###
Evidence for M_{89} pion at LHC?

Lubos reported interesting news from LHC. The title of the post of Lubos was "Evidence for second Higgs boson at 136.5 GeV". The title is misleading and reflects the dream of Lubos that standard SUSY predicting 5 Higgs like particles could be found at LHC despite all the evidence against standard SUSY. What has been actually found is some evidence for the existence of a particle decaying to two gammas: this of course does not imply that second Higgs is in question. This is not the first time when Lubos is quite too hasty in his conclusions.

The article by CMS where the evidence is discuss is titled "Properties of the observed Higgs-like resonance decaying into two photons". A search for possible other resonance decaying to a gamma pair was made, and the results are given by figure 3 of the paper, which can be found also in the posting of Lubos. The figure demonstrates excess around 136.5 GeV. The local signficance is reported to be 2.73 sigma, which is far from the discovery value of 5 sigma. It must be emphasized that ATLAS does *not* see the bump: Matt Strassler draws from this the conclusion that there is nothing there. Also this logic is wrong: either ATLAS or CMS is wrong and we cannot a priori know which of them.

The basic LHC prediction of TGD is a scaled up copy of ordinary hadron physics. I have used to call this physics M_{89} hadron physics since it corresponds to Mersenne prime M_{89} whereas ordinary hadron physics corresponds to M_{107}. The strange findings made already at RHIC and repeated at LHC for both heavy ion collisions and proto-heavy ion collisions in conflict with the expectations from perturbative QCD expectations could be explainable in terms of string like objects of M_{89} hadrons physics decaying to ordinary hadrons. If one takes seriously the observations of Fermi satellite suggesting the existence of particle with mass about 135 GeV and identifies it as the pion of M_{89} hadron physics, one can wonder whether also LHC has detected M_{89} pion from its decays to gamma pairs. Note that the standard interpretation of Fermi particle as a dark matter particle assignable to SUSY has been excluded. This would be encouraging but the experiences during few years have however taught that these bumps come and go and must be taken as entertainment in the dull life of theoretician.

## 8 Comments:

Matti,

There seems to be a lot of interest in several new papers. I captured the range of it on my last pesla.blogspot which is titled nD printing... but goes on for a more general view.

Perhaps as entertainment some ideas like the bumps come and go or at least take a while to be established as reasonable in theory as well as in the lab.

On such "entertaining" idea there suggests a particle between the two Higgslike bumps of which it may be unobservable in the usual senses.

So is there anything in the TGD view or its calculations that can relate to that suggestion?

Dear Pesla,

the recent TGD view ("recent" does not usually mean "final") is that there is single Higgs like state and besides these mesons of M_89 physics, with pion- maybe at 135 GeV- suggested also by Fermi telescope. Besides this heavier mesons are predicted and also baryons of M_89 physics. The prediction is that 135 bump should have also charged partners. Mass splittings can be scaled from those for ordinary pion in the first approximation by multiplying with 512.

If the M_89 hadrons are there, as suggested by RHIC anomaly and its counterparts at LHC for ion-ion collisions and proton-ion collisions in conflict with perturbative QCD, they will be detected by accident.

The recent belief system indeed allows only standard SUSY as the new physics and they will continue hunting it even in a situation in which it cannot solve the problems it was hoped to solve. When entire branch of science has gone astray for four decades it is very difficult to return to the correct path. The social forces involved are enormous.

An interesting question is whether M_89 mesons could be dark and thus "unobservable in usual senses" that is not appearing in same vertex of Feynman diagram with ordinary matter (only 2-vertex representing ordinary-dark transition is allowed in the simplest model for dark-visible interactions).

Matti, you say: Note that the standard interpretation of Fermi particle as a dark matter particle assignable to SUSY has been excluded.

Can you give a link to that?

compare http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1145 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1237

To Ulla:

SUSY dark matter consists of neutralinos which are fermions: this excludes the interpretation of Fermi anomaly as SUSY dark matter. If Fermi anomaly results via annihilation of charged particle and antiparticle, SUSY dark matter cannot be in question. Large cross section excludes interpretation as annihilation of neutralinos. If Fermi anomaly results from a decay of single neutral particle which is necessary boson, dark matter in SUSY sense is not in question.

Dear Matti,

Coleman-Mandula theorem states that there is no way to unify gravity with standard model.

Supersymmetry defeats the Coleman-Mandula theorem by using lie super algebra.

How TGD does defeats the theorem? Or what is the hole of the theorem in the viewpoint of TGD?

Dear Hamed,

a nice question. What Coleman-Mandula ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman-Mandula_theorem ) says that there is no non-trivial manner to combine Poincare symmetries and and internal symmetries. "Nontrivial" is essential here!

a) In the case of SUSY one generalizes the notion of symmetry by modifying the notion of algebra to super-algebra. Super-generators anticommute mutually to bosonic generators and bosonic generators commute to bosonic generators and fermionic and bosonic generators commute to fermionic ones.

In TGD framework supergenerators appear just in this manner. Induced spinor field is second quantized and one forms as bilinears of c-number valued modes and second quantized induced spinor fields. By modified Dirac equation these currents are divergenless and define supercharges carrying fermion or antifermion number (actually lepton or quark number). There is no need for assuming Majorana spinors and this is impossible in D=8.

What is essential is that one is forced to replaced the counterpart of massless Dirac equation with modified Diract equation involving modified gamma matrices in order to obtain the supersymmetry.

A nosy note: Usually one introduces super-space formalism but I see it as purely formal trick with no real geometric content: it is a pity that colleagues have wasted decades with such formal trick with known results;-).

Genuine geometric content emerges at the level of world of classical worlds: anticommuting (supersymmetry!) gamma matrices are super-generators of super algebra defined by isometry algebra of WCW and gamma matrices!

b) In the case of TGD internal symmetries and Poincare symmetries indeed combine in trivial manner in full accordance with empirical facts: color and electroweak symmetries and Poincare define Cartesian factors of overall symmetry group. This corresponds to the fact that imbedding space is Cartesian product of M^4xCP_2.

Despite the Cartesian product structure correlations between four-momentum, spin and internal quantum numbers are possible and of course predicted.

What Coleman-Mandula prevents is the fusion of Poincare and internal symmetries using 4-D space-time which is abstract 4-manifold. Space-time as surface in M^4xCP_2 instead of abstract 4-manifold is the TGD based manner to circumvent Coleman Mandula so that gravitation and standard model can be combined. Classical gravitation becomes induced gravitation and classical gauge potentials induced spinor connection.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Thanks,

"Genuine geometric content emerges at the level of world of classical worlds: anticommuting (supersymmetry!) gamma matrices are super-generators of super algebra defined by isometry algebra of WCW and gamma matrices!"

interesting and Makes supersymmetry more clear for me.

Post a Comment

<< Home