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

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Higgs
In summary, at the EPS meeting in Grenoble, ATLAS and CMS presented their results on the search for the Higgs boson. ATLAS reported a 2.8 standard deviation (or 8%) chance of seeing a peak at 144 GeV, before the look-elsewhere effect. CMS did not provide a similar number and it is not possible to combine the results. However, the experiments are working on a combination and may have more conclusive results in a month. Nature News reported on this as a tantalizing hint of the Higgs particle, but the data are still far from a discovery. The gold standard for claiming discovery is usually 5 sigma, which corresponds to a probability of 10^-7.
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3851&cpage=1#comment-95199
"News from EPS: a higgs at 144 GeV and a anti-Higgs at 350 GeV"


Blogging from the EPS meeting at Grenoble. As of 22 July:
ATLAS and CMS Summarize Their Higgs Searches
http://profmattstrassler.com/2011/07/22/atlas-and-cms-summarize-their-higgs-searches/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I wouldn't call it a rumor. It seems to be straight from the horse's mouth. However, what we're hearing from the horse's mouth is that basically they do not have statistically significant evidence for the Higgs:

We discussed what 2.8 standard deviations in ATLAS’s result means, precisely. [caution: technical stuff ahead] This is before the look elsewhere effect. It is the probability that given a strategy used for a particular mass (144 GeV I think) that there would have been this large a deviation just from background fluctuations.

If they had 2.8 sigma after the look-elsewhere effect, it would be worth following up on, but not be particularly exciting. The fact that they have 2.8 sigma before the look-elsewhere says that it means absolutely nothing at all.
 
  • #3
Absolutely nothing? No, it means 8%. :smile:

There are people here who immediately went to work trying to combine everything "by eye". That seems to me to be a real waste of time - it won't convince anyone, and it's impossible to do properly, at least for an outsider. These limits are not completely independent - background cross-sections, for example, are common to both.

What is certainly true now is that the LHC experiments are sensitive to a large region of possible Higgs masses. That was not true a few months ago.
 
  • #4
Why is the Higgs so hard to find.
I'm very excited about the research going on at the LHC as I have said before I believe that the LHC is going to give us more answers than we have questions for right now.
The technology is very advanced and powerful and should provide a wealth of information that will keep scientist busy for years to come.
But back to my question why is the Higgs-Boson so hard to find?
Isnt the Higgs suppose to exist in large quantities?
 
  • #5
Do the models or the properties of the Higgs predict that it will be so hard to find?
 
  • #6
YoungDreamer said:
... why is the Higgs-Boson so hard to find?
b/c the experiments which are designed to produce the Higgs do not ONLY produce the Higgs but zillions of other particles as well; so it's like to find a a pin in a haystack; given the haystack you have to be absolutely sure that you know in detail the quantity of the hay; thenyou subtract the hay from the measurement and what you get is the pin
 
  • #7
So then could we have already exposed the Higgs and we just haven't been able to pick it out of a line up yet, so to speak?
 
  • #8
yes, that's possible
 
  • #9
Nature News reported on this today:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110722/full/news.2011.435.html
==sample excerpt==
Collider sees tantalizing hint of Higgs
Excess events suggest LHC is homing in on elusive particle.

Geoff Brumfiel

For now, physicists are only willing to call them 'excess events', but fresh data from two experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are hinting at something unusual — and it could be the most sought-after particle in all of physics.

Both ATLAS and the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiments are seeing an unusual surplus of events in a rough mass range of 130–150 gigaelectronvolts (energy and mass are used interchangeably in particle physics). The data are far from conclusive, but physicists believe this could be the first indication of the Higgs particle, believed to be responsible for the masses of other particles. The results were presented this afternoon at the Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics in Grenoble, France.

Physicists familiar with the experiments urge caution. The new data are a long way from a discovery, says Matthew Strassler, a theoretical physicist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "I would call it tantalizing."...
==endquote==

Nature magazine is like Science magazine quality-wise. Its journalism is better than most. More reliable than "Science Daily" or "New Scientist". So I tend to think they give a fair picture, to the extent one can at this stage. Better not get your hopes up. But it is interesting to know about nevertheless.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
The Nature article is even worse. Doesn't give any quantitative discussion of the statistics.
 
  • #11
The discussion doesn't exist. ATLAS says the probability a Higgsless dataset will fluctuate to look like what they see is 8%. That's it. CMS did not provide a similar number, and as I said above, you can't just naively combine these results and get anything except nonsense. The experiments are working on a combination; if they are very lucky, we will see it in a month.
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50 said:
The discussion doesn't exist. ATLAS says the probability a Higgsless dataset will fluctuate to look like what they see is 8%. That's it. CMS did not provide a similar number, and as I said above, you can't just naively combine these results and get anything except nonsense. The experiments are working on a combination; if they are very lucky, we will see it in a month.

This seems to be a response to my posts, but it doesn't seem to relate to what I said. I didn't say anything about combining the results.
 
  • #13
My point is that we have only one number - ATLAS 8% - and any serious statement about what the LHC sees needs the other number, plus the combination.
 
  • #14
Could you explain what the 8% represents?
 
  • #15
look at the curve in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
MikeyW said:
Could you explain what the 8% represents?

It's the probability that ATLAS would have seen a peak this strong, sticking up above the background somewhere, when in fact background was all there was.

For comparison, the gold standard for claiming discovery of a particle by direct detection is usually taken to be 5 sigma, which is a probability of about 10^-7.
 
  • #17
So there an 8% chance that there is not a Higgs particle, based on these results?
 
  • #18
MikeyW said:
So there an 8% chance that there is not a Higgs particle, based on these results?

Not really. There's an 8% chance that they would get these results if there is no Higgs.

For comparison, suppose that someone tells me he's done an experiment to look for ghosts in a haunted house, the results were positive, and the probability is 0.1% that he would get these positive results if ghosts aren't real. Should I now say that there is a 0.1% chance that ghosts don't exist, and a 99.9% chance that they do? No, because the existence of ghosts is something to which I assign a very small a priori probability.

Suppose that I had access to secret data showing that the Higgs definitely existed, and had the energy where they see this peak. Then the a priori probability would be 100%, and I would assign a 100% probability to the statement that what they saw was the Higgs.

The thing is, there is no neutral a priori probability here. E.g., it doesn't make sense just to say the the a priori odds of existence of the Higgs in this energy range are 50/50.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Is there a natural extension of the SM predicting a different mass for the anti-higgs to the higgs? Maybe also quantatively?!

berlin
 
  • #20
Berlin said:
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.
 
  • #21
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
bcrowell said:
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.
 
  • #23
By "anti-Higgs", I think they mean a dip - an area with fewer events than expected. Not a particle.
 
  • #24
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #25
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.
 
  • #26
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The ATLAS experiment hasn't said they see one, much less two!
 

What is the 22 July rumor about Higgs at 144 GeV and anti-Higgs at 350 GeV?

The 22 July rumor refers to a hypothetical scenario in particle physics where the Higgs boson, a fundamental particle that gives other particles mass, is discovered at a mass of 144 GeV (gigaelectronvolts) and its antimatter counterpart, the anti-Higgs, is discovered at a mass of 350 GeV. This rumor is based on leaked data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the world's largest particle accelerator.

What is the significance of the Higgs boson and the anti-Higgs in this rumor?

The Higgs boson is a crucial piece of the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes the fundamental particles and forces in the universe. Its discovery in 2012 was a major breakthrough and confirmed the existence of the Higgs field, which gives particles their mass. The anti-Higgs, also known as the Higgs' antiparticle, is the opposite of the Higgs boson and could provide valuable insight into the nature of the Higgs field.

Is there any truth to this rumor?

At this time, there is no evidence to support this rumor. The LHC is currently shut down for upgrades and will not resume operations until 2021. Additionally, any significant discoveries at the LHC are subject to peer review and must be confirmed by multiple experiments before being accepted by the scientific community.

What would the discovery of the Higgs and anti-Higgs at these masses mean for particle physics?

If this rumor were to be confirmed, it would challenge current theories and open up new possibilities in particle physics. It could also provide valuable clues about the nature of the Higgs field and potentially lead to a better understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe.

How does the 22 July rumor relate to current research and developments in particle physics?

The LHC continues to push the boundaries of our understanding of the universe, and scientists are eagerly awaiting new data from its upgraded operations. While the 22 July rumor may spark excitement and speculation, it is important to approach it with caution and wait for official announcements from the scientific community.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Back
Top