Can't get enough of Curiosity? Neither can we. In this video, get a sneak peek at "Ultimate Mars Challenge," NOVA's upcoming look inside the Curiosity mission, as MSL Chief Engineer Rob Manning describes the feats of engineering required to land the Mars rover safely.

Whoever said scientists and engineers are not emotional? Tonight gives lie to that old canard. Jubilation, tears, and hugs burst out in the control room at JPL as Curiosity landed successfully. It was a wonderful thing to behold, because no one deserves success more than this hard-working and dedicated group from JPL, responsible for sending a rover the size of a car to Mars.

Everything appeared to go flawlessly. We've been hearing for months how risky the new landing system was, how we might not hear anything for several hours, how images would be long in coming. But when it happened, it was smooth as silk. Everything right on schedule. No moments of terror, let alone seven minutes of terror. And the images came right away, including the shadow of the rover on Mars.

These engineers made it look easy. They showed us that the best way to deal with the terrifying possibility of failure is meticulous preparation, testing and retesting, bringing a lot of great minds together. Mars is a dangerous place. It has killed many of our space vehicles. It tests us every time. This landing tonight shows we still have the right stuff. Let's hope we use it, to plan and execute future missions. A great nation explores.

Tonight is just the beginning. The best is yet to come. Pictures of Mars from Gale Crater, images as Curiosity heads for a mountain that rivals Earth's tallest peaks. Information will flood in from Curiosity the field geologist and geochemist. Perhaps we will learn if the molecules we associate with life here ever existed on Mars. And then we will begin to sort out if we really are alone or if life once existed elsewhere.

A great evening. Curiosity is safely on the surface of Mars. Good night, Curiosity. Get some rest. You have a lot of work to do.

Can you imagine what it must be like to be part of the Mars Science Laboratory team here at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory? Thousands of scientists and engineers have invested years in the success of this mission in the interest of advancing our knowledge about Mars. We know from past missions that at least in the past, Mars has had two of the three conditions essential for life: running water and a source of energy. Curiosity could tell us if it ever had the third condition: organic molecules, those long carbon chains that all life as we know it has. Not only will we perhaps learn if Mars has ever had life, we could also learn what happened to it. After all, Mars and our own planet Earth were once on a similar trajectory. But somewhere around 3.5 billion years ago, we can speculate that something on Mars went terribly wrong. As a result, the Mars we see now is terribly inhospitable to life, whereas earth is teeming with it.

Being able to answer these questions, learning about Mars and about Earth, finding out more about the conditions essential to life--all that is at stake. It hinges on the success of tonight's landing, in a little less than an hour from now. But there's much more at stake--the future of continued space exploration and the role it plays in planetary science. A failure tonight could put an end for many years to an already faltering space program. NASA has no large follow-on rovers to Mars planned. MSL is it. Perhaps a success, a perfect landing followed by lots of captivating science, will encourage more planetary missions, more robotic exploration, and perhaps even, someday, a manned mission to Mars.

And no one would deserve it more than the engineers and scientists responsible for this ambitious and risky MSL program. No one could blame them if they had a knot the size of Mars itself in the pit of their collective stomachs. But instead of nerves and jitters, there seems to be a strange calm pervading this group. They've tested and retested and everything seems to be on track. Mike Watkins, MSL's manager of navigation and mission design, just told us things have been looking so good, they didn't even have to make any last minute adjustments in trajectory. And Rob Manning, flight system chief engineer, said he's calmer than he's ever been on this program. The engineers have done all they can, and now it's up to the laws of nature, riding on the back of an amazing group of people's hard work and dedication.

And, of course, for them it will be a long night. The landing is just step one. Then they will be struggling mightily to get some pictures--to get Curiosity to begin to satisfy our own curiosity about Mars.

I arrived at JPL around 6 pm tonight and already the parking lot was filling up with press. There's true suspense here. Will Curiosity land safely on Mars? When I was here years ago for the landing of Spirit, it seemed a forgone conclusion that the landing would go as planned. If the engineer had doubts, they kept them to themselves. But with this mission, there's a frank acknowledgement of the risk. MSL is huge and its landing system is brand new. And more than this one mission is at stake. As one NASA public information officer told me, the whole future of the planetary program hinges on success tonight.

Standing beside a model of the Curiosity rover.

Now, the die is cast. This morning Earth time the engineers at JPL spoke to MSL and sent their last message before landing. No earthling will speak to it again until it's on the surface of Mars. Throughout MSL's long journey, according to Nagin Cox, part of the mission's operations team, they send commands to the rover three times a week. Mainly what they get back is telemetry--power, attitude, velocity, etc.

So what did they say this morning? Did they send last minute instructions? "Don't talk to strangers!" "Get plenty of sleep!" "We love you no matter how things turn out. We know you did your best." Most of all, "If you meet any Martians, send pictures!"

No, none of these sweet parental admonitions. Simply they told it to change its timer so it won't expect another call from Earth for 93 hours. As Nagin Cox explained, if MSL expects a message and it doesn't come, it might think there's something wrong with its mechanisms for receiving the message. It might start fiddling with things, changing settings, adjusting antennas. And that could mess things up. We don't want MSL doubting itself at the last minute!

Once Curiosity is safely on the Martian surface, hopefully, communication will resume. They'll command the rover every day. The scientists and engineers will all shift over to Mars time. Already, Nagin is wearing two matches--one for Earth time, the other for Mars. But its not really necessary. There's even an app for that!

Nagin's watch collection--two for Mars, one for Earth.

For nearly forty years, NOVA has been bringing viewers stories of exploration: From Mount Everest to Antarctica, from undersea volcanic ridges to toxic caves teeming with exotic life. But there is one destination we come back to again and again, always with something new to discover: Mars.

Why does Mars hold such fascination? It is Earth's twin gone wrong, so similar and yet so different. Mars shows us what Earth might have been; it is our cautionary tale, our there but for the grace of God planet. How did Earth get so lucky? Why is our planet lush with life while Mars is dry and desolate? Figuring out how and why our fates diverged is one of the great mysteries driving the exploration of Mars.

In the last decade, NOVA has "gone to Mars" three times, as we followed the scientists and engineers on the Spirit, Opportunity, and Phoenix teams. We were privileged to film them as they prepared, launched, and ultimately reaped the incredible scientific fruits of their audacious missions. This year, we're getting ready to visit Mars again as we follow the Curiosity rover now en route to Mars. Our film, which will premiere in November, will document what it takes to get Curiosity safely from Earth to Mars. The journey will be more complicated and riskier than ever before, as Curiosity is counting on an ambitious new sky crane landing system to lower it safely to the Martian surface. And unlike Spirit and Opportunity, the near-identical twin rovers, with Curiosity, we'll only get once chance to get it right.

Before Spirit touched down on Mars in 2004, principal investigator Steve Squyres reminded our crew that, at that time, two-thirds of all spacecraft that had ever gone to Mars had "died"--failed or crash-landed before they could do any science. Though the rover teams may consider it bad luck to speak this aloud, I saw it written on their faces the night that Spirit was set to land. It was one of the most thrilling nights of my professional life: Producer Mark Davis and I were camped out in the parking lot of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We'd rented a truck so that we could edit the last three minutes of our show--the three minutes in which viewers would find out if Spirit made it or not--in time for our broadcast just two days later. No outside members of the media were allowed into the control room, but we had a direct feed so that we could see and hear everything as it happened.

I remember clearly that terrible pause when Spirit was supposed to be landing but there was no communication, so there was no way to know if the rover was safe or not. In the control room, the scientists and engineers all held their hands to their chests, literally holding their breath as they waited for Spirit to send the signal that it had landed safely. And when that signal came, the utter joy on their faces!

These incredible scientists and engineers--men and women who chose to devote themselves to this extraordinary project; who, in a split second, could have lost a decade's worth of work--are the heroes of our films about Mars. Through television, millions of Americans been able to share the exhilaration we all felt that night and to see the incredible ingenuity, resolve, and teamwork that go into a mission to Mars. As a filmmaker, moments like these are precious: They are the moments when we go beyond just informing our audience and have the opportunity to truly inspire them.

I remember that after the show premiered, one viewer wrote into say that it was "the most exciting hour of TV I have ever watched." What a wonderful compliment! But I know that the excitement wasn't created by our producers; it wasn't manufactured in the edit room. It was all thanks to the scientists and engineers who poured their talent and passion into making the dream of exploration a reality.

That evening at JPL, I knew that we would be making many more films about Mars. But today, I wonder: Are we writing the final chapter in a story that has captivated the planet? It seems that exploration is being squeezed out of the tightened federal budget. When will we land on Mars again? The answer isn't clear.

Yet I believe that it is part of our destiny to explore and learn more about other worlds. In doing so, we learn more about our home planet--and about ourselves. We reap the benefits of technical spinoffs like flexible body armor and panoramic digital photography, as well as a host of intangible rewards: inspiring a new generation to pursue science and engineering careers; endowing them with a sense of wonder about our universe and our place in it; and giving them a glimpse of humanity at its very best, united around a common and peaceful goal.

True to its name, Curiosity travels to Mars with a heavy payload of questions. Some of these questions will be answered, but others will surely lead to new and even more exciting questions. It is therefore my deep and sincere hope that Curiosity will not be an end but the beginning of a new chapter in the story of Mars exploration.

Written with Kate Becker.

For the past eight years, I've been the Deputy Project Scientist on the Mars Science Laboratory mission, with its rover, Curiosity. It's the most ambitious robotic mission ever undertaken by NASA, with scientific goals to match. We're doing no less than delivering a state-of-the-art analytical chemistry laboratory to the surface of Mars, driving it up a three-mile-high stack of layered sediments, and attempting to determine whether our neighbor planet ever offered conditions suitable for life.

Watch members of the Mars Science Laboratory team explain the challenge of landing Curiosity on Mars in this video from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Beginning with a one-page list of mission objectives from NASA, thousands of engineers and scientists conceived a mobile robot geochemist, the size and weight of a small car, to be our virtual presence at Gale Crater on Mars. It was designed to be able to safely access more of Mars's surface (allowing the landing site to be chosen for science, not only for safety), live longer, drive farther, and do more than any previous Mars rover. It launched on the biggest rocket available, cruises to Mars in a capsule larger than Apollo's, and flies itself to its landing site, landing on its own wheels on Martian soil. Over 400 scientists around the world are now eagerly waiting its safe arrival on Mars this Sunday night, so we can begin our search for habitable environments within Gale Crater.

Last Thursday, the team of engineers and scientists who designed, built, tested, and operate Curiosity were summoned to the biggest auditorium we have on the campus of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for a final "all hands" meeting before landing. These meetings are rare--only a few times has the whole team been in a room together in the past eight years. I expected a pep talk--you know, only a week until landing, look how far we've come, etc. But instead we heard a rather profound statement from one of our leaders: After next Sunday, your life will be different. Whether Curiosity lands successfully or not, we all will arrive at a different place in our lives on Monday morning, and everything we've experienced up to this point, the success, the challenges, the nervous excitement, the camaraderie, will be a memory that will fade with time.

I truly hadn't thought about this. Especially as a scientist on the mission, I've been focused mostly on what happens after landing, unlike the many engineers charged with building and testing the rover, or ensuring its safe cruise to Mars and landing. Those engineers will have finished their duties on Sunday, and will join the hundreds of engineers who have already moved on to other projects. But my life will change, too. The years I have spent in conference rooms sweating over details with the engineers, the joy I've had in explaining Curiosity's "terrifying" landing system and thrilling scientific mission (we're climbing a mountain!) with dozens of public audiences, the trials, heartache, and pride in our team's journey to this point, those chapters all will close on Sunday. It made me realize how much my life has become intertwined with this mission and with these people. When all goes well on Sunday, we'll celebrate like crazy, but then that eight years of our journey together will be complete. Life indeed will be different.

I think I feel compelled to write this because I'm one of the people who will continue, even for years, actually! My scientific colleagues and I will tell the world of our discoveries, write papers, and generally take a lot of credit for what happens on Mars. But while I'm still on this side of the landing, I can't shake the fact that I'm the recipient of the talent and passion of over 3,000 engineers who have put their lives into this rover. The scientists will get the keys to the car on Sunday, but we sure didn't build it.

As we said at the launch, and will say one more time on Sunday: Go MSL, and Go Curiosity!

I'll be watching the Olympics again this year whenever I can. I'll watch for the explosive performances and tight finishes on the track and field. I'll look for the photo-finish touch in the pool. I'll be tuning in for gymnastics' superhuman-like shows of power and balance.

