Friday, October 14, 2011

Latest data about Higgs searches and M89 hadron physics

Lubos told about the latest information concerning Higgs search. It is not clear how much these data reflect actual situation. Certainly the mass values must correspond to observed bumps. The statistical significances are expected statistical significances, not based on real data. Hence a special caution is required. At 4.5/fb of data one has following bumps together with their expected statistical significance:
  • 119 GeV: 3 sigma
  • 144 Gev: 6 sigma(!)
  • 240 GeV: 4.5 sigma
  • 500 GeV: 4 sigma
It is interesting to try to interpret these numbers in TGD framework.

The interpretation of 144 GeV bump

Consider first the 144 GeV state 6 sigma expected significance, which is usually regarded as a criterion for discovery. Of course this is only expected statistical significance, which cannot be taken seriously.

  1. 144 GeV is exactly the predicted mass of the pion of M89 hadron physics which was first observed by CDF and then decided to be a statistical fluctuation. I found myself rather alone while defending the interpretation as M89 pion in viXra log and trying to warn that one should not throw baby with the bath water.
  2. From an earlier posting of Lubos one learns that 244 GeV state must be CP odd -just like neutral pion- and should correspond to A0 Higgs of SUSY. Probably this conclusion as well as the claimed CP even property of 119 GeV state follow both from the assumption that these states correspond to SUSY Higgses so that one must not take them seriously.
  3. The next step before TGD will be accepted is to discover that this state cannot be Higgs of any kind.

X and Y mesons as meson like bound states or color excitations of quarks or of squarks?

Could the other bumps correspond to the pseudoscalar mesons of M89 hadron physics? For only a week ago I would have answered 'Definitely not'! Situation however changed completely as I realized that the weird X and Y mesons which are charmonium like states could be interpreted as dark scharmonia consisting c squark and cbar squark. Another option is that X and Y type mesons correspond to dark mesons formed from color excitations of quarks in representions 6bar of 15. The structures of the two models are essentially identical and it is not yet possible to distinguish between them. See the blog postings

Do X and Y mesons provide evidence for color excited quarks or squarks?


Does shadronization explain the failure to discover SUSY?

and also the article

Do X and Y mesons provide evidence for color excited quarks or squarks?.

Dark squark option led to a beautiful model explaining why light mesons do not seem to have smesonic companions and to an explanation why squarks and gluinos have not been detected at LHC nor before. The reason is simply that shadronization takes place before the decays of squarks to quark and selectro-weak gauge boson. Shadrons in turn decay to hadrons by gluino exchange.

Could the claimed bumps explained by assuming that also M89 quarks have either color excitations or super partners with the same mass scale and the same mechanism is at work for M89 mesons as for ordinary mesons. The same question can be made for the option based on color excitations of quarks in 6bar or 15.

Possible identification of bumps

Consider now the possible identification of the remaining Higgs candidates concentrating for definiteness to the squark option. In the recent case the decay widths of intermediate gauge bosons do not pose any constraints so that there is no need to assume darkM89 squarks.

  1. In the earlier framework there was no identification for meson like states below 144 GeV. The discovery of this week was however that squarks could have the same p-adic mass scale as quarks and that one has besides mesons also smesons consisting of squark pair as a consequence. Every meson would be accompanied by a smeson. Gluino exchange however mixes mesons and smesons so that mass eigenstates are mixtures of these stgates. At low energies however the very large non-diagonal element of mass squared matrix can make second mass eigenstate tachyonic. This must happen for mesons consisting of light quarks. This of course for the M107 hadron physics familiar to us.

  2. Does same happen in M89 hadron physics? Or is the non-diagonal element of mass squared matric so small that both states remain in the spectrum? Could 119 GeV state and 144 GeV state correspond to the mass eigenstates of supersymmetric M89 hadron physics? If this is the case one could understand also this state.

  3. What about 240 GeV state? The proposal has been that selectron corresponds to M89. This would give it the mass 262.14 GeV by direct scaling; m(selectron)= 2(127-89)/2m(electron). This is somewhat larger than 240 GeV.

    Could this state correspond to spartner of the ρ89 consisting of M89 squarks. There is already earlier evidence for bumps at 325 GeV interpreted in terms of ρ and ω. The mass squared difference should be same for pionic mass eigenstates and ρ like mass eigenstates. This would predict that the mass of the second ρ like eigenstate is 259 GeV, which is not too far from 240 GeV.

    Addition: I just found Tommaso Dorigo's newest posting The Plot Of The Week - The 327 GeV ZZ Anomaly, which in TGD framework could be interpreted in terms of decays of the neutral member of ρ89 isospin triplet or ω89, which is isospin singlet. A small splitting in mass found earlier is expected unless this decay corresponds to ω89. Also WZ anomaly is predicted.

  4. What about the interpretation of 500 GeV state? The η meson of M107 hadron physics has mass 957.66 MeV. The scaling by 512 gives 490.3 GeV- not too far from 500 GeV!

The alternative option replaces squarks with their color excitations. The arguments are identical in this case. Many other pseudoscalar mesons states are predicted if either of these options is correct. In the case of squark option one could say that also SUSY in TGD sense has been discovered and has been discovered in ordinary hadron physics for 8 years ago! SUSY would not reveal itself via the usual signatures since shadronization would be faster process than the decay of squarks via emission of selectro-weak bosons.

All this looks too good to be true. I do not know how the expected significances are estimated and how precisely the mass values correspond to experimental data. In any case, if these states turn out to be pseudoscalars, one can say that this is a triump for TGD. Combining this with the neutrino super-luminality which can be explained easily in terms of su

For details and background see the article Do X and Y mesons provide evidence for color excited quarks or squarks? and the chapter New particle physics predicted by TGD of "Dark Matter Hierarchy and p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis".


At 9:39 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...


I can see this post directly now. Today I posted some general things of which you may find of interest.

So, not quite sure I have grasped how you derive some things- what of this sort of number:

2^(137-89) ?

The PeSla

At 8:13 PM, Anonymous said...

Dear Pesla,

2^((127-89)/2) (not 2^((137-89/2))!) is the ratio of the p-adic mass scales (proportional to square root of prime from p-adic mass calculations and Uncertainty Principle) associated to the p-adic length scales defined by Mersenne primes M_127 and M_89 (M_n= 2^n-1) which represent primes maximally near to a power of 2 and are favored in TGD framework.

There is strong empirical support for this as well as mathematical arguments.

This posting is a tamed version of the first posting, which I removed (apologies to Ulla for a lost comment). In hurry and still in rather confused state of mind after the spam attack at the morning and "Access denied" censorship in Science2.0 I had misunderstood the *expected* statistical significances as real statistical significances.

I was of course extremely enthusiastic: these numbers would had more or less meant experimental proof of M_89 hadron physics! The bumps must be however real unless Lubos has cooked up all of them! We must just wait but I am very very optimistic.

In particular I must emphasize that both the interpretation in terms of squarks and colored excitations of quarks of M_89 hadron physics is possible without further physical input.

The squark option would be how very attractive since it would explain why SUSY in standard sense was not observed and also mean that SUSY in TGD sense has been observed for both ordinary and M_89 hadron physics.

At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Sorry for the off-topic comment but when you do return to consciousness research I think you should research the Kappa Opioid receptor and its role in TGD context.


At 1:18 AM, Anonymous said...

Thank you for a proposal. I however that this kind of questions can be considered 50 years after the acceptance of TGD inspired theory of consciousness;-).
At that time I have spent a long time in the heaven or hell of theoreticians.


Post a Comment

<< Home