Research Discussion: Remain Calm Over 'Higgsterria'

Remain Calm Over 'Higgsterria'
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

HVAC
2012-07-26 17:16:09 EST
NEVER jump to conclusions............




Higgs Boson May Be An Imposter, Say Particle Physicists

At least two other particles could be masquerading as the God particle,
according to a new analysis of the data from CERN

The news coming out of CERN in recent weeks has been hard to miss. At
first, there was a dripfeed of gossip which turned into a firehose of
'Higgsteria'. Finally, last Wednesday, CERN announced that it had found
a new particle that is "consistent with the long-sought Higgs boson".

Note the phrasing. CERN has been careful not to claim that the new
particle is the Higgs, only that it could be.

But if not the Higgs, what else might it be?

Today, Ian Low at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and a couple
of buddies comb through the data in an attempt to throw some light on
this question. Their conclusion is that the data is consistent with at
least two other particles that are not the standard Higgs boson.

Particle identification is not always an easy task. Physicists use a
theory known as the Standard Model of particle physics to predict how
particles should behave. In 1964, Peter Higgs and others used this
theory to predict the existence of the Higgs particle. They said it
should be heavy and that it should exist only fleetingly before decaying
into various other particles.

In fact, its existence is so fleeting that the only way of spotting the
Higgs is to look for the signature of particles that it produces, such
as pairs of photons or pairs of other heavy particles called Z bosons.

The trouble is that this signature is not unique, at least not given the
amount of data that CERN has so far collected.

Low and co say that given various assumptions about the data, there are
several theoretical possibilities. One of these is that the data shows
the Higgs boson as predicted by the Standard Model.

But another equally likely option is that the data is evidence of a more
exotic theory in which the Higgs boson exists in several different
forms. So the new particle might be one of these, examples of these are
a generic Higgs doublet or a triplet imposter.

A final option is based on the idea that particles can exist in
mixtures. So the new data does not show the Higgs but a mixture of it
and some other particle.

Low and co analyse the data and come to the following conclusion. "A
generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to
the measured event rates."

In particular, they say that the predicted signatures of the Higgs boson
and the triplet imposter are both within one sigma of the measured
value. And by one measure, the CERN data even favours the triplet imposter.

However, Low and co are quick to add that the Standard Model prediction
is a slightly better fit overall.

The message here is that the data at this stage is far from conclusive
and could support the existence of any of these three particles.

So now there is much to do to clarify exactly what it is that CERN has
found.

As Low and co point out: "This is only the beginning of a challenging
program of “Higgs Identification”.

Let the Higgsteria continue.








--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

MarkA
2012-07-27 18:45:34 EST
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:16:09 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> NEVER jump to conclusions............
>
>
>
>
> Higgs Boson May Be An Imposter, Say Particle Physicists
>
> At least two other particles could be masquerading as the God particle,
> according to a new analysis of the data from CERN
>
> The news coming out of CERN in recent weeks has been hard to miss. At
> first, there was a dripfeed of gossip which turned into a firehose of
> 'Higgsteria'. Finally, last Wednesday, CERN announced that it had found a
> new particle that is "consistent with the long-sought Higgs boson".
>
> Note the phrasing. CERN has been careful not to claim that the new
> particle is the Higgs, only that it could be.
>
> But if not the Higgs, what else might it be?
>
> Today, Ian Low at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and a couple of
> buddies comb through the data in an attempt to throw some light on this
> question. Their conclusion is that the data is consistent with at least
> two other particles that are not the standard Higgs boson.
>
> Particle identification is not always an easy task. Physicists use a
> theory known as the Standard Model of particle physics to predict how
> particles should behave. In 1964, Peter Higgs and others used this theory
> to predict the existence of the Higgs particle. They said it should be
> heavy and that it should exist only fleetingly before decaying into
> various other particles.
>
> In fact, its existence is so fleeting that the only way of spotting the
> Higgs is to look for the signature of particles that it produces, such as
> pairs of photons or pairs of other heavy particles called Z bosons.
>
> The trouble is that this signature is not unique, at least not given the
> amount of data that CERN has so far collected.
>
> Low and co say that given various assumptions about the data, there are
> several theoretical possibilities. One of these is that the data shows the
> Higgs boson as predicted by the Standard Model.
>
> But another equally likely option is that the data is evidence of a more
> exotic theory in which the Higgs boson exists in several different forms.
> So the new particle might be one of these, examples of these are a generic
> Higgs doublet or a triplet imposter.
>
> A final option is based on the idea that particles can exist in mixtures.
> So the new data does not show the Higgs but a mixture of it and some other
> particle.
>
> Low and co analyse the data and come to the following conclusion. "A
> generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to
> the measured event rates."
>
> In particular, they say that the predicted signatures of the Higgs boson
> and the triplet imposter are both within one sigma of the measured value.
> And by one measure, the CERN data even favours the triplet imposter.
>
> However, Low and co are quick to add that the Standard Model prediction is
> a slightly better fit overall.
>
> The message here is that the data at this stage is far from conclusive and
> could support the existence of any of these three particles.
>
> So now there is much to do to clarify exactly what it is that CERN has
> found.
>
> As Low and co point out: "This is only the beginning of a challenging
> program of “Higgs Identification”.
>
> Let the Higgsteria continue.

That's the trouble with real scientific research: each answer you find
suggests more questions. It never ends.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.



HVAC
2012-07-28 08:25:33 EST
On 7/27/2012 6:45 PM, MarkA wrote:
>
>>
>> Let the Higgsteria continue.
>
> That's the trouble with real scientific research: each answer you find
> suggests more questions. It never ends.


It's awesome, right?












--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

MarkA
2012-07-29 14:01:16 EST
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:25:33 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 7/27/2012 6:45 PM, MarkA wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Let the Higgsteria continue.
>>
>> That's the trouble with real scientific research: each answer you find
>> suggests more questions. It never ends.
>
>
> It's awesome, right?

What's cool is when science discovers something previously completely
unknown, so that we didn't know what we didn't know. In the late 1800's,
physicists thought they had discovered everything there was to know,
because Newton's laws worked so well for so long. That was before the
discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity. More recently, dark
matter/energy were previously completely unsuspected. Now we find that
90% of the Universe is made of stuff we didn't even know was around!

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.



Antares 531
2012-07-29 14:25:04 EST
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:01:16 -0400, MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:25:33 -0400, HVAC wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2012 6:45 PM, MarkA wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let the Higgsteria continue.
>>>
>>> That's the trouble with real scientific research: each answer you find
>>> suggests more questions. It never ends.
>>
>>
>> It's awesome, right?
>
>What's cool is when science discovers something previously completely
>unknown, so that we didn't know what we didn't know. In the late 1800's,
>physicists thought they had discovered everything there was to know,
>because Newton's laws worked so well for so long. That was before the
>discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity. More recently, dark
>matter/energy were previously completely unsuspected. Now we find that
>90% of the Universe is made of stuff we didn't even know was around!
>
Could this "stuff" you mention be the mass associated with the other
spatial dimensions posited in Super String-Membrane (SS-M) theory?
That is, could the gravitational effect of the mass associated with
these other dimensions somehow be discernable in this space-time that
we are able to perceive?

HVAC
2012-07-29 14:39:34 EST
On 7/29/2012 2:01 PM, MarkA wrote:
>
>> It's awesome, right?
>
> What's cool is when science discovers something previously completely
> unknown, so that we didn't know what we didn't know. In the late 1800's,
> physicists thought they had discovered everything there was to know,
> because Newton's laws worked so well for so long. That was before the
> discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity. More recently, dark
> matter/energy were previously completely unsuspected. Now we find that
> 90% of the Universe is made of stuff we didn't even know was around!


I agree. The only thing I find fault with is the misnamed 'Dark Energy'.

It's simply a property of space...It expands. Simple, eh?











--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron