SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) detectors, CMS and ATLAS, have seen excess photon pairs that hint at the existence of a previously unknown boson with a mass of about 1500 GeV [gigaelectronvolt], which is about 12 times larger than the mass of the Higgs boson. The excess photons turned up while searching through data looking for gravitons. By themselves the data are not very significant and would not have garnered much interest, but this becomes more interesting since both experiments saw these statistical bumps in the same place. The next round of data taking in March will be able to determine whether this particle really exists.
In addition to what they might have found, also of interest is what they haven't found:
Meanwhile, searches for particles predicted by supersymmetry, physicists' favourite extension of the standard model, continue to come up empty-handed. To theoretical physicist Michael Peskin of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, California, the most relevant part of the talks concerned the failure to find a supersymmetric particle called the gluino in the range of possible masses up to 1,600 GeV (much farther than the 1,300-GeV limit of Run 1). This pushes supersymmetry closer to the point where many physicists might give up on it, Peskin says.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:02PM
Sorry, but I strongly object against putting string theory and dark matter/dark energy into the same pot.
String theory is pure mathematics with exactly zero evidence whatsoever.
Dark matter and dark energy is something which, when inserted into our equations, allows us to correctly describe observed phenomena which we cannot describe only with the observed matter and known laws. This is is hard evidence. Not proof, for sure, but it's currently the best we have, in the sense that no other hypothesis explains as much as dark matter/dark energy does.
Yes, it may turn out to be wrong one time. But that's what science is about. If you demand that science may only consider things known to be true, then you can just as well demand that we stop doing science. Because under those conditions, science is not possible. At all. If you have a theory that correctly describes observations not correctly described by only using established theory, then simply dismissing that theory without evidence against it is unscientific.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:19PM
If you demand that science may only consider things known to be true, then you can just as well demand that we stop doing science. Because under those conditions, science is not possible. At all. If you have a theory that correctly describes observations not correctly described by only using established theory, then simply dismissing that theory without evidence against it is unscientific.
Can I please read one, just one, SN article in the morning, without being reminded of the wackos running for US president (and their supporters)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @11:18PM
I think you forgot to drink your coffee, or you're making a joke that whooshed me... OR you've been a BOT this whole time and just got rolled :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @11:26PM
Dark matter and dark energy have no hard evidence that I've ever heard of. They are both concoctions to explain phenomena, similar to the Aether before our understanding leaped forward. They are just mathematical abstractions with a theoretical basis in reality. String theory has physical predictions; the vibrating string underlying all matter, etc. so I don't see it as so purely mathematical. Dark matter and dark energy are simply some correcting constants being thrown into an equation and people saying "that stuff must exist to make our equations work!". I'm not a string theory defender or anything, I just see a flaw in your reasoning.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday December 17 2015, @08:31PM
Actually, aether theory was a very different beast - as I recall it was born of the assumption that EM waves must be waves *in* something. It didn't actually explain anything, it just filled a gap we assumed existed. Contrast that with Dark Matter and Energy, which offer explanations for several observations which shouldn't be possible according to the rest of physics:
Dark Matter originally sought to explain the fact that the outer parts of galaxies spin *much* faster than the theory of gravity says they should - so either our theory of gravity is flawed at large distances, or the majority of the galaxy's mass is actually matter beyond the edge of the visible disc, which neither emits light, nor blocks light from more distant objects. It then gained more recent support as we found evidence of gravitational lensing around galaxies suggesting that there's far more mass present than is visible, as well as anomalies such as the bullet cluster where the gravitational lens has become disconnected from the visible mass. It is possible that it's actually our theory of gravity that's flawed - but you need some good counter-evidence to undermine a time-tested theory, and so far none of the competing gravitational theories have managed to accumulate any evidence to support them.
Dark Energy is even newer, and primarily seeks to explain the fact that the universe is not only expanding, but that distant galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other an an ever-increasing pace. That requires some phenominal ongoing force to not only neutralize gravitational attraction, but actually reverse it. And phenominal forces over long distances and billions of years equals truly mind-boggling amounts of energy for which we see no other evidence. A.k.a. "Dark" Energy.
So basically we've got two really weird gaping holes in our scientific cosmology, holes over which we've slapped crude patches to say "this is what we expect the answer to look like, assuming all our other well-tested theories are correct" We've even clearly labeled our kludges as such, calling them "Dark", or unknown. Once we have an actual well-tested theory to explain one or both of those phenomena you can bet it'll get a less mysterious name.
(Score: 2) by http on Thursday December 17 2015, @09:40PM
The assumption that "that stuff must exist to make our equations work" exists, and searching for it, has been a successful one, and a driving force, in physics and chemistry for centuries. I highly recommend reading "The Neutrino" by Asimov. While it might seem dated (written in the 1960s, QCD is kinda skipped over) it explains much more concisely than I could why conservation laws are used by humans doing physics and chemistry, and how studying apparent violations of those laws keeps on leading us to new discoveries.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.