### Indeed! Is it really Higgs?

Jester comments the latest release of results from LHC relating to the signal interpreted by all fashionable and well-informed physics bloggers as Higgs.

Additional support for a resonance at 125 GeV is emerging. What is new are two events which are interpreted as fusion of two W bosons to Higgs. This is very nice. The only problem is that the predicted rate for these events is so small for standard model Higgs that they would not have been observed. Second not anymore pleasant surprise is that Higgs candidates are indeed produced but with a rate twice than the predicted rate.

Hitherto these signals which are too strong to allow interpretation as standard model Higgs have been interpreted by saying that both CMS and ATLAS have been "lucky". I warned already in the previous Higgs posting that if this good luck continues, it turns to a serious problem. And as Jester mentions, already now people are beginning to suspect that this Higgs is not quite the standard model Higgs. The next step will come sooner or later and will be a cautious proposal spoiling the euphoric mood of co-bloggers: perhaps it is not Higgs at all!

But things go slowly. Colleagues are rather conformistic and remarkably slow as thinkers. There are even those who are still making bets for standard SUSY;-)! I can however hope that after this step colleagures would be finally psychologically mature to consider the TGD prediction for M_{89} hadron physics as an alternative to Higgs. Accepting this hypothesis as something worth of testing would mean enormous progress on both the theoretical and the experimental side.

## 16 Comments:

Susskind lecture. Holographic Universe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY&feature=player_embedded

Kea stop writing? Too early? It is maybe 'no fairies'?

I have gained a better understanding of her lately, and I will write about it, but later. Fairies or not fairies are maybe no important question?

She is depressed? no money, no job? no friend? A black hole? You have something undone. Do it! DO IT!

There are too many bloggers for whom Higgs or no Higgs is question of faith. Obviously due to lack of personal theoretical vision. Lubos and Kea and represent diametric opposites in their Higgs faiths. Something is wrong when theoretician begins to make bets instead of developing arguments!

Lubos is continually insisting that the existence of signal is equivalent with existence of Higgs. It is not! This is intellectual in-honesty so typical for Lubos as every-one who has read his rantings about climate, politics, and women knows. Even worse, many bloggers follow Lubos since it is fashionable to be believer in Higgs. Jester and Matt Strassler are exceptions in this respect.

Already now there is evidence that the signal cannot represent standard model Higgs unless strong statistical fluctuation is present in both CMS and ATLAS. Situation might of course change as statistics improves.

TGD does not need Higgs and its non-existence is the prediction in the simplest scenario but my world does not fall in pieces if it is Higgs after all.

Matti:

As we wait for the results of Higgs, it looks like your "Mother Gaia womb" theory of Cambrian explosion may be tested.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/russian-scientists-drill-20-years-finally-reach-deep-antarctic-lake-buried-ice-20-million-years-article-1.1019365?localLinksEnabled=false

Regards.

.Dear Matti,

I listed theoretical supports of H=M4*CP2, Are there any other supports? :

First: H= M4*S leads to exact Poincare invariance and symmetries of standard model leads to S=CP2 uniquely.

Other supporter: the construction of the geometry of the world of classical worlds, Hyperfinite factors of type 2 approach, the number theoretic approach (space-time surfaces as hyper-quaternionic or co-hyperquaternionic sub-manifolds of the hyper-octonionic imbedding spaces , duality of H-M8)

They are a lot ;-)

For theoretical supports of many sheeted space time:

The primary ideas of TGD were “TGD as a Poincare invariant theory of gravitation” and “TGD as a generalization of the hadronic string model” . Fusion of the two approaches by gauge conservation and RGI hypothesis lead to many sheeted space-time.

Other theoretical supporters of many sheeted space time are:

Hyperfinite factors of type 2 approach (jones inclusions), infinite primes and p-adic length scale hypotheses

Are there any other supports?

I need the most important experimental supporters of many sheeted space-time?

You speak about CD and SubCDs and SubSubCDs … instead of many sheeted space time in the recent years, why? What is other new directly in many sheeted space-time concept after 30 years?

To Fractality:

They seem to talk about microbial life before ice age. which ended bout 10.000 years ago. The time scale in the case of snow ball hypothesis is much longer. The Cambrian explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

would have taken place when the radius of Earth had begun to grow by factor 2 in geologically fast time scale would have occurred much earlier: about 530 million years ago.

For Expanding Earth model according to TGD see

http://tgdtheory.com/public_html/tgdclass/tgdclass.html#qastro

Dear Hamed,

you have managed to build quite a nice nice overall view. It is easy to get detailed view when one understands the big picture. This is true in my own case at least.

The new view about symmetries is certainly very strong theoretical support and as such leads to highly non-trivial predictions such as leptohadron physics based on colored excitations of leptons.

I would count the success of p-adic length scale hypothesis (p-adic mass calculations for instance) as experimental support for TGD at quantitative level. That the hypothesis becomes very plausible in quantum arithmetics and zero energy ontology could be seen as a theoretical support for it. p-Adic length scale hypothesis leads to strong predictions such as scaled up variants of hadron physics.

You asked for fxperimental support for many-sheeted space-time.

*What inspired the idea of many-sheeted space-time was the realization that I can really see it by just looking around. The boundaries of macroscopic objects as boundaries of space-time sheets (or possibly as macroscopic partonic 2-surfaces at which signature of induce metric changes) would be really visible. Also the reduction of matter as shape to space-time topology would mean enormous ontological simplification.

*The basic objection relates to classical fields: their expressibility in terms of four CP_2 coordinates means enormous simplification but one can argue that it is not consistent with the linear superposition of fields holding true approximately. Only the effects of fields need to superpose in many-sheeted space-time where multiple topological condensation is possible. I have explained few times what this means so that I do not bother to repeat myself.

*Dark matter has hierarchy of phases with large Planck constant at dark space-time sheets is one prediction which should be tested. Biology could be interpreted as domain where these phases dominate and I have proposed that Peter Gariaev's strange findings could be interpreted as first photographs about dark matter: photons go to dark space-time sheet, are reflected, transform back to ordinary photons and go to came.

I have been indeed talking about CDs, subCDs etc during last years: about geometric correlates of physical system at imbedding space level. I used to talk about space-time sheets before ZEO: they correspond to the geometric correlates of physical system at space-time level. I think that the the

two manners to speak are more or less equivalent. ZEO has dominated my thoughts for last 6 years or so and this explains why I have been talking about CDs so much.

You asked about what is new in the view about many-sheeted space-time when compared to that 3 decades ago.

*ZEO is certainly something new. At nineties I would have identified particles with *boundaries* of space-time sheets. Now I prefer to talk about wormhole throats at which induced metric changes signature and which are identified as orbits of partonic 2-surfaces.

*Generalized Feynman graphs are also a new concept. They provide geometrization of ordinary Feynman graphs with lines replaced with orbits of wormhole throats and in ZEO lead to a beautiful vision about how circumvent both UV and IR divergences of QFTs. Also the connection with twistors and momentum twistors emerges naturally since what propagates at wormhole throats is always massless and on mass shell and only the sign of energy can be also negative.

Dear Hamed,

I cannot resist the temptation to mention what might turn out to be one additional theoretical support for the number theoretic vision. I know that it is too early to talk about this yet but....

Quantum arithmetics is a notion which allows to understand canonical identification mapping p-adics to reals at deeper level. The formulation is still developing.

I am just now working with the formulation of quantum adeles central in the formulation of Langlands program. Quantum adeles would be a generalization of adele concept fusing together reals and all p-adic number fields to form single structure. This would be enormous advantage in book keeping and allow to formulate generalized Feynman diagrams in number theoretically universal manner very elegantly.

Quantum adeles also throw light to the conjectures like M^8-H duality and space-time as quaternionic surface since one is forced to think these conjectures simultatenously for reals and all quantum p-adics.

The quantum version of adeles would be essentially Cartesian product of reals and of all quantum p-adic fields (indeed fields as it seems) and simple arguments suggest that it is not only ring as adeles but field analogous to function fields. This would have enormous theoretical impact since one could replace reals everywhere in the formulation of the theory with quantum adeles. Quantum adeles could even allow differential and integral calculus of their own! This would be something!;-).

Quantum p-adics are analogous to algebraic extension of p-adics and the absolutely crazy speculative question is whether quantum adeles could be isomorphic as a structure to algebraic numbers and their Galois group to Absolute Galois group acting as automorphisms of algebraic numbers regarded as extension of rationals.

Be as it may, canonical identification appears in a fundamental role in the definition of quantum adeles so that it would gain a status similar to that of norm function in the definition of reals and p-adics. One can also resolve many theoretical little nuisances which one should not forget but tends to forget in terms of quantum p-adics and quantum adeles.

For some reason my comment became posted as Anonymous. Sorry.

.So thanks Matti, and thanks for encouragement :-), my overall view was very apparent and outside of TGD and the sea of TGD is very deep. I should learn diving in the sea! and I am so happy for it.

Quantum Adeles!, it seems very important. I have best wishes for you about understanding it.

.Drear Matti,

I tried to ask my questions in a very simple manner:

When I want to imagine about many sheeted space-time and H=M4*CP2 together, first I imagine a box with a thickness by cp2 (the box is correspond to H=M4*cp2), and a space time sheet is inside it as a 4-surface, really there is infinite-d configuration space in the box. After that if I want to add other space-time sheets in my imagination world! I should place a lot of boxes (from large to small) on each other, one after one, associated with each of space-time sheets (each space time sheet is inside one box independently).

But in this view I cannot imagine CDs inside CDs. Something go wrong? And wormhole contacts correspond to thickness of a box between upper box and downer box?

Another question inside the last question: there are all possible 3-surfaces in the box, but for each of 3-surfaces there is a 4-surface uniquely (preferred extremal of kahler action). Then there is infinite 4 surfaces correspond to infinite 3-surfaces one to one. Each 4-surfaces means a classical world and we have in the box a world of classical worlds. This is your means of classical worlds? Then we have infinite number of space time sheets inside each of boxes?

If you answer the first question wormhole contact in this way that wormhole contact is between two space-time sheets, then i can ask which of infinite number of space-time sheets have this wormhole contact?

Dear Hamed,

Sorry for not been able to answer earlier.

Your box illustration is correct. Also the interpretation of many-sheeted world in terms of space-time sheets

Wormhole contacts are regions with Euclidian signature of induced metric. CP_2 type vacuum extremal representing a region having geometry of CP_2 is simplified situation. They have light-like random curve as M^4 projection and represent generalization of point like particle. Their deformations are more realistic models for the lines of generalized Feynman diagrams.

The number of space-time sheets need not be infinite. With classical worlds I mean different space-time. Quantum state is quantum superposition of different space-time surfaces just like electron in atom is superposition of electron at different points. Point-->3-suface: orbit of point--> space-time surrface. For instance, CKM mixing for quarks is interpreted as quantum superposition of spherical, torus, sphere with two handles topologies.

These deformed pieces of CP_2 can condense Minkowskian space-time sheet: free fermion: in this case wormhole throat is Kahler magnetically charged. For bosons the wormhole is between two space-time sheets and both are Kahler magnetically charged.

Both fermions and bosons can touch- and very probably touch - other space-time sheets in same region and this gives rise to interaction describable as interaction with the sum of classical fiels at these sheets. Only effects of fields sum: not fields, which does not make sense in TGD.

Dear Hamed,

You asked about CDs. CDs are phenomenon at the level of imbedding space. They do not follow from the original form of the theory.

a) ZEO requires places where one can put positive and negative energy parts of the state. CD is ideal in this respect since its light-like boundaries have huge conformal symmetries due to the light-likeness of light-like boundary. These symplectic symmetries are fundamental in the construction of the theory. WCW geometry requires infinite symmetries: this is the key idea.

b) Geometrization of quantum measurement theory at WCW level requires CDs. The WCW geometry must code the choice of preferred measurement axes for spin, color quantum number. Also rest system must be fixed. The line connecting tips of CD defines unique time axis and rest system. One must assign also a preferred spatial direction and the quantization of theory assigns to given CD choices of plane M^2 of M^4. This assumption is required also by number theoretic vision: there must exist unique plane which corresponds to preferred complex plane of (hyper-)octions: M^2. There is no breaking of Poincare since one integrates over choices of M^2. In QCD M^2 as collision plane of hadrons makes M^2 rather concrete.

WCW decomposes to a union of *sub-WCWs associated with CDs in the hierarchy*: 4-surfaces inside CD having their ends at their boundaries. The two ends correspond to initial and final states in realistic particle physics experiment: in idealized situation these states would be at temporal +/- infinity.

c) This decomposition of WCW is crucial. You can ask whether the space-time sheets inside given CD end at the boundaries of CD. Feynman diagrammatics suggests that this depends on situation. For the counterparts of vacuum bubbles in QFT it would end: and this is my pedagogical approximation;-). For the vertex regions and loops of Feynnman diagrams it does not. Each vertex surrounded by small sub-CD. Is this the correct interpretation? I am not of course dead sure!°

d) In consciousness theory CDs are correlates of conscious entities, selves: kind of spotlights of consciousness one might say.

Can this link be useful for the sub-CDs?

Feynman diagrams are treated as a lightcone.

http://www.twistordiagrams.org.uk/papers/jan05.pdf

One end entangled, the other not? Commutative and non-commutative cone ends? This must give a skewness and thermodynamicity? Gravity is a squared thermodynamic theory? Both unifying and creating borders?

Gravitational Plancks constants? gravity as a scale, but is it metric? G also use hbar. Gravity as different number fields? Primes? Ye, of course :)

I never understood the gravitational Plancks constants :) Planck length scale can use different number fields? But how does that invoke on alpha, the coupling constants and the perturbations? In short, everything what is Gravity?

Also Penrose talk for a need of null gravity fields.

So the basic unifying field is thermodynamic, what can be said to be information? Is there still a need for GUT to explain the emergence of em-force?

In the beginning was the Word...and numbers as information, braidings, but the continuum ? :)))

Post a Comment

<< Home