Higgs Signal Plots

It is traditional to present the results of searches such as Higgs hunting as Brazil plots that show us where a signal can be excluded at 95% confidence, but when the data starts to show a positive signal it is better to show signal plots like the one below. This is just the observed confidence level limit minus the expected with the error bands for one and two sigma statistical variation shown around the signal level line.

In this plot an absence of a Higgs boson is indicated by the black line being at the red zero line, but the presence of a standard model Higgs is indicated by meeting the green line at one.

Here I am using the latest CMS and ATLAS data shown at Lepton-Photon 2011 as well as the Tevatron combination shown at EPS 2011

This gives a much clearer picture of what is going on. Above 155 GeV the signal is nicely consistent with no Higgs. Below 135 GeV the signal is right in the middle but the error bands are large and easily allow for either a Higgs or no Higgs.

The middle region is more interesting. From about 135 GeV to 150 GeV it disfavours both a signal and no signal of a standard model Higgs. It is tempting to say that this rules out standard model physics in this region but I think it is too soon to draw such a conclusion. It may be that there is a SM Higgs boson at say 140 GeV but the resolution is not sufficiently good to get a clean signal there, or more data may see the line fluctuate down to the no signal level.

It is important to remember that we are still at the stage where just a few signal events have a big effect on the curve. More detail will emerge with more data. Furthermore, the plot above is only an approximation that does not properly take into account all uncertainties and correlations.

The LHC is now entering a Machine Development and Technical Stop phase for the next two weeks with 2.5/fb recorded in each of ATLAS and CMS. There are no big conferences on the horizon but both experiments have CERN seminars scheduled for the middle of September. With luck they might update all the channels and give us another update soon. Hopefully they will also do some official combos for both exclusion and signal plots.

In case you were wondering what it would have looked like with the EPS data, here it is.

82 Responses to Higgs Signal Plots

  1. Jesus says:

    Maybe we can fit a sine curve there…
    And from 140 GeV on divide it with pi.
    Just guessing…

    Nice Plot. Now the “1-Peak” just has to stay where it is and everything is fine.

  2. JollyJoker says:

    I like this way of showing the info a lot more the usual Brazil plots. Especially what’s going on at 140 GeV looks a lot clearer in this one.

    To clarify what we thought beofre Mumbai vs what we think now; would it be easy to make the same plot with the pre-Mumbai data?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      OK that is done. The signal was much more like what we would want it to be, i.e. nearer to one. Strange how it changed like that.

      • JollyJoker says:


        Well, we knew it would look strange. Has there been any official word denying that they miscalculated the background before and corrected it now?

      • JollyJoker says:

        Btw, I expected the error bands to narrow with more data. They look almost exactly the same width in the two plots..?

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        If you compare the ATLAS and CMS plots between EPS and LP you see that the expected value line only drops a little in the 100-200 GeV range, yet the observed line drops dramatically around where the excesses are for both experiments.

        It may be true that there were less excess events added in the new data. That is just the throw of the dice. But can it account for such a dramatic change to the levels? I am tempted to think that they changed the method or corrected some errors.

        They may have decided to do “Look Elsewhere Effect” differently. Personally I don’t think they should make any adjustments for LEE on these plots. It just obscures the connection with the underlying data. If they adjust the observed line down it increases the exclusions and if they adjust it up it increases the excess, but a LEE needs to decrease both. LEE should be left to the reader.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        In fact the CMS expected value line has moved up for most of the mass range. How can that be possible?

      • JollyJoker says:

        “In fact the CMS expected value line has moved up for most of the mass range. How can that be possible?”

        Well, I guess that’s clear evidence they did more than just add data.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        We may just have to accept that the earlier plots were not quite right. It’s the price we pay for getting to see results more quickly.

      • JollyJoker says:

        I don’t want to accept that we don’t get that info from the LHC collaborations directly. I saw your exchange with Tommaso Dorigo on his blog. I hope he can get an explanation.

        If there was a clear error in the EPS data that could be the explanation for why we didn’t get the official combined plots at LP.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        For the CMS plot I have looked at the individual channels. Take 160 GeV for example. This is dominated by the WW channel which has an expected CL_s value of about 0.3 for the LP data. The combined plot has the same value, so that looks good. However, look back at the EPS charts. The level in the WW channel was then 0.4 so we would expect the same in the combined plot. Instead we get about 0.27. That is far too low. It looks like the old chart was wrongly combined by CMS. It means their excess was higher than it should have been. There could be a reasonable explanation but I can’t think what that could be.

        The ATLAS data does not seem to have the same fault in the expected level, but the observed level dropped very dramatically below about 155 GeV. The individual channels seem to show the same drop so I can only assume that they had less events in the new data.

        So it looks to me like the CMS excess went down because they corrected an error and the ATLAS excess went down because they had a big statistical fluctuation. I could be wrong but I don’t see how.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        The ratio of what I expect to what I see on the plot is 4.0/2.7 = 1.48, very close to sqrt(2), This suggests that they used the expected CL_s for about 2/fb instead of 1/fb in the WW channel when making the CMS combination shown at EPS.

        If there is a better explanation I’d be relieved to hear it.

      • JollyJoker says:

        So with an error like this, you get a broad bump around 140 GeV, which randomly happened to match an Atlas bump that turned out to be just random noise?

        Sounds like maximally bad luck. If the error was smaller, it would have been irrelevant. If it was larger, it would have been obvious. If Atlas didn’t have an excess there, it would have been doublechecked. With the Atlas excess, no one could imagine a CMS-only error.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        That is the simplest but perhaps not the only explanation for the discrepancy I see in the CMS data.

        The ATLAS plot has evolved in a strange way with the excess decreasing by a large amount while keeping the same bumps. Simplest explanation is less events for a statistical fluctuation but it look peculiar.

        I agree that there is an element of coincidence, unless they compared plots and thought they were good because they were similar.

        I may have to try digitizing all the individual channels as suggested by Carla to see how the combos work out. That might give a clearer picture.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I found a better explanation for the CMS discrepancy

        Looking back at the EPS talk http://vixra.org/eps/813.pdf you can see that they had a “Cut based” analysis and a “MVA based” analysis in WW. They seem to have used the MVA based at EPS and the cut based at LP. This is why the excess at 140 GeV dropped.

        I don’t know if there is a similar explanation for ATLAS.

      • JollyJoker says:

        Good work!

        If they make the same switch for other channels, we might suddenly have a two sigma exclusion for the entire mass range, leaving a lot of people scratching their heads…

  3. Bill K says:

    Yes, this is a big improvement. I still see three peaks, but the fact that they only come up to 0.5 warns me not to get too excited about them yet.

  4. Just in from L-P 2011: review of efforts to find SUSY artifacts: ‘nothing whatsoever’.

  5. kneemo says:

    As of now, 120 GeV looks very interesting.

    • Kea says:

      kneemo, there was bound to be a blip left around 120GeV at this stage of the game. I fail to see how this can viewed as evidence for fairy fields.

  6. [...] y 120 GeV. Pero lo más interesante es la gráfica no oficial que Philip nos presenta hoy en “Higgs Signal Plots.” Esta nueva figura presenta la diferencia entre los niveles de confianza observado y [...]

  7. Luboš Motl says:

    If you did it right, the result (neither Yes nor No) would be very interesting. Unfortunately, the documentation is kind of missing and I am afraid that if it were added, it would be not quite persuasive. ;-)

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The calculation closely matches the signal plots on the leaked combo document so it is not too wrong.

  8. Want to make some empirical and theoretical contact with nature.

    On 8/24/11 watch the NOVA program on PBS entitled:

    “Hunting The Hidden Dimension”

    9 PM EST USA

    (Can also be viewed at PBS website anytime)

  9. What does all this mean in simple layman’s terms? Has the Higgs been seen or not?

    • Jesus says:

      No, nothing has been seen, as expected, assuming a light SM Higgs.

      The only conclusion that can be made, is that, if it exists, the SM Higgs has to be in a low-mass region and thus is not seen yet. More data is needed.

      • This is very good news to young aspirant physicist … there is more work to be done. Imagine how many papers where rejected in journals that would voice the none existence of the Higgs .. now, editor must start considering these papers! I like this.

      • Alex says:

        There have actually been quite a few papers published assuming the non-existence of the Higgs. It’s just terribly hard to construct good models without it.

      • Jesus says:

        Dont worry about aspirant physicists Nyambuya. The work to be done will never be completed. Physics is Math and Math is without any limits. Also the precision of our measurements can always be improved and thus the corresponding theories always have to be tested and tested again by more precise experiments.

        The only limit in science is the will of politicians to give us money for our researches. :)

  10. With heavily tortured Earth, scientists need to follow Machian Principle which is the message from God.

    Do not worship on your bended knees those man-made gods like Enstein, Nobel Laureates, politicians, movie stars, etc.

  11. Edwin Eugene Klingman says:

    “Physics is math and math is without any limits.” This is a short summary of the problem with today’s physics. Because there have been no really new discoveries in particle physics for four decades, physicists have had to resort to exotic math to keep publishing papers. So we get the list of things that Oldershaw presented, Higgs, SUSY, WIMPs, dilatons, axions, strings, E8, hologram universes, multiverses, etc. None of these are physics, they are mathematical inventions. At this point most physicists have no intuition for reality and many even deny reality. They have become mathematicians.

    Hopefully the lack of Higgs and SUSY will shock the system back into ‘physics mode’ and a theory that is intuitive will replace the ‘endless’ mathematical excursions that today are called physics. New cosmological data, known anomalies, and ‘weak quantum measurements’ are providing new info after a long dry spell. New physical theories and understanding are required, not new math.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • You are probably right, Edwin… But those overwhelming theoritical objects, if unreal, bear the advantage of keeping the field of theoritical physics alive in the meantime, that is, until a new paradigm cleanse up all useless dirts… It’s like training in the time spanning from one championship to another; It is aimed at nothing but to fill the gap.


  12. Dilaton says:

    Ha ha,

    I can feel a devastating thundersorm heading for Edwin Eugene Klingman from a certain well defined spacial direction; and rightly so … :-P

    (sorry, such comments make me silly too…)

  13. Ervin says:

    @ Edwin Eugene Klingman,

    You say:

    “New physical theories and understanding are required, not new math.”

    The issue is not that such innovative physical models do not exist. The real issue is that there is an establishment in academia and mainstream journals who deliberately censures these new ideas, often times with no sound reasons to do so.

  14. In 1987 a new paradigm called Discrete Scale Relativity predicted definitively that a major component of the galactic dark matter would be in the form of unbound planetary-mass objects.
    Ref: Oldershaw, R.L., Astrophysical Journal, 322(1), 34-36, 1987.

    In the May 18th (2011) issue of Nature, Sumi et al reported the apparent discovery of at least 2 × 10^11 unbound planetary-mass objects “free-roaming” within the Galaxy.

    The standard paradigm has hyped “WIMP” dark matter for over 40 years without finding a single one. Nothing but a very long string of false-positive “events”.

    The new discrete fractal paradigm predicted a combination of planetary-mass and stellar-mass black holes. There is a large amount of empirical and theoretical evidence in favor of this dark matter hypothesis, as can be learned from Mike Hawkins’ excellent review entitled “The Case for Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter” (see arxiv.org for a free copy).

    Time to review our untested assumptions and get back to predictive science.

    Time for new physical priciples, like discrete cosmological self-similarity.

    Fractal Cosmology

  15. Kea says:

    RLO, in this business it is not sufficient to have a good explanation for DM. You must have a sophisticated (not complicated) mathematical construction capable of (i) reproducing GR rigorously (ii) reproducing the SM rigorously (iii) predicting numerous quantitative results from said mathematical construction, such as previously unknown particle masses.

    See you in 50 years.

  16. Ray Munroe says:

    Hi Philip,

    Last week, I said:

    “It is a broad ‘peak’, and the inclusion of Tevatron data may have reduced the peak value by a couple of GeV – maybe down to 141±7 GeV (plus whatever systematic error) on your unofficial global combo plot, but I personally wouldn’t count the signal @ 125 GeV as particularly significant when compared with the signals @ higher neighboring energies.”

    I keep hearing RLO and EEK trying to pitch their ideas before a Higgs discovery buries their ideas forever. In my opinion, the best case scenario would be the discovery of a non-minimal Higgs multiplet. Unlike some of these other mavericks, I don’t consider SUSY a ‘dead’ issue until we have excluded it up to at least 10 TeV.

    Have Fun!

  17. Ray, perhaps not you, but it is almost certain that *someone* will claim that, if SUSY is not found below 10 TeV, then we must test up to 100 TeV. Long before then we should have a realistic theory that is not as ugly as SM, that explains all the current anomalies, and excludes the many mathematical inventions that explain nothing, predict nothing, and match no physical results.

    Jerome Chauvet has given the best justification for current physics, and Ervin has remarked on one of the unfortunate realities of current physics.

    We will probably know before too long whether “a Higgs discovery buries my ideas forever.” Until then I am really enjoying the current state of affairs. As you say, “Having Fun”.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

  18. Ervin Goldfain says:

    It is important to recall that, even if the Higgs sector is experimentally confirmed at some point in the future, the long list of critical questions concerning SM will stay open. If LHC continues to see no traces for new physics, chances are that we’ll be left in the dark on many fronts. Among these, the nature of flavor physics and fermion replication, the source of P and CP violations, the gauge hierarchy problem, a reliable account of neutrino physics, a reliable account of infrared QCD, anomalous magnetic moment of charged leptons, the puzzle of dark matter and so on.

    It ought to be clear that Higgs alone is far from being the universal “cure” that many are hoping for.

  19. Ervin,

    Very well said.


    Well, the overwhelmingly dominant constituent of the entire matter content of the Universe is not a bad place to start. And why wait if it will take 50 years to develop?

    Fractal Cosmology

  20. To Robert K. Oldershaw:

    Good to find someone to agree with about something;-) . Also I like the idea about a hierarchy of discrete scales. Nottale has also spoken about length scale hierarchies in his scale relativity. In my own framework I talk about p-adic length scale hierarchy. The hierarchy of Planck constants coming as integer multiples of standard one brings additional length scale hierarchy. This hierarchy was partially inspired by Nottale’s findings about quantization of planetary orbits with gigantic “gravitational” Planck constant.

    In elementary particle mass spectrum the scale hierarchy is directly visible: no-one in his right mind would expect that any mathematician in his right mind would try to understand the huge difference between top quark mass and neutrino masses in terms of Higgs mechanism. But this is what people have tried to do for decades. Situation is even worse for super-symmetry breaking. Very elegant solution to the latter problem is same mass formula for particle and sparticle but with different mass scale.

    Although the notion of scale is everyday concept for physicists, it has turned in in practice impossible to communicate this simple idea (I have 15 years experience!). I think that only “zeitgeist” can explain why people are not able see the truth although it is staring directly at their face , laughing, and slapping their face;-).

  21. wl59 says:

    Currently, Physics runs in a wrong direction. People follow the most absurde speculations, but nobody makes efforts to try to explain things simply.

    About two decades ago, I examined the logical, geometrical, physical aspects of a causet successively produced by the simple but very plausible hypothese that ‘existence is equivalent to the effectuation of something new’ not contained but linear independent on the past and everything existing. Among the results: the events of each rank can be understand as forming a new dimension, alternatively representable by a static or dinamic description and a corresponding natural/fundamental constant interpretable as the ‘awaydeveloping impulse / speed’ or separation of the new dimension or new nature’s aspect from the previous one (the space w.r.t. time f.ex. with tpl, lpl or their ratio c statically or dynamically); roughly the same proportion is also between the global state variables, i.e. R ~ cT ; M ~ c^2/G R , or an affine ‘growing’ or proportion of the dimensions with simultaneously one elementary unit each evolution step, from the origin until now, from smallest to biggest scales; etc. The sequence of the dimensions was, in its equivalent statical/dynamical aspect: Events/World Points and Action ; Time and Energy ; kinematic Extension and Impulse; Curvature/Potential and Normal Plane, with easily understandable also their characteristics like the unidirectionality of the time and the equivalence between events and time or between kinematic and geometric extension; etc. The ‘primary’ fundamental interactions are an imediately geometrical consequence of these two aspects, and their formulas follow from the comparison of them. The line element (omitting the figure or metric coefficients, and interchanging for the last dimension the static/dynamic representation in order to put the three spatial coordinates together and let the potential with energy and impulse) is: 0 = 1/h² dS² – 1/tpl² ( dt² – 1/c² { dq1² + G0²/G² [ dq2,3² - ...]}) with G0 = tpl²c⁵/h ≈ G . Thus, in agreement with the basical assumption, events and their action are an own dimension and a corresponding (immediately producing) primary natural force. Formally, this can be treated as a discretized / quantized proper time, which in the line element gives also discretized geometrical conditions for the other coordinates of a moving object. It has the classical limit/correspondence dS ~ mc² dtau where dtau is the sum of the other dimensions. Thus, it’s no surprise that the model has no problem with the transit to the continuum, and behaves macroscopically classical, without changes for ART, but microscopically explains the QT . Inherent to the model are: causality (as defined initially); flatness; equivalence between the three space dimensions or inertia and gravitation mass; and other good properties. The model makes also very understandable that the ‘relative speed’ or ‘lenth density’ between two dimensions (c between space and time) cannot be surpassed by shifts of objects bound to the dimension (f.ex. matter to space) and thus is the main characteristics of its natural force (f.ex. the inertia is connected with c or with the ‘expansion’ of space w.r.t. time). The elementary units by their proportional growing are the average interval in which each dimension is ‘realized’ by the action which passes through it from the previous to the next dimension (thus, each lpl of space of the universe is also realized by appr. one Epl of energy or mpl of mass and its action). Thus, the dimensions are realized by their action, not by substance. This average realisation interval or length density M/R ~ c²/G ~ mpl/lpl or R/T ~ c ~ lpl/tpl is the same for small and big scales (planck wavelength, black hole, universe). The model explains that the mass of the universe or any space is just a geometric ‘effect’ or equivalence of its curvature radius, M ~ R, like its energy is a geometric consequence of its age, E ~ T, etc. However, the source of these steadily growing global static / dynamic parameters is just the origin or ‘onset’ of the corresponding dimension itself, exactly where is no symmetry and translation invariance and thus also don’t need to be fulfilled a conservation law in its variables (outside the singularity can be div T = 0); on the other hand the total line element or four-vector represents a dimension-spanning conservation law valid even with the singularity, f.ex. a single resting particle at each discrete action produces a skip of its own time, dS ~ L dt. According to that causet model and its very successful correspondence to the reality and continuum physics, don’t exist further time or space dimensions, and is matter, belonging to these, insensible to further dimensions; also don’t exist a TOE or any substitution of fundamental interactions more than one interaction per dimension. The natural forces come from the dimensions itself and realizes them, they arise within the first 1,2,3 evolution steps or planck times, not from particles appearing much later.

    The model is simple, understandable, and has no known problems. However, nobody want it, because it’s not absurde enough.

  22. Bill K says:

    Edwin, I’d say that what distinguishes a ‘really new discovery’ from a mere ‘mathematical excursion’ is simply whether it works. The major developments of 40 years ago, Electroweak theory and QCD, were both based on assumptions that at the time seemed arbitrary. Their importance was realized only after the discovery of Z mesons and gluon jets confirmed them.

    Also you seem to believe that the next major theory will be revealed below 10 TeV. I know of no principle that requires nature to adapt itself to our limitations. Nature may well hold out until 10 PeV or even 10 EeV to reveal itself.

    You also are expecting the next theory to seem ‘intuitive’. But quantum mechanics and relativity were not intuitive, at least not in terms of the classical physics that preceded them. They become intuitive only in retrospect, after you have accepted them as the new reality. If the next theory is just as revolutionary, it will require a new way of looking at things. The LHC data may not seem beautiful or intuitive or revolutionary – it may be utterly mysterious – so much so that it makes the universe appear to be the work of a madman. Let’s hope!

    • Ervin Goldfain says:

      Bill K,

      I fully agree with you that it is unclear at this point if and at what scale new physics will show up. There are all kinds of arguments for setting this scale at energies ranging from O(TeV)all the way up to the Planck scale.

      But what I disagree with is that LHC data will eventually paint a picture of a universe that appears to be “the work of a madman”.



    • Bill K says:

      Just my dramatic way of saying, “It will not make sense at first”!

  23. Matti,

    Thanks for the positive comments.

    Nottale’s Scale Relativity assumes that:

    1. there is a lower cutoff to nature’s hierarchy,
    2. there is an upper cutoff to nature’s hierarchy, and
    3. the dark matter either does not exist or is a minor component.

    Unfortunately, there are strong reasons to doubt these assumptions.

    Discrete Scale Relativity, which is quite a different approach to introducing relativity of scale, says that there are no lower or upper cutoffs to nature’s hierarchy, and that the dark matter constitutes at least 99% of the Universe.

    DSR can do everything SR does but in a much simpler and natural way. Also DSR makes definitive predictions that have been verified, explains the fine structure constant, resolves the vacuum energy density disparity, etc., etc., etc.

    DSR was discovered before SR came on the scene.

    I think Nottale has identified the right missing chord (relativity of scale), but I think his abstract mathematical approach and his unwillingness to let the physical/empirical reality of nature be the guiding influence in his modeling have led his promising start astray.

    Fractal Cosmology

  24. Bill K,

    You note that “I seem to believe that the next major theory will be revealed below 10 TeV. I know of no principle that requires nature to adapt itself to our limitations.” You are correct of course. I am however basing my belief on the fact that my theory predicts *all* of the known particles (without Higgs, SUSY, or right handed neutrinos) and seems to leave no room for anything other than as-yet-to-be-discovered “resonances”. So my belief is biased to conform to my theory. Otherwise I would not make the 10 TEV statement.

    Elsewhere I was asked about Verlinde’s idea that gravity is an emergent effect of entropy. I have analyzed Verlinde’s theory elsewhere, and do not accept his ideas. Partly because it is a ridiculously complicated idea with many assumptions, some questionable, and also because my theory, which is based on gravity being real and basic, is making predictions and matching new experimental results. So I’m happy to see http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161 21 Aug 2011, “gravity is not an entropic force” in which Verlinde’s gravity theory (essentially a statistical force) is analyzed in terms of influence on quantum particles. Experiments for a decade or more have shown the effect of gravity on neutrons, effectively disproving Verlinde’s idea.

    On a more general note, 2011 is shaping up to be a “miracle year” in physics due to an extraordinary number of significant experiments being reported. The INTEGRAL experiment demolished Planck length, the LHC will (I believe) wipe out Higgs and SUSY, and Aharonov-type ‘weak measurements’ support the de Broglie “particle plus wave” interpretation of quantum mechanics (that follows from my theory). Also Gravity Probe B’s confirmation of the reality of the C-field. In addition to 120 orders of magnitude error in QED vacuum energy,we now have 2010′s discovery of the 4 percent proton radius anomaly that threatens QED (and also follows from my theory). I believe that many of the mathematical inventions that have cluttered physics for a few decades are going to be pruned ‘real soon now’ and we can get on with ideas of reality that at least match experiment.

    I think this is a good thing.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

  25. Robert,

    I agree with your criticism of Nottale’s theory but it is based on realization of something very fundamental as also Nottale’s observation concerning planetary orbits. My personal beliefs are that the length scale hierarchy has lower limit for length scales: CP_2 size (no discretization just natural minimal length scale). No upper bound on scales and dark matter and dark energy unified in terms of large Planck constant phases.

    For various reasons I have been involved with the article “gravity is not an entropic force”. Verlinde’s original idea of giving up gravitons looks to me nonsense. I do not how he thinks now.

    The idea about entropy and temperature parameter at the level of generalized Feynman diagrams without giving up gravitons looks to me much more interesting. In TGD framework zero energy ontology forces to generalize S-matrix to a collection of orthogonal M-matrices which can be regarded as products of hermitian square root of density matrix and S-matrix. Zero energy states form a Lie algebra. One might consider the possibility that single particle states in zero energy ontology carry entropy and are characterized by temperature, even the lines of generalized Feynman diagrams.

    If the gravitons at flux tubes mediating gravitational interactions are thermalized, one obtains naturally that the entropy of flux tube is proportional to length of the flux tube and temperature inversely proportional to its square just as gravitational force. These are qualitatively just the basic two formulas that Sabine Hossenfelder abstracts from Verlinde’s article containing a lot of un-necessary ad hoc assumptions. There is no need to assume that gravitation reduces to entropic force.

    In the case of gravitation an extremely small effect is in question but if something similar takes in the case of electromagnetism, situation changes and highly interesting conjecture about the origin of matter antimatter asymmetry as being required by thermal stability in the proposed sense emerges. The reason is that the temperature parameters (proportional to the radial component of Coulomb force now) are opposite for charged particle and antiparticle.

    See http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/articles/egtgd.pdf .
    The article contains also TGD view about blackhole interiors based on a proposal about GRT limit of TGD. The most natural interpretation is as space-time regions with Euclidian signature of metric (this applies also to elementary particles) and characterized by a cosmological constant fixed by CP_2 scale. The observed cosmological constant would be average value of it and only Euclidian regions would contribute so that the value of Lambda would be very small.

  26. wl59 says:

    We see that the theory is controverse in the most basical questions (even if gravitation is a fundamental force or not) and full of very exotic and absurd explanations without attempts to explain things easy. At the same time, we see that 99% of such theories are wrong, currently f.ex. the LHC don’t find nothing of the predicted extra dimensions etc etc etc.

    The methodical mistake is that nowadays theory starts from arbitrary speculations, and continues them passing all limits, instead of to start from observational evidence or need to explain observations or evident properties of the world. That’s a crise in physics, that’s not longer physics, which have to start from the reality.

    The consequence is, we have to reduce the theoretical ‘work’, and increase the experimental physics. I’m publically also suggest to limit public money and dismiss people ‘working’ on the theory, in favor of the experimental physics.

  27. Dilaton says:

    Dear Phil,

    can You do nothing against the trolls overtaking here?

    Things are getting really annoying and ugly now :-(

    Trolls should not be allowed to come here and spoil this nice blog !!!

  28. Dear Dilaton,

    If I read correctly this blog, Trolls has not violated any of the rule blog posting but merely aired his/her views. This must be encouraged. One of the reason viXra was founded is to to more space to the discerning voices and never to silence them.

    viXra is not about shutting out any voice(s), but to let them float freely. This way, and this way alone, science will flourish … it is not about allegiance or anything … it is a freedom blog.

    If what you suggested is implemented, then, this will be the beginning of the death of viXra. viXra simple falls on its own sword.

    Free soul,

    • Ulla says:

      Trolls? Who is a troll? Those who shut themselves in into a mountain or castle, or those travelling freely around?

      Or those trying to learn something, like me? From themselves they know others?

      Look what I found, no Higgs, only a field. No M-theory. Other solutions than a particle must be looked for. http://www.calphysics.org/articles/chown2007.html and http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
      Not even the quantization needed? The Hat or well is there, thermodynamic. And it suits Einstein. And TGD, I assume?

      There is a need for open discuss, and the fact that high-quality pictures and suggestions comes from this blog clearly indicates its need to continue being free. Other blogs can follow Phil’s example. Then there are more space.

      Or Phil can seriously consider the free forum he suggested earlier? It needs volunteers and money?

      Freedom builds on respect for others, no insults, or as little as possible (addendum when I thought of Mr LM). I admit I have failed, sry.

      • Dilaton says:

        Of course it is good to discuss things and ideas that could possibly not make it into the arxiv here. That is a major purpose of vixra as I understand it and Phil wanted it I think ;-)

        I call only those people trolls who claim in their outrageous comments that all of particle physics, cosmology and related stuff is complete rubibsh; all of theoretical physics should be abolished; etc …

        I`m sure that these people know very well that there exists a famous special blog for just doing this of “discussion” and where they can find a lot of companions that agree with them. It is certainly not needed that I explicitely post the link to what I mean ;-)

        So I kindly ask them to go there instead of spoiling this post which is intended to discuss higgs signal posts and this blog more generally.

        I really enjoyed reading Phils reports, combination plots and the previous previous corresponding discussions too. I liked and appreciated the work he does and the efforts he takes to keeping us all informed. But obviously things have changed now; what a pity :-(

      • wl59 says:

        Nobody claimed that “all” of particle physics etc is stuff … Nor, nobody want to censor discusions in a certain direction, in favour of a certain theory, nor that it have to be ‘mainstream’

        However, the motivation why I passed my remark, was simply, that plenty things passed which are too far from the reality, or too far from a near and careful extrapolation of the known, inclusive speculations over speculations over speculations. Because this is just the problem of the physics nowadays, the too exagerate speculations. One have to be slower but more careful and sure.

        It’s a diference, if f.ex. after the general relativity were predicted light deflections of stars near the sun – this is a near extrapolation and almost classical – or if are predicted pre-bigbang-worlds, parallel worlds, branes etc – this is stupid and also isn’t physics but in the best case an aberration of filosofy. Also the whole string theory is stupîd, also the loop quantum theory – because there is no ‘network’ , the planck units just mean an average ‘realization interval’ of each dimension, thus alias a functional realization (by action), not a material (by substance/ether/network/relationships) and also independent on ‘objects’ , but inherent in each dimension as its geometric property since its origin.

        The same is with measurings. In my life I saw so many ‘measurements’ … After each beginners’ practicum, you would have to reform the physics completely, because in distance of meters (from one experiment desk to the next) you get a ‘significantly’ variable light speed and what else… So, pls, compare that now with the propaganda f.ex. only about Higgs in the newspapers. One see that there’s simple nothing.

        We all know that a quadratic equation has two solutions, and in the practice health people silently ignore the wrong one (normally, the negative one) . But nowadays, what’s going on is that the theoretics want to see behind everything something real. And thus, the physics becomes full of nonsense. Everybody know that complexe equations have plenty irrealistic solutions. Instead of to skip the waste, nowadays it happens the opposite: the most absurde formal results are understand as something real, and put in the daily news as revolution of the physics. One barely can overlook what’s right and what’s wrong. The fault for this have the theoretical people.

        Thus: care ! And stop with stupid exagerations. The physics nowadays is too full with stupidness. This has to be reduced in the raw manner, because in the soft manner these junk theories and their inventors don’t want to go away . Worser even, at the same time, and with editors brainwashed by so much stupidness as ‘normal’, nobody get longer published normal theories which don’t pass a certain level of idiotism.

        That’s wrong. And that I readed here such things and so irreal discusions was also the reason for my remark. That I also wrote clearly in my remark. Want we do filosophy or mathematics and develop millions of nice but wrong models, or physics, what’s oriented on the real world and try to limit the waste a priory so good as possible ??

        Also, how people can say gravitation is no fundamental interaction …

        And instead of invent extra dimensions etc etc, could someone first try to explain, wherefrom come the known directions and natural forces ?? They at least are obvious, and don’t need to be searched first.

      • Ulla says:


        I`m sure that these people know very well that there exists a famous special blog for just doing this of “discussion” and where they can find a lot of companions that agree with them. It is certainly not needed that I explicitely post the link to what I mean

        No, I don’t know, so can you please be explicit here.

