The church of SM physics

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

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?

Quote from Curbina

I think His frustration with the SM comes also from the difficulty of attempting to publish his work, ...

Wyttenbach has attempted to publish his work? This is news to me. Where has he attempted to publish and had difficulty?

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from Alan Smith

Bruce__H . I would advise you not to be too patronising. And while you ponder the injustice of that, read this.

https://www.theguardian.com/sc…l-peer-review-retraction-

Great article. Thanks.

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.

Quote from Bruce__H

Wyttenbach has attempted to publish his work? This is news to me. Where has he attempted to publish and had difficulty?

If W has attempted to publish work he would have papers ready on arxiv or worst case vixra? Let's see them!

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from Bruce__H

this is silly and self-serving overgeneralization.

Quote from Bruce__H

Science is full of passionate weirdos like Wyttenbach

Bruce_H has little to add to the discussion .

Quote from Wyttenbach

! We also discussed the Einstein Rosen paper

Interesting discussion?. I am sure it was polite

The strongest word in this short film is unbelievable..