Yes but I bet on Z'

It’s not a discovery. For the moment it’s a possible signal, to be confirmed, or not, by more data. As to the theoretical description, it may be due to leptoquarks or it may be due to (new) gauge bosons. However this also implies that ``direct'' discovery'' of these new particles may not be possible at the LHC-the energy isn't high enough. What does make the signal from LHCb ``exciting'' is that the scale of the interaction between quarks and leptons required, if this effect is true, is ``only'' 4O TeV-cf. http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-rk.html

nobody, who is still mentally healthy, believed, that the standard model is the final wisdom. like the electro-weak theory it is only a phenomenological theory.

``Phenomenological theory'' doesn’t mean anything. The Standard Model is a mathematically consistent description of the electroweak and strong interactions, within the framework of perturbation theory, which is, also, the domain of relevance for experiments at colliders. Indeed all terms of this power series are finite and their calculation is, now, automated (indeed this automation is vital in describing the backgrounds, that must be eliminated, for new signals to be unambiguously identified).

The only ingredients necessary to specify it are global Lorentz invariance, invariance under local SU(3)_color x SU(2)_L x U(1)_weak_hypercharge transformations and the mixing matrices of the quarks between the strong and electroweak interactions, along with the mixing matrix of the neutrinos (the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix respectively) and the properties of the Higgs boson.

it's remarkable that the Lagrangian fits on a T-shirt these days: https://visit.cern/content/standard_model_formula_t_shirt

It isn’t a complete theory, however and that incompleteness, within perturbation theory, is highlighted by the properties of the Higgs boson. These, in turn, can be probed in other processes, such as the decays studied by LHCb, but it’s, still, hard to isolate signal from background.

it is a phenomenological theory because the higgs potential ''falls from the sky''. there is no theoretical underpin for it. only the observation, that it gives masses. people tried to explain the higgs potential by copying the cooper pair theory of superconductivity. this was called technicolor, but it failed. hence the electro-weak -like the standard model are phenomenological theories. the higgs potential ''hangs in the air''.

Hinnerk Albert

I did not realize that the implications would be so big!

Are you telling me that they first validated the "Higgs mechanism" back at 2012 with the discovery of the Higgs Boson and now this negates the whole thing?

no, not at all. i only wanted to stress, that the higgs-mechanism is not the final wisdom in producing masses but only a ''look over the fence''.

Cheers! I couldn't agree more with you.

I didn't know that CERN has made any important discovery? They have found another big highly unstable particle? Bravo!

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

Their claim is that these are stable within the nucleic and atomic structure and only when they fly apart become unstable. I don't know how you prove such claim. Could be just random artificial unstable matter (because it is not natural) they produce in the high-energy collisions. Is anyone here aware of a theoretical proof of this claim that these constitutes are part of stable natural matter? And in general how QM proves that all its unstable matter discoveries are stable within the atom?

we need more understanding to limit the stable and unstable matter