Global combination gives unofficial Higgs discovery with 2011 data.

Warning for allergy sufferers, this post contains multiple sigmas 🙂

When ATLAS and CMS first published their results based on 2011 data in December, an unofficial combination of the results gave an excess with significance 3.74 sigma, a long way short of the 5 sigma needed to claim a discovery. Adding the Tevatron results available at that time only made it worse with a drop to 3.69 sigma. In February CMS added some extra diphoton events that pushed the LHC combination up to 4.3 sigma, then at the Moriond conference on March both CMS and ATLAS updated their combinations with the result that the significance dropped to 3.64 sigma. At the same meeting CDF and Dzero presented an update using the full dataset from the Tevatron. This time the combination with the Tevatron data improved the result pushing the significance back up to 4.25 sigma.

With all the data in use it looked like new data from the 2012 LHC run would be needed to reach discovery significance. Three days before the ICHEP conference the Tevatron collaborations presented updated combinations using some updated analysis from Dzero. This pushed the significance of the global combination up to 4.39 sigma. Then of course ATLAS and CMS added their 2012 data to reach 5.0 sigma individually with the combination reaching an impressive 7.45 sigma.

Later when the data was published as analysis notes more detail was given including data for the diphoton and 4 lepton data at 7 TeV. These had been updated yet again with ATLAS improving their analysis technique and CMS finding an extra 0.33/fb of 2011 data. Using these a new unofficial combination for the 2011 data can be generated and the result is dramatic. The LHC combination jumped from 3.67 sigma to 4.64 sigma while the global combination with all the 2011 data jumped from 4.4 sigma to 5.27 sigma. Even taking into account the error margins for the unofficial combination this means that the global combination has risen to discovery level significance level based on 2011 data alone, an impressive result.

So where did this increase of nearly 1 sigma from the 2011 data come from? Looking at the individual contributions, the CMS combination increased by 0.35 sigma and the ATLAS combination increased by 0.85 sigma. Of course all these results are approximate, unofficial and not endorsed by the experiments.

You can generate all the combinations here using the unofficial Higgs combination tool.

46 Responses to Global combination gives unofficial Higgs discovery with 2011 data.

  1. Robert L. Oldershaw says:

    What would be the implications if the particle, against the odds, turns out to be a spin 2 particle?

    • Ulla says:

      That question would need some theory too. Why do you think so?
      If you begin from a soliton/sphere and say it is 0 when closed, 1 when open wave, then 2 is a DOUBLING. A scaled up hierarchy?

  2. vmguptaphy says:

    Human intuition, speculation and extrapolation has always played a part in understanding nature. Unless we extrapolate & speculate as guided by intuition, no progress in knowledge is possible.

    However, in commercial activities, we employ principle of dual signature etc. to make sure one person inclination does not destroy the integrity of business/production process. We deploy three way verification process for other importanat functions.

    This commentary on progressive increase of sigma towards discovery is significant. It is also significant to note that ups downs the sigma value has changed over duration of data collections.

    I understand that this (Variation of sigma) can be analyzed as statistical data, and probability established for it to reach the discovery level irrespective of truth factor. Such an analysis will give outsiders a better view of mainstream experimental physics environments.

  3. Robert L. Oldershaw says:


    I am asking whether a Higgs boson of some exotic type could have a spin of 2.

    Or would spin 2 indicate that the resonance cannot be the HIggs boson.

    A simple direct question.

    Discrete Scale Relativity

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      If it is spin two it is not the Higgs boson which has to be a scalar. It is hard to rigorously rule out the possibility that a different mechanism for symmetry breaking could be based on a spin 2 boson but none has been proposed after 50 years as far as I know. If such a mechanism exists it would probably be quite disimilar so if it looks so similar to the scalar mechanism at this stage all I can say is that nature has thrown one hell of a curveball.

      • Hmm the counting could work in a very retorted way: after all, you need to put mass into W and Z, this is three dof. On the other hand, a set of N spin 2 massless partiles has an even number 2N, and then after the breaking, whatever is it, there is still 2N-3, an odd number. You could put it in a massive spin 2 particle, so 2N-3=5 and you need N=4 spin 2 massless spin 2 particles to start with, so you could still organise them in a complex doublet as we do with the usual Higgs field. Far fetched, in any case.

      • paddy says:

        Does not symmetry breaking via a non-scalar field imply a breaking of Lorentz invariance?

      • Hmm you mean that the vacuum field will then point somewhere, do you? That could translate to imply that it can only happen in theories with extra dimensions. Interesting point.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        That’s not the problem. You could easily construct loads of classical theories using any kind of spin structure to break the gauge symmetry. The problem is that it needs to be renormalisable to work as a quantum field theory. With a scalar field you can use a potential with 4th degree form and it is remormalisable in 4D. This is enough to construct the mexican hat form needed for symmetry breaking. You cant do that with spin half or spin one and anything with higher spin is not normally renormalisaable at all unless maybe you can use supersymmetry type cancellations.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        But perhaps one can argue that a non-renormalizable theory is acceptable if it is viewed as an “effective” framework (like the four fermion model of weak interactions was an effective theory before the Weinberg-Salam model).

        I think that a more meaningful way to ask the question is this: considering Higgs generating processes like gluon-gluon fusion or vector boson fusion, what selection rules prohibit formation of a spin-2 resonance instead of a scalar resonance?

      • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

        Thanks Philip. So my understanding is that any “reasonable” Higgs must be a spin 0 particle.

      • Robert L. Oldershaw says:

        If its a spin 2 particle they can annoint it “the graviton”, and break out the bubbly for a second time.

      • Ulla says:

        If the “the vacuum field will then point somewhere” it is polarized and NOT spin 0.

  4. Lubos Motl says:

    Good to see that Gordon Kane’s late 2011 claim that the overall Higgs significance level had clearly been over 5 sigma wasn’t crazy.

  5. Ulla says:

    Could it be an anyon, a charged quasiparticle of light (a boson)?

    • Ulla says:

      Light can achieve some mass if cleaved. But not this much, I guess? Opinions?

    • Lawrence B. Crowell says:

      Anyons exist in two dimensions, such as a graphene sheet. Technicolor theories posit the HIggs particle as a bound state of a quark and antiquark or with quark-like fermion fields that sum to zero spin and color charges etc. However, that approach appears very problematic.


      • Ulla says:

        Yes, but the loop in Jesters post also show a 2D figure. How do they know it is a quark, when it should result in a boson? Then the quarks must be 1/2 h and the result is a quasiparticle? Is a quasiparticle spin 0, (ye it can be,) and a scalar?

        I was more concerned about the mass.

        Quote from wikipedia: Plasmon oscillation waves are the fastest matter waves ever photographed, clocking in at about 99.997% of the speed of light. The waves are generated in the wake of an ultra-intense laser pulse, and give rise to enormous electric fields, reaching voltages higher than 100 billion electron volts/meter (GeV/m).

  6. “The God Particle” … prophetic or rubbish?

    If the is God then did God create the universe or did the universe create God?

    If God created the universe then that would be very problematic w.r.t. causality, what caused God? However, if the universe created God then that would be well within the realm of our real universe all our questions both from evolutionism and creationism would lead to a common goal.

    Given all that we know about our universe and ourselves:
    1. What could God be?
    2. Why would there be a need for God in the first place?
    3. How could God control the universe, which created Him?

    A curious observation is as the structures, atoms and molecules, become more complex the outcome, evolution of the universe, tends to life and beyond to consciousness, (we are very high up in the overall scheme of existence).

    We have a consciousness which is very difficult to define and formulate with the same math we use to formulate physical phenomena. Below is a very interesting video of a 3D formulation of what the known universe looks like. As you can see it has a striking resemblance to the structure of our brain, the structure that gives us consciousness.

    1. Do you believe that a universal consciousness (God) can exist given this data?

    2. Like our own consciousness can control our brain’s motor functions and hence our body functions, could the universal consciousness (once it “turned on”) create the more complex physical fields from the fundamental field (gravity or something else to the strong field) and hence drove the primordial chaotic universe to one of order and expanding, i.e. the expansion of the universe is not related to the initial conditions at the big bang but rather the universal consciousness is reinforcing and evolving to a higher and higher state. A principle of conscious advancement as the driving force for everything. No conservation laws need to be violated or invalidated.

    Is God the universal consciousness created by the magnificent structures of our universe, see the video below.

    PS, Congratulations to all involved in this great discovery.

    • vmguptaphy says:

      Well questioned – If this is God then did God create the universe or did the universe create God?

      These are unending series of question? But the answer is simple and found in the concept of Konservation – Conservation without neutralization. The question of creation, neutralization or death becomes irrelevant for Knergy. We start with formation of elementary particles from Knergy due to gravitation attraction and constancy of speed. From this begins the creation of matter. Matter finally ends into radiant energy which cools into CBR – cosmic background radiations. CBR radiations finally glue together to occupy large enough regions of space (Dark Energy) to begin formation of elementary particles. This cycle perpetuates itself. So instead of creation we have a perpetual cycle of matter somewhat similar to Carbon dioxide cycle or Nitrogen cycle in the earth’s atmosphere. Compared to time spent as dark energy, a UCO spends little time as matter. That is the reason of less than 5% of mass of universe being visible.

      The current discovery of Higgs Boson is a transitional observation like cold fusion and neutinos travelling faster than light. It is likely to give us instruments look inside elemntary particles to confirm unity among elementary particles (Composed of Photons – termed as Unit conserved objects in PicoPhysics).

      The above view is not the view shared by mainstream physicists.

      • How about this …

        1. We live in a 3D universe because three are the minimum dimensions required to create massive particles.

        Why …

        2. I believe there is no such condition as a rest state (zero motion), every joules of energy is in motion (in transition). So when any point of energy expands (high density to low density or visa verse) whether it is the Big Bang or electron-positron annihilation, the process is not spontaneous, as Dirac theorized, put occurs in a finite time intervals, Planck’s time, tp, (or lower?). The energy-time uncertainty principle, Delta-E x Delta-t ~ h, also points to this time interval mechanism, i.e. the time in the energy-time uncertainty is the time interval the quantum state remains the same, unchanged. …

        So …

        If the time interval is not zero then there will be an expansion of “space”, Delta-X ~ Delta-t, i.e. motion and hence velocity. I speculate that c is the velocity that “came out of the wash” at the Big Bang, i.e. proportional to the initial conditions at t = 0. Hence if space (variable energy densities) is expanding at a finite velocity, c, then the distances between the isothermal “rays” will increase and hence create normal rays, the radiation is no longer collimated. It is this mechanism that creates vortices, “rotation” and hence oscillatory waves that lead to standing waves and “massive” particles.

        So …

        If I can further my speculation a bit more, I would say as we have seen so far through the SM, quanta, repetitive ans stable states of energy, will exist for the first fundamental “particle” created by the expansion, Higg’s boson.

        Hence, my question to you, Sir. Could the Higg’s boson = Dirac’s particulate aether?


        How close am I in my interpretation of a “particle”?

        In the standing spherical wave concept, the energy in that sphere (packet) is E = h * c / lambda. where h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed the peak moves in the sphere and lambda is 2r (r is the spacial radius of the sphere).

        It takes the “peak” energy (density?) 720 degrees to make one cycle around the sphere (oscillating 90 degrees at a time from the center to the “surface” (amplitude?) of the sphere and back to the center).

        The spin is the intrinsic rotation of the peak around an axis to complete one cycle (through x, y and z, i.e. 720 degrees). This intrinsic rotation is what gives the “particle’s angular momentum.

        The electric charge is a measure of the effect by the “electric” field created by the peak oscillating between the center of the sphere to the “surface”. The electric field is the gradient of energy created in a grid of all the particles in the universe.

        The mass is the measure of the momentum transferable from one particle to another and is created by oscillatory motion of the peak confined in a spherical space (quantum confinement, quanta space).

        Speculations from my interpretation:

        1) The radius of the sphere for any type of particle is derived by the principle of least action, the resultant effects of all the fields acting on the particle.

        2) The attraction force, quantum gravity, is created by the oscillatory nature of the “wave” within the spherical space. When the peak moves to the surface it creates a negative pressure (tending towards “empty” space in the center) and by the principle of least action must return to the center. Like all other fields, gravity likewise is the summation of these (quanta) negative pressures by all the particles in the universe. hence, the gravity “wells” are greatest where there is a dense coalescing of particles, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.

        3) These oscillations that some have coalesced to “particles” (standing waves) where created by the expansion of the energy, space, and time system. The expansion of the universe (energy and space) could not be done isotropically because of the time factor, i.e. instantaneity is not possible and hence energy expanded in a non-uniform densities. These variations in energy densities patterns grow more and more complex leading to the “coalescing” of space, (formation of “particles”).