And, I'll be watching a new Olympic pastime: seeing who gets caught using performance-enhancing drugs, or PEDs. "Citius, Altius, Fortius"--the Olympic motto--translates to: Faster, Higher, Stronger. Does that sentiment drive some athletes to seek enhanced results?

This post marks the beginning of a blog series covering PEDs and how they have affected Olympic games and athletes. PEDs have profoundly changed modern sporting contests and media coverage of them for decades. In addition to the Major League Baseball steroid scandals and July's renewed accusations of Lance Armstrong's blood doping, there have been instances and investigations of doped Olympians dating back to East German and Soviet-era athletes more than 40 years ago.

Only more recently have governing bodies--namely the World Anti-Doping Agency, "WADA," which tests international contests such as London's 2012 Olympics--attempted to test for and regulate their use and abuse. Along with competitive advantages, PEDs carry severe health risks. They can even kill.

Dr. William Mitchell is an orthopedic surgeon and an expert on this subject, having worked with professional and amateur athletes in greater Boston for more than 25 years and having served as contributing editor to The Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine. Of the many drugs on the black market, Mitchell spotlights "the big three": erythropoietin, or EPO; human growth hormone, also known as hGH; and synthetic testosterone. All are prominently featured on WADA's nine-page list of prohibited substances, which went into effect on January 1 this year. It provides the standard for prohibited chemicals among international athletes and will guide official Olympic testing in coming weeks.

Dr. Mitchell walked me through the first section of WADA on anabolic agents, or synthetic versions of testosterone. At the top of the long list are the lab-made hormones androstenediol and androstenedione. Along with many similar anabolics, these are laboratory-made versions of the body's main strength inducing hormone, testosterone.

Both men and women produce testosterone naturally. It imparts primary sex characteristics in males, like a deep voice, facial hair and sexual organs. In both genders, it metabolizes amino acids from the diet into the proteins that make up muscle fibers. Therefore, the more testosterone in the body, the more muscle building potential.

Athletes take these synthetic forms of testosterone hoping to gain strength and muscle density, decrease recovery time after training, and reduce the incidence of injury during intense workouts.

But side effects of these drugs go beyond the simple risk of being caught using. Rage, depression, severe acne and baldness, in both genders, may be the best-known side effects. Less widely circulated are the more severe repercussions of chronic use, like liver abnormalities and tumors, heart and circulatory impairment, cholesterol risks, and the added danger of contracting infectious diseases, like HIV or hepatitis, from shared needles. Every one of these can be life threatening. Because of these dangers, and the use of anabolic agents across so many athletes in multiple sports, the WADA ranked them at the top of their prohibited list, said Mitchell.

Scrolling down the document, you don't have to go far to find the second and third of Mitchell's "big three," hGH and EPO.

Like the "andro-" drugs, hGH is an anabolic hormone very similar to testosterone. Naturally secreted by the pituitary gland in both sexes, it too increases muscle mass. Mitchell relates it very closely to testosterone in that hGH builds proteins from the food we eat so that bone and muscle can grow in density. Olympians in strength and speed events--sprinting, power lifting, swimming, boxing--may be competing against athletes who have used hGH.

Technically, hGH is available only by doctor's prescription, and it is typically used to help young children with deficiencies leading to inhibited growth. Though it hasn't been studied as a performance-enhancer--the ethical implications of such a study are troubling--baseball fans allegedly saw it in action in Barry Bonds. HGH increased Bonds' muscle mass along with his shoe size and even his skull size, said Mitchell.

"That's human growth hormone," he said. "That's what it does."

HGH brings its own set of risks. Topping the list is cardiomyopathy, an enlarging and thickening of muscles in the heart, that weakens heart function over time. HGH can also impair glucose regulation, leading to type-two diabetes. Over prolonged use, joints, tendons, ligaments and muscles can deteriorate, causing an ironic lack of strength in the aging hGH athlete.

This brings us to the last of the "big three," EPO. The drug, epoietin alpha, is a laboratory version of erythropoietin, a naturally-occurring hormone produced by the kidneys and liver that stimulates red blood cell production by the bone marrow. By helping to increase the number of red blood cells, which contain hemoglobin molecules that transport oxygen from the blood to the muscle, EPO boosts the amount of fuel muscles have to burn for energy. In medical applications, it has been used to treat lack of blood iron, or anemia, in patients with greatly impaired kidney function from diseases like AIDS. It can also be used before surgery, like open-heart procedures, to counter the effects of anticipated blood loss.

But, it has been implicated in the death of at least 18 cyclists during alleged heavy use in the 1990s. These cyclists were victims of bleeding events: stroke, heart attack, and blood clots in the lungs called pulmonary edemas.

With so many grave risks, are the perceived benefits worth it? In fact, none of PEDs' touted performance benefits--taken at high doses acquired on the unregulated black market, and with prolonged use or abuse--have been proven. After all, giving athletes high doses of dangerous drugs for research purposes would be highly unethical.

Mitchell agrees: "Doping increases health risks when doses and amounts of hormonal use is not regulated and can lead to overdosing and catastrophic health risks including death."

I had only been working for NOVA for a short time when I got the assignment to interview Sally Ride. I was working on a film called "Space Women" about the first three female astronauts, Ride, Judy Resnick, and Kathryn Sullivan. Sally Ride had become the first American woman in space as a crew member on Space Shuttle Challenger for STS-7 on June 18, 1983 and there was an outpouring of national pride and excitement surrounding her success.

Watch footage from Melanie Wallace's 1984 interview with Sally Ride.

When I contacted NASA to set up my interview, Sally Ride was deep in training for her second mission, which took off October 5, 1984 and landed seven days later on October 13. But a mere two weeks after Sally touched down at Kennedy Space Center, there she was to meet me.

Meeting Sally Ride was a lifetime thrill. Though I was a nervous wreck, she was relaxed and immediately put me and the crew at ease. She was articulate, funny, honest, and eager to share her enthusiasm for her job. Her passion for her profession and the camaraderie of her crewmates was contagious.

Yet what has stayed with me all these years is how she continually described working in space as fun--lots of fun. She said it was fun to be weightless and fun to go through reentry. Ride was an outrageously accomplished woman--in addition to being the first American woman in space, she was youngest astronaut to go into space, earned a PhD in physics, and was a tennis champion--yet she embraced her career as an astronaut with sheer, playful delight.

When I asked Ride about her long term goals--where did she see herself in five years?--I was surprised by her answer. She said she was not a very goal-oriented person and did not plan five years out. She was happy being an astronaut and planned on staying one for as long as NASA would have her. And I think she would have had a much longer career if not for the Challenger accident in 1986. She served on the Presidential Commission investigating the tragedy and resigned from NASA in 1987.

But NASA's loss was a gain for education, particularly science and math education, or STEM. In 2001 she founded her own company, Sally Ride Science, dedicated to her long-time passion for motivating young girls and boys to follow their love for science and consider careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. The company creates innovative classroom materials, classroom programs, and professional development training for teachers. Sally also initiated and directed NASA-funded education projects designed to fuel middle school students' fascination with science, including EarthKAM and GRAIL MoonKAM. She has also co-written seven science books for children.

The critical importance of science education resonates deeply with all of us at NOVA. Over our forty years on the air, we have had the privilege to witness pivotal moments in the history of science and exploration and to share those moments with our audience. It is part of our mission to preserve these stories for the future.

The inspirational legacy Sally Ride leaves behind is vast and multifaceted. Without seeking it out, she embraced her public persona as a role model for young girls and women who have a passion to succeed in science. When I heard last night that she had passed away after a battle with pancreatic cancer, my heart skipped a beat. Although I had only met her once, I felt as if I had lost a friend. Yet I know her legacy will continue through her organization and through all those who have been inspired by her.

Pain, fever, diarrhea, coughing, vomiting--these are all conditions most of us wish did not exist. We go to the doctor to get relief. So why does evolution keep them around? These miseries may actually help us survive by protecting our bodies from the damage of infection, injury, and toxins.

No one wants to feel pain, yet pain helps keep us alive. Individuals with a rare condition called congenital insensitivity to pain often injure themselves unintentionally, sometimes with devastating consequences, such as bone infections or destruction of tissues and joints.

Fever is similar to pain in that it makes us feel terrible, but can be beneficial. It provides us with a defense against infection by boosting the immune system and fighting off heat-sensitive pathogens. Given all the good that seems to come from fever, Dr. Matthew Kluger of the College of Health and Human Services at George Mason University suggests fever is most likely an adaptive response.

