11–20 of 152 posts
It sounds like this implies they've seen 3x more events but it seems like they would have said that if it were the case. Have they just gathered more data about the single event or is this 4 separate events they're talking about?
I read their preprint[1] and they did a thorough job. They investigated a number of the things I'd suspect if I were looking for mis-reconstructed events or weird backgrounds. So it's certainly interesting! That said, particle physics history is full of 3 sigma particle "discoveries" that disappeared with more data. They're collecting more, so hopefully we'll learn more in a few more years. [1] https://lz.lbl.gov/wp-…
Or this[2] 2007 Science paper on ultra high energy cosmic ray source candidates ("anisotropy") that we had to retract because significance started dropping almost the day the paper was approved. It was a fascinating experience as a junior member to follow the collaboration internal conversation and investigation on this, because a lot of extremely principled scientists were clearly deeply worried about losing their h…
It's stories like this that raise my p(we are in a simulation).
I read their preprint[1] and they did a thorough job. They investigated a number of the things I'd suspect if I were looking for mis-reconstructed events or weird backgrounds. So it's certainly interesting! That said, particle physics history is full of 3 sigma particle "discoveries" that disappeared with more data. They're collecting more, so hopefully we'll learn more in a few more years. [1] https://lz.lbl.gov/wp-…
> If the new result is real, more signals should emerge soon. LZ researchers have already collected three times as much data as they used in the paper. It sounds like this implies they've seen 3x more events but it seems like they would have said that if it were the case. Have they just gathered more data about the single event or is this 4 separate events they're talking about?
I read their preprint[1] and they did a thorough job. They investigated a number of the things I'd suspect if I were looking for mis-reconstructed events or weird backgrounds. So it's certainly interesting! That said, particle physics history is full of 3 sigma particle "discoveries" that disappeared with more data. They're collecting more, so hopefully we'll learn more in a few more years. [1] https://lz.lbl.gov/wp-…
Are there any other candidate particles besides WIMPs that the observation could be from, assuming it’s a real signal?
They were pretty model agnostic in what they were looking for. They modeled and simulated a number of different ways a WIMP could interact with normal matter. If this is a discovery, more data will be needed to figure out the nature of that interaction and how it fits into particle physics.
But there's always a chance it's something completely new, or some extremely rare manifestation of things we already know about, but have never seen before. And even if it is WIMP, it may not be the right type of WIMP (wrong mass, or wrong interaction strength) to explain cosmological dark matter.
So you have 7 tons of Xenon as the detector, hoping that some dark matter will bump into a nucleus. How do you exclude other effects?
To start with, they do a lot of work to eliminate radioactive backgrounds in the materials they're using, and they put the detector deep underground to shield from cosmic rays. Additionally, when a particle interacts with the nucleus, the ratio of how much energy ends up as scintillation light versus ionization is different than when a particle interacts with an electron, which is most of the background processes. Th…
> If the new result is real, more signals should emerge soon. LZ researchers have already collected three times as much data as they used in the paper. It sounds like this implies they've seen 3x more events but it seems like they would have said that if it were the case. Have they just gathered more data about the single event or is this 4 separate events they're talking about?
As they better understand the detector, they can use more of that mass. They have data from it, but they just didn't use it. And they're always collecting more data, too, as time passes.
So the 3x is saying they have something like 8.5 tonne-years of data.
> If the new result is real, more signals should emerge soon. LZ researchers have already collected three times as much data as they used in the paper. It sounds like this implies they've seen 3x more events but it seems like they would have said that if it were the case. Have they just gathered more data about the single event or is this 4 separate events they're talking about?
Hopefully it the new data may have 3 additional events, or perhaps 2 or perhaps 4 or perhaps 10 or perhaps... Or the reported event may be false event caused by a lucky coincidence, and they may find 0 additional events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To start with, they do a lot of work to eliminate radioactive backgrounds in the materials they're using, and they put the detector deep underground to shield from cosmic rays. Additionally, when a particle interacts with the nucleus, the ratio of how much energy ends up as scintillation light versus ionization is different than when a particle interacts with an electron, which is most of the background processes. Th…
I agree. Moreover, I'm not sure if it's the same team, but in a similar experiment while removing all the other effects, they discovered that Xenon 124 is radioactive, but the half life is super long and no one had seen it before. https://xenonexperiment.org/observing-the-rarest-decay-proce...