Thursday, December 15, 2011

So, A Condensate Higgs

So the observed Higgs mass simply agrees with the condensate formula

$2 m_{H} = m_{W} + m_{W} + m_{Z}$,

where a pair of Higgs form a Cooper pair. Anyway, a Standard Model Higgs was always essentially a condensate. But if we can elaborate further on the structure of this condensate, perhaps with our zoo of mirror particles, then in what sense does the Higgs exist? It exists because it reproduces the SM cross section correctly, as observed at the LHC. That's what matters. After all these decades, the Standard Model finally finds its home.

8 comments:

  1. As you know I like Higgs as a condensate
    and
    I am not happy with the CERN Consensus View that
    there are no SM Higgs bumps above 130 GeV
    and
    favors interpretation of the stuff around 126 GeV as a Higgs.

    As to where the SM Higgs really lives, I have most faith in the Golden Channel Higgs to ZZ to 4l because it is clean and easy to interpret directly
    and
    although fancy statistical techniques have their uses,
    I feel that if you can see with your eyes excess over background in the basic data histograms, that trumps all the fancy statistics stuff.

    So I put up an image of the ATLAS and CMS basic histograms for the Higgs to ZZ to 4l channel on the web at
    http://tony5m17h.net/HZZ4lATLASCMS.png

    The data points that I colored green, cyan, and magenta
    correspond to the 145, 180, and 240 GeV predictions of
    my model for 3 Higgs Mass States.
    (Some of the middle data go up to around 200 GeV,
    but 180 is within 10 per cent of 200 and I am happy
    to be within 10 percent on rough tree-level type calculations.)

    I think that they show the 3 mass states pretty clearly
    and I am not happy that CERN wants to put its head in the sand
    and play with relatively irrelevant fancy statistics.

    However, I am far from objective in this matter,
    so I would appreciate any comment you might have.

    Tony

    PS - I put up a more detailed comment about all this
    on viXra as 1112.0035 version 2.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tony. After swimming in the news for $2$ days, I now feel that the data is almost as unclear as it was with $1$ inverse femtobarn! There is still a case for your model, certainly, and a case for nothing, and a case for a $126$ GeV four color Higgs, and so on. Annoyingly, all they really have today is a better exclusion range. But I would be most happy if you were right. Triplet states do make a lot of sense, as the Koide enthusiasts well know.

    Personally, however, I now feel obliged to follow the four color line of thought a little further, because that is the biggest insight I get from the new data. After all, a basic SM Higgs (I don't take Kane seriously) doesn't really upset any serious BSM physics. Now, the main four color paper is essentially nonsense, as far as I can see, but they may be because they omit many details. They certainly seem to be familiar with some interesting mathematics. Maybe they borrowed ideas from elsewhere, and the rest is nonsense, but we don't really know until we look into it for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The truly infuriating thing about the condensate scale (let us call it) is that we could easily argue that nonperturbative backgrounds are enhanced at this point, and it isn't a Higgs at all, even if it looks exactly like a Higgs! But that is the dilemma of Theory. The experimentalists can scream at us for not understanding the data, but in return we can always scream at them for making unwarranted assumptions in analysing the data, which they are always doing.

    And in the end, this one result means nothing without a theoretical framework that makes many other correct BSM predictions. I think we are better off waiting for further news from LHCb and ALICE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This Higgs is a perfect fundon!

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1/2= M(Higgs)/(M(W+)+M(W-)+M(z)) Astonishing Koide-like formula. If correct, could other approaches produce it?

    Can the Koide formula be valid for any number of generations or it only works if N_G=3? Just curious!
    I don't know yet many stuff! Kea, have you published something about topology/braids/categories in lecture note formats? Could you provide me some references?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Koide formula was first given for charged leptons, and there can only be three. Of course, other forms of the formula can be made to work for any number of generations, but in the framework I study only $3$ and $6$ are nice numbers, because rest mass is clearly a triplet quantum number.

    Now is not the time to ask me for references. The blog has many helpful posts and links, but I have not written much. This is because I have yet to find myself in the basic circumstances required for good research and book writing, after 30 years of trying. Here in paradise it is summer, so my standard of living is not bad at present, but I don't actually live in a house, or have a desk or printer, or much choice about what I eat, or people to talk to about science, and most importantly, I have no hope of ever escaping. Now that I am old, I can hardly expect anyone to give me a postdoc. You know how rife age discrimination is in this business.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, Kea. I understand your point ( age, gender discrimination,...Too true, unfortunately. Keep you up, anyway!You can be proud of this blog) :D.

    If the Koide formulae represent a hing or "correct" formula for the masses of particles, like your work, Brannen's work and others show,...What kind of physics and maths is behind them?After all, Balmer formula drove us towards the Quantum Mechanics at last. So, what Koide formula is hiding us? I read yesterday Brannen's work on hadrons...Impressive fit! I had not seen any universal formula like that before I knew it from your blog and Brannen's while I was writing my Master Thesis.

    Other interesting issue is, what about the "massless" fields? I mean...What if there is some relationship or link between the graviton, the photon and the gluon "mass" a la Koide, somethink like:

    0=M(graviton)+M(photon)+M(gluon)

    Of course, I have a problem with the spin conservation (note that in the Koide formula we should get something that would respete angular momentum( from my opinion), so, maybe could be M(graviton)=M(photon)+M(gluon)=0 ?

    What kind of "quantum" theory that mixes EM, strong force and graviton could arise around this formula? There has been some interested in the Higgs mechanism of gravity boosted in the last months...Could the graviton and the gluon/photon sum get a non null mass from a unknown mechanism or, as the naive Koide formula for gravity would suggest, they are always zero due to gauge invariance?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Juan, the answer is 'motivic higher categorical twistor cohomology'. Hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.