The Minerva
Masterclass Review
Reviewers: Eleftherios Ampatzidis, Logan Chalfant,
Tom Lambert, Ingrid Loncq De JongVersluijs, Rosana Marques,
Francesco Mezzanotte, Makoto Noda,
Dimitris Roubos, Maria Shamoun, Tony
Thyer, & Vera Zimanyine Horvath
Our Course of Action
1. Initial Download & Use
2. Group-wide Meetings
a. Peter Watkins & Mark Stockton
b. Monika Wielers
c. Gron Jones
3. Individual Subcommittee Meetings.
MINERVA
Introductional Booklet for Teachers
Subcommittee members:
Tom Lambert, Francesco Mezzanotte,
& Vera Zimanyine Horvath
I. Particles
A. Standard model of fundamental particles
B. Decays
II.
Atlas
A. Part of LHC
B. Structure of detector
C. Identfying particles
III. Minerva/Atlantis
A.
How to access the program
B. Snapshots of the five examples
C. How to read diagrams
Teachers Manual.pdf
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
STUDENT ACTIVITIES
Objective: We wish to use Atlas Event Data and the Minerva
Program as a platform for engaging students in modern
physics exercises. The Miverva software can thus bridge
classroom theory and current research.
Committee members: Maria Shamoun,
Rosana Marques,
& Logan Chalfant
I.
Theoretical introduction and practical exercises
A. Conservation of momentum
Measurement of particle momentum exercise.docx
B. Invariant mass
Measurement of invariant mass.docx
II. Particle Basics
A. Introduction to Particle
Physics
B. How to interpret the tracks
C. Exercises
Particle number, track height and
width, particle type, etc
III. Indirect Observation
A. Group/class discussion on direct v. indirect
observation.
B. Propose analogous problem. (Ie: What evidence is
there that your anatomy includes the organ known
as the ‘heart’?)
C. Discuss the evidence the Atlas detector uses to
determine particle charge, type, momentum, etc.
IV. Momentum Conservation
A. Propose analogous problem. (Ie: What is the momentum of a
loaded gun before and after it is fired? What does this imply
about the individual momentums of the gun and bullet ?)
B.
Apply this to collision and decay momentums.
C. What do inconsistencies imply?
V.
Data analysis
Current method:
Given worksheet, hand calculations
A.
B.
Proposed method:
Create Excel file
COMPARISON SUBCOMMITTEE
MINERVA VS. HYPATIA
Subcommitte members: Ingrid Loncq De Jong-Versluijs,
Dimitris Roubos
I. THE PROCEDURE OF COMPARISON
A. We tried to download and install both
programs.
B. We used both programs.
C. We used both program’s support materials
(web- site e-manuals).
D. We compared how each program could be
adapted to the classroom.
II. VERSIONS
A. HYPATIA
1.
v2.3
2.
sv-v2.3
(simplified version)
3. Demo v2.3.1
4. MDE v2.3
B. MINERVA
1. 4 versions with
different number of
events
III. WEB SITE
A. On HYPATIA ‘s
website we found the
following:
B. On MINERVA’s
website we found the
following:
1. prerequisite
knowledge of physics
1. prerequisite
knowledge of physics
2. Links to download
the
program
2. Links to download
the program
IV. USER INTERFACE
A.
The user interface of both programs initially
struck as complicated. However, the more we
used it, the more potential we discovered.
4 windows
2 windows
CANVAS WINDOWS
Track on
electromagnetic
calorimeter
FIRST difference
WE CAN’T FIND 3D HISTROGRAMS ON HYPATIA
SECOND difference
TRACK MOMENTA WINDOW
INVARIANT MASS WINDOW
The Invariant Mass Window is the main analysis window of
HYPATIA.
You can see the chosen (by user) tracks of each event and values
of theirs main physical quantities (momentum etc.).
For each event the invariant (or transverse) masses of
combinations of chosen particles are automatically calculated and
displayed.
EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL

MINERVA
Worksheets with
instructions
 Power point
presentation with
additional helpful
instructions


HYPATIA
Instructions and
classified group events
per particle kind on
the internet site
 Exercises

HELP

Help in both applications is thorough – detailed
but it could be enriched with more examples –
illustrations.
CONCLUSIONS
If you want to understand the physics behind the
programs you need a lot explanations. But….
 Pupils do not learn much physics from using the
programs. They only learn how to recognize a pattern.
 It is not clear to us why there are two almost similar
programs, Hypatia and Minerva.

CONCLUSIONS
Both programmes require elementary – basic
knowledge of physics’ particle physics as well as
some fundamental knowledge of the functional
principles of detectors.
 Pupils in Greek schools , even those of advanced
level, do not possess the above knowledge.
 Consequently, it is practically impossible to use
this application in the Greek school.
 What can be done is to introduce this programme
to physics teachers in the frame of a general
familiarization of teachers with the experiments
prepared in CERN.
 Both are very helpful programmes in
familiarizing a physics pupil with detectors used
in CERN.

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
FOLLOWING
PEOPLE:
Peter Watkins
Mark Stockton
Monika Wielers
Mick Storr
Gron Jones