CERN Reveals Hints Of A New Particle

Two separate teams of physicists working with the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland have identified signs of a new fundamental particle of nature. While hypotheses abound as to what exactly this particle could be - if it exists at all - the most popular opinion seems to be that it's a heavier version of the Higgs boson, the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

ScienceAlert Link

The buzz surrounding CERN's efforts, the Higgs, April's pentaquark news... what a busy year for the LHC!
And they're not even operating at full capacity! The LHC will be firing back up this coming March, and is expected to yield much, much more data to determine the possibility of this new heavy particle's existence.

The LHC experiments ATLAS and CMS have both detected a bump in the data from the events following the proton-proton collisions. Among the particles produced by the collisions, the experiments saw an excess of photon pairs; this is usually an indication that there is a new particle.

IFLScience Link

Further info:
Guardian Link

Stay astonished!

A&E

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

So, another Boson, another fundamental force!

a reply to: ADAMandEVIL

I'm constantly astonished and baffled in equal measure when it comes to the LHC but that's cutting edge science for you , hopefully they have detected a new particle but the chances don't look good , as with the Higgs time will tell.

a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

Interesting idea. I'd like to see how you conceived a temporal particle. I assume it is a Boson?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

Interesting idea. I'd like to see how you conceived a temporal particle. I assume it is a Boson?

At the time I would not have known if it was a Boson. I had read A Brief History of Time and was focusing on the behavior of particles at the event horizon of a black hole. Something got me going. My Physics teacher was impressed.

I noticed something in studies that led me to believe there was a temoral particle from looking at black hole event horizons. So the conclusion was sort of a backwards thing.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

That sounds like an awesome theory. Do you have any links or places to start to read up more on that idea, or any theorists out there that have also written about such?

a reply to: chr0naut
a reply to: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut

From Science Alert:

While hypotheses abound as to what exactly this particle could be - if it exists at all - the most popular opinion seems to be that it's a heavier version of the Higgs boson, the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

originally posted by: SonOfThor

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

That sounds like an awesome theory. Do you have any links or places to start to read up more on that idea, or any theorists out there that have also written about such?

Just googling it now gives a lot of examples. At the time, I had not heard or seen any like that. Not to say I was the first to think of it, as it is related to quantum mechanics, but I had never seen someone come out and say 'time is a particle'. Nor can I find it now. Just me.

originally posted by: ADAMandEVIL
a reply to: chr0naut
a reply to: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut

From Science Alert:

While hypotheses abound as to what exactly this particle could be - if it exists at all - the most popular opinion seems to be that it's a heavier version of the Higgs boson, the particle that explains why other particles have mass.

That does sound the most likely.

a reply to: reldra

Interesting idea. In a way I've always thought of Photons, and Neutrinos to be temporal particles since they have no charge. Photons travel forward and backward in time at the same instant.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

Interesting idea. I'd like to see how you conceived a temporal particle. I assume it is a Boson?

At the time I would not have known if it was a Boson. I had read A Brief History of Time and was focusing on the behavior of particles at the event horizon of a black hole. Something got me going. My Physics teacher was impressed.

I noticed something in studies that led me to believe there was a temoral particle from looking at black hole event horizons. So the conclusion was sort of a backwards thing.

There is a Chronon (the minimum quanta of time) which, while it isn't a particle per se, does have a consistent size (therefore, perhaps charge?).

(I have to admit, though, I feel there are some things about the standard model that, while it 'works', may really be just a current conceptual model and not representative of the actual underlying principle).

What if we have mass and inertia all wrong? What if matter inherently has no mass by it's self and mass is just a product of the matters relation to the inertial reference frame of the background EM of the universe, sorta like Mach originally thought about Inertia? (I'm probably getting Mach's views on inertia wrong) What would become of the Higgs particle if that was the case?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
What if we have mass and inertia all wrong? What if matter inherently has no mass by it's self and mass is just a product of the matters relation to the inertial reference frame of the background EM of the universe, sorta like Mach originally thought about Inertia? (I'm probably getting Mach's views on inertia wrong) What would become of the Higgs particle if that was the case?

That is, essentially, how the Higgs field is supposed to supply mass to matter.

I have an idea (not even strong enough to be a theory yet) that the 'largish' charge on the Higgs Boson caused it to establish AFTER earlier (lower energy) quarks and particles. This created a boundary condition on the proto-universe where matter was massless. Which, in turn, allows for superluminal inflation. Once the Higgs Field establishes, the spacetime and matter become 'frozen' to less than light speed. The change in energy state from superluminal to C limited might also explain the high vacuum state energy as suggested by electrical permittivity and the Casimir effect.

But I could be barking up the wrong tree. It's is really hard to describe mathematically and I could find out, after lots of work, that it just can't happen.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
What if we have mass and inertia all wrong? What if matter inherently has no mass by it's self and mass is just a product of the matters relation to the inertial reference frame of the background EM of the universe, sorta like Mach originally thought about Inertia? (I'm probably getting Mach's views on inertia wrong) What would become of the Higgs particle if that was the case?

I like reading about all these ideas about time, mass and inertia. It definitely has something to do with the up and down quarks within each proton or neutron. But when you start making larger and larger nucleii, the actual mass is less than that predicted by a simple straight line curve. So it seems to be related to volume and surface area. For a sphere, volume increases with the cube of the radius, while radius increases with the square of the radius. That has some effect on extremely large and small radii, which is what we see with atoms like hydrogen, helium and heavy elements.

If this CERN discovery is correct, they seem to have a whole column of Higgs particles and not just one.

a reply to: chr0naut

Have you hit up the guys in the ask me anything about physics forum yet with your ideas? They always shoot down mine if it's not 100% backed by mainstream physics or the standard model.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

Was it the phonon or chron-o-n or something like that?

I had to spell it that way because spell check insisted I wanted to say "chronic". Ha.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: chr0naut
There is already one Higgs-Boson, seen through excitation of the Higgs Field.

Could it be something else? I wrote a paper in college in college Physics about Time being a particle. Maybe one day they will find it.

Time is indeed a particle in so much as it is intrinsically coupled to dark matter, which imo is electrons residing in the time domain

Time is only a human invention it does not have any mass, so not possible to find time in a particle.
Since day 1, I have been saying, this Hyrodron collider is a waste of Tax payers money.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
What if we have mass and inertia all wrong? What if matter inherently has no mass by it's self and mass is just a product of the matters relation to the inertial reference frame of the background EM of the universe, sorta like Mach originally thought about Inertia? (I'm probably getting Mach's views on inertia wrong) What would become of the Higgs particle if that was the case?

Well, as others have said, that's exactly the Higgs mechanism. Otherwise massless particles interact with the universal "mud" of the Higgs field which oddly enough has a non-zero value in vacuum, and that makes them behave "as if" they had mass an inertia, so we call them having mass and inertia.

On the other hand, most of the mass in you and me doesn't come from the Higgs mechanism. It's the mass-energy in the gluons binding the quarks in nuclear particles. So Higgs only explains why some part of some particles have mass, in particular the weak interaction bosons.

What is truly weird about mass (and inertia) is how it somehow sums up effects from all sorts of physically distinct forces and interactions. Doesn't make sense to me, how can you add up a bit of electromagnetic self-interaction to a lot of gluon self-interaction to some higgs interaction energy and it's all units of mass? And with totally random coefficients?

Basic interactions are +1/-1 +1/3, -2/3 etc. Integers. Rationals. Mass? WTF?

Yeah, people have been trying to explain inertia as something non-fundamental, but it is weird.

Back to the maybe new particle:

Maria Spiropulu, a professor at Caltech and member of one of the detector teams, said, “As experimentalists, we see a 750-billion-electron-volt beast decaying to two photons. Explaining it, she added, is up to the theorists.

A huge 750 GeV neutral particle that can interact electromagnetically (?), and it's not predicted by any currently known theory.

Here's what's interesting to me. Before LHC was started, there were TONS of proposed new particle theories. This, that, and the other----many immensely creative.

Many thought supersymmetry was the most mathematically natural, and going by the principle that what is the most natural mathematically is probably true physically, everybody was on it.

And it didn't show up. And I'm sure all these other theories were also mathematically nice too. And most of them will go in the rubbish.

If this result is real, there will surely be some theory, and years down the line it will be shown how it was "obvious" and "natural" as the theoretical extension of Standard Model. *bull sznit*

hmmm, one already? www.sciencedirect.com...

Between this, and the failure of string theory, I think we must lay to rest the notion that good math and good theory leads to physical truth. We got lucky with Maxwell and Einstein. Nice while it lasted but it's time to grow up.