Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

750 GeV diphoton excess

  1. Mar 19, 2016 #1

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What do you think of Moriond results? had they really got 5 sigma and chickened out? What could the particle be, if it is real?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 19, 2016 #2
    Hi arivero:

    I confess my search methods may be poor, but I failed tried to find any information about the topic on the Internet. Would you please cite a reference?

    Regards,
    Buzz
     
  4. Mar 19, 2016 #3

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Do you have any evidence that the experiments indulged in the sort of scientific misconduct that you suggest?
     
  5. Mar 19, 2016 #4

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, please. Don't expect everyone here to be on top of recent developments. I have no idea what this is all about.
     
  6. Mar 19, 2016 #5

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    'Not sure if this is related to the OP's topic, but this link indicates that a 750 GeV signal was only 1.9 sigma significance, so far (mid March, 2016).
    http://www.ibtimes.com/cern-lhc-upd...ak-physics-standard-model-resume-soon-2339001

    Now, in fresh analysis disclosed Thursday at a conference in La Thuile, Italy, researchers said a recalibration of the full data set collected by the CMS detector pushed the statistical significance of the signal to 1.6 sigma from 1.2 sigma reported in December. Researchers at the ATLAS collaboration also re-analyzed their data collected during the first run, and now see a 1.9 sigma excess at 750 GeV.​

    Again, though, I'm not sure if that's the OP's intended topic.
     
  7. Mar 19, 2016 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Let's start with some links:
    Moriond conference timetable, the relevant talks are "jeudi 17 mars 2016" afternoon, "Diphoton searches in ATLAS" and "Diphoton Searches in CMS".
    News at Scientific American
    Jester has a nice summary

    Overall, the significance numbers didn't change much compared to the December announcements. Both experiments now have a spin-0 and a spin-2 analysis, which differ a bit in the selection but not much in the result. The local significance is somewhere at 3.x sigma for both experiments, depending on where exactly you look.
     
  8. Mar 19, 2016 #7

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :wideeyed: Misconduct????? I never suggested it.
    Strasttler and Motl commented the friday that ATLAS was expected to claim "almost 5" in the friday conference but surely they were not still convinced of their own analysis. They explictly used "chickened out". Prudence is not misconduct.
    http://motls.blogspot.com.es/2016/03/rumor-moriond-denied-new-atlas-almost-5.html#more

    Please note also that I started the thread in the Lounge in order to allow for wide discussion. Of course, with more that 750 papers in the arxiv, almost everybody can quote its favorite model from some arxiv paper :-) I am particularly surprised that R-D gravitons are considered as a major possibility.
     
  9. Mar 19, 2016 #8

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Based on rumors, not on actual physics. Even worse if you need a second rumor to explain the lack of evidence for the first rumor.
     
  10. Mar 19, 2016 #9

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You suggested that the experiments see one thing and report another. What else would you call it?

    If Lubos told me my mother loved me, I would check it out.
     
  11. Mar 19, 2016 #10

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So the conclusion is that the events are so boring/irrelevant that critiquising the OP is funnier? Well, it could be so. I was not impressed during the first phase of the ambulance-chasing but post-Moriond I am curious about how the different explanations compete.
     
  12. Mar 19, 2016 #11
    clear evidence of a hyper-symmetric triplet

    but seriously someone tell me what this means!!
     
  13. Mar 20, 2016 #12
    Yes, there is so much verbal diarrhoea on the diphoton excess out there. Peoples opinions and rumours should be ignored. It's important to be patient, particularly when we know the data this year will clarify this topic.

    I'm waiting on the appearance of a thorough review by some serious authors - I'm sure this will come within months.
     
  14. Mar 20, 2016 #13

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Within months, we'll have more data, making detailed reviews outdated as soon as they are there. We'll hopefully get some better theory papers in the meantime, but whatever happens, the summer conferences will change the situation.
     
  15. Mar 20, 2016 #14

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Yes, I think it's good to wait and be a bit more patient than modern popular science-hype media want us to be. I think it's a great damage for the public understanding, reputation and credibility of science to bring forward vague evidences and speculate about them without the strict confirmation of the scientific method. An outstanding example are the BICEP2 "results", which where "published" prematurely although it was well known that the careful cross analysis with the PLANCK survey, which finally revealed that the supposed-to-be imprint of primordial gravitational waves on the CMBR polarization was just dust.

    Another example were the faster-than-light neutrinos with a big media hype followed by a big spaming of all kinds of wanna-be-theory papers "explaining" possible "effects". For anybody a bit used to the physics underlying the Standard Model it was quite clear how extremely unlikely a tachyonic nature of neutrinos is, and it was no surprise at all that afterwards the technical problems with some glass fiber and a time-keeping oscillator was figured out.

    All this is a great damage to science and its standing in the public. After all we all, who do fundamental research, rely on tax payers' money and we schould be greatful to the public in financing us. That's why the public has the right to learn about the right science, which is exciting and rewarding enough and very well justifies the "big money" invested by the public in fundamental and basic research!

    So simply let's wait until there's either confirmation or disproval of the signal (maybe even at the ##5\sigma## level). I guess, with the LHC up and running it won't take too long to figure this out with some confidence!
     
  16. Mar 20, 2016 #15
    so how safe is it to say at this point that, whatever does or doesn't come out of this, it will be the only really new/unexpected thing that the LHC will see?
     
  17. Mar 20, 2016 #16

    Hepth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would say it's safe to say that the LHC has already seen other interesting new/unexpected things. Lepton Universality Violation? Higgs? A slew of things still in tension with the Standard Model? Do you not consider these new/unexpected?
     
  18. Mar 20, 2016 #17
    Was actually only aware of the higgs, which is awesome. Will have to go look into the lepton stuff.

    Just meant it simply as, with the amount of data that has now been collected, has anything that the LHC will be able to see shown at least some signs by now, or is there still potential for the additional runs in the next few years to totally surprise us?
     
  19. Mar 20, 2016 #18

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    For heavy particles, the LHC collected about 0.1% of the collisions planned over the lifetime of the accelerator. There are tons of things that can appear in the next years, even without any hints so far.
     
  20. Mar 20, 2016 #19

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, with so many papers, it could be a bit of shame in the hep-ph world if it were an unexpected thing.

    Said that, it worries me how different the situation is respect to the days of the SU(2)xU(1) model. At that time it could be said that we had the charged currents (the W) and the debate was between a model only matching the W and a model that predicted the Z current too.
     
  21. Mar 20, 2016 #20
    Right on. I actually found my way to physics forums looking for any intelligent discussion of this result since all of the news releases pretty much just left off at "something may or may not be there." Guess not too much has changed but I'll take it!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted