Phil Gibbs has done wonderful work by representing data related to Higgs search in organized form in his blog: viXra log actually became a forum for a vivid discussion. Also the postings of Lubos Motl during last years and especially so during last months have been extremely helpful as I have been trying to develop a coherent view about what particle physics in TeV range looks in TGD Universe. There has been no intentional effort to collaborate, no one has payed anything for anyone of us, and our views about physics are very different- to put it mildly! Despite this invisible collaboration whose members did not even realize that they form a collaboration has worked excellently! I can understand this only by looking ourselves as part of a much bigger intelligence - I call this entity Mother Gaia.
In this framework I see the blog activity as an important part of the problem solving of Mother Gaia using its brand new nervous system- the web - as a powerful tool to allow different views about world to interact. Just the attempt to understand what amount of technology and analysis is needed to produce a single plot providing information about Higgs mass makes it clear that we as individuals have extremely limited abilities. But although ants/neurons are rather stupid, the nest/brain in some miraculous manner is able to behave like an intelligent organism with goal directed behavior. I believe that this is possible only because the ant nest is conscious. In the same manner Mother Gaia is conscious super intellect and is using ourselves to its own purposes.
I see the Europhysics conference and the blog activity accompanying as a part of the ambitious project of Mother Gaia, whose greatest passion is to understand the basic laws of physics. The professionals receiving monthly salary are part of the necessary neuron population but not enough. Also outsiders and out-of-laws are needed because only they can have genuine birds's eye of view. This because they do not get lost to the details for the simple reason that this in practice impossible without belonging to a research group as a specialist. Blogs are their communication forum. Could it be that viXra log - a forum for crackpots - played a historical role in filling the details about the big picture? Mother Gaia probably knows and allows the reader decide himself;-)!
A. Negative results concerning standard SUSY and Higgs
The preliminary negative results relate to two big questions. Is Higgs there? Is the standard view about super-symmetry correct? My guess is that the results from LHC will weaken the hopes that the answers to these questions could be positive. This would have enormous significance for the future of theoretical particle physics.
A.1. What is the fate of standard SUSY?
- It is already now clear that there is not much room for standard super-symmetry and LHC will provide new results during next days.
Addition: Phil Gibbs represents nice graphs about the talks held at yesterday. Standard SUSY exclusion limits have been made tighter by ATLAS using 1/fb data.
The two basic parameters are mass parameters called m1/2 and m0 and are related squark and gluino mass scales in 1-1 manner. The plot represent in Phil's blog implies that squark and gluino masses must be above 850 GeV and 800 GeV respectively if SUSY is there are all. Another plot gives lower limits which equal to 1 TeV. Standard SUSY has a lot of parameters and die-hard believers can always argue that the next accelerator will observe standard SUSY. The history of physics however teaches that if the theory works at all it works excellently from the beginning.
Completely inappropriate side remark: What 1/fb means? Experimenters use a total amount of collected data which can be expressed as a density of collisions per unit area. If this density is 1/fb one has collected data about one collision per femtobarn. 1/fb corresponds to a square with side 10-21-1/2 meters: the size scale of proton is roughly 10-15 meters so that there is roughly 1013 events per proton area. The total number of events is obtained by multiplying with the area of the cross section of the beam. Quite an impressive amount of data has been already analyzed.
A.2. What about Higgs?
The overall conclusion seems to be that standard model Higgs does not exist. This suits well with TGD inspired vision.
The existing data disfavor the existence of Higgs in the interesting mass range as the plots published by D0 collaboration in March suggest. Tomorrow CDF should provide more precise data. Also ATLAS collaboration will give data.
Maybe the photon indeed eats the remaining Higgs component as I have been repeatedly suggesting. This representation of massive particles makes also the application of twistor approach possible and brings in infrared cutoff from the massivation of the physical particles. This in TGD Universe where gauge bosons and Higgs both transform like 3+1 under SU(2). The mechanism is much more general and applies to all spins assignable to partonic 2-surfaces (gluons, super-partners etc...). In the case of spin one particles this conclusion is more or less forced by extremely simple kinematical argument if one accepts that particles are bound states of massless primary fermions with standard model quantum numbers and assignable to the throats of wormhole contacts.
Addition: Lubos represents a characteristic example about misleading rhetoric in the title Fermilab: Higgs is probably between 114 and 137 GeV of his posting. What Fermilab actually says is that if Higgs is there at all it is most probably in this energy range! Lubos would be an excellent propaganda minister for any nation!
Addition. The conclusion after the second day of Europhysics conference is that there is no discovery of Higgs so far. There is some evidence for the decays of virtual Higgs with mass in the range 130-150 GeV to WW pairs (see below). There is however no reason for excluding the alternative interpretation in terms of decays of virtual M89 pion (145 GeV CDF bump) to WW pair (plus possibly photon). Lubos believes that Higgs is in the range 111-131 GeV because there are a couple of bumps which are howewer in 1 sigma band. In the range 140-150 GeV the deviation is slightly more than 2 sigma so that to my view the localization of a new particle, not necessarily Higgs, to this interval is more in accordance with my view about the basic ideas of probability. In any case, we can perhaps cautiously conclude that TGD survided the Big Day for Higgs boson. Some bloggers conclude that the mainstream approach is in grave difficulties but it is wiser to wait for the further results.
Addition (25.7.2011)): The Higgs story had got a new twist at Saturday. I did not have opportunity to follow the developments yesterday since I had marvelous time with the families of my children but it is never too late to receive good news.
Recall that at Friday ATLAS and CMS at LHC reported signs of what might be Higgs or something else around 140-145 GeV- see my previous comment written at Friday evening. Now Lubos told told that also Dzero and CDF experimental report similar signs so that both Tevatron and LCH to end up with similar conclusions.
In TGD framework this Higgs like state would be of course the M89 pion with mass 145 GeV detected already by CDF with 4 sigma significance few months ago but not reported by D0 and ATLAS and then forgotten by most bloggers: very common reaction at this highly emotional era of quarter economy;-)! TGD predicts also the 325 GeV state (actually two of them: M89 ρ and ω with very nearly degenerate masses). For 325 GeV state a firm evidence emerged from CDF during the first day of the conference. This state is a completely mystery in standard model.
Maybe the situation is now settled. TGD is the theory! After these long lonely years Nature simply forces us to accept TGD because it is the only theory that works and predicts! Isn't this marvelous! But: still every-one "has never heard" about TGD. Big Science is also great comedy and the players are masters of their art form: let's enjoy also this aspect of Big Science;-).
B. What about stringy exotics?
The string theory inspired predictions about microscopic black holes, strong gravity, large extra dimensions, Randall-Sundrum gravitons, split supersymmetry, and various exotic objects form the hard core of the super string hype. Peter Woit informs that neither CMS nor ATLAS see such objects.
C. What about TGD predictions?
Restricting the attention to TGD, LHC could provide also many positive results. There are many indications from both CDF, D0, and dark matter searches (say DAMA) and also earlier anomalies some which were discovered already at seventies for the predictions of TGD. There are many questions which LHC probably answers in near future.
C.1. Is M89 physics there?
Is M89 hadron physics there? There are many indications discussed here. The CDF bump at 150 GeV (not detected by D0) would be identifiable as pion π(89). The masses of u(89) and d(89) is from a generalization of argument applying to ordinary pion 102 GeV and quark jets with this mass are predicted. Quite generally, jets with "too high" transversal momenta from the decays of M89 hadrons are the signature of this physics. There already exists indications for them. Indications exist for M89 &rho: and ω besides pion and also for Ψ/J and bottonium as well as the analog of λ baryon with mass around 390 GeV for which however quarks should be ordinary: only hadronic space-time sheet would correspond to M89 and can be seen as a state for which hadronic space-time sheet is heated from p-adic temperature corresponding to k=107 to that corresponding to k=89. By using p-adic length scale hypothesis and the model for ordinary hadrons one can deduce rather detailed predictions for the masses of the particles involved and QCD could help enormously in estimating scattering rates.
Addition: Just after adding this posting to my blog I looked at the blog of Lubos and found that there is a sharp peak at 327 GeV in ZZ to four leptons. This peak or actually two were reported already earlier. If one identifies the 145 GeV CDF bump as M89 pion, a simple argument predicts the masses of M89 &rho: and ω mesons: they are very near to each other and the prediction is around 325 GeV! It really begins to look that M89 hadron physics is there!! Dare I hope that TGD will be finally taken seriously by establishment and my long banishment from the academic world will end with a rehabilitation?!
Addition: The 145 GeV CDF bump was also discussed in an attempt to find an explanation for why CDF sees it and D0 does not. ATLAS reported their study concerning the 145 GeV bump and found nothing. Situation remains open. If these particles are dark in TGD sense, very delicate effects are possible since also darkness in this weaker sense means missing energy property before the transformation to visible matter. Recall that CMS saw what Lubos calls a "crazy deficit" of events at 325 GeV at which CDF now sees sharp resonance. Maybe the darkness implies that detection is very sensitive to the parameters of the situation. The history of dark matter in TGD sense beginning at seventies from the detection of what correspond to dark colored variants of electrons forming electro-pions is a series of forgotten anomalies: could the common explanation be that these particles are detected only if they decay to ordinary matter in detector volume.
Addition: Matt Strassler notices that ATLAS has reported an excess in H→WW between 2 sigma and 2.8 sigma in the range 130-150 GeV. Phil Gibbs gives a link to the ATLAS slides. If the decay of virtual Higgs can produce this effect, why the decay M89 pion with mass 145 GeV decaying to WW could not do the same?
Addition: I liked very much the argument represented by Lubos presumably inspired by the following piece of data (despite the fact that it was wrong, Lubos indeed removed his blog posting later!).
Andrey Korytov presents the summary of the CMS search for the Standard Model Higgs thus far. Again 6 different studies combined together. 95 per cent exclusion ranges are 149-206, 300-440, and much of the region from 200-300. 90 per cent exclusion 145-480. Interesting excesses possible 120-145 but statistical significance hard to evaluate at this time (but somewhat smaller excess than ATLAS sees.)
One can indeed wonder whether the mere presence of these exclusion regions or more precisely, the downwards tips inside them with sufficient amount of sigma carries some important message. This might be the case.
The argument of Lubos goes as follows when appropriately generalized and put in correct context so that it applies. In processes where virtual boson- be it Higgs or M89 meson or something else one happens to believe - decays to on mass shell particles such as WW pair, a downwards tip is generated since the sign of the real part of propagator changes at pole and destructive interference with other contributions to the process takes pace. The effect is smoothed out by the finite width of the resonance but is still present. If this interference is not taken into account in Monte Carlo simulations, one can obain apparent exclusion regions and multi-sigma tips inside them. If this is the case, then at least in some cases the exclusion ranges could be seen as indications for resonances with masses somewhat below the range of inclusion. The original slides of Korytov contained also a near 3-sigma deficit near 340 GeV having a possible interpretation as a signature of a virtual ρ(89)/ω(89). Unfortunatley, this deficit did not however appear in the later slides.
If one accepts this argument, one can ask whether the deficit giving rise to an exclusion range beween 149-206 GeV could be seen as a signature for the 145 GeV CDF bump interpreted as M89 pion. Unfortunately, the curves are safely in 1 sigma band in the exclusion range so that this argument does not seem bite. One can however argue that since the normalization is by the cross section for the model with Higgs similar interference effect in normalization cancels the interference effect so that the situation remains unsettled unless the inteference effect is considerably larger than for real Higgs! In ATLAS summary about Higgs to WW this effect is seen at 340 GeV and could be interpreted in terms of 325 GeV ρ/ω.
C.2. Is supersymmetry in TGD sense present?
Sparticles would be composites of particle and right-handed neutrino and would decay to particle and neutrino. R-parity conservation would be broken by the mixing of right handed and left handed neutrino. The TGD counterpart for the decays of gluinos to three quark jets allowed by standard SUSY would be the decays of M89 baryons.
Addition: Do the above discussed limits on the squark and gluino masses deduced for standard SUSY apply in TGD? The cautious answer is "No". Basically everything boils down to the detection of the production of SUSY particles. R-parity conservation must hold true in good approximation in standard SUSY to make proton stable enough and this requires sparticles to be produced as pairs. Sparticles decay in a cascade like manner producing as an outcome lightest super-symmetric particles called neutralinos stable by R-parity conservation. Neutralinos showing themselves as a missing energy is what one tries to detect.
In TGD framework right handed neutrino generates SUSY so that situation is totally different. Sparticles could decay to particle and neutrino in the detection volume. The only standard model events of this kind are decays of electroweak gauge bosons to lepton pairs. A decay event producing particle + neutrino total quantum numbers differing from those of electroweak gauge boson would serve as a unique signature of the SUSY in TGD sense. But how can we tell that neutrino rather than neutralino is in question: perhaps from masslessness? If the lifetime of the sparticle is long enough situation could be rather similar to that in standard SUSY and the deduced limits might apply. Recall that also the view about massivation is totally different in TGD framework and there are no TGD counterparts for the above mentioned SUSY parameters m0 and m1/2.
Addition: From CMS conference page I found a link to an interesting eprint. The conclusion of the Search for New Physics with a Mono-Jet and Missing Transverse Energy in pp Collisions at s1/2 = 7 TeV is that there is no significant evidence for monojets plus missing transverse energy. This could exclude light squarks decaying to quark and neutrino. The graphs however suggest that there is small surplus at high transverse momenta. In the leptonic sector anomalous lepton + missing energy events would be the signature. In standard physics framework these decays could be erraneously interpreted in terms of anomalous production of W bosons or their heavier exotic counterparts. The article Search for First Generation Scalar Leptoquarks in the eνjj Channel in pp Collisions at s1/2 = 7 TeV excludes leptoquarks producing in their decays electgron or neutrino and quark. Unfortunately the second lepton is now always charged that the selection criteria exclude ννjj events predicted by TGD SUSY. The article Search for a W' boson decaying to a muon and a neutrino in pp collisions at s1/2 = 7 TeV reports that there is no signicicant excess of these events. Also now the graphs show a little excess for highest transverse masses.
Addition: If the decays of the sparticle to particle to neutrino are slow, the bounds obtained from LHC apply also in TGD. The simplest guess for squark and slepton mass scales is based on the observation that charged leptons correspond to three subsequent Mersennes/Gaussian Mersennes labeled by primes (127,113,107) whereas for quarks the integer k satisfies k≥113. If ones assumes that also charged sleptons correspond to this kind of Mersennes, this leaves only the option k =(89,79,61) for charged sleptons and k≥79 for squarks. All charged sfermions apart from selectron would have masses above 13 TeV. Selectron would have mass 262 GeV and sneutrinos could have considerably lower masses. Weak gaugino masses would most naturally correspond to a mass scale near M89. This scenario satisfies the recent bounds even for small breaking of R-parity conservation. This scenario predicts correctly the g-2 anomaly of muon assuming only that sneutrino masses are low enough.
C.3 What about TGD based explanation of family replication phenomenon
In TGD family replication has topological explanation in terms of the genus of partonic 2-surface. Exotic bosons, which can be regarded as flavour octets characterized by pairs of genus g1 and g2 assignable to the two wormhole throats of wormhole contact carrying fermion and antifermion number are predicted. Are they there? This predicts new kind of flavor non-conserving neutral currents. There are some indications for them from forward backward asymmetry in top pair production observed both by CDF and D0.
Addition: Tommaso Dorigo tells that CMS finds no evidence for forward-backward asymmetry in top-pair production in proton-proton collisions. Earlier both CDF and D0 reported asymmetry in proton-antiproton collisions: this was reported also by Tommaso. These findings were described in Europhysics 2011 and also in Nature.
If both measurements are correct, one can conclude that the asymmetry must relate to the scattering of valence quarks of proton from valence antiquarks of antiproton in Tevatron. This explains why the asymmetry is not present in CMS analysis studing p-p collisions. This supports the interpretation in terms of scattering by an exchange of flavor octet of gluons (see this).
Addition:: The exchange of flavor octet weak gauge bosons could also give additional contributions to the mechanism generating CP breaking since new box diagrams involving two exchanges of flavor octet weak boson contribute to the mixings of quark pairs in mesons. The exchanges giving rise to an intermediate state of two top quarks are expected to give the largest contribution to the mixing of the neutral quark pairs making up the meson. This involves exchange of flavor octet W boson analogous to the usual exchange of the flavor singlet boson. This might explain the reported anomalous like sign muon asymmetry in BBbar decay (see this) suggesting that the CP breaking in this system is roughly 50 times larger than predicted by CKM matrix. The new diagrams would only amplify the CP breaking associated with CKM matrix rather than bringing in any new source of CP breaking. This mechanism icreases also the CP breaking in KKbar system known to be also anomalously high.
C.4 What about TGD based view about color
One of the key distinctions between TGD and QCD is the different view about color. Both leptons and quarks are predicted to have colored excitations. Are heavy colored excitations of leptons there? The mass of M89 electron would be obtained by multiplying the mass of the ordinary electron by a factor 2(127-89)/2=219 and is about 250 GeV in the case that M89 characterizes these particles. One can also imagine colored excitations of quarks. Again indications exist.
C.6 Hierarchy of Planck constants and TGD based view about dark matter
Is TGD view about dark matter based on hierarchy of integer valued multiples of Planck constant (in effective sense) correct? This notion of darkness is much weaker than the standard view and has most dramatic implications in living matter but could also imply strange effects at LHC since dark particles could be detected only if they transform to ordinary matter in the detection volume. This might relate to the discrepancy between CDF and D0 results concerning the 145 GeV bump reported by CDF.
From the TGD point of view the summary would be following. The evidence for the failure of standard view about SUSY and about Higgs and massivation give strong support for the TGD based vision. The evidence for M89 physics is rather strong if one accepts the argument of Lubos described above. The crucial challenge is to understand why D0 and ATLAS do not see the 145 GeV bump. My proposal is that M89 hadrons are dark in TGD sense and can leak out the of the detection volume and depending on details of detection geometry can manifest themselves as missing energy or decay products. Various cuts applied in the analysis could eliminate this kind of signal. There are also slight indications for TGD based view about SUSY as monojets + missing energy identified erratically as decay products of W' realized as a slight excess at high transverse momenta. I have not been reading the other sessions of the conference (say QCD session) so that there might be surprises in store.
Should I regard these exciting days as a victory for TGD or is all this just reckless speculations of a diletant? I do not know!