Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the recent results from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) concerning a diphoton excess observed in 2015. Participants analyze the implications of the CMS and ATLAS results, the significance of the data, and the potential for new physics. The scope includes theoretical implications, experimental results, and the ongoing search for new particles.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
- Mathematical reasoning
- Experimental/applied
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note that CMS has reported no significant findings at the mass range of the 2015 excess, raising questions about the removal of certain events from analysis.
- Others mention that the expected increase in significance from the 2016 data set has not materialized, which could suggest the 2015 bump was a statistical anomaly.
- A participant highlights the importance of ruling out possibilities, referencing past experiences with non-confirmations in particle physics.
- Some express skepticism about the conclusions drawn by Sabine Hossenfelder regarding the implications of the diphoton bump disappearing, arguing that the situation is not as dire as suggested.
- There are discussions about the overlap between Spin-0 and Spin-2 analyses, indicating that both analyses fundamentally examine the same data.
- Concerns are raised about the focus on BSM theories based on a deviation of global significance of 2.0, with some arguing that there are more pressing problems in theoretical physics to address.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While there is a consensus that the significance of the 2015 bump has not been confirmed by subsequent data, opinions diverge on the implications of this outcome and the future of particle physics research.
Contextual Notes
Some participants note that the data analyzed so far represents a small fraction of the total planned integrated luminosity for the LHC, suggesting that conclusions may be premature. Additionally, there are references to the need for further updates and analyses with the 2016 data.