There are no big surprises. Higgs is now excluded above 141 GeV. Second figure in Tommaso's blog shows the observed and predicted distribution of so called local p-value as a function of Higgs boson mass. Assuming that Higgs exists, the predicted local p-value has enormous downwards peak above 140 GeV. The observed distribution has also small downwards peak at 140 GeV here but it is not clear to me whether this really signals about the presence of a neutral particle: in TGD Universe it would be neutral M89 pion with mass of 139 GeV whereas charged M89 pions would have mass 144 GeV.
Here I am angry to myself because of my sloppiness: my first MATLAB estimate for M89 mass performed when CDF anomaly came was based on the approximation there is no electromagnetic splitting and I scaled the mass of charged pions and got 144 GeV. I realized my error only about month or two ago. In any case, the prediction is that there should be charged companions of neutral M89 pion at 144 GeV besides 139 GeV neutral M89 pion.
Second downwards peak in p-value distribution is at 120 GeV. My proposal is that it corresponds to M89 spion (see this). This requires some explanation. The basic assumption is that squarks and quarks have same p-adic mass scales and perhaps even identical masses and shadronization via the exchange of almost massless gluinos takes place much faster than the selectro-weak decays of squarks to quarks and electro-weak gauginos. This prevent the events with missing energy (lightest SUSY particle) predicted by standard SUSY but not observed. The missing missing energy has already led to models based on R-parity breaking requiring the non-conservation of either lepton number or baryon number. I have discussed shadronization here and will not go to further details.
A considerable mixing between pion and spion due to the large value of color coupling strength at low energies takes place and makes mass squared matrix non-diagonal. It must be diagonalized and in the case of ordinary light hadrons second mass squared eigen value is negative meaning tachyonicity. The pragmatic conclusion, which might horrify a colleague appreciating aesthetical values (I am ready to discuss about this;-)), is that the tachyonic state is absent from the spectrum and SUSY would effectively disappear for light hadrons. In the case of charmonium states mixing is weaker since αs is weaker and both states would be non-tachyonic. The mysterious X and Y bosons would be in good approximation scharmonium states (see this).
I agree with the Jester who compares the situation to that in formed Soviet Union when secretary general has not appeared in publicity for a long time and working class and lower party officials were asking whether he is sick, unconscious, dead, and if dead how long he has been dead. My guess is that Higgs is not there and the evil particle physics hegemony might already know it but do not inform ordinary folks;-).
M89 hadron physics has survived. One of the really dramatic signatures of M89 would be a production of jets coming in multiples of three due to the decay of M89 quarks to quark and quark pair. In the case of M89 proton this would yield at least nine jets (see this). The production of M89 proton pair would produce at least 18 jets: something so sensational tha it would probably revive the speculations about mini black-holes at LHC!
Nanopoulos et al (see the posting of Lubos) have taken the ultrahigh jet multiplicities seriously and proposed an explanation in terms of pair production of gluinos: the problem of model is of course the missing missing energy. 8 would be the lower bound for the jet number whereas the decay of M89 proton predicts at least 9 jets. Lubos indeed speaks of nona-jets. The estimate for gluino mass by Nanopoulos et al is 518 GeV. By direct scaling the mass of M89 proton is 489 GeV.
I am quite too much a theoretician with head in the clouds. Therefore I have not considered the practical implications of discovering a scaled up copy of hadron physics instead of Higgs at LHC. The recent competing two big projects for the next collider are CLIC (compact linear collider) and ILC (International Linear Collider).
- The assumption motivating these projects is that Higgs (and possibly also SUSY) will be found at LHC. These colliders would allow to perform high precision measurements related to Higgs (and SUSY). For this reason one uses electron-positron collisions and the highest energy achieved in CLIC (ILC) would be 3 TeV (1 TeV) s compared to 14 TeV to be achieved at LHC. Electrons would lose their energy via brehmstrahlung if collider were circular so that linear collider is the only possible option. The mass of M89 proton is predicted to be around .5 TeV. This does not exclude the study of M89 hadron physics at these colliders: for instance, the annihilation to photon or Z0 followed by the decay to quark pair of M89 hadron physics hadronizing to M89 hadrons is possible.
- I am of course not a professional, but it seems to me that a better choice for the next collider would be a scaled up variant of LHC with a higher collision energy for protons. This would mean starting from scratch. Sorry! I swear that I did my best to tell! I began to talk about M89 hadron physics already 15 years ago but no-one wanted to listen;-)!
By adding to the soup the super-luminal neutrinos, I can say that my life as an eternally un-employed academic pariah has changed to a captivating adventure! It is wonderful to witness the encounter of theory and reality although theory is usually the one which does not survive the collision.
3 comments:
I can't wait to read the Nanopoulos et al paper, I'm waiting to find a working printer. I find that reading papers printed out is far better than reading PDFs on the screen because the radiation from electrical devices is so erratic it interferes with the reading, and printed material does not suffer this problem. If I am successful in proving my theory nearly all forms of wireless communication will be banned and people will gasp in horror about how unwitting we have been as a society up until the point this revelation becomes more widely known.
Good theories are flexible. Those which have a rigid form and which can not change that form without collapsing really have too little vitality. But if a theory is solid, then it can be cast in diverse forms, it resists all attacks, and its essential meaning remains unaffected. That's what I discussed at the last Congress of Physics.
Good theories can respond to all objections. Specious arguments have no effect on them, and they also triumph over all serious objections. However, in triumphing they may be transformed.
The objections to them, therefore, far from annihilating them, actually serve them, since they allow such theories to develop all the virtues which were latent in them. The theory of Lorentz is one such, and that is the only excuse which I will invoke.
It is not, therefore, for that for which I will beg the pardon of the reader, but rather for having for so long presented so few novel ideas.
Poincare year 1900.
http://www.physicsinsights.org/poincare-1900.pdf
This is true. On the other hand, good physical theory must make some key predictions: finite signal velocity was the key prediction of relativities for instance. Quantum theory makes also very "crazy" predictions which are correct. Therefore mathematical genericity is not a signature of good physical theory.
Good theory allows a formulation in terms of general principles and the mathematical formalisms used can vary. The general principles are lacking from both string models and inflation theory. The latter everything relies on Higgs potential with extremely weird form and predictions are extremely sensitive to its shape.
Post a Comment