Congratulations, It’s a Boson. Have you thought of a name yet?

CERN have happily announced the arrival of a new Boson but so far are being a bit cagey about what to call it. Is it the Higgs? Their caution as experimenters is perfectly laudable. They should show that they are keeping an open mind, but theorists are independent of the process of discovery and do not need to be so reticent.

The facts are that the boson discovered with a mass of about 125 GeV or 126 GeV interacts with a wide range of particles in exactly the way the Higgs boson should. Its decay modes to Z, W, b and tau have just the right ratios and its production has also been tested in different ways confirming indirectly that its coupling to the top quark is also about right. Its spin could be 0 or 2 but 0 is much more likely. All these features point to the standard model Higgs boson.

The only fly in the ointment is its decay rate to two photons. This is nearly twice as large as expected. The significance of the discrepancy with the standard model is about 2.5 sigma. It could be a fluke. We have learnt to show some healthy skepticism when it comes to observations of physics beyond the standard model. However it is also consistent with an enhancement due to the presence of another charged boson. If that boson exists it must have a mass at least a bit larger than the W otherwise the Higgs would decay to this particle in pairs and we would see the effect on the other decay rates. It can’t be too massive otherwise it would not enhance the diphoton rate enough. But it is likely to be possible to find a range of masses and properties that is consistent with all the observations.

So it is not necessary to invoke any properties for the observed boson that are any different from the standard model. Separate new physics will suffice. So the observed boson passes several tests required by the Higgs and I think that it is reasonable to assume that is indeed the Higgs boson until some observation suggests otherwise. It will always be possible to think of other models that could fit the facts, but they are not likely to be quite as economical as the standard model. It would be a disservice to the theorists who provided the theory 50 years ago if we continue to refuse to acknowledge the clear nature of this discovery when there is no evidence to the contrary. They predicted it would be just like this and It is the Higgs boson. Congratulations to all the experimenters and theorists who made this dream come to life.

**Update**: Here is the global Higgs combination. Is that conclusive enough now?

Neither in Higgs article nor the rest of the 1964 papers I can see a coupling to fermions. Which is not so strange, because at that time only muon and electron were in the play; no quarks, no third generation. So a primer step, for an historian, should be to clarify who first published the yukawa coupling mechanism for the elementary fermions.

I think this came in with Weinberg and Salam who already have their share of the glory for that accomplishment

Hmm yep, I see… “A model of leptons” mentions the couplings, if/but only to argue there are very small. So I would propose to reserve “Higgs” for the bosonic mechanism, and call “Weinberg-Yukawa” to the couplings of a Higgs to small fermions. And we still need a name for the top yukawa coupling.

Nambu 1960 did it first.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nms/depts/physics/news/events/MyLifeasaBoson.pdf

The particulate states in space have already been identified and defined mathematically in a theory called Sankhya in Vedic Science. Purusha yet to be found is the black hole mass equivalent forming the gravitational center of .9149 kg. Followed by the Mahad the planck mass equal of 2.2E minus 8 kg, which expands to become the Praikriti or nuclear fermion of 1.67E minus 27 kg by converting the mass density into spin angular momentum of the nuclear volume, and expands to become the Vikriti or Lepton of mass 9Eminus -31 kg and then transmogrates as Vikriti or Neutrino of masss 9.5 E minus 35 kg . Seven of the Vikriti or Neutrino accelerate and radiate together as a quanta or photon spectrom from 6.6 E minus 34 kg and expands into spectrums of reducing mass down to 1.3 E minus 51 kgs as the Moolaprakriti, which is yet to be found in physics. The

space critical matter density comprising moolaprakritis is 3.6 E minus 25 kg or 203 GEV whiich is the boson state and its mass value is formed by the matter coupling constant of .66478 and equals 135.4 GEV and is being experimentally detected now as the Higgs boson. Space is in perpetual harmonic oscillation at the Necluonic and Leptonic region . See all the details in http://sankhyakarika.webstarts.com/?r=20111129083612

contact gsvasktg@gmail.com for proof.

Bose -who was, as you can guess, an Indian- should not approve this, neil. Not the ancient philosophers, by the way.

