new particle at nearly 4 sigma

[Shiraz (Ray)]

http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/...rticle-physics

Blimey - this will generate a deluge of papers if it gets to 5sigma.

[Atmos (Colin)]

That could be really interesting! Even without it being "confirmed" yet, it has at least been "detected" in two different detectors. Two is better than one

[Talby (Brad)]

Found in 2 experiments , looking good .

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/...rticle-physics

Blimey - this will generate a deluge of papers if it gets to 5sigma.

Hi Ray,
a professor of physics said to all of us in the lecture theatre one day that he wondered
if these new particles were really relevant.
He said that maybe we are like children with building blocks
making new structures -
& it is us who have created these particles & they don't exist
in nature & never existed before?
In other words these new particles are meaningless?

cheers
Allan

[Atmos (Colin)]

If we can create them then there are places in the universe that they are also created. Take the core collapse of a 20 solar mass star, it forms a black hole and during this process some very funky stuff happens.

It can also help give us a better understanding of the universe prior to the recombination event about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by alpal

Hi Ray,
a professor of physics said to all of us in the lecture theatre one day that he wondered
if these new particles were really relevant.
He said that maybe we are like children with building blocks
making new structures -
& it is us who have created these particles & they don't exist
in nature & never existed before?
In other words these new particles are meaningless?

cheers
Allan

I have also heard this view expressed by others Allan. I disagree with it.

This work is peering into the very nature of the stuff that makes up universe. I cannot think of any more meaningful activity in Physics. It is wonderful to see the hero projects (LHC, LIGO etc) delivering the goods. Maybe some of this research could eventually give us an understanding of what dark energy and dark matter are - it is slightly disturbing to live in a universe where 97% of it is unknown in nature.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

I have also heard this view expressed by others Allan. I disagree with it.

This work is peering into the very nature of the stuff that makes up universe. I cannot think of any more meaningful activity in Physics. It is wonderful to see the hero projects (LHC, LIGO etc) delivering the goods. I am hopeful that some of this research could eventually give us an understanding of what dark energy and dark matter are - it is slightly disturbing to live in a universe where 97% of it is unknown in nature.

I think that as a professor of physics his viewpoint was important.
How do we know that we aren't just combining building blocks to
create new particles?
It was more - an important question - than a statement of any fact.

[Talby (Brad)]

I agree the discovery of a 750 GeV particle itself isn't the big deal. What is the big deal is if it leads to support of SUSY or extra compactified dimensions. Just like finding the Higgs particle at 125 Gev supported the presence of the Higgs field

[sjastro]

Strange how the article was published at a time when scientists have become less than enthusiastic about the existence of the particle and the 4 sigma result could be a statistical blip.
Even stranger is how this "anomaly" has turned up in both ATLAS and CMS detectors.

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-possibi...overy-lhc.html
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8608

[bojan]

Originally Posted by alpal

I think that as a professor of physics his viewpoint was important.
How do we know that we aren't just combining building blocks to
create new particles?
It was more - an important question - than a statement of any fact.

Still.. even if we are the ones who are combining them, the process and outcome is telling us about the rules the fundamental particles obey in their interactions. This way we can obtain more accurate models.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by bojan

Still.. even if we are the ones who are combining them, the process and outcome is telling us about the rules the fundamental particles obey in their interactions. This way we can obtain more accurate models.

How much does it tell us really if these huge particles only appear
once in say every 10 billion collisions?

[bojan]

Originally Posted by alpal

How much does it tell us really if these huge particles only appear
once in say every 10 billion collisions?

Well… in terms of classical physics, this is something like measuring the diameter of the shaft and the sleeve with various gauges...
First you measure this diameter roughly with ruler to see if the shaft will go into the particular sleeve.
Then you measure with micrometre to see how well the shaft will fit into a sleeve and whether there is a play or not.
With micrometre you discover that there is a "bump" in the middle of the shaft, previously not "visible" with the ruler.
Your conclusion from the above experiment (measurement) is, the shaft will first easily go into the sleeve, but half way in it will get stuck if you try harder.
If you measure more samples with the new method (micrometre), you can even conclude about the quality and repeatability of the manufacturing processes... you can even figure out how the shaft was manufactured (by turning or by casting).

