Thursday, September 10, 2026

Neutrinoless Quadruple Beta Decay

While detection of neutrinoless double beta decay is a sign that neutrinos are Majorana particles, neutrinoless quadruple beta decay in the absence of neutrinoless double beta decay is a sign that neutrinos have Dirac mass. So far, neither form of decay has been observed.
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.
PandaX Collaboration, "Search for neutrinoless quadruple beta decay of 136Xe in PandaX-4T detector" arXiv:2609.10048 (September 9, 2026).

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.
Ajjath A H, et al., "Higgs Boson Pair Production via Gluon Fusion: Higher-Order Corrections and Theoretical Uncertainties" arXiv:2609.04868 (September 4, 2026) (Contribution to CERN Report 5 approved by LHC Higgs Working Group, Working Group 4 Report number LHCHWG-2026-010).

It concludes that:

Notably, while this prediction is sensitive to the Higgs boson mass, it is not sensitive enough to meaningfully distinguish Higgs boson masses experimentally because the differences due to the Higgs boson mass are smaller than the uncertainty in the prediction.

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.

Hunter-gather cultures in Anatolia and the Levant are just on the verge of transitioning to becoming Neolithic farmer cultures in sites like Göbekli Tepe and signs of proto-farming in the Levant, when the Younger Dryas climate event hits and postpones that breakthrough for a few thousand years after these false starts, until you get the Fertile Crescent Neolithic revolution.

The Fertile Crescent Neolithic Revolution collects crops and animals, which are native to different parts of the Fertile Crescent, to domesticate and then combined them into a Fertile Crescent Neolithic package over a few centuries (that was tweaked somewhat with a few more domesticated plants and animals in each direction it expanded , like the donkey added in Egypt and a few more crops in Greece and the Balkans), but still not fully merging ethnically (and probably not linguistically either) and instead remaining ethnically distinct first farmer cultures and populations.

The group of first farmers derived from an ethnicity known in ancient DNA circles as Caucasian hunter-gatherers heads east to bring herding and farming into West Asia. 

The group of first farmers in the Levant heads south to bring herding and farming into Egypt, Ethiopia, and the rest of North Africa. This branch can be associated with the Afro-Asiatic languages, although whether the Afro-Asiatic languages originated in the Neolithic Levant, or were a back reaction from some Northeast African hunter-gatherer language that dominated culturally over the original Levantine farmers and then expanded back to North Africa and the Levant from perhaps Ethiopia or upper Egypt, is hard to know.

The group of first farmers in Western Anatolia expands in two waves that split off from the same source West into Europe: the Linear Pottery Neolithic (LBK) farmers more or less to the north along central and eastern Europe's great rivers, and the Cardial Pottery (CP) farmers more or less along the northern coast of the Mediterranean. The archaeological record also suggest that the LBK farmers in turn had a fairly basal split into two distinct branches with different material culture traditions. Probably each of the three major components of the Western Anatolian first farmer traditions spoke different, related languages within a Western Anatolian first farmer language family.

As these first farmers expanded into the more agriculturally suitable areas that they encountered, they did so primarily as families that largely replaced the much more thinly populated existing hunter-gather populations (in many cases, the population density of farmers was as much as a hundred times greater than the hunter-gathers who had preceded them in the area and the farmers were also much more prone to stand their ground to protect their crops than to migrate away although early herders were more flexible and hunter-gathers transitioned to herding more easily than they transitioned to farming), although a small number of locals were integrated into each expanding first farmer population, mostly women taken as brides by first farmer men.

In most of Europe, societies in cultural continuity with these first farmers start to collapse. Maybe its due to unsustainable agricultural practices, maybe its due to natural climate changes. In the earlier stages of this decline, there is some introgression of people who were part of remaining European hunter-gather cultures (sometimes partially adopting herding), who had continued to persist in places unsuitable for Neolithic farming, mostly women, and some first farmer communities revert to herding and hunting and gathering almost entirely, largely abandoning farming.

A few places, like Sumerian, Egyptian, and highlands West Asian societies, that were some of the earliest adopters of the Fertile Crescent Neolithic Revolution start to innovate and adopt early metallurgy, proto-writing or a true written language, and larger scale political and social organizations with kings and high priests who are more than just chiefs and shamans of small tribes or bands. They ran kingdoms and established full fledged bureaucratically organized religious institutions.

The ergative language speaking linguistic groups of the highlands of Anatolia, the Zargos mountains, and the Caucasus mountains, and of Mesopotamia constitute one group of early metal age societies which emerged in specific communities that used their technological advantages of conquer societies that were stuck in the Neolithic farming era and didn't adopt as fast. These specific communities probably emerged from an ergative language first farmer society. 

The Ancient Egyptians were another early adopter of metal age technologies whose military, economic, and cultural influence spread its non-ergative language Afro-Asiatic substrate across an ergative language first farmer substrate that extended, at least, to parts of North Africa, either via the Southern coast of the Mediterranean, or via Iberia.

The Harappan culture in the Indus River Valley and Northeast India is a third early adopter of technological advances of Copper Age technology that manages, somehow, to become dominant with much division or warfare.

Meanwhile, Pontic Caspian steppe hunter-gathers who had adopted herding and domesticated the horse, and made advances in making practical use of simple animal pulled wheeled vehicles enjoyed a fruitful synthesis with nearby West Anatolian derived first farmers from the LBK branch of their expansion into Europe, probably in Sredny Stog, that gave rise to the first proto-Indo-Europeans. Maybe the farmers had early metallurgy already, maybe the herders borrowed it from neighboring societies like the Caucasians, or maybe it arose independently not long after the synthesis that created proto-Indo-European society. But, the Indo-Europeans were already a society of Bronze Age horsemen and charioteers before their main expansion. One of the earliest expansions from this PIE core is east into the Tarim Basin where they become the Tocharians.

When a large area arid climate event strikes West and South Eurasia from Ireland to the Middle East and North Africa to Harappan territory in South Asia, in a time frame that peaks around 2500 BCE to 1500 BCE with climate leading its impacts on the affected societies, societies that were still Neolithic farming societies or were less advanced entirely collapse, while societies that had advanced to the copper age or very early Bronze Age are weakened and vulnerable to conquest, but don't actually collapse.

Indo-Europeans expand in all directions into the vacuum as the climate event strains existing cultures. In most places that had not reached the metal age when this happened and had almost fully collapsed, the Indo-Europeans almost fully wiped out existing hunter-gather and first farmer men, while assimilating some of the women from the existing culture, in patriarchal clans. This was the story for the Corded Ware Culture, more or less in central and eastern Europe, and the story of the Bell Beaker culture invaders of Great Britain and Ireland.

In places where early metal age cultures were still standing and just weakened when they arrived, like the Harappan culture of South Asia that gave rise to Sanskrit speaking Indo-Aryan society (that briefly extended as far as the Mittani empire at the Hittite Empire's border, before it was replaced by the Indo-Iranian Zoroastrian culture), the Hattic culture of Anatolia which came to be ruled by the Hittites, and the Aegean (where they conquered the Greeks and Hattic-related Minoans but adopted considerable parts of local language and culture), and Basque Country (it isn't entirely clear if this is a first farmer society remnant or if it was a distant and first farmer substrate influenced far outpost of early metal aged culture, probably the latter), there was more give and take, with a greater substrate influence on the conqueror's language through substrate influence, on the conqueror's religious beliefs and identity, and other deep rooted aspects of local culture (like Harappan curry). Isolating geography in Sardinia, and in the highlands of the Italian Peninsula's Etruscans and the Alpine kin, and in the highlands of Basque country (possibly assisted by its cluster of RH negative blood types) resisted longer and were changed less by the Indo-Europeans, although most ultimately fell to them, aided by somewhat less collapsed societies with somewhat more advanced early metal aged cultures (and by adopting technologies from the Indo-Europeans who sought to conquer them).