  29. JollyJoker says:

    Dilaton, Golden is right. Vixra was founded because not everyone could get their papers on Arxiv. That the blog is one of the few places where you can get “human readable” info on what happens at the LHC is just a side ploy and has little to do with the original intent.

    To put it bluntly, the crackpots were here first ;)

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Dear JollyJoker,

      “To put it bluntly, the crackpots were here first.”

      well, that’s surely the case, but it doesn’t mean that they will also be here last, does it? The skunks were running on the Earth long before the humans which doesn’t mean and shouldn’t mean that they must stink in every 21st century bedroom. ;-)

      Phil Gibbs and viXra used to have a different status than quality-oriented bloggers and arXiv – but it was just because of bad luck. I think that once Phil has seen some good luck and positive transformations, he should think twice whether he wants to return to the bad luck.


      • wl59 says:

        Dilaton says: “Trolls should not be allowed to come here and spoil this nice blog !!!”

        Yes, for some people it’s nice to stay in the irreality, and to remain among oneself, continuing the ‘fete’ of the madness and mutual confirmation, like normal of any kobold meeting.

        That is specially so among people possessed by theories.

        The worst is, if suddenly comes light, the reality …

        Dont’ think, one time the string theory, higgs … is proven to be wrong, that these people go away. They continue to invert the true and the wrong, and call others trolls

        The owner of the blog decides, if he otp for the illusion, or for the reality inclusive as orientation for physics and for the politics and method how to develop and treat physical theories.

      • Ulla says:

        Or the crackpot-label may shift? We don’t have the answers yet, remember. At least you use to say so. Scramble on – together here.

      • Most of the crackpots here are just various levels of lazyness respect to the usual scientific person, but not so far. Some of us just neglect the task of publishing papers, some others did not bother to train the practical exercises during undergraduate, some others look for shortcurts and royal paths across proofs, etc… Fortunately the lowest levels, the ones who never read any theory book or just get all the info from hashed illumination while reading TV, were absent from the start.

        And then, the tasks of building and understanding this kind of plots works well against lazyness, it is not only luck.

  30. wl59 says:

    Although this is controvers within the epistemology, the most efficient manner is probably: observe (or at least, don’t ignore evidence); make an effective (or symptomatic) theory; make near extrapolations and predictions with that theory; observe them; if positive, make better the theory, but if negative go back and cancel one of the assumptions for the near extrapolation.

    What’s wrong now with the current physics ?

    Theories don’t start longer with the need to explain (or explain better) observations or evidence. Theories nowadays are made just for fun, for have a stock of 10^6 theories. When I was little boy, I also (specially on the weekends when it rained outside) liked to play with linear algebra etc and made all kind of mad theories. By the help of god later this becames better, and I worked starting always from evidence or observations.

    Many other people however don’t pass the infantil state. Thus, we have now junk like: pre-bigbang worlds; multiverses, parallelverses, string theory, branes, … The worst however is, that this is considered as part of the physics, and taken serious.

    How is violated the normal methodics of physics, one see on Higgs. We don’t see no Higgs. It’s supposed to go back a few steps, and to correct the presumptions (the theory is anyway sick). But instead of this, currently the tendence is, for save one sick theory / particle, they invent ten more particles, the HHiggss (or hide-higgss) which make for us invisible the Higgs. More generally, for save one wrong speculation, they invent ten even worser.

    There are whole branches like string theory, which gained an own ‘forca vital’ and will continue anyway, no matter if real or irreal.

    Just this is the problem. This people, within their scheme of thinking during decades, their brain became possessed incurably. These people never can think in another manner. If a firma had blue cars, and change suddenly to yellow cars, then it has to dismiss any driver which states 40 years drived a blue car and not to can drive a yellow car but with it would make accidents.

    Thus, the own ‘forca vital’ which the abstract gains if possessing the concrete, is a heavy problem of the current physics. With string theory and other waste, this never will stop, before the government don’t put light in these dark corners of university and science institutes, pull these kobolds out from their corners, and put them on the street where they can tell their theories to other junkies. (look the similarity of the picture with some real people and representants of mad theories, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold)

    The situation of the theoretical physics currently is dark, because 99% of the theories are junk.

    But with the observations – like, LHC or astrophysical satellites – now comes light in the darkness, the reality will kill the stupidness. Look here many recent results: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/collection/CMS%20Physics%20Analysis%20Summaries?ln=en

    It’s clear that against this, many Kobolds calls Trolls people which comes with the reality, in order to continue no matter of the reality.

    • Ulla says:

      Exactly, and I want to start from biology as the existing proof.It is already there. Everything that doesn’t fit the proof is dismissed. It should be easy with so many variabes/theories? But just a few consider biology as a physical system, Exactly because it is hard to explain makes it a good teacher. Follow Mother Gaia.

  31. wl59 says:

    I want to pass a remark to the current Higgs results.

    As one can see f.ex. here, http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/News/2011/LP11/images/CLs_SM_Higgs_%20LP11.png , the ‘peak’ at 116 – 120 means simply that there were no events, or anobservational uncertainty of 100% . Thus it’s senseless to discuss about a possible Higgs at 119. Beside of this, in the area 121 – 131 is no peak indicating anything.

    And as one see f.ex. here, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1376643/files/HIG-11-022-pas.pdf , the ‘peaks’ at 133 and 141 come simply from the fact that there the sensibilities change from two Gamma to two W ; the plot gives observed excluding probabilities what reflect that. And comparing this plot with the previous one, the excluding probability improved to nearly 95%.

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Your comments are complete nonsense. Could you please kindly exploit your opportunity to shut your mouth?

      When you say that the first graph says that there are “no events”, it’s pretty clear what you’re doing: you’re interpretating the y-axis as the “number of events”. But the y-axis is the upper limit on the cross section in units of the Standard Model cross section.

      There are lots of events and for these low masses, most of them are background events.

      • wl59 says:

        … yes, if one don’t understand what means a CLS of 1 or 100% (for 116-119)

      • wl59 says:

        … and then it’s also not far, that people interpret this ‘peak’ near 119, by a simple absence of events (and correspondingly absence of a reduced uncertainty), as possible indication of Higgs at that mass …

  32. In the latest issue of Science 8/26/11 there is a report by Bailes et al describing the discovery and properties of a new pulsar-planet system, the third so far.

    Pulsar-planets were first discovered in 1992.

    In 1989, in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 28, No. 12, pp. 1503-1532, it was definitively predicted by a new paradigm called the self-similar cosmological paradigm (now referred to as Discrete Scale Relativity) that planetary-mass objects would be discovered orbiting stellar-mass ultracompact objects.

    Discrete Scale Relativity was the only theory to ever definitively predict systems like pulsar-planets, explain how they form, and explain why they should not be unusually rare objects.

    If you would like to read more about this definitive scientific prediction by Discrete Scale Relativity, see Selected Paper #4 at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , which was also published in IJTP.

    It will be most interesting to see the more detailed properties of this system once further research is done on it, especially with the new Russian Spektr-R radio wave satellite that can be linked to Earth-based radio telescopes to give unprecedented resolution of radio sources, like a pulsar-planet system.

    Game On!
    Fractal Cosmology

  33. Ervin Goldfain says:


    Phil’s posting is about Higgs searches in light of the latest data from EPS and LP11. It would be nice to stick to the topic for once.

    Cheers to all,


  34. wl59 says:

    Yes, OK, but I continue with my idea, that if a theory is prooved to be essentially wrong, then the government/institute has to dismiss also its author. In order that the people make new theories with responsibility and according to acceptable physical methodics, and in order to reduce the number of theoretical physics in benfit of experimental (because in the moment it’s not well equilibred). People working on string and brane theory, pre-bigbang-worlds, and some other pathologies, they can dismiss right now.

  35. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    Reported at L-P 2011: Tevatron’s purported mass difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos went from a 40% difference to a 16% difference when more data were analyzed.

    Anyone care to guess what the final % will be?

    Sigh, sos, sos, sos,…

  36. Kea says:

    You’re wrong if you think the answer is zero. Very, very wrong.

  37. wl59 says:

    No new LHC measurements for Higgs ??

  38. If one is losing (badly) a chess game with nature, one should not kick the table over, claim nature is cheating, or delude oneself into thinking that one is really winning.

    Instead, one should learn from the master, i.e., nature.

    Discrete Scale Relativity

  39. Actually, a single higgs is almost as bad as none. Winos and Zinos, topcolor, ETC, that should be good.

  40. Kea says:

    If one has made no mistakes, one is not trying hard enough.

  41. Ulla says:

    If you look at Nature the big mass lies in nucleus, not in leptons. How does leptons make protons and neutrons? There is a very minute interaction, as seen in neutron decay.

    Is something wrong with the scaling question?

  42. Ulla says:

    The BBC has placed supersymmetry next to the carbon dioxide and the AGW “deniers” as the ultimate enemies of Gaia.

    This is an almost religious statement, and has nothing with science to do.


    The firm exclusion only applies to superpartners that interact via the strong force? (nucleus)

    many squarks may still be much lighter than 1 TeV (tens of TeV, said Kane). On the other hand, squarks may be much heavier and this actually allows the gluinos to be lighter than reported by the generic LHC data.
    many of the search strategies depend on lots of events with large missing transverse energy – I thought these were a signal for DM, or Susy. So, in fact Susy has extensively been searched?

    The LHC searches are not yet sensitive to 115 and 128 GeV, said Kane. This can be seen at Phils plots too?

    large multiplicities of particles?complicated decay chains?superpartners in this scenario could end up being much lighter than 1 TeV.? – What happen then with the scaling? Wasn’t that the main reason for Susy/Higgs?

    Gravity is too weak to be studied here, but maybe the energy escape this way too. Much greater penetrating effect?

    What about the time-factor? Susy may be extremely shortlived?

    And the Island, Lubos? Where is it? I liked the idea, really. Compare to ‘stable island of matter’? A virtual/dark ‘mirrorimage’ of matter?

    I hardly need to discuss this on Lubos blog.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The BBC report is peppered with caveats so if you read it carefully it is not saying anything wrong. However the original headline was “LHC puts supersymmetry in doubt” with subheadings like £down the drain” and “disappointed” etc. Some people just read these and take away an impression that Supersymmetry has failed.

      Supersymmetry may fail. Theorists are not prophets who can predict the results of every experiment before it happens. But it is too soon to say.

  43. [...] this point I think that signal plots are more informative than the exclusion plots so here is how the signal changed between EPS and [...]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 268 other followers

%d bloggers like this: