LUX-ZEPLIN Flags Lone Dark Matter Candidate as Physicists Debate Fluke

Dark Matter Finally Detected? — Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder

While the underground detector recorded a technically sound 400 GeV anomaly, decades of unfulfilled particle predictions mean a single event is far more likely a rare background fluke than a breakthrough ending physics stagnation.

AI-assisted summary of Dark Matter Finally Detected? — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • The LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment in South Dakota has recorded a single anomalous detection that may represent the first direct evidence for a dark matter particle. (0:00)
  • If caused by dark matter, the candidate particle has an estimated mass of at least 400 GeV—more than triple the mass of the Higgs boson—with a statistical significance between 2.6 and 3.4 sigma. (1:10)
  • Standard Model explanations for the signal require contrived fluke events, such as overlapping gamma-ray collisions near the detector wall or rare electron absorption and re-emission. (1:10)
  • Despite sound experimental execution, Sabine assigns the claim a 7 out of 10 on her skepticism meter due to low Bayesian priors stemming from decades of failed dark matter particle predictions. (2:59)

Detailed notes

## Background Published by Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube on September 2, 2026, this video examines a recent announcement from the LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter collaboration. The description notes that researchers have reported a detection that could potentially represent the first-ever physical evidence of a dark matter particle, prompting an overview of the measurement, candidate explanations, and broader implications.

## TL;DR The LUX-ZEPLIN experiment in South Dakota detected a single, highly energetic event in roughly 10 tons of liquid xenon that deviates from typical background expectations. If caused by dark matter, the candidate particle would possess a mass of at least 400 GeV, fitting models like a pseudo-Dirac Higgsino while explaining why the Large Hadron Collider had never produced it. While standard physics mimics exist but require contrived scenarios, Sabine assigns the claim a 7 out of 10 on her skepticism meter, arguing that decades of unfulfilled theoretical predictions weaken its Bayesian plausibility. Ultimately, she critiques the self-reinforcing funding cycle between theorists and experimentalists, noting that confirming the signal will inevitably prompt calls for an even larger detector.

## Atmosphere & style The video carries Sabine Hossenfelder's signature deadpan humor, sharp skepticism, and clinical precision. Watching it feels like a reality check from an experienced insider who refuses to let hype obscure statistical context, punctuating genuine scientific fascination with dry, witty assessments. The mood transitions from intrigued curiosity regarding the unusual underground datum into a weary, satirical critique of particle physics' perpetual upgrade loop.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) The LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment in South Dakota has recorded a single anomalous detection that may represent the first direct evidence for a dark matter particle. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) If caused by dark matter, the candidate particle has an estimated mass of at least 400 GeV—more than triple the mass of the Higgs boson—with a statistical significance between 2.6 and 3.4 sigma. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) Standard Model explanations for the signal require contrived fluke events, such as overlapping gamma-ray collisions near the detector wall or rare electron absorption and re-emission. - [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) Despite sound experimental execution, Sabine assigns the claim a 7 out of 10 on her skepticism meter due to low Bayesian priors stemming from decades of failed dark matter particle predictions.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) LUX-ZEPLIN observed a single isolated data point that sits outside the expected background, marking a potential candidate for a dark matter particle. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) The detector uses 10 tons of liquid xenon at -99°C shielded 1.5 kilometers underground in an old South Dakota gold mine to block cosmic rays and environmental radiation. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) A genuine discovery of a dark matter particle would guarantee a Nobel Prize and break decades of stagnation in fundamental physics. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) The detected event corresponds to a particle mass of at least 400 GeV, far exceeding the Higgs boson mass and explaining why the Large Hadron Collider never produced it. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) The energy of the event was so high that LUX-ZEPLIN initially overlooked it in earlier analyses because they were not searching in that energy regime. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) The detection has a statistical significance of 2.6 to 3.4 sigma, corresponding to a 1-in-200 to 1-in-1,000 probability of being a statistical anomaly. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) Standard physics alternatives—such as double nuclear scatters from gamma rays or spontaneous electron re-emission—remain mathematically possible but physically contrived. - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) The signal matches preexisting theoretical proposals like a pseudo-Dirac Higgsino or electroweak multiplets, though theorists have proposed enough particles that finding a match is unsurprising. - [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) Sabine rates the detection 7 out of 10 on her skepticism meter, arguing that proper Bayesian analysis must account for decades of disproven particle predictions. - [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) Dark matter searches since 2012 have repeated a predictable cycle: searching, finding null results, and demanding upgrades to larger and more sensitive detectors. - [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) Experimentalists and theorists maintain a mutually reinforcing cycle where theoretical models justify detector construction and detectors justify theoretical models. - [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) Astrophysicist Stacy McGaugh argues that direct-detection experiments have run their course and 'succeeded in failing,' questioning continued funding for the approach. - [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) While a genuine discovery cannot be ruled out, conclusively verifying or debunking the datum will ultimately require an even larger detector.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) The LUX-ZEPLIN Experiment and the Single "Datum"

An experiment has detected what could be the first-ever evidence for a dark matter particle. Because the finding consists of only a single data point—or as Sabine jokes, "maybe I should more accurately say the datum"—it is impossible to draw sweeping conclusions from it yet. However, if a genuine discovery were to happen, "then this is how it'd start," making it worth taking seriously to examine what has been measured and what it might mean.

The datum comes from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, an ultra-sensitive detector situated about 1.5 kilometers underground inside an old gold mine in South Dakota. Sabine quips that "in some sense, they still dig for gold, the gold of the Nobel Prize," noting that finally identifying what dark matter is made of would unquestionably win a Nobel Prize and "end half a century of stagnation in the foundations of physics." The detector operates by closely monitoring roughly 10 tons of liquid xenon cooled to -99°C for anything that bumps into its atoms. Its extreme depth shields it from cosmic rays, while heavy shielding protects the chamber from radioactive decays and other environmental contamination, allowing dark matter to pass through all the rock and shielding and occasionally leave a trace in the xenon.

- **Experiment:** LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) - **Location:** An old gold mine in South Dakota, ~1.5 km underground - **Target medium:** ~10 tons of liquid xenon maintained at -99°C - **Shielding purpose:** Deep rock blocks cosmic rays; heavy local shielding blocks background radiation from radioactive decays

[01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) A Heavy Candidate and Contrived Standard Physics Explanations

This single recorded event sits outside the normal expected background. If the signal was genuinely caused by a dark matter particle, calculations show it would be quite heavy, possessing a mass of at least 400 GeV—more than three times the mass of the Higgs boson. Such a high mass would naturally explain why the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has never produced it: the collider's energy simply wasn't high enough. In fact, the LUX-ZEPLIN collaboration itself missed this very event in an earlier data analysis because its energy was so high that they weren't even looking in that regime. Depending on how the analysis is performed, the statistical significance falls between 2.6 and 3.4 sigma, corresponding roughly to a 1-in-200 to 1-in-1,000 chance of being a statistical fluke. As Sabine deadpans, "That's mediocre for particle physics, but in cosmology it would be breaking news."

Sabine admits that the signal genuinely looks like an unusual event. Standard physics processes can mimic it, but only through contrived scenarios. For instance, a radioactive decay could emit a gamma ray that happens to strike two nuclei whose signals overlap, with the second collision occurring so close to the detector wall that both signals appear to originate from a single nucleus ("Possible, but unlikely"). Alternatively, a nucleus could spontaneously absorb an electron and then spit it back out; while the energy would roughly match the observation, the spatial distribution makes this "possible, but very unlikely." Because standard explanations are strained, physicists have pointed to previously proposed theoretical particles that fit the detection, such as a pseudo-Dirac Higgsino (a type of supersymmetric particle) or electroweak multiplets. Still, Sabine wryly observes that "particle physicists have invented so many particles at this point it would be surprising if there was not at least one that fits."

| Explanation Category | Specific Mechanism / Candidate | Assessment | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **New Dark Matter Particle** | Heavy particle ($\ge 400\text{ GeV}$, $>3\times$ Higgs boson mass) such as a **pseudo-Dirac Higgsino** (supersymmetric) or **electroweak multiplets** | High energy explains why LHC and earlier LZ analyses missed it; fits the data, though theorists have invented countless candidates | | **Standard Physics Fluke 1** | Radioactive decay produces a gamma ray hitting two nuclei with overlapping signals, the second right near the detector wall | Looks like both signals came from the same nucleus; possible, but contrived and unlikely | | **Standard Physics Fluke 2** | An electron is spontaneously absorbed by a nucleus and spat back out | Energy roughly fits the observation, but the distribution makes it possible yet very unlikely |

[02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) The Bullshit Meter, Bayesian Priors, and the Endless Upgrade Cycle

Evaluating the claim overall, Sabine gives it a "7 out of 10 on the [ __ ] meter." She stresses that the technical execution—the data collection, analysis, and interpretation—is completely fine, with no obvious red flags: it is a genuinely odd event, it could be a dark matter particle, and it sits in a mass and energy range not already ruled out by other experiments. Her major objection lies in what these statistical analyses leave out: the question of "what's your prior?" When weighing the plausibility of a rare, contrived standard physics background event against the plausibility of dark matter models, she argues that we must account for the fact that physicists have made decades of wrong predictions that never came true.

To illustrate why she is skeptical, Sabine points out that LUX-ZEPLIN is an upgrade of an earlier experiment that has been running since 2012, following a familiar pattern in dark matter searches. Experimentalists look for a particle, fail to find it, declare they need a more sensitive detector, upgrade it, fail again, and ask for yet another upgrade. Meanwhile, experimentalists justify their detectors by citing theorists' models, and theorists justify their models by claiming experiments can test them—a self-reinforcing loop where "no one dares to question this insanity because hey, you never know what they might find, right?" Echoing this frustration, astrophysicist Stacy McGaugh recently remarked: "These experiments have run their course. They've succeeded in failing. At what point do we admit that and stop throwing good money after bad?" Even so, Sabine concedes that her systemic skepticism doesn't rule out a real discovery here, concluding with a wry punchline: "I grant you permission to be excited. It's just that to settle the case, we need a bigger detector."

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Dark Matter Search Upgrade and Justification Cycle accDescr: Diagram showing the repetitive detector upgrade loop alongside the circular justification between theorists and experimentalists.

subgraph Loop["The Experimental Upgrade Loop (Since 2012)"] A["Search for dark matter particle"] --> B["Find nothing"] B --> C["Claim a more sensitive detector is needed"] C --> D["Upgrade to a bigger detector"] D --> A end

subgraph Circle["Mutual Justification"] E["Experimentalists"] -->|"Justify experiments using"| F["Theorists' models"] F -->|"Justify models claiming"| E end ```

[05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=314s) Sponsor: Henson Shaving

Pivoting from giant underground detectors to the engineering behind everyday objects, Sabine highlights the video's sponsor, Henson Shaving. The Henson team comes from an aerospace engineering background, having previously manufactured components for the International Space Station (ISS) and the ExoMars rover. They applied that same aerospace-grade precision to razor design, determining the exact blade angle needed to slice hair cleanly without cutting the skin, and machining the blade-holding parts out of metal rather than plastic to a tolerance of one-hundredth of a millimeter. Adding that "I prefer my husband cleanly shaven and without cuts," Sabine calls it by far the best razor she has seen in action, notes that it works for women as well, and shares a promotional offer for 100 free blades when purchasing a razor through her link or code—"You've never shaved that scientifically."

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) maybe I should more accurately say the datum — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) then this is how it'd start — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) in some sense, they still dig for gold, the gold of the Nobel Prize — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=0s) end half a century of stagnation in the foundations of physics — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) That's mediocre for particle physics, but in cosmology it would be breaking news. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=70s) particle physicists have invented so many particles at this point it would be surprising if there was not at least one that fits. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) 7 out of 10 on the [ __ ] meter — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) what's your prior? — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) no one dares to question this insanity because hey, you never know what they might find, right? — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) These experiments have run their course. They've succeeded in failing. At what point do we admit that and stop throwing good money after bad? — Stacy McGaugh

> [02:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=179s) I grant you permission to be excited. It's just that to settle the case, we need a bigger detector. — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=314s) I prefer my husband cleanly shaven and without cuts — Sabine Hossenfelder

> [05:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0&t=314s) You've never shaved that scientifically. — Sabine Hossenfelder

## Mentioned LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ), Sabine Hossenfelder, Large Hadron Collider (LHC), Higgs boson, Stacy McGaugh, Henson Shaving, International Space Station (ISS), ExoMars rover

## Video description Upgrade Your Shaving Experience With Henson (100 Free Blades): https://hensonshaving.com/sabine

The dark matter search LUX-ZEPLIN has announced that they have made a detection that could be the first ever evidence for a dark matter particle. Just what have they measured, what could it be, and what does it mean? I have a brief summary.

#science #darkmatter #physics #particlephysics #sciencenews

👕T-shirts, mugs, posters and more: ➜ https://sabines-store.dashery.com/ 💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 📚 Buy my book ➜ https://amzn.to/3HSAWJW

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TLMPYhstf0)

中文简报

LUX-ZEPLIN探测到罕见信号，引发建造更大探测器的需求 尽管这起400吉电子伏特的反冲事件提供了一个合理的暗物质候选体，但要证实它，必然需要在已呈循环怪圈的研究中再次进行耗资巨大的探测器升级。 LUX-ZEPLIN实验在地下1.5公里处探测到一次孤立的高能反冲事件，指向一个质量至少为400 GeV的潜在暗物质候选粒子，统计显著性在2.6σ至3.4σ之间。尽管寻常的标准模型解释需要极其不可能的背景偶然事件，但该观测结果与伪狄拉克希格斯微子（pseudo-Dirac Higgsinos）或电弱多重态等推测性理论结构高度吻合。Hossenfelder在技术层面对该分析给予了积极评价，指出数据扎实且规避了以往的排除极限。然而，她将这一结果置于粒子物理学在预测失败后不断申请更多预算的体制循环中加以审视，并援引了Stacy McGaugh对持续升级探测器的怀疑态度。最终，她允许观众保持谨慎的乐观，同时强调要验证这单一数据点，必然需要建造更大的探测器。 位于南达科他州的LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ)暗物质探测器探测到单次地下核反冲事件，这可能是暗物质粒子的首个直接证据。 (0:00) 若将其解释为暗物质，该候选粒子的推断质量至少为400 GeV，是希格斯玻色子质量的三倍以上，这也解释了为何大型强子对撞机此前未曾观测到它。 (0:00) 该事件的统计显著性在2.6σ至3.4σ之间，未达到粒子物理学确立发现所需的5σ确定性门槛，但用标准背景过程仍难以解释。 (2:01) 尽管伪狄拉克希格斯微子等看似合理的理论候选体符合数据，但Sabine Hossenfelder指出，要核实该事件究竟是真实的暗物质还是罕见的背景巧合，将需要资助建造更大的探测器。 (3:24)

Reading summary

The LUX-ZEPLIN collaboration has recorded a single anomalous high-energy event that could represent the first direct detection of a dark matter particle, though physicist Sabine Hossenfelder cautions that assessing the signal requires accounting for decades of unfulfilled theoretical predictions alongside rare experimental backgrounds. The LUX-ZEPLIN Detector and Solitary Signal (0:00) The reported signal originates from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, located approximately 1.5 kilometers underground in a former South Dakota gold mine. The instrument monitors roughly 10 tons of liquid xenon maintained at -99°C, using its deep subterranean location to block cosmic rays and heavy localized shielding to prevent interference from standard radioactive decays. Because dark matter interacts weakly with ordinary matter, it can penetrate the shielding and occasionally scatter off xenon nuclei. The observation consists of a single datum that falls outside the normal expected background. Depending on the statistical framework applied, the signal reaches a significance of 2.6 to 3.4 sigma, which translates to an estimated 1-in-200 to 1-in-1,000 probability of being a statistical fluke. While Hossenfelder characterizes this significance as modest by particle physics standards, she notes that it represents a potentially substantial anomaly given the extreme sensitivity of the detector. Particle Hypotheses Versus Contrived Background Explanations (1:10) If the interaction was caused by a dark matter particle, calculations indicate a mass of at least 400 GeV—more than three times the mass of the Higgs boson. This elevated mass explains why the Large Hadron Collider has not generated the candidate, as well as why earlier LUX-ZEPLIN analyses overlooked it by focusing on lower energy thresholds. Theorists have proposed candidates compatible with these parameters, including electroweak multiplets and the pseudo-Dirac Higgsino, a supersymmetric particle. Accounting for the signal through standard physics requires highly unusual mechanisms. One hypothesis involves a radioactive decay emitting a gamma ray that strikes two distinct nuclei whose signals overlap near the detector wall, creating the illusion of a single nuclear collision. Another scenario involves a xenon nucleus spontaneously absorbing and re-emitting an electron. While both standard physics models match the detected energy scale in principle, Hossenfelder evaluates their spatial characteristics and coincidence requirements as physically possible but extraordinarily contrived. Bayesian Skepticism and the Detector Upgrade Cycle (2:59) Despite finding no flaws in the experiment's data collection or statistical execution, Hossenfelder rates the overall claim skeptically, scoring it a 7 out of 10 on her informal plausibility meter. Her reservation centers on Bayesian priors: statistical assessments evaluate the unlikelihood of standard physics flukes, but they rarely incorporate the historical baseline of particle physics models, which has produced decades of unconfirmed predictions. Hossenfelder highlights an ongoing cycle in direct detection research operating since at least 2012: experiments report null results, assert the need for greater sensitivity, and request funds for larger hardware upgrades. She describes a mutual justification loop where experimentalists validate detectors using theoretical models, while theorists justify models because detectors can test them. Citing astrophysicist Stacy McGaugh's assessment that such experiments have "succeeded in failing" and risk throwing good money after bad, Hossenfelder argues that this structural dynamic encourages perpetual upgrades rather than critical reassessment of the underlying particle paradigm. While the LUX-ZEPLIN event constitutes a technically sound candidate in a parameter space not yet ruled out by other searches, resolving whether it marks a genuine dark matter discovery or an unusual background artifact will ultimately depend on accumulating additional data from future detector runs.

Source quotes

[0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: maybe I should more accurately say the datum [0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: then this is how it'd start [0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: in some sense, they still dig for gold, the gold of the Nobel Prize [0:00] Sabine Hossenfelder: end half a century of stagnation in the foundations of physics [1:10] Sabine Hossenfelder: That's mediocre for particle physics, but in cosmology it would be breaking news. [1:10] Sabine Hossenfelder: particle physicists have invented so many particles at this point it would be surprising if there was not at least one that fits. [2:59] Sabine Hossenfelder: 7 out of 10 on the [ __ ] meter [2:59] Sabine Hossenfelder: what's your prior? [2:59] Sabine Hossenfelder: no one dares to question this insanity because hey, you never know what they might find, right? [2:59] Stacy McGaugh: These experiments have run their course. They've succeeded in failing. At what point do we admit that and stop throwing good money after bad? [2:59] Sabine Hossenfelder: I grant you permission to be excited. It's just that to settle the case, we need a bigger detector. [5:14] Sabine Hossenfelder: I prefer my husband cleanly shaven and without cuts [5:14] Sabine Hossenfelder: You've never shaved that scientifically.

Original transcript

[0:00] An experiment to see what might be the first  ever evidence for a dark matter particle. It's [0:05] a single data point, so we can't conclude much  from it. But if there was a real discovery, [0:10] then this is how it did start. So I think we  should take this seriously and look at what [0:15] we know and what it could mean. The data, or  maybe I should more accurately say the datum [0:21] comes from the LUX ZEPLIN experiment. That's  a very sensitive detector in South Dakota in [0:27] an old gold mine about 1.5 kilometers  underground. And in some sense, they still dig for [0:33] gold, the gold of the Nobel Prize. Because let's  be clear, if we finally pin down what dark matter [0:38] is made of, that would win a Nobel Prize for sure.  It would end half a century of stagnation in the [0:44] foundations of physics. This experiment uses about  10 tons of liquid xenon at - 99° C. that's very [0:52] closely monitored for anything that bumps into  the atoms. It's so deep underground to avoid [0:57] cosmic rays and it's heavily shielded to avoid  contamination from radioactive decays and so on. [1:03] The idea is that dark matter just goes through  all the rocking shields and on occasion leaves [1:09] a trace in the xenon. Now this one data point  here is outside of the normal background that [1:15] they expect. If it's really dark matter particle,  they calculate it would be a quite heavy one with [1:20] a mass of at least 400 GeV. That's more than three  times as heavy as the Higgs boson. And it explain [1:26] why the Large Hadron Collider hasn't found it.  The energy simply wasn't high enough. Indeed, [1:31] the LUX ZEPLIN Corporation itself missed the  event in an earlier data analysis because the [1:36] energy is so high they didn't look for it.  The statistical significance is between 2.6 [1:42] and 3.4 and four σ depending on how you do the  analysis. So that's vaguely between 1 in 200 [1:49] and 1 in a 1000 chance to be a statistical  fluke. That's mediocre for particle physics, [1:54] but in cosmology it would be breaking news. And I  have to admit it does look like an unusual event. [2:01] There are standard physics events which can look  like this, but they're contrived. For example, [2:07] you can have a radioactive decay that produces a  gamma ray. The gamma ray happens to hit two nuclei [2:14] whose signals overlap, but the second signal so  close to the wall of the detector that it looks [2:19] like both came from the same nucleus. Possible  but unlikely. Or an electron can be spontaneously [2:25] absorbed by a nucleus which then spits it back  out. The energy will kind of fit the observation [2:32] but the distribution possible but very unlikely.  So it's difficult to explain. And there are indeed [2:39] some new particles which have previously been  proposed that are compatible with this detection. [2:45] There is for example a pseudo-Dirac Higgsino. That's a  type of super symmetric particle or electroeak [2:52] multiplets. But particle physicists have  invented so many particles at this point it [2:57] would be surprising if there was not at least one  that fits. I give this a 7 out of 10 on the [ __ ] [3:04] meter. It's fine for what the data collection  and analysis and interpretation is concerned. It [3:10] does indeed look like an odd event and it could  indeed be a dark matter particle and it's in a [3:17] range where that wouldn’t be ruled out by other  data already. I don't see any obvious red flags. [3:24] My major problem is one that these analyses don't  account for. It's that I think once you compare [3:30] the plausibility of some unlikely standard physics  explanation like these specific radioactive decay [3:36] signatures to the plausibility of the dark matter  models that's the question what's your prior [3:42] shouldn't we take into account that physicists  have made all these wrong predictions in the past [3:48] none of which came true you see the LUX ZEPLIN  experiment is an upgrade of an earlier experiment [3:55] that's run since 2012 this is a common story with  dark meta searchers. They look for a particle, [4:02] they don't find it. They say they need a more  sensitive detector. They upgrade it. They don't [4:07] find it. They say they need a more sensitive  detector and so on. The experimentalists justify [4:13] their experiments by saying the theorists have  theories for it. And the theorists justify their [4:20] theories with saying there's experiments that  could test them. The experiments never confirm [4:26] the theories, but no one dares to question this  insanity because hey, you never know what they [4:31] might find, right? Of course, I'm not the only one  who's noticed this. The astrophysicist Stacy McGaugh [4:38] has commented recently, "These experiments have  run their course. They've succeeded in failing. [4:44] At what point do we admit that and stop throwing  good money after bad?" Okay, but just because [4:51] Sabine thinks something's going systematically  wrong doesn't mean this isn't dark matter. So, [4:57] the brief summary is obviously we need more data,  but yes, this could be the breakthrough we've all [5:05] been hoping for, and I grant you permission to  be excited. It's just that to settle the case, [5:12] we need a bigger detector. I find it fascinating  how much research goes into everyday objects like [5:19] the razors from today's sponsor, Henson. This  might come as somewhat of a surprise to you, [5:26] but Henson's team have a background in aerospace  engineering. They've built parts for the ISS and [5:33] the ExoMars rover. They use the same precision  to design their Razor. They figured out at exactly [5:39] which angle the blades need to be positioned so  as to cut off hairs perfectly and not cut your [5:45] skin. The pieces that hold the blades are not  plastic but cut out from metal to a precision [5:50] of a hundredth of a millimeter. I prefer my husband  cleanly shaven and without cuts and Henson's is by [5:58] far the best razor I've seen at work. Also works  for women. And of course I have a special offer. [6:04] If you buy a Henson razor through my link or use  my code, you'll get 100 blades for free along with [6:12] it. You've never shaved that scientifically.  Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.