Aleph At Lep Strangely Discovers Novel 25 Gev, 55 Gev, Eighty Gev Particles Inwards Four-Jets

A unlike newspaper on condensed-matter together with particle physics interface: Zhao together with Liu struggle that SUSY doesn't emerge at critical points every bit proposed yesteryear several others

Once upon a time, at that spot was no LHC collider inwards the LHC tunnel. Instead, LEP, the large electron-positron collider, was thriving over there. It had several runs together with the LEP2 run is what nosotros volition speak about.

Just similar LHC has ATLAS together with CMS together with the Tevatron had D0 together with CDF, LEP had several detectors: ALEPH, DELPHI, OPAL, together with L3. We volition speak most ALEPH. You must possess got heard me every bit proverb that it's sometimes bizarre how much fourth dimension it takes to the LHC experimenters to analyze their data. Isn't is weird that we're all the same getting novel papers based on the 2012 data?

Well, the LEP collider was dismantled around 2001 together with alone historians focusing on the Holy Roman Empire think it real well. (OK, that was an exaggeration.) In spite of that, Julian (unaffiliated) together with Jennifer (CFTP Lisbon; only 2 names is unusual inwards the experimental particle physics run yesteryear large teams these days) released a fun article today:

Localized 4σ together with 5σ Dijet Mass Excesses inwards ALEPH LEP2 Four-Jet Events

What did they discovery inwards the dataset that is older than xvi years?




Well, they looked at the four-jet collisions – authorities notation that jets were a chip scarcer at LEP because it was leptons, together with non hadrons, that were colliding. They sorted the iv jets inwards each collision to minimize something. And amongst these conventions, they claim that at that spot is a meaning excess that is comparable to v sigma earlier the look-elsewhere number is taken into account. There are truly 2 excesses, i that is slightly below v sigma together with the other that is higher upwards v sigma.




OK, they separate the iv jets to 2 pairs of jets (dijets) together with evaluate the invariant masses \(M_1,M_2\) of these 2 dijets. At to the lowest degree I sincerely promise that they're the invariant masses because this describing word doesn't seem to hold upwards mentioned inwards the paper.

And it turns out that both excesses appear when\[

M_1+M_2 = 110\GeV

\] together with they may hold upwards flora at preferred separate values of \(M_1,M_2\), namely\[

(M_1,M_2) = (80\GeV,25\GeV)\\
(M_1,M_2) = (55\GeV,55\GeV)

\] Well, \(80+25=105\) together with non \(110\) but who cares. Maybe it should hold upwards \(30\) together with non \(25\).

So these excesses suggest novel particles of masses \(25\GeV\) together with \(55\GeV\). \(80\GeV\) could hold upwards novel or the W-boson or Z-boson. OK, the \(25\GeV\) particle is suggested to hold upwards "another neutral Higgs boson" spell the \(55\GeV\) particle could hold upwards a charged Higgs boson.

There are several aspects of the newspaper that cut my faith. One of them is the number of authors which is 2 together with it is a depression number. Another i is the enthusiasm amongst which they speak most \(M_1+M_2\) which should hold upwards \(110\GeV\). As far every bit I an say, it makes no feel to speak most the total of 2 invariant masses. You know, alone the total mass/energy \(p^0_1+p^0_2\) is conserved, the total of invariant masses isn't. The quantity \(p^0_1+p^0_2\) is something else than \(M_1+M_2\); instead, it is the invariant volume of all iv jets.

So if these excesses are real, at that spot possess got to be novel particles of masses \(25\GeV\) and/or \(55\GeV\). And in i lawsuit several novel particles similar that exist, at that spot is no argue for the sums of invariant masses inwards this listing (such every bit \(25+80\) together with \(55+55\)) to hold upwards equal to each other. Well, I possess got mentioned that they're non truly equal to each other – i of the sums is \(105\) together with the other i is \(110\GeV\). However, what I am bothered yesteryear is the real fact that they would focus on the value of this quantity or sell it inwards the in conclusion newspaper fifty-fifty though the quantity \(M_1+M_2\) alone has relevance for the numerologists.

If the authors were 2 numerologists, at that spot would belike hold upwards lots of things that they could exercise incorrectly. I am worried most their "sorting of the jets". The physical care for alone makes feel if they carefully calculate the theoretical predictions assuming the same sorting. I don't desire to accuse them of anything but I am non certain whether they possess got done so. If they haven't, at that spot could hold upwards spurious deviations sitting peculiarly close the "equal partitioning of \(110\GeV\) to 2 equal parts" (yes, at that spot is an excess there) together with maybe some other critical places.

I would predict that at that spot would hold upwards to a greater extent than serious "strange" things inwards the newspaper than the enthusiasm most \(M_1+M_2\). But of course, particle physics may hold upwards lucky together with I may hold upwards wrong. There are reasons to mean value that novel particles of masses \(25\GeV\) or \(55\GeV\) could grip amongst some astrophysical hints of nighttime matter. So I am going to choke along the condition of these 2 "discoveries" every bit "to hold upwards decided".