In search of a light Higgs boson
October 20, 2008 By Miranda Marquit(PhysOrg.com) -- “It's pretty clear that the standard model of physics is not enough to explain all the phenomena in nature,” Tomasz Skwarnicki tells PhysOrg.com. “Through looking at a variety of phenomena – one of them being dark matter – we know that there is a whole set of interactions beyond our standard model.” Skwarnicki’s work doesn’t deal with dark matter, but the Syracuse University physicist has been working on models of physics that go beyond the standard.
Like many other scientists, Skwarnicki is interested in the Higgs boson. This is an elementary particle that, according to theory, gives mass to other particles. The Higgs boson is the only particle in the standard model that has yet to be discovered in a physical and experimental sense. Skwarnicki has been associated with the CLEO Collaboration, a group of scientists from a variety of physics programs in the U.S., Britain and Canada. CLEO is based at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, and experiments are done at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR).
Data from CLEO experiments have been analyzed on an ongoing basis, and a recent article published by the collaboration in Physical Review Letters offers some insight regarding the probability of one of the super symmetric extensions to the standard model. The article is called “Search for Very Light CP-Odd Higgs Boson in Radiative Decays of Y(1S)”, and Skwarnicki points out that it offers new constraints on parameters of Next to Minimal Super Symmetric Model (NMSSM).
“Our measures restricted the range of new physics models,” Skwarnicki explains. “We closed some gaps in measurements that had existed before.”
Skwarnicki says that while the standard model of physics allows for only one Higgs boson, designated CP-even, the NMSSM suggest seven total Higgs bosons, including a CP-odd boson. “The presence of this CP-odd boson would change all knowledge of all Higgs decays,” he explains. “But to make it work, this CP-odd Higgs boson would need to be very light.”
The data analysis done involved looking for evidence of production and decay of this very light Higgs boson. The CLEO team looked for a decay of what is called an Upsilon state, Y(1S), which would produce a CP-odd boson, which would in turn decay to a pair of heavy electron-like particles . “Unfortunately,” Skwarnicki points out, “we did not find this. So the search for experimental evidence of the Higgs boson continues.”
He did say that the new bounds established by the experiment, setting a new upper limit, do have an effect on scientific theory. “Our data analysis shows that it would be very hard to speculate with a light Higgs in the Next to Minimal Super Symmetric model. We cannot rule out this model completely, but we ruled out a great deal. Chances are that another theory will have to be used. And the bounds can be used in future ideas of what new interactions beyond the standard model are possible.”
Skwarnicki is fairly optimistic that evidence for the existence (or non-existence) of the Higgs boson will be found soon. “The whole point of the Large Hadron Collider, though other experiments will be performed, is basically to create the energy needed to find the Higgs boson,” he points out. “The LHC should be fully operational next year, and then we’ll have a better idea of whether we need to throw everything out the window.”
Skwarnicki himself is lined up for an experiment at the LHC. “Non-standard models, which are needed to explain some phenomena, will also be affected by this. What we find out about the Higgs boson in Geneva will apply to non-standard models as well.”
Copyright 2007 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
Oct 19, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Go back 80 yrs to the full solution of Dirac's equation and start over there, without throwing out 1/2 the solution, i.e. the negative (binding)energy part.
None. It has masses, coupling constants, and mixing angles specified by experiment. For most scientists that would be enough, but we want to go farther and see if the values measured in Nature are predicted by a deeper theory.
Wrong. Beautifully predictive and one of the most precisely tested theories devised by humankind (the Quantum Electrodynamics portion _is_ the most precisely tested).
Usually spelled Occam or Okham, named for William of Occam, a 13th C. Scholastic philosopher. Yeah, heard of him, talk about him in my introductory classes.
The negative energy solutions are antiparticles. Try reading a field theory book sometime.
http://superstrun...cal2.gif
For example, inside of dense particle systems the formation of 3D clusters is prefered, because just the 3D hypersphere packing enables the largest volume/surface ratio (a Kepler's conjecture). This packing exhibits just the right-angled geometry, which we can met in our space-time. And we can reveal another subtleties by extrapolation of density of this system to infinite values.
Of course, such universal theory appears impractical for calculations on per day basis. If it would enable to derive less general but more exact theories (like the relativity or quantum mechanics), it would be enough.
http://www.physor...003.html
AWT proposes its own mechanism, how the particles are gaining mass from chaotic nothingness, which doesn't rely upon classical Higgs mechanism. The role of Higgs mechanism in SM is quite unclear for me. The SM theory is rather complex and it allows the formation of differend kinds of Higgs bosons by many mechanisms, the physical relevance of which is uncertain.
