Higgs like state according to TGD after HCP2012

As both Phil Gibbs and Tommaso Dorigo have already told, ATLAS and CMS reported new Higgs results at LHC in Kyoto. From TGD perspective these results are of special interest since - as explained in previous postings (see this and this), they could allow to distinguish between two options suggested by TGD for the interpretation of the Higgs like particle. Before continuing it must be made clear that the road to these options has been long and with many twists and turns (see this). I have christened the basic options as Option I and II.

The two options

I have described these options here. In follow up posting I have described how Option II can be understood in TGD framework, where both gauge fields, Higgs field, and also graviton field are only constructs emerging at the QFT limit of the theory rather than having a fundamental ontological status.

1. Option I assumes that Higgs like state cannot explain fermion masses so that the couplings of Higgs to fermions can even vanish. Gauge boson masses are however assumed to result by the counterpart of Higgs mechanism which would be formation of a coherent state assignable to the Higgs like particle identified a M⁴ scalar formed from fermion and antifermion at opposite throats of wormhole contacts (just like gauge bosons). Note that Higgs like state is actually CP₂ vector.
   
   
   1. One can wonder why not allow coherent states of Higgs like particle also for option II at the microscopic level. p-Adic thermodynamics does not tolerate this. Fhe conclusion that these coherent states explain also fermion masses is difficult to avoid. For me it would mean return 17 years back to the times before p-adic mass calculations without a slightest idea why fermion masses are what they are.
      
      
   2. Both scalar and pseudoscalar identification is possible for Higgs like state in TGD as it is now. Somewhat misleadingly I have referred to the Higgs like state as Euclidian pion. "Pion" is a misleading terminological mammoth bone from my original identification of 125 GeV state as pion of M₈₉ hadron physics. M₈₉ hadrons is one of the most important new physics (almost)-predictions of TGD. The 135 GeV particle for which Fermi telescope has provided considerable evidence could correspond to M₈₉ pion. It is a pity that the experimentalist are testing only the mainstream theories such as standard SUSY, whose state after HCP2012 is critical as doctors would say.
      

      The reason for "Euclidian" is that the space-time regions assignable to the (thickened) lines of generalized Feynman diagrams have Euclidian signature of induced metric. The Minkowskian parts of the flux tubes would be much longer, of the order of Compton length of particle, and could be identified as counterparts of hadronic strings if both ends carry fermion number. This means a unification of elementary particles and hadron like states: they are both string like objects but with widely differing typical lengths and string tensions. The string tension assignable to the long strings/flux tubes would give the dominant contribution to hadron masses.
      

2. Option II is conservative in the sense that apparently Higgs would make both bosons and fermions massive: aesthetically this is of course very nice feature. This conservative character is only apparent since p-adic thermodynamics would determine both fermion and boson masses - also the mass of Higgs.
   
   
   1. Both gauge boson fields and Higgs field would be constructs of QFT limit for the microscopic physical objects not describable as fields and obtained by making 3-surfaces assigned with particles to point like objects. In the earlier posting I described how standard model like theory would result as a QFT limit of TGD by using a modification of a standard construction for the effective action.
      
      
   2. "Apparent" would mean that Higgs vacuum expectation value is a purely fictive notion for this option. It would apparently explain masses for gauge bosons and fermions if the coupling of fermions to the scalar state mapped to Higgs field corresponds to gradient coupling Ψbarγ^μ∂_μΦΨ/μ, μ the Higgs vacuum expectation value reproducing the fermion mass from this coupling. In the case of gauge bosons the standard gauge coupling to Higgs would reproduce the gauge boson mass in same manner. This is however only a mimicry of the mass spectrum, not its prediction. QFT limit cannot do better. The crucial ratio of W and Z boson masses expressible in terms of Weinberg angle would become a definition of Weinberg angle.
      
      
   3. The identification of elementary particles in terms of monopole flux loops allows also to consider gauge boson masses as contributions to the conformal weight of the gauge boson ground state so that it would not result from the p-adic thermodynamics proper. Is this contribution present also in fermionic ground states and does it give only a small shift to fermion mass squared from the value determined by p-adic thermodynamics?
      

      For gauge bosons this contribution is of order O(p²): the coefficient would be large so that the contribution would not be much below the smallest possible O(p) contribution. Assuming this for fermions this contribution would induce only a small upwards shift of fermion masses whose relative size would be largest for lowest fermion families. For this option the parameter μ≈ 246 GeV, which actually corresponds to the smallest possible value of p-adic mass squared of order O(p): clearly W and Z boson masses are below this but not much and this would require p-adic temperature T=1/2 in p-adic thermodynamics. The proportionality of the mass of long string to the square of appropriate gauge coupling constant appearing in the gauge boson masses would be also natural and predict W/Z mass ratio correctly.
      

Option I or Option II?

What do the results of the data released by ATLAS and CMS groups allow to conclude? Option I or Option II?

1. Perhaps the most important piece of data is the production rate for kenotau⁺kenotau^- pairs by Higgs decays. CMS reports excess of .72+/- .52 and ATLAS .72+/- .64. Earlier Tevatron reported evidence excess in bb channel. Together these results are quite strong and if taken at face value (note however the large error margins) then Option II survives in TGD framework.
   
   
2. The crucial diphoton channels, where gamma pair excess has been reported hitherto have not been updated by either group. This is a pity since for Option I the development of coherent state of Euclidian scalar serving as a counterpart for the Higgs expectation would be due to a coupling of pseudoscalar (scalar) to instanton density (YM action density) - call it just X - slashed between Higgs like state and its conjugate in QFT description. The addition of a quantized piece to X would give rise to a term giving rise to anomalous decays to photon pairs/gauge boson pairs.
   

   For the pseudoscalar Higgs the coefficient of the interaction term would be dictated by anomaly considerations. For a scalar Higgs the ad hoc guess would that the coefficient is same. CP₂ type vacuum extremal represents the extreme case of Euclidian space-time region and for this induced Kähler form is self dual. Could this be used to justify this adhoc assumption?
   

   Many explanations for diphoton excess have been proposed and I cannot avoid the temptation to add an additional contribution to the soup. There have been rumors that the state around 125 GeV splits into two: ATLAS and CMS have indeed reported slightly different masses. Could this be a real effect and explain the diphoton excess - and also why nothing was reported in Kyoto? The believer on M₈₉ physics could argue as follows.
   
   

   1. The pion like state corresponds to 3⊕ 1 representation for strong isospin grojp U(2) realized using sub-algebra SU(2) of SU(3) playing the role of strong isospin group in TGD. Pion realizes only "3". Could "1" correspond to the sigma meson of M₈₉ hadron physics and have mass around 125 GeV and thus explain two-photon anomaly? Unfortunately, the status of sigma even in ordinary hadron physics has turned out to be very problematic.
      
      
   2. One can also play with a second idea. There is recent evidence that ordinary pion has what might be called an infrared Regge trajectory with the mass splitting about 20 MeV or 40 MeV between different states (see this). This pion would satellites also below its usual mass: the first reported one around 100 MeV. If also M₈₉ pion has similar IR Regge trajectory then by scaling by a factor 512 the splitting of 20 (40) MeV would scale up to a splitting of 10 (20) GeV. This would map 100 MeV pion to a copy of 135 GeV M₈₉ pion with mass around 115 GeV (for which ATLAS found evidence for a couple of years ago!). This state is unfortunately 10 GeV too low! 20 MeV splitting would suggest a satellite of pion around 120 MeV, and its M₈₉ variant would be around 125 GeV! In this case the different parities of Euclidian scalar and scaled down copy of Euclidian pion would allow to distinguish between them. This copy of pion would have also charged companions. There have been also rumors about charged companions of Higgs.
      
      
3. Tommaso Dorigo tells that also the first determination of the spin parity of the state has been made. 0₊ is slightly favored so that scalar Higgs would be in question. TGD indeed allows both options but for the scalar option the coupling of Higgs like state to YM action density remains the ad hoc guess mentioned above.
   

To sum up, the challenge of understanding Higgs like states in TGD framework seems to be now to be accomplished to high extent. The outcome is a formulation for the QFT limit of TGD which allows to understand how TGD implies standard model like theory as its QFT limit and rather precise view about limitations of QFT approximation.