- According to Lubos, CMS has evidence for Higgs at 124 GeV and ATLAS at 126 GeV. From the posting of Tommaso providing a very useful glossary for those willing to understand the Tuesday seminar Lubos concludes that CMS will announce evidence for Higgs at 124.6 GeV. There is still a discrepancy in the mass values but Lubos takes the average of masses and produces also some sigma talk to convince himself that Higgs has been found.
- What might have been found could be evidence that the spectrum of invariant mass for gamma pairs has a bump around 124.6 GeV in CMS and 126 GeV at ATLAS. The pairs would have been selected in such a manner that they are consistent with production mechanisms for Higgs bosons mentioned also by Tommaso. The decays of Higgs could produce gamma pairs via annihilation to a virtual W/Z/fermion pair annihilating to gamma pair. A jet pair associated with bbar is second and very characteristic signature of light Higgs decay (decays to ttbar are kinematically forbidden and decays to lighter quark pairs much slower).
- Tommaso listed the dominant production mechanisms for Higgs. Vector boson fusion involves emission of W or Z boson by protonic quarks (quarks do not scatter first) followed by the fusion of the bosons to Higgs: the signature is two jets assignable to the protonic quarks. In gluon fusion parton in both protons emits gluon and gluons annihilate to ttbar pair annihilating to Higgs: there are no quark jets now since gluons are massless. In associated production the simplest situation involves the scattering of quarks belonging to protons by gluon exchange followed by the emission of W of Z boson emitting the Higgs. Direct emission of Higgs by a protonic quark is a slow process since the probability that proton could contain t-quark as a sea quark is very small.
Suppose that some evidence for a bump around 125 GeV in the invariant mass of gamma pair and/or jet pair assignable to bbar pair is reported in next Tuesday. Should I fall into despair and admit that whole TGD is crap as my wiser colleagues have patiently tried to tell me all these years? Not at all!
- Evidence for gamma pairs would tell us that there might be a neutral particle with these decay signatures. Only this. TGD "almost-predicts" what I call M89 hadron physics. Indications for this new branch of physics have been accumulating during this year. Neutral M89 pion would have mass around 139 GeV and there has been a lot of n-sigma talk about indications for a neutral particle around this mass but now totally forgotten (the memory span of bloggers is fantastically short!). Charged π89 would have mass around 144 GeV and might have something to do with CDF anomaly.
- SUSY in TGD sense would allow quarks and squarks to have the same p-adic mass scale and even mass. This would predict both pion and spion which would smix with each other by gluino exchange meaning that mass squared matrix has non-diagonal component. The mass squared eigenstates would have different masses. The possibly existing mostly spion-like state at 125 GeV could correspond to the second eigen state (maybe some of us remembers that there was something around 119 GeV too).
- The mixtures of M89 pion and spion would decay to gamma pair just like ordinary pion does. Second decay mechanism would be the decay to uubar pair or ddbar pair producing two jets. For Higgs boson the outcome is two jets from bbar pair. This is a very strong signature distinguishing between TGD and standard model. If jet pairs formed from bbar pair are found around 125 GeV invariant mass, I must be able to invent a good explanation.
- All production mechanisms involve four vertices some of which are weak and some strong. Vector boson fusion and gluon fusion could serve as production mechanisms also now. W/Z/gluon from both quarks of protons ( no gluon exchange between quarks) would annihilate to a quark/squark pair fusing to π89/its spartner. Gluon fusion is the fastest mechanism (4 strong vertices). Associated production does not make sense now. It is however possible that either of the scattered quarks (gluon exchange) emits Z boson decaying to quark/squark pair fusing to π89/its spartner. 2 strong and 2 weak vertices are involved as also in vector boson fusion. Quarks of protons scatter by gluon exchange and either of the scattered quarks emits gluon decaying to quark/squark pair. Second quark emits gluon and the resulting quark pair fuses to π89/its spartner: gluon emission is necessary in order to obtain color singlet. 5 strong vertices are involved where as gluon fusion involves only 4 strong vertices.
How could one distinguish between Higgs hypothesis M89 hadron physics hypothesis?
- I mentioned already the jet pair from bbar pair in the case of Higgs and jet pairs from uubar or ddbar in the case of M89 hadron physics. Already now data about bbar jets might exist.
- As discussed in viXra blog, Higgs in the range 130-150 GeV would give a strong virtual ZZ signal producing four-lepton state. The decays of M89 pion proceed mostly as strong decays so that ZZ states could be too rare to serve as a signal. It is however quite possible that ZZ and also WW signal is there just like gamma pair signal: the production mechanism for these signals would be very similar. Some rumors tell that ZZ signal has not been observed. Other rumors tell that there are some events for the rumored 125 might-be-Higgs. The rumored absence of ZZ and WW signals above 130 GeV would not favor Higgsy interpretation for 144 GeV bump (if it really exists) but supports the interpretation as M89 pion.
- The Higgs of standard model has only neutral component whereas pion and spion would have also charged components. One could search for charged partners of the mixtures of pion and spion. The decay signature analogous to gamma pair would be Wγ pair with the invariant mass of charged spion: probably the mass of charged spion would be slightly higher than that of neutral spion: few GeV is the scale of splitting from obtained from the mass splitting of ordinary pion by multiplying with the p-adic scale factor 512. Second decay would be to udbar pair or dubar pair producing two jets.
- The fastest production mechanism for charged spions would necessarily involve W boson emission. The scattered quarks (gluon exchange) of colliding protons emits W annihilating to a quark/squark pair fusing to form a charged pion/spion (2 strong and 2 weak vertices). The analog of vector boson fusion would involve 4 weak vertices and be slower.
If ATLAS and CMS have concentrated their efforts solely in searching for the neutral Higgs, they will not have detected anything with these signatures. The belief on neutral Higgs means also that bbar jet pairs are sought for so that the uubar and ddbar jets would have been missed. One might hope that these groups are forced to look for signatures of charged Higgs like particles in not too remote future. In any case the important point is that ATLAS and CMS can only tell about the existence of a signal. Whether it is Higgs or something else remains open at this moment.
Unfortunately, too many bloggers have decided that if something is there, it must be Higgs. Also many theorists - for instance string theorist Gordon Kane have rushed to "predict" Higgs with mass that it should have on basis of rumors. Postdiction is not prediction but with a lot of good luck it might guarantee visit to Stockholm.
32 comments:
'
Higgs hasn't been found and won't EVER be found.
The universe didn't begin when a single particle exploded. The universe is eternal and cyclical.
This expensive focus on reductionism in the realm of mythematics hasn't yielded any practical and worthwhile results.
One of the most significant problems with academic physics is the wasted obsession with the "probability locations or tendencies" of so-called subatomic "particles" in their theoretical scheme of things. Why are these fools wasting their time and ours on theories and research which do absolutely nothing for making our world any better? The research required to produce free energy technologies need look no further than the material world of Atoms that we live in. The immaterial virtual particles, virtual photons, mass less particles, anti-particles, so-called symmetries, reflections, rotations and abstract mathematical spaces do not exist in the real Universe we live in and are only theories founded on observations of the extremely unnatural conditions created in these megalithic academic accelerators.
"Atom "smashers" blasted a whole zoo of supposedly "fundamental" particles out of the atom. Yet none of these could fundamentally be particles. Supposedly, an electron and a positron are both made of some combination of fundamental particles. Yet an electron and positron can be combined to produce two gamma rays (the so-called "annihilation" reaction). Conversely, two gamma rays can be combined to produce an electron and positron ("pair production"). But by definition, a truly fundamental particle cannot change into something else. Obviously, there is a suggestion of something fundamental here, but it is neither radiation nor particles.
Everything in the Universe is spiraling and the math of this spiraling process is not included in the mathematical meddling of the common academic physicist's linear, one-sided, big bang view of initial impulse.
Regards.
My own almost-conviction (no real beliefs in this profession) is that Higgs is not needed and is therefore not there. The notion of elementary particle I taken seriously: it is to me example about same building-blockness as prime number is in number theory. This notion of elementary particle is of course very far from the concrete atom of Democritos.
In your example about gamma pair and electron positron pair elementary particle*s* transform to elementary particle*s*: elementary particles like electron can quite well be stable.
The formally thinking physicists are obsessed with searching for defined particles. But it's evident, we are facing the dual version of power spectrum of CMBR here, not the Higgs boson. The fact, this spectrum exhibits some maxims doesn't mean, it's represented with some distinct particles (gravitons).
Matti:
Before going any further:
What are your thoughts on the Copenhagen interpretation? Quantum mechanics in general?
I find quantum mechanics to be a fortress built on quicksand. That's what happens when one interprets pheomenona to lack causality. As per Heisenberg, "The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory."
Regards.
I have built entire theory of consciousness as a reaction to Copenhagen interpretation which to me is logically inconsistent. As you know, Copenhagen interpretation gives up the notion of objective reality altogether and theory becomes only a set of rules. Schroedinger amplitudes are regarded as mere mathematical fictions. To me this is nonsense.
I have explained my own view very many times and the 8 books about consciousness and quantum biology are applications of this vision. I should perhaps stop here and refer to the discussion with Hamed in earlier postings but I cannot avoid the temptation to continue although this is repetition what I have said many times before.
Causality applies still but there are two causalities: the causality of non-deterministic quantum jump and the causality of field equations.
There are also two times: geometric time of field equations and subjective time defined by quantum jump sequence. Objective reality is replaced with objective realities between which quantum jumps occur. They correspond to "solutions of field equations".
Objective reality is quantum state regarded as a purely mathematical object: there is no need to assume that it to be a representation of reality but one particular objective reality. I think Max Tegmark has proposed something like this but without introducing the notion of quantum jump as moment of consciousness so that his Universe remains a zombie.
Quantum states are identified as spinor fields in infinite-D world of classical worlds. They are purely geometric objects. Interestingly they serve as correlates for Boolean cognition: state with fermion number 1/0 as bit, spin up/down as correlated for bit etc... Boolean aspect is one aspect of physical existence.
There is also interesting connection to p-adic correlates of cognition. The space of bit sequences with possibly infinite number of non-vanishing bits corresponds naturally to 2-adic integers- fermionic counterpart is many-fermion states with possibly infinite number of fermions. Pinary digit sequences in turn correspond to p-adic numbers.
Concrete atoms of Dalton, please, not Democritus. Atoms of Democritus compared to letters, ie phonemes, by Aristotle (spin included!), giving the connection to Theuth/Hermes in Egypt; known phenomenogically through eidola, images as in the classical method of the same (charge implied). Hence images as emanations of gods acting in the mind through language, as Freud had it from Arabic dream manuals. Came through Romantic Linguistics with notions of reactivity picked up by Sri Aurobindo.
How is the quantum jump realized? Unitary process? Geometric time and subjective time as a fundamental duality?
How does this duality incorporate into the larger TGD ontology?
Regards.
Quantum jump in zero energy ontology involves unitary process creating quantum superposition of possibilities and cascade of state function reductions proceeding from longer to shorter scales (causal diamonds within causal diamonds...) obeying NMP.
For rational/algebraic entanglement probabilities number theoretic entanglement entropy can be negative so that negentropy maximization need not anymore lead to a pure state but can generate stable negentropic entanglement. This would be characteristic of living matter. I explained about this to Hamed in some earlier posting.
Geometric time and subjective time are *not* dual in TGD Universe. They are quite different notions: geometric time can be metrized and represented by a continuous coordinate and general coordinate invariance makes it one space-time coordinate.
Subjective time is does not allow metrization, it does not correspond to a time-like dimension. Also the symmetries related to geometric time make it very difficult to identify it with subjective time.
These two times can be identified only approximately and the natural arrow of subjective time is transferred to that of geometric time. I have tried to understand the details of this approximate identification at
http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/tgdconsc/tgdconsc.html#timenature
I would guess that aboriginal living in dream time does not have our notion of linear geometric time identifiable as subjective time in good approximation.
Also our memories mean non-locality in geometric time: to remember is to see into geometric past. From personal dream experience I can tell that at least my own consciousness;-) during dreams is highly non-localized in geometric time. Something from childhood, youth, places that I have lived, and also the geometric now.
Neuroscientists however think differently and with inspiration coming from computers try to explain memories in terms of memory storage and continue their unsuccessful search for the seats of memory banks in brain.
"Higgs hasn't been found and won't EVER be found", because it should be an alternative massless Higgs boson
In (Q-FFF) Quantum Function Follows Form theory, the Higgs particle is interpreted as a massless but energetic oscillating transformer particle, equipped with a complex internal structure and able to create the universe by transformation of its shape.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0096v1.pdf
For me Higgs has been a lesson in how difficult is it to see how simple things are because we are prisoners of our past- gauge theory has been the prison of my generation.
*From the beginning it was clear that scalar particles in 8-D sense would have quantum numbers of leptoquarks: no Higgs as a scalar would be the obvious conclusion and indeed was for a long time.
Higgs as a CP_2 vector remains the only possibiity but there are no covariantly constant vector fields in CP_ defining generalized polarizations and why take gradient of these and add to vector boson longitudinal component. Too ugly.
*Even after realizing that in zero energy ontology physical particles including gauge bosons are necessary massive as bound states of massless particles and must have third polarization, I was not able to realize that gauge condition must be such that it allows the third polarization.
*Then came the realization that the representation of generalized Feynman diagram requires a projection to a preferred plane M^2 of M^4 and generalization of propagator so that it is defined by M2 projection of momentum (otherwise it would diverge since virtual particles consist of on mass shell massless states at wormhole throats).
*And after that the generalization of gauge condition so that only M^2 projection of momentum appears in gauge condition p.epsililon=0 . Projection is time-like and allows three polarization states.
*Now I was finally able to realize the absolutely obvious. There is no need for Higgs field! Just the massive bound states obtained as bound states of fundamental massless states appear as external particles in generalized Feynman diagrams.
Everything is finite both in UV and IR just because everything is massless on-mass-shell at the level of wormhole throats and this poses enormously strong conditions on loop integrals.
Zephir, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the "dual version of power spectrum of CMBR" the notion of inverse spectrum keeps recurring and it's a difficult problem indeed, in fact, equivalent to Riemann hypothesis see http://jlms.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/1/15.abstract and then the Riemann zeros tie back into stuff which Matti has already written about. Interesting puzzle indeed.
These fractal drums are very interesting. Quite generally, the question is how much information the spectrum of some geometry determined differential operators such as Dirac operator or Laplacian allow to deduce from the structure of manifold.
Can one "hear" the shape of manifold? Can two different Riemann manifolds have same spectrum? How many isospectral manifolds exists for given spectrum? These questions generalize also to sub-manifolds.
A much less ambitious 2-D conjecture is that one can hear the fractal dimension or length of its boundary. Fractal string would define the boundary of 2-D drum.
I was unable to find what the connection with Riemann hypothesis was. My guess would be that the fractal dimension and length could be deduced for all dimensions D not equal to 1/2 if Riemann hypothesis holds true.
CMBR was mentioned and a comment about it.
In principle, the fluctuations of 3 K radiation code for the spectrum of small deformations of the cosmology. Can one "hear" the cosmology from the fluctuations. This is of course the belief!
For instance, one "hears" that 3-space is flat. But the rest is much more speculative: is the 4-D cosmology inflationary or its it quantum critical as in TGD Universe?
In inflationary cosmology one encounters a fine tuning problem with the potential of inflaton field.
One cannot indeed "hear" this potential with extreme accuracy: with so extreme accuracy that one must speak about fine tuning problem. The physics in recent day Universe cannot be so sensitive to what happened in very early times! One loses predictivity completely.
In TGD framework Robertson-Walker cosmologies correspond to vacuum extremals and give cosmology typically as infinite number of different imbeddings (CP_2 projection can be any curve in CP_2) so that the conjecture does not hold true.
For critical and over critical cosmologies CP_2 projection is 2-D situation changes. Both the cosmology and its imbedding are highly unique but exists for a finite period of time only- finite duration of quantum critical periods an fractal hierarchy of these cosmologies.
In quantum TGD f one encounters quetsion analogous to "Can one hear the shape of a drum?".
*One consider the Dirac determinant of 3-D Chern-Simons-Dirac operator D (defined in some manner, precisely what?) as product of its generalized eigenvalues. Eigen modes of D define the analogs of sound waves now and eigenvalues correspond to frequencies.
*Can one in some sense hear the geometry of space-time surfaces from the spectrum of 3-D modified Dirac operator (Chern-Simons-Dirac operator) defined at space-like 3-surfaces at the ends of space-time surface inside causal diamond and at light-like 3-surfaces identified as surfaces at which the induced metric changes its signature.
*Is this determinant of 3-D Dirac operator equal to the value of Kahler action for a preferred extremal and thus determines the space-time surface? This is now the shape of a drum question.
*If this were the case, one could say that one has holography the Dirac determinant of 3-D modified Dirac operator codes for the shape of space-time surface.
The most obvious distinction from the standrad conjecture is that one has finite measurement resolution: these 3-surfaces are effectively replaced by braids carrying fermionic and maybe (I should be able to decide;-)) also purely bosonic quantum numbers.
*The physics variant of the conjecture would say that one can deduce the space-time surface in finite measurement resolution from the physics of the fermions at braid strands.
*Could the constraints on the problem actually fix the space-time surface completely rather than in finite measurement resolution only. Could finite measurement resolution be an inherent property of preferred extremals?
This could make sense if the string world sheets having braid strands as their boundaries are something special: now minimal surfaces of space-time surface with a property that the flux induced Kahler form is proportional the area and braid strands define Legendrean braids (the projection of CP_2 Kahler gauge potential vanishes at the braid strand).
The minimal surface condition would be seen as a condition on space-time surface containing string world sheets rather than on string world sheets in given space-time! What minimal surface condition says is that the local acceleration vanishes everywhere: string world sheet is the analog of geodesic line.
*string theory rides on the early fit for beta-distributions of resonances. This is first-rank evidence becayse the distinctive probability distribution eliminates the statistical issues now entangling Higginbloggers.
*BUT the Nambu string that resulted works only in light cones AND the Polyakov metric otherwise belongs to SONICS!
*Technicolour siezed on propagators and got the Weinberg mixing angle.
**The good fits so far are divided among competing theories and Higgs now appears as a critical test!!
(This is the view from Wikkipedia Beyond Standard Theory pages). > A 'scientific revolution' is implied.
***If Higgs is not necessary it may still be an effect: of asymmetry due to quark electrical charges of the axial wobble (Newton's fine anomaly) of the proton.
http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/feb08/PDS.en.shtml
The CMB is the relics of the radiation emitted soon after the Big Bang. It is observed on the so-called last scattering surface (LSS), a sphere of radius about 50 billion light-years around us. The tiny temperature fluctuations observed on the LSS may be decomposed into a sum of spherical harmonics, much like the sound produced by a music instrument may be decomposed into ordinary harmonics. The relative amplitudes of each spherical harmonics determine the power spectrum, which is a signature of the geometry of space and of the physical conditions which prevailed at the time of CMB emission.
If the axial wobble is asymmetrical, the scattering effect would decompose into bigendian and littlendian spectra. CMB as energy lost from scattering is now considered in Australia. For others, the farthest observations loose dimension:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420152059.htm
which one can read as a cosmological principle, although I humbly prefer a limit on the knowable.
What if there is no Higgs boson found?
Then it could be massless!
We need a massless Higgs as the virgin particle which is able to transform into other particles like the electron and positron. and photons.
We also need an adapted standard model see:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0002v4.pdf
Matti, that's the idea of it. Oops, didn't notice the PDF of the paper I linked to above wasn't available. Here it is, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5bg_lqqLmrYNjhkNjhmY2UtMmRlNi00ZGE1LWE0MTItYjA1MWEzYjQzZWY5&hl=en_US or http://bit.ly/ubqfGP for the "short" link.
Orwin, the proposal that world in some sense was 1-D in very early cosmology has a counterpart in TGD framework but certainly not equivalent with stringy or loopy proposals.
in TGD Universe the primordial cosmology was dominated by 4-D string like objects which have 2-D M^4 projection (string world sheet as minimal surface) and 2-D CP_2 projection. These objects are effectively 2-D since CP_2 size is about 10^4 Planck lengths. The recent cosmology is full of magnetic flux tubes resulting as the M^4 projection of these objects get gradually thicker during cosmic expansion.
Leo,
Higgs is needed only if one believes that gauge bosons are originally massless and therefore naturally satisfy the gauge condition p.epsilon=0 allowing only two polarizaions. I believed for long that Higgses are indeed eaten completely by massless states. This requires colored Higgses and also higher spin analogs of Higgs. Too complicated.
In TGD framework however the very fact that gauge boson has helicity +/-1 implies that it must correspond to a pair of massless on mass shell fermion and antifermion at opposite throats of wormhole moving with different-in the simplest case opposite three momenta.
This implies massivation automatically and also the third polarization state. The gauge condiion also has a natural generalization allowing three polarization.
For these reasons I see no need for Higgs in TGD framework. Amusingly, Matt Strassler seem to have got idea similar to the idea about Higgses completely eaten.
My own of course relies on the vision about generalized Feynman diagrams and a lot of work is needed in transforming this vision to a rigorous mathematics and one must be ready for surprises. The generalization Feynman diagrams is very predictive vision. Duality of string and parton description analogous to gauge gravity duality emerges directly from this concept. Also a general view about jet QCD, quark gluon plasma, and non-perturbative aspects of QCD.
Matti, you don't do Hamiltonian constraints or 1D oscillator analysis or Lyapunov exponents, no do you acknowledge solitons or lattice vibrations, or mirror excitations, where Kea starts out. In those ranges sub/superluminals are known, no problem.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/301/5630/200.abstract
"...ions in mirror sites are inversely saturable and cause superluminal light propagation, whereas ions in inversion sites experience conventional saturable absorption and produce slow light."
http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/measurement.html, citing:
Physics Letters A , vol 292, p 151.
This gap in your coverage is a pitty, because with long-range correlations, a thermodynamic motivation and a concept of negentropy/order, you are well placed to tackle the order parameter which currently requires renormalization group theory.
Mind the slow neutrinos from outer space, they just might be dreaming.
Kea says: It is heartening to see the low mass range gradually take shape in the 0 to 1 SM band,
We simply do not yet know what the data are saying. There is an excess running across a wide range. What does it mean?
Higgs slowly eaten? Not at one but at different bandwiths or channels? How come they to think there would only be one way?
Orwin,
I am sorry but I do not not understand what you mean with Hamiltonian constraints and Lyapunov exponents in the case of Higgs. I do not even understand what in what is the context in which you suggest that them to be important.
I am unable to see any sense in Kea's mirror excitation numerology. There is simply no connection into empirical reality of particle physicist. I am also unable to see how this could relate to super-luminality. One should first define these notions precisely and relate them to existing physics.
To Ulla:
Concerning Higgs. I have been working hardly to gain overall view about the latest LHC results.
*There is rather clear signal around 125 GeV. Higgs is the standard proposal. Spion of M_89 hadron physics consisting of squark pair is TGD alternative.
Higgs is replaced with M_89 hadron physics.
*There is also evidence for structure around 145 GeV In standard model picture 145 GeV structure cannot correspond to Higgs. In TGD framework it would be pion like state.
SUSY theorists would try to explain these structures in terms of SUSY Higgses.
*There is also structure at both sides of 300 GeV. TGD predicts rho and omega of M_89 hadron physics and their spartners here. Standard model an presumably also SUSY are in difficulties in explaining these if they are real.
*Kea's no fairies paradigm is in grave difficulties;-). There is something there and also Kea should provide explanation for it.
Situation is fascinating and detailed study of decay channels is required to see whether standard model, its SUSY variants, or TGD is correct. The problem with TGD is that I cannot afford detailed numerical predictions. The pion and spion of M_89 hadron physics should however effectively replace Higgs and this could mean at quantitative level very similar signal cross sections.
Well, I have said Kea is doing dark matter physics and she claims there are no fairy fields. But if one looks carefully at the Lorentz transformations, black hole horizons etc. there MUST be something else. Even your Big Book isn't explained by ordinary fields alone. The back is zero, nothing, means it is interference with entanglement like in BE-condensations?
This interference is important. Link it to QHE and sum over paths??? As in biology. let biology show how it is done :)
Maybe it would first be good to define what is dark matter. Is a virtual Higgs dark as instance? Is antimatter dark? Must dark matter be a Susy?
Still, I am not ready to dismiss her ideas yet.
Kea has FTL linked to tachyons. Today I found another crazy thing with FTL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_effect
The most fascinating possibility with this is that it shows us an non-interactive matrix outside GR? Why cannot anybody see that? GR is not the whole, just a part, like inside the Minkowski/Lorentz 'lightlike' cone.
Matti, what calculations need to be done? I'm willing to do the "hard work" and don't care much for "credit" just solutions. I am a symbolic and numerical master even if I don't have hoards of supercomputers at my disposal. Seriously, give me some suggestions on what calculations or analysis would be useful to fill in some puzzle pieces? I *really* enjoy working interactively with Maple and I've derived some really awesome stuff with it... now, the techies will only rage at me because they just want to throw matrices into matlab or some such and get the illusion of progress.. but I think its not too far fetched to say just because theoretical progress is .. theoretical.. that it is not "concrete".
Dear Stephen,
this would be a big project requiring a collective effort. TGD is just a collection of principles and huge amount of work would be needed to transform it to something comparable to standard model as simulation programs.
The only sensible strategy in my position is to minimize calculations to simple estimates and think like mathematician does.
To Ulla:
Kea has now completely changed her attitude to fairies. Again just a blind belief instead of real thinking.
I just analyzed the experimental findings seen by so many of us as a proof for Higgs. As far as decay signatures - even at quantitative level- are considered, there are however amazingly small differences between Higgs option and pseudoscalar option. One should make clear what *really* has been observed before making yes-no statements.
It is differences which matter: there is evidence for something at 140 GeV and around 300 GeV. Higgs does not explain these structures and it would be idiotic to forget them. There is also a wide range of surplus signal of width about 30-40 GeV in the range 110-145 GeV. Higgs option does not allow this. This is signal of something to which I will not go here.
Higgs is also theoretically disfavored: the mass would be just at the border of instability of vacuum. This has some message to us. Something is wrong in Higgs mechanism.
I noted Keas attitude, but it may not mean so much yet. A bit premature maybe? It is only a question of three events, and if one of them is fading away there is nothing left. A minimal 'statistical' significance. It doesn't mean so much if the sigma is high with so few measurements. Also how the background is treated is unclear to me.
If the background isn't smooth and even, but is oscillating, which it may do, then there are difficulties? Maybe this was the reason the MonteCarlo simulations didn't work so well for the 145 GeV 'bump', that also had few events?
Anyhow, wonderful they have come so long.
I found an highly interesting thesis through Jack Sarfatti. http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/download/tamarad/papers/thesis_complete.pdf
One of the new physics stars according to him :) Look what she is doing with the space model. In this way the back of the Big Book would be quite broad. How have everyone dismissed this method before? Although we know how time behaves? Also the consciousness can be linked to this?
I offer an explanation of a Higgs @ 124.443 GeV (a public retrodiction) http://theoryofeverything.org/wordpress/?p=563
As noted in equation 18 of http://theoryofeverything.org/TOE/JGM/ToE.pdf, I had one of several possible predictions for a Higgs sector mass. It turns out my first(less aesthetic) choice may have been the right one...
Post a Comment