Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Correlation between outstanding hints in experimental particle physics

+ 9 like - 0 dislike
57 views

The 115 GeV ATLAS Higgs with enhanced diphoton decays has gone away but there are several other recent tantalizing hints relevant for particle physics, namely

and maybe others I missed. My question is simple:

Is there some sensible theoretical basis (e.g. paper) that would simultaneously explain at least two of the observations above if they were real?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
asked May 9, 2011 in Experimental Physics by Luboš Motl (10,248 points) [ no revision ]
Something I saw recently: arXiv 1104.4087 suggests a standard model compatible explanation for the CDF bump as an artifact of the selection criteria.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user dmckee
It's good but doesn't it explain just one of the bumps?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
Yes, it only addresses the possible $Z'$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user dmckee
The electron dipole measurement motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/… seems like a strong negative hint, if it is as constraining as people say.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter
Couldn't ~100 GeV technipions and 800 GeV stable purely techincolor/QCD interacting technibaryons "explain" points 1 plus whichever other points?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon

2 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

See arXiv:1104.3145, 1103.6035 and 1104.4127

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user Julius
answered May 20, 2011 by Julius (30 points) [ no revision ]
Funny two-step methods to link the observations, thanks, @Julius! ;-) A combination of a Z' interaction with dark matter is somewhat creative.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

My NEW preference is the scalar with charge +4/3 that is being postulated as an explanation for the top-antitop asymmetry.

There are some published papers pursuing this idea, such as http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2757 or http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0972 and a couple of mini reviews http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3341 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0841.

As of today I can not tell which papers are the most relevant (see an explicit question in TP.stackexchange). I think that they have a potential to explain some of the other observations because the charge in some GUT models has a contribution from B-L and a contribution from SU(2) chiral groups, so the +4/3 is nor really so exotic.

In any case, take my answer with a bit of salt. As the uppercase acrostic indicates in the first paragraph, I also have some personal motivations to support models along this line, because I tripped into these pesky +4/3 things back in 2005 and I really want to understand how they fit.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-07 05:13 (UCT), posted by SE-user arivero
answered Nov 13, 2011 by - (255 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...