But Phil, is it only the discrepancy in the di-photon channel that needs to be cleared out? CERN is also saying that,in order to call it a SM Higgs, they need to close the loop on the spin, parity, branching ratios and angular distributions.

Are they justified in their cautious attitude?

Ervin

If spin and parity were different it would be unlikely that it would have the observed couplings. A more important test is the self coupling which is determined by the crucial mexican hat potential. The experimenters should test these things without predudice but most theorists will rightly assume that this is a Higgs and work from there.

To my knowledge, the Higgs self-coupling in SM is of order O(1) but it turns out that it is about an order of magnitude smaller for a Higgs mass of 125 GeV and a vev of 246 GeV. So, I agree, it is important to get to the bottom of this issue.

It seems though that this point only reinforces CERN’s position that there are open items standing in the way of calling the newly discovered boson a SM Higgs.

It is fine for the experimenters to say that but I think as theorists we should only say that if we have an alternative theory that fits all the observations (using calculations as detailed as the ones used to compare with the standard model) and can be ditinguished by further tests.

You may be right Phil, but, there is an old saying here in the States that goes like: “it’s not over until the fat lady sings”…

After all, theorists cannot ignore what the experimenters are telling them.

We should listen to results experimenters have already given us but should be one step ahead of the ones they still have to find.

It’s just my opinion. You are very welcome to do things your own way.

What could such the second charged boson be (if something like this is there…) and how would it influence other observations at the LHC ?

stau of W’ might fit the bill but someone who has worked on these needs to tell us if they can do the job at a mass that has not already been ruled out. They may have to decay in a way that is hard to detect and/or not couple to quarks and gluons in a way that would make them abundantly produced without the Higgs

Is it time to start a re-think on basics of identifying particles as bearer of exchange forces. This approach has helped us a long way. But number of particles that we now have, calls on us to re-dedicate ourselves to the belief that nature is beautifully simple, straight and understandable.

The CMS result 125GeV is suprisingly close to the value given by the closed formula M_H=sqrt(2pi*L_p)M_p=123GeV derived in a pure geometric Kaluza-Klein theory (L_p and M_p are the Planck length and mass). Similar closed formulae for the Weinberg angle, Planck’s constant, the hypercharge and weak coupling constants, the W and Z boson masses and the electroweak scale can also be derived at the level of classical physics and are also within 1-2% of experimental values. This is surprising because the results are classical physics based on standard GR and KK theory, but assume that the universe is currently a closed 3-sphere described by GR with a 7-sphere particle space and was unified into a 10-sphere.

If you consider the topology of a transition from the 10-sphere to a product space of the closed universe 3-sphere times a 7-sphere particle space, then a simple consideration of the homotopy groups of spheres finds a twisted space with the eigenvalues of the electroweak vacuum and a 3 by 4 table of topological defects with the charges of the fundamental fermions – deriving this is a curious 10 minute puzzle for a theoretical physicist if nothing else. Why these results are as accurate as there are in classical physics is the more challenging puzzle.

The paper mjgoodband.co.uk/papers/QFT_KK.pdf has been submitted to NJP, but even as a former physicist with papers on arXiv I still cannot submit to arXiv without endorsement because I am not currently in an institution.

Interesting results from this formula, M_H=sqrt(2pi*L_p)M_p=123GeV, but I am not seeing units of energy come out as a result – sqrt(length)*mass = (meters^1/2)*Kg does not equal Joules (Kg*m^2/sec^2) or other units of energy. Are there other constants involved?

In Kaluza-Klein theory, both the scalar and gauge fields are metric terms with units of length squared. Then the number of dimensions is reduced through dimensional compactification, which has side-effects because the definition of some physical quantities changes with the number of dimensions.

The expression for M_H is a mass term in the Lagrangian for perturbations to the metric for the compactified dimensions in the dimensionally reduced theory, which has the same mathematical terms as for a unitless scalar field, but it is not exactly the same thing. There are additional terms for interactions between the scalar term denoting the particle metric and the gauge field terms also coming from the dimensionally reduced metric, which is something that is directly testable in the LHC.