        4) The fields and particles have a duality in the sense that all the particles create the fields and each particle effects another through these fields.


        Fields Particles

        Are fields the interaction of particles of the same characteristics (quantum numbers)?

        In reality the universe is a collection of different particles at different densities and arrays. The fundamental being either the Higgs (or similar) or the graviton (or similar). In other words, as the universe cooled down the first array of particles (and hence filed) were (was) created (coalesced), (Higgs, graviton, something else). As the temperature further dropped more type particles were create (coalesced at different quantum numbers), some interacted with the fundamental field and some did not (reasons could be coincidence of Nature and nothing to do about meeting human’s math).

        So, I ask the question, if everything is made of energy at different densities, then what is energy?

        PS; What is energy?

        I would like to quote Narendra Katkar in one of his papers, “The Speed of Light, A Fundamental Retrospection to Prospection”

        “The Universe is a process of Absolute transformation,
        from Cosmic Primal Energy, CPE to Quantum to
        Radiation and back to CPE Vacuum State.
        CPE → QE → RE→ CPE
        Energy is never created neither lost.
        “Everything essentially is Energy”
        What is Energy? …!!! ”

  7. […] 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 cuenta en […]

    • vmguptaphy says:

      Good Afternoon Oaktree,

      I have feeling that you have deliberated a lot on nature and have detailed your thought processes fairly extensively. I am in a similar situation and trying to find if mainstream physics has any use of my thought process that integrates physics as known to me, in a single statement. My comments follow;

      1. Yes we line in 3-D world. These 3-dimensions are defined by space. Energy plays an important role in Universe and contributes two additional dimensions of magnitude and time. This is detailed in my essay
      2. You are right, there is nothing like rest state. Rest state is only relative to observer. ‘Expansion of energy out of a point’ is not part of my thought process. In my thought process;
      a. c the velocity of light is nothing but defining relationship between units for distance and time (natural units interdependent, and c measures to unity in natural units).
      b. Planks constant (h) is another natural unit defining natural unit of matter (or Knergy). The mechanism that creates Vortices confining matter (Knergy) into particles is gravitation.
      c. Stable energy states is due to Konservation – Invariance and indivisibility in integer number representing units of Knergy (Matter) in particle.
      d. Higgs Boson specially with nergy at 120Gev has no special significance in my thought processes. They only represents a quasi stable state of distribution of 2 units of matter (Knergy).
      e. We are in process of forming an opinion on charge. We are looking for possibilities of not taking electronic charge as a natural unit. But if we have to, thought process at fundamental level in Pico-Physics is complete.
      f. Momentum – In PicoPhysics momentum carries the same meaning as in Newtonian mechanics.
      g. In PicoPhysics, the interference and diffraction are phenomenon related to disturbance in space introduced due to the presence of matter (both particle and interfering object – slit etc). They also to an extent represent action at a distance without transfer of energy or matter.
      h. What is Energy? I have struggled with this question. PicoPhysics answers this as – Energy is host reality of conservation. It agrees with everything is energy.

      Thanks and best regards,
      Vijay Gupta

  8. Ulla says:

    Everybody thinks that the Higgs mechanism is a quantum well and a wave? But the vacuum is no wave? It FORMS a wave, but then it is no longer a spin 0, which is about ‘nothing’, a 1D point that should begin oscillating when its surroundings is increased of energy, BUt per def, the point of ‘nothing’ is adiabatic, so … are there other models than the ‘hat’?

    The vacuum is truly holographic and it depends on the observer what is observed?

    Maybe protons also are made of light? 😀

  9. Gloria says:


    could you comment on the issue of , including the corresponding sigma values?

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      It is hard to compare these plots, not least because the bump has been drawn in a different place. In any case my understanding is that the improved sigma has come about (at least partly) because they used a Multivariate analysis method rather than the earlier straight cut-based method. This is analysis done after the event counting that is shown in these plots so you would not expect to see its effect there.

      I have no idea if this is the correct explanation but it is one possibility and without a lot more information about the complex combination of processes involved I dont think there is any reason to cast doubt on the results.

  10. Are we floating on top of a “massive” iceberg, “dark matter”? The visible universe is merely that section of the frequency spectrum which we and our sensors can sense and measure. Maybe the bulk of the matter is “dark” because we cannot “see” it?

    Indeed, energy (all energy, both dark and visible) is the alpha and omega of everything in the universe, everything is energy at different states, oscillations. We know that mass is energy at “trapped” (deterministic) oscillatory motions. We also know that these waves are either open (bosons) or closed (fermions).

    And now, we have strong hints that a “light” Higgs does exist and does exist at a mass very close to the region of the unstable vacuum.

    Wow … what is the first thing that pops in your mind when trying to grasping all this?

    delta-E x delta-T ~ h … Energy – Time uncertainty

    Yes, the time in this relationship is the time at which the state is unchanged, but it also indicates that time (absolute) can never be zero. (or else there will be nothing, no energy, nothing).

    It indicates to me that the Big Bang was a transition point in absolute time, there was a space-time before the “release” of all this energy just as we see and live in this space-time. Maybe an hourglass with a very small neck (smaller than Planck’s scale) is best to describe our universe.

    A cyclic universe does not need to violate the the second law of thermodynamics if entropy is a process that was created by the Big Bang and hence gets resets (the singularity absolves it and resets it to an arbitrary value) in the next cycle.

    So my question is is dark energy and dark matter is the Big Bang reservoir of energy then could this indicate that the gravitational field (graviton) is indeed the fundamental field first to be produced?

  11. New Scientist article gives a concise summarize the situation concerning Higgs interpretation. There are serious problems. So serious that it might be premature to ponder who will be the ones receiving the Nobel prize.

    Two photon production rate is by a factor about 3 too high. No tau pairs have been produced: one would expect their production since the coupling of Higgs is by definition proportional to lepton mass. Also the rates in other channels deviate from the predictions. Only the rates for WW production and associate W+ bbar production by the decays of Higgs producing bbar are correct.

    The failure to observe tau pairs is especially alarming since this is quintessential for being Higgs. Higgs should couple to both leptons and quarks: not only to quarks as data suggest. Standard model Higgs fans can only cross their fingers and pray that statistical fluctuations are in question. Those making bets for SUSY Higgs can certainly find from the infinite stringy landscape some model allowing to fit the data and surviving for a week or two in the data flow.

    The third approach is provided by TGD . Basic predictions are following.

    State would be a pionlike state of scaled up variant of hadron physics with scaling factor 512 for the mass scale. State is pseudoscalar with instanton term couplings to gauge bosons from partially conserved axial vector current hypothesis. Lepton pair production rate is slow since quark pairs define the state and two-weak gauge boson intermediate states define the basic channel for their production. Quarks pairs are produced, also u,c, and d pairs since couplings are not proportional to mass as in the case of Higgs. This is certainly one killer test.

    Also charged partners should exist and should have characteristic decays: another killer test. Decays occur mostly to quark pairs and pairs of weak bosons by instanton coupling.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      These things have been discussed in many places including this blog already. It’s not quite as bad as you make out. The diphoton excess is about 70% too big, not 3 times. The ttheory described in New Scientist is that the stop reduces Higgs producion by a factor of two and increases the diphoton branching ratio by a factor of three to give an overall 1.5 factor increase in the diphoton cross section. Other channels are suppressed by the factor of 2. They dont explain it at much length but if you reread carefully you will see that this is what they mean. This is one of several theories and the problem with it is that ZZ and bb (from Tevatron) are not suppressed as this theory would predict.

      People are over-reacting to the missing tautau. The statistics are so poor that a single event would make a significant difference. WW is more of a concern but ATLAS have not yet given their new results for WW or tautau. There are many fits and theories in circulation but very few are proposing that this is not a Higgs boson. Mostly it is a non-standard Higgs or a standard Higgs with additional physics. Time will tell if there is anything real.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Thanks, so the deficit in last years WW at ATLAS has now turned into a broad excess again. The fluctuations of this channel and very odd. In any case WW is now looking consistent with SM Higgs.

      They only show the new results for low masses. When the results for the full range of masses come out I will add into the combionation tool.

  12. That standard SUSY would save the situation is wishful thinking in the light of the result from LHC. We know on theoretical grounds that new physics must be there. Higgs would be the most primitive proposal for it since it only parametrizes the masses rather than explaining them using some microscopic mechanism. I am personally astonished that during these decades nothing better has emerged.

    One can still hope that the lack of tau pair production is statistical fluctuation but next results will probably kill this hope.

  13. arivero67 says:

    Today the D0+CDF combination for the b bbar channel

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Nice to see the final paper but the main chart itself has been around since well before ICHEP and is already included in the combination applet.

  14. Further work with the model of pion like state as explanation for the new particle leads to a very Higgs-like picture.

    a) The earlier model for the anomalous production of electron-positron pairs in terms of electro-pion condensate generated in the strong non-orgthogonal magnetic and electric fields of colliding nuclei. Colored excitations of electrons predicted by TGD are in question. Evidence for similar anomalies in case of the other charged leptons have been reported.

    b) The model generalizes to a model for production of M_89 pions. Pion field develops a vacuum expectation proportional to E.B (peudo-scalar instanton density always non-vanishing for the preferred extremals of Kaehler action).

    c) The gauged kinetic term of the pion field gives effective active giving essentially same basic predictions as Higgs. Axial anomaly predicts anomalous production of gamma pairs: it gives rise also to the decays of ordinary pion to two gammas.

    This picture conforms qualitatively with the newest ATLAS results (see also the New Scientist article).

    The killer predictions are existence of charged pion-like states, pseudo-scalar nature of the new particle, and different dependence of decay rates to fermion pairs since the decays are now due to gauge boson loops rather than direct couplings to fermions.

    For more details see my blog.

  15. Sorry; there was something wrong with links. I try again.

    This picture conforms qualitatively with the newest ATLAS results (see also the New Scientist article). For more details see my blog.

  16. Leo Vuyk says:

    ZZ decay into 4x Tauons is not found in the LHC and some other neutrino problems..
    Perhaps we need a double amount of ZZ particle decay to be able to create 4x Tauons.
    (according to the Q-FFF model, see: 2,C below)
    In Quantum Function Follows Form theory, (Q-FFF) the Higgs system is interpreted as an energetic linear oscillating but massless Higgs- TWIN particle system, able to create the universe by transforming particle shapes after real mechanical collision.
    In several cases these real shaped particles are supposed to be able to merge with other particles into composite geometrical knots called Quarks including some Leptons (Muons and Tauons).
    Singular particles are proposed for; the Electron, Positron and Neutrinos plus all Photons and Gluons, consequently each created out of one single transformed Higgs.
    As a consequence the recent Large Hadron Collider (LHC) results, showing special values
    between 121-130 GeV for the predicted signal of the massive Standard Model (SM) Higgs,
    should NOT be interpreted as the result of Higgs particle DECAY but as Higgs TWIN energy support for transformation processes of different particle (Z, W, and g) .

    Abbreviated overview of the recent LHC results for Di-Photon, ZZ and WW decay signals.
    For details See: LHC signals between 121-130 GeV interpreted with non Standard Model
    Quantum-FFF theory.
    1: Non SM Transformation of Gluons into Photons: gg→ γγ
    2: The ZZ production by Quark collision and decay into 4x Leptons.
    2,A: ZZ decay simply by falling apart into 2x Electrons arbitrarily coded 2x(coded ORO) and 2x Positrons 2x(coded OLO).
    2,B: ZZ decay into Muons. The Electrons and Positrons released by the ZZ, seem to be
    also able to attract Gluons out of the Quark Gluon plasma and form Muons.
    2,C: ZZ decay into 4xTauons is not possible (according to this Q-FFF model and not observed in the LHC) only by the
    ingredients of the two ZZ, since each Tau particle needs 2x Electrons or 2xPositrons as
    a composite base.
    3: the WW Neutrino PROBLEM: The WW production by Quark collision and decay into LvLv.
    The decay of W+W- into 2x Leptons and 2x neutrinos (LvLv) has also some other
    neutrino problems. (see Matt Strassler: 12-11-2011, Seeking and Studying the Standard
    Model Higgs Particle)
    According to Q-FFF theory this could be solved, because we should not get 2x neutrinos but 4x neutrinos!
    3,A: For W+W- decay into Electron Positron pairs we get not LvLv but LvvLvv!)
    3,B: For W+W- decay into Muon + Muon – pairs we also get LvvLvv

  17. Guest says:

    The higgs field is an aether field ?

    • Guest says:

      Einstein wrote in a 1919 letter to Lorentz:

      “It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities.”


%d bloggers like this: