“If confirmed, this requires physics beyond the standard model to enhance the signal. We examine various new physics interpretations of the result including the

“If confirmed, this requires physics beyond the standard model to enhance the signal. We examine various new physics interpretations of the result including these: (1) heavy new physics boosting the standard model signal, (2) [...] a new light long-lived particle, or (3) reinterpretation of the whole signal as the production of a new light long-lived particle at the fixed target,” the scientists explain in the paper. In other words, the high number of “fluke” measurements was itself a sign that something unusual was going on, and now scientists want to understand and explain why it happened. Yes, the results could be “noise,” or just interference or measurement errors. Our instruments for measuring subatomic particles are often using secondary information, like the shadow an object casts or the way it reflects light instead of the object itself. Because of the extreme tininess at play, these secondary data can be inconclusive. That’s why the next step for this research team is to try to definitively rule out noise. Researcher Kohsaku Tobioka says even this level of noise (if it’s so) would be wild. “In this case, expectation of noise is very low, so even one event or observation is very striking,” Tobioka says. “And in this case, there were four."