Confirmed: Higgs Particle Discovered at CERN

Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you say that? Because now theorists say it is?

The paper says "if you assume a SM Higgs, and nothing else, there are no inconsistencies". The experiments have been saying that since...um...about July 4th.
 
"If you assume a SM W, and nothing else, there are no inconsistencies".
"If you assume a SM top, and nothing else, there are no inconsistencies". Well, the forward-backward asymmetry at Tevatron.

We have the same status for all known particles. Sure, the W-boson has more measured parameters, but that is just a quantitative difference, not a qualitative.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top