First Reports: Higgs Found?

[yevaud]

PDF Report: http://www.fnal.gov/orgs/fermilab_users ... -final.pdf

Page 67 will show the elusive event.

 

[yevaud]

So as to recap and tone it down for the "average" reader:

The Tevatron has made it's runs, and has already excluded the 158-175 GeV range, putting paid to several notable theories. It has also begun to exclude the extra-light Higgs range, below 110 GeV. Five tantalizing candidate "b-bbar" events for a light 113-115 GeV Higgs boson were seen.

Some are predicting the appearance of the two Higgs, one below 115 GeV, and the other about 140 GeV. If this does occur, it is the first actual proof of Super-Symmetry.

 

[Couerl]

Cool Yevaud, now what's all that gobbledygook mean and why is that thing dated june/15/2008. :geek:

 

[yevaud]

The June 15th is when the rumors began to come out, and clearly when the runs were conducted. They're only releasing the information now. Which is sensible, they wanted to make certain of their results first.

As to what it means...

The Higg's Boson, depending on the competing theory, will appear within a certain Electron Volt Range. What the results appear to show is that anything over a certain Electron Voltage, those theories are now precluded; pretty much the same for the low end. And in the case of Super-Symmetry, the theory predicts two Higgs at different GeV.

They clearly have more runs of the Tevatron to do, but the initial results appear promising and, as the presentation shows, there are five discreet events that fall within the proper range to be the first detection(s) of the elusive Higgs.

(Edit: Boy, that's one of my more notably turgid explanations...)

 

[ramparts]

I hadn't heard about this result until now and I'm not nearly qualified to wade through an experimental particle paper, but it looks like the folks at Fermilab are being very careful to paint this as a restriction on the Higgs' mass and not a detection:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... es-capture

 

[yevaud]

Cautious, yes. They want to beat everyone else to the prize, and don't want to replicate the unfortunate Doctors Pons and Fleishmann. On the other hand, those five decay events look about right, from what I know.

More runs of the Tevatron required, of course.

 

[andwor]

I rather suspect that the particle is not a Higgs but a proto-MUON, predicted by harmonic quintessence to exist at about 113 MeV. A proto-MUON is the diect precursor of the fully fledged MOUN and is a spherical light speed harmonic based on the mass of the electron x (c[super]1/3[/super]/pi).

See:

1). The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physiss Essays 23: 311-319.

2). Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the charge and mass of the electron and the proton and quark masses. (submitted).

 

[yevaud]

Well, that's quite interesting, but I don't believe the wonks at FermiLab will be agreeing with you any time soon.

 

[origin]

Thanks yevaud, thats pretty cool. Exciting times we are living in...

 

[Couerl]

Thanks Yevaud, I'll take the turgid explaination as a "maybe". :geek:

Not to poke fun in a thread as promising as this, but while googling I ran across something at least superficially funny. After all of the lugubrious live cams centered on BP etc,.. I got a minor chuckle out of this.


http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

 

[yevaud]

:lol:

 

[yevaud]

Well, that's quite interesting, but I don't believe the wonks at FermiLab will be agreeing with you any time soon.

Sorry, that was trite. Andwor, if the mainstream hasn't accepted Poplawski's work, yours would certainly be rated as at least as speculative. Thus, I rather doubt those at FermiLab would even consider it.

 

[andwor]

Dear yevaud

I agree I am not expecting this discovery to make harmonic quintessence mainstream overnight.

I am however interested to know why a number of published papers have recieved so little attention. One paper describes the derivation of quantum physiscs and the energy equivalence equations, from first principles. [1]

and in principle

"everyone can now understand quntum physics".

Equally well, the equations for advanced quantum gravity can be derived fronm the same equations. Moreover the results agree with general relativity very accurately at low and medium densities but oobviate the problem of the singularity. They also expalin dark matter, dark energy and restore simulatneity, and are easy to use - and dovetail in precisely with quantum physics [2, 3].

So what esle does one have to do, just because it isn't in Annalen der Physic, doesn't mean its not worthwhile-it has after all been peer reviewed and accepted with some enthusiasm.

1) The formualtion of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319.

2). An adavnced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity. Physisc Essays 21: 222-228.


3). String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity. Physics Essays. 22: 364-377.

 

[andwor]

Dear yevaud,

Oh and just one other small thing,

According to the general theory of relativity (GTR), effect does not follow cause, because simultaneity has been abrogated, relegated, and diminished to irrelevant. I have complined about this but...........

By the way it is possible to restore simultaneity and cause and effect with advanced dynamic Newton/advanced quantum gravity, and still get the same answers as GTR, without the singularity problem.

I don't think, if scientists in general were properly informed of the relegation of simultaneity in GTR, they would have embraced it so eagerly. But that's the mainstream for you.

 

[ramparts]

At the risk of going completely off-topic, how does GR not incorporate cause and effect? The main reason the speed of light is a fundamental limit is to maintain causality. Simultaneity can't be absolutely defined in GR (or special relativity, for that matter) but it's still sufficiently restricted that causality makes sense.

 

[andwor]

Well I suppose Higgs and GTR are linked in that in some papers on hadronization, GTR comes into play [1].

But perhaps a quote from Einstein himself, will answer you question best.

"I tried to formualate a field law for gravity, since the introduction
of action at a distance was no longer possible, at least in any natural way,
due to the eleimination of the concept of absolute simultaneity."

And yes, he really meant it







1). Hadronization at the Ads wall.

 

[andwor]

OK

You said that already but we might wish to contnue this discussion more appropriately on the post about orbiting a supemassive black hole. Look forward to discussing things there.

 

[ramparts]

1) Come on, I'm not an idiot. Appeal to authority isn't science, and quoting Einstein isn't an answer to a scientific question, whether he "meant it" or not.
2) I didn't say there was absolute simultaneity in GR. In fact, in my post I acknowledged the extremely obvious fact that there isn't. I was taking issue with your apparent conclusion that this means there's no such thing in causality, either. GR most certainly does maintain causality - one of the wonderful effects of limiting signal speeds to the speed of light is that a cause has to preceed its effect in all frames.

 

[andwor]

I do apologise my intent was merely to move to a posting where there had already being comments to the issue of absolute simultaneity, which could be more easily referred to.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Dear yevaud

I agree I am not expecting this discovery to make harmonic quintessence mainstream overnight.

I am however interested to know why a number of published papers have recieved so little attention. One paper describes the derivation of quantum physiscs and the energy equivalence equations, from first principles. [1].

I suspect one reason is that all of your papers have been published in only one journal, all 8 or 9 of them. Is that the only one that would accept them? I am not qualified to fully digest the content, but such a concentration in one journal raises red flags. One suspects a hidden agenda. I'm not saying that's the case, but perhaps a Nature or Science paper would rise above the noise level. Have you submitted to such journals?

 

[andwor]

Dear Meteor Wayne,

I agree I do need to diversitfy the journal. Actually it is only 3 papers that appear in this journal to date, but yes I have now submitted elsewhere.

Just for the record the main reason why it has been submitted to this journal, is that some, but not all, the reviewers have recieved these papers with some enthusiasm.

I think that attests to the strength of the journal, in that it is willing to take examine novel but robust ideas about contemporary physics.

Lets face it current theory can only explan 4% of the matter/energy in the Universe. THe beauty of this work is that it expalins 100%, and answers a lot more unanswered questions as well, whilst agreeing with GTR, at least where GTR has been widely tested - and makes some novel and entirely testable predictionns about physics in the vicinity of a black hole.

And to get back on topic, it makes some very accurate predictions about particle physics too, which do not by the way necessitate the Higgs.

 

[ramparts]

I think that attests to the strength of the journal, in that it is willing to take examine novel but robust ideas about contemporary physics.

Wait, are the papers in Phys Rev D not novel, or not robust? It's hard to get a paper published in a major journal if it's not both of those things Basically that description applies to any major physics journal. I think a more pessimistic but certainly a realistic interpretation would be that this journal publishes the papers which just aren't solid enough to get accepted by the major journals.

I don't know much about Physics Essays, it's peer-reviewed and appears to have a solid editorial staff, and the fact that it's published by AIP is encouraging. On the other hand, I can't recall reading any papers (and I've read plenty) from that journal, and none of the physics papers on my computer are published in it, which isn't a rigorous test but it suggests to me that not terribly much impactful research is coming out of it.

Have you submitted these papers to the well-respected journals - Physical Review, Physics Letters, and the like? If it's as super-awesome as you claim it is, you shouldn't have much trouble getting published there. Good physics papers will get published in good journals, and if you claim you need to find a lesser-known journal willing to consider your "out-of-the-box ideas" (because all the papers in Phys Rev D are totally in the box...) then consider that the problem is with your ideas, and not with all the rest of the world's physicists.

Also, it would be so easy to post the papers on the arXiv so we could all read them, and you'd get a ton more exposure to scientists in the field. If you need an endorsement, find a physicist to do it. I can assure you that if your theory is really worthwhile, plenty of physicists would want to be involved.

 

[csmyth3025]

Returning to the original subject, Yevaud wrote:

The Tevatron has made it's runs, and has already excluded the 158-175 GeV range, putting paid to several notable theories. It has also begun to exclude the extra-light Higgs range, below 110 GeV. Five tantalizing candidate "b-bbar" events for a light 113-115 GeV Higgs boson were seen.

I'm curious about how many different theoretical predictions there are about the equivalent mass of the Higgs boson. The Wikipedia article on the Higgs boson say that there are over a hundred. In regard to the Standard Model of particle physics, the article says the following:

It may be possible to estimate the mass of the Higgs boson indirectly. In the Standard Model, the Higgs boson has a number of indirect effects; most notably, Higgs loops result in tiny corrections to masses of W and Z bosons. Precision measurements of electroweak parameters, such as the Fermi constant and masses of W/Z bosons, can be used to constrain the mass of the Higgs. As of 2006, measurements of electroweak observables allowed the exclusion of a Standard Model Higgs boson having a mass greater than 285 GeV/c2 at 95% CL, and estimated its mass to be 129+74−49 GeV/c2 (the central value corresponds to approximately 138 proton masses).[19] As of August 2009, the Standard Model Higgs boson is excluded by electroweak measurements above 186 GeV at 95% CL. However, it should be noted that these indirect constraints make the assumption that the Standard Model is correct. One may still discover a Higgs boson above 186 GeV if it is accompanied by other particles between Standard Model and GUT scales.

It would seem, from this passage and from the Tevatron results, that the Standard Model will probably have to be revised if the Higgs boson isn't found in the 175-186 GeV range or the 110-158 GeV range. Am I understanding this correctly?

Chris

 

[andwor]

Hi Chris,

Good post.

The answer is yes it would appear that those are the rules

But you will see the rules change in order to accomodate the standard model.

Notwithstanding this, your comment about the mass is very interesting, what if the particle had the mass of 137 times the mass of the proton.

that would be the mass of the proton x 1/alpha.

 

[yevaud]

It would seem, from this passage and from the Tevatron results, that the Standard Model will probably have to be revised if the Higgs boson isn't found in the 175-186 GeV range or the 110-158 GeV range. Am I understanding this correctly?

Chris

Almost. What they're saying is that they've already precluded any Higgs to be found (although I too would hedge my bets a bit on this) above 157 GeV. They do expect (again, bets being hedged here) to see one between 110-115 GeV. And (still unknown as yet) the possibility of one in the 140-ish GeV range.