Big Day for Higgs Boson

Today at the EPS conference in Grenoble the worlds largest hadron colliders will be revealing the results of their latest searches for the Higgs boson, using data collected up until the last few weeks. We will be posting the plots here as they appear.

The individual experiments Dzero, CDF, ATLAS and CMS will each show their all channel combined plots. There will also be separated plots for individual channels and some separate searches for a charged Higgs as predicted in some models such as MSSM.

Our expectation is that the Tevatron plots (Dzero and CDF) will show some good exclusion limits but we will have to wait for the plenary talks next week to see the full Tevatron combined plot. From a press release last night we already know that they will claim to limit the Higgs to a region of 114 geV to 137 GeV, but that is not the end of the story. Above 185 GeV they only use indirect measurements to exclude the Higgs and these assume that no new particles beyond the standard model exist. That could be a weak assumption.

Later today the CMS and ATLAS plots will tell us about those heavier mass regions with direct searches. They should be able to exclude a heavy Higgs or provide a plausible signal above 190 GeV, so what will it be?

We wont get a full combined LHC plot at this confernece but the individual  plots for ATLAS and CMS will already have strong results.

Click on big titles below to bring up the full slide presentation.

Dzero

First up is Dzero with this combined plot that we first saw a couple of days ago

It shows a good exclusion from 162GeV to 170 GeV, not a new result but good to see that the limits imposed by the individual experiments at Fermilab are already strong.

CDF

The CDF combined plot is not very different.

CMS ττ

In the Higgs to tau lepton pair decay channel CMS produce this plot. Remember that the observed limit has to drop below the horizontal line at 1.0 to provide a 95% confidence level exclusion. There is not enough data to do that here, but this data will go into the combined plot later too. It is good to see that 1.1/fb is being used. The same presentation also provides good SUSY exclusion results.

CMS γγ

The Higgs decay into two photons is a crucial channel for finding the Higgs. The LHC do not yet have enough data in this region but with this new plot we see just how close they are getting. A full combination of Tevatron and LHC data at this time might almost have something to say about low mass Higgs if this is anything to go by.

ATLAS γγ

Much the same from ATLAS

ATLAS bb

ATLAS have looked at the decays of a Higgs to decay into a bottom quark pair in conjunction with a W or Z boson. They see no excess at twenty times the standard model Higgs signal.

CMS ZZ

Tow Z bosons from a Higgs can decay into pairs of leptons, quarks or neutrinos giving different channels to search in. First the 2 leptons plus two quarks plot. This is an exciting result that comes close to exclusion at some points, but why has it been cut-off below 220 GeV?

The decay into two leptons and two neutrinos gets even closer

Finally the golden channel of four leptons crosses the line with a tiny exclusion around 185 GeV

ATLAS ZZ

The story from ATLAS is pretty much the same

The 2lepton+2 neutrino channel even has a good exclusion on its own

The golden channel is close to expectation levels for no Higgs

ATLAS WW

This splits into two main channels, first each W decays to a lepton and a neutrino. Here we get an impressive exclusion.

The lepton neutrino 2 quark channel is not so strong

CMS WW

For CMS just one combined plot for the WW channel is all we need

ATLAS

Combined result. WOW!


CMS

Finally the CMS combined plot. The exclusions are from CMS are 149-206 and 300-340 GeV with some large exclusions in the space between.


Conclusion

We still have to see the combined CMS plot and the combined Tevatron plot but already we have some strong results. Much of the Higgs mass range has now been excluded leaving just a window from about 114 GeV to 137 GeV and 205 GeV to 295 GeV. the higher range is excluded by precision tests for a standard Higgs, but a combination of massive particles is not ruled out.

There are excess in the 140 GeV to 150 GeV and a curious deficit at 350 GeV, seen consistently across the data. These results are compatible with a number of options including a light Higgs and a multiplet of Higges. More data will be required to finish and we should get enough this year but already we see that a standard model Higgs on its own only just fits the data if around 130 GeV. This is an outstanding result.

See also TRF for more discussion especially about the deficit.


92 Responses to Big Day for Higgs Boson

  1. Luboš Motl says:

    OK graphs. Now, imagine that you’re brave and you violate all the internal CERN rules imposed by the Director General

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

    and you try to interpret the graphs. What would you say? ;-)

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      There is not much space left for the Fairy field, er, I mean Higgs Boson

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Well, perhaps, there is some moderate “consensus” between ATLAS and CMS in the 250 GeV bump in ZZ but it’s weaker than a weak tea.

      I don’t understand why you say that the golden channel nearly eliminates the Higgs. The upper bounds are well above the Standard Model cross section which clearly means that it’s too early to tell, right? At most, this eliminates an amplification of the production by an order of magnitude, e.g. tan(beta) above 10 or something like that.

  2. Tony Smith says:

    What do you think of ATLAS ZZ 4l slide 30 ?
    (and the similar slide 19)

    Tony

  3. Philip Gibbs says:

    What I said was that the golden channel is near the calculated expected confidence levels for no Higgs, but it does not eliminate it because those levels are too high.

    I think if you combine the CMS and ATLAS ZZ channels there will be a near exclusion over a big range, and we have not seen WW yet

  4. heihei says:

    you gotta zoom in to look at 145GeV in all the plots :-)

  5. Poor graduate who need to eat says:

    Hi, Philip. I have seen two figures from ATLAS and CMS respectively, showing that ATLAS and CMS both find “excess” at the higg->ZZ->4l around m_H=145GeV.
    These two excesses can be found in your post, but what I have seen are enlarged (so clearer) versions with m_H running from 110GeV to 200GeV. Perhaps you want to post them here if you have these figures?

  6. Luboš Motl says:

    Combined Tevatron MSSM Higgs continues to claim excesses for bbb – and b-tau-tau – both in D0 and CDF, see

    http://indico.in2p3.fr/getFile.py/access?contribId=859&sessionId=6&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=5116

    • Luboš Motl says:

      The debate is over. Much like Korytov’s preliminary CMS, ATLAS also sees a near 3-sigma deficit near 340 GeV or so.

      The electroweak symmetry breaking is caused by an anti-Higgs ghost and it has just been anti-discovered at nearly 5 sigma. ;-) This looks like I am completely joking but think twice!

      Aside from the world with positive Higgses, there also exists an antiworld where everything is anti-. For example, anti-Higgs bosons are being discovered by anti-Semites. ;-)

    • Luboš Motl says:

      ATLAS gammagamma posted but you already have the right graph from ATLAS Master.

    • Luboš Motl says:

      I am actually serious about the 340 GeV deficit. A trivial question:

      Can’t a totally ordinary Higgs actually cause a decrease of events, i.e. a deficit? Just an ordinary destructive interference. You first sum Feynman diagrams – e.g. q-qbar to Z-Z with an intermediate t-channel quark; and the s-channel Higgs diagram. They can have the opposite sign and partially cancel, can’t they?

      Is this impossible because of a reason that everyone should know?

      • Marc says:

        Good question, Lubos. But I presume that this possibility is included in their calculation of the expected signal—-that isn’t something they would miss, is it?

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        Perhaps they have discovered the first unparticle

      • Luboš Motl says:

        How can it be included if the graphs are all drawn as upper limits on the cross section?

        It is very clear what the graphs show on the y-axis – upper limits on cross sections etc. If the new particle causes destructive interference, the cross section goes down and one should talk about *lower* limits on cross sections – but I think it’s clear that they never do.

        So it must either be true that the Higgs always contributes positively – which I am uncertain about because the Higgs is what normally *cancels* the longitudinal WW scattering and these channels are damn similar; or the analyses are simply wrong, and the significant deficit at 350 GeV can actually be viewed as evidence for a 350 GeV Higgs.

