Thursday, August 23, 2012

The decays of Higgs like particle to bbar pairs observed?

As I have explained, In TGD framework Higgs is replaced with pseudoscalar which I call Euclidian pion.

  1. The model predicts correctly the anomalously high decay rate of 125 GeV boson to gamma pairs if it corresponds to Euclidian pion. One obtains simpler variant of standard model Higgs mechanism in the gauge boson sector but without the hierarchy problem since Euclidian pion need not (but can) have linear couplings to fermions explaining fermion masses in standard model framework (p-adic thermodynamics therefore solves the hierarchy problem and gives also for Higgs its non-tachyonic mass in the simplest model).

  2. Higgs vacuum expectation characterizing coherent vacuum state results from instanton density, which is non-vanishing only in Euclidian regions of space-time surface representing lines of generalized Feynman graphs.

  3. In Minkowskian regions field equation imply that CP2 projection of the space-time surface is 3-D. Therefore instanton density vanishes so that M89 pion is not eaten by weak bosons. For the same reason M89 pion, which is analogous to vector particle in CP2 tangent space has only three polarizations in CP2directions so that the fourth component of pion disappears and one obtains just the 3-component pion.

  4. What is amazing that the new vision about Higgs like particle allows to say something highly interesting about the new E(38) boson (which of course could be fake) by simple p-adic scaling arguments (see this). By scaling back to M89 one ends up to ask whether weak bosons reside at M89 Regge trajectories with a predictable slope - as one might also expect if one accepts that they correspond to pairs of monopole magnetic flux tubes at paralle space-time sheets. Of course, these are just questions and probably its does not take too much time to answer to these questions negatively by a simple reduction ad absurdum argument.

The crucial prediction is that the couplings of Euclidian pion are induced radiatively and need not (but can) depend linearly on boson mass and can be and are expected to be smaller than for standard model Higgs. The fact that the decays to tau pairs have not been observed at LHC (see this) supports this picture but much more data is needed before one can make any conclusions.

The following three pictures represent the lowest Feynman graphs contributing to the decays of standard model Higgs, the branching ratios of Higgs to various channels, and the decay width of Higgs as a function of Higgs mass. As far decay rates are considered, the optimal choice in the attempts to observe fermionic couplings of Higgs like particle is in the case of standard model Higgs is to search for decays to b pairs. From the second figure listed above one finds that the branching ratio of standard model Higgs to b pair is more than 10 times higher than that to tau pair. This mostly due to the proportionality of the branching ratio to the square of quark mass. The ratio of bbar and ttaubar branching ratios receives from this a factor [m(b)/m(τ)]2=(4/1.7)2=6.1.

D0 Collaboration indeed claims that it has observed decays of 125 GeV Higgs candidate to bbar. The Tevatron signal is relatively weak: it only has a statistical significance of 3 sigma, much below the 5 sigma serving as a standard for discovery in absence of systematic errors. I attach the abstract of the article of D0 group below.

We combine searches by the CDF and D0 Collaborations for the associated production of a Higgs boson with a W or Z boson and subsequent decay of the Higgs boson to a bottom-antibottom quark pair. The data, originating from Fermilab Tevatron pp̅ collisions at s1/2=1.96  TeV, correspond to integrated luminosities of up to 9.7  fb-1. The searches are conducted for a Higgs boson with mass in the range 100–150  GeV/c2. We observe an excess of events in the data compared with the background predictions, which is most significant in the mass range between 120 and 135  GeV/c2. The largest local significance is 3.3 standard deviations, corresponding to a global significance of 3.1 standard deviations. We interpret this as evidence for the presence of a new particle consistent with the standard model Higgs boson, which is produced in association with a weak vector boson and decays to a bottom-antibottom quark pair.

Suppose that D0 observation is real. If the Higgs like particle is standard model Higgs, the failure to observe tau pair production could be explained as statistical fluctuation. If the Higgs like particle is Euclidian pion and its decays to fermion pairs depend only weakly on fermion mass, the decay rates to lepton pairs and lighter quark pairs should be faster than for standard model Higgs. One encounters again problem with tau pairs. My bet is that D0 observation is fake and involves delicate psychological factors such as the belief that the new particle is indeed standard model Higgs.

For obvious reasons I feel like being a dancer on the rope! Do I ever get to the other side of the abyss? Or is my fate same as that of SUSY builders and superstringers?;-)

For more details about TGD vision concerning Higgs like particle see the article.


Orwin O'Dowd said...

Yes, thermodynamics has a large N factor structure, but I don't think you can get there by metrical arguments alone. Heat flux involves thernal losses in currents, and resistance is in general non-linear and frequency-dependent. This is why Poynting's Theorem is an idealization, an equillibrium model, and if you ignore that you get 3DT with heavy vector bosons that probably aren't there! SUSY seems to go the same way.

Poincare distinguished linear, periodic and chaotic solutions in celestial mechanics, and your Minkowski/Euclidean distinction isn't quite adequte to that. A fractal is not just a scalar, it packs a branching morophology, a reproductive dynamic. The shiggs (Higgsish) dynamic seems to offer this, but one must work through the periodic range (and analytic continuations) to the chaos.

Currently, Elizabeth Rauscher and the Resonance Project are doing best at this, although I don't think they have a solution for E(38) just yet.

N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, “Collective Coherent Oscillations in Plasma Modes in Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure-Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces”, pp 279-331, Beyond the Standard Model: The Foundations of Cosmology and Quantum Theory, eds. R.L. Amoroso, B. Leahnart and J.-P. Vigier, Noetic Academic Science Press, CA, USA 2006

L. Edgar Otto said...


What then is a fractal beyond the simple scale issues, or for that matter thermodynamics and symmetry?

I am not sure what you see that restricts things so- I think the truth of the matter is more in the conception and interpretation than our limited physics equations sytems- Matti is clear and in greater depth conceptually than what you seem to say in the physics of the last century. That is what is now inadequate in our intellectual distinctions.

The PeSla

L. Edgar Otto said...

Orwin, and Matti too, what do you think of this article today on science daily? It is relavant to the comments above for the plane as well these considerations of perfect spheres at extreme regions.

I feel it an error to say everything is all foamy, chaotic, nonlinear and so. But so is the idea which haunts us with an absolute nothingness as if an undifferentiated vacuum, that is all a matter of crystalline continuity.

In that fractals are directed branching trees (Orwin) the number in binary to encode the branches or from the view of the canopy and its notation we have the same thing in the coding.

Outside the completeness of spectrum space a few more abstract bits define a sort of transparency or invisibility so how can we say what is there or not. BTW I do not know how to see what is meant by E38 here, I must be missing some link or explanation in clarity.


Orwin said...

I said Poincare found chaos in a distinct range of celestial mechanics - not everywhere! It arises with a 'pumped' energy-flux, and I know how that differs from unforced heat flow- I use that every day in the kitchen.

The distiction from scale factors matters now because the universe is not fractal to highest scale, not above 300m light years, where the appearance is random and 'flat'. That was on the BBC the other day.

Also, the E(38) modes (1,2,3) are like Landau's old model of turbulence, which doesn't model chaos, where period-doubling applies.

In the math, the signature of chaos is x -> x(1-x): feedback, factors and sign-changes all mushed up. Its not like creative combinatorics - its an energy thing, but plants ride on it. In art, its a Gothic and Far Eastern fascination, very not French. Don't let it bother you - your art has taken a very nice turn.

But a theory of everything can't be choosy.

Matti Pitkanen said...

To Orwin and Pesla:

There are infinity of different variants about fractals and one must specify what kinds of fractals are in question in order to not create wrong associations.

A common misconception is that fractals a chaotic: they are not- they are extremely ordered structures with long range correlations and chaotic looking behavior appears only in small scales. p-Adic fractals in fact correspond to smooth curves in p-adic topology.

What is universal about fractals is approximate discrete scale invariance: fractal looks same in magnification by some scale factor. One can also consider the scaling in opposite direction and this is what happens in TGD where powers of 2 characterize p-adic fractality. For the hierarchy of Planck constants scales would come as integer multiples.

A rather general manner to produce fractals is as fixed sets of iteration: Michael Barnsley has written a beautiful book about this. This process produces Mandelbrot set as set of points at the boundary of two attractors: origin and infinity in the standard example. One-dimensional extremely complex and structured curve is the outcome.

Iteration popped up to my great surprise as a manner to construct numerically quaternionic space-time surfaces and one could say that space-time surfaces are analogous to points of Mandelbrot fractal - not in the complex plane but in WCE ("world of classical worlds") and possibly also in imbedding space.

This would also give a direct realization for quantum criticality: fractals are indeed associated with criticality which geometrically means residing in the boundary between two attractor basis, dancing on the rope;-).

Whether quaternionicity gives preferred extremals of Kahler action is still unproven.

Orwin said...

Matti, I see you buy the Pao Alto notion that the onset of chaos is a phase change. But the Ginzberg-Landau order parameter is not a fractal. And with a physical fractal, renormalization principles apply: the interaction concerned has a specific range, and won't scale without limit. So a true phase change is a trans-normalization.

Of course, if you reduce physics to numbers, you can busk it. T'Hooft has bought in and is using their cellular automata to re-do QM.

