875:
and that this decay would be important for the discovery if the mass is between 100 and 160 GeV - the most likely mass range based on some other measurements. When a small peak showed up at 125 GeV the interpretation was pretty obvious. We also knew that a decay to four leptons would be common, and that search saw a peak around 125 GeV as well. Both matched the predicted signal strength for the Higgs, and both experiments saw clear signals, so ATLAS and CMS announced the discovery of a new particle that "behaves like" the Higgs boson. That caveat was dropped over the following months as more and more parameters were measured. For the 750 GeV peak the situation was completely different. We didn't expect a particle there, so there were no clear predictions to compare with. "Diphoton excess" is a bad group because it doesn't tell you in which situation you are. It just tells you that you have more events with two photons than expected in some mass range. Do you see new decays of a particle that was already known before (this is by far the most common type of discovery)? Do you see a particle that was already expected to exist? Do you see something completely unexpected?
84:
189:
179:
74:
158:
53:
22:
828:
as a particle physicist. "Diphoton excess" is not specific to this event. The Higgs was also found as a diphoton excess (among other decays). The energy of 750 GeV is a more important part than "diphoton". The 95 GeV excess doesn't belong here, and it's so tiny that I don't think it warrants coverage
874:
As seen from before the discovery, assuming the Higgs exists: We didn't know its mass, but for every possible mass value we could predict all other parameters, including how often it should get produced and how often it decays to what. That means we knew in advance that it could decay to two photons
855:
is way more interesting than an entire article about a colossal flub by hundreds of physicists. Knowing this kind of event played a role in one of the biggest recent discoveries in particle physics completely changes the nature of the topic. The puzzling and obscure "750 GeV diphoton excess" becomes
339:
A statistical fluctuation (what the 5 sigma is referring to, as the uncertainty is dominated by statistics) is not an experimental or theoretical error. It is just bad luck. 5 sigma do not rule out experimental errors (=you forgot something in the measurement, for example), but they make statistical
566:
So far, we have a preliminary analysis by one experiment (ATLAS didn't make their results public yet). CMS released an analysis where they looked at events where at least one photon had to be in the barrel. Why didn't they include endcap/endcap events? I would expect that they add those later - and
456:
How theorists can do that is a different question. This particular search (invariant mass of diphoton system) has a really nice and easy concept, and no one has a plausible idea how you could get it wrong. Worst case you reduce your sensitivity ("die falls off the table and you don't see the result
713:
I already think the article overstates the trust physicists put in the data. As it's written right now, "Despite the initial significance being lower than the discovery threshold of five sigma, many physicists treated the initial excess as tantamount to a discovery, as evidenced by the extreme
358:
Back in my day we had a "standard error of measurement", meaning that each measurement has some uncertainty in it. I still don't understand those two sentences. If experimental error or theoretical systematic error have been ruled out, it seems to me that it is a new particle.
277:
I don't think "digamma particle" is a common name for the potential particle. "Digamma particle" gives exactly 8 google hits (excluding this article). "Digamma excess" gives 133, "750 GeV boson" gives 2400, "750 GeV excess" gives 1000, "750 GeV diphoton excess" gives 6100. I
738:― ¹ by the way, there's a funny video from the LHC's launch where several physicists are talking about what to expect and one of them says almost jokingly that the most terrible thing that could happen was finding the Higgs boson and nothing else, but I digress
878:
It's difficult to include background information like that in articles. It's something you learn from working in particle physics, it's not something you would find discussed in typical
Knowledge (XXG) sources. It's not specific to any single article either.
728:
I mean, we all know the LHC's results have been the biggest blow particle physics could have takenÂą and any new data at this point is reason to write that amount of articles. And that's not to mention that many articles attempted to explain the anomaly away.
724:
You're supposed to believe that the number of articles—which, by the way, means nothing to laymen who don't know how many articles are otherwise published in that same time period—"authored" is closely linked to the trust physicists put in the anomaly?
394:
Maybe it is clearer with an example? You try to figure out if a die is loaded and delivers more "6" than it should. You throw it twice, it is 6 both times. You investigate video records of the throw, you check that the table is completely flat, you make
399:
sure that you indeed rolled "6" both times - no measurement error. But you still don't know if the die is loaded, simply because the statistical uncertainty is too large: it is perfectly reasonable that an unloaded die can roll 6 twice in a row.
325:
The introduction says "The diphoton excess cannot be caused by an experimental or theoretical systematic error. The data, however, are less than 5 standard deviations (sigma) different from that expected if there was no new particle,...".
859:
An article about "diphoton excess" could be an article that helps readers understand particle physics. This article about 750 GeV is obscure and technical, a kind of footnote for particle physicists. I hope you will reconsider.
442:'s explanation: I think the text in the article could be made clearer to say that. What I don't understand (and maybe never will) is how reference 7 can so confidently rule out "experimental or theoretical systematic error"?
220:
414:
Maybe I can be clearer about the confusion. Either it is a new particle or it is an error. A sentence in the introduction states that it is not an error. If it is not an error then it is a new particle, right?
624:"The published data (ref) for experiment X showed E events in mass range M-N GeV, with the Standard Model predicting F on average. Assuming a Poisson model for event production, this equates to a
586:
Can the article be extended to include the actual event counts, and estimated background plus associated error terms, in order to demystify the magical however-many-sigma numbers please?
957:
793:
Ok I did those (within the current title). The content was a little redundant (too much in the first section that could go in to the 2015 or 2016 slots) but I did not try to fix it.
638:... If the reader can be given some appreciation that a few tens of events was sufficient to work the HEP community up into a publishing frenzy then that would be helpful. Thanks.
255:
732:
And by the way, "authored" and "articles" are not precise words in this context. I mean, does the 500 number include preprints? Are they research articles, or magazine articles?
967:
245:
608:
You would have to choose an arbitrary mass range to do that, which distorts the analyses the experiments do. And we don't have the source data, only the binned results. --
329:
If it doesn't meet the 5-sigma criteria to rule out experimental error, how can they know that it "cannot be caused by an experimental or theoretical systematic error."?
972:
962:
215:
140:
915:" in an article. But it may be better to keep this article in its current version and wait for further LHC results and press coverage before starting an article
567:
if their analysis takes more time this is a weak indication that there could be something. But all those speculations are not suitable for the article. --
211:
202:
163:
507:
This shows that the two sentences in the introduction do not accurately portray the actual situation and need to be rewritten. Which was my point.
952:
130:
663:. A statement like "a few tens of events was sufficient to work the HEP community up into a publishing frenzy" would certainly be misleading. --
83:
947:
106:
664:
659:
Sounds like you're asking for a naĂŻve re-interpretation of the results, which doesn't really add anything to the article and strays into
424:"Either it is a new particle or it is an error." - no it is not. A statistical fluctuation is not an error, no one did anything wrong. --
471:
I suggest it's an overly bold claim to make based on a single preprint. Can we soften the language? Or find more supporting literature?
645:
593:
760:
The 750 GeV qualifier is unnecessary detail. The notable topic is "diphoton excess". Other such excesses have already been claimed.
97:
58:
903:
I would like to point out that the discovery of the Higgs boson in the diphoton-channel and the 4-lepton-channel is described
33:
779:. But a page move would require significant changes (new introduction, new table of content, what happens to the infobox?) --
714:
interest particularly by the theory community, leading to the authorship of over 500 articles.", the reasoning is a stretch.
210:
content on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
807:
I removed the infobox which referred to the 750 GeV excess. I think the article could be moved to "diphoton excess" now.--
622:
Then please find a way of using those binned results to partially demystify the stats. I'm thinking something like ...
457:
of this roll"), but there is no known way to see an excess by measurement error - but how can you fully rule it out? --
207:
687:
My previous comment was an attempt to explain why exactly this is not possible, and leads to unscientific results. --
904:
194:
668:
629:
39:
21:
916:
649:
597:
281:
641:
589:
865:
798:
765:
633:
105:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
924:
908:
812:
784:
776:
754:
743:
476:
447:
377:
552:
Since it was determined to be a statistical fluke, the confusing sentence has been removed.
861:
794:
761:
302:
660:
920:
808:
780:
739:
472:
443:
373:
636:
of results from multiple tests, this equated to a global significance of around 2 sigma."
912:
89:
178:
157:
941:
884:
834:
692:
613:
572:
521:
462:
429:
405:
345:
310:
291:
907:, so there is no need for an additional article. I thought the idea for the article
856:"another possible diphoton excess". We understand the excitement and disappointment.
928:
888:
869:
838:
816:
802:
788:
769:
747:
696:
672:
653:
617:
601:
576:
556:
553:
534:
531:
525:
511:
508:
480:
466:
451:
433:
419:
416:
409:
381:
369:
363:
360:
349:
333:
330:
314:
295:
735:
I'd like to see that paragraph rewritten. I could rewrite it if there's support.
73:
52:
184:
79:
880:
844:
830:
688:
609:
568:
517:
458:
439:
425:
401:
341:
306:
287:
625:
102:
372:. The meaning of reference 7 here could do with more explanation.
516:
I weakened the statement to "is not expected to be caused by". --
847:
To me, as a
Knowledge (XXG) reader, learning that, as you say:
15:
214:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
911:
was to collect "diphoton-excesses with respect to the
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
628:of 1 in 20000 or a local significance of about 3.9
850:"The Higgs was also found as a diphoton excess"
301:Multiple edits to the article, no veto: moved,
958:Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance
286:or similar names (LHC diphoton excess, ...) --
230:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject History of Science
221:History of Science Collaboration of the Month
8:
19:
968:Low-importance history of science articles
639:
587:
152:
47:
206:, an attempt to improve and organize the
973:WikiProject History of Science articles
963:Start-Class history of science articles
233:Template:WikiProject History of Science
154:
49:
7:
530:Thank you, that addresses my point!
95:This article is within the scope of
340:fluctuations extremely unlikely. --
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
953:Low-importance physics articles
250:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
218:. You can also help with the
203:History of Science WikiProject
1:
557:02:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
948:Start-Class physics articles
200:This article is part of the
118:Template:WikiProject Physics
697:11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
673:12:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
654:07:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
632:. Taking into account the
618:15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
602:06:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
236:history of science articles
989:
929:17:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
889:17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
870:16:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
839:06:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
817:05:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
803:19:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
789:18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
770:17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
577:21:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
256:project's importance scale
141:project's importance scale
775:I don't oppose the title
562:Please stick to the facts
535:00:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
526:20:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
512:02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
481:23:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
467:22:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
452:22:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
434:20:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
420:20:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
410:20:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
382:08:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
364:22:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
350:20:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
334:18:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
249:
195:History of science portal
172:
134:
67:
46:
748:09:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
315:23:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
305:can stay as redirect. --
296:21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
282:750 GeV diphoton excess
280:suggest to move it to "
917:95 GeV diphoton excess
28:This article is rated
634:look-elsewhere_effect
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
753:Proposal to move to
98:WikiProject Physics
227:History of Science
208:history of science
164:History of Science
34:content assessment
656:
644:comment added by
604:
592:comment added by
270:
269:
266:
265:
262:
261:
151:
150:
147:
146:
980:
303:Digamma particle
238:
237:
234:
231:
228:
197:
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
121:physics articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
988:
987:
983:
982:
981:
979:
978:
977:
938:
937:
909:diphoton excess
826:Strongly oppose
777:Diphoton excess
758:
755:Diphoton excess
584:
564:
323:
275:
235:
232:
229:
226:
225:
193:
188:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
986:
984:
976:
975:
970:
965:
960:
955:
950:
940:
939:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
913:Standard Model
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
876:
857:
853:
852:
851:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
757:
751:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
665:192.41.131.250
583:
580:
563:
560:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
397:really, really
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
368:I concur with
353:
352:
322:
319:
318:
317:
274:
271:
268:
267:
264:
263:
260:
259:
252:Low-importance
248:
242:
241:
239:
199:
198:
182:
170:
169:
167:Low‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Physics portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
985:
974:
971:
969:
966:
964:
961:
959:
956:
954:
951:
949:
946:
945:
943:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
890:
886:
882:
877:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
858:
854:
849:
848:
846:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
827:
824:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
756:
752:
750:
749:
745:
741:
736:
733:
730:
726:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
698:
694:
690:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
655:
651:
647:
643:
637:
635:
631:
627:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
581:
579:
578:
574:
570:
561:
559:
558:
555:
536:
533:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
393:
392:
391:
390:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
362:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
347:
343:
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
327:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
283:
272:
257:
253:
247:
244:
243:
240:
223:
222:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
825:
759:
740:~victorsouza
737:
734:
731:
727:
723:
646:62.7.179.172
640:— Preceding
623:
594:62.7.179.172
588:— Preceding
585:
565:
551:
396:
328:
324:
279:
276:
251:
219:
212:project page
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
862:Johnjbarton
795:Johnjbarton
762:Johnjbarton
30:Start-class
942:Categories
921:Kallichore
829:at all. --
809:Kallichore
781:Kallichore
473:Bondegezou
444:Bondegezou
438:OK, I get
374:Bondegezou
216:discussion
321:Confusing
642:unsigned
590:unsigned
626:P-value
554:Bubba73
532:Bubba73
509:Bubba73
417:Bubba73
370:Bubba73
361:Bubba73
331:Bubba73
254:on the
139:on the
112:Physics
103:Physics
59:Physics
661:WP:NOR
582:Counts
36:scale.
630:sigma
273:Lemma
925:talk
919:. --
905:here
885:talk
866:talk
835:talk
813:talk
799:talk
785:talk
766:talk
744:talk
693:talk
669:talk
650:talk
614:talk
598:talk
573:talk
522:talk
477:talk
463:talk
448:talk
430:talk
406:talk
378:talk
346:talk
311:talk
292:talk
881:mfb
845:Mfb
831:mfb
689:mfb
610:mfb
569:mfb
518:mfb
459:mfb
440:mfb
426:mfb
402:mfb
342:mfb
307:mfb
288:mfb
246:Low
131:Low
944::
927:)
887:)
879:--
868:)
837:)
815:)
801:)
787:)
768:)
746:)
695:)
671:)
652:)
616:)
600:)
575:)
524:)
479:)
465:)
450:)
432:)
408:)
400:--
380:)
348:)
313:)
294:)
284:".
923:(
883:(
864:(
843:@
833:(
811:(
797:(
783:(
764:(
742:(
691:(
667:(
648:(
612:(
596:(
571:(
520:(
475:(
461:(
446:(
428:(
404:(
376:(
344:(
309:(
290:(
258:.
224:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
