The New Dijet Particle in the Tevatron IS the Higgs

[Schreiberdk]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4642

Abstract
"The newly found \cite{CDFnew} dijet peak in the 120 GeV to 160 GeV mass region produced in co-production with W IS actually a Higgs Boson in spite of the expectation of a different decay pattern for most Higgses. Our point, however, is that the bound state of 6t + 6$\bar{t}$, which we have put forward already in several articles \cite{boundfirst}\cite{bound} \cite{dark}\cite{hierarchybound}, easily could be lighter - possibly much lighter - than half the Higgs mass. Higgs would in this case decay dominantly to two of our bound states. If these bound states were indeed very light (say around 10 GeV) their decay products into hadrons would like two jets, one for each bound state. Even a very small mass for our bound state is not unexpected isofar as it is part of our model that especially the top-quark-Yukawa coupling is being tuned so as to make precisely this bound state of $6t + 6\bar{t}$ become (approximately) massless. This tuning is a consequence of our Multiple Point Principle \cite{old} \cite{SIMPP} which states that the realized parameter/coupling values correspond to having a maximal set of degenerate vacua. Even the very recent LHC-peak in photon photon might be fitted to our model."

Any thoughts? :)

 

[unusualname]

erm, Holger Nielsen, formerly respected "originator of string theory" (one of) , well known for this:

http://www.nbi.dk/~kleppe/random/a1/aa.html

and the LHC is going to be destroyed by a backwards in time attack or something crazy like that (apologies to Beyonce)

 

[marcus]

Here is the article by the CDF collaboration "Invariant Mass..." that Nielsen refers to:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0699

Here is Tommaso Dorigo's blog comment. He belongs to the CDF himself. I think he is saying he bump is not a Higgs and may not be anything at all:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/new_massive_particle_some_kind_higgs-77857

Here is the Not Even Wrong post, which has links to other blogging about it:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3602
One of the N.E.W. comments is by Dorigo.

Here are 18 links to blogs about it that arxiv provides:
http://arxiv.org/tb/1104.0699

 

[marcus]

More directly to the point. Here is Tommaso's (brief) comment on the Holger Nielsen paper you mentioned:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/blog/nielsen_cdf_bump-78418
==quote==
Nielsen On The CDF Bump

Worth mentioning because of its irrelevance: that's my other choice for a post which points out a new preprint by H.Nielsen, the Danish physicist who became famous by hypothesizing that the future was influencing the past in order to prevent us from discovering the Higgs boson.
[ http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919 ]
When I read back the piece I wrote back then ("Respectable physicists gone crackpotty") I cannot stop chuckling -I think it is one of my best posts ever. So I cannot even think of sitting down to write a similar one on the new work by Nielsen. You will have to find out by yourself to what heights the vagaries of the fellow have gotten.
===

 

[dhillonv10]

Often times these bumps are noise in the background, but we have been seeing these news for a while now so maybe we are close to something. Otherwise if it is as Nelson states, then we'll never be able to find the Higgs.

 

[SpecialKM]

Curse you, Higgs! I'm sure given enough time and energy (LHC cranked up to 7TeV) we'll be able to spot it. Unless, someone comes up with a theory that completely changes the standard model.. which is more likely? Guess we'll just have to find out.

 

[kloptok]

Remember also that the D0 experiment at Fermilab failed to reproduce CDF:s bump. See: http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/final/HIGGS/H11B/