The church of SM physics

  • perhaps you'd like to be more precise which resonances you feel make your point?


    Short memory is prerequisite to follow SM: CERN found two Higgs masses both with same significance now they hide one ...

    SM:QED/QFT/QCD -for dense Matter is fringe science not in any way related to classic physics and has no power to explain even the simpelst things we like to know e.g. how to calculate the energy of the first gamma line of 6-Li.


    One more try to explain it to undergraduates



    Historically the system of constants(h,c,mp,me,alpha,e) used in nuclear physics has been defined upon the magnetic mass (from exactly measured electron mass --> μB) of the electron and it's relation to the proton mass given by charge. The above formula is just a variation of the known quantities, known since about 100 years...


    This formula shows that, what we call mass or "real" -, massive particles have as a basis a 4D magnetic coupling. μB is the Bohr magneton = magnetic moment of the electron corrected by the electron g-factor. The same formula also holds for the proton.

    In classic 3D,t space and in all variations of spaces used by QFT etc. such a coupling in 3D,t space results in asymmetry or friction (stress) as the two ring currents that are the basis of the μB must share one dimension. But particle like atoms do not show time like behavior what is the basic underlying mechanism of QFT and the origin of stress.


    The mathematical space used by SM (QED etc.) SO(3)XSU(2)xU(1) has the wrong symmetry and thus the most time when reading an SM paper/ you read symmetry breaking it is just only a consequence of inadequate mathematical modeling.


    SO(4) is the first & lowest symmetry group that is able to describe a frictionless coupling of two attractive ( by induced virtual charge) magnetic masses.


    This results in the conclusion that SM is incomplete as it misses the (time free!) magneto-static solution of the EM fields.



    The consequences of this are huge as almost all models for dense mass including GR must be reworked to fit the true nature of physics.


    But as SO(4) physics shows: You gain everything you wanted to have the last 100 years including the exact derivation of gravitation and the unification of all forces. Finally we can now calculate nuclear properties what SM obviously - because of wrong math - cannot do.

  • THH: Perhaps you'd like to be more precise which resonances you feel make your point?


    W: Short memory is prerequisite to follow SM: CERN found two Higgs masses both with same significance now they hide one ...


    Wyttenbach - you don't know me very well if you think I ever accept proof by assertion!

    So this is just puff, you are saying it but know you have no evidence?

  • Dear W,


    I've summarised below sections from the paper you linked, which is in fact a very useful review of the Higgs search. I cannot found your additional resonances "hidden" and "with same significance has 125GeV Higgs".


    Perhaps you could say where in that paper you feel there is mention of suhc a hidden resonance?


    From that paper:


    The Higgs mass value agrees quite well with the range preferred by the electroweak precision tests (EWPT) [19], which confirms the success of the SM. Current measurements of its spin, parity, and couplings, also seem consistent with the SM. The fact that LHC has verified the linear realization of spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), as included in the Standard Model (SM), could also be taken as an indication that Nature likes scalars.
    The initial reports from LHC claimed the discovery of a resonance with mass m = 125−126 GeV, through its decays into γγ and ZZ∗ , which were consistent with having either spin s = 0 or s = 2. Later on, with more data collected from more decay modes, it was concluded that the simplest choice s = 0 was favored. After LHC delivered the Higgs signal, many papers have been devoted to study the Higgs couplings, and the constraints on deviations from SM [20–22]. Although the initial data showed also some tantalizing hints of deviations from the SM predictions, including first a possible enhanced γγ rate, and later on a signal from the LFV Higgs decay modes appeared to had been detected, these signals were not confirmed with more data. So far, we can say that the signal resembles a Higgs scalar, with a profile consistent with the SM interpretation.



    No sign of two Higgs masses with same significance!


    In the late stages of LEP, with a cm energy of about 205 GeV, this bound was slightly extended, up to
    about 114 GeV. Just when the CERN plans marked that LEP must be closed, in order to start the LHC
    project, some debate arose because there was a claim for the presence of a Higgs signal with mh = 115 Gev,
    which produced lots of enthusiasm among some experimentalist (who pledged for more time and energy for
    LEP) and also among some theorists, who quickly cooked models that could explain such mass value. The
    CERN director decided to close LEP and keep the plans for LHC, which a posteriori seems it was the best
    decision that could be made.


    So, a sign from LEP at 115GeV but not strong, and not replicated in LHC.


    LHC started collecting data from pp collisions with cm energy of √
    S = 7 TeV. After some initial claims
    for a Higgs signal around 140 GeV, which was again quickly explained by some theory models, the Higgs
    became real when both collaborations (ATLAS and CMS) announced on July 4th, 2012 that some events
    on the γγ and ZZ∗ channels were observed, which would correspond to a SM-like Higgs particle with mass
    mh = 125−126 GeV. The observation of a resonance decaying into γγ indicated that its spin must be either
    0 or 2, in accordance with Yang theorem. An scalar, with spin-0, seemed the most natural explanation,
    which was reinforced by the second decay mode, namely the four-lepton signal, which could be interpreted
    as coming from the decay h → ZZ∗ → llll. Habemus Higgs!
    As LHC continued to accumulate luminosity, more Higgs decay modes were observed, which confirmed
    that the particle observed by ATLAS and CMS was indeed a Higgs-like particle. The interpretation of the
    Higgs signal was further reinforced after LHC started taking data with higher energy (√S = 13 TeV).

    Now the signal can be appreciated even by the public eye, for instance the data from CMS on the four-lepton

    signal shown in Fig. 5. (from ref. [42] ) shows clearly a bump in the invariant mass at 125 GeV (pink) ,
    which stands clearly above the SM backgrounds. There are now a variety of signals that have been measured,
    which seem all consistent with the SM, as it is shown in figure 6 (left) , from ATLAS (ref. [43]). The mass
    has been measured with better precision, as it can be seen in figure 6 (right).
    The current LHC data on Higgs production has been used to derive bounds on deviation from the SM
    predictions for the Higgs couplings. For instance, figure 7 from Atlas Collaboration (from ref. [44]) shows the
    allowed deviations for the Higgs couplings with gauge bosons and fermions, as parametrized by the constants

    κV and κF . Thus, one can see that best fit lays quite close to the point κV = κF = 1, which corresponds to
    the SM limit. However, small deviations are allowed within the precision reached at LHC.
    In essence, the Higgs particle couples to a pair of massive gauge bosons or fermions with a strength
    proportional to their masses. So far, the LHC has tested only a few of them, namely the Higgs couplings
    with the gauge bosons and the heaviest fermions of the third family. This is shown in figure 8, from both
    ATLAS ([44]) and CMS ([45]) collaborations, where one can appreciate that the Higgs couplings lay on a
    straight line, modulo some small deviations for the Higgs coupling with b¯b (which is still consistent at one sigma);

    the mode µµ has not been detected yet. These results, allow some regions of parameter space for the
    so-called ”private Higgs” hypothesis, where each fermion type gets its mass from a different Higgs doublet,
    as it will be discussed briefly in our conclusions. Moreover, these constraints are obtained assuming SM-like
    pattern for the Higgs couplings, however when one considers new physics, i.e. models beyond the SM [46],
    it is possible to have non-standard Higgs couplings, including the flavor and CP-violating ones. These will
    be discussed in the coming sections.

    I'm looking carefully here for evidence of hiding - have not found it yet...


    And the next section is looking at evidence for models beyond SM which everyone would prefer - it is more exciting. No hiding. Rather a sort of anti-hiding!


    The SM has several shortcomings that make us suspect that it is not a final theory. For instance, the
    SM is unable to explain some of the most pressing theoretical problems (unification, flavor, naturalness, etc)
    [23], as well as some cosmological data (DM, Dark energy, etc). In particular, finding a possible solution
    to the hierarchy problem suffered by the SM Higgs boson, has been the driving force behind many of the
    proposals for extending the SM [47].
    As we mentioned before, the SM Higgs particle couples to a pair of massive gauge boons or fermions,
    with an strength proportional to its mass. However, so far LHC provided information on the essential Higgs

    properties, but this information is based only on a few of the Higgs couplings, i.e. the ones with the heaviest
    SM fermions and W, Z. Then, some questions arise:


    • Why is the Higgs mass light? i.e. of the order of the EW scale,
    • Do the masses of all fermion types (up-, down-quarks and leptons) arise from a single Higgs doublet? or, are there more Higgs multiplets participating in the game?
    • Are the Higgs couplings to fermions diagonal in flavor space?
    • Is there any hope to measure the Higgs couplings with the lightest quarks and leptons?

    As we shall see next, different answers to these questions arise when one extends the SM. Many of those
    extensions often include a rich Higgs spectrum, or predict deviations from the SM Higgs properties. These
    models could either be the realization of elaborated theoretical constructions, or just examples of model
    building machinery; both of them are usefull at the minimum because they provides a systematic generation
    of new collider signals to search for, as we shall discuss next. Thus, in order to test these extensions, it will
    be very important to study the Higgs couplings at LHC and future colliders, and compare with predictions
    from extended models.


    THH

  • Perhaps you could say where in that paper you feel there is mention of suhc a hidden resonance?


    From that paper:

    What I told THH....


    Look e.g. at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06878.pdf VII. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK ....


    It seems that THH is somehow handicapped in reading posts and papers as he obviously is not able to find chapter VII conclusion, in a well written paper...


    Exceptionally I do this very complicated work for him and post the two sentences he had to find.


    VII. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

    One of the most important task of future colliders is to study the properties of the Higgs-like particle with mh = 126 GeV discovered at the LHC.


    CERN has two detectors one found a Higgs with 125GeV the one with 126GeV. The lower one was "expected" the higher one is now under the carpet.

  • VII. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

    One of the most important task of future colliders is to study the properties of the Higgs-like particle with mh = 126 GeV discovered at the LHC.


    CERN has two detectors one found a Higgs with 125GeV the one with 126GeV. The lower one was "expected" the higher one is now under the carpet.


    Got it.


    But - you are wrong. My memory is that different experiments (based on initial data) gave difference values of peaks between 125 and 126, however with more data the width of these peaks tightened, and the value of 125 or so is now solid. To prove your point you'd need the actual values from data at 125 and 126 with statistical and systematic and other uncertainties. And how these have changed over time (the statistical one changes, as does the actual peak, as more data is collected).


    Would you like to do that, so we can investigate this?


    THH

  • Just to help from Wikipedia:


    • 2 July 2012 – the ATLAS collaboration further analysed their 2011 data, excluding Higgs mass ranges of 111.4 GeV to 116.6 GeV, 119.4 GeV to 122.1 GeV, and 129.2 GeV to 541 GeV. Higgs bosons are probably located at 126 GeV with significance of 2.9 sigma.[38]
    • 4 July 2012 – the CMS collaboration announced the discovery of a boson with mass 125.3 ± 0.6 GeV/c2 within 4.9 σ (sigma) (up to 5 sigma depending on the analysed channel),[41][42] and the ATLAS collaboration a boson with mass of ∼126.5 GeV/c2.[49][50]
    • 31 July 2012 – the ATLAS collaboration further improved their analysis and announced the discovery of a boson with mass 126 ± 0.4 (stat.) ± 0.4 (sys) GeV/c2.[52] Also CMS improved the significance to 5 sigma with the boson's mass at 125.3 ± 0.4 (stat) ± 0.5 (sys) GeV/c2.[53]


    Those were the EARLIEST results, based on much less data than is now available.


    What do you think is hidden? are you saying that between 4 and 31 July all the atlas team engaged in a conspiracy to hide a result - which stayed hidden for 7 years afterwards as more data was collected?

  • But as we know, scientists in general believe what they are paid to believe, and come between a man and his paycheck and you've got trouble.


    Who is the "we" that know this? Not me. But then I have lots of actual experience with scientists and maybe that is a difference between you and me (I really don't know).


    Under any circumstances, however, this is silly and self-serving overgeneralization.

  • Paradigms are "how you do reality" - meaning they frame how everything works and the rules. Quantum -> Classical is a paradigm shift. Man is machine -> Man has a soul that interacts with matter is another paradigm shift. Physics is stuck. Psychology/Medicine is stuck (did you know that the evidence for a bio-social-psycho root in all disease is turning up over and over in the literature and that drugs actually do not do better than "human" therapies -- there is tons of cover up there including firing Professors who speak out...long story)


    Yesterday I was banned from Reddit. This is a poignant example of how thought control to preserve a paradigm works.


    We are all bringing on a scientific revolution. I just wish some of you would sharpen your pencils and join us. The Stern Gerlach experiment is the key folks. Message me to participate - I have ways to profit - which is nice - but not the central goal of this exercise.

  • This severely bad reaction to BLP's work is on a par with International Skeptics - not just intellectual bias but running scared of peer opinions? Well done Navid!

    Crackpot physics is unscientific, and not appropriate here.
    Permalink Delete Report Block User Mark Unread Reply
    Seems like a strong opinion given that I just sent a list of 100 published articles - and you will note I referenced the
    US Department of Defense has validated this energy space

    .
    I saw from your content policy that you can have your own rules. However, Reddit should be free of bias especially
    around the most important ideas of our time. Otherwise it can prevent progress. Facebook seems to be under the hot
    seat by Congress.
    I suggest I send you information some of the publications (Journal of Hydrogen Energy etc) - you don't have to learn
    it but just to assess - is this based on peer-reviewed research?
    Sound good?
    Permalink Reply
    No thank you, I’m quite familiar with BLP’s schizophrenic delusions. You’ll have to find other venues to advertise their
    nonsense.

  • What do you think is hidden? are you saying that between 4 and 31 July all the atlas team engaged in a conspiracy to hide a result - which stayed hidden for 7 years afterwards as more data was collected?


    The paper is from Jan. 2019... I very well understand your methods & spin. ( Do you get a bonus from CERN??)


    I now start again to call you a FUD'er.


    By the way today I had a long talk with some younger prof's (QM cracks) at ETH Switzerland today evening. They fully understand why QED/QFT/QCD fail and only wait for a better model. They also fully understand the points of JohnDuffield and agree that QM is a closed formalism and thus not able (due to mathematical restrictions (closed) - needed is completeness ) to describe all aspects of reality. They gave some interesting versions of proof based on quantum information theory too! We also discussed the Einstein Rosen paper - thanks John! It's top on the citation list currently!

  • But as we know, scientists in general believe what they are paid to believe, and come between a man and his paycheck and you've got trouble.


    Scientists, in general, do not believe what they are paid to believe. Science is full of passionate weirdos like Wyttenbach and you except that these weirdos are forced by the system to explain themselves in peer reviewed grant applications and publications. Your naive statements make me think that that you have never been part of that game.


    And the article you linked to is correct in everything it says, but how is it relevant to what you are saying here? About the only relevance I can drag up is to ask you when is the last time you saw a result in the LENR field retracted. I'm guessing the answer is never.