Indo-European expansion wasn't unchecked, however. The Afro-Asiatic cultures of the Levant and Egypt managed to resist them as did Mesopotamia, which Afro-Asiatic people had conquered from the Sumerians before this collapse. Geography prevented them from expanding past the Tarim Basin into East Asia and Central Asia. In Europe's far Northeast, as far as what is now Finland, northern Sweden, the Baltic states, and much of what is now Russia, as well as (much later) Hungary, Uralic people arrived as a post-Indo-European layer, or arrived to replace hunter-gather-fishing populations that the Indo-Europeans either never reached or didn't manage to hold onto for very long.

Then, another climate event triggered Bronze Age collapse around 1200 BCE. This only slightly unsettles the division of the world between Indo-European societies and Afro-Asiatic ones, for example, with the migration of Mycenaean Greek sea people into the Southern Levant after being fended off by more robust Egypt, to become the Philistines.

During Bronze Age collapse and its immediate aftermath, the waves of migration and war in Europe and West Asia become intramural fights between Indo-European people beyond the standoff between the Bell Beaker Indo-Europeans in Western Europe (known for their archery) and their successors, and the Corded Ware people to their east in Europe and their successors (know for their battle axes), whose respective territories shifted only a little (most notably midway through the Bronze Age in the vicinity of Denmark) from about 2000 BCE to 1200 BCE.

As Bronze Age collapse struck, Anatolian Indo-Europeans and Greek Indo-Europeans fought the Trojan War until it all collapsed into the Greek Dark Ages. Around that time that the Greek dark ages ended and classical Greek civilization started to emerge, Celtic peoples expanded from somewhere around Czechia as far west as Ireland and as far southeast as Anatolia. As Europe and West Asia emerged from the dark ages, the Iron Age technologies that the Hittites has managed to prevent its neighbors from acquiring prior to Bronze Age collapse, became ubiquitous. Iron wasn't actually a superior metal for weapons to bronze, but it was easier to mass produce and almost as good (and in isolated communities in what is now Iran, high quality steel far superior to bronze or iron was invented, around 1000 BCE, only to be lost centuries later before it could be adopted by the Roman Empire or the Islamic Empire).

The Iron Age was followed by Greco-Roman classical civilization eventually leading to Greek conquests of West Asia up to India (only to ultimately lose most of this territory one way or another in several big installments), and to the Roman Empire at its peak that reached Hadrian's Wall in Britain, Romania, the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Southern Europe, and Anatolia. This lasted until another climate event led to the Western Roman Empire's collapse. A century after Rome collapsed, the Islamic empire expanded into vast swaths of territory in North Africa, Southwest and West Asia, Iberia, Malta, and the Balkans and beyond into South Asia and Southeast Asia and the Sahel, while the Christian Byzantine empire held on for several more centuries as it gradually lost territory, until it fell entirely to what had morphed in several rounds of Islamic regime changes into an Ottoman Empire that absorbed and coopted into Islam, Turkic invaders with origins in Southeast Asia, with the little interruption of the Mongol Empire along the way.

While the Islamic empire expanded, non-Muslim Europe collapsed with Germanic, Slavic, and Uralic tribes roaming about Europe in the migration period (giving rise to Hungary whose Magyar rulers swiftly converted from being pagans to Christians), Charlemagne and feudal lords running Europe in a fig leaf of a Holy Roman Empire under the Pope and launching several largely futile Crusades into the Levant, Viking raiders plundered Europe and briefly settled in North American only to collapse there and retreat (one branch of Vikings became the founding dynasty of and rulers of Russia's slavs), the Mongol Empire spanning from Persia to Korea before collapsing in the 13th century, multiple waves of the Black Plague ravaging Europe from its source in the east, missionaries re-Christianizing Europe from Ireland to the east until the last pagans of Europe are in the Urals and almost everyone else has nominally become Catholic by the late 11th century CE, and monastic orders doing what they could to preserve classical civilization for the thousand years of the Middle Ages that ended with the Columbian Exchange as Iberians and other Europeans colonized the Americas, with the Renaissance that finally restored classical Roman levels of technology and social order, with the Protestant Reformation, and with the end of the Reconquest of Iberia from the Moors. I'll end this survey with the start of this early modern period around 1500 CE.

Now, I'm writing this post from memory, which is partially why I've left out some things, particularly in West Asia and the details in far Northeast Europe and North Asia. I've omitted the stories of the Armenians, the Kurds, and the Druze. I skipped the process by which the Sumerian language was replaced by a succession of Semitic languages in Southwest Asia and Mesopotamia's trade ties to the Indus Valley Civilization and the eastern coast of Africa. I haven't adequately covered the history of the Caucuses. I've left out the fairly well understood history of the Jewish people after the fall of the Second Temple around 70 CE and haven't said enough about the Phoenicians and the Punic people. I haven't discussed the rise of Christianity during the Roman Empire or the demise of Zoroastrianism and polytheistic paganism. I haven't explored the connections between the Jewish, Christian and Muslim accounts of Southwest Asia's history through the legendary histories of their holy texts and the historical realities. Nor have I discussed why the Bronze Age is so full of what I call "legendary history" that is a mix of fiction and fact in purportedly fictional accounts that is so predominant across cultures in this era. I've left out the expansion around the time of the domestication of the camel that gave rise to the Berber people. I've barely touched on the repopulation of Europe by hunter-gathers from basically three refuges after the Last Glacial Maximum. I haven't mentioned the Silk Road or the history of Central Asia before and after the Mongols. I didn't cover how pottery made its way from the coasts of China and Japan about 16,000 years ago, over thousands of year to produce the transition from the pre-pottery Neolithic in the Levant to the pottery Neolithic of Europe and the Levant, or how the Black Plague got to Europe. I omitted the trans-Saharan slave trade, and Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Anatolian, Germanic and Viking slavery practices.

But the point isn't to cover all of  the details. That would take a book, not a blog post. It is to provide an overarching framework into which the details can fit and be better understood. And, of course, this post only minimally touches upon history and pre-history become its title's West Eurasian scope, even though there was lots going on in the rest of the world which is much less well known. Africa, for example, didn't start to fall decisively behind the rest of the world technologically and economically until perhaps five or six hundred years ago, and it took quite a while before the gaps became as stark as they are today (a process that only really started in earnest around the time of the trans-Atlantic slave trade that started after the time period covered by this post).

Actually, to be honest, I'd started trying to frame the issues presented by the origins, cultures, and linguistic history of Greece, West Asia and Southwest Asia up through the early Iron Age, and ended up going a little further afield with a forward outlining Western Civilization from its earliest roots which would be about ten pages in print. I did touch on that and frame it in a narrative (admittedly one that is sometimes hotly contested by legitimate academics even in the present). But, I can refocus on that in a more detailed and referenced manner in a future post. 

Handedness

 

From here.

Wednesday, September 2, 2026

A Single Possible Direct Dark Matter Detection


The Lux-Zepplin direct dark matter experiment has detected a single event that could be a dark matter particle (see also here). But given the immense amount of searching which drives up look elsewhere effects and the myriad other possible explanations for a single outlier data point, it is not a definitive dark matter detection yet.

From my posts on this at the link:

With this detector does that mean that the dark matter candidate would interact with the weak nuclear force?
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.

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.

What would even be a standard for credible detection here? 3 events? 10? When would they start calling Stockholm?
Not sure, does the paper say what statistical significance this event has?

The paper estimates the global statistical significance at 2.6 sigma, with a local statistical significance of up to 3.4 sigma. But the number of events probably isn't sufficient to determine the significance. It also depends, in part, about the details of each event and how far those details are from the expected background events on the chart in the OP. 

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.

Another issue is that even if the event is some non-SM particle, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is a significant component of DM.

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

If there are multiple kinds of DM particles and this is only a rare and heavy member of that set, this implies that the cross-section of interaction can be much higher (and thus, much closer to the neutrino-nucleon cross section of interaction). This is because the cross-section of interaction calculations assume that there is only one kind of DM particle, so that the actual events recorded comes from interactions with 100% of the DM flux through LZ. But if this assumption is wrong and only, for example, 1% of DM particles are massive enough for LZ to detect, then the actual cross-section of interaction implied by a given number of events is 100 times greater in that example.

If DM particles of this mass are extremely rare (the DM analog to uranium or lead, perhaps, making up only one in a million or billion DM particles) within the universe of DM particles, then perhaps the cross-section of interaction could be equivalent to the strength of the weak force interaction of SM particles.

The effective lower bound of DM particle mass that LZ can detect is about 0.2-0.5 GeV, and the signal to noise ratio starts to degrade meaningfully for DM particle masses below 10 GeV. And, there are, to repeat, strong suggestions from the inferred shape of DM distributions, that the predominant share of DM particles (assuming that they exist) should be about 10 keV or less, which is about 20,000 times less massive than DM particles that can give rise to events detected by LZ which are distinguishable from background events, and about 1,000,000 times less massive than DM particles that LZ can detect with maximum efficiency.

My suspicions

I think that this result is either a fluke in the background events (which at 2.6 sigma global significance, a global significance that I suspect is actually overstated, is entirely plausible), or a methodological error.

Even if it is, however, a genuine BSM particle, the one observed seems unlikely to be a DM particle, and particularly unlikely to be a Higgsino, which is what many of the linked papers suggest. A Higgsino is fairly tightly constrained in supersymmetry theories to have properties that this particle is unlikely to have, and might even be possible to rule out with further analysis of this particular data point.

Further, supersymmetry theories are simply not credible as theoretical frameworks in the broader sense for a variety of reasons, even though a Higgsino mass of 1.1 TeV was predicted in 2012 as the mass of a Higgsino that was the sole component of dark matter according to Hall, Lawrence J.; Nomura, Yasunori (2012). "Spread Supersymmetry". Journal of High Energy Physics. 2012: 82. arXiv:1111.4519 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2012)082

The non-detection of any hint of a Higgsino at the LHC also casts doubt on this hypothesis, although the formal exclusions from the LHC (which is always a bit dicey because it depends on the Higgsino model used and the mass splitting between it and certain other supersymmetric particles) only go up to about 1.025 TeV.

There are also lots of strong reasons from astronomy, as I just scratched the surface of above, to think that either gravity (modified, non-perturbative, otherwise) or a fifth force, rather than dark matter particles make more sense, and that heavy dark matter particles (1 TeV or more particles that are at the fringe of what LZ and other direct detection experiments can be sensitive to), at least as a primary source of dark matter, are among the least observationally favored dark matter particle hypotheses.

This doesn't inherently rule out the possibility of a new fundamental particle, and the spectrum of composite bound quark and gluon structures, except toponium (which has a very distinct signature and set of conditions in which it can be formed) pretty much top out in the low tens of GeV, far below the 1 TeV scale. Toponium is 344-347 GeV, which is still below the TeV scale. The most massive observed atom, Oganesson (element 118), specifically its isotope Oganesson-294, has a mass of only about 274 GeV, which is still well below 1 TeV. A mass of 1 TeV would require a rather large and complex molecule (not hadron molecule, but a normal molecule made up of ordinary chemical elements), so an event like this, if being properly interpreted is not a good fit for any known fundamental particle, any known or possible hadron, any known or plausible future atom or atomic element. So, if there is a real detection of a 1 TeV mass particle, it is very much beyond the Standard Model and new physics. But even if it is real, that doesn't mean that it is an important contributor to dark matter. It could be a BSM particle with nothing meaningful to do with dark matter phenomena.

Indeed, the lack of well-motivated candidates for a 1 TeV particle with a very low cross-section of interaction with nucleons (at least no larger than the weak force coupling), makes this extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof and compels a very hard look for other explanations, especially given its only modest statistical significance so far.

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

A new analysis constrains the properties of a hypothetical X17 particle using experimental measurements of muon g-2 and electron g-2. It does not rule out the X17 particle hypothesis, although it does meaningfully constrain the properties it can have if it does exist.
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.
Raoul Serao, Antonio Capolupo, "Electron and Muon g−2 Constraints on Light Vector Bosons: Dark Photons and the X17 Boson" arXiv:2608.24677 (August 25, 2026).

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

Razib Khan's latest piece on human evolution in his Unsupervised Learning series takes a step back and looks at how the big picture has changed with new discoveries made in the last several decades.

His main point is that archaic hominin introgression may have originally been a much higher percentage of ancestry, with most archaic hominin introgression expelled in the roughly 1,000 years after the initial introgression due to natural selection and incompatibilities between archaic hominin sourced genes and modern human genes. I suspect that the 10%-20% percentage that he cites is quite a bit too high, but surely this did happen to some extent.

As usual, he educated synthesis of the research and evidence is pretty solid, even if not every assertion he makes in laying out a single coherent narrative (like the Population A and Population B that hybridize to form modern humans, with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and "ghost African" populations all derived from Population A hypothesis in the diagram below) has reached the level of academic consensus yet, and even if there is some room to quibble over fine details.

Some highlights of his piece (but please, click on the link and read the whole thing) are quoted below:

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?

This article supports the highly plausible theory that all humans share pre-Out of Africa admixture with "ghost" archaic hominin populations, but the methodology used is fairly new and untested.
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.
Yulin Zhang, Arjun Biddanda, Sarah A. Johnson, Colm O’Dushlaine, and Priya Moorjani, "Recovering signatures of archaic hominin introgression using ancestral recombination graphs" Science (July 30, 2026) (open access) DOI: 10.1126/science.aef887

Friday, August 14, 2026

Replicating MOND In A Spin-Foam Model

Spin-foam is a quantum gravity approach that quantizes space-time, rather than treating gravity as a separate force with a carrier boson comparable to a photon or a gluon.
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.
Igor V. Kanatchikov, Valery A. Kholodnyi, "Effects of Quantum Spin-Connection Foam in the Solar System, Galaxies, and the Universe" arXiv:2608.12404 (August 11, 2026) (The Seventeenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories, Pescara 7-12 July 2024, edited by G. Vereshchagin and R. Ruffini, this https URL, October 2026).

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.
Marianne Bouchard, David London, "Anomalies in Hadronic B Decays" arXiv:2608.11298 (August 11, 2026) (Contribution to the Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on Beauty, Charm, Hyperons in Hadronic Interactions (BEACH 2026), 7-12 June 2026, Firenze, Italy).

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.
Rajendra P. Gupta, Nikolaos Samaras "Testing Covarying Coupling Constants (CCC) against the full SPARC rotation-curve sample: a like-for-like comparison with MOND and NFW" arXiv:2608.11575 (August 12, 2026).

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.

My link is to a blog post by John Hawks who cites his sources:

* Chang, Chun-Hsiang, et al., "The first archaic Homo from Taiwan." 6 Nature Communications 6037 (2015). doi:10.1038/ncomms7037

* Grün, R. & Stringer, C., "Direct dating of human fossils and the ever-changing story of human evolution." 322 Quaternary Science Reviews 108379 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108379

* Kaifu, Y., Chang, et al., "Denisovan leg bones from Taiwan reveal large body size." bioRxiv (2026). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.07.743438

* Tsutaya, et al., "A male Denisovan mandible from Pleistocene Taiwan." 388(6743) Science 176–180 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads3888

* Yoneda, et al., "Habitat and feeding ecology of a Denisovan from Late Pleistocene Taiwan." bioRxiv (2026). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.08.07.743455

* Zhang, D., et al., "Denisovan DNA in Late Pleistocene sediments from Baishiya Karst Cave on the Tibetan Plateau." 370(6516) Science 584–587 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6320