Cosmology News Physics

LHC finds particle much bigger than Higgs?

Spread the love

But not support for supersymmetry. So says New Scientist:

2016 could go down as the year when a new picture of nature’s fundamental workings was unveiled.

The hopes spring from two “bumps” that have appeared independently, in the same place, in the latest data from the LHC’s two big detectors, ATLAS and CMS. They point to the existence of a particle that dwarfs even the Higgs boson, the giver-of-mass particle discovered at CERN in July 2012. (paywall)

From the paywalled portion:

Strangely, the only thing we probably can rule out is that the particle is what many theorists, including Ellis, would like it to be: a supersymmetric particle. Supersymmetry is a theory that plugs many holes in the standard model by conjuring up a raft of heavier particles that partner each known particle. The LHC has in general failed to turn up any evidence of supersymmetry, and even from the little we know about this latest particle, it doesn’t correspond to anything found in the simplest supersymmetry models. More.

Some say supersymmetry, if true, could kill the multiverse, others say that the two are compatible. It’s hard to know what could kill an idea like the multiverse, which has never depended on evidence.

From Nature News (December 15, 2015):

The results largely match a rumour that has been circulating on social media and blogs for several days: that both the CMS and ATLAS detectors at the LHC have seen an unexpected excess of pairs of photons, together carrying around 750 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) of energy, in the debris of their proton–proton collisions. This could be a tell-tale sign of a new particle — also a boson, but not necessarily similar to the Higgs — decaying into two photons of equivalent energy. If so, the particle would be about four times more massive than the next heaviest particle discovered so far, the top quark, and six times more massive than the Higgs.

In particle physics, statistical bumps such as this come and go all the time. If this one turns out to be a real particle, it would be “a total game-changer”, says Gian Francesco Giudice, a CERN theorist who is not a member of either ATLAS or CMS.More.

If they don’t find something, we are told, they will have to give up on the coolest theory, supersymmetry.

December 23, 2015, Dan Lincoln qualified it a bit at PBS Nova,

One thing stood out: When scientists studied the characteristics of events in which two highly energetic photons were made, there seemed to be too many of them at an energy in the range of 700-750 billion electron volts, just shy of five times heavier than the Higgs boson. So this is when the story gets interesting. One of the noteworthy ways in which the Higgs boson was observed was via its decay into two photons, so this slight excess could be the first indications of a heavier Higgs.

But anyone who has looked at real data knows that it doesn’t perfectly follow theoretical predictions. There are little statistical fluctuations, with the data sometimes being a little above the predictions and sometimes lower. It takes real expertise and good statistical techniques to determine whether an excess is the signature of something unexpected or just a fluke.

One way to test this is to verify that both experiments saw an excess at the same position, and both did. So that’s a reason to be more interested. However, when CMS separated its data into two categories, distinguished by where the photons hit the detector, the two data sets didn’t agree perfectly. That was a down vote.

There were other discrepancies. …

Sounds like fun, and there will be more data this year. But somehow, we don’t see the theoretical physicists giving up readily on supersymmetry no matter what the data show.

See also: In search of a road to reality

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “LHC finds particle much bigger than Higgs?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    The Standard Model is a rather weak model since it does not explain one of the most ubiquitous forces in the universe: the gravitational force. It does not even explain something as fundamental as the cause of inertial motion. The model has been due for major overhaul for quite some time. The problem is that physicists are just as dogmatic as religious folks. Consider the electron, for example. It’s been known for at least 8 years that the electron is not an elementary particle but consists of four smaller particles with 1/4 electric charge. This clearly contradicts the Standard Model which considers the electric charge to be fundamental.

    Instead of embracing the findings and put some money into more research, the physics community decided to suppress their importance by calling the sub-electric particles “quasiparticles”. Go figure. Only a Kuhnian revolution will set things straight and rewrite the schoolbooks.

  2. 2
    Me_Think says:

    Mapou @ 1

    The Standard Model is a rather weak model ….

    No body claims Standard Model is complete, which is why we have Supersymmetry (SUSY) model.

    Instead of embracing the findings and put some money into more research, the physics community decided to suppress their importance by calling the sub-electric particles “quasiparticles”.

    Quasiparticles can’t exist independently outside the material, which is why an electron remains a fundamental Lepton.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Supersymmetry explains neither gravity nor the cause of inertial motion. So it might as well be shelved until a more complete model is worked out.

    Quasiparticles can’t exist independently outside the material, which is why an electron remains a fundamental Lepton.

    You know this is nonsense. Why are quarks called particles then? The point is that the Standard model does not explain particles with 1/4 electric charge. Calling them quasiparticles is not physics. It’s politics and it’s gutless.

  4. 4
    Me_Think says:

    Mapou @ 3

    Supersymmetry explains neither gravity nor the cause of inertial motion. So it might as well be shelved until a more complete model is worked out.

    GR explains gravity (If you need a quantum gravity explanation, you will need to wait for discovery of graviton – Good luck with that!) and Higgs field explains inertial mass (rest mass).The resistance to change in momentum (inertia-not inertial mass) is explained by Noether’s Theorem. SUSY is there to explain Hierarchy problem and Unification of fundamental forces.

    You know this is nonsense. Why are quarks called particles then? The point is that the Standard model does not explain particles with 1/4 electric charge. Calling them quasiparticles is not physics. It’s politics and it’s gutless.

    What is political about quasiparticle?! Quarks are components – Proton is made of 2 up and 1 down quark, Neutron is made of 2 down and 1 up quark, Mesons are made of 1 quark and anti-quark. The reason quarks can’t be found in isolation is because the quarks are held by Strong Nuclear Force, which is 10^38 time the force of gravity.
    In the context of condensed matter physics, the quasiparticles like Spion – which carry the Spin of electron, orbion – which carry the orbital degree of freedom and chargon/holon- which carry the charge can’t be put together to form an electron. They are in a sense emergent properties. IOW, they are not constituents of the electron. It is like trying to combine just the flavor and color of Cheetos to make a Cheetos.

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    Me_Think:

    GR explains gravity

    I’m arguing with a psychopath. Later, dude.

Leave a Reply