limit, only the statutes.

[hobin]

Hm. True enough. Let's not forget that this is one of those results that will be under great scrutiny, of course. Not because the results are controversial - far from it - but because they're so important. Committing fraud with these results would be academical suicide.

[jlarocco]

It's unlikely they would get the prize if their results weren't verified.

[wpietri]

> Well, they are not trying to convince anyone here. They are trying to prove something.

And that's the impressive part. Finding this out cost circa $10 billion. To get that dough, they had to convince a lot of politicians (and hundreds of millions of taxpayers) that this was worth it.

To the general public, a clear result is much more satisfying than, "Well, gosh, the data is ambiguous; we need another $10 billion to get some solid answers." It takes a lot of integrity to go to the lengths they did. I salute them!

[molmalo]

They had to convince those politicians that this is worth studying. Not to convince them about the results, that could have been any of the two possible shakespearean outcomes: to exist or not to exist...

[wpietri]

I agree that politicians shouldn't care about dramatic results. But I still think they do.

[kamagmar]

> the first fundamental particle observed since the quarks in the 1980's

A minor correction -- the tau neutrino wasn't discovered until 2000.