Higgs observation

faethor

faethor

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
5,144
Reaction score
1,243
Good read on where we're at with Higgs. LINK

The LHC/CERN announcements are supposed to come this week. Always looking for new evidence and confirmation, or not, of existing scientific postulates.
 
excerpt:
4. Errors from the monte carlo - We have to assume that the monte carlo simulations have been run long enough so that statistical errors are sufficiently small to be negligible, but what about other errors. As far as I understand it, ATLAS and CMS have detailed simulators of their detectors that include everything from pile-up to the efficiency of the parts in the detector. One thing that could be very relevant is the effect of the pile-up. WW at low Higgs masses decays to leptons and neutrinos so there is missing energy to be accounted for. Pile-up has been said to make this difficult because particles from one event contaminate another. The simulations must include not just the pile-up but also the triggers and the algorithms used to reconstruct the individual events. How well has this been done? The first inverse femtobarn of data had low pile-up numbers so if they have not understood the effects of pile-up correctly it could account for the fact that the signal faded as high pile-up data was added. I dont know if this is a plausible explanation but it is something the collaborations should be talking about and if they don’t say anything about it theorists should be asking them questions.


i actually think it's going to end up being a combination of a bunch of the possibilities he's offered but ive actually wondered about this more than once...
 
I think discovery is always one part joy and one part sadness. It's exciting to know more about our universe. It's exciting to be the first to uncover that gem. It's disappointing because we now have 1 less area to investigate, 1 less area of wonder.
 
robert l. bentham said:
kinda anticlimactic... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Still lots of work to do. Spin and other properties of this Boson must be figured out. Also, this existence gives hints to supersymmetry possibly existing. We have to crank up the power of the LHC even more to figure out those larger particles. And don't forget this is only a component of observable mass. There's that Dark Matter which is postulated but not yet observed. Does Higgs somehow play there? This opened up more questions for years to come.

But, yeah also anticlimatic as it's not like we can do anything useful with this knowledge at present. Though at one time the same could be said about the electron and well Whyzzat depends upon the usefulness of that. So who knows a more mass based Whyzzat may be in our futures.;)
 
...The other thing of interest would be if you're into computers. The amount of data the LHC generates is roughly 10 fold to that of the older Tevatron. Additionally, it can process that data so much faster. With the question of Higgs we have the Tevatron taking over a year to get us 99.8% accuracy on this question. With the LHC basically took this data and analysis, to 99.9999% accuracy, on the question took about a month. :eek:
 
anticlimactic??

come on, guys....this is why none-scientists think scientists are nuts.


ALL knowledge is good and exciting.
Act like it :banana:
 
The Standard Model cannot predict the Higgs boson mass, so any bump of the energy spectrum connected with symmetric decay can be considered as a Higgs boson.

large decay chart here

looks like the CMS data shows about 7 spots of deviation away from the 5 sigma symmetric decay line, with the largest @126GeV which is what they show with their red line of S+B data fit

what about the other deviations? 105GeV, 110GeV, 117GeV, 134GeV 137Gev, 139GeV
 
Glaucus said:
Why is it disappointing?
Click to expand...
Because we are probably wrong about the universe (we have plenty of things we can't explain yet) but this result doesn't help us to see it or the way in which we are wrong. It would have been very stimulating to find that it wasn't there.
 
metalman said:
The Standard Model cannot predict the Higgs boson mass, so any bump of the energy spectrum connected with symmetric decay can be considered as a Higgs boson.
Click to expand...
The Higgs Boson has predicted properties and energy level. We wouldn't call something at 139GeV Higgs because that property is inconsintent with Higgs predictions. It well may be something else but it wouldn't be called Higgs.

Part of your question here is really how do we name something. Names are arbetrary assignments to a set of properties. We've postulated that if a mass carrying particle existed it must exist within this region. We call that Higgs. Now we've experimentally confirmed the postulate. Very cool - it gets the name Higgs. And since other discoveries, such as the Xb bottuminum State have different properties then it isn't assigned the Higgs name. .... Your question is really why don't we call the VW Bettle a VW Rabbit. It's because we've assigned a set of properties as a Rabbit and a slightly different set of properties as a Bettle. It makes it easy for us to pull into a parking lot and your daughter to hit your arm and 'Slug Bug' and you know it's not a Rabbit she's talking about.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Because we are probably wrong about the universe (we have plenty of things we can't explain yet) but this result doesn't help us to see it or the way in which we are wrong. It would have been very stimulating to find that it wasn't there.
Click to expand...
One discovery yet to make is how Republicans still try to call themselves conservatives and can sleep at night. :D
 
faethor said:
One discovery yet to make is how Republicans still try to call themselves conservatives and can sleep at night. :D
Click to expand...

could investigate why progressives sniff their farts
 
faethor said:
The Higgs Boson has predicted properties and energy level. We wouldn't call something at 139GeV Higgs because that property is inconsintent with Higgs predictions. It well may be something else but it wouldn't be called Higgs.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: The entire interval is covered by predictions of the Higgs mass

Compilation of Higgs-mass predictions PDF]

The list contains 96 Higgs-mass predictions.
Supersymmetry is behind 26 of them with central values between 120 and 255 GeV.
Compactified additional dimensions motivate ten predictions ranging from 117 to 450 GeV.
There are three superstring inspired predictions: 117, 121 and 154.4 GeV.
The embedding of the electro-weak Lie algebra su(2)⊕u(1) in the superalgebra su(2|1) produces four predictions: 130, 161, 250 and 426 GeV.
Five predictions, between 124 and 317 GeV use the Coleman-Weinberg potential.
One prediction, mH = 125 GeV uses dynamical symmetry breaking with the Higgs being a deeply bound state of two top quarks. At the same time this model predicted two years prior to the discovery to the top its mass to be mt = 175.
Another prediction for the Higgs mass motivated by dynamical symmetry breaking via a neutrino condensate is at 178 GeV.
We have listed four predictions from Connes’s noncommutative geometry: 170, 203, 241 and 271 GeV.
Lattice gauge theories lead to two predictions: 515 and 760 GeV.
Eight predictions are based on the (approximate) vanishing of particular terms related to quantum corrections: 154, 155, 200, 210, 309, 374 and 536 GeV.
We have two lower bounds for the Higgs mass and 37 upper bounds, 26 of which come from supersymmetry.
Five predictions, one upper and one lower bound come from the recent idea that inflation is driven by the Higgs scalar together with a strong non-minimal coupling to gravity. The Higgs mass is obtained from fitting the observed spectral index and tensor-
to-scalar ratio of the Cosmic Microwave Background.
The oldest entry is: mH < 1020 GeV by Dicus & Mathur (1973).
The most precise prediction is: mH = 161.8033989 GeV by El Naschie (2005).
The highest prediction is: mH = 1018 GeV by Batakis & Kehagias (1991).
The highest number of predictions by a single co-author, Gogoladze, is 12.
Three intervals are still free of Higgs-mass predictions:
600 − 739 GeV, 781 − 1800 GeV and 2000 − 1018 GeV.
Click to expand...
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Because we are probably wrong about the universe (we have plenty of things we can't explain yet) but this result doesn't help us to see it or the way in which we are wrong. It would have been very stimulating to find that it wasn't there.
Click to expand...
Well, mainstream media might talk about it as though we suddenly discovered the answer to the universe, but most scientists see more questions coming out of this. They're still trying to punch holes in the theory of relativity, so I don't think we'll blindly just accept this as fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top