Moriond 2012 Higgs Summary

… or perhaps I should be calling it the “Brout-Englert-Higgs” Summary or even the “SM scalar boson” Summary. These were the titles diplomatically chosen by the speakers in the presence of François Englert who gave the opening talk for the session, but the particle is still symbolised by just the letter H.

The Moriond meeting has seen another small step forward in the search for the missing boson with new data coming from the Tevatron and LHC experiments. Now that all the plots are available online it’s a good time to pick out a few highlights and see what they are telling us.

Tevatron

I showed the Tevatron combined plot yesterday with its comforting 2.2 sigma excess from 115 GeV to 135 GeV. Here are the individual plots from CDF and D0

These are comfortably consistent with a Higgs between 115 GeV and 135 GeV and could accommodate a wider range. 2.2 Sigma is not a high significance level but in conjunction with results from the LHC it is a nice independent confirmation of what they are seeing.

There is one further point to make about this result that is very important and so far overlooked. The Tevatron is getting its signal from the bb channel. Below is my unofficial combination for the decay channel to two bottom quarks alone. CDF and D0 were able to get a lot more information out of this channel than previously by improving their algorithm for identifying the hadronic jets coming from these decay products. It is not an easy business and results in a widely spread excess as seen here.

What makes this especially interesting is that this shows the Higgs decaying to two spin-half fermions. The LHC has so far only had tentative signals in the diphton, WW and ZZ channels which are all spin one products. Spin in conserved in the decay process so a scalar boson with its spin of zero can decay into two particles of equal spin orientated in opposite polarisations so that the total spin cancels out. the experiments cannot measure the orientation of the spin so if they see two photons (or W or Z bosons) they can only say that the spin of the original particle was zero or two. Someone wanting to be argumentative could say that the particle being discovered is a graviton like spin two boson. However, if we take the Tevatron excess to be a signal of the same particle then we also know it can decay into two spin half fermions. That would indicate a particle of spin zero or spin one. Putting the two results together we know that it can only be spin zero which is a nice confirmation for the theory of the Higgs mechanism. It will be a long time before the LHC can get a similar result from the bb channel so this observation makes the Tevatron result much more than just a small confirmation.

ATLAS

Following the Tevatron presentations ATLAS was next up to present. After the major update in December they still had a number of channels to update to use the full 5/fb of data collected in 2011. This included H -> ττ, H -> bb, H-> WW -> lνlν,  WW -> lνqq, ZZ -> llqq and ZZ -> llνν. Of these only the first three are relevant to the low mass scale of interest.  The  H -> ττ, H -> bb do not have much sensitivity yet so no excess was expected there. This leaves only the  H-> WW -> lνlν channel to be of any real interest. Here is what is looks like at low mass.

There is not much excess in this plot so the effect of updating it is to drop the combined excess for ATLAS at 125 GeV from 3.5 sigma previously to 2,5 sigma now. Here is what it looks like. Some media outlets such as New Scientist are reporting this as a “fading” signal. There are two points that need to be made to mitigate here.

Firstly, the WW channel has very low mass resolution made worse in the latter part of the run by increasing event pile-up. We should only expect a broad excess in this plot rather than a nice peak indicating the mass of the Higgs boson. Let me quote again something I said about this back in September last year.

Our expectation is that as more data comes in a sharp peak (or two) will emerge somewhere in the low mass region to reveal where the Higgs is. However, the plot is dominated by the WW channel over most of this range and the WW channel has low resolution. This is because it uses missing energy observations to construct the underlying mass of the events. The W’s decay into neutrinos which can never be detected directly. The result is that the Higgs appears as a broad excess in the WW channel and you can’t locate it well. The WW channel is great for excluding large ranges of the mass spectrum, but it is not good for pinpointing a low mass Higgs that has a narrow width.

Furthermore, the situation will not improve as more data is added. The WW channel will always remain low resolution and it will always dominate the combination plot. Sadly the Tevatron data has the same problem. It is dominated by WW and bb channels with neutrinos in each case. In fact the detectors themselves have poorer resolution and even the digamma and ZZ channels are only ever plotted at 5 GeV intervals for the Tevatron. So what should we do? if some data could be making the plot worse the best thing is to remove it and see what we get.”

In other words the WW channel does not help the combination and is best left out, but they would not want to be accused of cherry picking so it stays. They have however given us this complicated version of the plot that shows separates the low resolution  and high-resolution channels for just this reason.

My second point is that the current excess in the diphoton channel is actually a little larger than the standard model predicts. This can be accounted for as a statistical fluctuation, but likewise the deficit in the WW channel is consistent with a normal fluctuation in the opposite direction. In fact the combination with its now weakened excess is now closer to what the standard model predicts and we should be happier!

CMS

CMS had already updated all their channels with all the available data last month so we did not expect much new from them. Nevertheless they have carried out an MVA analysis of the important diphoton channel to get more out of it. The result is this new plot

They even managed to find some completely new channels such as WH-> WWW. The result is yet another new CMS combination.

All this means I now owe you a new combination for ATLAS+ CMS and here it is

This now excludes the full range of masses except a narrow window from 122 GeV to 128 GeV. This is a remarkable achievement when you consider that at Moriond 2011 a year ago the LHC could tell us essentially nothing about the Higgs boson.

The best evidence we now have for the existence of the Higgs boson still comes from the diphoton channel. Combining all four experiments it now looks like this

Some people have said that it is really only this channel that supports the case for the Higgs boson at 125 GeV but that is no longer the case. Here is what you get if you combine just the bb and ZZ channels globally

There is still a long way to go but I certainly think the case for a standard model Higgs boson at around 125 GeV now looks good. Even the outside possibility for something more at a lower mass below 120GeV has now faded with the LHC combination excluding that region. It remains hard to get a combination that combines to give an overall significance above the crucial 4 sigma level and we may have to wait some time for that.

Finally I leave you with this impressive plot of the combined Higgs signal from ATLAS and CMS.


44 Responses to Moriond 2012 Higgs Summary

  1. Ervin Goldfain says:

    Phil,

    Just to clarify, is it your position that Moriond undeniably confirms a SM Higgs at 125 GeV?

    Cheers,

    Ervin

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      No because such a position would have to be theory dependent.

      I think if you feel that the theoretical case for the Higgs is strong to start with then you should now believe that it probably lies between 122 GeV and 128 GeV because everywhere else is “excluded at 95% confidence”, but if your theory makes you think the Higgs is not there at all or is very different from the SM Higgs then you need not be convinced yet.

      The experiments need enough evidence to convince every reasonable physicist, which in a case like this requires 5 sigma excesses. They should not claim victory before then even if they believe themselves that they have found it. When Hawking and Veltman admit defeat the job will be done.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        Speaking of Veltman, what about his rho-parameter including contributions from the top quark mass? In one of his latest talks (last December, I think) Veltman argues that a 125 GeV Higgs is already excluded based on constraints imposed by EW precision measurements on the numerical value of his parameter.
        Also, I don’t think Veltman will accept defeat without bringing up unsolved issues surrounding the Higgs, primarily the fine-tuning problem (in the absence of SUSY) and the vacuum energy density problem.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        The main problem with fits based on the EW precision measurements is that they assume there is nothing other than the standard model. The addition of any other particles changes everything and can resolve any discrepancy by adjusting parameters. The simplest conclusion if the measurements don’t add up is that something else is waiting to be found. Only a staunch Higgs denier like Veltman would take it as a sign that the Higgs is ruled out.

        Fine tuning is not a real problem. There is no inconsistency implied, just an unexplained coincidence of parameter values. These things are problems for the next level to explain. They are not a concern at the level of the standard model itself.

        The jury is still out on whether vacuum stability is a problem for a Higgs at 125 GeV. It is a borderline value and the outcome depends on more precise measurements of the particle masses as well as some fine points of the theory. If the problem is real it can again be fixed by adding new particles at higher energies.

        All these things are interesting clues to what might lie beyond the standard model and need to be taken seriously but there is no sense in which they invalidate the correctness of the Higgs mechanism.

