# Correlation between outstanding hints in experimental particle physics

The 115 GeV ATLAS Higgs with enhanced diphoton decays has gone away but there are several other recent tantalizing hints relevant for particle physics, namely

and maybe others I missed. My question is simple:

Is there some sensible theoretical basis (e.g. paper) that would simultaneously explain at least two of the observations above if they were real?

-
 Something I saw recently: arXiv 1104.4087 suggests a standard model compatible explanation for the CDF bump as an artifact of the selection criteria. – dmckee♦ May 9 '11 at 14:27 It's good but doesn't it explain just one of the bumps? – Luboš Motl May 9 '11 at 14:30 Yes, it only addresses the possible $Z'$. – dmckee♦ May 9 '11 at 14:43 The electron dipole measurement motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/… seems like a strong negative hint, if it is as constraining as people say. – Mitchell Porter May 30 '11 at 10:24 Couldn't ~100 GeV technipions and 800 GeV stable purely techincolor/QCD interacting technibaryons "explain" points 1 plus whichever other points? – Ron Maimon Nov 16 '11 at 19:34

See arXiv:1104.3145, 1103.6035 and 1104.4127

-
 Funny two-step methods to link the observations, thanks, @Julius! ;-) A combination of a Z' interaction with dark matter is somewhat creative. – Luboš Motl May 28 '11 at 4:21

My NEW preference is the scalar with charge +4/3 that is being postulated as an explanation for the top-antitop asymmetry.

There are some published papers pursuing this idea, such as http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2757 or http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0972 and a couple of mini reviews http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3341 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0841.

As of today I can not tell which papers are the most relevant (see an explicit question in TP.stackexchange). I think that they have a potential to explain some of the other observations because the charge in some GUT models has a contribution from B-L and a contribution from SU(2) chiral groups, so the +4/3 is nor really so exotic.

In any case, take my answer with a bit of salt. As the uppercase acrostic indicates in the first paragraph, I also have some personal motivations to support models along this line, because I tripped into these pesky +4/3 things back in 2005 and I really want to understand how they fit.

-