By the way, Tommaso went ballistic about E(38): he re-wrote the rule book, and won't tollerate the old style of experimental analyis. But what is CERN doing to propagate the new standard? The Milner prize sure don't help.

If this is the new paradigm, Wolram's New Kind of Science, David Cameron has already defunded it: 70% of the results in medicine won't replicate. The London Goths came out carrying a coffin.

Meanwhile, Richard Brandom's Lock Lectures prove possible worlds, classic modal iteration! You are onto something there!!

That would fit probabilities of switching in a solid-state device. I find serious lighting-risk noise (that's up to gamma-burst!) in wall-plugs, and use only nextgen surge-protected swithches. There's also a major issue of 'stickyness' with computer interfaces. I wish they would learn to use quaternionic programming languages like Calabri and Cinderella. Nokia should take note.

Ulla said...

Ulla said...

matti Pitkanen said...

To Orwin:

The dynamics of cellular automatons does not represent to me a candidate for the fundamental laws of physics. Self-organizing systems and fundamenal physics are at opposite ends of spectrum and cellular automaton thinking applies which itself can decide about their symbol based dynamics (we can decide what are the rules of the game).

I agree with Lubos and probably most other physicists that t''Hooft's approach is wrong and for me it remains a mystery how t'Hooft can argue that deterministic dynamics of cellular automatons can produce quantum theory including solution of quantum measurement problem. t'Hooft begins from a fundamental problem which Lubos and instrumentalists in general just forget, but is led to to totally wrong path. Einstein already demonstrated that the reduction of QM to determinism classical physics fails.

The reaction of Tommaso Dorigo is to me a reaction of Big Science to small science, nothing new to me;-). The willingness of Dorigo to make a bet of 1000 dollars that no physicists will take the claimed finding seriously, reveals his attitude more than clearly. Sad that we scientists differ so little from cavemen. May be the competition taken to extreme makes us cavemen.

For me it was a pleasant surprise that iteration could provide a possible manner to find quaternionic surfaces and this makes very plausible that approach to so called chaos is also involved: it would be related to various degrees of quantum criticality. More and more cycles in the iteration.

Orwin said...

Matti, You can measure a quantum distribution using Nyquist or Fischer entropy, and this fact is used to justify parsing the dynamic as information and speaking in terms of informatic determinism. How the information measure is justified is not a question currently debated.

Great claims have been made for Fischer entropy, but Sir RA Fischer was just using Gaussian normals in population genetics to talk up the idea of a 'fitness surface' as the key to evolution. He established the 95% confidance level in this way, and the old experimental analysis followed his lead. Ken Wilber now tags along.

I spotted the x(1-x) signature of chaos in later population genetics, and Robert May famously demonstrated it in popoulation dynamics. So there is likely a fractal in Fischer information, but what has this to do with physics?

Oddly enough, Robert Brandom did his PhD under Richard Rorty, who describes him as an Hegelian. His iterated possible worlds reproduces the logic of Lamark's differential key: characters distinguish species, they don't define them, so one classifies by exclusion.

And each feature of a possible world excludes various others - so its a matter of relevance logic, now big in Australia. It is thus possible that there is a Fischer fractal in view here, which would throw important light on the physical potential for life. But there would have to be feedback involved, *a scaling of the rate of change.*

Ulla said...

Anonymous said...

Ulla, that paper mentions Clifford algebras..I had some epiphanies regarding them and it motiviated by to write up a 'summary' article but that's as far as I went... on an unrelated note, do any of you folks use Geiger counters? I have a Blackcat GM-45 that I have written software for, it records the number of milliseconds between particle detections. After recording about 24 hours of data I plotted the histograms.. it's not Poisson, I thought radiactive decay was always poisson?! The mean is ~1500ms and the also the standard devivation is ~1500ms the same.. whereas if it was Poisson the *variance* should be 1500ms, not the standard deviation. What gives? I found it coincidental that the LHC is calibrating cesium sources right now.


Orwin said...

Stephen: I also noticed that issue - its Hartree: his atomic unit of time E/h already packs an energy-time uncertainty! So the old radiocarbon dating is no longer used, but they still don't understand the Bronze Age, when the weather was warmer. So the general idea is to pray and pay money to clerics, but kleruchia was a Greek colony which was meant to pay its own way...

Anonymous said...

Orwin, sounds about right.. there is no auto-correlation in the data either... I had a vision/dream of my counter though once when I was quite far from the location of it.. everything it it's vicinity was scintillating.. which I guess it always is, given the cosmic background and whatever random background sources.. guess my mind is just really creative when it comes up with these silly dreams. Now if I could only get the heavy feeling to stop coming and the teeth to not be so sensitive...

L. Edgar Otto said...

My topic today (I am not here as much as I am doing music including more theory) is this issue of iteration and how it has been with me awhile now.

Newscientist has this article: and I am wondering if this is the reason it was the topic in the comments here at TGD or just a general newsworthy issue of the day?

Again, where is the chaos in quantum mechanics?

Symmetry if it is anything like music cannot be just electric and magnetic even if unified as one force for in that one force resides in recursive looping or forever branching styles of fractals (regardless of the complex plane ideas) but mirrors more than the ascending and descending scales of notes.

Anyone have a suggestion as to how I can tune my guitar with circular strings even if the geometry does require six hands to play them?

The PeSla

Orwin said...

Nelly Furtado wired a coat-hanger to her aerial to get da music and her career going. ThePeSla has the big story. These conformal fractals look promissing, but the math is heavy:

The C_l measure - transfinite diameter on Wiki - is used in analysing conductivity and viscosity as boundary-problems.

Matti Pitkanen said...

To Pesla:

I do not have either idea about why just fractals were the topics of the comments. If I still remember correctly, the posting was about the possible observation of decays of Higgs like particle to b pairs;-). Don't get scared;-)! I have given up the dream about staying in topics: I am happy if people behave like civilized human beings;-).

New Scientist's article about claim that there is no fractality in the Universe beyond some scale is interesting. Probably it takes at most half a year for an opposite claim to appear. The claims about galactic dark matter during last years show that one cannot take them too seriously.

Be as it may be, in TGD framework there are excellent reasons to expect fractality coming as powers of two.

*The characteristic length scales of p-adic fractality behave as 2^n. In very long length scales the next scale is really long and this might create the impression that smoothness has set on. Probably the killing of this argument is easy.

*This argument is not so easy to kill. The amplitude of fluctuation depends on scale and is expected to decrease as some power of 2^(-n) so that in very long length scales fluctuations become non-detectable.

Unfortunately science news are nowadays strongly hyped and must contain the sensationalistic element to receive attention. Saying "the fluctuations assignable to fractality are reported to be non-detectable beyond certain scale" is not very sexy at all and is replaced with "there is NO fractality beyond certain scale in the Universe".

One aspect of fractality is the concentration of galaxies along string like objects. I think it was New Scientist that reported that the planes of rotation for galaxies along string correlate strongly. This is a complete mystery unless one assumes the presence of string like object along which galaxies are located and which forces the planes of rotation to be orthogonal to it.

This also predicts that galactic dark matter can be assigned with these strings and explains the null results in attempts to find galactic halo of dark matter.

A killer prediction is free motion of galaxies along string direction. The reported large scale motions would naturally correspond to this kind of motion.

This picture is rather old but for year ago I managed to develop in in more detail and by fractality managed to relate it also to solar dynamics: see

Ulla said...

It is my fault, I always drift away. It was about the idea of two numbertypes meeting, AND the trinity. I thought it was the same principe as in Life?

Anonymous said...

Orwin, I figured out the mystery, the time between particle detections of the geiger counter is Gamma distributed, I divded milliseconds by 1000 to put in units of seconds.. perhaps this is how they calibrated it at the factory to usual background sources. In any case gamma distribution with shape parameter 1.5 and scale parameter 1 gives exactly standard deviatation equal to the mean. Per Maple, > Mean(RandomVariable(Gamma(1.5, 1)));
> sqrt(Variance(RandomVariable(Gamma(1.5, 1))));

Ulla said...

More off topic. Scientists have come a small step further about consciousness, but still long way left.

Orwin said...

A pion-like isospin sounds about right for the shiggs. A Euclidean structure takes you back to the classical crystal lattice or material point of d'Alembert - pitty Gauss tried to rubbish him.

Now Penrose' twistors give 26 extra dimensions, just like the constitutive relstions of continuum mechanics. Switching them in or out makes possible worlds or materials. An approiach through boundary conditions could work better, but then you need C_l - that's Moebius after Gauss.

There's serious hardware scanning the big picture and they expect 5 sigma results around year end - more tension for now. Peter Woit already damped the chatter.

Distribution analysis, best practice method and stray gamma data from LHC:
Parton analysis with data and open questions:

Anonymous said...

While we are at it, big brother and deep packet inspection.. they were using this shit when I worked at yahoo, apparently the company was involved in some "top secret military project" but you know I didn't have migraines and eye problems til then.. the LHC would sometimes trip when the door to the office was opened or closed.. of course anyone with any officialdom claimed it as a coincidence.

Ulla said...

Penrose lecture 4.4 12. Consciousness.

Ulla said...


Anonymous said...

Dark Matter with Density-Dependent Interactions