Register to reply

22 July rumor: Higgs at 144 GeV and anti-Higgs at 350 GeV (comment?)

by marcus
Tags: antihiggs, comment, higgs, july, rumor
Share this thread:
Berlin
#19
Jul24-11, 01:40 PM
PF Gold
P: 49
Is there a natural extension of the SM predicting a different mass for the anti-higgs to the higgs? Maybe also quantatively?!

berlin
bcrowell
#20
Jul24-11, 03:04 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,597
Quote Quote by Berlin View Post
Is there a natural extension of the SM predicting a different mass for the anti-higgs to the higgs? Maybe also quantatively?!
This seemed very mysterious to me in the anonymous post on the Woit blog. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Strassler page or the Nature article. Isn't the Higgs supposed to be its own antiparticle? And I've never heard of an antiparticle having a different mass from the particle itself. In any case, it seems premature to talk about changing the standard model when there is actually no firm evidence that the Higgs has even been detected.
eXorikos
#21
Jul26-11, 01:17 PM
P: 249
I got this link from the internet http://blog.vixra.org/2011/07/26/glo...tandard-model/

His conclusion is: In conclusion, the Standard Model is dead.

I'm not educated in QFT, but is what he says to come to that conclusion correct or is it more subtle than he makes it seem?
marcus
#22
Jul26-11, 03:04 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,235
Quote Quote by bcrowell View Post
This seemed very mysterious to me in the anonymous post on the Woit blog. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Strassler page or the Nature article. Isn't the Higgs supposed to be its own antiparticle? And I've never heard of an antiparticle having a different mass from the particle itself. In any case, it seems premature to talk about changing the standard model when there is actually no firm evidence that the Higgs has even been detected.
Thanks for the response to the anonymous post, which was the 22 July rumor referred to in the title. I was curious about it, suspicious a bit ---especially the part about antiHiggs detection at the different mass.
I get the sense that other people agree. It can be ignored. And nothing to confirm it has come in, I gather, during the past 4 days.
Vanadium 50
#23
Jul26-11, 05:38 PM
Mentor
Vanadium 50's Avatar
P: 16,385
By "anti-Higgs", I think they mean a dip - an area with fewer events than expected. Not a particle.
marcus
#24
Jul26-11, 06:06 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,235
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
By "anti-Higgs", I think they mean a dip - an area with fewer events than expected. Not a particle.
Finally I get it!!!! Thanks Vanadium.

Now that 22 July rumor can be seen as roughly compatible with the more precise and reliable blog reports, from Strassler and others, we began to get at nearly the same time.
lpetrich
#25
Jul27-11, 11:51 AM
P: 530
That second bump is at 250 GeV, not at 350 GeV, and though ATLAS sees it at almost 2 stdevs, CMS doesn't.

Extensions of the Standard Model like the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) predict more than one Higgs particle: three neutral ones and one charged one with charges +1 and -1.

So the ATLAS team could have detected two Higgs particles.
Vanadium 50
#26
Jul27-11, 03:30 PM
Mentor
Vanadium 50's Avatar
P: 16,385
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The ATLAS experiment hasn't said they see one, much less two!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Could it be that Higgs's boson does not exist, but Higgs mechanism does? Beyond the Standard Model 14
H→γγ Rumor (Higgs Discovery?) High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 2
The Higgs vev, the Higgs Mass, and WW-scattering High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 4
SM Higgs ruled out over wide range (26 July announcement) High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 8