Kluger's studies show that animals that experience lower or no fever with infection fare worse than those whose temperatures shoot up. When he infected lizards with heavy doses of live bacteria, all those that experienced fever survived, while those that couldn't raise their body temperature died. The results of other studies, compiled by Dr. Sally Eyers and colleagues at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, found that the risk of death was higher in animals given fever lowering medication.

While we have a fever, our bodies strategically employ a lot of other tools too to fight infection and get us healthy. "An infected animal loses food appetite, does not want to interact with anyone else, increases his body temperature, and fights infection," notes Kluger. "Then when infection is fought off, you see a change in behavior." In his fever studies, "before even looking at the temperature recorder," he explains, "we could see when fever broke."

Even the least glamorous symptoms can have a silver lining. Studies have shown, for instance, that individuals infected with bacteria that cause diarrhea actually stay sick longer when they take anti-diarrhea medications than when they let nature take its course without meds. The same can be true for coughing: In one study, elderly patients with a less-sensitive cough reflex were more likely to get pneumonia than their coughing cohorts.

The argument extends to vomiting, too, particularly during pregnancy. Some researchers argue that morning sickness is an evolutionarily acquired defense to protect a pregnant woman and her fetus from dangerous food-borne toxins. Across the world, nearly 70% of women experience nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Many foods, especially meats, may contain viruses, bacteria, or fungi that could be dangerous to humans in general, but some are more vulnerable than others. Dr. Paul Sherman of Cornell University argues that the developing embryo and carrying mother are especially susceptible to the negative effects of these pathogens because of their weakened immune systems.

A pregnant woman's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy to prevent the body from rejecting the fetus. The fetus is especially vulnerable during the early stages of pregnancy because that is when it is growing and developing most rapidly. If a woman became ill from food borne toxins, especially in her first trimester, it could result in birth defects or miscarriage. Compiling nine different studies, Sherman found that women who experienced nausea and vomiting during pregnancy were less likely to miscarry compared to those without those symptoms. Though much more research needs to be done, it seems that morning sickness may be a defense evolved to protect the pregnant mother and her growing fetus.

Does this mean that we should all rid our medicine cabinets of anti-nausea pills, painkillers, fever lowing medications, and cough suppressors? Dr. Randolph Nesse of the University of Michigan, one of the founders of the field of Evolutionary Medicine, suggests that in many cases it could still be safe to turn off (or tone down) the body's more disagreeble defenses. What we have to do is better understand the system so that we know when it is not safe to do so.

For Nesse, the body's defenses are akin to a smoke detector. "The system is set to go off like a smoke detector very often when there's no fire," Nesse explains. A smoke detector will alarm when it senses fire or smoke just as the body's defenses kick in when they sense a danger to the body. Sometimes the detector will get it right, but often times it will go off when there's no real threat. As the saying goes, nothing in life comes free. There is a cost to the defenses your body elicits against a sensed threat. This cost is relatively small compared to the cost of not defending the body if something actually is wrong. Pain is uncomfortable and costs energy, but if you did not feel pain when you broke your leg, you would be in even bigger trouble.

Nevertheless, most of the time, defenses kick in when they are not needed. "Many communities prohibit parking adjacent to a fire hydrants," Nesse points out, "although the chance that a fire truck will use that hydrant on a given day is less than one in 100,000." Similarly, "Birds flee from backyard feeders when any shadow passes overhead," even though most of these shadows do not present a real threat to the bird. The frequency of false alarms is why you can block pain or fever most of the time and not see really bad things happen. "If [medical professionals] have an understanding of the smoke detector principle," Nesse explains, "they can begin to decide when it's safe to block defenses and when it's not."

Greetings from Geneva, where I'm visiting CERN to attend the much-anticipated Higgs update seminars on Wednesday, July 4. We're all wondering whether the physicists from the Large Hadron Collider will say the magic words "We've discovered the Higgs," but there's more detailed information to watch out for. I've been hard at work on a book on the subject, entitled The Particle at the End of the Universe, so I'm hoping for some big and exciting news, but not so big that I have to rewrite the whole thing. (Note that I'm a theoretical physicist, so I personally am not hunting for Higgses, any more than someone who orders catfish at a seafood restaurant has "gone fishing." The real hunters are the experimenters, and this is their moment to shine.)

Source

So what are we looking for?