      • Marc says:

        I think it must contribute positively, or we would have heard about this possibility over the decades. It isn’t quite similar to longitudinal W scattering since there is no non-Abelian vertex (and as Politzer found out, the signs can be different then).

      • Luboš Motl says:

        Give me a break, Marc, with these rubbish sociological pseudo-arguments. If you don’t have an argument, then don’t try to pretend otherwise.

        I’ve never thought about those interference issues myself so there’s no reason why someone else has. Clearly, people often fall into the classical trap, assuming that once a Higgs is produced somewhere, it’s “real”. But it’s not: quantum mechanics always commands to sum over intermediate histories that are always allowed to interfere.

        Comparing the preliminary CMS and combined final ATLAS graph, I see not only the shared deficit near 340 GeV but a whole agreed upon interference pattern, including the relative excesses at 210, 250, and 290 GeV. Note that in the combined ATLAS+CMS result, all these waves will become sqrt(2) times bigger than in the partial graphs. They will be pretty big.

        Gonna calculate it now.

      • OXO says:

        The Nobel awaits you Lumo. :)

      • aelle says:

        There is also an “undershoot” in the LHCb B^0_d -> K^* + \mu^+ + \mu^- forward-backward asymmetry
        http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Images_2011/AFB.png

      • Ulla says:

        Lubos: I’ve never thought about those interference issues myself so there’s no reason why someone else has. Clearly, people often fall into the classical trap, assuming that once a Higgs is produced somewhere, it’s “real”. But it’s not: quantum mechanics always commands to sum over intermediate histories that are always allowed to interfere.

        What you say here is that there is NO MEXICAN HAT!

  7. Simplicity says:

    Is Higgs found ?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Wait! we need the last main plot from CMS

    • Marc says:

      Phil is right. Discovery means 5 sigma. Evidence for means 3 sigma. ATLAS is 2.8 sigma and CMS isn’t out yet. But even if it’s the same as ATLAS, a discovery is still many weeks or a few months away.

  8. Philip Gibbs says:

    The CMS talk should be finishing now, if they are running to schedule, but the slides aren’t up. maybe I should just post the leaked plot :)

    We also did not get the CDF combined plot. The one I’ve shown is not new.

  9. zwiswoo says:

    Do I have a time difference wrong? Shouldn’t the combined CMS higgs talk be over (or at least started)?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I think Korytov has decided that he will never put anything on the web ever again LOL

    • Luboš Motl says:

      I don’t think so. My feeling is that Korytov has realized that nothing wrong or dangerous has actually taken place which will re-energize his desire to put things on the web. Next time, he will help us to have the document as early as possible. I am just less sure whether I will be dreaming about his preliminary documents. ;-)

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The slides did finally appear.

  10. Philip Gibbs says:

    From a blogger at the conference

    “Andrey Korytov presents the summary of the CMS search for the Standard Model Higgs thus far. Again 6 different studies combined together. 95% exclusion ranges are 149-206, 300-440, and much of the region from 200-300. 90% exclusion 145-480. Interesting excesses possible 120-145 but statistical significance hard to evaluate at this time. (but somewhat smaller excess than ATLAS sees.)”

    http://profmattstrassler.com/

  11. hinter says:

    Lubos is right. Of course the Higgs boson contributes negatively.
    And of course we have heard all about this over the years. The minimum prediction for the background is when a very light Higgs boson is included in the simulations (ATLAS and CMS do not say what is their definition of background). A very large Higgs boson mass gives a big background. So, if ATLAS and CMS have removed the Higgs diagrams from their Monte-Carlo’s, a deficit at high invariant masses is an experimental sign of a light Higgs boson.

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Thanks for your interesting comment. Of a *light* Higgs boson? I would like to see some more quantitative descriptions of the rules of the game here. ;-)

    • Luboš Motl says:

      OK, I understand the logic of your comment now but I still think that you’re not addressing my main point that can be summarized into the phrase “signal-background interference”.

      A reader on my blog has pointed out that there are papers that discuss it, e.g.

      arxiv:1107.0683

      It’s a very new one, of course.

    • Ulla says:

      OR THE GOLDSTONE BOSON? Remember, dual oscillating?

  12. Philip Gibbs says:

    I’m glad the LHC is logging more picobarns at a good rate again, They will need them to finish the job.

  13. [...] canales de desintegración estudiados por ALTAS y CMS te las ha recopilado Philip Gibbs en ”Big Day for Higgs Boson,” viXra log, July 22, [...]

  14. Pippon says:

    So? What can be said now? The Higgs is there? Or nothing can be said????

  15. paolo says:

    that both atlas and cms perform excellent, but mother Nature decided to play trincks on us

  16. jal says:

    I’m glad to be able to understand, ( a little bit) some of the explanations of the tech., and graphs that you are presenting.
    I’m hoping to eventually get to read a longer, ( maybe dumb down more), explanation that will be understandable to J6P.
    Thanks
    jal

  17. The excess in 140-150 GeV that Phil mentions (also 130-150 GeV is mentioned) range could be due to the 145 GeV CDF bump identified as M_89 pion in TGD Universe. 327 GeV narrow resonance would correspond rho meson and possibly also omega as the initial report of CDF supporting the presence of two bumps near to each other suggests.

    I am of course talking to walls since hardly anyone remembers CDF bump anymore;-). The memory span of the average blogger participant is not much longer than the ordinary citizen’s memory span concerning political affairs;-).

    The idea of Lubos about destructive interference above Higgs mass could be generalized to the case of M_89 pion: this could explain the downwards peak above around 170 GeV which destroyed the theory of Connes.

    In the case someone for some reason is really interested, I recommend my blog posting summarizing the developments during this day at http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/07/tension-in-particle-physics-circles-is.html .

  18. Marc Sher says:

    Phil—I don’t understand your statement that a Standard Model Higgs doesn’t fit the data. There seems to be an impression out there that a Higgs below 135 or so is ruled out by vacuum stability.. This is not the case. The actual bound (which depends sensitively on the top mass) is closer to 125. So a Higgs of 125-140 is perfectly acceptable (and even indicated by the 2.8 sigma ATLAS claim)

  19. Tony Smith says:

    The 350 GeV deficit is at the mass of a pair of Tquarks
    each having about 175 GeV (the middle state of my 3 states)
    which is the onset of the substantial branching ratio
    of Higgs decay into tt.

    Tony

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Hi Tony,

      I agree that Higgs -> t t-bar should be substantial, but the simulations should have accounted for that. This is something unexpected. Isn’t your symmetry breaking mechanism a “Cooper-pair”-like composite system that strongly depends on top quarks?

      Also, I asked Lubos on his blog site if we could have negative interference between an MSSM Heavy Higgs and an MSSM Pseudoscalar Higgs in the same mass region. It looks like Lubos is pursuing other ideas and doesn’t have time to consider these.

      Have Fun!

  20. ervin goldfain says:

    Regardless of how people are spinning these results, there is only one conclusion that can be objectively drawn : after an impressive amount of inverse femtobarns collected at both LHC and Tevatron, Higgs is still missing in action. No signal above background with a narrow window left between 114 to about 150 GeV. If it is there, it has to show up soon enough, otherwise it will be ruled out.

    Ervin

  21. Luboš Motl says:

    Looking at the combined CDF and combined D0, I don’t see how they could strictly rule out e.g. a 145 or 150 GeV Higgs. Their upper bounds are above sqrt(2)*SM, at least one of them, which is enough to see that they can’t do it, isn’t it?

    So this will probably be just some vague statistical argument that the relative likelihood of 145 or 150 is smaller etc.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Well they don’t say the exclusion is 95%. They just say “most likely”. I think it must a a 90% level. What do you expect from a press release?

    • Luboš Motl says:

      OK, I don’t know whether one should pay any attention to claims done by “90% confidence level” arguments. This is weaker than the weakest tea I can imagine – almost like the “arguments” about global warming.

      The prior probabilities for the different masses may differ by orders of magnitude, so whether you add another one can’t change your real opinion which mass is more likely.

  22. algernon says:

    Great work with the updates Philip, I was able to follow the news while at work.

    Seems that both detectors failed to set the lower limit they were expecting to reach, and by quite a big amount. Surely an indication that something might be lurking in that 130-140 GeV region…

    Is anyone able to predict what 95% CL limits one could reach by combining data from both ATLAS and CMS?

  23. Philip Gibbs says:

    Thanks, got it.

    • Luboš Motl says:

      The final CMS graph is completely different than our leaked preliminary Korytov graph. I had to update my article.

      http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/atlas-and-cms-higgs-350-gev-destructive.html

      In particular, the whole 350 deficit went completely away. The graphs don’t have anything in common. I hope that the newer one is more accurate than the older one. ;-)

      The newer CMS graph is exactly in line with expectations from 180 GeV to the top, while between 110 and 180 GeV, including the excluded region 150-180 GeV, there is a relentless 2+ sigma excess. Bizarre. ;-)

  24. Joseph Scheirich says:

    So what does this mean for SUSY? Is it dead or is there hope at levels higher than 1.2 TeV?

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Hi Joseph, for the first time, fitters Buchmueller et al.

      http://indico.in2p3.fr/contributionDisplay.py?sessionId=6&contribId=239&confId=5116

      say that “Air is starting to become very thin for these constrained
      models of SUSY”. That’s just about 2010 data “done right”.

      There are numerous experimenters’ papers that show that there are no superpartners. But the undecided nature of the Higgs sector is the main unknown. Yes, as long as there can be SUSY-like Higgses, SUSY may end up being favored after this package of data, with more massive superpartners.

  25. Ulla says:

    This sounds familiar.The ‘bump’ also went away, but an oscillating explanation was laughed at.

  26. Derk says:

    So if Atlas has a 2,8 sigma excess and CMS has “2-sigmish” excess (wording of the Resonaances blog), then taken together these would be clearly over three sigma, so could we say that the results presented today, taken together, are evidence of the Higgs between 130 and 140 GeV? (“evidence” in the sense of over 3 sigma significance)

  27. [...] canales de desintegración estudiados por ALTAS y CMS te las ha recopilado Philip Gibbs en ”Big Day for Higgs Boson,” viXra log, July 22, [...]

  28. Kea says:

    So, I didn’t miss much overnight, then?

  29. Tony Smith says:

    If you rescale the leaked CMS plot to match the new plot
    you see that features seem to match up as follows
    145 GeV – a bit over 2 sigma still a bit over 2 sigma
    210 GeV – almost 3 sigma peak flattened to less than 1 sigma
    260 GeV – almost 2 sigma peak flattened to less than 1 sigma
    320 GeV – 3 sigma valley flattened to less than 1 sigma

    See the diagram on my web site at
    tony5m17h.net/CMSflattening.png

    What kind of reprocessing could do such drastic flattening above 160 GeV
    but
    leave the 145 GeV peak relatively intact ?

    Since 0.2 + 0.9 = 1.1, it seems not to be due to additional data
    but
    to be due to drastically different processing.

    What was the difference, and why ?

    Tony

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I think there was a lot of additional data. the original plot used 200/pb in several major channels. I don’t know how they got rid of the deficit though.

      • Tony Smith says:

        Philip, in your blog entry about the CMS leaked plot you said:
        “… It uses 900 /pb for the Higgs to ZZ channels
        combined with
        around 200 /pb for the decay modes favoured at low masses …”.

        The CMS revision flattening occurred only on the high mass peaks around 210 GeV and 260 GeV
        and the high mass valley around 320 GeV.

        The flattening did not much affect the 145 GeV peak at “low masses”.

        Therefore it seems to me that the large amount of additional data, being for “decay modes favored at low masses”, should not have had much effect on the peaks and valley that were severely flattened (all of them over 180 GeV),
        and
        I would like to know what CMS did to flatten them and why.

        Do you have the full pdf or powerpoint file that contained the leaked plot?
        Does it contain more details about how the leaked plot was constructed, so that those details can be compared with details of the revised plot?
        Could you put up a copy of, or link to, that full file,
        or otherwise make it available to those who are interested?

        Tony

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I would be on shaky ground if I put out a copy of those slides. Looking at them I can see that the plot for H -> ZZ -> 2l2q was the source of the deficit in the preliminary plot. I don’t think the extra data added to it could not have been enough to fix that, so their must have been a bug that got fixed

        ATLAS seem to have picked up a similar deficit in two ZZ channels

  30. Thanks for Phil for making possible a new kind of interaction based on free flow of just the relevant information. For me this was extremely useful in my own attempts to build a big picture. I tend to believe that the argument of Lubos – although it does not work at the original energy – works above 145 GeV and I really believe that it supports the existence of 145 GeV CDF bump- which I however do not interpret as Higgs. The challenge is to understand why D0 and ATLAS do not see it.

    My own weird view about what happened during last three days can be found at

    http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/07/tension-in-particle-physics-circles-is.html .

  31. Tony Smith says:

    Matti Pitkanen said that he “… really believe … the existence of 145 GeV CDF bump …
    The challenge is to understand why D0 and ATLAS do not see it …”.

    The ATLAS EPS HEP (21 July) slides by Tetiana Berger-Hrynova said “… This channel is not optimal at LHC with W+jet bkg 20 times higher …”.

    Based on that remark, the high W+jets background at LHC may make it difficult for the LHC to resolve the conflict between CDF and D0,
    and
    therefore the Fermilab Task Force may be the best hope of constructive resolution of the conflict.

    I thought that the D0 presentation was unduly confrontational and unconstructive
    but
    that the CDF presentation by Viviana Cavaliere was constructive in that she indicated that
    using D0 analysis techniques on CDF data produced a cross section of 3 pb instead of the 4 pb initially favored by CDF
    and
    really the CDF and D0 results could only be 2 sigma apart.

    In light of that, my feeling is that the truth is probably
    a real bump in 120 – 160 GeV range
    with cross section around 2 or 3 pb
    and
    that it corresponds to a low mass state of the Truth Quark.

    Tony

  32. Tony Smith says:

    Philip, thanks very much for your patience in discussing the CMS leaked plot. You indicated that the peaks and valley that were flattened came fromHiggs to ZZ data.
    On looking at the fine print on the Korytov CMS combined results slides, I see that for the data that was flattened the slides say
    “… Interpretation requires look-elsewhere correction …”
    and
    that for the Golden Channel for Higgs above 200 GeV
    that is, for Higgs to ZZ to 4l,
    “… LEE is about O(100) and washes out significance of excesses …”.

    Therefore I guess it is clear that the Look Elsewhere Effect (LEE) is what flattened the peaks and valley above 200 GeV.

    Although the LEE flattening is justifiable for a blind search over a range from 200 GeV to 600 GeV,

    LEE should NOT be used in using that same data to verify or refute a specific model (such as my E8 physics model) which makes predictions of two peaks (around 200 GeV and around 250 GeV) that were what CMS data saw prior to LEE flattening.

    As to the valley around 300-400 GeV, my model is based on the Higgs being a Tquark condensate, so that such things should be expected around the t-tbar mass and therefore also not subjected to LEE flattening.

    So, with respect to my E8 physics model with its predictions, the preliminary CMS plot should be relevant.

    When you compare the ATLAS plot, you see also see the same two peaks around 200 GeV and 250 GeV.

    Tony

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I wonder then if ATLAS have neglected the LEE and have left in a deficit that should not be there.

      • heihei says:

        Hi Tony,
        People don’t consider LEE when they set limit. When they calculate discovery significance, LEE will be considered. In CMS plot, there can not be any LEE considered.

  33. Tony, the D0-CDF conflict should be fully explained. I hope that the groups would take this very seriously. 4 sigma findings forgotten without further comments destroy the trust on these collaborations.

  34. Tony Smith says:

    Philip, with respect to LEE I just submitted by email a paper to vixra (another more general one submitted a few days ago is not up there yet).
    I also put a pdf file of the LEE paper at
    tony5m17h.net/LEEhidesHiggs.pdf

    The paper has some relevant graphics but here is the text abstract:

    An ATLAS plot at EPS HEP 2011 showed 3 Higgs state peaks:
    low mass state (Higgs mass around 150 GeV)
    middle mass state (Higgs mass around 200 GeV)
    high mass state (Higgs mass around 250 GeV)

    A preliminary CMS plot for EPS HEP 2011 showed the same 3 Higgs state peaks
    but
    for the plot shown at EPS HEP 2011CMS used a Look Elsewhere Effect (LEE)
    that flattened the 200 GeV and 250 GeV peaks into insignificance.

    Since the same location of the 3 peaks was independently shown by ATLAS
    the CMS use of LEE was improper
    so CMS should remove the LEE processing from its plot.

    Tony

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The LEE is mentioned in the analysis summary at http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1370076/files/HIG-11-011-pas.pdf

      I am just catching up on viXra uploads, sorry for delay

      • Insider says:

        Maybe you should add the 4 ATLAS events to the 3 CMS at the 250GeV mass region to see the true effect. Unfortunately you don’t have the exact masses (you will need an energy scale fix between the 2 experiments because ATLAS reconstructs a couple of GeV too low).

        This is close to a 3 sigma excess with a mass suspiciously close to 240-250GeV, exactly what you would expect for a Higgs there, and you would not need any LEE…

        What you need is a fit to see if the width is consistent, if you know what I mean.

  35. The Higgs story got a new twist at Saturday. I did not have opportunity to follow the developments yesterday since I had marvelous time with the families of my children bu it ist never too late to receive good news.

    Recall that at Friday ATLAS and CMS at LHC reported signs of what might be Higgs or something else around 140-145 GeV- see my previous comment written at Friday evening. Now Lubos told told that also Dzero and CDF experimental report similar signs so that both Tevatron and LCH to end up with similar conclusions.

    In TGD framework this Higgs like state would be of course the M_89 pion with mass 145 GeV detected already by CDF with 4 sigma significance few months ago but not reported by D0 and ATLAS and then forgotten by most bloggers: very common reaction at this highly emotional era of quarter economy;-)! TGD predicts also the 325 GeV state (actually two of them: M_89 ρ and ω with very nearly degenerate masses). For 325 GeV state a firm evidence emerged from CDF during the first day of the conference. This state is a completely mystery in standard model.

    Maybe the situation is now settled. TGD indeed is the theory! The rest requires just patience. It is difficult to imagine that colleagues could remain silent about TGD for ever and this carries a promise of rehabilitation.

  36. I add the links to the postings summarizing the developments during these most exciting three days of my life.

    The longer story involving SUSY and Higgs and also some other new physics predicted by TGD is at

    http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/07/tension-in-particle-physics-circles-is.html .

    The summary about how Higgs story transformed to an eventual support for M_89 hadron physics is at

    http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/07/victory-after-all.html .

  37. [...] results were derived before the recent results of direct searches for Higgs announced at EPS HEP Now we just have to wait for the Gfitter group to update their charts using the new data. Of [...]

  38. [...] you haven’t yet had your fill of plots then take a look at this post on viXra log, which also has exclusion plots from CDF and DZero. And the full ATLAS Higgs combination EPS talk [...]

  39. [...] analysis but clearly this level of data is guaranteed to have enormous impact, especially on the Higgs searches. Eco World Content From Across The Internet. Featured on EcoPressed Stress and Pollution [...]

  40. [...] the recent EPS conference when some new Higgs Exclusion plots were unveiled I has a stab at putting together some combinations of the plots using some basic formulas. Despite [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 276 other followers

%d bloggers like this: