Frank D. Smith (Tony Smith for his friends) has been following this blog since the beginning. He is an independent researcher who is very interested in phenomena connected with the top quark and the Higgs boson. He has a theory of his own and he has been trying to check whether LHC data is compatible or not with it. His ideas are reported here as a guest post, as a tribute to his faithfulness to this site. Of course the views expressed below are his own, as I retain a healthy dose of scepticism to any bit of new physics apparent in today's data... Also, I will comment in the thread below to inform the reader of what my ideas are on his interpretation of public LHC results. On the other hand, I do believe that interested outsiders like Tony should be welcome by the physics community, and not ostracized, ridiculed, or stigmatized in any way. For this reason, I do hope my LHC colleagues will refrain from complaining about the use that is made of approved CMS material in this article. The context is clear, and no harm is done here. These are Tony's private ideas and his hacking of public LHC material should be allowed to him as it is to any theorist publishing a "respectable" new physics interpretation of public data.
----
Consensus View of the Physics Community:
there is 1 Higgs at 125 GeV
there is 1 Truth Quark at 174 GeV
One Alternative View ( see viXra 1804.0121 ):
there is 1 Higgs at 125 GeV
there is 1 Truth Quark at 174 GeV
One Alternative View ( see viXra 1804.0121 ):
Higgs and Truth Quark = 3-Mass-State Nambu-Jona-Lasinio System:
Higgs at 125 GeV and Truth Quark at 130 GeV
Higgs at 195 GeV and Truth Quark at 174 GeV
Higgs at 260 GeV and Truth Quark at 220 GeV
Below are Higgs Mass - Truth Quark Mass Phase Diagrams with
Normal Stable Region in green
Non-Perturbative Region in upper part of red region
Vacuum Instability Region in right side of red region
Vacuum Metastable Region in yellow
Critical Point at HIggs Mass = Higgs VEV
The phase Diagram on the left shows the Consensus View with one Mass State, Higgs = 125 GeV and Truth Quark = 174 GeV, predicting a Metastable Vacuum.
The phase Diagram on the right shows an Alternative View that the Higgs and Truth Quark form a 3-Mass-State Nambu-Jona-Lasinio System with
125 GeV Higgs and 130 GeV Truth Quark in the Normal Stable Region
195 GeV Higga and 174 GeV Truth Quark on Boundary of NonPerturbative Region
260 GeV Higgs and 220 GeV Truth Quark at Critical Point.
CAN THE LHC DECIDE BETWEEN THOSE TWO VIEWS ?
My opinion is that the LHC CANNOT make that Decision
That opinion is based on CMS analysis of 2015-2016 data at 13 TeV
in the Higgs -> ZZ* -> 4l channel. The preliminary document CMS-PAS-HIG-16-041 (dated 2017/04/13) says
“... The H -> ZZ -> 4l decay channel (l = e, mu) has a large signal-to-background ratio due to the complete reconstruction of the final state decay products and excellent lepton momentum resolution …”.
Higgs at 125 GeV and Truth Quark at 130 GeV
Higgs at 195 GeV and Truth Quark at 174 GeV
Higgs at 260 GeV and Truth Quark at 220 GeV
Below are Higgs Mass - Truth Quark Mass Phase Diagrams with
Normal Stable Region in green
Non-Perturbative Region in upper part of red region
Vacuum Instability Region in right side of red region
Vacuum Metastable Region in yellow
Critical Point at HIggs Mass = Higgs VEV
The phase Diagram on the left shows the Consensus View with one Mass State, Higgs = 125 GeV and Truth Quark = 174 GeV, predicting a Metastable Vacuum.
The phase Diagram on the right shows an Alternative View that the Higgs and Truth Quark form a 3-Mass-State Nambu-Jona-Lasinio System with
125 GeV Higgs and 130 GeV Truth Quark in the Normal Stable Region
195 GeV Higga and 174 GeV Truth Quark on Boundary of NonPerturbative Region
260 GeV Higgs and 220 GeV Truth Quark at Critical Point.
CAN THE LHC DECIDE BETWEEN THOSE TWO VIEWS ?
My opinion is that the LHC CANNOT make that Decision
That opinion is based on CMS analysis of 2015-2016 data at 13 TeV
in the Higgs -> ZZ* -> 4l channel. The preliminary document CMS-PAS-HIG-16-041 (dated 2017/04/13) says
“... The H -> ZZ -> 4l decay channel (l = e, mu) has a large signal-to-background ratio due to the complete reconstruction of the final state decay products and excellent lepton momentum resolution …”.
The LHC Run2 for 2015-2016 delivered to the CMS experiment 35.9 fb-1 of proton-proton collisions data at 13 TeV, which at 100 trillion events per fb-1 corresponds to about 3.6 Quadrillion produced collisions. From thatabout 30 x (300-100)/5 = 1200 events were selected for the Figure 2 histogram of H -> ZZ -> 4l channel in CMS PAS HIG-17-012.
That is maybe harder than picking out one of my monthly Social Security payments from all the US dollars in the world, including hedge fund derivatives (world derivatives notional value = about $1.5 Quadrillion).
CMS PAS HIG-17-012 (2017/12/08) says
“... analysis is based on proton-proton collisions recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC in 2016 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb-1 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV … No significant excess of events is observed ... Figure 2: Distribution of the four-leptons invariant mass in untagged ... category ...” gives the histogram on the left with 5 GeV Bins which clearly supports the Consensus View with two adjacent Bin Peaks at 125 GeV and everything else appearing only as a Forest of Data Points and Error Bars.
CMS PAS HIG-17-012 (2017/12/08) says
“... analysis is based on proton-proton collisions recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC in 2016 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb-1 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV … No significant excess of events is observed ... Figure 2: Distribution of the four-leptons invariant mass in untagged ... category ...” gives the histogram on the left with 5 GeV Bins which clearly supports the Consensus View with two adjacent Bin Peaks at 125 GeV and everything else appearing only as a Forest of Data Points and Error Bars.
The histogram on the right is derived from the one on the left, exactly the same data, but with modifications as to Error Bars and Bin Size. [T.D. note: this is ***NOT*** a CMS graph]. It clearly shows three Mass States for the Higgs: 125 GeV ; 195 GeV ; 260 GeV and that the Background Data Points correspond very closely to the Backgorund predicted by CMS. [T.D. note: again, the opinion of Tony is stated here as elsewhere in this article, and as should be clear from the context]. If the 35.9 fb-1 of Data producing those histograms is (as would be expected) similar to the 50 fb-1 collected in 2017 and the 55-60 fb-1 expected to be collected in 2018, then
BOTH THE CONSENSUS VIEW AND THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW
ARE CONSISTENT WITH REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF LHC DATA
The first modification I made of the CMS histogram was of the Error Bars. Tommaso Dorigo on 22 Dec 2011 put on his blog a post titled “Those Deceiving Error Bars” saying “... If we observe N, that measurement has NO uncertainty: that is what we saw, with 100% probability ...I would be very happy ... if particle physics experiments turned away from the sqrt(N) error bars and adopted ... box uncertainties ... in line with ... “Brazil-bands” ...”.
In this piece I am not going to try to do box uncertainties like Brazil-bands but I am going to do away with Deceiving Error Bars.
Here is what happens when the Error Bars are gone:
[T.D. note: again, these are ***NOT*** CMS graphs, regardless of the title "CMS Preliminary" remaining at the top, but versions reworked by Tony].
The 125 GeV Higgs is still clearly there and the Forest of Error Bars is gone but the Data Points for all but 125 GeV still look like Shotgun Scatter so the 195 GeV and 260 GeV Higgs Data Points still seem to be random fluctuations.
Consider the effects of the 5 GeV Bin Size. Tommaso Dorigo on 16 May 2011 put on his blog a post titled “Choose Bins Wisely” saying “... The only concern with too narrow bins is ...that random fluctuations might distract the user's attention from the important features of the distribution ... Let us see ... typical experimental cases ...
[Case three]... Barely significant bump, small statististics ... Here I believe the narrowest binning is a bit extreme ...”. Lubos Motl commented “... the main trade-off here is clear. If the bins are too wide, you lose the detailed information about the x-coordinate. If the bins are too narrow, you lose the information about the y-coordinates - the number of events / objects in each bin becomes too fluctuating ...It’s always possible to merge bins into bigger ones ...”
In the CMS histogram it is clear that there are large fluctuations between adjacent bins so to smooth out that noisy variation between neighboring bins I merged adjacent 5 GeV bins to get 10 GeV bins (except that I did not merge the 195 GeV and 260 GeV bins).
Here are the results of merging from 5 GeV Bins to 10 GeV Bins. The red lines connect the Data Points of the merged bins and the new Data Points (red dots) are at the midpoints of the connecting lines:
[T.D. note: again, these and those below are ***NOT*** CMS graphs].
CONSENSUS OR ALTERNATIVE VIEW: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE ?
If the Consensus View is correct, then Our Universe is Metastable. If the Alernative View is correct, then we live in a Normal Stable Ground State, and there is a clear path to studying New Phenomena at Higher Energies:
at the Non-Perturbative Boundary the Compositeness of NJL Higgs is manifest
as is the structure of (4+4)-dim Kaluza-Klein Spacetime M4 x CP2
(M4 is Minkowski and CP2 = SU(3) / SU(2)xU(1) is Internal Symmetry Space)
at and beyond the Critical Point the Higgs mechanism no longer gives mass
to particles so we will enter a Massless Realm in which such things as
the Kobayshi-Maskawa matrix will be radically changed,
possibly becoming like the Democratic Mixing Matrix
described by Marni Sheppeard.
I have not here discussed the 3 Mass States of the Truth Quark - for details about that see viXra 1712.0344 and on my web site; and I have not discussed how Nambu-Jona-Lasinio works - for details about that see viXra 1804.0121 and on my web site.
BOTH THE CONSENSUS VIEW AND THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW
ARE CONSISTENT WITH REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF LHC DATA
The first modification I made of the CMS histogram was of the Error Bars. Tommaso Dorigo on 22 Dec 2011 put on his blog a post titled “Those Deceiving Error Bars” saying “... If we observe N, that measurement has NO uncertainty: that is what we saw, with 100% probability ...I would be very happy ... if particle physics experiments turned away from the sqrt(N) error bars and adopted ... box uncertainties ... in line with ... “Brazil-bands” ...”.
In this piece I am not going to try to do box uncertainties like Brazil-bands but I am going to do away with Deceiving Error Bars.
Here is what happens when the Error Bars are gone:
[T.D. note: again, these are ***NOT*** CMS graphs, regardless of the title "CMS Preliminary" remaining at the top, but versions reworked by Tony].
The 125 GeV Higgs is still clearly there and the Forest of Error Bars is gone but the Data Points for all but 125 GeV still look like Shotgun Scatter so the 195 GeV and 260 GeV Higgs Data Points still seem to be random fluctuations.
Consider the effects of the 5 GeV Bin Size. Tommaso Dorigo on 16 May 2011 put on his blog a post titled “Choose Bins Wisely” saying “... The only concern with too narrow bins is ...that random fluctuations might distract the user's attention from the important features of the distribution ... Let us see ... typical experimental cases ...
[Case three]... Barely significant bump, small statististics ... Here I believe the narrowest binning is a bit extreme ...”. Lubos Motl commented “... the main trade-off here is clear. If the bins are too wide, you lose the detailed information about the x-coordinate. If the bins are too narrow, you lose the information about the y-coordinates - the number of events / objects in each bin becomes too fluctuating ...It’s always possible to merge bins into bigger ones ...”
In the CMS histogram it is clear that there are large fluctuations between adjacent bins so to smooth out that noisy variation between neighboring bins I merged adjacent 5 GeV bins to get 10 GeV bins (except that I did not merge the 195 GeV and 260 GeV bins).
Here are the results of merging from 5 GeV Bins to 10 GeV Bins. The red lines connect the Data Points of the merged bins and the new Data Points (red dots) are at the midpoints of the connecting lines:
[T.D. note: again, these and those below are ***NOT*** CMS graphs].
CONSENSUS OR ALTERNATIVE VIEW: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE ?
If the Consensus View is correct, then Our Universe is Metastable. If the Alernative View is correct, then we live in a Normal Stable Ground State, and there is a clear path to studying New Phenomena at Higher Energies:
at the Non-Perturbative Boundary the Compositeness of NJL Higgs is manifest
as is the structure of (4+4)-dim Kaluza-Klein Spacetime M4 x CP2
(M4 is Minkowski and CP2 = SU(3) / SU(2)xU(1) is Internal Symmetry Space)
at and beyond the Critical Point the Higgs mechanism no longer gives mass
to particles so we will enter a Massless Realm in which such things as
the Kobayshi-Maskawa matrix will be radically changed,
possibly becoming like the Democratic Mixing Matrix
described by Marni Sheppeard.
I have not here discussed the 3 Mass States of the Truth Quark - for details about that see viXra 1712.0344 and on my web site; and I have not discussed how Nambu-Jona-Lasinio works - for details about that see viXra 1804.0121 and on my web site.
Tony Smith
Comments