So, you are getting more information and your knowledge about the process involved gets better and more detailed. And you can even discover previously unknown details and outcomes (bump and stuck).

[Shiraz (Ray)]

for a laugh, here is the British tabloid take on it - the not-funny thing is that people apparently read this stuff.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/...ls-are-opening

Anyway, back to the thread.

Allan, quantum physics is based on statistics - you need energies and probabilities to characterise what is there, so evidence of a large particle and knowledge of how often it is produced tells a lot - not just about that particle, but about the validity of the model used to describe all other particles. Dark stuff clearly indicates that there is a big hole in our knowledge - getting the models right will help determine what dark stuff might be.

Of course, there is still a very good chance that the particle is just a statistical anomaly - but even that knowledge will be very valuable in determining which models work best.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

for a laugh, here is the British tabloid take on it - the not-funny thing is that people apparently read this stuff.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/...ls-are-opening

I have a small degree of respect for publications like this in much the same way I can find it within myself to respect the showmanship of world championship wrestling.... unlike the Murdoch press which is no less contrived but has the hubris to make the pretence of being anything other than cynically manipulative theatre.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

....what are these "things" scientists refer to as "particles" that emerge at specific energy levels and have some sort of statistical sigma level attached to them?

The very theory and experimental techniques that validate these "so-called" particles imply that there should be an infinite number of them at discrete energy levels all along the mythical and neurotic energy spectrum...

And of course Physicists are really talking about Fields - the particles being blimps along a field when detected by these ridiculously expensive detectors. These clowns will and say anything to protect the Standard Particle Model in their religious Physics texts and scriptures.

We are witnessing a conglomerate of 21st century scientific particle smashing sigma circuses that carve out a huge scar in the total global funding pie for scientific research

The Global Particle Physics community should apologise and return at least 75% of the funding they have cleverly siphoned from the public purse since 1973

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

These clowns will and say anything to protect the Standard Particle Model in their religious Physics texts and scriptures.

?? As the heading of the article says, if this thing turns out to be real (and there is still some strong doubt) it could actually leave the Standard Model in disarray - not "protect" it.

The whole point of this sort of work is to try to find holes in the current theories - in particle physics, nothing is writ in stone just yet. How could anything be settled when we still only have some idea about what makes up 5% of the universe we live in - the other 95% is unknown dark stuff ?

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

?? As the heading of the article says, if this thing turns out to be real (and there is still some strong doubt) it could actually leave the Standard Model in disarray - not "protect" it.

The whole point of this sort of work is to try to find holes in the current theories - in particle physics, nothing is writ in stone just yet. How could anything be settled when we still only have some idea about what makes up 5% of the universe we live in - the other 95% is unknown dark stuff ?

so you are stating in public that because an extra fat particle or field blimp is detected by a semi-rigged underground accelerator in a collapsing EU, the Standard Model (part 17) will all of a sudden be in disarray?

particle Physicists aren't fooling anyone with their reductionistically discrete detector illusions and sigma insecurities

[Shiraz (Ray)]

possibly

good to see you back here Peter.

[Atmos (Colin)]

Within the Standard Model there were particles predicted to exist many years before they were discovered. As far as the Standard Model is concerned, we have discovered the fundamental particles that make up the universe. Well most of them anyway, we still don't know what Dark Matter is and depending on its actual properties, there is a chance that we may NEVER detect them.

So if we discover a new particle that hasn't been predicted by the Standard Model, we need to revisit our fundamental understanding of the universe.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

possibly

good to see you back here Peter.

thanks Merlot,

....are you sure that you want to associate yourself officially with my robust analysis and commentary on trivial scientific matters such as Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology?