Comments on: Higgs Boson Live Blog: Analysis of the CERN announcement

By: Vijay Gupta

Vijay Gupta — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:44:23 +0000

It is pleasure to participate in this live discussion. Purpose of participation is bring forward the point-of-view of Pico Physicist

From PicoPhysics viewpoint is Energy is confined in space. Such contiguous space in which energy is confined can be termed ‘Particle’. Elementary particles are once in which the geometrical energy distribution is simple – single core surrounding by field region. In the core, motion of energy is geometrically circular. Bosons are particles in which the circulation is not closed. A Boson can be considered to be superposition of two particle classes. In Bosons circulation is closed and ‘Higgs Bosons’ circulation is open and matches the curvature of larger particle. The Boson for which circulation is open may be as Higgs Boson. Higgs Boson resembles photons in free space. (They are still defined by plank’s constant ‘h’, but associated wavelength ‘=hc’ is different). Before Gamma rays are emitted in nuclear decay, they are present in nucleus at least for a short while as Higgs Bosons.

Picophysics believe this is only a particular case of refraction, and shall be handled as such.

Thanks and Regards,
Vijay Gupta
Pico Physicist
Proponent Unary Law (Space Contains Energy)

By: Mick O'Donoghue (@gooner60gd)

Mick O'Donoghue (@gooner60gd) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:13:42 +0000

keep me up to speed in February

By: JollyJoker

JollyJoker — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:47:51 +0000

Ok, it’s far less than I thought. I realize now I should have been able to make a rough guess based on the 5 sigma exclusion area being about what the Tevatron had excluded at two sigma earlier.

The official LHC + Tevatron combination you mentioned will be quite interesting, especially if they publish a LEE-corrected significance of the peak. I’d like to see the press ask them why a 99.5% certainty is called a vague hint

By: Philip Gibbs

Philip Gibbs — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:50:09 +0000

It has not really been mentioned, but the Tevatron and LHC have equal significance at about 110 GeV. At 120 GeV the Tevatron contributes only a quarter to the combination and above that it drops steeply. In that sense the Tevatron is virtually insignificant. It is also inferior because it cannot compete with the mass resolution that the LHC has in the diphoton and zz channels.

However, it will still be interesting to see what their final results say. Will they get a hint of the Higgs at 125 geV if that is where it is? They claim that with the full data set they will see or exclude the Higgs. It sounds very optimistic given that they have only about 25% more data to add, but it is impressive that they can get so many channels into the combination.

By: Tony Smith

Tony Smith — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:52:08 +0000

As to Tprime quark around 125 GeV
what about a pion-type meson made up of
a Tprime quark and an Up-type antiquark ?

Would it have 125 GeV mass and spin zero
and preferred diphoton decay mode ?

If it were much like a conventional T0 meson
made up of Tquark and Up antiquark
then
the short Tquark lifetime might make somewhat improbable but maybe the LHC has enough luminosity to make some of them.

Tony

By: JollyJoker

JollyJoker — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:36:36 +0000

Sorry if this was addressed earlier, but I just noticed I see no difference between the LHC only combination and the LHC + LEP + Tevatron one above 120 GeV, except perhaps a small widening of the 153-187 red band.

Is the Tevatron contribution really completely insignificant already?

By: Philip Gibbs

Philip Gibbs — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:45:55 +0000

Very certain. A Top prime quark would have spin 1/2 but this particle must have spin zero or spin two if it decays to two photons. They would search for a top prime in different places.

By: Leo Vuyk

Leo Vuyk — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:00:59 +0000

How certain are particle physicists that the 125- 127 GeV bump can not be a so called TOP PRIME Quark?

By: Philip Gibbs

Philip Gibbs — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:34:31 +0000

Twice as much when I call it the God particle.

By: Soap_Bubbles

Soap_Bubbles — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:14:47 +0000

Thank you, that helped clarified the math nicely.

Another point that caught my eye, this is most likely dribble but here goes anyway.

First, all the mass energy given are center of mass energies, yes?

Second, when you say in this mass range most of the Higgs decay to two b quarks. I assume you mean via the Z^0 decay?

Third, can (are) they measuring the ratio of the number of three–jet events to the number of two–jet events, i.e. the strong coupling constant? If so what is the SM prediction of the coupling constant to the existence of the Higgs?

Hence, if this discovery pans out and there is a 125 GeV Higgs, its existence so very close to the Z^0 resonance could be of major significance. I guess what I am asking is if there are more three-jet than two-jet events and with a fairly large cross-sections both particles could have a lot in common, enough maybe to confuse them as two separate particles instead of one very unstable particle?