3 ms·
I always wonder about the "bump" from a few years ago when hundreds of possible explanations (presumably all consistent with the standard model) were published
by nonbel 8y ago
I always wonder about the "bump" from a few years ago when hundreds of possible explanations (presumably all consistent with the standard model) were published before it was decided to be "random noise".
>"In the interval between the December 2015 and August 2016 results, the anomaly generated considerable interest in the scientific community, including about 500 theoretical studies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/750_GeV_diphoton_excess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/750_GeV_diphoton_excess
That really makes it seem that the standard model is pretty flexible in what it will allow.
- acqq 8y ago> makes it seem that the standard model is pretty flexible It's simply not true that these 500 papers are all "the standard model" and that can be verified by reading the actual papers. E.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04027 https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04027 "Strongly interacting dynamics and the search for new physics at the LHC" New physics != the standard model I don't know the origin of that "500 papers" list (it seems somebody simply made a jsfiddle out of who knows which list and smuggled that in Wikipedia) but they can't be interpreted as "all the standard model."
- nonbel 8y agoI'm not clear on what "new physics" means in that paper. It could mean "standard model + this new particle", but I will take your word for it if you say otherwise.