In search of a light Higgs boson

Oct 20, 2008 By Miranda Marquit feature

(PhysOrg.com) -- “It's pretty clear that the standard model of physics is not enough to explain all the phenomena in nature,” Tomasz Skwarnicki tells PhysOrg.com. “Through looking at a variety of phenomena – one of them being dark matter – we know that there is a whole set of interactions beyond our standard model.” Skwarnicki’s work doesn’t deal with dark matter, but the Syracuse University physicist has been working on models of physics that go beyond the standard.

Like many other scientists, Skwarnicki is interested in the Higgs boson. This is an elementary particle that, according to theory, gives mass to other particles. The Higgs boson is the only particle in the standard model that has yet to be discovered in a physical and experimental sense. Skwarnicki has been associated with the CLEO Collaboration, a group of scientists from a variety of physics programs in the U.S., Britain and Canada. CLEO is based at Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, and experiments are done at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR).

Data from CLEO experiments have been analyzed on an ongoing basis, and a recent article published by the collaboration in Physical Review Letters offers some insight regarding the probability of one of the super symmetric extensions to the standard model. The article is called “Search for Very Light CP-Odd Higgs Boson in Radiative Decays of Y(1S)”, and Skwarnicki points out that it offers new constraints on parameters of Next to Minimal Super Symmetric Model (NMSSM).

“Our measures restricted the range of new physics models,” Skwarnicki explains. “We closed some gaps in measurements that had existed before.”

Skwarnicki says that while the standard model of physics allows for only one Higgs boson, designated CP-even, the NMSSM suggest seven total Higgs bosons, including a CP-odd boson. “The presence of this CP-odd boson would change all knowledge of all Higgs decays,” he explains. “But to make it work, this CP-odd Higgs boson would need to be very light.”

The data analysis done involved looking for evidence of production and decay of this very light Higgs boson. The CLEO team looked for a decay of what is called an Upsilon state, Y(1S), which would produce a CP-odd boson, which would in turn decay to a pair of heavy electron-like particles . “Unfortunately,” Skwarnicki points out, “we did not find this. So the search for experimental evidence of the Higgs boson continues.”

He did say that the new bounds established by the experiment, setting a new upper limit, do have an effect on scientific theory. “Our data analysis shows that it would be very hard to speculate with a light Higgs in the Next to Minimal Super Symmetric model. We cannot rule out this model completely, but we ruled out a great deal. Chances are that another theory will have to be used. And the bounds can be used in future ideas of what new interactions beyond the standard model are possible.”

Skwarnicki is fairly optimistic that evidence for the existence (or non-existence) of the Higgs boson will be found soon. “The whole point of the Large Hadron Collider, though other experiments will be performed, is basically to create the energy needed to find the Higgs boson,” he points out. “The LHC should be fully operational next year, and then we’ll have a better idea of whether we need to throw everything out the window.”

Skwarnicki himself is lined up for an experiment at the LHC. “Non-standard models, which are needed to explain some phenomena, will also be affected by this. What we find out about the Higgs boson in Geneva will apply to non-standard models as well.”

Copyright 2007 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Error sought & found: State-of-the-art measurement technique optimised

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Theorists weigh in on where to hunt dark matter

May 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —Now that it looks like the hunt for the Higgs boson is over, particles of dark matter are at the top of the physics "Most Wanted" list. Dozens of experiments have been searching for them, but ...

Upgrade of LHC underway paving way for new discoveries

Apr 04, 2013

(Phys.org) —The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been shut down so that it can be upgraded, a process that is expected to take at least two years. Researchers on the project hope the upgrade will allow the ...

Recommended for you

Engineers pioneer flat spray-on optical lens

1 hour ago

A University of British Columbia engineer and a team of U.S. researchers have made a breakthrough utilizing spray-on technology that could revolutionize the way optical lenses are made and used.

How do cold ions slide

3 hours ago

Things not always run smoothly. It may happen, actually, that when an object slides on another, the advancement may occur through a 'stop and go' series in the characteristic manner which scientists call ...

