• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Range of energies for the Higgs boson significantly narrowed.

T

twilyth

Guest
#1
The biggest (and maybe only) range left that is possible for the Higgs under the current standard model is 114Gev to 145Gev. Everything below 114 has been eliminated with 95% confidence. Everything from 145Gev to 466Gev has been eliminated now by LHC to 95% confidence - although a chunk of that was previously eliminated by other accelerators.


NOTE: Graphic is from Wikipedia and with this news from LHC is now out of date.

If I read everything correctly, it's possible for the Higgs to exist above 466Gev but it would require either a new theory or modifications of the standard model.

From second link:

A few years ago, celebrated British physicist Stephen Hawking was widely reported in the press to have placed a provocative public bet that the LHC (along with all particle accelerators that preceded it) would never find the Higgs boson, the so-called “God particle” believed responsible for having imbued massive particles with their mass when the universe was very young.

His pronouncement caused a stir in the global physics community, and the Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, whose name had gotten attached to the hypothetical particle (Higgs had done some work in the 1960s, as had several other physicists, paving the way for the theoretical existence of the mass-imparting boson) took the challenge personally, complained about Hawking, and later lamented that to answer Hawking’s challenge would have been “like criticizing the late Princess Diana.”

In fact, informal polls of physicists over the last decade have shown that an overwhelming majority believed that the existence of the Higgs was a foregone conclusion and that all that was needed was simply to run the LHC long enough: the Higgs would eventually show up. Hawking—known for controversial and contrarian pronouncements—was seen as simply throwing around his weight.

But the Higgs boson never appeared. Running continually at an unprecedented energy level of seven trillion electron volts since March 31, 2010, the LHC has been amassing petabytes of data that are being analyzed by a grid of interlinked computers worldwide in search of the missing boson. And yesterday, August 22, at the Biennial International Symposium on Lepton-Photon Interactions at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, India, the bombshell was dropped: CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored—from 145 to 466 billion electron volts—the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95% probability.

The search for the Higgs is a statistical hunt that involves looking at the particles that emanate from the high-energy collisions of protons inside the LHC, measuring their energies and directions of flight, as well as other parameters, and trying to assess whether it is likely that some of these particles result from the decay of a Higgs boson created by the collision. These assessments carry a probability measure, such as 95%, 99%, or—as traditionally required in particle physics for a “definitive” conclusion about the existence of a new particle: 99.99997% (this is the infamous “five-sigma” requirement).

To be sure, the new, negative results presented in Mumbai yesterday are of a different nature. They state that, with a 95% probability, the Higgs does not exist within the range of energies the LHC has so far explored, between 145 and 466 billion electron volts. The probability of nonexistence is not overwhelming—there is still a 5% chance that the Higgs is hiding somewhere within this energy range. And, more importantly, the lower energy range from 114 to just under 145 billion electron volts, a region of energy that Fermilab has determined, through earlier experiments, may harbor the Higgs, has not been ruled out. But the Higgs is quickly running out of places to hide. Lower energy levels have been accessible to smaller accelerators, such as the Tevatron at Fermilab and the LEP—the LHC’s predecessor at CERN—and neither collider had found it. Perhaps the Higgs does not exist at all.

So while CERN will continue its search for the Higgs at least until the end of this year, if no positive results about the Higgs should come out, Stephen Hawking—betting against the entire world of physics, as it were—would be able to cash in on his wager. And in that case, Congress may feel that even though its 1993 decision to cancel the American alternative to CERN—the Superconducting Super Collider—was generally met with chagrin by the American physics community, it may have been the right move one after all: to spend billions of taxpayer dollars in search of a particle that likely does not exist would have been wasteful.

But if the Higgs doesn’t exist, where does mass in the universe come from? Theories that go beyond the “standard model” of particle physics (of which the Higgs is the keystone—the one missing piece needed to explain how the universe we know came to be) may be necessary. Steven Weinberg, who in his landmark 1967 paper on the unification of the electromagnetic and the weak interactions had made key use of the Higgs for “breaking the symmetry” and separating the electromagnetic from the weak forces, has since gone beyond the standard model in his research. Weinberg has proposed a theory called Technicolor, within which the primeval symmetry of our universe can be broken through a different mechanism than the action of the elusive Higgs. But to prove the validity of the Technicolor theory may require an energy level that would dwarf that available to the LHC—at an equally astronomical cost.

About the Author: Amir D. Aczel studied physics and mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley. He also holds a Ph.D. in statistics. Aczel has written a dozen popular books about mathematics and physics, including the international bestseller Fermat’s Last Theorem, as well as Mystery of the Aleph, Entanglement, and Present at the Creation: The Story of CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. His latest book, to be published in October, is A Strange Wilderness: The Lives of the Great Mathematicians. Aczel is a research fellow at the Center for the History of Science at Boston University and a Guggenheim Fellow. Follow on Twitter @adaczel.

Large Hadron Collider proton-proton collision in which two energetic electrons
and two energetic muons are observed—the type of event that the decay of a
Higgs boson might produce, although there are other explanations as well.
© 2011 CERN
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
1,655 (0.61/day)
Likes
729
Location
Philly
System Name Primary Rig
Processor Phenom II X4 B50 @ 3.7GHz
Motherboard Biostar TA790GX 128M
Cooling Sunbeam CR-CCTF 120mm , 6x120mm, MOS-C1
Memory 2x2GB Kingston HyperX 1066 @ 800 4-4-4-12
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 5830 800/1000 @ 885/1225
Storage 320GB, 400GB, 500GB, 1.5TB
Display(s) Hannspree HF259
Case CM 690
Power Supply OCZ 850W
Benchmark Scores 3Dmark06: 18545/5219 CPU Mark 7.0: 3911.2 Cinebench R10: 11826/3359 x264 HD 2.0: 75.6/23.9
#2
I nearly pooped when I heard that the top quark has a mass of around 172GeV. It hurts my noggin to think that one of the fermions has a mass on the scale of a gold atom.

I was just browsing Cern's site and I found this:
Originally Posted by Rolf Heuer

Not surprisingly to physicists who have been around for as long as I have, an excess seen at 145 GeV a month ago and presented at the EPS conference in Grenoble looks somewhat less convincing with more data analysed. It may still prove to be real, but as we said clearly at the EPS conference, it could equally well be a statistical fluctuation. Only more data will tell. What we do know now is that if the Higgs exists, it is almost certainly lighter than about 145 GeV or heavier than 466 GeV. These are precisely the regions where the Higgs particle is harder to disentangle from backgrounds. If it is there, as we suspect it might be, then we’ll need much more data before we can find it or definitively exclude it. Either would be a great result. Exciting though it was to see the excess at the EPS-conference, it’s never wise to over interpret an early result.