Leaked video indicates strong Higgs signal

Now that the results from the Higgs searches really have been seen by the teams of physicists from CMS and ATLAS we can expect a few rumours that might be based on fact. They start with this leaked video with CMS spokesman Joe Incandela talking about what they have seen. There is a strong signal from the diphotons and something weaker in four-leptons. As predicted here he is being careful with his wording to say that they have discovered a new particle consistent with the Higgs boson but further observations are required to know more details. There is no talk of discovery here but he seems to believe that the results might indicate that new particles are within reach of the LHC.

Video was pulled just after I viewed it.

26 Responses to Leaked video indicates strong Higgs signal

  1. Lubos Motl says:

    I’ve seen the whole thing, too. 😉 He says clearly that they have just accumulated enough data to be sure it’s there and won’t go away. This sentence means 5 sigma, quite clearly.

    Sarah Kavassalis and others – and probably CERN, most likely trying to create fog – claims that this is just one of several videos with totally different contents that they have recorded for inequivalent outcomes of the experiments.


    I would guess it’s just some cheap CERN trick to impress the babes with parallel-universe science fiction. I see no reason why they wouldn’t record just the right one. 😉

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      It was very short on quantitative details so maybe that’s true.

      • Lubos Motl says:

        OK, Phil, I thought that this was a story optimized for female believers but Sarah is actually on my side, not yours. She will only believe this “filmed all eventualities” explanation once they show the version in which they have found Carmen Sandiego. 😉

        Smart girl.

        The 7-minute interview is, in my opinion, perfect to summarize the details for a broader audience. It says which channels are strong, it says in the laymen’s words they have 5 sigma etc. Those things couldn’t have been planned, really. Many things he says are predictable and haven’t changed but that’s because the essence of their message isn’t really changing. The only thing that has changed recently is the technicality that “we have just found enough data to be sure it’s there”.

    • You mean, they have recorded exactly the right one in each copy of the Multiverse.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I think maybe it was preprepared as one of several but it was the one chosen as best fitting the results and uploaded ready for tomorrow.

      • Lubos Motl says:

        It’s totally plausible. Maybe they also have 35 LHC-like rings under France and Switzerland and they picked the ring whose final data best matched Incandela’s interview, one of them.

        And maybe Incandela is just one of numerous leaders of the LHC Collaborations with an Itailan name and… Oops, this one is actually correct. 🙂

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      It’s good to see that the mainstream news outlets are now just as happy to report leaks and rumours as the blogs. What will it be next? Perhaps I could get a nice job doing unofficial Higgs combinations for the Telegraph.

      • Alejandro Rivero says:

        Unofficial Libor combinations (and perhaps Euribor, too?) are welcome.

      • Lubos Motl says:

        Come on, it may be trivial to get you this job tomorrow. But given the fact that 5 sigma will be there separately, there won’t be too much point in doing combinations etc.

        You should be ready to do combinations in other channels like bb and WW which may be interesting.

      • JollyJoker says:

        Wouldn’t the full combination be useful in establishing the mass with uncertainty to establish what the SM prediction for the separate channels would be?

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I dont think the combination is the best way to get the mass estimate. You need to take a value for each channel and provide statistical and systematic errors, tyen combine those over channels in the conventional way. They should also be able to get cross-section estimates by counting events beyond backgrouns near the mass. An ellipse plotted on mass vs cross-section can them be compared with the line representing the standard model to get a better idea if it is on-track.

        The exclusion plots are great tool for exclusions and discovery but are a poor way to measure the parameters for comparison with the models.

    • Not one of several, but the video in Lubos site seems actually a series of videos fused together, telling slighltly different things, but always on the same basic discovery. Perhaps to help to decide the best approach?

  2. Alejandro Rivero says:

    Just to be sure: for physicists, zero is an even integer number, isn’t it?

  3. Alejandro Rivero says:

    Via Mitchell, I notice the pun in the title of the last -ph article of Zee: “The Flavor of Privacy at the LHC” (arXiv:1207.0467). Well, we know now that privacy is not an strong point.

  4. ohwilleke says:

    Every organization of any consequence has lots of rumors floating around in it. You can assemble large numbers of human beings working together without that happening. The sign of the health organization, as opposed to a less healthy one, is that the rumors are mostly about the work the organization is in the business of carrying out, as opposed to being mostly about the incompetence and banality of management and co-workers. So, on the whole, this reflects well on CERN. As long as the rumors are about decay channels and sigmas instead of embezzlement and impending defections to other projects, we can be comfortable that all is more or less well at the LHC from a management perspective and proceeding with fine Swiss regularity.

    Also, Matt Strassler’s protestations notwithstanding, these rumors are not regarding anything that could seriously impair CERNs operations. The key judgment calls that the labs need to hide from each other were either already made or would have been disclosed anyway in print anyway since the results reporting won’t have enough detail to reveal those points. I’d be much more worried about leaks of major CERN purchase order bid prices than I am about Higgs boson discovery rumors made not so many weeks before they are announced.

    In any case, the notion that one lab knows nothing about what is going on at the other that bloggers do know is dubious. I wouldn’t hire anyone who couldn’t get the big picture rumors from the other side via unofficial channels that are quicker and more reliable than blogs for a job leading either experiement anyway. Someone so out of touch doesn’t belong in a top level management position in a “big science” project. The rumor mill that leaks Higgs results a few days early is the same one that discloses relevant to the job interpersonal and technical problems in the project and grant opportunities that don’t get disclosed through formal channels out of a need to save face, not be disclosed as a tattletale, or follow bureaucratic procedures, but the person in that job needs all of that information too in order to do the job well.

    Indeed, in the case of these leaks, the LHC actually benefits from a long period of hype build up without which a PR announcement from scientists at a lab in Switzerland would never receive the level of coverage that it deserves, and were mostly predictable from prior reports anyway.

  5. D R Lunsford says:

    I did not get the impression he was talking about a simple Higgs here. Something isn’t adding up – possibly the mismatch in WW vs yy rate you talked about earlier.


  6. Tony Smith says:

    D R Lunsford said that he: “… did not get the impression that he [Joe Incandela] was talking about a simple Higgs here.
    … possibly the mismatch in WW vs [digamma] rate …”.

    To support DRL’s impression, here are some quotes from the video:
    “… “… We have observed a new particle …
    its mass is roughly 130 times the mass of a proton …
    this is a … boson … a particle with … no spin …
    if it doesn’t match … the Standard Model Higgs …
    then that’s a major, major thing …
    we are really seeing something very very closely tied to the fabric of space and time …
    something that is really fundamental to the universe and that represents a major discovery
    The significance of this observation could be very, very great. …
    This is a revolution in science …
    it really could be a portal to an entirely new dimension …”.


    • D R Lunsford says:

      Yes all that, and – no one would call the Higgs a “new particle” any more than they would call a found set of lost car keys “a new way to start the car”.


  7. What the video tells is that there is strong signal for a new particle. Which of course need not be Higgs! For some mysterious-to-me reason people want force it to be Higgs and get irritated when experimentalists do not do the same.

    It is interesting to see what the decay rate to gamma pairs is: if it is still twice the predicted one then the interpretation as standard model Higgs is not promising.

    Candela also tells that two-Z events have been observed and for other channels the situation is inconclusive: WW channel should be there since the gammapairs should be produced from WW intermediate states. This does not favor Higgs interpretation.

    Candela also emphasizes the possibility of entirely new physics and mentions possible existence of other new particles: is there already evidence for them? He is a chairman and probably cannot say just what happens to come in mind.

    To conclude, the TGD interpretation as pion like state of scaled up hadron physics is still well and alive!

  8. Orwin O'Dowd says:

    In Origen’s original multiverse, you get to purge your sins this way, in potentially infinite reincarnations. Yes, that’s Origen the early Christian theologian, leveraging Stoic modal logic.

  9. Lubos Motl says:

    Dear Phil and everyone, if you will have enough time during the talks and conferences,, and there’s probably lots of time during the hours, you should open the Higgs discovery chat box:


    to share your impressions, questions, and observations. The chat box may also be opened in a separate window, see a link above.

  10. zephirawt says:

    What we can see is the whole line of bumps, the
    periodicity of which is quite apparent. IMO it’s not experimental noise, but a real artifact, corresponding
    this graph at the scale AdS/CDF dual to cosmological scale.
    What we can see is actually the [whole line of bumps](http://i45.tinypic.com/3tvv9.gif), the periodicity of which is quite apparent. IMO it’s not experimental noise, but a real
    artifact, corresponding [this graph](http://www.gb.nrao.edu/~bmason/cmbhighellB.png).

%d bloggers like this: