11–20 of 74 posts
I was extremely hyped the last time something about this news was posted; someone explained to me that potentially model-breaking things happen all the time, and that this needs super intense cross validation before it's actually considered valid. Reader beware.
There is nothing wrong with being hyped about a potential find. I will remain excited without passing assumptions!
Anyone know if this boson was predicted by E8 Theory?
If this is substantiated, it will be retrodicted by any number of theories. I keed, I keed... but I'm also partially serious. There's been a ton of theories over the years that would produce new particles, whose only flaw is that those particles weren't found. It wouldn't be at all surprising if there are past theories that with just a little tiny sensible tweak will turn out to contain this particle, and possibly al…
I was extremely hyped the last time something about this news was posted; someone explained to me that potentially model-breaking things happen all the time, and that this needs super intense cross validation before it's actually considered valid. Reader beware.
Reader beware should be replaced with : 'Proof required' There is nothing wrong with being hyped about a potential find. I will remain excited without passing assumptions!
The field is not sold on this. Some previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21616084
I am skeptic also, but at the same time, I remember the skepticism of the higgs. I am more than welcome to be proven wrong though! This news is a little crazy and I don't think people 'not being sold on it' should stop people trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am skeptic also, but at the same time, I remember the skepticism of the higgs. I am more than welcome to be proven wrong though! This news is a little crazy and I don't think people 'not being sold on it' should stop people trying.
The Higgs boson was expected though, while this claimed boson is not predicted by the model at all?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459
They claim a 7.2 sigma result, but the distribution of the null-hypothesis (called PDF(exp) in the paper) was determined from simulations of one atomic transition and "external pair creation on the target backing", and the only source of systematic error they took into account was the position of the target relative to the beam-line. It seems a little paltry to me in terms of trying to take into account possible sources of error... And given that the excess appears in only a particular angular region, they seem to be ignoring the Look-elsewhere effect ("oh, no excess signal here? Let me look elsewhere...") and over-stating their significance. The paper also is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, and while that doesn't have anything to do with the science, it does say something about the sloppiness of the researcher, I think.
Anyway, I can't imagine this passing the muster of peer-review in its current state. But I'll be curious to see the revised paper with more details included (if they can actually get it published).
EDIT: They did explain how they determined the background distribution, I edited my comment above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Higgs boson was expected though, while this claimed boson is not predicted by the model at all?
Yes, a better comparison would perhaps be the faster-than-light neutrinos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Higgs boson was expected though, while this claimed boson is not predicted by the model at all?
Yes, a better comparison would perhaps be the faster-than-light neutrinos.