Physicist offers leading theory about mysterious Large Hadron Collider excess

July 28, 2016
The Large Hadron Collider, courtesy of CERN.

In December of last year, scientists at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe announced startling results hinting at the existence of an undiscovered subatomic particle—one with a mass six times heavier than the Higgs boson, the particle that made headlines in 2012.

The evidence is still thin, but if more data confirm the finding, it could sharpen humankind's understanding of the building blocks of the universe.

"This was a very surprising announcement and a puzzle at the same time, because the lifetime and mass of the particle could reveal something else beyond simply one extra particle, if it turns out to be a real signal," said Kyoungchul "K.C." Kong, associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas. "Yet we do not claim this as a discovery, and we need more data."

Based on the LHC findings, theoretical physicists around the world rushed to offer ideas that could explain the mystery signal and guide further experimentation. Physical Review Letters, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field, received hundreds of papers purporting to illuminate the LHC results.

"We explore ideas," Kong said of theoretical particle physicists. "Probably most of ideas are wrong—but we learn from them, and we propose better ideas."

Of the mountain of papers tendered to Physical Review Letters about the LHC findings, the journal chose to publish only four—including one co-authored by Kong, who had the original idea behind the submission.

The KU physicist said the enigmatic signal, detected at 750 giga-electron volts, or GeV, suggests "the first hint for new particles beyond the Standard Model." (The Standard Model of particle physics is a longstanding theory used to explain the forces and subatomic particles working in atoms that constitute all known matter in the universe.)

He said, "Every explanation of the 750 GeV excess needs a new particle. Most models assume one around 750 GeV."

But Kong's idea is different than most. Rather than basing his theory on the existence of a "resonance" particle with a straightforwardly corresponding mass to trigger the 750 GeV signal, Kong's paper proposes a sequence of at different masses, without one at 750 GeV.

"I was participating in a workshop in Korea, back in December 2015, when there was an announcement on this excess," Kong said. "Everyone was considering a resonance particle, which would have been my first choice. I wanted to interpret this differently and talked to some friends in the workshop, and proposed non-resonance interpretation."

The KU physicist said his concept depends upon a "sequential cascade decay" of a heavier particle into photons that can "fake the resonance signal" at 750 GeV.

Whether he is proven correct remains to be seen, but the promotion of his bold idea in the respected journal is extraordinary to colleagues at KU.

"Fundamental physics discoveries often take years, decades (see under Higgs) or even centuries (see under gravitational waves) to be confirmed," said Hume Feldman, professor and chair of the KU Department of Physics and Astronomy. "However, it is certainly a great honor for KU to have our research published in such a high-impact venue and chosen out of literally hundreds of entries from all over the world and from the most prestigious institutes in the world."

Another paper that proposes a different mechanism to explain the observation was written by KU Foundation Professor Christophe Royon and subsequently accepted by PRL. Assistant Professor Ian Lewis also has written a paper on the subject.

"The fact that independent KU papers were accepted by PRL out of the hundreds submitted is another testament to the high-quality research done at the Department of Physics and Astronomy," Feldman said.

Kong's co-authors were Won Sang Cho, Myeonghun Park and Sung Hak Lim of the Institute for Basic Science in Korea; Doojin Kim and Konstantin T. Matchev of the University of Florida; and Jong-Chul Park of Korea's Chungnam National University.

Currently, Kong is attending a workshop at CERN, the European nuclear agency that operates the LHC. There, his work on the puzzling results will continue.

"Theorists propose ideas, and experimentalists perform experiments to test the ideas, then publish their results—and we try to understand," he said.

Other KU faculty working at the LHC include KU's Distinguished Professor Alice Bean and professors Graham Wilson and Philip Baringer, as well as students and postdoctoral researchers.

An update on the 750 GeV excess will be presented at a conference in Chicago next week, Aug. 3-10.

Explore further: Possibility of new particle discovery at LHC fading

More information: Won Sang Cho et al, 750 GeV Diphoton Excess May Not Imply a 750 GeV Resonance, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.151805

Related Stories

Possibility of new particle discovery at LHC fading

June 24, 2016

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Electromagnetic water cloak eliminates drag and wake

December 11, 2017

Researchers have developed a water cloaking concept based on electromagnetic forces that could eliminate an object's wake, greatly reducing its drag while simultaneously helping it avoid detection.

Three kinds of information from a single X-ray measurement

December 11, 2017

Whatever the size of mobile phones or computers are, the way in which such electronic devices operate relies on the interactions between materials. For this reason, engineers as well as researchers need to know exactly how ...

58 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
"We explore ideas," Kong said of theoretical particle physicists. "Probably most of ideas are wrong—but we learn from them, and we propose better ideas."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Try looking at the details, how created, no guesses, use Maxwell. If that fails, let me know!

Can't do the math, then give it a stupid name and call it anything you wish. Note: It will not change the fact you did not do the math.
Hyperfuzzy
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2016
Stand at the peak of scientific discovery, 20th century, about 1919, we know everything. Define what we know with hindsight and no nonsense. Please, for the sake of sanity, stop inventing nonsense. Theory is theory, facts are facts. Stay with just the facts. It's not hard to see proton crowding in a stream and the effects as we increase the energy. The only change we see is this interaction. No new particles, only temporal events. Logic vs fantasy. Realise the error using the constant mass and not the state of mass, know that the wavelet emitted is always the same unless within a media; that as it is observed the period and the emitted wavelet define the speed and it is not constant. There are no gluons, only the proton and the electron and they are diametrical. I studied physics, the mistakes are clear. I'm ashamed of the PhD's of physics. Juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 28, 2016
Note: there are only the proton and electron and photons don't exist. You may capture an event on the surface of the transmission, but it is not a particle, a particle responds, but there was no photon and never will be. Do the math. There is no math for a photon. QM has many man made items that give some explanations and some interpretations are actually silly. Reality is reality not something you just make up.
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 28, 2016
By the way and optical connector will never give a 2ns delay unless you redesign it. However, after calibration it goes away. juz say'n, so stop lieing.
theon
1 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2016
The effects has been drown in better statistics. A self-proclaimed leading theory for nothing, times are hard nowadays.
epoxy
Jul 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rrrander
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2016
Experimental particle physics is becoming as speculative as theoretical particle physics.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 29, 2016
@epoxy
I gave you 5 for your link to ICHEP results, thanks.
On account of it, PO should retract this article.
The rest of your submissions is rather off-topic though.
What's worse ...

Confirmation bias is a risk that scientists are fully aware of.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 29, 2016
On account of it, PO should retract this article.
Why?

There is no data to explain, so the theory solves a non-existent problem. The article should at least be updated to reflect this fact, which strongly reduces its news value.
The experiments done were real and so far without any apparent experimental errors (similar to "superluminal neutrino" case).

That result was due to a loose fiber optic cable in a GPS system.
http://newsfeed.t...f-error/
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 29, 2016
There is no data to explain, so the theory solves a non-existent problem. The article should at least be updated to reflect this fact, which strongly reduces its news value.

The problem is the signal at 750GEV (which is, as yet, unexplained). The abstract says that the paper shows how to delineate, experimentally, their theories from other theories that posit a new particle at that energy.
(All of this is with the proviso that the signal isn't a fluke - just like the other theories that address it)

Seems like pretty much standard way of doing science to me. No reason not to report it here.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2016
the particles would form broad fuzzy distribution

Read the abstract.They address this. Even with a fuzzy distribution you can delineate theories because the distributions for different theories look different. That's standard statistical analysis procedure.

The animals could be detected only in one reflection from many thousands ones, so that their existence wouldn't fit even the five-sigma criterion.

That is why there is a five sigma threshold in particle physics for claiming a discovery. It still means you *could* be wrong, But the chances that you are is 1 in 3.5 million.

There is always the chance of a false negative or a false positive. Understanding magnitudes of these vs actual experimental data is what separates you from scientists (actually, there are a couple million things that separates you from scientists (i.e. WAY more than 5 sigma)...but that's one of the big ones)
epoxy
Jul 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ryan1981
5 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2016
Anyone got any idea why this "sequence of particles at different masses" would start happening at 750 GeV and not for lower acceleration voltages?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (19) Jul 29, 2016
Apparently such a treshold is not applicable just for theories, which predict broader distribution than five-sigma.

WTF are you talking about? A theory cannot predict a 5 sigma distribution. 5 sigma is a measure of confidence *after* evaluating experimental data. It is what is used to see if the predictions from the theory fit observation to a degree to call it substantiated.

Please - at least look up scientific words before you use them in your scientese garbled mess of posts.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2016
which has lead into dismissal of cold fusion
@zeph
no, the dismissal of cold fusion is because of:
lack of reproducible evidence under said strict conditions that are exactly reproduced for the purpose of science

and you were doing so well until you actually made that comment, too!
you mistook evidence in CF for statistics
The dense aether model was ignored
let me finish this more accurately: it was ignored because it was falsified with validated experimental evidence- repeatedly

do i really need to link it yet again?
Standard way of science doesn't cover many real life phenomena
the standard (MS) is nothing *but* the description of real life phenomena

just because we don't have a clear, concise answer that you approve of doesn't mean it isn't correct...

especially when you're advocating for a known falsified religion (which is what something is that is being promoted by your faith/belief alone and not by the evidence)
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2016
To Epoxy: I know the standard model is wrong. However, the EM Drive is do-able. Consider anti-matter, no, anti-matter does not exist; however, matter with diametrical orbiters can exist and we can make it. With the idea of what happens due to the instability of matter and anti-matter, we may create two streams, electrons and protons. The instability is now controlled chaos and can be used for propulsion. The trick is the container. One possible solution is the field. Note: what we would seek is the control of the self acceleration, i.e. + to - or vice versa. Thus a better rocket. Thus two plans, uncontrolled anti-matter explosions or stream and container control. Trickey.
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
which has lead into dismissal of cold fusion
@zeph
no, the dismissal of cold fusion is because of:
lack of reproducible evidence

Fusion is defined by the idiot, Dr. E., E=MC^2, i.e bogus. Take a look at a hydrogen atom, without the orbiting electron, i.e. a proton. Create another and add in close proximity an electron. Now bring the two together, slowly. You end up with a proton and a neutron or two protons and an electron in close proximity. Continue adding for any element you wish. Take the time to define the location geometrically where fusion occurs. Calculate the released energy. Surprise!
FineStructureConstant
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 29, 2016
@Fuzzy - you are a complete and utter nutcase. Period.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2016
@Fuzzy - you are a complete and utter nutcase. Period.

Thank you. But I don't spend my time trying to prove nonsense. Is every one simply stupid.?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Just reading through again. Can't stay to discuss; so brief observations/comments:

@antialias_physorg: please see epoxy's link to:

http://resonaance...ver.html

That should explain better what I tried to get across to you et al recently; about "sigma" levels and meanings being subject to GIGO if the underlying assumptions/techniques etc used may themselves be subject to GIGO potential if not properly vetted for validity before 'building them into' the experimental and analytical construct. (Thanks for link, epoxy).

PS @Zephir: if you're reading this (*ahem*), the following PO article should be of interest:

http://phys.org/n...tic.html

Makes your past posts re solitonic/aggregate energy-space vortice(s) structures/features read like 'mainstream' stuff now! Especially in light of other mainstreamer work recently linked to by epoxy (*ahem*)...thanks for those too, epoxy!

Can't stay to discuss. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2016
PPS @Zephir:

Just in case others reading this are curious as to what those two other links I alluded to that were also provided by epoxy (*ahem*), they are also about recent mainstream studies re generic and energy-space vortices:

https://www.youtu...amp;t=64

https://www.youtu...BLAXCe1I

Bye for now. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2016
PPS @Zephir:

Just in case others reading this are curious as to what those two other links I alluded to that were also provided by epoxy (*ahem*), they are also about recent mainstream studies re generic and energy-space vortices:

https://www.youtu...amp;t=64

Bye for now. :)

Nice video of impossibility. Note: that the fields are defined by motion of charge or static charge, relative, but not GR. So this is a guess used when one does not understand space or it's spherical fields. These fields never die, they reach zero at infinity, from it's center. If you do the math, there is a non-zero sum of all the fields at infinity. Try adding to the normal of the sphere the velocity vector of the charge. There you go, now you may define your vortices; however, why does the charge have that motion? juz say'n
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Just a caution to be wary of all the hype by some mainstreamers. This 'possible discovery' has all the same hallmarks of the bicep2 debacle unless sensible mainstreamers do their own due diligence and realize that all the talk of 'high confidence' sigma values etc are mostly self-delusional 'analytical/statistical' artifacts due to insufficient rigor and too much expectations biases built into the whole 'exercise' and perpetuated by the desperate "publish or perish" laxity of many of those involved in the theorizing and speculating.

500 papers!...on this obvious 'statistical fluke...mostly written in haste to jump on the bandwagon of the usual 'mainstream buzzwords/fantasies' which will GUARANTEE THEIR PAPERS GET PASSED/PUBLISHED by mainstream 'peer review' AND THEN CITED by the other mainstreamers, so building up their citation profile etc for future promotion/funding etc.

So be careful to take it all with an objective grain of salt, everyone! Good luck. :)
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Just a caution to be wary of all the hype by some mainstreamers.

What are "mainstreamers" ? Give a definition, not innuendo, so I can attack it.
This 'possible discovery' has all the same hallmarks of the bicep2 debacle

The anomaly is not (yet? but we will see next week) statistically significant. The BICEP2 dudd was a mistaken analysis. Two entirely different things.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
lower acceleration voltages?

Check out a wiki on accelerator physics.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2016
Apparently such a treshold is not applicable just for theories, which predict broader distribution than five-sigma.

Check out a wiki on statistical distributions.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2016
Hi Forum. :)
500 papers!...on this obvious 'statistical fluke...mostly written in haste to jump on the bandwagon of the usual 'mainstream buzzwords/fantasies' which will GUARANTEE THEIR PAPERS GET PASSED/PUBLISHED by mainstream 'peer review' AND THEN CITED by the other mainstreamers, so building up their citation profile etc for future promotion/funding etc.

So be careful to take it all with an objective grain of salt, everyone! Good luck. :)

Agree.
This is a nasty side effect of citation analysis and of the way science is funded.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2016
Physics and science in summary can not be theoretical. It can be only practical. Theoretical can be only phylosophy from which there are no benefits as food for human ephemeral vanity.
CERN is useless for the scientific discoveries engineering facility. From there we can hear only for born in human imagination virtual particles and philosophy with broken relationship with the real science.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2016
Main thing about theorists is that their job is to come up with hypotheses.

So basically, even if the 750GeV diphoton bump turns out to be a statistical anomaly, they did their job.

And the data aren't all in yet. There's data from another run of the LHC coming up in the next week or two. But the rumor mill has it that there's nothing there at 750 GeV in this data.

Time will tell.
epoxy
Jul 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2016
The base problem in fundamental science is religiously ferocity deniel of the eternal, omnipotent and omniscient Creator, Who is the source of information in the living and non living nature and Who with His endless wisdom and justice supports the organization and life in the universe.

This is the reason why the modern fundamental science is compromed permanently with its baseless, mindless and endless phylosophical speculation, which always is proved wrong later.

Without the source of information physical systems and their organization is impasible. Especially stable over time organization supporting the created life in the universe which itself represent high lever of organization needed corresponding level of support.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2016
Hi viko_mx. :)

Mate, leave out the religious crap; it automatically devalues any scientific observations/opinions you may have to offer in discussions.

Your objectivity is profoundly compromised by the fact that "Original Sin" has long been DISAVOWED as a doctrine/argument for explaining the suffering of innocents for the actions of their parents/forebears and/or the random chance of life in a world where gestation/birth/life is full of random mutations and unintended chemical/hormonal interference/exposures resulting in all sorts of unintended outcomes which may heighten probability of death/suffering of stillborns/babies.

No 'gods/demons' based superstitious doublespeak can 'justify' such random suffering of the innocents.

So please don't bring religious sophistry/incomprehension into a science discussion if you don't want to be treated as a superstitious irrelevance to both science and humanity going forward.

We need to work together to find REAL solutions. Cheers. :)
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2016
As everybody should know by now the 750GeV diphoton was just a fluke https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Here is an interesting blog on this case http://resonaance...ver.html

Some will question the shear amount of paper written on what was just a possible hint of beyond SM physics but, I rather see it as an indication that science is very much alive and competitive.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2016
@Techno, I know Jester and some others are saying so, but I haven't seen any announcement of the latest results, so to me it's all still just rumors.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2016
we are paying the scientists for smart research optimized in timely fashion, not for blind Darwinist evolution based on trial and error approach.

Fortunately they do what they are paid to do.
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2016
@Da Schneib

@Techno, I know Jester and some others are saying so, but I haven't seen any announcement of the latest results, so to me it's all still just rumors.

You will not have to wait much longer to have a definitive answer on this anyway; by this time next Friday we should know.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2016
@Techno, maybe not. The main program at ICHEP doesn't start until a week from Monday.
Hyperfuzzy
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2016
Hi Forum. :)
...
So be careful to take it all with an objective grain of salt, everyone! Good luck. :)

Wow, a sensible response! Think of the proton as only the positive spherical field, i.e. start with the reality of it as an unknown type of particle. Is it possible to place more than one proton at the same point? My description of the experiment. Therefore, yes, it would be short lived and require a vast amount of energy. So for me, this is a proof of the transparency of the this particle and a disproof of the standard model, i.e. non particle as we know it, only the field and this is what space is. i.e. no magic Nice work if you can get it.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2016
Still state only one axiom required, two particles or spherical diametrical fields, never created or destroyed and describes space as we know it. Nothing else exist. Juz say'n

Characteristics of real space, no imagination required, simply observe. Well, you might need an MSEE. Who builds the instrumentation?
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2016
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2016
As for this work, a necessary evil. It's like someone showing us the earth is close to a sphere or that we are not the center of the universe. What we think we know is always a simple measurement.
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2016
Resonance and particle? Don't think anybody really knows what they are talking about. Nobody listens to me.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2016
@Da Schneib
A very interresting blog from Tommaso Dorigo http://www.scienc...p-177864
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2016
@Da Schneib
A very interresting blog from Tommaso Dorigo http://www.scienc...p-177864

u know it's all BS. The SM is bogus, juz say'n
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2016
Note: No one has given a definition of an atomic particle. We know the fields, only two. Don't know what a particle is. juz say'n
BiteMe
Aug 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 10, 2016
You're a walking piece of oxygen thieving shite. juz say'n

Is the later a definition of me or what a particle may be. Anyway, what are the boundary conditions of a particle? How much space does it occupy? Does it even occupy space? How does it acquire the attributes you mention. Does a limit exist upon which it may be subdivided? Is it in the tea of Alice in Wonderland, or the conversation between Tweedledee and Tweedledum? juz say'n

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.