User comments : 22

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jeffsaunders
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2008
RedFoxOne is that spam? looks like spam.

deatopmg
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2008
Lets multiply the number of particles again to keep the paradigm going and keep jobs. The SM has how many fudge factors and don't asks to make it appear to "work"?... and it predicts virtually nothing. Have none of these people ever heard of Occham's razor? K.I.S.S.
Go back 80 yrs to the full solution of Dirac's equation and start over there, without throwing out 1/2 the solution, i.e. the negative (binding)energy part.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2008
There is no universal theory possible. I mean, numbers and letters are too complex to define universe with.
velvetpink
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2008
And also I see people are talking about discovering things. We are not discovering anything, all we can do is define things, and thats a big difference..
earls
1.3 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2008
But we discover new things to define.
LeeSawyer
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2008
Lets multiply the number of particles again to keep the paradigm going and keep jobs. The SM has how many fudge factors and don't asks to make it appear to "work"?


None. It has masses, coupling constants, and mixing angles specified by experiment. For most scientists that would be enough, but we want to go farther and see if the values measured in Nature are predicted by a deeper theory.

... and it predicts virtually nothing.


Wrong. Beautifully predictive and one of the most precisely tested theories devised by humankind (the Quantum Electrodynamics portion _is_ the most precisely tested).

Have none of these people ever heard of Occham's razor? K.I.S.S.
Go back 80 yrs to the full solution of Dirac's equation and start over there, without throwing out 1/2 the solution, i.e. the negative (binding)energy part.


Usually spelled Occam or Okham, named for William of Occam, a 13th C. Scholastic philosopher. Yeah, heard of him, talk about him in my introductory classes.

The negative energy solutions are antiparticles. Try reading a field theory book sometime.
velvetpink
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2008
So you saying we define 'new' things which we don't understand? How can we discover something we don't understand? How come we can say we discover them before we define them? Or, haven't we already discovered the universe, why would make any sense to define it? We don't know who we are and you're saying 'we discover new things'. We don't even know what things are. Maybe we just believe in our sentences too much? I bet all i have, that if there is an universal theory there is no gravity, no dimensions, no mass, no blackholes and no bigbang in it.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2008
And if there is no line between death and alive, as it clearly isnt, why are humans the only death objects who are trying to define things while all other death things are not trying to define anything?Is it just cause we got death part things in our bodies which are able to combine pixels together? You think thats enough for realizing the universe? To define one dimension you need three dimensions, and if space is eleven dimensional(or something like that) does that mean its actually 33 dimensional?

velvetpink
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2008
So if I prove that dimensions do not exist(what I already did in this conversation), I also prove that there is no mass, no gravity, no blackholes and no bigbang. You think Ill be winning a Nobel prize?
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2008
There is no universal theory possible.
The AWT illustrates, it's possible to derive a meaningfull description of observable reality just from packing geometry of nested density fluctuations, which occurs for example during supercritical fluid condensation.

http://superstrun...cal2.gif

For example, inside of dense particle systems the formation of 3D clusters is prefered, because just the 3D hypersphere packing enables the largest volume/surface ratio (a Kepler's conjecture). This packing exhibits just the right-angled geometry, which we can met in our space-time. And we can reveal another subtleties by extrapolation of density of this system to infinite values.

Of course, such universal theory appears impractical for calculations on per day basis. If it would enable to derive less general but more exact theories (like the relativity or quantum mechanics), it would be enough.
Alexa
4 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2008
Hawking bets CERN mega-machine won't find 'God's Particle'...

http://www.physor...003.html

AWT proposes its own mechanism, how the particles are gaining mass from chaotic nothingness, which doesn't rely upon classical Higgs mechanism. The role of Higgs mechanism in SM is quite unclear for me. The SM theory is rather complex and it allows the formation of differend kinds of Higgs bosons by many mechanisms, the physical relevance of which is uncertain.

For me it's much easier to understand the Universe structure, then the way of thinking of modern theories.

Einstein: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity - and I'm not even sure about the Universe...

Huh? If it's true, why try to understand the more large and complex things first? Wouldn't it better to start the understanding of reality from its very beginning?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2008
I bet all I have that you dont understand a single word you are saying.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2008
And there is no such things as understand, more, large, complex, reality, beginning...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2008
Interesting
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2008
...article.
velvetpink
not rated yet Oct 25, 2008
Interesting how some people are angry when you told them they don't know what they are talking about. I mean, those people will never realize the universe.;P
deatopmg
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2008
Lets multiply the number of particles again to keep the paradigm going and keep jobs. The SM has how many fudge factors and don't asks to make it appear to "work"?


None. It has masses, coupling constants, and mixing angles specified by experiment. For most scientists that would be enough, but we want to go farther and see if the values measured in Nature are predicted by a deeper theory.


No don't ask huh? Here is one; when an electron and a positron annihilate sic it has been repeatedly measured that they approach each other at some velocity, v. They then orbit each other about 50,000 times, never getting any closer than the diameter of the proton, all measured again and again. Then poof, they emit 2 photons of energy 0.522 mev the momentum energy and vanish. However, the 2 particles contain about 16 times the energy emitted as angular momentum. Don't ask where angular momentum energy went because the SM says that it is just an intrinsic property of those particles. THAT IS A FUDGE in my book. If they annihilated they turned into pure energy and we know that Angular momentum is ALWAYS conserved. There are roughly 20 more of these "intrinsic properties" that the SM sweeps under the rug (Feynman's characterization not mine). The is a much simpler, more elegant and logical explanation that meet Occham, Okham, Occam's requirement. The electron/positron pair don't annihilate they never even got close to each other, they drop into a lower energy state, i.e. negative energy, with the emission of the 2 photons. They now return to the electron/positron "continuum" of the aether. The SM virtual particles of the vacuum are an invention (better; fantasy) to avoid this aether and negative energy states and preserve both the paradigm and jobs.

... and it predicts virtually nothing.


Wrong. Beautifully predictive and one of the most precisely tested theories devised by humankind (the Quantum Electrodynamics portion _is_ the most precisely tested).

How many of the masses of the fundamental particles can be derived using the SM? One and the SM isn't needed for that.

Have none of these people ever heard of Occham's razor? K.I.S.S.
Go back 80 yrs to the full solution of Dirac's equation and start over there, without throwing out 1/2 the solution, i.e. the negative (binding)energy part.


Usually spelled Occam or Okham, named for William of Occam, a 13th C. Scholastic philosopher. Yeah, heard of him, talk about him in my introductory classes.

The negative energy solutions are antiparticles. Try reading a field theory book sometime.

THere are 4 results in solving Dirac's equation Not 2, The Copenhagen thugs threw out the other negative 2 in '32%uFFFD. The solution gives electron/positron of positive energy (the only one GENERALLY, but not universally, recognized today) and electron/positron of negative energy, which were thrown out because they (Bohr and cronies) didn't grasp the concept or it falsified their concept. It appears now that this negative energy is a binding energy and a matrix of negative energy electrons and positrons IS the aether. With the application of the right amount of energy, e/p pairs can be knocked into our world.

Now LeeSawyer I suggest that you sit down for this. My opinion; we all have been fed a line of crap since 1932 - all the SM virtual particles can be generated from this negative energy e/p aether because all, ALL, of the subatomic particles are composed of e and p's of and - energy, except those that only exist to keep SM "viable". Your field theory books are wrong! garbage assumptions, garbage out. Oh, 0.522 mev is the binding energy of a p or e in the negative energy aether. E or p's can never be destroyed
Alizee
1 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2008
The AWT is based on simple assumption: our ability to detect/observe particles of matter in vacuum is analogous to our ability to detect the density fluctuations inside of particle gas. In adition, just these fluctuations are serving for spreading of energy and information at the distance. From this concept of gradient driven reality the geometry of observable reality follows. Such model doesn't say, whether the underlying particle field really exists or not, or how it's formed - it just put the clue, how to model the structure of observable reality from scratch: simply by modelling of nested density fluctuations inside of dense particle gradients by computers or by charged particle systems.

I don't see nothing pseudoscientific to such idea - if nothing else, it just was never considered and tested - that's all. After all, we have no better model at this moment anyway. From certain perspective, the Aether model is a logical extrapolation of 1D models of strings and spin loops to zero dimension, i.e. the extrapolation of existing theories to the final level, which the contemporary math and human understanding can still handle without problem. The true mystery is still hidden behind the Aether model.

The fact, the (motion of) environment for light spreading isn't detectable just by using of light (in M-M experiment and others) shouldn't be so surprising for us: no environment can be observed by its own waves, if you really start to think about it.

From this point of view the Aether concept violates no known experiment or observation - it only violates the widespread belief in Aether nonexistence and infallibility of our interpretations of old experiments. But we should realize, it's just interpretation, which is violated by now - not the experimental results itself!
Alizee
not rated yet Oct 25, 2008
To compare the relevancy of Aether and Higgs model for the generation of mass of elementary particles requires to know, how the mass of fluctuations is formed in particle field by condensation and by Higgs models during motion of electrons in metals.

Both these models are based on spontaneous symmetry breaking of underlying particle field, but in fact thy're quite different. The Higgs mechanism doesn't create a mass of electron from scratch, it just increases the effective mass of electrons, which have some rest mass already.

While during droplet formation, the mass density of environment is fully responsible for complete mass of resulting particle. From this perspective the Higgs boson cannot be considered as a "Gods particle", because it cannot create the mass from scratch. And the Aether concept just translates the problem of mass formation to the hypothetical field of virtually unlimited mass and energy density, in which the observable particle manifest itself as a subtle violation of mass/energy equillibria of underlying environment.

The AWT demonstrates clearly, the more complete and logical explanation of reality we'll find, the more abstract and absurd assumption we are required to consider on the background. We can consider this paradox as a consequence of uncertainty principle for the duality of belief and logic in physics: you can never have the logic without corresponding level of belief and vice versa.
Velanarris
not rated yet Oct 26, 2008
AWT assumes we live inside a walled environment similar to a singularity. Aether is a silly concept.
Alizee
not rated yet Oct 26, 2008
AWT assumes we live in Aether. I dunno, what are you calling walled environment. Did you hear about "cosmic hall of mirrors"? How do you understand it? Is it a silly concept, too?

http://physicswor...nt/23009
Velanarris
not rated yet Oct 31, 2008
AWT assumes we live in Aether. I dunno, what are you calling walled environment. Did you hear about "cosmic hall of mirrors"? How do you understand it? Is it a silly concept, too?

http://physicswor...nt/23009


Just about anything you post is typically silly and misinformed.

More news stories

Engineers pioneer flat spray-on optical lens

A University of British Columbia engineer and a team of U.S. researchers have made a breakthrough utilizing spray-on technology that could revolutionize the way optical lenses are made and used.

Researchers forward quest for quantum computing

Research teams from UW-Milwaukee and the University of York investigating the properties of ultra-thin films of new materials are helping bring quantum computing one step closer to reality.

How do cold ions slide

Things not always run smoothly. It may happen, actually, that when an object slides on another, the advancement may occur through a 'stop and go' series in the characteristic manner which scientists call ...

A hidden population of exotic neutron stars

(Phys.org) —Magnetars – the dense remains of dead stars that erupt sporadically with bursts of high-energy radiation - are some of the most extreme objects known in the Universe. A major campaign using ...

The secret lives, and deaths, of neurons

As the human body fine-tunes its neurological wiring, nerve cells often must fix a faulty connection by amputating an axon—the "business end" of the neuron that sends electrical impulses to tissues or other ...

Researchers suggest boosting body's natural flu killers

A known difficulty in fighting influenza (flu) is the ability of the flu viruses to mutate and thus evade various medications that were previously found to be effective. Researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have ...