Higgs and Nuclear Yields: amusing coincidence.

[arivero]

I sincerely hope that the LHC people are measuring the real thing and not a leak of uranium somewhere.

This is the plot of nuclear yields for spontaneous fission, extracted from wikipedia. The horizontal axis is atomic mass number and we can use 1 amu = 931.49 GeV. Some of you can remember that I already did the try in 2004, when the Higgs was conjectured to be 115 GeV, but at that time I did not found the plot online and I went instead with some NUDAT data plus nuclear stability.

Well, now that the CERN has nailed the Higgs, I keep wondering: is there some way for the electroweak particles to cause this? Some enhancement of the allowed phase space for decays?

 

[e.bar.goum]

I sincerely hope that the LHC people are measuring the real thing and not a leak of uranium somewhere.

This is the plot of nuclear yields for spontaneous fission, extracted from wikipedia. The horizontal axis is atomic mass number and we can use 1 amu = 931.49 GeV. Some of you can remember that I already did the try in 2004, when the Higgs was conjectured to be 115 GeV, but at that time I did not found the plot online and I went instead with some NUDAT data plus nuclear stability.

View attachment 88142

Well, now that the CERN has nailed the Higgs, I keep wondering: is there some way for the electroweak particles to cause this? Some enhancement of the allowed phase space for decays?

I presume you're joking, but this is something I've heard people actually say. (Not the fission fragments, you just need any nucleus of A~125). This is where I think it's important to talk about not just what the Higgs is, but how we found it. If you know that the higgs was found through it's decay products in a way that was predicted by the standard model, you would never think that it was a nucleus.

 

[arivero]

I presume you're joking, but this is something I've heard people actually say. (Not the fission fragments, you just need any nucleus of A~125). This is where I think it's important to talk about not just what the Higgs is, but how we found it. If you know that the higgs was found through it's decay products in a way that was predicted by the standard model, you would never think that it was a nucleus.

Yep, for sure there is no doubt it is an electroweak object and not a nucleus. What I wonder is if the existence of the Higgs in some way can increase the phase space for U and Pu decay into nuclei having the same mass than the Higgs. Some kind of nuclear collective node able to "sense" the Higgs (and W and Z, in the other peak).

 

[e.bar.goum]

Yep, for sure there is no doubt it is an electroweak object and not a nucleus. What I wonder is if the existence of the Higgs in some way can increase the phase space for U and Pu decay into nuclei having the same mass than the Higgs. Some kind of nuclear collective node able to "sense" the Higgs (and W and Z, in the other peak).

As an explanation for why fission is asymmetric? That can be well understood through the shell model - the peaks in the mass are the shell closures - at N = 50 and 82. You don't need anything exotic to explain it.

Now, what's rather cool is if you look at fusion-fission processes with increasing beam energy - the shell model effects slowly get washed out, and you get fission fragment distributions with mass ratios (the mass of the first fragment over the second) = 0.5 - everything symmetrizes.

 

[arivero]

As an explanation for why fission is asymmetric? That can be well understood through the shell model - the peaks in the mass are the shell closures - at N = 50 and 82. You don't need anything exotic to explain it.

Indeed when in 2004 I saw this match, for the W (it was more apparent in a collection of gamma rays, see http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/bhist.jpg and http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/NZ.jpg plane) I went to review the the mass models based on the shell model and the points where they still needed some correction, and pondered if the "extra push" could be coming of such collective node. At that time I was believing the 115 GeV hype so I didn't considered other possibilities. Mind you, I could have predicted the Higgs mass ;-D I remember myself looking at the first nucleus of the theoretical alpha drip line and thinking "there should be something just before this peak, pity that the Higgs is already clearly at in the 115 GeV". At the end I did a pair of notes about the subject http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/0405076.pdf http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/LS9530.pdf but I was unable to find any link.

 

[mfb]

Yep, for sure there is no doubt it is an electroweak object and not a nucleus.

Your first post doesn't look like that, especially the comment about the uranium leak.

What I wonder is if the existence of the Higgs in some way can increase the phase space for U and Pu decay into nuclei having the same mass than the Higgs. Some kind of nuclear collective node able to "sense" the Higgs (and W and Z, in the other peak).

It cannot, there is absolutely no relation between those numbers.

This is too far away from actual science for a discussion here, I closed the thread.