Thursday, March 21, 2013

CERN’s Higgs announcement, caveats forever

{Note (added on April 2, 2015, months before the LHC run II):

There should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, see .

This vacuum boson's mass should be:

{Vacuum energy (about 246 Gev) divided by 2} + {a push over energy (vacuum fluctuation, about 2.46 Gev)}
= 123 + 2.46 = 125.46 Gev.

The above calculation has only one parameter: the vacuum energy. As a vacuum boson, its key feature is having a zero (0) spin.

Three years after the discovery of this new 125.4 Gev boson, the Higgs mechanism is not verified (see article form Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, totally nonsense, and of course there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.
End note.}

Three months after the end of the LHC run 1 and nine months after the last year July announcement of the discovery of a new boson, the Moriond conference was expect to confirm the identity of this new particle. Now, the Moriond conference came and went. The following is the current situation.

a. For the decaying to two-photon, the CMS and Atlas  data sets are in fact disproving each other.
b. With the CMS decaying to two-photon data, it is not enough to sustain the discovery claim it made last July.
c. There is discrepancy in Atlas data, being have two mass peaks for the new particle.

Traditionally, CMS should retract its discovery claim in terms of its new two-photon data. However, the existence of this new boson is strongly supported with Atlas data. Thus, CERN had a news release on March 14, 2013 with the title “New results indicate that particle discovered at CERN is a Higgs boson ( )”.  The term “indicate” is much weaker than “confirm”, and the announcement is filled with caveats. The following is an abridged announcement.

“Having analyzed two and a half times more data than was available for the discovery announcement in July, they find that the new particle is looking more and more like a Higgs boson, the particle linked to the mechanism that gives mass to elementary particles. It remains an open question, however, whether this is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, or possibly the lightest of several bosons predicted in some theories that go beyond the Standard Model. Finding the answer to this question will take time.

To determine if this is the Standard Model Higgs boson, the collaborations have, for example, to measure precisely the rate at which the boson decays into other particles and compare the results to the predictions. ... To characterize all of the decay modes will require much more data from the LHC.”

These caveats simply say that CERN does not truly know what the exact identity of this particle is. Thus, many physicists disagree with CERN.

In the article “Higgs: more of the same (19 March 2013,  )”, it says, “To say that the Higgs is standard-model-like is an understatement.  This bastard screams and spits standard model.  After the Moriond updates the standard model gives an absolutely perfect fit to the combined data (previously it was disfavored at 80% confidence level, mostly due to the late diphoton excess).  Not even a single cliffhanger to makes us wait for the next episode.....  If there's anything non-standard about the Higgs couplings to matter it is hiding very well and will be tricky to uncover at the LHC, even after the energy upgrade.”

In the article “Review of the Higgs-to-2-Photon Data ( )”, it says, “So as far as the Higgs particle’s decays to two photons, we’ve gotten as much (or almost as much) information as we’re going to get for the moment; and we have no choice but to accept that the current situation is ambiguous and to wait for more data in 2015. Of course the Standard Model may break down sooner than 2015, for some other reason that the experimenters have yet to uncover in the 2011-2012 data. But the two-photon measurement won’t be the one to crack the armor of this amazing set of equations.  (For those who got all excited last July;  you were warned that the uncertainties were very large and the excess might well be ephemeral.)”

This is the fairest statement among all physics blogs in reflecting the true situation. Most of others simply combine the two disjoint data sets (almost disproving each other) to get a happy “1”, perfect in agreement with the Standard Model.

In the article “From “Higgs-like Particle” to “Standard Model-like Higgs ( )”, it says, “It is therefore natural to call this a Standard Model-like Higgs particle, shifting the “-like” over a step.  That wording emphasizes that although confidence is very high that this is a Higgs particle, we do not have confidence that it is a Standard Model Higgs, even though it resembles one.  This is for two reasons.
First, with the data currently available, the measurements are not precise enough to rule out deviations from a Standard Model … .
Second, many interesting speculative theories, despite being dramatically different from the Standard Model, nevertheless predict nature will exhibit a Standard Model-like Higgs particle — one that may be distinguishable from a true Standard Model Higgs only after the LHC has gathered much more data.”

The acknowledgement of the possibility that an-other theory could be the true cause of this new particle is a very important advancement.

There are two types of physics, the nature physics (N-physics) and the human physics (H-physics). Some H-physics become N-physics after a thorough testing and verification. By knowing the two physics, the validity of a theoretical model can be determined by checking its scope, how many N-physics it encompasses.
There are some known N-physics.
1. The expansion of the universe is accelerating.
2. The visible mass of the universe is not enough to describe the structure of the universe.
3. The proton’s half-life is longer than the life of this universe.
4. Neutrino has some rest masses.
5. many, many more.

As the SM (Standard Model) failed on addressing the above N-physics, its correctness is limited to a small scope regardless of any additional data. While this verdict is already given, today’s issue is whether one part of the SM is correct or not.  

SM is a hodgepodge of phenomena (test data). It consists of three parts.
i. A quark and lepton universe.
ii. Some quantum parameters, such as Cabibbo - Weinberg angles (wholly based on test data) as free parameters.
iii. A theoretical speculation --- the Higgs mechanism.

There is no question for the first two parts of SM as they are derived wholly from the data. Yet, is its only theoretical speculation (the Higgs mechanism) correct? In addition to the direct data confirmation, we have better ways to answer this question.

A. Is its extension correct?  SUSY  is an extension of the Higgs, and Joe Lykken (Fermilab) is now  claiming that  there is “No SUSY, No Naturalness Problem, ). When its extension is wrong, the chance for it itself to stay valid is greatly reduced.  Yet, no SUSY (with s-particles) is the direct consequence of the Prequark Chromodynamics ( ). The supersymmetry in Prequark Chromodynamics is in a much higher level, without s-particle of any kind.

B. There is a direct replacement of the Higgs mechanism, the Prequark field which has a much bigger scope, encompassing all N-physics and beyond.
      1. It reproduces the quark and lepton universe ( )
      2. It can calculate the Cabibbo - Weinberg angles theoretically ( ). We can always come up an equation to produce any given number, and it is called numerology. But, if the three numbers (Cabibbo - Weinberg angles and the electron fine structure constant) are derived from a single “physics” concept of a theory, this again is a supremely powerful material fact.
       3. Today (March 21, 2013), NASA announced the new CMB [Cosmic Microwave Background] results from the Planck satellite (, and it rules out a fourth neutrino. SM cannot provide a theoretical base for setting the numbers of generations in the quark and lepton universe. But, in Prequark Chromodynamics (PC), the number of generation must be exactly 3 ( ).
       4. The quantum/determinism dilemma is a real issue in the N-physics. This issue is easily resolved in PC ( ).  
       5. That “the expansion of the universe is accelerating" is also a direct consequence of the PC ( ), predicted 20 years before the observation and confirmation.

The list above is all material facts which cannot be changed by any additional data. Thus, CERN’s announcement must carry caveats forever, or it must retract its statements sooner or later. But I agree to allow more data to be the jury.

No comments:

Post a Comment