logoalt Hacker News

Biggest dark matter detector spots a single weird particle

103 pointsby randycupertinotoday at 1:40 PM18 commentsview on HN

Comments

SaberTailtoday at 3:18 PM

I read their preprint[1] and they did a thorough job. They investigated a number of the things I'd suspect if I were looking for mis-reconstructed events or weird backgrounds.

So it's certainly interesting!

That said, particle physics history is full of 3 sigma particle "discoveries" that disappeared with more data. They're collecting more, so hopefully we'll learn more in a few more years.

[1] https://lz.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/08/LZ_Pre...

show 2 replies
pizzathymetoday at 2:55 PM

> it’s far too early to claim a discovery, physicists warn...“How do you even make sense of one event?” muses Tom Shutt, a particle astrophysicist at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and co-founder of the LZ project. “We just decided we should publish and think really, really, really hard about what that event could be.”

Very hard to manage jumping the gun by reporters. Sounds like they saw some new data. No idea what it is.

Looking forward to the follow up.

scotty79today at 4:05 PM

Why couldn't it be just a weirdly energetic neutrino originating from the neighborhood of some black hole?

amemitoday at 3:20 PM

Not well informed on the topic- but the title made me think of the recently launched Roman Space Telescope.

The difference: LUX-ZEPLIN, which is underground, is waiting to detect a dark matter particle itself. On the other hand, NGRST seeks to observe the effects of dark matter.

lordnachotoday at 3:20 PM

So you have 7 tons of Xenon as the detector, hoping that some dark matter will bump into a nucleus. How do you exclude other effects?

show 1 reply
rajaravivarma_rtoday at 3:13 PM

I always wondered if it would happen in my lifetime. Hope it turns out to be something interesting (AKA) dark matter.

parineumtoday at 3:34 PM

> If the new result is real, more signals should emerge soon. LZ researchers have already collected three times as much data as they used in the paper.

It sounds like this implies they've seen 3x more events but it seems like they would have said that if it were the case. Have they just gathered more data about the single event or is this 4 separate events they're talking about?