Evidence for a charged Higgs Boson?

Last week Upsala was home to a specialised HEP workshop about the search for a charged Higgs bosons. Such particles are predicted in some beyond standard model theories such as supersysmmetry. There is not much direct evidence yet for such charged scalar bosons but the searches as described at the workshop have not looked beyond the 2011 data using 5/fb at most. There is still a lot of room left for them to appear.

The best hope for BSM observations in the data so far comes from anomalies in the Higgs decay rates. In particular the decay to two tauons has not been observed where expected and the rate for decay to two photons is too large. In my opinion the tau decay is not a very convincing discrepancy yet because the stats are low, especially because ATLAS has not yet done the analysis with 2012 data. The diphoton excess is also not fantastically convincing with a combined significance of about 2.2 sigma according to Joe Incandela (CMS spokesperson) but it has persisted since 2011 and is seen by both ATLAS and CMS. It is probably too big to be explained by theory errors from the analysis of the standard model so some BSM explanation is a real possibility. Both observations will be considerably clarified at the Hadron Collider Physics conference in Kyoto next month.

Meanwhile there is little to stop theorists thinking about what could account for such anomalies if they turn out to be real. This is not just idle speculation. Any theory that might explain the anomalies could make unique predictions for new physics that could prioritize the searches to help the collaborations home in on new physics more quickly. This is crucial to plan future accelerators.

The diphoton decay channel is especially sensitive to new physics because the basic Higgs boson is not charged. Photons only interact with charged particles so the Higgs can only decay to photons via loop diagrams that include massive charged particles. We know of several such particles in the standard model and the ones that contribute the most in this case are the W bosons and the top quark. If you know anything about the type of Feynman diagrams involved you will know that bosons and fermions in loops interfere deconstructively. In this case the W bosons have the larger amplitude and the top quark reduced it by about 40%. This means that to increase the decay rate and explain the tentative excess you would need to postulate the existence of (at least) a new heavy charged boson, such as a charged Higgs scalar. It has to be heavier than about 105 GeV otherwise it would have been observed at LEP, but upper limits depend on its properties.

As it happens there are phenomenologists who are too skilled at their job so that they can explain the excess in many other ways, e.g. using “vector-like” fermions or a fermiophobic Higgs or even just QCD corrections. I am simply going to be skeptical and suggest that they are thinking wishfully about their pet theories. To the unbiased mind the new charged boson is the most obvious explanation for an excess. That still leaves open the question of what spin ( and other properties) the boson has. A spin one charged boson would have to be very similar to a W gauge boson and would mediate new forces. The limits on such new particles is already good.  Higher spin would make it a charged graviton. Let’s not go there.

Another major parameter for a new particle to determine is its lepton number. If the particle had lepton number one (like a scalar lepton) then its R-parity would be odd. All standard model particles have even R-parity so if lepton number is conserved our mystery particle would either have to be stable or decay to another new stable particle. Heavy charged particles are easy to detect and lighter stable particles would be hard ot miss at the LHC. ATLAS and CMS were designed with missing energy searches in mind so that they could look effectively for supersymmetry. Indeed a scalar tau would be a good candidate except that SUSY searches have already gone a long way to exclude them.

So there are many possible explanations for the diphoton excess, if it is real physics, but the scalar charged boson with zero lepton number is the simplest case that still has a good chance of being around still. Any such scalar charged boson would immediately be identified as a likely charged Higgs if it was found.

Coming back to last weeks workshop, it is good to see that the charged Higgs as an explanation for the diphoton excess was indeed the subject of a talk. The speaker Stefano Moretti concentrated on the Higgs triplet model which has charged and doubly charged Higgs bosons. The doubly charged Higgs would be particularly effective in explaining the diphoton excess because doubling the charge quadruples the extra cross-section since there are two gamma vertices. Of course some next to minimal SUSY models have a similar feature. Here is the set of Feynman diagrams involved

With so many contributions all adding to the diphoton excess the charged Higgs can comfortably be heavier than limits set by direct searches so far. Soon we will get more information with a better determination of the excess and better charged Higgs searches. The 2012 data at 8 TeV will be much more penetrating than the 2011 data heavy new particles and by now we have three times as much of it. Of course this story could go in many directions from here. The diphoton excess may fade or be explained by better standard model calculations. It might even be some systematic error symptomatic of a less than perfect understanding of the detectors. If it does hold up there are lots of new physics possibilities, but if I had to put my chips down at this point I think the charged Higgs has the best odds all things considered.


51 Responses to Evidence for a charged Higgs Boson?

  1. Of course, the big thing of a charged Higgs boson is that there are two,

  2. Actually there are as many as needed to explain what is observed.

    Then multiply that by 10^500. One set for each universe of the multiverse.

    Love that postmodern pseudophysics!

  3. New charged Higgs like states are not absolutely necessary to explain gamma pair anomaly. TGD predicts also them as charged pions of M_89 hadron physics and with somewhat larger mass: the Fermi anomaly gives rather evidence for these states.

    Concerning the understanding of gamma pair anomaly,
    the basic observation is that neutral pion decays to gamma pairs by axial anomaly coupling: k *Pi*I, I the “instanton density” E.B.

    The generalization of this coupling to Higgs like state allows for the anomalous production of gamma pairs in TGD based model of Higgs like state as half-Higgs giving dominating contribution to gauge boson masses but negligible contribution to fermion masses (p-adic thermodynamics gives the dominating contribution to fermion masses).

    Half-Higgs scenario solves elegantly the hierarchy problem due to the instability of Higgs mass and coupling caused by the radiative corrections coming from the coupling of Higgs to heavy fermion pairs proportional to mass if Higgs mechanism is to explain fermion masses. For details see http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/articles/higgshuping.pdf .

    Maybe we known soon whether Nature likes unstable Higgs vacuum and fine tuning or not.

  4. Lubos Motl says:

    A nice text, Phil. I agree with you that a single new charged particle (plus its antiparticle) should still be considered as the most natural explanation of the higher diphoton rate. However, it’s still true that charged particles influence the other decays, too, so it isn’t that simple.

    You have some typos in the text like ALTAS and phenomonologists.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Lubos, thanks for your feedback. Do you know of any particular decay rates that may be significantly affected?

      Of course the Higgs itself would decay to two charged Higgs which would then decay to familiar products such as tauons, but if the charged Higgs is heavy it will not be in conflict yet.

      The charged Higgs would not affect the main Higgs production channel which is gluon fusion but it might affect the other production modes or create new ones. I dont think these would be in conflict with present observations but they might be other things to watch out for as precision improves.

      Charged Higgs would also affect top decays which might suggest the charged Higgs mass must be a fair bit higher than the top mass.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        I agree with Lubos that a new charged Higgs and its anti-particle may likely come in conflict with existing physics or may create additional headaches. Aside from altering observed decay rates, they may clash with precision measurement on electroweak observables. Or they may amplify the puzzles of fine-tuning and vacuum stability.

        In principle, you can make the charged Higgs particles as heavy as you wish to decouple them from the LHC scale. But it seems to me that this is no different than other approaches to BSM physics that rely on new particles and symmetries.

      • Lubos Motl says:

        Dear Phil, I meant decays to basic things like ZZ and WW, too. A charged Higgs is coupled to them, too, isn’t it? So the fact that a new charged particle changes the diphoton decay rate doesn’t mean that it changes the diphoton/ZZ or diphoton/WW ratios in the right way. ;-)

        Ervin, I didn’t want to say that charged Higgs bosons aren’t there at all. Indeed, I believe – and hope – that they exist at some point although I am a fan of some single-Higgs-doublet SUSY models, too.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        The diphoton decay is affected because it is dominated by a loop diagram. Even a 300 GeV charged Higgs in the triplet model could account for it according to the talk at CHARGED. The WW and ZZ decays are dominated by tree level diagrams and would not be noticeably changed by such a heavy additonal particle.

        One problem with this particlular model might be that it also has a second uncharged Higgs boson at about the same mass as the charged ones. I can’t see why that would not have shown up in the basic Higgs search.

  5. The existence of a triplet Higgs would, in principle, lead to an asthetically appealing 3 by 3 by 3 fold symmetry in nature’s forces.

    Above the electroweak synthesis energy there are three forces, strong force, electroweak force, and gravity. The strong force is characterized by three color charges – red, green, blue. The electroweak force is mediated by three vector bosons the W+, the W-, and the Z zero. And gravity? Well gravity is dependant on mass. And what imparts mass to matter? The Higgs field. So if the Higgs has three components, the 333 symmetry is complete.

    Such an overarching symmetry could, in principle, underly the theory of supersymmetry. If you have three baskets, each containing three objects, you can interchange the objects between baskets and end up with the same overall structure.

    This pet theory is explored at: http://starflight1.freeyellow.com/page6.html

    Criticism is welcome, but please be kind to my pet, it won’t bite.

    • Ervin Goldfain says:

      Dave,

      As appealing as these ideas might be, one must be cautious with postulating new particles ans symmetries above the electroweak scale. Any BSM (beyond the Standard Model) approach needs to match current observations on all particle properties, be compatible with consistency conditions, match precision measurements of electroweak parameters. In addition, it needs to give compelling answers to the large list of open challenges posed by the Standard Model.

      Unfortunately, I fail to see how your theory meets these requirements.

      • Thank you, Ervin, for your commentary on my theory. I thought I perceived a pattern in nature’s forces. This was most clearly evident in QCD where there is a chromoelectric field and chromomagnetic field for each of the three color forces – red, green, and blue. Thus, for each of the three color forces there is primary field and a gauge related secondary field.

        For the electroweak force there are two weak charges and one electric charge as embodied in its Lie group representation – SU(2) X U(1). For the electric field, there is of course the gauge related magnetic field. But no such gauge related secondary fields are predicted in the Standard Model for the two weak charges, so I had to postulate them to make things fit. These secondary magnetic-like fields would only extend to 10 to the minus 16 centimeters for the weak charges.

        Similarly with the Higgs field. If there’s a triplet Higgs it’s assumed that they would follow the pattern in the QCD force and Electroweak force. But the Higgs bosons are even more massive, so the range of their primary and secondary fields would be correspondingly smaller.

        The central theme of this hypothesis revolves around the concept of perspective. Alluding to the basket analogy in the earlier post where each force – QCD, Electroweak, and Gravity-Higgs, is represented by a basket filled with, say, three tennis balls. For the QCD basket these tennis balls represent the primary red, green, and blue chromoelectric fields. But glued to each tennis ball in the QCD basket is a pool ball. Each pool ball represents the respective the red, green, and blue chromomagnetic fields. The same arrangement applies to the other two baskets filled with a triad of glued together tennis/pool balls.

        Now, if one were to transpose the ball set in the QCD basket with the ball set in the Electroweak basket, this would be regarded as one type of supersymmetry operation, leading to a different set of forces and particles than seen in our universe. But from the perspective of an observer made up of these modified particles and forces, all the laws of nature, and particle masses, would be identical to what we observe of the normal particles and forces in our universe. So it’s kind of an extension of the concept of Lorentz Invariance. What you see is observer dependant.

        But you are right. New forces and particles are predicted, that haven’t yet been seen or predicted. Hopefully something will show up in future particle accelerators,

      • Ervin:

        In regard to your statement “it needs to give compelling answers to the large list of open challenges posed by the Standard Model.” Sorry, I completely forgot to mention that this theory provides an explanation (albeit speculative) for why nature behaves quantum mechanically at the small scale.

        I realize that’s a pretty bold statement, so I’ll go through the steps of the argument. It’s assumed that nature’s fields are inherently mutable. This is seen in the simplest case where every particle has an anti-particle with opposite charge and spin. The next stage up in complexity is the hypothetical Dirac magnetic monopole where the electric and magnetic fields switch roles. So I thought could higher order symmetry translations be possible, provided the energy was high enough for nature to recrystallize into these new configurations? My thinking was that these higher order symmetry translations were really just another name for supersymmetry operations.

        Now space and time form an inseparable union in Einstein’s General Relativity. Electricity and magnetism form an inseparable union in Maxwell’s electromagnetism (EM). So what might happen if you transpose these two fields? For brevity, two new fields are created, but the one of interest is a massive Maxwell type field, mimicking electromagnetism but whose variables are space (length) and time rather than electric and magnetic. I actually think it’s more complicated than that, but I’m trying to keep it simple for illustration.

        These length and time variables would be as strong as the electric and magnetic fields in EM, but very short range. So this gravity-like field would be 39 magnitudes stronger than normal gravity. The concept is that this vacuum-only field underlies the wave function psi, and is responsible for neutralizing the enormous acceleration moments electrons experience in stable orbits, as long as the length and time variables have an integral number of maxima and minima in the proscribed orbit. It’s further elaborated at the link below.

        http://www.starflight1.freeyellow.com/index.html#dbw

  6. Marc Sher says:

    I gave an invited review talk on non-susy charged Higgs at the Uppsala meeting. Slides are at http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/chargedhiggs2012/.

    Regarding Phil’s last comment. It is true that the WW and ZZ decays are tree level while gamma-gamma are one-loop. However, a charged Higgs comes from a multi-Higgs doublet model, and thus there will be a mixing angle in the decay. This will suppress, but never enhance, the WW/ZZ decays. Tau-tau suppression can also occur two-Higgs doublet models.

    In some, but not all, two-doublet models, a charged Higgs below about 350 GeV conflicts with b –> s gamma measurements. But not all models have that conflict (see the above slides). Electroweak precision results depend on the splitting of the charged Higgs mass and one of the heavy neutral ones, so are currently not providing constraints.

    As far as vacuum stability, a charged Higgs can contribute positively to the standard model lambda, thus eliminating the instability. But now there are so many new lambda couplings that keeping them all in the stable, but perturbative regime is quite constraining.

    Finally, “charged Higgs” is a terrible term. If “Higgs” is a field that gets a vev, then the photon’s masslessness means the Higgs is neutral. If “charged Higgs” is defined as the member of an isodoublet whose neutral component gets a vev, then they were already discovered in 1984 (longitudinal W’s). So “charged scalar” would be a better term, but alas, the terminology is too ingrained to change.

  7. Phillip,

    I had not thought much about this issue but it seems to relate to my other speculations… in any case I found your article inspiring so I wrote on it hopefully find it entertaining… you too Lubos. www,pesla.blogspot,com posted as State of the Vision on the Higgs Mechanism.

    I hope my lose term new physics is not the technical one of the inclusion of quantum mechanics but newer physics on the horizon- there are many thoughts to speculate upon, even wildly as you say… I see here in the diphoton anomaly may shore up the standard theory somewhat but as far as the geometry is concerned we need no fourth or gravity force at all to integrate into it as it falls out from higher theories.

    I hope my philosophic critique is helpful for working physicists and praise the collider project and the theoreticians like Higgs and his imagination as worthy things humans have done,,, You should not feel less excited, glad to see the subject of Higgs still alive :-)

    Leonard Edgar Otto

  8. Phillip,

    The answer is in my blog http://www.primons.com. There you’ll see the reasons why there should exist 3 Higgs-like bosons (one neutral and two charged).

  9. It could be worthwhile to remember that even higssless SUSY has three scalars with charges 0,+1,-1; it follows from the gauge multiplet: a massive gauge particle has three polarisation states, thus it needs at least a “Dirac”, or two Weyl, fermion to fit them, with four states, and then this fermion needs one scalar partner (I call it the “scalar partner of the gauge partnet of the massive vector boson”, or s-gaug-ino).

    • Mitchell Porter says:

      The standard name seems to be “gauge scalars”, e.g. these would be electroweak gauge scalars. (Gauge scalars for the strong force are “sgluons”.)

      • The descriptions you state, Mr. Porter, are not necessarily relevant in the newer symmetries of physics where the 0 state is neutral and even anti-neutral. What is physically observable, and symmetric in the observation of such charge cannot be shown or proved by such interpretations as to the standard theory. After all the mechanism supplies mass, and on that level we would expect the mass as well as charge in the hidden landscape to be biased to some degree in the amounts of mass. All you Einsteins really should contemplate spaces with a little more imagination.

  10. ohwilleke says:

    FWIW, my money in the diphoton excess is still on the interaction between random statistical variation in diphoton production rates and the threshold criteria for deciding that a Higgs boson has been discovered.

    The diphoton channel is one of the dominant channels in declaring that a Higgs boson has been discovered because it implies a particle with an even integer spin and all of the Standard Model particles have either spin one-half (i.e. non-integer spin), or spin one (i.e. odd integer spin).

    Statistically, this means that whenever it happens that the LHC has data sufficient to declare that a Higgs boson has been discovered, it is much more likely that at that moment there is a diphoton excess than it is that there is a diphoton deficit at that moment.

    Given the modest amount of the diphoton excess (a 2.2 sigma excess somewhere in the massive stream of results isn’t that unusual) and the subtle bias at this moment in time in terms of released diphoton data so close to the Higgs boson discovery announcement, it is hard to attach much signficance to it. Have we had any new diphoton data since that announcement was made?

    If masses under 105 GeV have been ruled out, what kind of mass predictions have been made for charged Higgs bosons?

    • JollyJoker says:

      I’m a bit skeptical of your statistics here. Assuming an SM Higgs only, the LHC could have had a diphoton excess or deficit with equal chances. The Higgs would have been discovered either way. It would, of course, have required a bit more data to get five sigma with a diphoton deficit, but that doesn’t change the prior probabilities.

      • ohwilleke says:

        “the LHC could have had a diphoton excess or deficit with equal chances.”

