Physicists offer theories to explain mysterious collision at Large Hadron Collider

January 8, 2016, University of Notre Dame
Physicists offer theories to explain mysterious collision at Large Hadron Collider
This graph illustrates black dots that show events in experiment records compared along a red line that depicts the number expected through Standard Model processes. Two black dots don't fall in with the red line. Adam Martin says the bump at 750 is "the most exciting." Credit: Adam Martin

Physicists around the world were puzzled recently when an unusual bump appeared in the signal of the Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator, causing them to wonder if it was a new particle previously unknown, or perhaps even two new particles. The collision cannot be explained by the Standard Model, the theoretical foundation of particle physics.

Adam Martin, assistant professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame, said he and other theoretical physicists had heard about the results before they were released on Dec. 15, and groups began brainstorming, via Skype and other ways, about what the bump could mean if confirmed—a long shot, but an intriguing one. He and some collaborators from Cincinnati and New York submitted a pre-peer-review paper that appeared on arXiv.org on Dec. 23.

This graph illustrates black dots that show events in experiment records compared along a red line that depicts the number expected through Standard Model processes. Two black dots don't fall in with the red line. Adam Martin says the bump at 750 is "the most exciting."

"It was so weird that people were forced to chuck their favorite theories and start from scratch," Martin says. "That's a fun area of . We're looking into the unknown. Is it one new particle? Is it two new ?"

The paper considers four possible explanations for the data, including the possibility that it could indicate a heavier version of the Higgs boson. Further research could yield mundane explanations, Martin says, and the excitement could fade as it has many times in his career. Or it could open up new insights and call for new models.

"People are still cautiously optimistic," he says. "Everybody knows that with more data, it could just go away. If it stays, it's potentially really, really, really exciting."

Authors of paper, "On the 750 GeV di-photon excess," are Martin, Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Jamison Galloway, Stefania Gori, Alexander L. Kagan and Jure Zupan.

Explore further: Physicists search for signs of supersymmetry

More information: On the 750 GeV di-photon excess, arXiv:1512.07616 [hep-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1512.07616

Related Stories

Physicists search for signs of supersymmetry

December 17, 2015

The first results from direct searches for new physics were announced today from CERN's energy-upgraded Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Among these results was a search for signs of a new theory called supersymmetry in which ...

European physicist discusses Higgs boson at Brown University

April 20, 2015

The head of the European Organization for Nuclear Research says the historic 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson particle and the particle accelerator that detected it are getting scientists closer to understanding the creation ...

Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Recommended for you

Physicists build fractal shape out of electrons

November 12, 2018

In physics, it is well-known that electrons behave very differently in three dimensions, two dimensions or one dimension. These behaviours give rise to different possibilities for technological applications and electronic ...

Atomic parity violation research reaches new milestone

November 12, 2018

A reflection always reproduces objects as a complete mirror image, rather than just its individual parts or individual parts in a completely different orientation. It's all or nothing, the mirror can't reflect just a little. ...

Innovative experimental scheme can create mirror molecules

November 12, 2018

Exploring the mystery of molecular handedness in nature, scientists have proposed a new experimental scheme to create custom-made mirror molecules for analysis. The technique can make ordinary molecules spin so fast that ...

21 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

geokstr
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2016
Maybe we're not even close yet to finding the"fundamental" prticles that make up matter. Perhaps it's smaller and smaller particles all the way down.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2016
Let's hope it isn't a loose connection.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2016
Maybe its that damned fiber connector that shows multiple nanosecond delays, repeatable, while giving a clean signal. Always impossibilities being shown at the collider. Maybe it doesn't mean a thing, just a lot of stuff happening, could be magic! OK, just think of something and call it that, it doesn't have to exist. The graphs are meaningless anyway.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (18) Jan 08, 2016
McDonald and his colleagues presented their results this week at the 227th American Astronomical Society meeting in Kissimmee, Florida.

All those people constantly harping about how scientists supposedly only protect the status quo. Read this.Read this again. Then realize that you have hung up your case one one big fat lie (to yourself).
You've wasted your life on a non-issue of a conspiracy theory.
Congratulations.

Now go away.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2016
We are not smart enough to understand!
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2016
Hyperfuzzy,
You contribute nothing except ignorance, lies, and misunderstandings
marcush
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2016
Why doesn't this article at least summerize the paper?
Jayded
2 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2016
Without repetition it is meaningless.
TechnoCreed
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2016
@DrSekula
I have high regards for your contributions but, at this moment, you are not facing an undisciplined class. Please do not bother with the fringes. Many commentators are doing a good job at this and they are dealing with them with a refreshing sense of humor.

@marcush
Explaining what? There was no significant amount of p-p collisions at the LHC in 2015; barely over 4 femtobarns for CMS and the same for Atlas. So you should take this article with a grain of salt and read this blog from Tommaso Dorigo who is a physicist at the CMS experiment. http://www.scienc...e-162715
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2016
@antialias_physorg I hope you'll forgive me but perhaps you can help. This article says there are 'two black dots' that don't follow the red line. Looking at the upper graph it seems to me that there might be 3 and those 3 seem to in perfect line to the previous 4. Any ideas?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2016
Jayded claimed
Without repetition it is meaningless.
No, well that is, if you appreciate "Probability & Statistics" in conjunction with & its application to measurement, just because its a one-off "outlier" in no way signifies "meaningless" which can imply it somehow *should* be ignored. Physics, at the particle interaction level, is immensely complex interesting and may point, asymptotically to a correction to the standard model and therefore should not be considered meaningless.

Of course one shouldn't discount potential coincident sensor/noise/radiation phenomena Eg Detector or part thereof suffers radionucleotide decay or cosmic ray impact and in so doing points to a probabilistic flaw, although slim, which might improve detector operation in some way.

LHC observation is not a deterministic experiment, ie that's where you could offer the commentary it being meaningless, especially so if the experiment were leveraged to alter a concept, new product etc
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (18) Jan 09, 2016
We are not smart enough to understand!

You're not smart enough to understand.

There. Fixed it for 'ya. No charge.

Why doesn't this article at least summerize the paper?

Paper is available in full from the link at the bottom. (To get the gist you only need to read the abstract at the start and the conclusions part at the end of the paper)

Without repetition it is meaningless.

That's why they say in the article:
"People are still cautiously optimistic," he says. "Everybody knows that with more data, it could just go away. If it stays, it's potentially really, really, really exciting."

They found something interesting, made a hypothesis and published it. The next step is to see if it holds up under repeated observation.
Standard scientific process.
gunnqu
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2016
indio007
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2016
McDonald and his colleagues presented their results this week at the 227th American Astronomical Society meeting in Kissimmee, Florida.

All those people constantly harping about how scientists supposedly only protect the status quo. Read this.Read this again. Then realize that you have hung up your case one one big fat lie (to yourself).
You've wasted your life on a non-issue of a conspiracy theory.
Congratulations.

Now go away.


So sayeth dear Leader!

baudrunner
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2016
If you look closely at that bottom portion of the graph - labeled "Data - titled background" (way to stay on top of things guys, forgot to label your graph, eh?) - you'll notice that you can superimpose a wave that looks somewhat similar to a heartbeat. That pulse at 750 just reinforces the rhythm, but because of the extremely sort duration of the event, we are getting damping almost immediately. If it were possible to sustain the event we might very well be looking at a maybe not so distant sub-harmonic of the fundamental beat of the photon background.

There must be a specific fundamental that determines those quantum thresholds at which transitional changes occur in the physical world. Energy requirements for those events don't change, and there is a reason.
del2
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2016
@baudrunner: if you look even more carefully at that bottom graph, you will see that it shows the deviation of the data from the background-only fit i.e., data _minus_ fitted background (not 'titled' background). This graph is on a linear scale rather than the logarithmic scale on the upper graph (hence the different error bar sizes). The horizontal axis is not time, it is mass (energy) so any resemblance to a heartbeat is totally irrelevant.
yep
4 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2016
Farewell to Higgs
http://vixra.org/...05v2.pdf

Amazingly successful at finding a lot of nothing!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2016
I seriously think the error is tied to the exception of logic!
baudrunner
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2016
@del2 I looked closely enough to make out what I could from the poorly resolved image, and so, of course, yes, I saw the GeV on the base of the graph. Okay, but seriously (sort of)..

I still see a heartbeat, because I want to see evidence of the fundamental pulse underlying all of existence, the beat that determines those discrete energy levels where events like these occur. I want to imagine time as non-linear, non one-dimensional, extending in all the dimensions, and as much a function of matter and velocity as are any of those to the others.

Do the same laws apply outside of our inertial frame of reference? Do we need more or less energy to experience our predicted event from within a different inertial frame of reference, say, on a planet many light years away?
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
There is no need for the fictional higgs boson. The idea one particle to gave mass to other particle is at least strange.
Physical interaction between the structure of the vacuum of space and the elementary particles gives their mass. They move with resistance in this structure as in fluid and this resistance grows by exponential law depending on the speed of their movement. In LHC 99.9 % of consumed energy in maintaining the acceleration and speed of the particles is used to overcome this resistance, which becomes infinity when their speed reach the speed of light in our local zone. In another zones of ​​the universe the settings of the structure cosmic vacuum can be different.
What would happen if the LHC stop accelerating electromagnets and left to work only trajectory guide electromagnets - inertial movement ? How fast and by which law the particles will lose their speed despite that moving in the vacuum?
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2016
When the particles move with resistance in the structure of the vacuum of space it seems like they gain mass but in fact they gain only kinetic energy (m x v^2)/2. Not inner energy. Sо the advantage of the LHC is that it is capable to accelerate the particles to 99. 99% of the speed of light instead of 99.98% as can do the smaller colliders. But the price of this 0, 01% is a pretty expensive at almost no benefit.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.