Science Reporting, UR DOING IT WRONG
So the CDMS experiment released their results on their latest data set (2x as large as their last data set) today. Sadly, the paper is not on the arxiv tonight, so I can't link it. It'll likely be up tomorrow, for the curious.
But I can link the NYTimes article on it. It is entitled, "At a Mine's Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter".
This title is horribly, completely false.
CDMS saw two events* in their signal region, which is defined by their ability to separate nuclear and electronic recoils, as well as their energy acceptance region. They calculate that these two events have a 23% chance of being dark matter...or put another way, a 77% chance of being background. Oops, fucked that up. Read the paper carefully, and there's a 23% chance of those two events occurring from background. Still not a bet I'd take.
This is not a hint of dark matter. One in five isn't bad odds, really, but it's still not a bet I'd take. This is exactly what everyone expected out of CDMS. No one I know is surprised, or in “a high level of serious hysteria" about it. People are a bit excited, sure. It's always nice when a result comes out and you can kick back for an hour and watch the talk** and gossip*** for a little while. But, at least for me, some of that excitement is because it's nice to recognize friends who have been working hard and finally have something to show for it.
I get that science reporting should engage the non-science reader. But seriously? I am pleased with them for doing good work, but this result is boring. Important, notable, well-executed, and necessary. But boring.
*Rumor mill had either one or three, depending who you asked. Well, it was right on average.
**or not. The feed cut out halfway through, damn you SLAC.
***Oh yes, we gossip. We gossip a lot. I'm pretty sure if the gossip stopped, the whole field would fall apart.
But I can link the NYTimes article on it. It is entitled, "At a Mine's Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter".
This title is horribly, completely false.
CDMS saw two events* in their signal region, which is defined by their ability to separate nuclear and electronic recoils, as well as their energy acceptance region. They calculate that these two events have a 23% chance of being dark matter...or put another way, a 77% chance of being background. Oops, fucked that up. Read the paper carefully, and there's a 23% chance of those two events occurring from background. Still not a bet I'd take.
This is not a hint of dark matter. One in five isn't bad odds, really, but it's still not a bet I'd take. This is exactly what everyone expected out of CDMS. No one I know is surprised, or in “a high level of serious hysteria" about it. People are a bit excited, sure. It's always nice when a result comes out and you can kick back for an hour and watch the talk** and gossip*** for a little while. But, at least for me, some of that excitement is because it's nice to recognize friends who have been working hard and finally have something to show for it.
I get that science reporting should engage the non-science reader. But seriously? I am pleased with them for doing good work, but this result is boring. Important, notable, well-executed, and necessary. But boring.
*Rumor mill had either one or three, depending who you asked. Well, it was right on average.
**or not. The feed cut out halfway through, damn you SLAC.
***Oh yes, we gossip. We gossip a lot. I'm pretty sure if the gossip stopped, the whole field would fall apart.