        In the long run, that is true, but if you are reviewing the data as it is accumulated and then analyze the data at the moment that it crosses a given threshold sigma level which is predominantly a function of the number of diphoton events, then this isn’t true.

        If there is a diphoton deficit in your experimental run, then your discovery threshold is likely to be postponed until there is a balancing diphoton excess in your experimental run. If there is a diphoton excess at the start of your data run you will reach the threshold in a below mean expected amount of time.

        You see something similar when you rank investment managers based on their most recent returns. The people at the time the ranking is done are inevitably, predominantly performing at far above their career average returns at the time that the ranking is made.

        LHC shouldn’t have close to equal chances of an excess or deficit until it has roughly twice as much data as it did at the time that the discovery was made.

  11. Gennaro says:

    Phil, can you explain why the LHC is so often switched off (September, October)? It seems that they will miss the 25 inverse fb target. Did something go wrong?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The LHC is sometimes stopped for pre-planned maintenance and machine development cycles. The schedule for this year is at https://espace.cern.ch/be-dep/BEDepartmentalDocuments/BE/LHC_Schedule_2012.pdf

      The original target for 2012 was about 15/fb. Current estmates are still near 25/fb for the year but the priority now is to understand the characteristics of LHC performance so that they know what best to do during the long shutdown in order to maximise performance when they restart in 2015 at ~13 TeV

      • carla says:

        It would be great if you could comment on the new plan when you do a new LHC update.

        They should reach the 20\fb recorded in the next 3 weeks, leaving 4 remaining. So I’m disappointed that they’re not doing enough 25ns development – 4 weeks would have been nice :)

        I just don’t see the value in adding the odd 1\fb to 20\fb compared to a week of 25ns physics.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        There is always value in adding more /fb before the shutdown. It may help resolve some important questions in physics.

        I know less about the need to run at 25/fb. It seemed to me that the operation at 25/fb is dissapointing with very short half-lifes. I am sure there have been many technical discussions about what to do about it and if a longer 25ns MD would help tthen they would do it. From the talk at CHARGED12 I get an impression that there may be some resignation to run at 50/ns even after LS1, but they must use 25/ns after LS2.

        In 2015 after LS1 the LHC will be a revamped machine and we will see how well it runs then.

  12. Tony Smith says:

    HCP2012 program shows Higgs talks on 15 November 2012.
    How large will be the data base for those talks ?
    Will there be seminars before that date that discuss
    whether or not the diphoton excess survives in the new data ?

    Tony

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Based on what Incandela said I think it will be an update, so probably 15/fb from 2012. There are no prior seminars that I know of. There is also a “Higgs Coupling” workshop follow-on where they will talk on “Higgs combinations”. I dont think this means they will provide ATLAS+CMS full combinarions, just talks discussing the results together, but I am not sure.

  13. Tony Smith says:

    Ohwilleke said “.. LHC shouldn’t have close to equal chances of an excess or deficit until it has roughly twice as much data as it did at the time that the discovery was made. …”.

    Philip Gibbs said,
    about HCP2012 Higgs talks on 15 November 2012
    “… it will be an update, so probably 15/fb from 2012 …”.

    Since the earlier Higgs announcement showing diphoton excess was based on 5/fg from 2011 plus 5/fb from 2012
    for a total of 10/fb
    (rough approximate amounts) and
    the HCP 2012 talks will be based on a total of 20/fb
    (5/fb from 2011 plus 15/fb from 2012)

    HCP 2012 should give a reasonable picture of whether or not the diphoton excess is real.

    Tony

  14. Well, the theory gets interesting. I too find the idea of a charged Higgs a pleasant one that fits well into my own world views. Who first considered this idea? Anyway, this means we have accepted or assumed the Higgs exists as a fact but needs better interpretation. I posted the consequences and implications of such particles that act on what for you may be evidence of new physics on the horizon after all- that or as with the speculation of Peter Rowlands we here have a unification of the string theories and those nilpotent Diracian methods of the Standard theory.

    But despite these generalizations, many making conclusions of what has been observed in many areas in experiment, I feel there is a further principle in the margins of our thinking still needed as we advance to still higher levels of the physics.

    Oh, in the nature of the space so envisioned it may still remain an open question if we can measure or see such excess and as with the Higgs itself nevertheless be a real state or process behind the scenes. Such a charge perhaps is closer to the ideas we may have of unified gravity of which theoreticians now in debate may also unify a little more of their world views.

    ThePeSla

  15. george says:

    Phil,

    are there no rumors on the newest LHC results? After all, data should be available now?

  16. Tony Smith says:

    Will there be a public Higgs seminar at CERN
    prior to Higgs talks at HCP 2012 in Kyoto on 15 Nov 2102
    (as was the case with ICHEP 2012 in Melbourne)
    ???

    Tony

  17. Yuri Danoyan says:

    Phil
    why do you keep silence about http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1036?
    No comment?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I think it is good that people consider such a study worth doing. It is interesting to have figures for things like percentage of published papers although they should have noted that recent papers may be published later. The stats would be better if they had gone through 100 papers instead of just 20.

      Nobody should be surprised that stats on citation and journal publication rates are much lower for viXra. The real question is how much scientific value does viXra have which is a harder quantity to measure. It will be interesting to see how these metrics change with time.

      • Tony Smith says:

        The study of arXiv vs. viXra says in part:
        “… viXra’s open access policies have attracted a population of non-academically trained authors …”.

        I am curious as to the definition of “non-academically trained authors”. In my case (blacklisted from arXiv since 2002, work on website after that, and now some work on viXra) I have an A.B. degree in math (Princeton 63) and during the 1980s and 1990s was enrolled at Ga Tech physics grad school (adviser David Finkelstein, no degree because I failed the Ga Tech comprehensive exam).

        Would my lack of a physics Ph.D. make me “non-academically trained” ?

        Would my time studying at Princeton and Ga Tech make me “academically trained”?

        As to whether or not the “academic training” should be restricted to the particular field of the paper, what about the example of Julian Schwinger,
        whose most famous work (QED) was in fundamental particle physics
        but was based on his understanding of how to deal with propagation around sharp corners in waveguides (basically really EE stuff as opposed to Dirac equation particle physics stuff).

        Tony

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I think the statement that “… viXra’s open access policies have attracted a population of non-academically trained authors …”. is true, but it does not mean that all viXra authors can be categorised in that way, nor that such authors are incapable of scientific research. viXra has a very diverse range of authors and cannot be categorised well in a sample of 20 papers.

      • Dear Philip,

        And let us all remember that Einstein, when presented his first famous and very important papers, was just a CLERK working at a patents office.

        Mario E. de Souza

      • carla says:

        @Mario, Einstein got his PhD before he submitted his famous papers

  18. Yuri Danoyan says:

    Gay from Russia learned about viXra.only after reading http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1036.
    Arxiv did good promotion for viXra

    http://sergepolar.livejournal.com/2428669.html

  19. Yuri Danoyan says:

    Authors thanks Margaret Wertheim for providing the inspiration to write paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1036.
    Margaret Wertheim. Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything. Walker Publishing Company, New York,2011.
    Freemen Dyson review see

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/05/science-rampage-natural-philosophy/

  20. Tony Smith says:

    On Resonaances Jester said it is “true” that ATLAS will not be presenting updated 4l and gamma gamma data at HCP 2012
    due to a discrepancy in the central mass in the two channels.

    How big is the discrepancy ?

    Also, another anon commenter on Peter Woit’s blog said
    “… Rumor has it … that at CMS, the gamma_gamma excess is smaller now. As most reasonable people would have expected. …”.

    Tony

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      The only reasonable position is an open minded one. There is no sense in which it is reasonable to expect that the excess will go away. It might or it might not. Only the experiments can answer.

      • Tony Smith says:

        I did not make the statement
        “… As most reasonable people would have expected. …”
        about CMS finding a smaller gamma-gamma excess,
        but
        only quoted an aononynous commenter “another anon”
        so
        I cannot say what was in the mind of “another anon” when making that statement
        but
        I can speculate that maybe the statement was a poor choice of words attempting to express the idea that
        the Standard Model implies that “the excess will go away”
        combined with an opinion that
        “most reasonable people” believe in the Standard Model
        which belief is based on a lot of experimental data accumulated over many decades.

        Of course,
        “most reasonable people” is not the same as “all reasonable people”,
        so the statement of “another anon” is consistent with
        some reasonable people believing that the Standard Model is incomplete or incorrect.

        Tony

  21. I find it interesting that we can see the standard theory as boring in that it has not found the “new Physics” or superpartners like stop – which in a sense seems to be some limit or stop. Lately I have given it further consideration and made the artistic blogspot posts on this issue of how we may or may not see such things. All of you, those working in the field and the alternative thinkers should be proud of our achievements in this most nobel of human enterprises.

    The Pe Sla

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 281 other followers

%d bloggers like this: