# B H boson is 125 GeV, super symmetry, multiverse not possible?

Tags:
1. May 2, 2016

### zdroide

What other theories this number make impossible or improbable. When final number was given I hear some older physicist saying for one " 40 years of works gone" second grinding "only 30 for me!"
Seem to me that lots of theories was built on other's ones and many papers in repository suggest here, might be on those subject or relate.
I assume they where all support by excellent calculation.
125 GeV put Highs boson on Terra Ferma.
Seem that the model is close now, with all particles discovered.
Is it?
I supposed that lots of papers or theories had a fatal end with the same number.
Since I do not have a mentor, would some indicate me theories no more valid?
I hope there is not tons of them.
Per example does strings or branes theories still stand?
I learn that strings would be lots smaller,
As most student, I not want waist time on impossibility.
I feel very sorry to all those physicist that seen years of work disappear.

2. May 2, 2016

### e.bar.goum

I wouldn't feel too sorry. I was just at a talk from an extremely respected theoretical physicist that claims that the 125 GeV spin 0 boson wasn't actually the Higgs at all, but an excited state of one of the vector bosons.

My point is that this is how theoretical physics goes. New measurements give new models, and constrain old ones. For example, the larger the parameter space excluded for supersymmetry, the higher the predicted mass scale for supersymmetry becomes.

3. May 3, 2016

### zdroide

Indeed that was my understanding, at 115GeV it was supporting multiverse and at 140 it was supporting supersymmetry. Reading could had been from 0 to 1000 I read somewhere, but same source did also invert the income.

What you say is what I had hear from an imminent physicist. 115 and 140 mesurement. So internet might not be best source. Zero measurement being impossible I believe, since 0 is nothing!
Can you explain why the one you talk say, it was not the Highs at all, but exited state of one of the vector state? Which vector did he refer?
Was he taking of one of spacetime, like time or space?
I don't know if those vector exist in such small particles, unless this relate to impact measurements.
What other vectors do we find in Quantum theory?
Particles spin or vibrate? In the LHC, they crash and divide in smaller one.
Electron was spinning in previous understanding but more accurate description look more as a vibration to me now, if an observation is made, this particle coud be anywhere around a neucleus. But I am not advance in quantum theory, I might be completely wrong.
"125 GeV spin 0 boson"' 125 GeV is a concept I understand, it is gigaelectronvolt, but for 0 boson, you lost me there, what that mean?
I did believe that the amount of measurement did give a spike around 126 with almost certainty, being 2 years of data crunching.
Dr Highs did receive a Nobel prize for it.
Would you please check this with others respected physicist?
If my theory would be disprove, I would look for a mistake also.
I am not saying he his wrong, I just wonder if other pairs share his view.

4. May 3, 2016

### ChrisVer

What's the background here?

No, vector = something that transforms like a vector under the Lorentz transformations. Generally vector bosons are the spin-1 bosons.

Spin is an intrinsic quantum number and does not mean a physical spin (self-rotation). I wouldn't say particles vibrate either.
Better say that in LHC they crash particle and generate/produce (not divide) new particles... the stuff you create is of course not "smaller"...

it goes as spin-0 boson, not spin 0-boson... Bosons are particles with integer spin, 0,1,2,... Higgs has spin 0.

It's also the first time I hear of that. And I would be a little skeptical...
How can vector bosons be the Higgs? I mean scenarios with J=2 have been excluded for example in this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05669
Whereas as is also mentioned in that, the $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ decay disfavors a lot the J=1 hypothesis (also dealt in this reference http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1432 which is somewhat old)
I may be missing something...? Maybe if you overcomplicate your model you can indeed allow for ways-out.

5. May 3, 2016

### e.bar.goum

I was also a little sceptical, but when it comes from the guy who invented the notion of quark colour charge with Gell-Mann, you give it a little more credence than perhaps one usually would. What little I understood (it was only briefly touched upon) was that in his model (based on the SO10 symmetry group), the vector bosons would have excited states that were spin 0,1,2, etc. The Higgs would be the 0+ excitation that he predicted, and he would expect to see other excitations nearby (and he cited the 750 GeV diphoton excess as a possibility, which he says should be 2+, as the 1+ obviously doesn't tend to go via two photons). Like I said, I'm somewhat sceptical.

6. May 3, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

The name is Peter Higgs with two g.

The precise Higgs mass (~125 GeV, or more formally 125 GeV/c2, which is a unit of mass like the kilogram) rules out some specific scenarios in some models. It does not rule out any large class of new models. This article has a long list of specific mass predictions, those models not compatible with 125 GeV are ruled out, but they are all highly specialized.
You can always calculate predictions based on the standard model, those are important data for the experiments (to look for deviations from a model, you have to know what the model predicts!). Work on new models always has the risk that the new model is disproved. A model that cannot be disproved does not make testable predictions and is useless.
No it does not. Some specific scenarios in some models made some predictions, but that is all. Tune the parameters differently and nothing happened.
There are massless particles. This is not a "zero measurement", this is a measurement with the value 0.
Those questions and statements do not make sense, they are not even wrong.
You do not have a theory.

@e.bar.goum: Do you have a reference for that? How recent is it - does it cover all the measured branching fractions and production ratios, differential cross sections and so on?

Last edited: May 3, 2016
7. May 3, 2016

### ChrisVer

I guess if it also concerns the 750GeV possible resonance it's recent...?

8. May 3, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

Oh well, there are so many old models that don't get revisited properly with new experimental results...

