1- The SM Higgs Excess Events around
126 GeV are based on the gamma-gamma channel for both
CMS and ATLAS and on the Higgs to ZZ to 4l channel for ATLAS:
The two apparent peaks (blue arrows) in the CMS gamma-gamma histogram
are in the same region in which CDF saw a
controversial Wjj bump.
They could be interpreted as:
T0 meson (Tquark and Up antiquark) with low-mass-state Tquark
T0c meson (Tquark and Charm antiquark) with low-mass-state Tquark
with the Tquark lifetime being extended due to its being involved in
the meson state (somewhat like a heavy version of the neutral spin-0
A low-mass-state Tquark mass on the order of 130 GeV is roughly
with the two CMS diphoton peaks. The 3 states of the Higgs-Tquark
described below in some detail, but roughly they are located at the
green (low mass) and cyan (mid mass) and magenta (high mass) points:
the highest point of the ATLAS bump at 126 GeV did not
coincide with a high point in the CMS bump
but rather to a low point, so
if you were to combine the ATLAS and CMS data points, it would seem
that there would be significant cancellation
causing a simple SM Higgs interpretation based on ATLAS gamma-gamma
data to go away.
As to the ATLAS claim of a 3-event bump at 125 GeV in the Higgs to ZZ
to 4l channel,
note that the two adjacent bins are empty and that if those 3 events
were spread evenly among the 3 bins the result would be consistent with
the expected background and the ATLAS support from that channel for a
125 GeV simple SM Higgs would go away.
2 - The
exclusion of the intermediate range from 141 to 470 GeV by the CERN
Consensus View is not justified.
The CERN Consensus View Exclusion of SM Higgs at 145, 180, and 240 GeV
is at 95% confidence level.
Tommaso Dorigo said 2 Dec 2011 on his blog "... a upper limit at 95%
confidence level is not enough to assert that the particle does not
exist: the particle is then only "disfavoured", because only once in
twenty cases would the experiment find that result if the particle did
have that mass and existed and behaved as the Standard Model predicts.
... in order to really prove that our understanding of
electroweak symmetry breaking is flawed and that there is no Higgs
boson we would need a much, much more solid evidence than a mere "95%
exclusion". ...". The weakness of a 95% confidence level has been
described by XKCD
Further, in the Higgs to ZZ to 4l channel ATLAS saw (according to
ATLAS-CONF-2011-162.pdf) 71 events
dots correspond to Standard Model Higgs with 3 Mass
240 GeV that
leads to a unified E8 Physics
Model of Gravity plus Standard Model (viXra 1108.0027).
It seems clear to me that the histogram shows evidence for the
existence of SM Higgs at
The ATLAS histogram presented by Fabiola Gianotti on 13 Dec 2011 had
the same 71 events as ATLAS-CONF-2011-162.pdf .
Why does the CERN Consensus View not recognize the evidence for SM
Higgs at 145, 180, and 240 GeV ?
For one thing,
CERN's analytical techniques may include things like the Look Elsewhere
Effect (LEE) that can flatten bumps.
In my view,
it is improper to use LEE with respect to evaluation of models such as
E8 Physics that predict in advance the location of bumps,
such as the E8 Physics bumps predicted in advance of the LHC data
to be around 145, 180, and 240 GeV.
ATLAS-CONF-2011-162.pdf said "... The p0-value is the probability of
upward fluctuations in the background as high as or higher than the
excesses observed in data. ... deviations from the background-only
hypothesis are observed for ... mH = 244 GeV with a local p0-value of
1.1% (2.3 sigma) ... These values do not account for the so-called
look-elsewhere effect ...[LEE]... once the look-elsewhere effect is
considered ... the observed local excess... for ... mH = 244 GeV ... is
... not ... significant ...". I consider that use of LEE by ATLAS to be
For another thing,
in E8 Physics the Higgs has the conventional Standard Model Cross
but that Cross Section is shared among the 3 Mass States around 145,
180, and 240 GeV
so that each of the 3 States has a smaller Cross Section than would be
expected for a Single-Mass-State SM Higgs.
That is exactly what was shown around 240 GeV on a 13 Dec 2011 Spare
Slide of Fabiola
Gianotti for ATLAS
that is consistent with 240 GeV or so being one of 3 Mass States of the
Higgs for which
the Cross Section would be less than that expected for
a Single-Mass-State Standard Model Higgs
In the Higgs to ZZ to 4l channel CMS saw (according to
HIG-11-025-pas.pdf) 72 events
distributed consistently with the Standard Model Higgs with 3 Mass
that leads to a unified E8 Physics
Model of Gravity plus Standard Model (viXra 1108.0027).
It seems clear to me that the histogram shows evidence for the
existence of SM Higgs at
It seems to me that the 145 GeV excess is a bit clearer in the CMS
the 240 GeV excess is a bit clearer in the ATLAS data, and the 180 GeV
excess is pretty clear in both data sets.
The CMS histogram presented by Guido Tonelli on 13 Dec 2011 had 72
events but they do not appear to be exactly the same as the 72 events
the 240 GeV bin of HIG-11-025-pas.pdf
the same bin of Guido Tonelli
perhaps caused by moving one of the 5 events to the next higher bin
which then goes from empty to 1 event.
The result is that the Guido Tonelli plot does not show a very clear
excess at 240 GeV.
The 240 GeV bump over background is not as pronounced in the CMS data
as in the ATLAS data
so it is interesting to compare backgrounds of the two experiments. If
the graphs are scaled comparably
and the CMS background is shown as black and the ATLAS background is
shown as red,
then it is clear that the CMS background is somewhat higher,
particularly in the ranges from 180 GeV to 240 GeV and from 125 GeV to
"Is the CERN Consensus View
Against the 3-State Higgs (145, 180, and 240
GeV) Justified ?"
my answer is
Using the ideas of - African IFA
; Lie Algebra E8 ;
Hua Geometry of Bounded Complex Domains; Mayer Geometric Higgs
Batakis 8-dim Kaluza-Klein structure of
hep-ph/0311165 by Hashimoto et
Segal Conformal Gravity version of the MacDowell-Mansouri Mechanism;
Real Clifford Algebra generalized Hyperfinite II1 von Neumannn factor
Joy Christian EPR Geometry - my
has been developed with a 3-state
in which the Higgs is related to the
Primitive Idempotents of the real Clifford Algebra Cl(8).
The Pumpkin Mouth Plot shows that the
Electroweak Gfitter best fit
for a floating Tquark mass as is required in my 3-State Higgs-Tquark
System in which Higgs and Tquark masses run
is for a Higgs state with central value of 141 GeV and upper bound
141+209 = 350 GeV.
The Pumpkin Eye-Nose-Eye Plots are for data (about 5/fb) taken by
Eye: ATLAS-CMS ZZ-4l plots
of Halloween 2011 excesses seen in 110-160 GeV Higgs range;
Nose: ATLAS-CMS ZZ-4l plots of Halloween 2011 excesses seen in 160-210
Eye: ATLAS-CMS ZZ-4l plots of Halloween 2011
excesses seen in 210-260 GeV Higgs range.
According to hep-ph/0307138 by C. D. Froggatt:
“... the top quark mass is the dominant term in the SM fermion mass
matrix ... [so]... it is likely that its value will be understood
dynamically ... the self-consistency of the pure SM up to some physical
cut-off scale /\ imposes constraints on both the top quark and Higgs
The first constraint is the so-called triviality bound: the running
Higgs coupling constant lambda(mu) should not develop an Landau pole
for mu < /\ .
The second is the vacuum stability bound: the running Higgs coupling
constant lambda(mu) should not become negative leading to the
instability of the usual SM vacuum.
These bounds are illustrated in Fig. 3 ... we shall be interested in
the large cut-off scales /\ = 10^19 GeV, corresponding to the Planck
scale [ I have edited this sentence to restrict coverage to a Planck
scale SM cut-off and have edited Fig. 3 and added material relevant to
my E8 Physics model with 3 Higgs-Tquark states ] ...
The upper part of each curve corresponds to the triviality bound.
The lower part of each curve coincides with the vacuum stability bound
the point in the top right-hand corner, where it meets the triviality
bound curve, is the quasi-fixed infra-red fixed point for that value of
/\ . ...
... Fig. 3: SM bounds in the ( Mt
, MH ) plane ...”.
The Magenta Dot
is the high-mass state of a 220 GeV Truth
Quark and a 240 GeV Higgs.
It is at the critical point of the Higgs-Tquark System with respect to
Vacuum Instability and Triviality.
It corresponds to the description in
hep-ph/9603293 by Koichi Yamawaki of the Bardeen-Hill-Lindner model
That high-mass Higgs is in the 210-260 GeV range of the Higgs Vacuum
which range includes the Higgs VEV.
The Gold Line leading down from the Critical Point roughly along the
Triviality Boundary line is based on Renormalization Group calculations
result that MH / MT = 1.1 as described by Koichi Yamawaki in
The Cyan Dot
where the Gold Line leaves the Triviality Boundary
to go into our Ordinary Phase is the middle-mass state of a 174
Quark and a 180 GeV Higgs. It corresponds to the Higgs mass
Hashimoto, Tanabashi, and Yamawaki in hep-ph/0311165 where they show
that for 8-dimensional Kaluza-Klein spacetime with
the Higgs as a
Truth Quark condensate 172 < MT < 175 GeV and 178 < MH <
That mid-mass Higgs is in the 160-210 GeV range of the Higgs Triviality
Boundary. The physical meaning of the Triviality Bound is described by
Ramond in his book Journeys Beyond the Standard Model (Perseus Books
1999) where he says at pages 175-176:
“... for a ... (large) Higgs mass, we expect the standard model to
enter a strong coupling regime ... losing ... our ability to calculate
... it is natural to think ... that the Higgs actually is a composite
... The resulting bound ... is sometimes called the triviality bound.
The reason for this unfortunate name (the theory is anything but
trivial) stems from lattice studies where the coupling is assumed to be
finite everywhere; in that case the coupling is driven to zero,
yielding in fact a trivial theory. In the standard model ... the
coupling ... is certainly not zero. ...”.
The Green Dot
where the Gold Line terminates in our
Ordinary Phase is the low-mass state of a 130 GeV Truth
Quark and a 145 GeV Higgs. Its location is determined by E8 Physics
calculation of the basic Truth Quark Mass. The 145 GeV Higgs also
comes from such calculations, and is the
state that is necessary for agreement with arXiv 0960.0954 by Ellis,
Espinosa, Giudice, Hoecker and Riotto who require a Higgs with 135 <
MH < 158 GeV, saying:
“... the Standard Model may survive all
the way to the Planck scale for
an intermediate range of Higgs masses ... We evaluate ... on the basis
of a global fit to the Standard Model made using the Gfitter package
... a global fit to electroweak precision data within the SM ...
MH < 158 GeV ... Lower bounds on the Higgs mass due to absolute
vacuum stability .. and finite-temperature ... and zero-temperature
metastability ... includ[ing] theoretical uncertainties ...
...[ “allow ( as Tommaso Dorigo said in
an entry of 23 July 2009 on his
blog ) the SM to be valid for all energies up to the Planck scale (set
at 2 x 10^18 GeV) only if the Higgs boson has a mass above 135 GeV or
Tommaso Dorigo in his 22 Aug 2011 blog post "New CMS Limits on
"... CMS ... combined all their results [not just H -> GammaGamma
and the Golden Channel] ...
... the "best fit" of the signal rate provided by the data, as a
function of mass ...[I have added color coding and some lines for peaks
for the 3 Higgs mass states of E8 Physics]...
... the fluctuation at 140 GeV
is less than half as strong as it would be expected to be,
if a 140 GeV Higgs existed. ...".
The Best-fit plot seems to me to say about my E8 Physics 3-state Higgs
There are 3 peaks that are located
roughly where my 3-state Higgs model has its 3 mass states
(therefore look-elsewhere effect
corrections should not be applied)
and the 3 peak heights are:
peak is 55 per cent of what a SM Higgs
peak is 20 per cent of what a SM Higgs should be;
peak is 25 per cent of what a SM Higgs should
If you add the strengths of the 3
peaks you get 55 + 20 + 25 = 100 per cent
since my 3-state Higgs model splits
the single SM Higgs into 3 states,
the CMS Best-fit plot supports my
3-state Higgs model.
Future LHC Exploration:
My view is that my 3-state Higgs E8 Physics model, in which the
Standard Model remains valid up to
the Planck scale,
is realistic and that a useful program of future LHC
The LHC can explore the energy region above electroweak symmetry
breaking (order of 1 TeV).
In that region, assuming only the Standard Model plus Gravity as
described by E8 Physics,
the Higgs mechanism will not be around to generate mass, so everything
will be massless, and:
1 – The T and B quarks may not be so different, and the
Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix may look very different,
with possible consequences for CP violation.
2 – Massive neutrinos may lose their mass,
so neutrino oscillation phenomena may change in interesting ways.
3 – With no massive stuff, Conformal Symmetry may become important,
leading to phenomena such as:
a – Twistor stuff may be directly
observable. See for example the book
Mathematics and Physics by
Manin, who says there:
“… What binds us to space-time is our rest mass, which prevents us from
flying at the speed of light,
when time stops and space loses meaning. In a [massless] world … there
are neither points nor
moments of time; beings … would live nowhere and nowhen; only poetry
and mathematics [ and the
LHC ] are capable of speaking meaningfully about such things. One point
of CP3 is the whole life
history of a free …[ massless particle ]… the smallest event that can
happen to …[ it ]…”.
b – Segal conformal cosmological stuff (maybe Dark Energy) may be
c – Since the Conformal group acts in 6-dim spacetime that could be
denoted by C6,
maybe two new large physical spacetime dimensions might emerge,
with 4+4 = 8-dim M4 x CP2 Kaluza-Klein becoming 6+4 = 10-dim C6 x
perhaps leading to a connection emerging between non-supersymmetric
Bosonic String Theory
whose Lattice Affinization has
Monster Group symmetry
a Bohm-type Quantum Theory based on interpreting Strings as World-Lines
( see tony5m17h.net/MonsterStringCell.pdf
my web site
- its mirror site
Shpongle -- E8QC - vixra 1204.0078
Moriond 2012 - vixra 1112.0072 | Beyond Moriond - vixra 1203.0027
with the Unjustified CERN Consensus View Against the 3-State
Higgs (145, 180 GeV, and 240 GeV).
It reminds me of my past experience
with Fermilab's similar Bias against the 3-State Truth Quark.