I find it fascinating that a simulation can show the (non-)existence of unknown behaviors that can be verified experimentally afterward
We always need theory predictions to confront to data if we want to draw conclusions about the potential existence of new phenomena (in one way or the other). There are two ways to get there:
- You take data and remove as many effects as possible to go back to the pure theory part of the calculations (i.e. unfolding). This is quite hard as this corresponds to solve an ill-defined problem. This works but takes ages.
- You start from the pure theoretical calculations and add as much stuff as needed to get as close as could be seen in a detector. (i.e. folding). This is easier.
The two options are followed, but I developed tools for the second one.
Are you still working on the same simulation software (the one you created and taught maximouth how to use 2 years ago if I remember correctly)?
Yep, still the same tool. We are still improving it. I am planning to submit a new article on Monday (after tomorrow) where we augmented the tool by a novel lightweight way to simulate the detector effects. We manage to gain 30%-50% in speed and we need 100 times less disk space. I am quite happy with it (I will probably write a blog on that... at some point :) ).
Speaking about maximouth: I teach him particle physics now (adapted for a 9 y.o. child ;) ). I may share the material with STEMsocial... one day (after translating it from French to English ;) ).