First collisions at Belle II
symmetrymagazine.org
symmetrymagazine.org
Although every couple of months you hear rumours of deviations in data from the Standard Model of particle physics from some experiment, that later fizzle away with the collection of more data/better understanding of systematic errors, there have been a few deviations recently that look promising.
Specifically, regarding B mesons mentioned in the article, whose bound states seem to be decaying in unexpected ways (that could indicate the violation of “lepton universality,” the idea that all leptons should be treated “equally” by the electroweak force).
As a complementary machine to LHCb at CERN where those reaults are being seen, Belle could confirm any potential deviations and find the first evidence for Beyond the Standard Mode Physics.
That said, it’s very difficult modelling the bound states of B mesons so it might all turn out to be a misunderstanding, but it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out.
Then there are calorimeters that absorbs the debris from the collision and measures the energy of it.
Next, the detectors. There are a variety of detectors around the interaction point that serve different purposes. Broadly speaking, they measure deposited energy, and in which direction it is going. That's what physicists are interested in, so they can work out what those particles were.
Everything at an experiment like this is modeled and calculated. At the very bottom you have fundamental physics, particles being created and destroyed, modeled in a simulation tool such as Pythia. Once you know what's supposed to come out, you can simulate how the products behave in your detectors, by building a model in a tool like Geant. If you model from end to end, you essentially test physics theory against the hard bedrock of reality.
https://indico.hep.pnnl.gov/event/14/session/1/material/0/0....
Genome analysis has similar interesting requirements. A sequencer for a human genome outputs something like 100 - 200Gb of raw data to store and process, and then you have some computationally tricky analysis to run on that.
2. Only a fraction of the people involved were there for that photo.