  2. Vladimir Kalitvianski says:

    bb decay is not accompanied with soft photons which also carry some angular momentum?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      You can always claim that some spin is going into other particles that are not being counted as decay products so this is not a cast-iron determination of spin, but it is a strong indicator. There are other checks such as measuring the angular dependence of photon production but this is very difficult and requires high stats I believe

  3. wl59 says:

    Compared with before, the WW channel has now a lower excess over the higgsless prediction, AND shifted lower (to meanwhile appr. 1,5 x necessary data for a 95% exclusion). Even with the lower mass resolution, both these effects should stop meanwhile, if there’s really a Higgs…

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      From the WW plot above I would say that the expectation for a SM Higgs would be 1.5 sigma at 125 GeV and they are getting 0.5 sigma. A one sigma fluctuation down in one of the channels is in line with expectations. We also know that CMS do get something like a 1.5 sigma excess. Given the difficulties with this channel I wouldn’t even have counted on the agreement being that good.

      • wl59 says:

        I think it’s simply some other effect what causes these gammagamma peaks, meanwhile excluded near 115 and 135 because there the other channels are significant enough, but not yet at 125 because there they aren’t yet. I understand the argument of low mass resolution for WW – however, beside of that this excess over the prediction slowly disappears, what should be unaffected by the low resolution is its integral (or total number of events produced by Higgs), but its biggest part is observed for more than 130, and there can’t count longer because the total number is already too low, below the 95% amount. For the diphoton channel itself, the integral (peaks and valeys averaged) is only very few over the expectation, so that effectively no additional photons are produced there . There seems to be any other effect what cause these peaks, for photons not too dificult to imagine, but not a Higgs.

        I suppose what will happens is simply, that soon the WW plot goes down under 95%, also the TauTau and bb channels (which at CMS and ATLAS show nothing) need only 3x more data, and the problem finished…

  4. gr67 says:

    I agree that the diphoton signal is some kind of artifact. Looking back at the diphoton distribution presented by ATLAS last summer , the 126 fluke was already there. That they could have got a signal with only 20% of the data is impossible. So it’s necessarily the manifestation of a systematic effect.

  5. wl59 says:

    We also shouldn’t ignore the new results for the masses of top and W published last week. There one see that the area of 125 GeV for Higgs is just at the edge of the error ellipse of these results; for their ‘center’ i.e. for the formal results, Higgs should have appr. 85 GeV

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The “edge of the error ellipse” is pretty much where you expect things to normally be.

  6. Soap_Bubbles says:

    If it is the Higgs, then how can it be lighter than the top quark?

    If true, could it indicate that the top quark has an internal structure?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I dont know of anything that requires the Higgs mass to be heavier than the top quark. Why do you see this as a problem?

      • Soap_Bubbles says:

        Apparently, I found answers for both questions from Prof. Matt Strassler’s blog. I am not sure I agree with the notion that the top quark remains a “single” elementary particular after the “combination”, unless the process is irreversible. But now I understand why the mass of the top quark is greater than the Higgs.

        A follow up question would be if the top quark’s energy is a summation of the top-right, top-left and the Higgs, then what is the mechanism that destroys the distinct characteristics of the three components and produces one indistinguishable “particle?

        What does this got to do the whether the Higgs field exist or not? Well, if the top quark is stable once it is produced then the Higgs boson is entangled within that space for as long as the top quark’s lifetime. Yet I have not read anyway that says the top quark interacts with any other elementary particle. Should not the entangled Higgs have some interactions (even through gravity) with other particles? If the combination process is irreversible wouldn’t that contradict the SM itself?

        —————————————————————

        “The top-left quark and the top-right quark interact strongly with each other and the Higgs particle… and not with other matter particles. In particular, if a top-left quark encounters a Higgs particle, it can turn, with high probability, into a top-right quark. Once the Higgs field is non-zero, this type of interaction causes the two versions of the massless top quark to become a single massive top quark, with a large mass.

        The top-left and top-right massless quarks interact strongly with the Higgs field; when the Higgs field becomes non-zero, a very massive top quark results.
        This linking of the top-left and the top-right is not to be confused with the binding of two particles into a composite object, as a proton and an electron are bound together by the electromagnetic force to form a hydrogen atom. It is a different kind of combining, in which two elementary particles are mixed together into a single elementary particle.” … Prof. Matt Strassler.

