Jump to content
Science Forums

The Higgs Boson Has *not* Been Found


Recommended Posts

Supersymmetry however, the model in which your cousin seems to be placing his faith in, requires the five Higgs Bosons originally predicted.

Is this a new kind of Higgs then, because it certainly can't be the kind of Higgs predicted by theory if it has the wrong energy?

I should ask him about Supersymmetry and his view on it (I didn't think too). But anyway from what I have seen they are calling it it a "plain ol Higgs Bosson" but are hoping it will be proven as not because as you said in the following

If it is your usual standard Higgs Boson, it might be the end of speculative theories involving particle physics. I really hope that isn't the case
.

 

 

A side note, must you spread your responses over so many posts? Backtracking past the most recent to try to catch the entirety of a reply makes assembling a complete understanding of everything you are trying to get across a royal PITA.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

interesting article, from this article, it looks to me like the nuclei joined, but the conjunction was non-harmonious, so based on my model, it potentially decayed to the gamma ray source, the form of

Fresh link from CERN FB page http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/12/03/down-in-the-mouth-in-paradise/

:thumbs_up As someone unable to actually perform Higgs field calculations (my preferred way of understanding something – hands on) I found Glen Starkman’s Scientific American guest blog article helpfu

Forgive me, I come across new stuff and I continue posting.

 

Anyway, if you will pose him a question, may I form the question so it hits directly on the topic? Could save us more tenebrous confrontations in these discussions?

Confrontations? And yes, please do. I agree it would be beneficial.

 

While it sometimes results in a buried update to a post, I find editing an existing post to be just as convenient as creating a fresh one but more convenient when trying to get everything tied together.

 

Frequently while making a post I am in multiple browser windows double checking what I'm posting and investigating other resources as thoughts that seem relevant come to mind...of course that frequently means I have a post in progress for as much as an hour or more. But it does result in using EDIT a bit less. Though I still end up popping back to edit fairly frequently as it (hopefully) makes it easier for readers to understand just what I'm trying to say.

Edited by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Confrontations? And yes, please do. I agree it would be beneficial.

 

 

The word ''confrontations'' is not a negative.

 

Ask him... if you would...

 

''Why do you think supersymmetry answers these problems when supersymmetry is riddled with problems, and what do you think about the decay processes not fitting your standard model Higgs Boson statistically-speaking?''

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Frequently while making a post I am in multiple browser windows double checking what I'm posting and investigating other resources as thoughts that seem relevant come to mind...of course that frequently means I have a post in progress for as much as an hour or more. But it does result in using EDIT a bit less. Though I still end up popping back to edit fairly frequently as it (hopefully) makes it easier for readers to understand just what I'm trying to say.

 

Like you have now?

 

I rarely use edit because if I have something to say, I don't want people to miss it. On even good days, I would have missed this edit, just so happens this time around, I came back to read your post again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

''Back to the original question - is it or isn't it? If the new particle is found to have odd parity, or if the decay mode discrepancies survive as more data is acquired, the new particle is likely not the Higgs boson of the Standard Model. This would actually be very exciting, as it may be the first dent in the Standard Model taking us toward a new level of understanding of the universe. Or we may have indeed just discovered the Higgs, but there is still a need to search for new clues as to the extra levels of structure we know must exist.''

 

http://www.gizmag.co...particle/23319/

interesting article, from this article, it looks to me like the nuclei joined, but the conjunction was non-harmonious, so based on my model, it potentially decayed to the gamma ray source, the form of matter at the instant, would have been an atom that was not stable at stp, and the resulting energy was a bridge between matter and energy similar to the release of energy that defines detection of the nutrino

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aethelwulf-''Why do you think supersymmetry answers these problems when supersymmetry is riddled with problems, and what do you think about the decay processes not fitting your standard model Higgs Boson statistically-speaking?''
T-Vickey- Which problems is your friend referring to? The Standard Model of particle physics is known to have many shortcomings and supersymmetry came about as a way to address some of them.

 

Aethelwulf, he's more than happy to answer questions. But could you be more specific as to what you are having issues with? I've sent him a handful of quotes to try to give him an idea of what you're asking, but I'm not sure, well am very certain neither of us are asking the right questions to get you the answers that you are looking for.

 

I would very much like for you to be able to feel that every effort has been made to get the answers you are seeking.

 

Ideally if you could either post or PM a very specific list of questions about what you are having issues with it would be greatly appreciated. It would be greatly appreciated that multi-part questions be broken down into the following format as well.

example

1.what about this specific flaw with supersymmetry

a. part of question

b. Part of question

2.why are there two photons when there should be X

3.etc.

etc.

Edited by DFINITLYDISTRUBD
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aethelwulf, Could you be more specific?

 

 

Sure

 

 

''I understand that superymmetry was introduced to help explain the Heirarchy problem of particle masses in the standard model - it is not without problems itself due to lack of experimental confirmation.

 

Well, the first results for superymmetry came back from the LHC in 2011 and the results where not promising. No evidence of squarks or gluinos to be precise. To say that this Higgs is best modelled in superymmetry seems a bit redundant since that would be the only isolated case. If one thought supersymmetric theories where to solve our problems, you would expect first some kind of validation of the superpartners predicted by the theory no?''

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again sent. If you didn't catch my last edit please see my previous post.

I believe we can better get you answers if you were to take some time and prepare some very specific questions and provide them in the format I suggested. I realize that it makes for a tedious pace for the thread to have long waits for answers. But I think it would take about the same amount of time if you were to take some extra time preparing your questions. To be honest in your most recent post I had to read it twice just to figure out what you were asking.

''I understand that superymmetry was introduced to help explain the Heirarchy problem of particle masses in the standard model - it is not without problems itself due to lack of experimental confirmation.

Well, the first results for superymmetry came back from the LHC in 2011 and the results where not promising. No evidence of squarks or gluinos to be precise. To say that this Higgs is best modelled in superymmetry seems a bit redundant since that would be the only isolated case. If one thought supersymmetric theories where to solve our problems, you would expect first some kind of validation of the superpartners predicted by the theory no?''

 

I think a more clear way of asking would be:

1. Shouldn't there first some kind of validation of the superpartners predicted by the theory before accepting supersymmetric theories to resolve issues with the data?''
This is roughly how your most recent question breaks down to me after several rereads. Is this what you are asking or am I misinterpreting? I've been sending your questions exactly as you've typed them, quite literally cut from here, paste into email.
Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbs_up As someone unable to actually perform Higgs field calculations (my preferred way of understanding something – hands on) I found Glen Starkman’s Scientific American guest blog article helpful.

 

A few things I took away from it relevant to this thread:

  • The Higgs boson/field/interaction are part of the Standard Model of particle physics, its ca. 1967 version. It didn’t first appear in “more exotic models” based on the SM, such as supersymmetry, so while the correctness of these models/theories depend on the correctness of the SM, and thus the experimental detection of Higgs bosons, the existence of the HB does not require that supersymmetry or similar exotic models are correct.
  • The SM doesn’t prediction the mass/energy of the HB. The range of likely HB masses for which to design experiments to search, and the eventually discovered mass of about 125 GeV/c2, were found experimentally.
  • Further experiments are needed to conclude with formal confidence that the LHC has detected the HB, but nearly every physicist is informally confident it has, and that these further experiments will confirm it

From this, I believe several of Aetherwolf’s claims are incorrect:

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 claim conflicts with Starkman’s claim that “the Standard Model gives no a priori indication of the mass of the Higgs”. :QuestionM Aetherwolf, what’s the source of your claims that the HB mass/energy is outside of a predicted range? Also (but less importantly) what do you mean by “energy signature”?

 

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

This claim conflicts with Starkman’s that “many of us would be prepared to eat our hats if it is not the Higgs boson”, or suggests that Ellis doesn’t share the consensus to which Starkman subscribes. I’ve read several popular articles by and quoting Ellis, and don’t get that impression. :QuestionM Aetherwolf, what’s your source for Ellis saying the LHC find probably isn’t of a HB?

 

Starkman’s article raises some interesting cultural points about the successful detection of the SM’s HB – but not other, not-predicted particles – having a demoralizing impact on “beyond the SM” theorists. Personally, I don’t think we need much worry about this, because, as Starkman notes, the SM remains devoid of an explanation of 1, the weakest and arguably the most important, of the 4 fundamental interactions: gravity. I think the search for a successful theory incorporating gravity in the SM will be sufficiently enticing to keep theoretical physicist busy for a long time to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:QuestionM Aetherwolf, what’s your source for Ellis saying the LHC find probably isn’t of a HB?

 

Starkman’s article raises some interesting cultural points about the successful detection of the SM’s HB – but not other, not-predicted particles – having a demoralizing impact on “beyond the SM” theorists. Personally, I don’t think we need much worry about this, because, as Starkman notes, the SM remains devoid of an explanation of 1, the weakest and arguably the most important, of the 4 fundamental interactions: gravity. I think the search for a successful theory incorporating gravity in the SM will be sufficiently enticing to keep theoretical physicist busy for a long time to come.

 

I watched him in an interview on the BBC News.

 

I think more and more people are coming to the conclusion it is a standard model Higgs - I don't agree with that because it has a 50% higher statistical rate to decay into photons. It is probably likely it could be a non-standard Higgs due to the evidence right now, meaning that there will need to be an extension of the SM slightly - if supersymmetry is the answer, then we will need five Higgs bosons, if my memory serves.

 

Of course some scientists are still on the fence about this. If there are indeed more people supporting this to be a standard Higgs, then I am unaware of these statistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...