back to article Bigger than Higgs? Boffins see hints of bulbous new Boson

The Higgs Boson will remain a big deal for plugging gaps in the unified theory, but may not be the biggest Boson in the universe. That's the tantalising prospect raised by analysis of experiments conducted in June 2015 at the recently-upgraded Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The experiments were conducted by the ATLAS Project, …

  1. arctic_haze
    Pint

    Something new in physics. Finally!

    The Higgs boson was something expected. Its nonexistence would be much greater news thaan its discovery.

    However this new boson, if real, is something outside the Standard Model. Which means it's new physics!

    I wonder if they discovered the lightest supersymmetry particle. Or the WIMP, the particle of the elusive dark matter. Hopefully both at the same time. This would be something worth more than one Nobel prize!

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

      I disagree. Finding this has required nothing more than engineering. You build the accelerator. They come. Explaining it might be worth a prize, depending on what it is, but probably only one and perhaps not even that if it turns out that the necessary theory was laid down by someone who is now dead. On which subject ... I think you meant "something new in particle physics" because the rest of physics has been getting along just fine for the past half century, thanks.

      Having said all that, I share your excitement that something might be about to happen and I'm glad that I'm not a particles theoretician right now -- it must be quite nerve-wracking knowing that your entire life's work might be about to be consigned to the bin marked "interesting, but wrong".

      1. Wilseus
        Flame

        Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

        'it must be quite nerve-wracking knowing that your entire life's work might be about to be consigned to the bin marked "interesting, but wrong".'

        Like Newton's laws of motion, you mean?

        1. DropBear
          Trollface

          Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

          "Like Newton's laws of motion, you mean?"

          Well, clearly. What else do you expect from a guy clueless enough to full-on ram a poor, unsuspecting apple with his own head, riding atop a cannonball the size of a planet...?

        2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

          No, not in the least like Newton's laws. Those have a well-defined domain within which they are a reasonable approximation that is easier to work with than SR or GR or QM. The things that the {super}-{string|gravity|symmetry} people have played with for the last 50 years are less easy to work with and so are only worthwhile if they explain stuff that the standard model does not.

          Each time we get a discovery that rules out (say) supersymmetry variants, the corresponding body of work into that variant might as well not have been done and in a century's time may only be known to one or two people working in a history department.

    2. Turtle

      @arctic_haze Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

      Probably not. Most likely a spurious reading. This is very, very tentative. Don't expect too much - which is to say, don't expect anything. You remember this, right?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

      See http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8174:

      "...the 2 GeV Run 1 excesses have gone away. There is a diphoton excess at 766 GeV, but an unimpressive one (2.6 sigma locally, 1.2 sigma with look elsewhere effect). [...] Bottom line: nothing beyond the SM so far."

      1. arctic_haze

        Re: @arctic_haze Something new in physics. Finally!

        Oh, the faster than light neutrinos seemed crap to me from the first time I heard about them. I believed they overcompensated the relativity corrections of the GPS signal (counted them twice) but the truth was even more mundane.

        However 2.6 sigmas in one sensor and over 3 sigmas in the other, is something. Not enough to announce a new particle (you need 5 for that) but it is still 99% chance it is not a fluke (unless you have a systematic error like the neutrino experiment).

        1. James 51

          Re: @arctic_haze Something new in physics. Finally!

          To be fair even the head of the project thought the most likely explanation would be a mistake or equipment fault. They just needed some help finding it.

    3. Graham Marsden
      Thumb Up

      Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

      Time (again) for one of my favourite quotes, from Isaac Asimov:

      "The most exciting phrase to hear in physics, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

      ADDENDUM: Bugger, just read further down the comments and noticed that Joseph Eoff beat me to it... :-/

    4. Turtle

      @arctic_haze Re: Something new in physics. Finally!

      "This would be something worth more than one Nobel prize!"

      Who would or should get a Nobel Prize for this, if it turns out to be a discovery instead of a false alarm? (And of course I need not remind you that the Nobel Prize can only be awarded to up to 3 living individuals, and can not be given to organizations.)

      I don't see how anyone could claim to deserve a Nobel for what would be a completely unexpected and unpredicted discovery.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @arctic_haze Something new in physics. Finally!

        Whether a Nobel is deserved, and who deserves it, depends on what is found. If it was a supersymmetric partner, within a mass range predicted by theory, then eventually if the theory is confirmed the originators of that theory may deserve one. If it is something completely unexpected that causes everyone's theories to be reworked, then the maybe whoever comes up with a theory that explains it that is confirmed decades from now by the LHC's successor would deserve one.

      2. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: @arctic_haze Something new in physics. Finally!

        the Nobel Prize can only be awarded to up to 3 living individuals, and can not be given to organizations.

        Bullshit!

        www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

        1. Turtle

          @ Pompous Git

          "'the Nobel Prize can only be awarded to up to 3 living individuals, and can not be given to organizations.' Bullshit!"

          Oh, the Peace Prize. Who fukken cares? *I* certainly don't.

          At any rate, the matter was broached specifically in regard to the Nobel Prize for Physics, about which my statement is true. So your observation, while correct for the "Peace Prize" (and only for the "Peace Prize", I believe), is kinda tangential to the subject under discussion. Also it suffers from the same defect as my original statement: it is not sufficiently specific: it is wrong in regards to the actual science prizes and (probably) about the Literature and Economics prizes.

          So, all in all, basically a worthwhile correction but one which in its own turn required a li'l bit of correcting.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: @ Pompous Git

            Turtle, I must apologise. I have been a very bad Git and far too churlish. You are of course correct. The only thing I can say in mitigation is that I had just been watching an English TV show wherein it was claimed that turkey was a traditional Christmas dinner in Georgian times! Worse, every ten minutes, there was a five minute summary of what had been presented so far! God I hate Christmas...

            1. Turtle

              @ Pompous Git

              Apology accepted although, frankly, it is not at all needed.

              After all, what would this forum be without churlishness, eh?

              : )

            2. eldakka

              Re: @ Pompous Git

              "Worse, every ten minutes, there was a five minute summary of what had been presented so far! "

              God a hate that.

              Seems that US Doco's seem to do that a lot, constantly repeat and summarize what was shown 5 minutes ago. It's especially irritating when you download and watch a doco ad free. OMG the repetition.... Seems a 42 minute runtime doco has 20 minutes of information, and 22 minutes of repetition of that information.

  2. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

    Exciting stuff!

    Looking forward to the results of follow-up research

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As heard by ATLAS experimenters

    "I speak of none but the collider that is to come after me. A collider whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate— and yet I will design it for you. A collider which can discover the boson to form the Ultimate Standard Model, a collider of such infinite and subtle complexity that massive EU funding itself will form part of its operational matrix. And you yourselves shall take on new T-shirts and go down into the collider to navigate its ten decade programme. Yes, I shall design this collider for you, and I shall name it for you. And it shall be called …………. the Extremely Large Hadron Collider."

    1. Alister

      Re: As heard by ATLAS experimenters

      Aww, you spoiled it in the last sentence, should have gone with:

      And it shall be called …………. the "Slightly Larger Hadron Collider."

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: As heard by ATLAS experimenters

        And it shall be called …………. the "Slightly Larger Hadron Collider."

        For some reason I read that as "Slightly Lager Hadron Collider"...

        And took it as a hint :-)

        Have an upvote.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As heard by ATLAS experimenters

          For some reason I always read it as the Large Hardon Collider.

    2. Forget It

      Re: As heard by ATLAS experimenters

      I like the head of the one who said that on a platter.

      /Herod's daughter/

    3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: As heard by ATLAS experimenters

      The next one will not do hadron-boom-boom though:

      Commentary: Super and Great Colliders

  4. Joseph Eoff

    Science happens when....

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny....'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/isaac-asimov-7.html

    1. channel extended

      Re: Science happens when....

      Along with 'Now how did that happen?'

  5. Pompous Git Silver badge

    bulbuous

    Spellchecker on the blink Simon?

  6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Better writeup here

    LHC Run 2 First Results

    Reasons to be excited: naively combining CMS and ATLAS gives something of 4 sigma significance, people are making the analogy with the early Higgs signal. Reasons to be less excited: in the case of the early Higgs signal, the tentative signal was what was expected from the Higgs, and we had very good reasons to believe there was a Higgs roughly in that mass range. Here I know of no well-motivated models that predict this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is not that.

    Commentary from Matt Strassler.

    Best explanation and discussion of the implications of the diphoton excess is from Jester

    And also, no SUSY:

    Run 2 and SUSY

    Whatever you thought the remaining probability was for SUSY after the negative Run 1 results, it’s significantly smaller today.

  7. Mage Silver badge

    Boffins

    Aren't they wonderful?

    When is Boffin Day so I can toast them?

    1. Hairless Biker
      Pint

      Re: Boffins

      EVERY day is Boffin Day!

      1. Andrew Newstead

        Re: Boffins

        Amen to that brother!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Boffins

      And don't forget the Boffinesses, who cry and fall in love, and sometimes do the simple sciencey bits. Toast them too, with something pink (in a glass).

  8. jake Silver badge

    Cool!

    The march of science inexorably moves on :-)

    1. cbars Bronze badge

      Re: Cool!

      This is one of those rare times when I agree with you, jake.

  9. TeeCee Gold badge
    Happy

    Aha!

    With a bit of luck that'll be a graviton and I can finally have my flying car!

    1. SeanEllis
      Boffin

      Re: Aha!

      Sorry, TeeCee, but it's not a graviton. A 500GeV boson would have very short range. The graviton has a predicted rest mass of zero, and a spin of 2, but it couples very weakly which is why gravity is such a weak force.

      A good way to demonstrate how weak gravity is is to jump out of a building. An entire planet's worth of graviton-emitting particles will speed you up in a few seconds, but the electromagnetic forces in a tiny bit of pavement will stop you like *that* [clicks fingers].

      1. MT Field

        Re: Aha!

        I read somewhere that its not really the electromagnetic repulsion between the electrons around molecules and atoms that prevents you from passing through the pavement. Its the quantum thing about the electrons not being able to occupy the same energy state (sorry, brain did not retain what that is called).

        1. FrogsAndChips Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Aha!

          Pauli's exclusion principle, maybe?

          Paris - cause she excludes no one.

        2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Aha!

          I read somewhere that its not really the electromagnetic repulsion between the electrons around molecules and atoms that prevents you from passing through the pavement. Its the quantum thing about the electrons not being able to occupy the same energy state (sorry, brain did not retain what that is called).

          My understanding is that it's a combination of electrostatic force and the Pauli exclusion principle - or, more precisely, the Pauli principle is one formulation of a fact about the interactions of leptons, and a consequence of the phenomenon it describes contributes to the exclusionary nature of solid matter.

  10. SeanEllis
    Boffin

    Very small signal

    If I'm reading the PDF correctly, this looks like a bump in the graph which is 2 sigma above background. This is way below the threshold for a discovery - usually 5 sigma, I believe - but it's worth a further look. A >500GeV particle would be big news.

  11. SW10
    Coat

    So Bosun, it's a...

    ...boson BOGOF bonus?

    (Mine's the one with the unseemly particles in the pocket.)

  12. TheOtherHobbes

    Boffins gonna boff.

    More boff is good.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Photons don't appear out of nowhere..."

    They do, actually. It's how black holes can shed their mass, and why two parallel mirrors in a vacuum experience a force between them.

    The universe is a crazy non-intuitive thing.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It was a micro black hole.

  15. DavCrav

    Bigger than the HIggs:

    The Biggs?

    1. hplasm
      Happy

      Re: Bigger than the HIggs:

      "The Biggs?"

      Red Three standing by!

  16. andrewj

    So the hints of new stuff from the earlier runs vanished, and were replaced by a couple of even less statistically significant quantum farts.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

  17. Quortney Fortensplibe
    Stop

    Syntax Error

    "...were presented on Tuesday (see PDF) and brush up on your physics before downloading)..."

    SYNTAX ERROR: Missing (

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
      Coat

      Re: Syntax Error

      There's no missing (. There's a superfluous ).

      Annoyingly, it is the first ) that is the superfluous one, but you'd need one hell of a compiler to (reliably) get *that* good an error message.

  18. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Science

    It just keeps on giving.............

    Praise the boffins!

  19. Andy Davies

    six sigma

    if my Excel spreadsheet is to be believed the chance of a random sample of 10 people containing one or more who understand this stuff is of the order of six sigma.

    So I don't think I'm alone in believing that those who do claim to understand it budded off into their own microverse some decades ago!

  20. Stretch

    how so they know this one isn't the Higgs and the other one was something else then? Anybody actually proved what they do? Its all conjecture, based on predicated energy levels, right?

    1. SeanEllis
      Boffin

      You can also infer other properties of the particle from its decay products. For example, the conservation of charge means that if you add up all the charges from the debris, and it comes out as +2, then the original particle must have had +2 charge. Measuring spin is more complex, but apparently it can be done.

      There are also predictions of what the decay modes actually are. A Higgs may decay into a whole load of different particles, but various conservation rules cause it to prefer some decay modes to others. (The most common is a bottom/anti-bottom quark pair, with a pair of W bosons second.)

      So if a particle has the same predicted mass, spin, charge and decay as the predicted Higgs, I'd call it a Higgs.

      1. Alister

        So if a particle has the same predicted mass, spin, charge and decay as the predicted Higgs, I'd call it a Higgs.

        If it looks like a Higgs, swims spins like a Higgs, and quacks quarks like a Higgs, it's a Duck Higgs...

  21. Ken Hagan Gold badge
    Pint

    Re: If it looks like a Higgs...

    What a shame that this wonderful comment is buried on page 2.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like