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

Mystery particle?

  1. Nov 7, 2018 #1
    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 7, 2018 #2
    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.
     
  4. Nov 7, 2018 #3

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  5. Nov 7, 2018 #4
    I see well thanks then. I thought like that too. This media ... :)
     
  6. Nov 7, 2018 #5
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  7. Nov 7, 2018 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    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.
     
  8. Nov 8, 2018 #7

    dukwon

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Roger Barlow isn't an expert?
     
  9. Nov 8, 2018 #8

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Did he publish something about it (or works on it) - or did he just write an article for laypeople?
     
  10. Nov 8, 2018 #9
  11. Nov 13, 2018 #10
    I'm pretty sure there is much more excitement this time, but they have been burned before.
     
  12. Nov 13, 2018 #11

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted