Did AI Prove Our Proton Model WRONG?

The data is much better than any previous

model

. Currently this is still tentative. The team reports a result of 3 sigma, meaning a 1 in 1000 chance of finding the

wrong

model

in favor of intrinsic charm simply by chance. Of course, the gold standard for claiming a victory is 5-sigma, meaning there is a 1 in a million chance that the outcome is due to a streak of bad luck. It sounds like a high standard, but with so many different experiments happening around the world, we get a lot of 3 sigma results that end up being

wrong

. So will this result be successful in the end?

Will we find the charm quark in the

proton

? The melon in the apple box? Well, we'll need to fire a lot more

proton

s to find out, but we can also get closer to our answer by improving this shiny new machine learning tool. That technology is developing at a rapid pace as it is increasingly used in all areas of experimental physics. Computers can create and test models much faster than any physicist, which means physicists can get on with the more interesting work of interpreting successful models. Wherever we address the question of the intrinsic allure of protons, there is something enchanting in this cooperation between artificial and natural intelligences working toward the common goal of deciphering the inner workings of space-time.

Hello everyone, replies to comments will be back next week. But if you really want to see me try to answer difficult questions with mixed success, head over to StarTalk, where my old colleague Dr. Neil Tyson is trying to stump me with some real wonders. Link in description. And don't hesitate to tell them we sent you.