    • chris says:

      check our Lisa Randalls talk at the conference. many people believe that the top is composite these days – even susy advocates.

      • Soap_Bubbles says:

        Where can I find her talk?

        I regret quoting from Strassler, what a piece of ….

      • wl59 says:

        Resemles a little like (historically) the last people which tried to defend (and to save anyhow) the ‘harmony of spheres’ / epicycle theory …

        One will have to learn: things can be extrapolated and ‘unified’ only so good, as they ARE essentially the same, similar or connected. This have its limits. The dimensions, and also the associated natural forces, have their general, generical properties (like, a quadratic exponent in the line element), but also have their individual properties (like, their individual aspect, unit, natural constant). The first may fit in any schema, but the second not what simply means that each natural force, dimension, has (at least for a part, and completely if transformed to the pure, not-mixed, primary fundamental forces/interactions) its individuality which can’t be exchanged, substituted by another one. That’s part of its concretization, of it (our space and our time) concretization, realization in our REAL world, in opposite to millions of theories which however lacks the ‘realization force/property’. Although our real space and time fits in a line element, and have certain similarities (inclusive the well-known connections of their intervals variant for observers), time is and acts essentially different from space, and one of them never can be completely substituted and made irrelevant/redundant by the other one. Gravitation is much ‘weaker’ than other forces simply because its individual part is arbitrarily like this; there is no paradox – in opposite people would also search a paradox (or any misterious ‘fine-tuning’) if gravitation would be of the same magnitude like other forces.

        The branes don’t ‘resolve’ that, nor is there anything what need to be resolved. Worser even, ‘Problems’ the people see in the microscopic scale, to try to ‘unify’ gravitation with quantum theory, but in the big scales, relevant for any branes, as the gravitation alone and the ART has no problem, even being ‘weak’.

        A next question is, if the whole imagination is correct that natural forces/interactions are caused by exchange ‘particles’. These forces should arise much earlier (long time before particles or unparticles arise), as a bare consequence of the geometry. Even a small, odd, ugly, space without any symmetries, just because of its geometry and size, should force anything essentially belonging to it and dominated by it (like, matter w.r.t. the 3d-space) to ‘move curved’ inside itself, i.e. not to ‘pass outside’ or disappear Otherwhise, depending on symmetries, gauges etc, without/before the (rather late) appearence of such particles, the world would have been without natural forces, and every development would have been unaccelerated or linear – or more exactly, there could not be no linear-independent intermediary points of time and space itself, not more than 2 time-points and 2 space-points, i.e. no time and space themself, because otherwhise with any (really independent and thus really ‘existing’)3rd point would occur arbitrarily any (even smallest) unlinearity, acceleration, which we interprete as natural force.

      • The first fundamental force/interaction is change of the first quantity/variable (density), from 1 density to 2, and from 2 to 3 and so on. Hence we have our first series, the interactions between 1 and 2. 1 and 3, 2 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 3 and 4, and so on.

        The second variable, time, is derived from the change of the first, density. As far as we know systems tend to progress in the direction of increasing entropy and once it began change (time) became irreversible.

        The third variable, dimension, is derived from the requirements of the first two, density and time and the concept of natural confinement / existence. We know that system tend to exist, confined to. in their most simplest of states.

        So, how does the system progress once the first two variable appear? The mechanism of confinement, the most fundamental state of a stable system that can exist with minimal or no “outside interaction. Using simple geometry and the fact that the rate of change occurs at the speed of light, c, a 3d sphere is the only solution for quantum confinement, (any thing other than a 3d spheres would require speeds in excess of c). And hence, 3 dimensional space.

        From here simple geometry could resolve natures elegant symmetries leading to the awesome structure we marvel today.

        What /who started the fire and why is it burning out from time zero? Is there an external source and what variables out there can we look for to help us deduce this?

  7. Ervin Goldfain says:

    Phil, you say:

    “All these things are interesting clues to what might lie beyond the standard model and need to be taken seriously but there is no sense in which they invalidate the correctness of the Higgs mechanism”

    I am afraid I have to disagree with your assessment. You seem to oversimplify the host of theoretical challenges implied by the Higgs mechanism. Even if a SM Higgs is found precisely with a mass of 125 GeV, there is no explanation in sight for the gauge-hierarchy problem, the fine-tuning problem, vacuum stability, discrepancy with the numerical value of the cosmological constant, the origin of CP symmetry breaking, the flavor problem, the LEP paradox (little hierarchy problem), lack of conformal invariance due to the Higgs mass and the triviality problem. You may argue that these challenges are not connected to the Higgs mechanism proper, but to many theorists they are an indication that something foundational is missing from the picture.

    Only time will tell.

    Cheers,

    Ervin

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Ervin, You said you disagree with me but then to support this you say a load of things that I mostly agree with. You must be reading something into what I have said that was not there.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        Phil, to clarify…

        What I am saying is that there are inherent challenges in the Higgs mechanism that may be pointing to something more fundamental. Specifically, it is possible that EWSB is actually a completely different process that “mimics” the Higgs mechanism without being identical to it. As I view it, this is why there are doubts on the machinery of the Higgs mechanism as presented in standard textbooks.

        Ervin

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I think that saying something mimics the Higgs mechanism would be like saying that General Relativity mimics Newtonian Mechanics. Yes we expect a deeper theory to follow and solve some of these deeper problems but even the SUSY models all have a lightest Higgs boson that behaves much like the SM one and I doubt the Nobel committee would overlook the contributions of Higgs, Englert etc just because there is more to it at higher energies. Even a composite Higgs would still be a Higgs.

        If there were no particle state that looks and behaves like a Higgs then that would be a different matter but the only way we know of its existence is what we see in the scattering amplitudes so anything that mimics the predicted SM Higgs in that way really is the Higgs.

  8. Ervin Goldfain says:

    I am not disputing what you said. However, the fine-printing is that there are too many unsolved questions related to the Higgs mechanism begging for answers.

    Take for instance Veltman’s argument that condensation of a system of Higgs scalars can lead to binding energies exceeding the sum of their masses. In his words, this would lead to a “Universe of the size of the football”, in stark contrast with observations.

    How do you answer this puzzle? For me, delegating this issue (and many others) to future discoveries is not a satisfying standpoint. But I may very well be in a minority here…

  9. physicspet says:

    May make sense to do a bit more research on topic and learn about Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble before you rename the boson or comment on the contribution. Brout and Elnglert you will learn don’t have a boson.

    Papers available here:

    http://prl.aps.org/50years/milestones#1964

  10. Philip Gibbs says:

    I am well aware of all the different claims. They even go beyond what you have added. Here I was just stating what it was called at the conference. You should read more carefully.

  11. wl59 says:

    “Brout and Elnglert you will learn don’t have a boson.”

    Higgs you will learn don’t has a boson, neither. :)

  12. Ervin Goldfain says:

    Phil,

    How large is the excess at 125 GeV in your combined ATLAS + CMS plot for the di-photon and four-lepton channels?

    Cheers,

    Ervin

  13. Federico says:

    A comment on spin conservation:
    only the total spin along the photons or bbar axis is conserved, but S_z=J_z=0 should be enough to prove that it was a spin zero particle.

  14. Murod says:

    Taking account LHC activities planned for 2012, is it expected that they will have a conclusive evidence of Higgs boson existence or non-existence by the end of this year? It sounds very strange to me that none of all those machines (D0, CDF, ATLAS, CMS) does not have enough precision and/or data collected to make a conclusion.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Yes they expect to have enough data by the end of this year. The reason they have not done so yet is that the Higgs turns out to be in one of the most difficult places to find it with a hadron collider. It is just a case of making enough collisions so that they see the very rare events where it is created and decays into particles that can be distinguished from background. Luckily they have been collecting much more data than originally expected at this stage. They can caluclate exactly how much data they need for a given mass and the LHC was designed to find it no matter what mass it has. So far everything is consistent with the theory and the physicists are not surprised that they have not yet collected enough data to announce a clear discovery.

  15. Actually when you look at my HEIDI talk,
    you will see that the “combined” Higgs-plot is better
    described by the HEIDI model than by the simple standard model.
    The height of the peak is more like 86% than 100%,
    which is to be expected if the LEP-peak at 98 GeV is real.
    Also the signal appears to be rather broad, as I discussed in my talk. Of course with the present data this is completely marginal.
    It is purely an experimental question, but one will need a rather large amount of data to distinguish between the HEIDI and the Higgs models. Theoretically there is no reason to prefer the one
    over the other.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      It is certainly an interesting idea that the LHC may have seen something at 98 GeV. It would be nice if ATLAS and CMS could extend their diphoton search to lower mass. CDF and D0 go down to 100 GeV

    • BJ says:

      Sounds interesting. Do you have a link, please, Jochum?

  16. wl59 says:

    It is not only the Higgs which don’t want to be found. Also plenty other things proposed as ‘probable’ like SUSY, fourth-generation particles, extradimensions etc, weren’t found. The SM seems to be precise and to unify all branches within its domain – as are the ART and the QM in their metiers, and as classical mechanics explained so different phenomens like planetary motion, waves etc . However, just this and not more than this; the results aren’t good for world-formula searchers which want to unify even the essentially different natural forces, towards to which is no progress.

    Perhaps, instead to search for a sucessful big step forwards, one have to go one backwards, and ask if some expectations or assumptions aren’t simply wrong. Neither the Higgs, nor the Graviton, were found. For example, perhaps is wrong the idea that the fundamental forces have to depend on the existence of exchange particles, or worser even, of certain properties like symmetries of the dimensions. Perhaps the natural forces / really primary fundamental interactions depend only on the dimensions and their spaces, but even any arbitrary, odd space, even without symmetries and/or other properties necessary for the ‘normal’ way of derivation of the physics, inclusive perhaps even spaces with singularities or marks, would also produce effects which appears us like such ‘forces’.

    I would like to hear some opinions, what fundamental assumptions could be wrong, and what some of them (like my example above), if we’ld have to cancel them, would have which kind of consequences for what branches of the physics.

  17. Oaktree says:

    Thank you Chris.

    wl59,

    Chaos could be very painful, thank God He gave us order.

    Try out this branch of thought. A single point and infinite amount points can only exist in a spherical space. Three dimensional space is all that nature needs to define space. And time is derived from space itself, no space no time. As the space increases so does time.

    E= f(x,y,z,t)

    We have thousands of phrases for the right side of this equation but not one for the left side.

    E is the miracle, from one single dimensionless point and it can create a magnificent universe. We and everything is made from it, we can feel it’s effect and yet we have no clue what it is. And you know what, we will never know because we live within it.

    So I ask you and Steven Hawking what is wrong with calling this E God?

    • wl59 says:

      Perhaps you misunderstand my last post. I don’t contestate that there exist any order which, seen from one aspect, we can treat and understand as ‘physical’. What I said was, that perhaps a basical assumption about the exact manner how to treat that, and/or how to derivate physical laws, is wrong.

      The most questionable seems to be that everything would have to be symmetrical (i use here that word in this phrase in all of its very different senses). That would be nice, but obviously don’t correspond to the reality. And that it’s the same also in particle physics, as we see right now, where LHC don’t find any of the proposed objects.

      The real world is not only very imperfect and irregular; it’s rather evident that, beside of an impulse of the existing things and as small but important deviation from its rules, it produces any instance really new facts and informations, neither contained nor contradictionary but linear independent from all existing ones, which forms new generical characteristics which increase the before-existing physical laws. Already this destroys alias any change for a TOE; even if existing, then it would be incomplete/wrong one elementary-time later.

      In a most simple picture, we can assume a causet of events, which just because existing, necessarily they produce something, however not predetermined exactly what. Such a causet of 1,2,4 … events quickly would ‘cool’ out, what means that among its elements exists ‘similarities’ , ‘classes’ or generical properties beside of the individual properties of each single element/event. If we consider an isolated causet, then we can’t assume the pre-existence of dimensions like time and space, beside of just that successive action; instead, this causet would establish it’s own dimensions. One can show that it’s consistent with the evident properties of our world, if it surged as such a causet, then the 0-th dimension was this principle or immediately-producing fundamental interaction of a successive action (discrete world-points / action as complementary variables) The 1st class represents in its geometrical aspect the appearence of time (complementary, energy), as a very simple dimension because fixed its properties by only 1 element, i.e. the 1st effectivated event) without no second ‘parallel’ one, thus not with the characteristics one could go from one time to another but with time having relationship only with the previous (0-th) element and dimension i.e. action. The 2nd class, founded by the 2 next effectuated elements, forms one velocity-like dimension (together with the already-existing time: one position, and complementary, impulse), which by the same generic property of its two elements includes a relationship between them with isotropy in its two directions. The 3rd class, founded by the next 4 events, establish the Isotropy as next dimension, with two next curvature-defined extension or ‘space’ dimensions.

      This establishment of generic characteristics or ‘cooling’ effect we can see from different aspects as the appearence of the inner logics, geometry, physics of that causet. At least so long as it envelops free from external influences – the happenings if it comes in interaction with other systems, is another question. The 0st event, seen from within that world and its own logics, is there ‘true’ or affirming its own existence with successive action — anyway, inconditional and without side-questions (like why or wherefrom), alias, as the first element of its own inner logics..

      This works independently on further details. Possible things like particles etc surge only much later, as sub-grouping effects of ‘clumps’ of the dynamical aspect of the created dimensions like energy, impulse etc, such grouping effects establish any secondary rules, which nowadays will appears for us as elementary particles and their formation rules.

      It’s right to understand the fundamental natural interactions and forces as an result or better aspect of the geometry. However, it’s doubtful if the cruxial point is any symmetrie. The logics on this is, that any symmetrie produces a conservation law and value (cf. the formulations by Noether, Killing etc), this means, any restraint for the movement, which we can understand as a ‘little individual’ or even bigger natural force caused by that geometry (both valid only for the considered problem), and certain mathematical objects we identify with particles which we observe.

      However, if we don’t find ‘incorporations’ of such mathematical objects of symmetries, and thus have to doubt on certain details of the standard model, then the most doubtful are, if the (often) observed particels are identical with these mathematical objects, and the real cause for the interaction, or if they are only ‘near’ a part of the interactions, perhaps as a side-effect, but not their cause. Another objection is, that potentially not only symmetric spaces of the dimension would produce restraints to movements, but any dimension and its space, also very un-symmetric spaces, would produce some limits, which are anyway the general characteristics. For example, it should be impossible, that anything relative to something else pass a certain limit speed (light speed); that any distance of something to anything else pass the size of the space; that anything goes in the future, so that at least the rough properties of our natural forces like Inertia and Gravitation have to exist anyway if the corresponding dimensions exist, independently on their details f.ex. if space and time are symmetrical or not. Thus, the use of the symmetry for derivate physical laws may give normally the correct properties of physical laws, however it’s quite possible that it is not the exclusive nor the principal condition for natural forces and other physical laws.

  18. The first fundamental force/interaction is change of the first quantity/variable (density), from 1 density to 2, and from 2 to 3 and so on. Hence we have our first series, the interactions between 1 and 2. 1 and 3, 2 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 3 and 4, and so on.

    The second variable, time, is derived from the change of the first, density. As far as we know systems tend to progress in the direction of increasing entropy and once it began change (time) became irreversible.

    The third variable, dimension, is derived from the requirements of the first two, density and time and the concept of natural confinement / existence. We know that system tend to exist, confined to. in their most simplest of states.

    So, how does the system progress once the first two variable appear? The mechanism of confinement, the most fundamental state of a stable system that can exist with minimal or no “outside interaction. Using simple geometry and the fact that the rate of change occurs at the speed of light, c, a 3d sphere is the only solution for quantum confinement, (any thing other than a 3d spheres would require speeds in excess of c). And hence, 3 dimensional space.

    From here simple geometry could resolve natures elegant symmetries leading to the awesome structure we marvel today.

    What /who started the fire and why is it burning out from time zero? Is there an external source and what variables out there can we look for to help us deduce this?

    • wl59 says:

      Inside the world itself, in a causet model there is no need for a reason, conditions, or colateral questions about the first or better 0. element, because if such a question or condition would exist within the world itself, then this first point wouldn’t the first one. Within the whole world or defining anything as part of it, its own existence is inconditionally true, and the same is valid for any subsystem within it also about its own existence, as part of its auto-conscience.

      The logical, geometrical, physical laws, rules come from the devil, the ‘small’ deviations from the rules come for a part from the devil, for a part from God (indistinguishalbe for us). Because, the laws, rules are dead states, where nothing news happens, only the continuous impulse of earlier actions/happenings, thus also exactly expressable (or linear dependent) by them. Really news are only the differences from these rules. For a part, they have their causal reason within our world, as successively new actions, as a part of the initial ‘event’ or evolution principle that ‘everything what exists also produces something’, principally unseparable but including concepts like free-will and accident (that principle can, who want, identify with the devil itself); another part comes from the imediate action by God as his creation which appears us eternal.

      • I ask a favor of you, could you read the following and tell me if you make any sense of what the author is suggesting?

        “I will try an tie my line of questioning to make my point. I don’t believe there is “empty” space. I believe exothermic reaction of the Big Bang created space. Expansion of this energy over the same space it created began “clumping” into variable densities and hence the first field. I call it a field because there would have been a very symmetrical pattern over the “space” as the space expanded. As the expansion continued thermal gradients would begin to become more pronounced to a point where rotations would begin. This rotations, energy flows turning backwards at some radius to define the speed of light, i.e. it is this radius which is the first constraint of this universe. As mentioned in an other post, confinement would take the shape of a sphere and the smallest spheres of the “space” is what I call the vacuum potential. Hence, the interaction of adjacent sphere would then create the second field, gravity. The mechanism as I posted before would be a Newton’s cradle in reverse. The repeating collapsing and generation of the spheres would create an attraction force while the thermal cavities between the spheres are the ‘ripples” we perceive and formulate with the Lagrangian equations.

        I know that there are more and more physicists are giving up on a simple unified theory, (zero energy?, hologram?, strings? … amazing how fast one can lose himself/herself in the math, lol), but I am willing to bet on Einstein’s initial instincts and look for a nice simple solution.

        I know you jump on the use of the “exothermic reaction” and yes I am inferring that this bubble we are living in is one of maybe infinite bubbles that percolate up (down?) and coalesce into the magnificent universe we see. In this context I will ask again for your intuitive opinion since your knowledge base is so advanced, what is E, the left side of the equation? In one of your response to my post you described it as temperature and that we don’t know where and/or why there was such a high temperature at the Big Bang. Could you answer it by assuming it sipped in through a ruptured space-time of another manifold? Could this E be an entity of one temperature, I refuse to use string, particle, and I don’t know if space at one temperature, (temperature quanta/) makes any sense either.”

  19. How can Nature create a microscopic spherical tornado spinning at the speed of light (v = c), from nothing?

    E = ( h / 2 x pi ) x ( c / r )
    E = h-bar x ( L / T) / L
    E ~ 1 / T (?!)

    In 1932 Dirac offered a precise definition and derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation in a relativistic quantum theory of “events”. But a better-known, more widely used formulation of the time-energy uncertainty principle was given in 1945 by L. I. Mandelshtam and I. E. Tamm, as follows. For a quantum system in a non-stationary state ψ and an observable B represented by a self-adjoint operator , the following formula holds:

    σE x ( σB / | d{B} / dt | >= h-bar

    where σE is the standard deviation of the energy operator in the state ψ, σB stands for the standard deviation of B. Although, the second factor in the left-hand side has dimension of time, it is different from the time parameter that enters Schrödinger equation. It is a lifetime of the state ψ with respect to the observable B. In other words, this is the time after which the expectation value, {B}, changes appreciably.

    Observation: This simple but elegant relationship tells me that there is a unified theory as simple and elegant as Mandelshtam’s and Tamm’s interpretation of the time-energy uncertainty. One interpretation is at the initial state the energy was almost infinite ( E ~ 1 / T ), however another interpretation is that time (existence) started with a spark, an almost infinite infusion of energy ( T ~ 1 / E ).

    So my question to today’s theoretical physicists is the time variable in the uncertainty relationship and the time variable in Schrödinger equation the same?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 275 other followers

%d bloggers like this: