### Evidence for omega meson of M89 hadron physics from CMS?

Lubos Motl tells that CMS has reported evidence for a bump at 400 GeV decaying to top quark pairs. Local evidence is 3.5 sigma. Look elsewhere effect reduces it to 1.5 sigma. What was searched was new neutral scalar or pseudoscalar Higgs particle predicted by SUSY scenarios. The largest deviation from standard model background was observed for pseudoscalar Higgs.

Lubos wants to interpret this as evidence for CP odd Higgscalled "A" (C even, P odd). The article with title * Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at s ^{1/2} = 13 TeV"* tells that the search is sensitive to the spin of the resonance. I do not however know how well the spin and CP of the decaying resonance candidate are known.

It is assumed that the resonance candidate is produced as two gluons annilate dominantly to top quark pair which couples to the Higgs candidate resonantly and decays dominantly to top quark pair. There are two effects involved. Resonance like contribution and interference with the contribution of the ordinary Higgs for pseudoscalar Higgs. The parity of the pseudoscalar Higgs shows itself in the angular distribution. CP=-1 character in principle shows itself too since it introduces to the amplitude sign -1. The CP transformation of final state consisting of superpositions of RR or LL fermion pairs is induced by (RR,LL) → -(LL,-RR). If inital state consist of two gluons one expects that CP acts trivially.

TGD almost-predicts a scaled variant of hadron physics at LHC. Mersenne prime M_{89} characterizes this hadron physics whereas ordinary hadron physics corresponds to Mersennen primeM_{107}). Since there exists a handful of bumps with masses differing by factor 512 from the masses of ordinary mesons, I have the habit of scaling down the masses of the bumps (usually identified as candidates for SUSY Higgs) reported from LHC. This habit means also killing all desperate attempts of Lubos to interpret them in terms of SUSY Higgses.

And indeed. Now the scaling of 400 GeV gives 781 MeV, which is very precisely the mass 782 GeV of ω meson having C=P=-1 and spin 1. I am terribly sorry, Lubos. I am only a messanger, do not kill me.

Could spin=0 state of this meson behaving like pseudoscalar and explain the finding? By looking the article Production of CP-even and CP-odd Higgs bosons at Muon colliders one gets some idea about the symmetries amplitudes involved also in the recent case.

- If the resonance is scalar or pseudoscalar, the initial state helicities must be opposite. In spin 1 case there is also a contribution proportional to a matrix element of spin 1 rotation matrix corresponding to a rotation transforming to each other the axis defined by the initial and final state cm momenta of gluons and top quarks.

- For pseudovector ω the transformation of the propagator part of the amplitude (there sonance) under P is the sameas for pseudoscalar Higgs (change of sign) so that ω is consistent with A in this respect.

- The coupling of (pseudo)vector particle to ttbar pair is of form LL+RR. For pseudoscalar it is of from LR. The massivation of fermions mixing L and R allows the coupling to the longitudinal zero helicity component of spin 1 particle mimic the coupling to pseudoscalar. For massive fermions the gradient coupling of (pseudo)scalar to fermions is equivalent with ordinary (peudoscalar) scalar coupling.

**Remark:**Note that the longitudinal components of weak bosons are proportional to the gradient of weakly charged part of Higgs.

**Remark:**Higgs mechanism can be argued to be a pseudo solution to the massivation problem, which only reproduces fermion masses but does not predict them (Higgs couplings must be chosen proportional to fermion masses). If fermions get masses by some other genuine massivation mechanism, Higgs couplings proportional to mass follow automatically from gradient coupling. Fermion masses in turn follow in TGD from p-adic thermodynamics.

- For Higgs the decay width is about 10
^{-5}of the mass and one expects that the decay width should be also now of same order of magnitude. The actual decay width of the bump is 5 per cent of the mass, and it is not clear to me how kinematics could cause so large a difference. To me this strongly suggests that strong rather than electroweak interactions are involved as TGD indeed predicts.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.