Possibility of new particle discovery at LHC fading

June 24, 2016 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org weblog

The physics community is apparently starting to lose its buzz over the possibility of the discovery of a new particle by researchers working at the CERN LHC facility near Geneva. As more data is studied, it appears more and more likely that the blip that was seen last December was simply an anomaly in the data.

The discovery of a new particle, one that has not been predicted by the Standard Model, would cause more than a stir in the high energy physics world—it would actually be a revolutionary event, setting physicists off on new paths of discovery for years to come. That is why news that a team working on the ATLAS and CMS projects at the LHC caused a stir late last year when they reported a 750 GeV diphoton "bump" in the data, one that was reported in two separate experiments.

But now, as time passes, more and more it seems likely that all the fuss will have been about nothing—researchers on both projects at the LHC have been working diligently since last month to find the bump once again, and if that happens, to verify it. But, neither team has been forthcoming regarding results thus far, leading to speculation that they have not found anything to report. And now it does not appear that any new information will be given until at least the middle of next month when the International Conference on High Energy Physics will take place in August, in Chicago—though there have been rumors that if the LHC team does find something exciting, they could make an announcement at a special seminar next month in Geneva. The thinking here is apparently, that if no announcements are made by the earlier time frame, than there will be no need for waiting for the second, as it would be a pretty good sign that no "bumps" have been seen and thus topics of discussion will move over to more mundane themes.

In the meantime, physicists around the world will no doubt continue blogging or giving interviews regarding the possibility of a new particle and what it would mean both for those involved in the research and everyone else, if one were found.

Explore further: Physicists search for signs of supersymmetry

More information: via www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

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 ...

LHC reboot promises piles of new data

May 17, 2016

Undeterred by a recent weasel incursion, CERN announced last week that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is back up and running for the 2016 season, smashing protons together at nearly the speed of light and creating exotic ...

Recommended for you

Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency

January 19, 2018

Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency ...

Team takes a deep look at memristors

January 19, 2018

In the race to build a computer that mimics the massive computational power of the human brain, researchers are increasingly turning to memristors, which can vary their electrical resistance based on the memory of past activity. ...

Artificial agent designs quantum experiments

January 19, 2018

On the way to an intelligent laboratory, physicists from Innsbruck and Vienna present an artificial agent that autonomously designs quantum experiments. In initial experiments, the system has independently (re)discovered ...

28 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2016
Readers beware: this is sourced by university librarian [!] and mathematician Peter Woit, so the physics community content is minimal.
phprof
5 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2016
Part of the problem in the last 2 decades is the liberal application of "science by press release". It's a shame that science has be invaded by this type of human insecurity.
sevensixtwo
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2016
When will the collaborations report the spin of the Higgslike particle that they discovered in 2012? Also, FYI, next month is July. August is the month after next.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2016
Obviously this is not science, how do you create a 2ns delay with an optical connector and also gain a clear signal. Apply physics, you will need the connector perfectly aligned and approximately about 1/2 of a meter away , i.e. hanging in the air and unnoticeable. In other words a 2ns delay is bonkers as defined. And this is only 80% light speed, actually it would be over 1/2 meter in air at light speed. Use 2ns*c, So how big is this optical connector? re: fast neutrino ... so with this sort of science, we can find dark matter and the easter bunny! juz say'n
Osiris1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2016
Do not believe this article. This is the standard cover story (big LIE) to cover a phenomenon of possible military value...and us that loosely because the military of many nations certainly will. Any thing of value to it and it will be classified out of hand.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2016
Maybe the physicists got tired of "science announcement leaks by Twitter." Can't hardly blame them.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2016
Leading to speculation that they have found nothing to report

And that's considered sufficient to conclude that the possibility is fading?
Would you not be just as valid to speculate it means they've found something and are doing more research to confirm it before announcing it?
Gigel
5 / 5 (7) Jun 25, 2016
Readers beware: this is sourced by university librarian [!] and mathematician Peter Woit, so the physics community content is minimal.

He has an under grad in physics and a PhD in particle theory at Princeton, also a postdoc in mathematics. He is currently writing a book on quantum theory, which already has over 500 pages. So it's quite safe to assume that he knows physics.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2016
@Gigel: As I said, a mathematician. I see his current position is math education and managing the department computer systems. His book, as well as his lectures, is about mathematical representations of QM. [ http://www.math.c...u/~woit/ ]

Good catch about his earlier physics studies, I have forgotten about them as even research if he had a physics postdoc position, since he hasn't written anything sensible about physics in years. My #512 (or so) note on the topic: Always check your sources! Sigh.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2016
#publishorperish

Dr. Woit publishes a contrarian view; until results are published I remain on the fence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence until it shows absence of evidence past at least twice the expected interval for evidence to be seen. And twice is very liberal. It might be more like ten times.
Cave_Man
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2016
Well with 1:50,000 chance to destroy the world.....I could stand an early shutdown.... especially if they extend lifespan of the project and cause that probability to increase. There is more than 1:100,000 chance you will get struck by lightning and yet people are struck by lightning quite often.....don't play dice with the planet please, I'd rather not have the planet destroyed because then there's nobody left to blame and I really like to blame people.
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2016
The discovery of a new particle, one that has not been predicted by the Standard Model, would cause more than a stir in the high energy physics world—it would actually be a revolutionary event, setting physicists off on new paths of discovery for years to come.

The highest concentration of brain power on the planet, and that statement makes it look like they are poking around with their bare fingers in a needle stack, desperately hoping for blood when they do remove their fingers and a needle that they were clueless about.
Gigel
5 / 5 (7) Jun 25, 2016
Well with 1:50,000 chance to destroy the world.....I could stand an early shutdown.... especially if they extend lifespan of the project and cause that probability to increase. There is more than 1:100,000 chance you will get struck by lightning and yet people are struck by lightning quite often.....don't play dice with the planet please, I'd rather not have the planet destroyed because then there's nobody left to blame and I really like to blame people.

Cosmic radiation has an even better chance to destroy Earth, and it (still) hasn't happened. LHC energies are puny compared to those of some cosmic particles.
JimD
5 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2016
Pop physics always develops a following amongst lackluster scientists looking to make a name for themselves. Back in the 80s the Fleischmann–Pons experiment was all the rage. Within weeks of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons publishing their paper, there were at least a dozen so called "scholarly" papers claiming that the experiment's dubious and unrepeatable observation of high temperature fusion was justified by quantum mechanics. Particle physics and astrophysics are today's rage.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2016
The funny thing

I was pretty sure that Tobjorn's comment was expressing contempt for Woit because of his criticism of string theory; after all TBGL's comments are usually well informed. So it is much of a surprise to see him make amends today... he does not know much about Peter Woit who's blog is all about fundamental physics http://www.math.c...ordpress

What are the sources of the rumors anyway? Here is the link that Woit posted in his blog to help spread the rumor https://twitter.c...48025344 Who is Adam Falkowski anyway? You will find all you need to know here http://www.fuw.ed...ork.html

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2016
...

On this Tommaso Dorigo who is an experimental physicist working for the CMS collab does not seem to have much enthusiasm for it either http://www.scienc...a-174018

@DaSchneib
You can always choose to keep your hopes high, but as you can see, the rumor come from an inside source.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2016
@DaSchneib
You can always choose to keep your hopes high, but as you can see, the rumor come from an inside source.
Who labels it as a rumor. And sits back and watches the scuffle, probably with a bag of popcorn; he does, after all, go by Jester. Meh, I'm still on the fence.

BTW, Jester's article on the bump is quite good. http://resonaance...gev.html

The field of speculations seems to have concentrated down to four with a good fit with the data:
1. A composite Higgs.
2. A new Higgs.
3. A new class of particles with a new force. (Possibly 1. above.)
4. Gravitons.
Source: http://www.scienc...-stumped

Now it's my turn for the popcorn. :D
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2016
Well with 1:50,000 chance to destroy the world.....I could stand an early shutdown.... especially if they extend lifespan of the project and cause that probability to increase. There is more than 1:100,000 chance you will get struck by lightning and yet people are struck by lightning quite often.....don't play dice with the planet please, I'd rather not have the planet destroyed because then there's nobody left to blame and I really like to blame people.

Cosmic radiation has an even better chance to destroy Earth, and it (still) hasn't happened. LHC energies are puny compared to those of some cosmic particles.
- Gigel

It wouldn't be the "world" itself that would be destroyed, I assure you. Good livable planets like Earth are hard to come by.
If there is to be destruction, it would be the ruling life form that has transformed the Earth into a hellhole rather than a Paradise, as it should have been.
Humans have been protected, but not for much longer.
Otto_Szucks
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2016
Do not believe this article. This is the standard cover story (big LIE) to cover a phenomenon of possible military value...and us that loosely because the military of many nations certainly will. Any thing of value to it and it will be classified out of hand.
- Osiris1

What kind of quantum particle could the military possibly value, unless it is of a radioactive material?
Hey, maybe a quantum Universe was found that is very much like the Universe in which we live, except that it is of the tiniest proportions, and scientists have decided to leave it alone or else it will be destroyed by their meddling.
And, here's another bit of conjecture: WHAT IF that tiny Universe is actually a mirror image of our own Universe, and anything that happens to that miniature Universe also happens to the one in which we life. Just something to consider.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2016
I assure you
You do nothing of the sort. If you were being sarcastic then hahhaahha, good one.
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2016
Believe as you wish. If I were being sarcastic, I would have said so.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2016
I prefer to get descriptions of LHC events from Matt Strassler.
Good explanations. Prudent speculation.

https://profmattstrassler.com/
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2016
Good blog, @Mando. Thanks! Added to favorites.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2016
Tobjorn's comment .. he does not know much about Peter Woit who's blog is all about fundamental physics http://www.math.c...ordpress


Oh, I have read it a few times long ago, since people referred to it. His views is not even fringe, since Woit is working as a mathematician/computer manager. Here specifically, he has no particular insight in the LHC work,

Re the thread, good idea to list sources! Jester, Strassler, and Dorigo are good sources on this, as well as the BBC guy whose name slips my mind at the moment.
Gigel
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2016
If there is to be destruction, it would be the ruling life form that has transformed the Earth into a hellhole rather than a Paradise, as it should have been.
Humans have been protected, but not for much longer.

Sorry, dude, I can't agree with you. On my way to work I stumbled upon pigeons and sparrows and now I wonder what those do in a city. The answer lies with humans. Also, the city I live is full of trees; it's like a forest with dwellings, really. It seems humans love trees. I grew up on the countryside and there were plants never to be found in nature, growing because of the h-mans. And the pastures or the edge of a field, where the road was going by, was full of all sorts of plants, growing there because the disturbance h-mans caused affected the most dominating plants and allowed other plants to grow, thus increasing diversity. H-mans are not a bad factor overall; they are just an important factor.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2016
Anyway, quantum particles are a made up idea to try to explain what we did not know. The wave equation works because all matter is made of the spherical waves. But the centers, are explicitly not defined as causal in QM. So we keep trying to actually see the multiple things predicted mathematically. Multiple solutions to a set of equations may not define multiple existence, especially with a faulty premise, or undefined premise. Unfinished work. Lazy scientification and ideas that are bonkers taught at a doctorate level. Something like discarding how the word was annotated and only applying the last connotation and forgetting the history and the facts. Let's find $hit and throw away logic, in fact let's say the truth is unknown and define this as our definitive physics. Really! Think the mystery is who allows this to represent sound physics? The arguments are comical; however, I got my popcorn to watch this corny nonsense.
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Jun 27, 2016
@Torbjorn
Oh, I have read it a few times long ago, since people referred to it. His views is not even fringe, since Woit is working as a mathematician/computer manager. Here specifically, he has no particular insight in the LHC work


Then my first impression was correct; you do not hold Woit in very high regards. It is regrettable that an individual who has no direct link in the field of HEP, correct me if I am wrong, could dismiss a generally well respected physicist. Although he does not make unanimity amongst theorists, he is still well connected within this realm.

tbc
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Jun 27, 2016
...

To corroborate what I am stating, here he is in a TED talk with Dorigo; it was before the Higgs confirmation but their speculations were pretty much on the mark https://www.youtu...oA_pEbQk I would say that he does not look very comfortable in this presentation, but neither was Dorigo. To their defence the Antwerp Opera House looks quite intimidating https://operaball...-427ba22 and although those audiences are generally 'intellectually driven', it does not seem that they were particularly favorable; at least not for Woit's particular sense of humor.

Here is a very well written article on Woit's academic path http://nautil.us/...ory-wars
...as well as the BBC guy whose name slips my mind at the moment.
Would you be talking about Jon Butterworth?

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.