The Higgs Boson Has *not* Been Found

[Aethelwulf]

And so this is a general discussion, since most my threads don't get much attention when it is riddled in math.

 

 

 

 

the Higgs Boson was claimed to be found by the LHC... let us now look at the news...

 

''Higgs Boson has been found,'' scientists claimed...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18702455

 

Emm.... hold your horses, no it hasn't! 99.99% it has been found?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/9374758/Higgs-boson-scientists-99.999-sure-God-Particle-has-been-found.html

 

Rubbish! It has a clear energy range beyond the Higgs. This reminds me of when Dirac discovered the antiparticle, he associated it to the proton. There where major problems. One of them was that he attributed it to a proton which was many magnitudes larger in mass than an electron, which sufficiently within the mass range of an electron. However, I see similarities within the recent arguments concerning the Higgs that is supposed to have been found.

 

Instead of a very large mass, we have present an energy range which does not fit the Higgs. Basically, the particle we are now dealing with has an energy signature which is vastly different to the particle we suspect we have found to be a Higgs. Secondly, we have chased this signature to the very last quadrant and still it does not fit the required energy signature for a Higgs... So if our particle has an energy slightly higher, how can we treat it as Higgs Boson?

 

This is not a Higgs Boson ----- what annoys me is that many scientists jumped on the bandwagon believing this to be true... I even had arguments with people when they said it must be true when doubts where raised later... so what does that say?

[Aethelwulf]

John Ellis, who actually works at the LHC said... but not quoted, that it probably isn't a Higgs.

 

He said this, because it has the WRONG energy signature, a point I have made since the ''supposed'' discovery.

[belovelife]

i read an article where it was a yellowstone boson, and also, one where they used lead and created a new super gluon matter?

[phision]

I think this thread: What If The Boson Is Not The Higgs ? was a precursor to the the topic here and many of the veiws are still relevant.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

From a link provided by my cousin who is involved in the project and is acknowledged ( T. Vickey)

in the attached PDF.

Seems it would be a useful resource for this discussion.

 

http://arxiv.org/fin...S/0/1/0/all/0/1 It can also be found here.

(And yes, my family is uber stoked to have a member involved in the project)

1211.6956v1.pdf

Edited November 30, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Aethelwulf]

From a link provided by my cousin who is involved in the project and is acknowledged ( T. Vickey)

in the attached PDF.

Seems it would be a useful resource for this discussion.

 

http://arxiv.org/fin...S/0/1/0/all/0/1 It can also be found here.

(And yes, my family is uber stoked to have a member involved in the project)

 

Why... this is fantastic. Perhaps you can get in touch with your cousin for me and ask for the consensus, because as far as I am aware, the Prestigious John Ellis who has been working on the project finding the Higgs Boson has admitted it probably isn't the Higgs because it has the wrong energy signature?

[Aethelwulf]

You know what it reminds me of?

 

Paul Dirac once postulated that the positron was in fact a Proton, because of its sign, however, despite this, the Proton was much heavier than what was predicted by his own theory. He ignored consequentially, his own discovery of the antiparticle at first.

 

This is within the same light. This particle has the wrong energy, how anyone can claim it is a Higgs Boson is a fantasy.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Why... this is fantastic. Perhaps you can get in touch with your cousin for me and ask for the consensus, because as far as I am aware, the Prestigious John Ellis who has been working on the project finding the Higgs Boson has admitted it probably isn't the Higgs because it has the wrong energy signature?

Gladly. Since it's very late in the evening there E-mail sent.

 

Dig it, Trevor at the helm in the ATLAS Control Room as Shift Leader...and I quote "Dear God, please don't let me f*#k up". Needless to say I'm uber ****** jealous.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Got tired of editing and re-editing, from his FB I'm guessing he'll answer to the affirmative.

 

From the provided reading

consistent with the assumption that the newly discovered particle at the LHC is one of

the neutral CP-even MSSM Higgs bosons. The study is based on a data sample that

corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 4.7 fb−1 to 4.8 fb−1 . The decay modes of the Higgs bosons considered are h/A/H → μ+ μ− , h/A/H → τe τμ , h/A/H → τlep τhad and

h/A/H → τhad τhad . The analysis selection criteria exploit the two main production mech-

anisms in the MSSM, the gluon-fusion and b-associated production modes, by introducing

categories for event samples with and without an identified b-jet. Since no excess of events

over the expected background is observed in the considered channels, 95% CL limits are

set in the mA –tan β plane, excluding a significant fraction of the MSSM parameter space.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Aethelwulf]

Needless to say I'm uber ****** jealous.[/color]

 

Nice. Keep me posted.

 

But keep it in mind, I doubt it is a Higgs. If I am wrong, it is still good science.

[Aethelwulf]

Got tired of editing and re-editing, from his FB I'm guessing he'll answer to the affirmative.

 

From the provided reading

 

 

A lot of this is over my head. I don't know all the decay models of particles. Can he not give a straight simple answer to a relatively simple question?

 

The Higgs Boson has been ... chased, only just recently to it's very last quadrants of energy ranges. If we are only now saying it is within the right energy range, why then does this particle have the wrong energy signature?

 

It's really not a complicated question.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

A lot of this is over my head. I don't know all the decay models of particles. Can he not give a straight simple answer to a relatively simple question?

 

The Higgs Boson has been ... chased, only just recently to it's very last quadrants of energy ranges. If we are only now saying it is within the right energy range, why then does this particle have the wrong energy signature?

 

It's really not a complicated question.

I've asked him for a yes/no Via E-mail as it's now midnight there and I do not expect a reply until sometime tomorrow. The quote is from the material I linked to, and IMHO from what I've read both in the provided link and on his FB page (including comments from his associates) it appears thus far as he will reply with a "yes, but............". Edited December 1, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Aethelwulf]

I've asked him for a yes/no Via E-mail as it's now midnight there and I do not expect a reply until sometime tomorrow. The quote is from the material I linked to, and IMHO from what I've read both in the provided link and on his FB page (including comments from his associates) it appears thus far as he will reply with a "yes, but".

 

 

A ''yes... but?''

 

Is that a right... but could be wrong? This is what troubles me see... how can there be doubt? You don't proclaim the existence of a renowned particle without all the data fitting, especially it's energy range.

[Aethelwulf]

I don't know if the scientists at the LHC are just very... eager. It wasn't till recently they predicted neutrino's moving faster than light... no?

[Aethelwulf]

As far as I see it, if this particle does not have the right kind of energy, how can it apply to your normal Higgs Boson, which involves a specific expectation value of energy in the vacuum? It is obviously a new a particle found, not a Higgs.

 

Not a big deal, we have just found a new kind of Baryon particle, from the LHC if my memory serves.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Couldn't answer that on as I haven't been following things too closely, were it not for his celebratory post on FB followed by coming here and seeing a related thread, I probably would not have even given this thread a look (as I now have a lot of catching up to do)...posted the link and attachment because I thought it might be useful to the discussion. Most people I interact with don't even know what a LHC is let alone a higgs or for that matter a proton or a neutron are (how the h*** did they ever manage to graduate!?!?). I tried to explain why the news was so exciting to my wife, but, as usual she has no clue nor any interest in learning...interestingly our daughter not only knows but finds stuff like this fascinating... Thank god! One of the few people I interact with that is interested in science!!!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

A ''yes... but?''

 

Is that a right... but could be wrong? This is what troubles me see... how can there be doubt? You don't proclaim the existence of a renowned particle without all the data fitting, especially it's energy range.

Not entirely true, the atom was predicted and accepted long before it was proven. For almost as long as that atoms were considered the smallest of all particles and could not be reduced further into smaller particles. Take a look at the accepted models and theories for black holes and how they've changed over the years. What's accurate as of now is not guarantied to be accurate a week, a month, a year or a decade from now. It may be that as I gather from the reading that the difference is a matter of interpretation of the data, or that the predicted value does not match the actual.

Even if this recently

discovered particle is shown to have properties very close to the Standard Model Higgs

boson, there are still a number of problems that are not addressed. For instance, quantum

corrections to the mass of the Higgs boson contain quadratic divergences. This problem

can be solved by introducing supersymmetry, a symmetry between fermions and bosons,

by which the divergent corrections to the Higgs boson mass are cancelled.