9. May 3, 2016

### zdroide

You did not read correctly or not understand the context.
This context being: What a respected theoretical physicist said: Or what an other may say to revalidate there own calculation.
It was for the one affect by the final result. "If my theory would be disprove, like them, I would find a way out"
I have -0 theory!
As I can read here now, I am not the only one. This is why I ask if this was support by others.
I also somewhere wrote Highs instead of Higgs. It is not me, I was wrongly correct by my corrector. Check tag. My fault, it is to me to check every words. Was 3 am...
Sorry for Professor Peter Higgs . There was no bad intentions. My corrector did it 4 time again. Normally I can add to dictionary but not for his name!

Please do not attack the messenger to much. From what I read, question was fine but my remark was not. I should ask the question better, like "What theory are disprove with Higgs at 125 GeV". But answers here are astounding.

This is my first correctly place question here, since I am not very advance in Physic field or in question. I did read many tread and sometimes try to say something, but often my formulation was not accept as valid. Please do not be rude.

I thanks everyone that give me link, so I can read and understand more. This is what I need.

This thread to my amazement have lots of answers. It make me very happy.Should I ask previously mentioned? "What theory are disprove with Higgs at 125 GeV"
It might give completely different reply.
I did not count how many characters questions can have, In am not happy the way I was force to formulate. I had to put abbreviations.
Thanks to all, I prefer link or expert arguing against each others.
I am not in a position to defend myself against so good Physicist.

10. May 3, 2016

### zdroide

This is a better formulation for my question. Is there any revisions by pairs for results like this one. LHC is the biggest experiment ever done. If no one revised nothing with concluding evidence, then we will soon swim in a sea of theory mostly inconclusive.
This is my mainly outside observer conclusion.
I might be wrong, but it not seem something had been done yet on those cases.
Physicist are more busy formulating new theory then discussing others.
This is logical since Nobel Price are given to 3 person max. Paper are bread or butter for many physicists. Paper are revised when they are published. But after, no reason to do it. New fact, like proven result should do.
Problem is, that if you have a theory, you check only others when published and continue your own work.
One good way for revision would be to ask advance student as work to validate or invalidate older papers and theory, note being given on correct argumentation not on final results.
This is a suggestion of course. What to do with the outcome, in such a case, this I will not even try to suggest.

11. May 3, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

Nothing relevant. A few exotic ideas, a few special ideas within established frameworks, but apart from that not much. Other measurements were more relevant I think, like the measurement of the branching fraction (decay probability) $B_s \to \mu \mu$. There, many theories expected deviations from the standard model prediction, but the measurement is close to the standard model value.
If something does not get picked up again, it is probably not an interesting model any more. Otherwise someone would work on it. But there is also a lot of work ongoing showing that some models are excluded.
I don't know where you get this impression from, but it has nothing to do with reality. The interesting theories get discussed all the time.

What exactly makes you think you would have come up with a useful suggestion that thousands of scientists working in the field never thought of?

12. May 3, 2016

### zdroide

Thank for link, if you check tags you will see I know how to write Peter Higgs but my auto-corrector was keep changing what I was writing. I finally was able to correct corrector, in fact a moment ago. Sorry for that.
GeV/c2 make lots more sense to me, Giga being big, but getting tiny once divided by e2. .
I did not get spin also, now I know true few hours of study and a headache, true meaning in particles case, Before Higgs boson discovery it seems that 0, 2 and 4 value was not observe. Higgs being at 0 spin if I did understand,
Thank you mfb

13. May 3, 2016

### e.bar.goum

Unfortunately, I can't find a recent reference. This was a fairly non-technical talk, and this was only really mentioned as an aside - I only brought it into the thread to illustrate a point about theoretical physics. This paper appears to be related to the idea, but it's 16 years old. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269300012983

14. May 3, 2016

### zdroide

Then I will no more.
I did one to Nugatory and he reply : I don't know why no one never tough of that, I will consult other mentor on this.
Later he wrote it did create lots of stirred between mentor.
This was on message part.

I aggre that interesting theory get discuss all the time.
I was talking about theories or papers that are no more discuss.
Do they stay on repository site?
A theory can be revive if new data come to support it.
But there might be some that cannot be.
If they stay on repository, new students might think, they are fine.
Advance students should spot them easy.
If there a mecanisme then do not take what I wrote in account.
I was just curious since in computer field, this happen all the time.
Same here tread get deleted all the time.

I should had put in questions form, sorry.

15. May 4, 2016

### ChrisVer

GeV doesn't necessarily have to be considered big athough it has giga in it... it all depends on what you are talking about... for particles it can be considered big, but for our everyday life it is extremely small (10-10 Joule).

One reason you can't just jump information, going from no background to something that utilizes Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as particle physics does. It shouldn't concern you at the moment then, and the way you talk about it makes it sound totally wrong. It's an intrinsic quantum number and you can find about it in any QM intro book... as for particles with spin=0, an example is the pions, that have spin=0 but they are not fundamental.

A paper that is no more discussed, should not be archived anywhere, yet it does.... the reason why is that it may be out-dated or disproven up to today.
Most of the times one can start from newer releases, and track back their references... I think that's the safest thing to do, especially when things change.... [had to reimplement a whole chapter recently, because my information came from Run1 of LHC while the algorithms have changed a bit in Run2]. So in order to avoid it from happening again, I search for the newest stuff (2015+) and I can then trust their references. I guess this can affect the theorists as well, as long as their models are giving testable predictions... in that case the researcher who took over that model will try to test out his result and repost an update?

16. May 4, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

Closed on request from zdroide.

Edit: opened again.

Last edited: May 4, 2016