The observation of neutrinoless quadruple beta decay (0ν4β) in the absence of neutrinoless double beta decay (0ν2β) has been argued to provide a strong indication that neutrinos are Dirac particles. We report a search for 0ν4β decay of 136Xe using a total 136Xe exposure of 148.4 kg⋅yr, collected during the commissioning and the first science runs of the PandaX-4T experiment. No significant excess of events over the background is observed. A lower limit on the 0ν4β decay half-life of 136Xe is set at 6.01 x 10^24 yr at the 90% confidence level. This result establishes the most stringent constraint on this process in xenon, demonstrating the unique capability of the PandaX-4T detector in probing lepton number violation and shedding light on the fundamental nature of neutrinos.
Thursday, September 10, 2026
Neutrinoless Quadruple Beta Decay
Tuesday, September 8, 2026
A Heart Warming Math Story
A 92 year old retired math professor (a woman), and a 15 year old girl, who both live in the same neighborhood in Manhattan, solve an important unsolved problem in the topology of knot theory together (via Not Even Wrong which links to the New York Times, the article that they published about their discovery, and Scientific American).
Read the whole thing, it is not very amenable to being summarized.
Hadron Physics To Do
One of my long-standing to dos for a blog post, which keeps getting put off because it is a pretty big project, is to survey the current state of the literature regarding hadron and/or hadron molecule resonances that aren't simple pseudo-scalar valance quark-antiquark, and simple three valance quark baryons, with u, d, s, c, and b valance quarks.
These include scalar mesons, axial-vector mesons, tetraquarks, pentaquarks, hexaquarks (if any), quarkonia, toponium, glueballs, mixed/blended meson resonances, glueball-quark hybrids, hadron molecules, excited hadron resonances, and other XYZ resonances.
There are also "leptonic atoms" which substitute positively charged leptons for protons in an atomic nucleus and are bound by quantum electrodynamics (i.e. by electromagnetism) rather than by the strong force, that probably belong in the same discussion (and generally have a mass of less than 4 GeV).
As a prelude, the big bottom line is that there is not a global solution, really, even to any large group of unclassified resonances. Each resonance has to be figured out on its own. It is sometimes quite an epic effort to discriminate between plausible explanations of their structure.
But there is also no BSM physics. QCD can explain it, but you have to be open to more involved hadron and hadron molecule structures than the vanilla mesons and baryons display. Thus, we are slowly and painfully, but inexorably, reaching a point where essentially all resonances have a Standard Model explanation.
Also, except for toponium, this highly sophisticated analysis and classification of hadron resonances, while it requires lots of data points, doesn't require the extreme high energies of the 13-14 TeV LHC (Large Hadron Collider).
Generally speaking, all hadron resonances are somewhere between 135 MeV (the lightest pion) and about 30 GeV (a hypothetical six b quark hexaquark), and the lower middle part of this range is very crowded with all sorts of resonances. This is comfortably below the energy scale of even a W or Z or Higgs boson, and is also below the energy scale of a top quark-antitop quark pair.
Maybe a post just spelling out the possibilities would be a good prelude to a post putting forth the leading theories about which resonances are most likely matches to which possibilities.
Where Do Grammatical Inflections Come From?
The maxim "today's morphology is yesterday's syntax," coined by linguist Thomas Givon, means that grammatical word endings and affixes (morphology) evolve over time from separate, independent words once used together in phrases and sentences (syntax).
Via Language Log.
Vaguely related: Some karaoke machines display words sung with almost no gap between them as a single word (German style), which indeed does help in getting the phrasing of the words in a song that you don't know very well right.
Monday, September 7, 2026
The SM Expectation For Higgs Boson Pair Production
A new study makes a state of the art prediction of the Higgs boson pair production rate from gluon fusion in the Standard Model.
Some day when Higgs boson pair production experiments are about 1000 times more precise than they are today, this prediction can be compared to the experimental data, which is one way to determine is the Higgs boson self-coupling is consistent with the Standard Model prediction or if it instead has a value more consistent with a beyond the Standard Model value.
Gluon fusion is one of the main mechanisms by which Higgs bosons and Higgs boson pairs are created, and combined with Standard Model predictions for the other possible mechanisms, can be compared to the actual experimentally observed rates of Higgs boson pair production at particle collider experiments.
Despite the lengths of many authors go to in order to make the calculation that considers all sorts of higher order corrections, however, the uncertainties are still large.
But the experimental measurements currently aren't any better. They show that the actual rate of Higgs boson pair production is merely less than 2.4 times the Standard Model expectation (i.e. less than about 87.3 fb) with a 95% confidence interval. Higgs boson pair production rates are 0.06% of the overall Higgs boson production. In the Standard Model, Higgs boson pair production predominantly (90%) comes from the gluon fusion mechanism that the new study calculates considering all feasible to calculate factors.
Total Higgs boson production at 13 TeV is about 55.6 pb (+6% -8% uncertainties at one sigma) of which 48.4 (87% of the total) comes from gluon fusion with the remaining 7.2 pb coming from six other main production mechanisms. Higgs boson pair production at 13 TeV using a gluon fusion rate of 33 fb is 36.36 fb, of which 3.36 fb come from five other main non-gluon fusion production mechanisms. And, 1 picobarn (pb) = 1,000 femtobarns (fb).
This study (see below) concludes that double Higgs boson pair production at 13 TeV from gluon fusion is actually 30.4 fb (but subject to a roughly + 10% -23% uncertainty, so its is consistent with the earlier less exhaustively calculated result quoted in the Particle Data Group review below the fold which has roughly the same uncertainty on a percentage basis; the new result has a central value which is about 8% smaller than the old one). A ± 0.2 GeV change in the Higgs boson mass from 125.0 GeV shifts the predicted value by only about + 0.3% (if it is lighter) - 0.4% (if it is heavier), so the gluon fusion Higgs boson pair production rate isn't very sensitive to tweaks to the Higgs boson mass within the current range of uncertainty, but is probably a little bit less than 30.4 fb.
The paper and its abstract are as follows:
In this contribution, the higher-order QCD and electroweak corrections to Standard Model Higgs boson pair production via the gluon-fusion mechanism, gg→hh, are summarized and the different sources of theoretical uncertainty are assessed. The discussion includes finite top quark mass effects, matching to parton showers, approximate NNLO and N3LO QCD corrections, NLO electroweak effects, and uncertainties associated with the top quark mass scheme and perturbative scale choices. In addition, we provide an updated state-of-the-art recommendation for the inclusive gluon-fusion Higgs boson pair production cross section and the corresponding Higgs boson pair invariant-mass distribution.
The conclusion explains:
This report has summarized the current status of precision predictions for Standard Model Higgs boson pair production via gluon fusion. The discussion brings together NLO QCD calculations with full top quark mass dependence, approximate NNLO QCD predictions, N3LO QCD corrections and soft-gluon resummation, NLO electroweak corrections, and details the main sources of theoretical uncertainty entering the theoretical prediction.
The final recommendations provide state-of-the-art SM reference predictions for phenomenological studies and LHC analyses. They combine higher-order QCD (exact NLO, approximate NNLO and N3LO + N3LL) and EW (NLO) corrections, together with a full uncertainty budget. The combined inclusive cross sections, including the dominant uncertainty associated with the top-quark mass scheme, are collected in Table 12, while their dependence on the Higgs-boson mass is given in Table 13. Additionally we provide differential distributions in m(hh) (Section 7.5), along with corresponding K-factors from the higher-order calculations. These numbers should be used as the definitive predictions of this report, superseding the intermediate results shown in the preceding sections where different input parameters or PDF choices are used. It is worth noting that while the present work does not reduce the overall uncertainty with respect to the previous recommendation, its central prediction includes N3LO+N3LL QCD corrections in the HTL, NLO electroweak effects and updated PDF sets, and should therefore provide a more accurate reference value.
Further improvements in the SM prediction will come from reducing uncertainties associated with finite top quark mass effects and mass-scheme choice, extending fully differential predictions with consistently combined higher-order QCD and electroweak effects, and updating the recommendations as parton distributions and input parameters evolve.
Background from the Particle Data Group (with somewhat icky formatting) appears below the fold.
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Layers Of Language and Culture In West Eurasia (An Overview)
A useful way to think about the history and pre-history of Europe and West Asia since the Last Glacial Maximum is to frame it as a matter of techno-linguistic-cultural waves and layers.
The earliest layer is that of European, Levantine, and Caucasian hunter-gatherers, who are quite distinct and segregated populations from each other and not merely gradual clines of different degrees of genetic admixture. Prior to the Neolithic Revolution, Caucasian hunter-gathers and Levantine hunter-gathers were as distinctively different from each other (or more so) than an Irishman is from a man in China today, at a distance of a few hundred miles from each other or less, and while there was admixture during and after the Fertile Crescent Neolithic Revolution, the populations remained very genetically distinct until the Bronze Age, and remain distinguishable, genetically, even today.
Wednesday, September 2, 2026
A Single Possible Direct Dark Matter Detection
Or some novel fifth force that has a cross-section of interaction much weaker (by factors of millions or billions or so) than the SM weak force.With this detector does that mean that the dark matter candidate would interact with the weak nuclear force?
The DM cross-section of interaction of atomic nuclei (and hence the weak force charge of DM particles) would have to be profoundly weaker than that of neutrinos if it is a weak force interaction, which would be surprising since every SM particle with weak force interactions has the same weak force charge.
Not sure, does the paper say what statistical significance this event has?What would even be a standard for credible detection here? 3 events? 10? When would they start calling Stockholm?
But given the amount of searching that has been done with multiple direct dark matter detection experiments that are all roughly similar to each other, the significance after the look elsewhere effect should be much lower than the local statistical significance.
You'd probably need a local significance of something like 10 sigma to get a global significance that meets the 5 sigma discovery threshold. Also, it isn't just 5 sigma, you also need a theoretical framework to attach the result to and replication, to be a true discovery.
So, you'd need (1) to do a lot of analysis with outside peer reviewers to rule out extremely faint backgrounds that weren't considered in the original analysis or other possible non-DM sources of this outlier data point, and (2) you'd need another experiment in addition to LZ to see it.
But, this makes funding direct dark matter detection experiments similar to LZ for the purpose of replicating this result and tuned to the parameters space where this was seen a no brainer.
Direct DM experiments are based upon the assumptions that the total DM mass flux and DM particle momentum can be pretty well determined from Milky Way dynamics, so you are looking at a parameter space in which DM particle mass and DM particle cross-section of interaction with nucleons trade off against each other for any given result.
This outlier data point, if it is real, points to a fairly high DM particle mass (some arXiv phenomenology papers are speculating in the 1 TeV order of magnitude). But anything much above 10 keV of mass presents real problems as a major component of DM since inferred DM distributions which are "cored" rather than "cuspy" suggest that you need much smaller DM masses to reduce the core-cusp problem, and plausible self-interaction strengths of heavy DM particles still don't solve that problem in simulations.
So, even if it is DM, it might be a type of DM particle that makes up, for example, only 1% of DM, as a DM analog to something like carbon atoms in interstellar space, while the predominant component of particle DM, as a DM analog of something like hydrogen atoms, might be too light for LZ to detect significantly due to neutrino backgrounds.
Analysis of this result in other preprints include:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01475
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01504
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01592
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02608
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02775
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02868
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02823
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02807
Monday, August 31, 2026
The External Field Effect In MOND
Stacy McGaugh explains at his blog, Triton Station, how important it is to consider the external field effect (in which external gravitational fields prevent MOND effects from arising) when using astronomy data to determine if MOND is a good description of reality. Because, when the external field effect is strong enough, MOND reduces to Newtonian gravity.
Quick Human Evolution Hits
* John Hawks makes a pretty convincing case, from several studies using different methodologies but reaching similar conclusions, that about 1.1 to 1.5 million years ago, hominins split into two populations, the smaller of which (about 20% of the total) was the progenitor population of modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, and the larger of which (about 80% of the total) contributed about 20% to modern human genetic ancestry right around the time, about 300,000 years ago, that modern humans are first found in the archaeological record. The rub: fitting that into a narrative drawn from non-genetic evidence is challenging, because we don't know what ghost population the population that we broke off from and then partially hybridized with represents. He cites to many academic journal articles for his blog post whose citations are in a bibliography at the end of the linked article.
* Footprints from a group of about eight Paranthropus boisei about 1.4 million years ago seem to imply a larger scale of social organization for this early hominin than was previously assumed. The linked story cites to: Kevin G. Hatala, et al., "Insights into hominin body size, locomotion, and behavior from Early Pleistocene trackways in northern Kenya." 123(31) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2026). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2530996123
* Descriptions of the last chimpanzee-hominin ancestor may be wrong because we have underestimated the things that primates can do with their feet. The linked story cites to: Luke D. Fannin, Carmen Pape, W. Scott McGraw. "A kinematic convergence in ape and monkey vertical climbing informs debates on early hominin arborealism." 123(35) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2026) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.260818312
Thursday, August 27, 2026
Simple Math Made Hard
It is worth noting that none of the complexities below involve anything more sophisticated that pre-calculus study and logs and trig functions, and perhaps the early part of a first course in calculus, both of which are often taught at the high school level.
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Indirect Experimental Constraints On The X17 Hypothesis
We combine the current experimental muon g−2 world average, which incorporates the final Fermilab result, with the latest electron g−2 determinations based on cesium and rubidium measurements to set 95% CL exclusion contours for a pure vector mediator coupled to leptons. We explicitly test the assumption that the electron and muon coupling magnitudes are equal by comparing this restricted case with the case of independent electron and muon couplings and quantify the impact on the allowed parameter space.
In the minimal visible dark-photon model, both leptons constrain the same kinetic mixing and are analyzed through a combined χ2 analysis. We compare the resulting g−2 bounds with existing accelerator direct-search exclusions and model-dependent astrophysical and cosmological constraints. From the accelerator comparison, we identify a region in the (mA′,|ϵ|) parameter space near 17~MeV, close to the reported X17 mass, that remains allowed by the direct-search contours displayed here but is excluded by the cesium-based electron g−2 constraint. The rubidium-based fit does not exclude this interval.
For an X17 boson with independent lepton couplings, we constrain the electron and muon couplings separately. Electron-only direct searches leave two disconnected allowed regions near the reported X17 mass: a newly reopened low-coupling interval and a higher-coupling region above the NA64 excluded band. The cesium-based electron g−2 constraint closes the higher-coupling region, while the rubidium-based constraint reduces its extent; neither affects the newly reopened low-coupling interval.
Using the current experimental muon g−2 world average, we obtain a new g−2-based exclusion region for the muon coupling, with no significant preference for a nonzero coupling.
Proof By Counterexample
Artificial intelligence programs have recent disproved some famous mathematical conjectures by finding counter-examples.
Most mathematical proofs are deductive. They reason, point by point, from axiom, to lemma, to theorem, in a straight forward, X implies Y, Y implies Z, fashion.
Some mathematical proofs, arguably more elegant ones, are inductive. A common structure of an inductive proof is roughly speaking: imagine that this theorem is not true. Then, X could imply Y, and if X implies Y, then Z must have a certain value, but Z can have a different value. Therefore, the theorem must be true.
Another form of inductive proof shows that if proposition X is true that proposition X+1 is true by deduction. Then, it shows that proposition X is true in a separate proof for a particular early case of X (and possibly by other separate proofs for several other early cases of X that come before the one you use to validate the rest of the cases). Thus, for the early case or cases, and all subsequent cases, the conjecture must be true.
Many theorems are also almost always true, but have some "trivial" exceptions, typically for things like values of variables that are equal to zero or one, or for the first few iterations of a series, with the theorem holding only after those iterations.
One of the most elegant and efficient ways to prove that a theorem is not true is with a counterexample. The theorem may be true for every situation or set of values considered, sometimes millions of them, but it takes only one counterexample to show that the theorem is not always true, and hence, is false.
For example, in the case of Fermat's Last Theorem, before it was prove to be true, one could have imagined a counterexample disproving it with just three whole numbers that defied it's rule, that could be stated in a line or two, even thought it has been numerically tested for millions of numbers and in the end, it it would take a proof hundreds of pages long to rigorously establish that it was true deductively.
Disproof of longstanding mathematical conjectures by counterexample is rare, but it has happened, even in the pre-computer era, for theorems that held in vast numbers of examples, with no flaws identified for many decades by extremely smart people trying hard to do so.
I haven't very exactly described this kind of conjecture, although I'm sure that a clever mathematician could do so, but let's assume for sake of argument that this kind of conjecture is susceptible to precise definition, and call this kind of conjecture a "near miss conjecture".
Disproof of a near miss conjecture by counterexample, however, in and of itself, while it is efficient, indeed elegant, is also dissatisfying in the case of conjectures the hold true for so many examples and which defied logical reasoning to show that they are true or false for long periods of active efforts to do so. Disproof of a near miss conjecture by counterexample is dissatisfying because, while they do show that the conjecture is not true, they don't tell why the conjecture doesn't always work, even though it does work for so many cases and logically feels like it should work in every case.
Maybe the near miss conjecture is true for all but a finite set of counterexamples that is well defined, and can be used to modify the conjecture in much the same way as many theorems are modified to exclude a handful of trivial exceptions.
Maybe the near miss conjecture could be true if some other assumption so obvious that even smart people don't recognize that it needs to be made, add it.
For example, a conjecture about the probability of heads or tails in a coin toss may need to be supplemented with the assumption that the coin doesn't land on its side and thus doesn't generate either a heads or a tails result, rescuing the near miss conjecture, which remains very useful, despite not being perfectly true without the added assumption.
Knowing why a disproof by counterexample is possible adds insight that the counterexample itself often does not.
Friday, August 21, 2026
Razib Khan On Our Current Understanding Of Human Evolution
A generation ago, we imagined that Homo sapiens, “thinking man,” emerged fully formed in Africa over 100,000 years ago and swept away all our monstrous kin before us through dint of our sheer genius. Today, it seems more likely that it was we who were the monsters out of the dark, the demons about which Neanderthal mothers would tell their little-ones.In 2002’s The Dawn of Human Culture, Stanford paleoanthropologist Richard Klein presented what at that time was the standard model of the recent origins of humanity. Some time before 50,000 years ago, a new form of human arose through some sort of mutational jump. Klein posited that our genius, our superiority, was because of a macromutation that enabled us to generate fully articulate language. Before the emergence of this new species of human, there were many varieties of human, or, more precisely, hominin. Neanderthals in Europe and Central Asia, various “archaic” lineages in eastern Eurasia, and also descendants of other Homo forms in Africa.
Ω humans, whom many popular slogans would refer to as “Africans,” rapidly swept away all these varieties of humanity after 50,000 years.And so it was for a decade. There were dissents; in 2006 Jeffrey Wall and Michael Hammer published Archaic admixture in the human genome. This paper reflected suspicion among many evolutionary geneticists that the orthodoxy promulgated was too pat and simplistic (see also Magnus Nordborg’s 1998 On the Probability of Neanderthal Ancestry). But despite an underground counter-consensus, very few evolutionary geneticists were vocal on this issue in public. . . . This all changed in 2010, when Svante Paabo and colleagues reported that Neanderthal whole genomes yielded strong evidence of several percent admixture into non-Africans, as well as the discovery of a new human lineage in eastern Eurasia, the Denisovans, who also contributed about 5% of the ancestry of Papuans.Previous work had almost entirely been a matter of inference derived from contemporary populations. You looked at genetic variation in people alive today and worked backward to plausible models of how that variation could have arisen. In the 1980s, geneticists examined mitochondrial lineages, which represent the direct matrilineal genealogy. Geneticists noticed that all non-African populations nested within African genetic variation. They soon replicated this result with the Y chromosome, passed only through males, and the autosomes (markers on chromosomes 1 through 22) representing the whole genetic heritage. These results neatly dovetailed with the findings of paleoanthropologists like Chris Stringer of the British Museum of Natural History, who argued that modern human morphology, mostly exemplified by traits in human skulls, reflected continuity with African Homo, and not Neanderthals. Following the molecular genetic results, researchers applied similar phylogenetic methods to morphometric traits and discovered the same pattern of non-Africans nesting within African variation.It was an immaculate and tidy story. . . . And that still seems to be much of the story. But not the entire story.
Over the last few years, geneticists have concluded that a much higher fraction of non-African DNA was originally Neanderthal. In an interview with Dwarkesh Patel Harvard’s David Reich asserted that as much as 10-20% of the overall heritage of early non-Africans, just as they were expanding out of the Near East 50,000 years ago, may have been Neanderthal.
How then is that today we detect only about 2% Neanderthal genes outside of Africa?
The genome rapidly sheds genetically incompatible segments within a few thousand years via purifying selection. Because Neanderthals diverged from our predominantly African ancestors 600 to 700,000 years ago, their overall genetic makeup exhibited much more striking incompatibilities with the expanding Africans than occurs when different branches of our own species mix (the deepest division in our own lineage dates to about 200,000 years, when Khoisan ancestors diverged from everyone else). No doubt the same phenomenon applied to Denisovan admixture, which today in some Oceanian populations, like those in New Guinea or the indigenous populations of the Philippines, approaches 5% or so.What does this all mean?
Because natural selection changes allele frequencies in ways that are out of step with the overall genome, the signatures that we get from modern and ancient DNA are deceptive as to the demographic dynamics of early anatomically modern humans and the Neanderthals (and Denisovans) whom they encountered. All the evidence, both ancient and modern, points to a tiny non-African ancestry population between 50 and 60,000 years ago, a few thousand individuals at most (some models posit a bottleneck of 200 breeding individuals!). If 10-20% of the ancestry of the early modern human expansion, also known as the Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP), was Neanderthal, that implies the integration of hundreds of Neanderthals, as opposed to ten or twenty.
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
Did Archaic Ghost Hominins Admix With Humans In Africa?
Admixture between modern humans and extinct hominins has shaped the genomes of present-day individuals, but reconstructing this history has been constrained by the scarcity of archaic samples and unadmixed outgroup populations.
We introduce TRACE, a reference- and outgroup-free approach that uses features of ancestral recombination graphs to identify archaic ancestry. Simulations show TRACE has high precision and low false discovery rates.
Applied to 1000 Genomes, TRACE recovers known Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression and uncovers ghost admixture from uncharacterized hominins in both Africans and non-Africans. Ghost ancestry persists in Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry deserts, challenging their interpretation as Homo sapiens–specific regions. In Oceanians, TRACE finds deep lineages are enriched in Denisovan compared to Neanderthal regions, supporting super-archaic introgression. TRACE enables mapping archaic introgression without archaic genomes.
Friday, August 14, 2026
Replicating MOND In A Spin-Foam Model
We argue that effects of the quantum spin-connection foam, which describes quantum gravity according to the precanonical quantization of General Relativity, may already be observed in the form of the small cosmological constant and a modification of Newtonian dynamics at small accelerations, manifested in the flat rotation curves of galaxies.
We obtain a modification of the Newtonian potential that takes into account the existence of a fundamental small acceleration scale, a∗ = 8πGℏϰ, where ϰ is a parameter with the dimensions of inverse spatial volume that appears on dimensional grounds. The connection between ϰ and the hadronic scale of the mass gap in the pure Yang-Mills sector of the Standard Model leads to an estimated value of a∗ compatible with the Milgromian acceleration scale in MOND. The connection between a*^2 and the cosmological constant leads to a realistic value of the latter. Milgromian MOND, together with a theoretically distinct interpolating function, is derived under the assumption that classical dynamics is modified by the mean-field acceleration calculated from the simplest solution of precanonical quantum gravity in the nonrelativistic approximation.
We also indicate that the effects of Newtonian dynamics modified by the spin-connection foam may be observable in the Solar System and even in laboratory experiments.
Thursday, August 13, 2026
Hadronic B Decay Anomalies
The anomaly of the day is an anomaly in a certain kind of B meson decay. I'm very skeptical and think it will go away and is probably due to poor modeling of the Standard Model prediction, but I'll note its existence in this post for further analysis.
The decays B→PP, where the pseudoscalar P is a π or K, have been studied under the assumption of flavour SU(3) symmetry [SU(3)F]. The global fit shows a 3.6σ discrepancy with the Standard Model (SM).
Separate fits for ΔS=0 and ΔS=1 decays find parameter sets that differ by a factor of 10, suggesting 1000% SU(3)F breaking, significantly larger than the ∼ 30% breaking expected in the SM. This study has been extended to include final states with η and η′ mesons. The resulting global fit, once again under the assumption of SU(3)F symmetry, is worse, with a 4.1σ deviation from the SM. When theoretical constraints |C˜/T˜| = 0.2 or A˜ = 0 are imposed, the fits worsen, with the discrepancy approaching 5σ. These results hint at new-physics contributions to these decays.
Another Alternative To Particle Dark Matter
A Covarying Coupling Constant theory performs similarly to, but not better than MOND. Both are much better at explaining galaxy rotation dynamics than a Cold Dark Matter theory using an NFW dark matter distribution (which is theoretically necessary for truly sterile dark matter particles).
The Covarying Coupling Constants (CCC) framework, developed to account for high-redshift JWST observations, contains a mechanism -- a covarying-constant effective mass field keyed to local density -- that modifies galactic dynamics without particle dark matter.
We test it against the full Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) sample of 175 disc galaxies, extending an earlier study of a few objects. Working in an inverse formulation, in which each model predicts the baryonic rotation curve from the observed one, we compare CCC against Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and one- and two-parameter Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) haloes on identical footing, using the reduced χ2ν. We show that the published sharp density turn-off in the earlier study is unphysical and replace it with a smooth transition -- the density-space analogue of the MOND interpolating function, introducing no new parameter. One-parameter smooth-CCC then performs comparably to galaxy-by-galaxy fitted MOND (the lower χ(ν)^2 in 56 per cent of galaxies, mean χ(ν)^2 of 2.58 versus 2.65; the paired difference is not significant), while two-parameter NFW shows a substantially broader fit-quality distribution and a larger tail of poor or boundary-limited fits (mean χ(ν)^2≈7). The CCC turn-off density is not universal (scatter 0.82 dex) and correlates with galaxy size, qualitatively consistent with a spherical reconstruction applied to flattened disc systems. Recast as an acceleration, however, a(t) = V(flat)^2/R(t) has scatter 0.33 dex (on the 91-galaxy resolved subset) -- matching the MOND scale a0 (0.34 dex) -- and comparable magnitude of order 2×10^−10 m/s^2, with its size correlation removed. Though not designed for galactic dynamics, CCC describes rotation curves as well as galaxy-by-galaxy fitted MOND.
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
Denisovan Remains May Be Younger Than First Believed
Not long ago, we were finally able to find decent sized bones that proteins provided proteomic evidence (rather than DNA evidence which was not available) were able to match to Denisovans, which were found on the coast of the main island of Taiwan, finally putting a body together with the ghost population implied by DNA evidence. Two more leg bones were recently found.
Earlier dating had suggested an age for the Taiwanese Denisovan remains of about 160,000 years ago, long before modern humans arrived in the region and overlapping with Homo erectus. Analysis of the new leg bones by a more reliable and credible method, however, reveals that they are actually just 45,000 years old, contemporaneous with a modern human presence in the region.
At one level this isn't a surprise. Modern humans in Southeast and East Asia and Oceania have genetic admixture from Denisovans, so they had to overlap at some point. But it is surprising that the two different dating methods differed from each other by a factor of four.
The chemical analysis also suggests that these Denisovans, like Neanderthals, had a diet heavy in meat from large mammals.



