What a shitty article. First of all, the excesses presented in December are more noteworthy because they demonstrated how much information flows between the sup

What a shitty article. First of all, the excesses presented in December are more noteworthy because they demonstrated how much information flows between the supposedly "independent" general experiments. In December the global CMS excess (the one that matters) was 1.2 sigma, but heyoo a little bird told us ATLAS sees a 2 sigma global excess at the same place so into the slides it goes! So much for independence... Since then there was an update in march where ATLAS still sees a global significance of 2 sigma and CMS is down below 1. Local significances are up though CMS has pushed their 2.6 to 2.8, and ATLAS has gotten their 3.6 sigma into 3.9 (Both have also added a new model for interpreting this, I'm just giving the largest sigma values reported). The reason improvement is so modest is because there hasn't been any new data on account of the LHC being set in the "off" position. Anyway, the reason the OP article is such crap is that it doesn't mention any details about the rumour it is so clearly based on. Perusing more technical rumourmongers I find a mention of a 4.7 sigma excess in an ATLAS analysis that wasn't approved in time for the big conference in March. So if the article is based on that rumour, it is about three months old by now. But we can't tell, since the author wusses out on even saying what detector will "CRACK PARTICLE PHYSICS WIDE OPEN"... -_-