They say like this ...this question can be answered - with a bit of relativistic kinematics, the mass can be reconstructed. If there is no new particle, the distribution of reconstructed masses won’t show any special features. But if a new particle is being produced, and produced often enough, there will be a concentration of data with reconstructed masses close to the mass of the new particle - a bump. At least some at CERN were honest enough to say that it was only the hint of a bump. Which in quantum physics means that no new particle was there until it was observed. In this case, it was naively observed and called justly a hint of a bump because there was not and is still not total agreement about what was actually observed which is necessary to make it completely real. Remember in the social imagination which is the house for social reality, which encompasses all potentiality, requires agreement for anything to be real or part of social reality.If these particles came from the decay of a new, to-date undiscovered particle, what would its mass be?
It is ironic then that CERN scientists think that a measure of data does constitute evidence for a new particle. However, they do use the word “naively”. And, here we are again back to where I said we were. Physicists at the LHC at CERN are simultaneously studying thousands of distributions, and if you study enough of them, very likely some of them will show rare fluctuations like this. So how should we evaluate the strength of the evidence? That is the question. The answer is in another question - What exactly are we looking for?
No one seems to know exactly what it is they want to find or maybe they do and are not sharing their deepest desires. Thankfully, they have a way forward, according to CERN scientists that
is to look again or look elsewhere for evidence of a new particle. Funny, they just don't seem to get it. If they found a new particle, that would mean that something newer than that is creating it. You see, they cannot imagine that out of what was and always will be comes what is.
With a new view or take on analysis, they consider evaluating the probability of a bump showing up anywhere in the mass distribution spectrum. As expected, the probability threshold is usually applied to the local significance, before the look-elsewhere effect is accounted for.
The justification is that the mass distribution is just one of many distributions they’re studying, looking for anomalies. At least they are aware that if you took them all into account you could reduce the significance further. In the end (to the annoyance of many) it is impossible to remove an element of judgement, of subjectivity. In Bayesian language, something like a prior assumption.This is what brings us back to the question - What are they looking for and what do they want to see... when they observe it. Once they do, who will be in agreement because if there is no social agreement, there won't be any agreed upon data, and no social reality in the social imagination.
After all, there is nothing new under the sun ~ Ecc. 1:9 !
Only things from things unseen that come things which are ~ Hebrew 11:3
Source ~ http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/jun/27/something-to-watch-for-in-the-new-data-from-the-large-hadron-collider