Honestly, the article feels confused, using the terms “higgs particle” and “higgs mode” interchangeably. I suspect that significant losses happened in transla

Honestly, the article feels confused, using the terms “higgs particle” and “higgs mode” interchangeably. I suspect that significant losses happened in translation to layman-speak, and if you grant such losses may have occurred, “this is new evidence that there may be an axial higgs particle, given that we can make an axial higgs-by-analogy in our fancy superconducting material” feels like more likely source material than “we found the holy grail: direct evidence of another higgs, without needing an lhc to do it”. I could be wrong, but the physics version of a biology headline missing the words “…in mice” is “…in condensed matter”.