Let me put your numbers (from the argument post eq 38, page 16) to your comment. You say that

sqrt(2 * 3.14159 * 1.616199 * (10^(-35))) * (1.22093 * (10^19)) = 123.03479

of course it fails once you put the units in. Let me stress that I do not agree with your concept of “topology”, which seems to be that any quantity using metric units can be used also as an adimensional multiplier. But I find amusing that you take the time to write a long comment and you “forget” to show the numbers.

The unit issue comes from dimensional reduction in a Kaluza-Klein theory mentioned above. The topology comes from assuming a transition from S10 -> S3*S7 for which the homotopy group PI7(S3)=PI4(S)=Z2 shows a non-trivial map from particle S7 to spatial S3. The homotopy group PI4(S3) is that for picking out a circle from S4 such that the residual S3 then maps to S3. If you equate the spheres of the particle spaces to symmetry groups you get group eigenvalues consistent with the electroweak vacuum. The breaking of S7 to S1 gives the conditions for topological monopoles and the different ways of picking the S4 basespace from the S7 Hopf fibre-bundle is given by the homotopy group PI7(S4) = Z*Z3*Z4 giving a 3 by 4 table of topological monopoles. The relating of the spheres to group spaces then gives their eigenvalues, which then surprisingly compare to the 12 fermionic particles. The topology of spheres in a product space of spheres really is about “topology”.

Quick question – you’re saying that tau decays were fine for CMS but I thought that was one of the two main issues: was very little detection of tau tau decay reported by CMS in addition to the excess in the diphoton channel reported by CMS & ATLAS.

It was the WW channel that had too little. They seem to have adressed that problem in a way I didnt really follow but the CMS WW results look better and they gave a good value for the ratio of WW to ZZ. ATLAS have not yet updated them. Hopefully it is all OK and the only anomaly is the diphoton. That is a good one to be enhanced because it would just mean there is something else in the loop.

I looked it up because I was half asleep watching the presentation – but is the issue there also wasn’t a lot of confidence because of background?

http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-particle-mass-125-gev

bb and ττ channels: no excess is observed.

But it is not a problem because they are not senitive enough to observe an excess.

Higgscovery…Ich mach’s kurz: Wenn ich das gerade nicht völlig falsch verstehe, wurde gerade offiziell verkündet, dass das Higgs-Boson gefunden wurde. CMS hat da zumindest in einem Ergebnis 5 Sigma Signifiganz erreicht, die wohl für ein offizielles Ergebnis nötig …

Do I understand well that “congratulations it’s a boson” is an analogy of “it’s a boy” or a “girl”? By the way, are bosons male or female?

It’s interesting that while physicists named everything after flavors, colors, fatness etc., they haven’t grouped particles according to their sex yet.

That’s the corect interpretation of the headline yes.

I cant find a picture of a particle in nappies

Bosons are male and fermions are female, obviously!

LOL 😀

I always thought that the bosons are females (the condensate together to gossip) and the fermions are males (lonly wolfs) … 😉

I was going to say we need a good non-PC explanantion but you already got it.

🙂

… and maybe nature has given us by revealing the weight of the newborn a slightly more optimistic hint than shown here

http://abstrusegoose.com/368

that everybody in principle has a soulmate … 😀

Actually the joke about women gossiping is a bit ironic coming from us.

At least in TGD 😀

and females have bosoms after all, “m”and “n” belong to the same class of consonant ;).

I completely agree with you, Dilaton! 😉

Spin Family, on display in the art exhibition “Quantum Objects” playfully equates fermions with the male and bosons with the female gender, depicting the first spin 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2 (females), and 5/2 objects (males) as a family of five. Magnetic quantum numbers. http://philipball.blogspot.fi/2009/11/quantum-objects.html

No room for a spin 0 in the family?

So what is the actual probability that the newly discovered boson could be something other than the Higgs? I would think that probability would be very small.

(****** ATTENTION LAYMAN HERE ********)

From the article:

“The only fly in the ointment is its decay rate to two photons. This is nearly twice as large as expected. The significance of the discrepancy with the standard model is about 2.5 sigma. It could be a fluke. ”

2.5 sigma, this means cca 99% chance that this is true?

So, chance that this is SM Higgs is cca 1%?

(based on this argument only)

Please, someone correct this if wrong.

(****** ATTENTION LAYMAN HERE ********)

What the numbers are saying is that the probability of getting an excess this big or bigger if the standard model is correct and there is nothing else involved would be 1%. That is very different from saying that the probability that the standard model is correct is 1%.

The probability that the standard model is correct with no other physics given these results can only be calculated depending on the prior probability that the standard model is correct. Different theorists have very different views about what that prior probability is so there is no universal answer.

Another point to bear in mind is that there are lots of places we can look for such discrepancies. A fluke with a 1% chance of happening may sound like a big coincidence but if you look at 100 things you are likely to find a coincidence this big. This is called “trial error” or “look elsewhere effect”

Final point here is that such discrepancies can be explained by extra physics added to the model and in that case the observed particle is still the standard Higgs Boson. It’s interactions are just affected by other additional stuff.

Recapitulation:

1% chance – this is statistical fluke

(SM is OK without extra physics, boson is SM Higgs )

99% chance – this is not statistical fluke

(SM neeeds extra physics/particles, boson is SM Higgs)

OR

(new physics)

Phil, OK now?

No, this is still wrong. Read again what I said.

Since this is an important point let me try to explain it in more ordinary terms.

Suppose you go into a casino and play your chips on red or black at the roulette table. Let’s say you go in and immediately win 8 times in a row before losing . The chances of winning 8 or more times by pure chance if you dont cheat is about 1 in 128, let’s call it 1%. Would you now say that there is a 99% chance that you cheated?

Of course you wouldn’t because you know you didn’t cheat. What would the house think? Will they say there is a 99% chance that you cheated? No, because it is very difficult to cheat so even if you get a lucky streak it is very unlikely that you cheated. Furthermore they have hundreds of people playing roulette and some are bound to get lucky.

If you win twenty times in a row that is a little different and you may get taken into a backroom for further checks.

Phil, thanks for analogy, but to me this is not entirelly correct.

My version:

Our casino is totaly empty forever, nobody never played.

Now I come in and win 8 time in a row (8/8).

What would the house think?

They still think you got lucky because they put the roulette wheel in and made sure it was very difficult to cheat.

If someone walks up to you with a coin and bets you a tenner that they can toss seven heads in a row, and they do it and win, you will then be much more suspicious because it is easy to see that they could have cheated. But even then the probability that they cheated is not 99%. It could be more or less than that depending on how easy it is to cheat. This is something that is hard to estimate but it would have to be done if you wanted to claim you knew the probability that they cheated.

The Higgs experiments work the same way. It is easy to say what the probability of getting a certain result was if the standard model is assumed to be right, but you cant turn that around and deduce the probability that the standard model is right or wrong from the result.

OK Phil, thank You very much for your effort.

My final question:

How much sigma is enough for You to became suspicious (in our SM Higgs case)?

At about 4 sigma for an enhancment In the diphoton channel I would be quite hopeful that there is something there in addition to the standard model, but there would still be some doubt that perhaps they have not understood the theory or the detector well. I would want to see some other independent clue from some other measurement that also suggests compatible new physics before I got really excited.

Phil said “… the CMS WW results look better …”

but

the Tevatron WW results announced Monday showed WW to be very low around 125 GeV.

What is going on ? Which one is wrong and why ?

Tony

I think it is still an open question for me, but CMS managed to get a value of 0.9 += 0.1 for the ratio of WW to ZZ even when WW looked lower/ Maybe they understood something we didn’t.

It’s still fun to think about new physics that could account for it. A charged boson between 60 GeV and 80 GeV might enhance the diphoton but supress WW if it decayed to something hidden

Over on RESONAANCES I see an ATLAS plot

ATLAS_muhats126p5.png

that shows the ratio of WW to ZZ signal strength

to be around 0.5 or lower (by eyeball estimate).

That, along with the Tevatron plot,

makes me very puzzled about how CMS got 0.9 -/- 1 .

Tony

Nice post..:-)

The decay rate to gamma pair has been about twice too large repeatedly from the very beginning (Isn’t this already third report) and both ATLAS and CMS have observed it. It is therefore difficult to believe that the interpretation as a statistical fluke.

An important tests is whether the boson is scalar or pseudo-scalar in M^4 QFT description. The effective action density for decays to gauge boson pair for these two options should be just gauge action density multiplied by the scalar field resp. instanton density multiplied by pseudo-scalar field. This form shows immediately how the rate depends of decay rate on polarizations and momenta and distinguishes between scalar and pseudo-scalar.

One possible test is also decays to light quark pairs producing jets: for Higgs the rate is very low but for other interpretations (such as interpretation as pion like state of scaled up variant of hadron physics) it could be so high that the decays are detectable.

In any case, very strong social forces are involved. VEV of scalar field paradigm has dominated theoretical physics for four decades and its breakdown would initiate profound revolution in both particle physics and cosmology: virtually everything must be built up from scratch a lot of theoretical work goes to paper basked. For instance, the interpretation of standard SUSY and M-theory rely on scalar VEVs, and inflation theory relies on inflaton field. Therefore it will take a lot of sweat and tears before Higgs paradigm is given up.

Correction: that the interpretation as a statistical fluke is correct. “is correct” was missing.

My prediction. It is a boson, but that a huge amount of new physics will have to be invented to get a handle on that LIFE TIME, i.e. this is an incomplete but useful starting gun for the super collider. I.e. the super collider can now be possibly built with this discovery. The American and Canadian physics community will now get their shot at the super collider due to this discovery.

It would be interesting to have an interpretation of this new discovery seen from all different theories.

After all SM is not more true than the other, because this does not obey the SM either.

To say that this is an Higgs because what else would it be is very sloppy thinking!

Jester comments today, 5.7. There is some excess in the LHC Higgs-to-gamma-gamma rate, and some excess in the Tevatron Higgs-to-b-bbar rate. But it’s not very significant for the moment; sadly, there’s a decent overall agreement with the SM predictions.

But exactly those make up the 5 sigma?

The LHC is another successful example of what we humans can achieve by working together to reach a common goal. Like the Olympic Games, these large scale experiments help unite peoples of different cultures for a common good.

I congratulate all involved in this fantastic endeavor and hope that we can learn not only of the new physics bu also further global cooperation in shaping our global village into one which all people can live a decent and prosperous life.

A special congratulations to Dr Peter Higgs, (soon to be Sir Higgs if could recommend it to Her Majesty the Queen).

Q. Since the Higgs boson can decay in more than one way, does this indicate another particle (field, maybe gravity (graviton)) is in play and/or that the fundamental particle have a structure (spherical shell)?

I’m a little bit confused of the calculation of sigma and it’s interpretation as a confidence or significance. Sigma is like mu a parameter of a distribution. You can calculate S and also the mean X but never mu and sigma Finally u can calculate a confindence level for both estimates (german schätzen) for the values mu and sigma with a given confidence level alpha.

–>X-f*S<mu<X+f*S. f is a factor depending on alpha, but also n (size of ur estimate) and kind of ur estimate (Schätzung). So saying 5sigma or 5S means a special confidience level alpha is complete nonsense and not true. Especially for low n f is much larger than for big n. Thats why u see the fluxes and high sigma or better devation of X from the theoretical value in probes with low sizes. So this sigma addiction is really strange.

The value of sigma is calculated from theory for a given amount of data. It is not estimated from S, the standard deviation in the data.

The new boson seems to prefer to decay (or transform) into pairs of other particles.

So the new boson should be a TWIN BABY with oscillating energy instead of real mass.

Both babies should oscillate as two pistons in a boxer engine, creating the Planck length and dark energy.

I would call it the TWIN BOXER particle.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0065v2.pdf

I believe creation of two photons upholds law of conservation of momentum. Further the variation of energy between two photons may due to relative state of laboratory frame of reference and newly discovered particle at the time it is isolated in the interaction between high energy particles.

That is how as an engineer interested in physics I will enterpret matter of concern here.

Hello Phil,

Do you know, when will you update http://vixra.org/Combo with 8TeV data?

Thanks.

I added some of it yesterday, including the new Tevatron plots, and will add the rest of what has been shown shortly. There were only a couple of plots shown by ATLAS that were purely 8 TeV. The rest were combinations and updates to the 7 TeV plots.

We may get more at ICHEP on the 7th.

Am I correct to state that the energy of detected new particle is about 80GEV, which is greater than the atomic mass of Bromine? This is greater than 40 alpha particles.

It decays into two photons, may be about 40Gev each or into different rations.

Is it defining some sort of limit on energy of a single photon? Have we any knowledge of photons of magnitude greater than 80GEV being observed. May be a thick plastic scintillator can be used to detect such high energy photons.

Can this low value of wavelength provide us with natural unit of measuring the dimensions of space? It is so; we will have all three units of dimensions naturally defined

Length – Higgs Boson

Time – Special theory of relativity thru constancy of speed of light

Energy – Planck’s constant (read with uncertainty principle.

Thanks for your active particpation in this descovery and keeping all of us informed about the same.

.

The detected new particle has a mass of 125 GeV. Photons from gamma ray bursts can have TeV scale energy. I am not sure what the observation record is. An upper limit to photon energy would strongly violate Lorentz invariance.

You are right.

An observation on upper limit will violate lorentz invariance.

However, physical speed of light and value of c in Lorentz invariance can vary a bit. The difference similar to infinity as ordinal or cardinal number in set theory can be hypothesized.

Thanks for clarification that photons from gamma ray bursts can have Tev scale energy. Here rests my speculation.

Frank Wilczek in NOVA’s Nature of Reality Blog. has described in a separate post, Higgs Bosons as a constituent of standard model of physics. It brings out clearly the thought process behind Higgs Bosons. In his words;

‘The Higgs particle is The Quantum of Ubiquitous Resistance. I’m referring here to a universe-filling medium that offers resistance to the motion of many elementary particles, thus producing what we commonly think of as their mass.’

This indicates persistence of Ether in thought process of contemporary science. I thought interpretation of ‘Matter as Extended Substance’ from French philosopher R. Descartes and ether has been discounted.

Another way of understanding nature consistence with standard model is to consider human intuition ‘Space contains Energy’ represent nature with 5-Dimensions. The five dimensions include 3 dimensions of space (3-D infinite continuum), and 2 dimensions of matter (Energy and time of 2-D Matter). The dimension time is mapped to one dimension (drift direction of particle). With this model, all type of particles – atoms, nucleus, elementary particles – moving at speed less than speed, photons – equals speed of light, neutrinos – capable of speed greater than light are explained. We don’t to attribute any characteristic to space, but as a container of energy. In addition gravitation, action at a distance etc are easily understood as characteristic of these objects. The cosmic observations (Expanding universe, Big Bang epoch, Background radiation) are integrated into this 5-D model of universe.

If we have to integrate experimental results connected with Higgs Bosons into 5-Dimensional model of the universe, both Higgs Bosons and Neutrinos carry space disturbance from one compilation of energy bearing particles to another. While Neutrinos represent singularity in space continuum of one type, Higgs Boson represents singularity of another type. The singularities in space are introduced by intense activity (Interaction between elementary particles).

In this sense, Higgs Boson’s are complimentary particles to Neutrinos?

The newly discovered particle is looking for its place in standard model of science. But as quantized space – is not amicable to human intuition. This will push abstractions in science a step beyond comprehension of non-physicists.

If we integrate experimental findings connected with Higgs Bosons into 5-Dimensional model of the universe from PicoPhysics, we have differences and similarities from Picophysics between Neutrino and Higgs Bosons as;

1.Similarity: None of the particles from this class carries matter.

2.Similarity: Speed of light does not have relevance as limitation on observed speed

3.Difference: The energy flow is reverse than neutrino. In Neutrino energy flows along with displacement, for Higgs Boson it flows opposite to displacement

4.Difference: For same energy carrying capacity, the size of Higgs Boson is much larger than that of neutrino

5.Generation: Higgs Boson can only be generated when particles in motion collapse to a single point. Neutrino are generated inside the nucleus.

May be, the difference in direction of energy flow is embedded somewhere in the collected data leading to discovery of Higgs Boson.

Also Hubble’s constant will play an active role in determining the energy of Higgs Boson generated in a given environment.. But needs mathematical expertise to generate and solve the interaction model.

If it is just the scalar partner of Z0 in its supermultiplet, is it still a Higgs? Asume no even MSSM, just SSM with massive supermultiplets for W and Z.

“The scalar partner of Z0 in its supermultiplet” is just the usual third polarization state, so its mass isn’t different from the mass of “the rest of the Z”.

Sorry, of course you mean the other scalar, the one that doesn’t get eaten.

I would think that the “partner of Z0 in the supermultiplet” would be the zino, but that is not a scalar.

A massive N=1 gauge supermultiplet has one extra scalar, as Mitchell points out. You need it in order to match degrees of freedom: the zino has four, as a nice Dirac fermion, and the Z0 has three.

The extra scalar has not a proper name, afaik, because it mixes with all the higgses of the model. But it is there independently of the higgs mechanism, it deserves some name, IMHO, in the same way that their other supermultiplet partners have got one.

OK I see what you mean now

You could call it the “Z scalar”. But won’t an independently massive Z gauge boson just cause the usual problems, that the higgs mechanism is meant to solve?

Yes, my point is that it is more agnostic respect to the mass mechanism itself, particularly it is there independently of the number of higgs multiplets or any extra structure, it is just representation theory.

Ok, lacking a better name, I will use swino and szino. Now the question is if the currently observed particle could be an szino, this is an scalar with the same couplings that the Z0 particle.

[…] Congratulations, It’s a Boson July 4, 2012 Congratulations, It’s a Boson. Have you thought of a name yet? […]

Higgs Boson have become physical reality. Since Pico-Physics encompasses nature without classification of different area, it is natural for us to have a serious look at new discovery.

The subject matter of this discussion also available at http://picophysics.org/applications/higgs-bosons/.

The essential difference between mainstream physics and picophysics is how property of inertia and gravity is assigned. PicoPhysics do not distinguish between mass and energy. PicoPhysics assigns these properties along with energy to Knergy. Mainstream is looking for answers in elementary particles. In picophysics, there are very few elementray particles – UCO unit conserved object and neutrino. Integer number of UCOs are confined into main stream particles. These particles have the limitation on observed speed being less that light speed due to vortex like flow of UCO inside the particle. So particles with mass have the speed of light as limit.

The appearance of Higgs Boson is the apparent image of colliding particle. The decay of Higgs boson into two photons represent the gravitational force of attraction never exceeds the level to confine them into a particle. (Expanding spiral on loss of confinement with separation from mother particle, preceding decay into photons).

The proof of this hypothesis is feasible, if the measurements are repeated at different energy of the incident particle. The pattern in terms of peaks and valleys shall remain essentially same, with shift in energy axis. The prominence of 125 Gev peak shall be lost if experiment is conducted with particles accelerated to different energy levels.

CERN experiment may make the internal structure of mainstream particles visible.

[…] “The only fly in the ointment is its decay rate to two photons. This is nearly twice as large … […]

[…] 7.7.: here are the vixra unofficial Higgs combinations of both detectors (1) and (2). Also of interest might be a guest post of Stephen Wolfram on TRF. Share […]

Q1. Now that they have a strong confidence of a “light” Higgs (at 125 Gev), could / would they go back and rehash the renormalisation-group equations (RGEs) of the SM to possibly create new physics to associate the Higgs field to quantum gravity (graviton)?

I ask this question in the context that since the Higgs is so light it puts it very close to a unstable (or metastable) vacuum region. (Ellis et al 2009, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.0954v2.pdf) … So, could there be a possibility that the same mechanism that created the gravity field (gravition) also created the Higgs, i.e. Mass ~ f (graviton) ~ f (Higgs) and/or Mass ~ f (graviton, Higgs) ~ f ( spacial vortices due to the expansion of space when the singularity, Big Bang, blow up) ?

Q2. If the above conjecture could be possible, would it be indicating that the (“a”) universe could be cyclic? i.e. the vacuum repeatedly fluctuates from stable (now) to unstable (singularity, “the quartic Higgs self-coupling runs at high energy towards lower values. At some point it would turn negative indicating that the vacuum is unstable. In other words the universe could in theory spontaneously explode at some point releasing huge amounts of energy as it fell into a more stable lower energy vacuum state” … Philip Gibbs), then blows up, “spontaneous” supersymmetry breaking again (Big Bang).

[…] Gibbs también nos indica que estamos ante el bosón de Higgs predicho por el modelo estándar [ver esto, esto y esto]. La situación está tan clara que hasta Matt Strassler lo tiene claro, como nos […]