Skip to footer

Oops. We didn't actually find a new particle, say disappointed physicists

Data suggesting scientists were on the verge of discovering a new particle was actually just a blip, researchers announced Friday.

|
Pierre Albouy/Reuters/File
A general view of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment during a media visit at the Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Saint-Genis-Pouilly, France, near Geneva in Switzerland, July 23, 2014.

Eight months after raising hopes that they may have found an intriguing new particle that cannot be explained by the existing main physics theory, disappointed scientists are saying: Never mind.

It was just a statistical burp, not a breakthrough, researchers reported Friday.

"Basically we see nothing," said Tiziano Camporesi, a chief scientific spokesman at the European Center for Nuclear Research.

Early unconfirmed readings of a new particle in December by physicists at the center, called CERN, set the physics world abuzz. Scientists there had discovered the Higgs boson or "God particle" in 2012, and two new readings from the Large Hadron Collider made it seem like they may had found a revolutionary new particle.

In the months that followed, scientists poured over more data from high-speed atom crashes while theorists tried to figure out what it all means. But the new data ruled out any particle existing at the energy level they had been looking at.

At a Chicago physics conference, Dave Charlton, another CERN chief scientific spokesman, said the additional data showed that what they had seen earlier was just a random "statistical fluke."

California Institute of Technology physicist Sean Carroll, who wasn't part of the CERN team, said: "It's a shame there wasn't a particle there, but there aren't any big ideas that would rise or fall on it being there."

The Large Hadron Collider is operating beyond expectations in its second extended run – which is still going on – and is providing more data than expected, Charlton and Camporesi said. Physicists from CERN presented more than 50 new results, but none of them are breakthrough findings that would change current theory.

"Stay tuned, I don't think we have lost hope yet," Camporesi said.

In December, Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit wrote (somewhat prophetically) on his blog, Not Even Wrong, "I do think the likelihood is now stronger that this will go away than that it will survive, but it would be fantastic if this were true: the non-standard model physics we’ve been waiting to see for 40 years, at an energy where the LHC can start to study it."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Oops. We didn't actually find a new particle, say disappointed physicists
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0805/Oops.-We-didn-t-actually-find-a-new-particle-say-disappointed-physicists
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe