A HINT OF NEW PHYSICS? Viviana Cavaliere of the Tevatron's CDF collaboration explains her group's new result in a talk April 6 at Fermilab.
Image: FNAL
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
Physicists sifting through data generated by the Tevatron particle collider in Illinois have uncovered a signal that neither they nor the long-standing Standard Model of particle physics can explain.
The international team of researchers work with data from CDF, one of the two Tevatron detectors where protons and their antimatter counterparts collide at nearly light speed. The wreckage of those high-energy collisions produces a variety of short-lived particles, which allows physicists a fleeting glimpse into the inner workings of the physical world. The Tevatron, at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, is the second-most powerful particle collider in the world after the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, Switzerland.
Examining a very specific kind of outcome when protons and antiprotons collide inside the CDF detector, the researchers noticed an unexplained blip in their signal that could be explained by a previously undiscovered elementary particle—but not the Higgs boson, the hotly pursued particle that is theorized to imbue other particles with mass.
The researchers reported their perplexing but unconfirmed new finding in a study posted online April 4 at the physics preprint Web site arXiv.org The researchers have also submitted their results for publication in Physical Review Letters.
The CDF team found that the Tevatron was a bit more prolific than it should be in terms of collisions that yield a heavy elementary particle known as the W boson plus a pair of particulate jets. "What we see is that there a region between 120 and 160 GeV (giga-electron volts) where there is an excess," CDF physicist Viviana Cavaliere of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign explained to a packed Fermilab auditorium April 6. (A giga-, or a billion, electron volts is a unit of particle mass or energy.)
The result is compatible, Cavaliere said, with the collisions producing a W boson plus a hitherto unknown—and even heavier—particle with a mass of about 150 GeV. But that particle appears not to be the Higgs boson, which would be expected to emerge from the collisions alongside a W boson with far less frequency. If CDF has uncovered a new elementary particle, it would be the first such discovery since the tau neutrino was observed at Fermilab in 2000. But in the case of the tau physicists had predicted the particle's existence and had gone out looking for it.
As theorists scramble to figure out just what CDF has found, experimentalists will be working to verify that the detector has found anything at all. The new analysis claims that the data disagree with existing theory to better than three standard deviations, or 3 sigma. Assuming the analysis is correct, that means that there is just a fraction of a 1 percent chance that the effect is a mere statistical glitch. But extraordinary claims demand stronger proof.
"Five sigma is our gold standard," says Brookhaven National Laboratory physicist Sally Dawson, adding that the physics community has seen 3-sigma effects come and go. "If it's true, and if it holds up, it is of course very exciting, because it's completely unexpected," Dawson says. "If it persists, it's very hard to explain theoretically."
"We will learn pretty soon whether it's true or not," says Fermilab theorist Bogdan Dobrescu, who did not contribute to the new study. "This is pretty credible at this stage." If the results hold up, theorists will need to figure out what kind of new particle could fit the bill. "It would be a major breakthrough, especially because this is a particle that no one really predicted to the best of my knowledge," Dobrescu says. "We can try to invent some new particles and see if they have the appropriate properties that we see, but none of the answers are very expected."
The Tevatron, which is slated to shut down for good in the fall, is still collecting data that could strengthen the case for a new particle—or sink it. Cavaliere said that the new analysis began more than a year ago and does not include the latest data from CDF. The team already has already logged a good deal more collisions that await analysis, but Cavaliere cautioned that the expanded data set would not be enough to vault the discovery into the 5-sigma range.
But the physics community will not have to wait long before the new particle gets a reality check. Physicists working with the other detector at the Tevatron, known as DZero, are now replicating the CDF analysis with their own voluminous data set, says Fermilab physicist and DZero co-spokesperson Dmitri Denisov. "We expect we will be able to clarify this topic on a timescale of a few weeks," he says.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentSince we already have thousands of unstable "particles" that almost instantaneously decay back to normal stable particles, I am not sure why the particle physicists are getting getting so hot and bothered about yet one more clunker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFeynman described accelerator physics as 'bashing clocks together at nearly the speed od light, and from the broken parts that fall out, trying to understand what a clock is and how it works.'
No one said it better!
RLO
http:/www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity (explains electron mass, proton mass, fine structure constant, h-bar, etc., etc., ...)
There are some rather essential particles or forces that are totally unknown in the standard model. Where is the mass? When you add the masses of the quarks and gluons in neutrons and protons, you come up far short of the observed mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have found all sorts of parts of the hypothetical smashed clock: gears and hands and more gears. But, where's the pendulum? That's what they're looking for.
@rlolderwhaw: What a truly ignorant comment. Sorry to be so blunt, but seriously, are you saying this is insignificant, presuming you have more knowledge on the subject than the accumulated knowledge of the Tevatron team?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comment #2 was meant to be a reply to rloldershaw.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo add to that, I did a quick look at your linked site. It looks interesting but isn't exactly mainstream. Perhaps you might try Wikipedia or http://physics.info/standard/ for less esoteric information.
SA: thanks very much for the link to the prepublication research report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally I empathize with the sentiments of both rloldershaw's and BoRon's comments. The otherwise analytical success of the standard model cannot explain mass; not many of the staff of the Tevatron team are likely to be able to consider possibilities very far outside the standard model box.
I suspect that the mass attributed to specific residual particles by their inertial trajectories following collision are produced by the inertial momentum imparted to the particles collided by experimental conditions.
If particle mass were not a direct property of matter but an external force (imparting spin rather than motion to particles) which is dissipated along with the force of collision, the three generations of fermions could be explained by the increasing velocities of experimental collisions.
This would also infer that there is no particle that mediates mass: mass is the external manifestation of emission energy and propagation energy configured nonlinearly. As such its effects are described as potential rather than kinetic energy.
As Feynman inferred, the product of destructive events is not the deconstruction of proper components but the destructed residue of the completed product. A car wreck does not produce the inventory of components used to construct the car, but a bunch of random junk. That is why statistics is used in an attempt to identify the more likely components (or damaged subassemblies) from large datasets of multiple test results.
As for the nature of this unpredicted particle, it could be a turbocharger - it's too soon to tell.
If anyone would like to see a diverse set of expert opinions on the implications of the putative Tevatron results, go to Peter Woit's excellent blog: Not Even Wrong. Read the piece entitled "Suspicious Bump" and the related comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you will find physicists and mathematicians discussing the reality and potential importance of the mystery "bump".
Science is more than competitive sports and cheering for one's side. It is the search for a deeper understanding of nature.
And finally: 'the stages of acceptance of a new paradigm (courtesy of JBS Haldane): 1. This is completely wrong, 2. This is interesting but peverse, 3. This is interesting but unimportant, 4. I always thought so.'
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
39 major retrodictions
at least 1 succcessful prediction (pulsar-planets)
>10 definitive predictions
Very exciting, I have been waiting for these results for over 10 years. Please see equation 18 in my paper http://theoryofeverything.org/TOE/JGM/ToE.pdf which predicts a Higgs sector boson at 148 GeV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am studying your ToE.pdf and have a problem with Fig. 1 (not to mention that some of the math is beyond my ken.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt looks as though there are some nonconformities, offsets and overlaps of some lines and the major/minor axes of the ellipses don't agree with the angle of "l" and so forth. I'm, thus, unsure if what I see is what you intended or just the result of inaccurate placements of lines on paper. Do you have any alternate representations of this figure?
Meanwhile, I'll keep at it, as the paper has some rather exciting implications. Thanks.
I am reminded of Maria Meyer Gephert and how a lab rat working with an accelerator and an unexplained data set went on to win a Nobel Prize. Feynman is a theorist, which is fine, when there is a dearth of interesting data to be examined and explained. I have less interest in what armchair theorists have to say and more interest in what the lab rats (working scientists) come up with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoRon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the critique - I admit it is not as good as if I generated it in 3D, so I will try to improve it by generating it w/Mathematica (vs. my overly simplistic .ppt).
The diagram is intended to depict 3 (of 8 to 11) dimensions of the model (some in the imaginary planes).
It tries to show how Lorentz contraction of Special Relativity might fit into a model with an increasing c (that is a Universal acceleration or dark energy found in '98 - which my model could have predicted (vs. retrodicted) if I had been a bit more agile).
Of course this is interesting. This isn't like the particle zoo of short lived mesons discovered in earlier days. We now know of and expect them. This is a little bit like baking a cake and then finding something unexpected in a slice. The blip or signal isn't part of the recipe (standard theory) and so the chase is on to find out what caused it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart of the chase is an elimination game. They have already eliminated the sought for Higgs boson. If it's a statistical anomaly then it shouldn't show up again in the data they are actively analyzing. It would be most exciting if it does show up again ... and then what?
Recently, my work on particle-antiparticle interaction reported briefly in New Adv.Phys and posted on the arXiv last month threw up a new short-lived force at very high energies mediated by new vector bosons -- the CDF finding (subject to further verification) perhaps points to just that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho has already eliminated the sought for Higgs boson? "They" haven't eliminated much of anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDURGADAS DATTA published two important papers in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002. The papers are --MISJUDGEMENTS BY NEWTON --AND-- BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER UNIVERSE ON OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH. He said that a new particle package called gravitoethertons is produced by annihilation of matter and antimatter at common boundary of our universe and outside antimatter universe and these are injected into our universe as space or ether or dark energy--what ever we may call. That is why we see accelerated expansion and feel gravity and other laws but due to minuteness we fail to measure in any detector. Now we have seen this particles in more powerful detectors and the magic of swirl ,whirl of this gravitoethertons soup in which live as fish in water is getting exposed and our theoretical physics so far thinking in empty medium must take into consideration this new medium to correct their theories abandoning EINSTEIN but not ETHER in non uniform field density universe where laws are changing from place to place and postulates of Einstein is totally wrong. Read the theories of DURGADAS DATTA IN --durgadas datta facebook--where links available or write to --durgadas,ddatta@gmail.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "long-standing Standard Model of particle physics" has defects. But we love to ignore the defects, and we love to invent new models, as we find new particles, instead of explaining all the defects. For example, the expanding universe is not really expanding. This is because photons have gravity. As photons separate, as they travel great distances, gravity between them reduces their energy. This fact explains Hubble’s law, which means that the universe in not really expanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre we here discussing the "TECHNICOLOR" Force ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissee: www.newscientist.com/article/dn20357-mystery-signal-at-fermilab-hints-at-tech
If so the Higgs Boson is not neccecerry any more.
As a physician, this is out of my area of expertise. But I've learned a lot, not just from the article, but from the most enlightening comments. Keep up the good work my fellow scientists!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently, sifting thru the data from the Tevatron, they discovered that when a proton and an antiproton collide a "blip" could occur due to an undiscovered elementary particle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the real problem in particle physics is that some particles are invisible. For example, an invisible particle, the graviton, acts when two photons attract each other as they collide, since photons have gravity. Similarly, when a proton and antiproton collide, gravity acts, but is the graviton anti or normal, and does it create a "blip"?
Particle physics will remain a real mess until we properly explain invisible particles, and we realize that the universe is not really expanding.
BoRon I wasn't there; but realize the hunt for the Higgs boson is the hottest one on the current particle collider scene. If anything spikes up in a collision experiment of the appropriate order and type a Higgs signature is amongst the first things they check for. Nobel prizes are sitting there waiting for any experimenters who might discover it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust for the record ... and for whatever it's worth ... I doubt the Higgs exists. I think there is another type of mechanism that imparts particles their mass. In any case what I or anyone thinks is secondary to the experimental findings. I could be wrong but so can Higgs who suggested the boson some decades ago. Luckily we live in a time frame when a collider experiment (most probably at the newer and most powerful LHC) might finally reveal its face. However, If it doesn't show up the theoretical window is closing down for the hunt for the hypothetical Higgs boson. (Theoretical models suggest more than one kind could exist so I should really write Higgs bosons).
In any case here is the statement I cut & pasted from the fore-said article that clearly states the Higgs was eliminated in this collider anomaly: "the researchers noticed an unexplained blip in their signal that could be explained by a previously undiscovered elementary particle—but not the Higgs boson, the hotly pursued particle that is theorized to imbue other particles with mass."
So ... with that ... I rest my case, but hope for more evidence and await for more news about the data analysis!
R.Blakely, it sounds like you have been feeding on some quasi-physics theories. What do you mean "invisible?" The graviton is a theoretical particle and has never been detected. Further when quantum mechanically and mathematically modeled it breaks down into pesky infinities. The graviton is a very troubled theoretical concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that light travels at slower velocities in the vacuum of space/time has not be shown. So called tired light theories are totally speculative. The acceleration of the expansion of space/time is based on a concordance of differing and separate scientific detection studies. Check out those down via Type 1a supernovae and those on the cosmic microwave background. The results dovetail.
What do your so-called studies have to so show for proof? I think its nothing less than some gals/guys trying to think outside of the box. Okay ... that's good ... but the burden of proof doesn't disappear on anyone's page. Criticism should not be confused with proof!
"...the Higgs was eliminated in this collider anomaly..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's different: I thought you meant that it was no longer sought! It is hard to grasp how the Higgs would impart mass. Of course I can't grasp how gluons and gravitons work either. So, like everyone else, we wait for some results. With Higgs, dark matter, dark energy and so forth, there's way too much unknown...it seemed a lot simpler in the past.
Hyderabad April 8
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE SENSATIONAL PREDICTION AND EVIDENCE FOR A NEW PARTICLE AND FORCE
Recently Dr. B.G. Sidharth, of B.M. Birla Science Centre had predicted that there would be a hitherto unknown force between particles and anti particles with which would be associated a new type of an intermediary particle. This would be evidenced at very high energies, and the force itself would be short lived. There is now evidence for this which comes from Fermi Lab in the US. A large team of scientists called the CDF team has studied collisions between Protons and anti Protons and have just found evidence for the new force, as also the associated particle. They rule out that the new particle can be the elusive God particle, the Higgs Boson. This discovery, potentially the most sensational in fifty years ,would indicate a break with known ideas and the Physics community is eagerly waiting for further tests and results.
BoRon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Standard Model particles must be interacting with something that puts a drag on them and thus imparts mass. The more massive particles interact with that something more than less massive ones. It's a little bit like how engine oil puts a slight drag on moving parts depending on its viscosity. The hypothetical Higgs Boson is modeled quantum mechanically and if detected it would be added to the Standard Model. Even though there has to be a Higgs-like mechanism that imparts mass to particles it may not be via a boson. If this is the case we would be looking for new physics and I think that would be the most exciting possibility. We should get some kind of clue towards this question within the next few years.
No one knows how the graviton works since it is also undetected. We understand what gravity does on the macro-level and that it is negligible in micro-level interactions (since gravity is by far the weakest known force). Of course gravity dominates in the macro-level but only in localities with lots of mass like the planet Earth, the Sun etc. In any case gravity must be operative and/or originates on the micro-level. Discovering the answers to his puzzle is often referred to as the problem of quantum gravity. Some think it should include understanding how quantum mechanics blends with General Relativity. The problem can be stated in the following more general way: we know "what" gravity does (via Newton's theory of gravitation and General Relativity) but we do not know "how" and "why" it works.
The gluon is well understood and via Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and it is part of the Standard Model. It is the boson that carries the strong nuclear or color force between quarks. You can do an internet search and learn more about gluons and QCD.
I think the unknown is interesting and makes physics/cosmology fun but that's only my take. I hope to make a contribution and am working on my own theory of everything (TOE) and plan to publish it sometime this year. You can also do a web search on TOE or if interested see my website: http://antspub.com
sidharth, Your comment sounds interesting. I tried doing a search but couldn't find the article on Dr. Sidharth's theory. It could be a problem on my computer/browsers but can you post a link to it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks
kenkoskinen
Thanks. It's interesting all right! I've spent a lot of time reading articles and viewing lectures about all sorts of physics, trying to catch up. Things have changed a bit since my college courses in the 60's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe standard model works good and lasts a long time...it makes predictions, correct to many significant figures. It is, however, futile to try to find classical analogies to some of these concepts. Your engine oil breaks down...it's really not a good analogy that one can wrap one's brain around. Why would a massive object tend to keep moving through oil rather than come to a stop? Despite all the mathematical models, I think that it will never be possible to have an intuitive grasp of the quantum world. But, I keep trying to do just that.
Some charts, such as those at http://cpepweb.org/ are a big help. I continue to hope they hurry with their research at Fermilab, LHC and many orbiting experiments; maybe they'll answer one or two fundamental questions in my lifetime. I hope the funding dark ages don't spread back to Europe. I'll welcome answers from, and wish luck to any country that's willing to do the studies.
'The Standard Model particles must be interacting with something that puts a drag
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thison them and thus imparts mass.'Must be? Sounds presumptuous.
The easily accessible references for the theoretical prediction of the new Fermilab interaction are :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSidharth, B.G. (2011). \emph{Negative Energy
Solutions and Symmetries}, \emph{arXiv:1104.0116}. &
Sidharth, B.G. (2011) \emph{Ultra High Energy
Behaviour}, \emph{arXiv:1103.1496}.
BoRon you are right about the analogy breaking down but it is intended to only show a likeness rather than the actuality. There are other analogies that you can find on the web. The problem of how particles get the masses that we measure has been puzzling for some time. Peter Higgs suggested along with a few others it could stem from a boson interaction. It would have to be selective since particles have differing masses. Hence the strength of the interactions causes more "drag" or imparts more mass on some particles than others. The Higgs particles would have to form what is termed a scalar field which imparts momentum but isn't directional. Leon Lederman playfully dubbed "the Higgs" "the God particle" by it also seriously implies its universal range of interactions with other particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem has been particle colliders have so far failed to detect it. Over the years physicists kept suggested higher masses for the Higgs when it didn't make an appearance. They claimed the colliders to date didn't have enough power to detect it. You can only push that so far since the complex mathematical models do put upper and lower constraints on its expected mass. Since the more powerful LHC is operative there is a chance it might be still be detected. Even so ... some LHC & other physicists think it might all be due to another mechanism or interaction. It would point to some really cool and new physics. Time will tell.
rwstutler all of this may sound presumptuous to you but that's the conclusion of some of the best physicists who are actively involved in the hunt. You have to keep in mind that mass and energy are equivalent and interactions amongst particles involves energy/mass exchanges. Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin i.e. E=Mc2. I hope this helps.
@ BoRon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE=mc^2
The mass in a protons and neutrons is in large part due to the kinetic energy of the quarks
@ jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you post such nonsense? Your comments are always completely incoherent. It seems like you are trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary, but in reality its all nonsense.
How exciting new meat for the grinder.I hope this new wrench in the works is true so that it will lead to a decades long search for a newer truer theory for TOE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the nature we can say an animal like camel- cow- lion. But, It is not a real animal. In mathematics we can say anything but their existence could be doubtful. There are beings we cannot formulize. Fossils of late animals like dinausors could be found but not a present reality. In the macro world you have milliards of people but in particle worlds you have to wait to have enough proves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndian scientist questions authenticity of ‘god particle discovery ’
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(From Wires, April 26)An eminent Indian physicist Monday questioned the authenticity of the reports that speak of the discovery of the Higgs boson also known as god particle that is believed to bestow mass on other particles. A leaked internal memo contains unconfirmed reports that one of the detectors at the Large Hadron Colliders at CERN near Geneva picked up signals that could be a ‘Higgs boson’ says the Telegraph. B.G.Sidharth of the B.M.Birla Science Centre at Hyderabad said he was very skeptical about this claim.
“This is unofficially leaked news – such a thing has happened before” Sidharth who has authored several books and published research papers on the subject said. He had come out with new theoretical findings recently that say that there is a new force of nature acting between particles and their anti-particle counterparts. This can be seen at very high energies and is very shortlived. A discovery matching this description has been announced by the CDF team at Fermilab’s Tevatron in Illinois. There is about a one in a thousand chance that this observation is a fluke. But given the theoretical background, the chances this is wrong is even less.
“In fact the latest LHC news (that says Higgs boson has been detected) has to be first verified and authenticated by the team itself, before any conclusion whatsoever can be drawn” he said adding ‘at present it is no more than a rumour’.
According to the Standard Model of particle physics the universe is composed of matter and anti matter. Besides there is an intermediary particle the ‘Higgs boson’ believed to bestow mass on matter and anti matter. The hypothetical elementary particle ‘Higgs boson’ predicted by the British physicist Peter Higgs some forty five years ago, has however not been directly discovered yet.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN created three years ago is likely to confirm or reject the existence of these new particles Some physicists even feel that the discovey of the Higgs would merely confirm the Standard Model, but physics would be more interesting in the absence of Higgs.
.
Dont you think that all this interferance with these colliders are interfering with our weather? After all pebbles create ripples and that disturbes the weak links and plates above and below ground..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe weather we have had in the last few years is beyond the norm. and you cant tell me there is no connection.
I'm not sure you can use an alpha particle as a representative of a Schwartzchild hole. The alpha is charged, and may account for the larger than acceptable error in radius.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you've got some interesting math.