Sunday, May 08, 2011

ATLAS detects nothing in 110-150 GeV energy range

The rumor about 115 GeV bump found by ATLAS and interpreted as photo-philic Higgs caused much fuss in physics blogs. Now ATLAS has published a note in which the situation is finally settled: there is absolutely nothing more than the standrard model background in the energy regions in the energy range 100-150 GeV.

Lubos gives an official version of this previous report about the invalidity of 115 GeV Higgs but forgets to give link to his first posting in which he reveals that he has all the time predicted the Higgs mass to be 115 GeV and this is the most accurate and robust prediction of supersymmetry! Lubos also told in my blog that superstringers have no problem in increasing by a factor 30 the predicted decay width of Higgs to photon-pair: with this I could not but agree since in an emergency situation a good theoretician is always able to generate few orders of magnitude from his back pocket. I have regarded Lubos as a rather hard wired theorist but this sudden change of deepest convictions suggests just the opposite!

I think that many of his readers have had the suspision that maybe Lubos is after all right about the non-existence of man-made climate change, about the intellectual inferiority of women, about criminal character of all leftists and environmental activists, and so on. Perhaps this episode gives an opportunity to re-estimate the intellectual honesty of Lubos about which he makes so much fuss.

For me ATLAS bump was not so well-come event for me and as a proponent of a new hadron physics I would have been much happier just with following bumps (see the previous posting).

  1. The 145 GeV bump having interpretation as charged pion of M89(=289-1) physics. Note that the neutral pion of this physics is just at the upper end of the region scanned by ATLAS and found to be empty of di-photons.
  2. The 325 GeV bump reported by D0 suggesting interpretation in terms of charged kaon of this physics.
  3. The 324.8 GeV and 325 GeV CDF bumps having possibly interpretation in terms of decays of short and long lived neutral kaons of new hadron physics.

The problem is that the mass scale of CP and maybe also CPT breaking would be enormous as compared to that in ordinary kaon-antikaon system system which is is of order 10-6 eV and in zero energy ontology could have an interpretation in terms of secondary p-adic mass scale assignable to the space-timeh sheets of ordinary hadrons characterized by M107. On the other hand, it is easier to imagine such a gigantic breaking if the 4 GeV top-antitop mass splitting reported by D0 is real since it means enormous CPT breaking with size scale of electromagnetic corrections.

Perhaps it is not an accident that the mass splitting of .2 GeV for M89 neutral kaon would rather accurately correspond to the p-adic mass scale assignable to the space-time sheet of hadrons characterized by M107. In TGD space-time hadrons contain hadrons inside them and quarks contain quarks inside them. Could the topological condensation of M89 hadronic space-time sheets at M107 hadronic space-time sheets be responsible for the mass splitting as splittings caused by interactions with environment rather than as radiative corrections as in the case of kaon and B meson? If so, the large CP breaking could be long length scale phenomenon rather than short distance phenomenon although the scale of breaking would suggest just the opposite.

A hint about the underlying short and long distance mechanisms of CP breaking comes from the following observation.

  1. Sea quarks with masses in MeV range and also the valence quarks (u and d) which could also appear inp-adic length scales corresponding to masses of order 100 MeV, have mass smaller than hadron mass and therefore longer Compton length. Thus one encounters a rather strange situation possible only in the quantal world: part can be larger than whole!

    This can be however understood. The space-time sheets of quarks lighter than hadron can be assigned to the color magnetic body of the hadron. This leads to a model for the anomalously large charge radius of proton implied by the measured value of the Lamb shift of muonic atom (see this).

  2. Top quark has mass much larger than hadron size and has Compton length smaller than hadron size and thus respects our everyday thinking about the relation between parts and wholes.
This raises questions:
  1. Could it be that quarks which size smaller than hadron size suffering topological condensation on hadrons experience large CP and CPT breaking with the scale of mass splittings characterized by the p-adic mass scale of the hadron?
  2. If the quark's Compton size is larger than that of hadron quark suffers topological condensation on the field body of hadron: in the case of kaon this would predict correct order of magnitude for the mass splitting which is near the lower bound. The standard description in terms of short distance radiative corrections coming from quark loops with large quark masses should be consistent with this description.
  3. Neutral B-meson finds itself in a schizophrenic situation: b quark is smaller that and s quark larger than hadron! Hence b quark should condense at the hadronic space-time sheet and d quark at the field body of hadron. B meson has its feet at different space-times! Note however that the valence quarks are connected by color flux tube so that poor B does not split to two pieces. Could this allow also to understand why the CP breaking in B-Bbar system is 50 times larger than predicted by the standard model but not so gigantic that the mass splitting for top quark?

Zero energy ontology leads to a TGD based modification of entropic gravity suggesting also a more concrete view abot the breaking of discrete symmetries.

  1. Gravitons are still there but in thermal equilibrium at flux tubes along which their travel and also photons are in similar thermal equilibrium so all interactions are entropic in TGD sense as the vision about quantum theory as a square root of thermodynamics suggests.
  2. Entropic gravity and electromagnetism would provide a phenomenological view about what happens and would also suggests a general view about how discrete symmetries break down. Charged matter and antimatter could obey different arrow of geometric time by the requirement of thermal stability (temperatures are proportional to the normal component of electric field have opposite sign for charged particle and antiparticle).
  3. The arrow of geometric time is a property of zero energy states rather than dynamics and realized as a property of M-matrix for which states are localized with respect to various quantum numbers (in particular particle- and fermion numbers) at the second end of the causal diamond defining the counterpart of initial state).
For details see the article TGD inspired vision about entropic gravitation.


At 11:37 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

The leak must have been done by someone that wished very hard to promote a 115 GeV supersymmetric Higgs, even to the grade of distorting facts?

Or, as a commenter on Tommasos blog says, something is wrong with the machine, so systematical errors are born?

Maybe the impact from future :)

Statistical errors? As Tommaso say, the bump has been a hole. Is that probable? The oscillational points?

Lubos is destroying himself. Is there any honesty in deleting comments that tries to correct him? Points to errors in his reasoning? No.

Everybody recognize his skewed reasoning, but still he would be honest intellectually? You are kidding?

At 7:30 AM, Anonymous Matti Pitkanen said...

Experimentalists are fighting for Nobels and the safest strategy to get the Nobel is to believe on dominating theory and try to observe what it predicts. As Lubos told, 115 GeV Higgs is the most robust and precise prediction of supersymmetry!

To get the Nobel must be the first one, and this
creates the tendency to over-count the number of sigmas. We are just humans.

Of course Lubos is inhonest. This is my whole point. Maybe irony is the style that I must still exercise;-).

It is time to demonstrate explicitly his inhonesty by those who understand. Otherwise some people could take him as prophet and start to kill leftists and environmentalists and show women their proper place in society. Lubos bases all his arguments on the illusion of authority: he is a genius able to see the truth directly. This is inhonest. In the worst situations he has had diametrically opposite opinions in the same posting.

At 7:31 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...


Are you sure the issue is not just one of our stance to the physical facts of science... In particular Lubos links to this historic and interesting article today: Of which it is clear enough and I think you should read. I just found it but it does touch upon things I posted and you commented upon. Mainly, "science abhors a singularity" of which I am immersed but make different conclusions.

On this high level of abstraction I know there is something to be said for Pitkanen's take on the prime such as 89. His post today does contain similar ideas to where we find some sort of higher balance in nature - I am not a fan of inflation theory, an interlude to much more fundamental physics at best.

So, Matti, can these sorts of wormholes link between a possible multiverse?

The PeSla

At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Pesla,

one must be careful when talking about mutiverse. Does one mean qantum superposition of universes- space-time surfaces in TGD framework? Or space-time containing regions with different values of fundamental coupling constants as in landscape scenarios.

Or staying in TGD framework: could one call many-sheeted space-time with sheets representing different classical universes multiverse? Wormholes indeed connect these space-time sheets. I do not want to talk about multiverse here and want to assign the term only to the quantum superposition of space-time surfaces to avoid confusion.

At 5:54 PM, Blogger janne said...

If particle physics was run like climate science, Lubos or someone else would have received the Higgs Nobel a long time ago already, don't you think?

At 9:10 PM, Anonymous Matti Pitkanen said...

To Janne:

In climate science I am an outsider. Climate is an extremely complex phenomenon and modeling the theory building proceeds as guesswork and requires huge amounts of empirical data.

We have seen how also experimental particle physics proceeds by trial and error and bump after another turns out to be a fluctuation. In theoretical particle physics the last thirty years have been an Odysseia: most of the cherished ideas seem to be badly wrong and Superstring theory and M-theory have been dead for long time.

For this reason I do not want to criminalize either climate scientists, experimentalists or theorists. Most of them are doing their best. There are of course hegemony builders who do a lot of damage and can halt the development of entire field.

Lubos would have been an excellent political populist: perhaps it is after all better for us that he remains just a blogger!;-)

At 3:48 AM, Blogger janne said...

Right, better not give any bright ideas to these guys.


Post a Comment

<< Home