For me it's much easier to understand the Universe structure, then the way of thinking of modern theories.
Einstein: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity - and I'm not even sure about the Universe...
Huh? If it's true, why try to understand the more large and complex things first? Wouldn't it better to start the understanding of reality from its very beginning?
No don't ask huh? Here is one; when an electron and a positron annihilate sic it has been repeatedly measured that they approach each other at some velocity, v. They then orbit each other about 50,000 times, never getting any closer than the diameter of the proton, all measured again and again. Then poof, they emit 2 photons of energy 0.522 mev the momentum energy and vanish. However, the 2 particles contain about 16 times the energy emitted as angular momentum. Don't ask where angular momentum energy went because the SM says that it is just an intrinsic property of those particles. THAT IS A FUDGE in my book. If they annihilated they turned into pure energy and we know that Angular momentum is ALWAYS conserved. There are roughly 20 more of these "intrinsic properties" that the SM sweeps under the rug (Feynman's characterization not mine). The is a much simpler, more elegant and logical explanation that meet Occham, Okham, Occam's requirement. The electron/positron pair don't annihilate they never even got close to each other, they drop into a lower energy state, i.e. negative energy, with the emission of the 2 photons. They now return to the electron/positron "continuum" of the aether. The SM virtual particles of the vacuum are an invention (better; fantasy) to avoid this aether and negative energy states and preserve both the paradigm and jobs.
Wrong. Beautifully predictive and one of the most precisely tested theories devised by humankind (the Quantum Electrodynamics portion _is_ the most precisely tested).
How many of the masses of the fundamental particles can be derived using the SM? One and the SM isn't needed for that.
Usually spelled Occam or Okham, named for William of Occam, a 13th C. Scholastic philosopher. Yeah, heard of him, talk about him in my introductory classes.
The negative energy solutions are antiparticles. Try reading a field theory book sometime.
THere are 4 results in solving Dirac's equation Not 2, The Copenhagen thugs threw out the other negative 2 in '32%uFFFD. The solution gives electron/positron of positive energy (the only one GENERALLY, but not universally, recognized today) and electron/positron of negative energy, which were thrown out because they (Bohr and cronies) didn't grasp the concept or it falsified their concept. It appears now that this negative energy is a binding energy and a matrix of negative energy electrons and positrons IS the aether. With the application of the right amount of energy, e/p pairs can be knocked into our world.
Now LeeSawyer I suggest that you sit down for this. My opinion; we all have been fed a line of crap since 1932 - all the SM virtual particles can be generated from this negative energy e/p aether because all, ALL, of the subatomic particles are composed of e and p's of and - energy, except those that only exist to keep SM "viable". Your field theory books are wrong! garbage assumptions, garbage out. Oh, 0.522 mev is the binding energy of a p or e in the negative energy aether. E or p's can never be destroyed
I don't see nothing pseudoscientific to such idea - if nothing else, it just was never considered and tested - that's all. After all, we have no better model at this moment anyway. From certain perspective, the Aether model is a logical extrapolation of 1D models of strings and spin loops to zero dimension, i.e. the extrapolation of existing theories to the final level, which the contemporary math and human understanding can still handle without problem. The true mystery is still hidden behind the Aether model.
The fact, the (motion of) environment for light spreading isn't detectable just by using of light (in M-M experiment and others) shouldn't be so surprising for us: no environment can be observed by its own waves, if you really start to think about it.
From this point of view the Aether concept violates no known experiment or observation - it only violates the widespread belief in Aether nonexistence and infallibility of our interpretations of old experiments. But we should realize, it's just interpretation, which is violated by now - not the experimental results itself!
Both these models are based on spontaneous symmetry breaking of underlying particle field, but in fact thy're quite different. The Higgs mechanism doesn't create a mass of electron from scratch, it just increases the effective mass of electrons, which have some rest mass already.
While during droplet formation, the mass density of environment is fully responsible for complete mass of resulting particle. From this perspective the Higgs boson cannot be considered as a "Gods particle", because it cannot create the mass from scratch. And the Aether concept just translates the problem of mass formation to the hypothetical field of virtually unlimited mass and energy density, in which the observable particle manifest itself as a subtle violation of mass/energy equillibria of underlying environment.
The AWT demonstrates clearly, the more complete and logical explanation of reality we'll find, the more abstract and absurd assumption we are required to consider on the background. We can consider this paradox as a consequence of uncertainty principle for the duality of belief and logic in physics: you can never have the logic without corresponding level of belief and vice versa.
http://physicswor...nt/23009
Just about anything you post is typically silly and misinformed.