Is the Mystery Particle Discovery Just Media Hype?

[Arman777]

Mystery particle spotted? Discovery would require physics so weird that nobody has even thought of it

http://flip.it/Y6A5he

Could be DM ? Or really an error

 

[bbbl67]

Mystery particle spotted? Discovery would require physics so weird that nobody has even thought of it

http://flip.it/Y6A5he

Could be DM ? Or really an error

They've found other signals like this before, but they all disappeared with more runs. I wouldn't get my hopes up yet. Plus, if it were DM, then it wouldn't have decayed. DM is supposed to be incredibly stable.

 

[mfb]

Mystery particle spotted? Discovery would require physics so weird that nobody has even thought of it

http://flip.it/Y6A5he

Could be DM ? Or really an error

phys.org frequently struggles with particle physics, but this article is exceptionally bad.
It is most likely a random statistical fluctuation, and it gets much more attention in the media than among experts - because the peak is not significant enough to be interesting.

 

[Arman777]

I see well thanks then. I thought like that too. This media ... :)

 

[areion]

phys.org frequently struggles with particle physics, but this article is exceptionally bad.

ah good to know then, i mostly visit phys.org for news.

this article comes from here btw.
https://theconversation.com/mystery...ird-that-nobody-has-even-thought-of-it-106260

"Again there's a lot of excitement among particle physicists, but this time it is mixed with a sense of anxiety"

I believe I've read that, when Werner Heisenberg had his thoughts about quantum mechanics on the island helgoland, he was shocked or anxious about his idea.
So having a sense of anxiety seems to be a good sign lol. But this case is differently of course.

 

[Vanadium 50]

this article comes from here btw.

That article is still terrible.

1. According to CMS, the probability of getting a peak as large as claimed (using only the 6 year old data) is 1/750. However, the number of papers CMS has published is over 800. So you expect a fluctuation of this size.
   
2. CMS does not see this in the later data, twice as big.
3. All four experiments are in principle able to comment on this. Having six years of data in the can, nobody jumped up to confirm this.

Furthermore, having read the preprint, I don't believe the statistics. The most significant peak fitting fits the background very differently in the absence of the peak. This is a sign that the significance is overestimated.

 

[dukwon]

it gets much more attention in the media than among experts

Roger Barlow isn't an expert?

 

[mfb]

Did he publish something about it (or works on it) - or did he just write an article for laypeople?

 

[websterling]

Did he publish something about it (or works on it) - or did he just write an article for laypeople?

I don't think he worked on this particular study, but he is fairly well credentialed. This gives a nice overview of his career-
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-12/uoh-pfi120717.php
Physicist who founded International Institute for Accelerator Applications receives award

 

[Copernicuson]

I'm pretty sure there is much more excitement this time, but they have been burned before.

 

[mfb]

I don't think he worked on this particular study, but he is fairly well credentialed. This gives a nice overview of his career-
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-12/uoh-pfi120717.php
Physicist who founded International Institute for Accelerator Applications receives award

I don't question his expertise, he is clearly an expert.
My original statement was: This mainly gets attention in the media (things written for non-experts), not within the field.
The article Roger Barlow is an example of that. If he would have published something about this small bump it would be an indication of attention within the field of particle physics.