Cosmic inflation: Higgs says goodbye to his 'little brother'

June 9, 2017
Inflatons, hypothetical particles beyond the Standard Model, were sought in mesons decays observed by the LHCb experiment at CERN. The image shows a typical, fully reconstructed LHCb event. Credit: LHCb Collaboration, CERN

In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe expanded many billions of times faster than today. Such rapid expansion is likely due to a primordial force field acting with a new particle, the inflaton. From the latest analysis of the decay of mesons carried out in the LHCb experiment by physicists from Cracow and Zurich, it appears, however, that the most probable light inflaton, a particle with the characteristics of the famous Higgs boson but less massive, almost certainly does not exist.

Just after the Big Bang, the universe probably experienced an extreme burst of expansion. If inflation did occur, there should be a new force behind it. Its force carriers are theorized to be hitherto unobserved inflatons, which should have many features reminiscent of the famous Higgs boson. Physicists from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Cracow and the University of Zurich (UZH) searched for traces of light inflatons in the decay of B+ mesons recorded by detectors in the LHCb experiment at CERN near Geneva. Detailed analysis of the data, however, casts doubt on the existence of light inflatons.

Despite its weak effects, gravity influences the appearance of the universe at the greatest scales. As a consequence, all modern cosmological models are based on the best theory of gravity, Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The first cosmological models constructed on the relativity suggest that the universe was a dynamic creation. Today, we know that it was once extremely dense and hot, and 13.8 billion years ago, it began rapid expansion. The theory of relativity predicts the course of this process starting from fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

"The primary evidence of these events is the that formed a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. It currently corresponds to a temperature of about 2.7 kelvins and uniformly fills the entire universe. It is this homogeneity that has proved to be a great puzzle," says Dr. Marcin Chrzaszcz (IFJ PAN), and explains, "When we look into the sky, the deep space fragments visible in one direction may be so distant from those visible in another direction that light has not yet had time to pass between them. So nothing that has happened in one of these areas should affect the other. But wherever we look, the temperature of distant regions of the cosmos is almost identical. How could it have become so uniform?"

The uniformity of microwave background radiation is explained by the mechanism proposed by Alan Guth in 1981. In his model, the universe initially expanded slowly, and all points observed today had time to interact and level out the temperature. According to Guth, at some point, however, there must have been a very short but extremely rapid expansion of space-time. The new force responsible for this inflation expanded the universe to such an extent that today, it exhibits a remarkable uniformity (as far as the temperature of the cosmological microwave background is concerned).

"A new field always means the existence of a particle that is the carrier of the effect. Cosmology has thus become interesting for physicists examining phenomena at the microscale. For a long time, a good candidate for the inflaton appeared to be the famous Higgs boson. But in 2012, the Higgs was finally observed in the European LHC accelerator, and turned out to be too heavy. If Higgs, with its mass, was responsible for inflation, today's relict radiation would look different than what is currently observed by the COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites," says Dr. Chrzaszcz.

Theoreticians proposed a solution to this surprising situation: The inflaton might be a completely with the properties of Higgs, but with a smaller mass. In quantum mechanics, the identical nature of characteristics causes to oscillate—they cyclically transform one into another. An inflation model constructed in this way would have only one parameter describing the frequency of oscillation/transformation between the inflaton and the Higgs boson.

"The mass of the new inflaton could be small enough for the particle to appear in the decay of B+ mesons. And these beauty mesons are particles recorded in large number by the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. So we decided to look for decay of mesons happening through the interaction with the inflaton in the data collected in the LHC in 2011 to 2012," says PhD student Andrea Mauri (UZH).

If light inflatons actually existed, the B+ meson would sometimes decay into a kaon (K+ meson) and a Higgs particle, which would convert into an inflaton as a result of the oscillation. After traveling a few metres in the detector, the inflaton would decay into two elementary particles: muons and antimuons. Detectors of the LHCb experiment would not record the presence of either the Higgs or the inflaton. Researchers from the IFJ PAN, however, expected to see the emission of kaons and the appearance of muon-antimuon pairs respectively.

"Depending on the parameter describing the frequency of the inflaton-Higgs oscillation, the course of B+ meson decay should be slightly different. In our analysis, we were looking for decays of up to 99 percent of the possible values of this parameter—and we found nothing. We can therefore say with great certainty that the light inflaton simply does not exist," says Dr. Chrzaszcz.

Theoretically, low-mass inflatons may still be hidden in 1 percent of the unexamined variations in oscillation. These cases will eventually be excluded by future analyses using newer data that is now being collected at the LHC. However, physicists have to reconcile the idea that if inflatons exist, they are either more massive than previously believed, or they occur in more than one variation.

Explore further: Higgs boson could also explain the earliest expansion of the Universe

More information: R. Aaij et al, Search for long-lived scalar particles in B+→K+χ(μ+μ) decays, Physical Review D (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.071101

Related Stories

Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions

June 22, 2014

For the first time, researchers at CERN have found evidence for the direct decay of the Higgs boson into fermions—another strong indication that the particle discovered in 2012 behaves in the way the standard model of particle ...

Is this the trailer for the upcoming LHC blockbuster?

March 3, 2016

In light of the latest analysis on the decay of beauty mesons, the dawn of a 'new physics', may be approaching. An important contribution to the analysis has been made by physicists from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of ...

Ancient signals from the early universe

February 10, 2017

For the first time, theoretical physicists from the University of Basel have calculated the signal of specific gravitational wave sources that emerged fractions of a second after the Big Bang. The source of the signal is ...

Recommended for you

Physicists design $100 handheld muon detector

November 20, 2017

At any given moment, the Earth's atmosphere is showered with high-energy cosmic rays that have been blasted from supernovae and other astrophysical phenomena far beyond the Solar System. When cosmic rays collide with the ...

A curious quirk brings organic diode lasers one step closer

November 20, 2017

Since their invention in 1962, semiconductor diode lasers have revolutionized communications and made possible information storage and retrieval in CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray devices. These diode lasers use inorganic semiconductors ...

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

25 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hyperfuzzy
Jun 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2017
More possible? The scenario I posted at https://phys.org/...charg… ? That is, would it lead to the right microware background? To preserve energy and momentum assume equal sized black holes with opposite spin.
AmritSorli
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2017
Higgs mechanism is the new religion of physics.........https://www.resea...eniences
gunnqu
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2017
No Big Bang because space-time under the huge weight is curved so that the effect of the movement of other bodies to this mass occurs. The velocity of this motion decreases with increasing distance from this huge mass. This has the effect of distant objects flying away from the neighbors - the effect of expansion of the universe.

http://vixra.org/...51v9.pdf pp.159--167
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
impossible


That kind of empty assertion is precisely why you're not a peer in any peer review.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2017
gunnqu:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0051v9.pdf pp.159--167


Why bother posting some screed in broken English with no peer review, even of its fellow uncredentialed peers? It's impossible to distinguish even a legitimate insight from the reams of papers that would be trivial to debunk if they were exposed to any qualified critical review. The only people who will read that kinds of unfiltered stuff are not worth asking for their opinion of it.
gunnqu
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2017
Dark energy and Dark matter are mirages http://vixra.org/...51v9.pdf pp.159--168
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) worked since 10 September 2008 till 14 February 2013 -- RUNI. RUNII works from June 2015 for today. Huge resources have been spent, but did not receive any fundamentally new results - no superpartners, no extra dimensions, or gravitons, or black holes. no dark matter or dark energy, etc. etc .. As for the Higgs, the firstly, there is no argument in favor of the fact that the particle 124.5 - 126 GeV has some relation to the Higgs mechanism. Secondly, the Higgs field permeates the vacuum of space, which means that the mass of the Higgs vacuum and stability are closely linked. For a particle of mass near 126 GeV - enough to destroy the cosmos. The Standard Model of particle physics has not given an answer to the question of why the universe did not collapse after the Big Bang. Third, all the known elementary bosons are gauge - it is photons, W- and Z-bosons and gluons. It
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2017
Vixra allows posts even more unbelievable and even less reviewed than arXiv. I look to vixra to tell me who the real cranks are. If you have no better place to post then you are a crank. Get over it and do better work.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 11, 2017
As far as the conjecture in the article, sorry man, the inflation occurred prior to the Big Bang. I'm getting tired of pointing this out. Do some research before making claims that ignore what we've already shown.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2017
gunnqu:
Dark energy and Dark matter are mirages http://vixra.org/...51v9.pdf pp.159--168
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) worked since 10 September 2008 till 14 February 2013 -- RUNI. RUNII works from June 2015 for today. Huge resources have been spent, but did not receive any fundamentally new results - no superpartners, no extra dimensions, or gravitons, or black holes. no dark matter or dark energy, etc. etc ..


Why bother posting some screed in broken English with no peer review, even by its fellow uncredentialed peers? It's impossible to distinguish even a legitimate insight from the reams of papers that would be trivial to debunk if they were exposed to any qualified critical review. The only people who will read that kinds of unfiltered stuff are not worth asking for their opinion of it.

DON'T BOTHER. DON'T BOTHER PEOPLE INTERESTED IN SCIENCE. BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2017
DON'T BOTHER. DON'T BOTHER PEOPLE INTERESTED IN SCIENCE. BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE.

CAP'N CAPSLOCK! IT IS YOU! POSTING IN ALL CAPS REALLY GOES A LONG WAY IN PROVING YOUR POINT.
And if something has not been peer-reviewed it's not real nor possible...LOL!
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2017
cantdrive85:
POSTING IN ALL CAPS REALLY GOES A LONG WAY IN PROVING YOUR POINT.


I posted in caps not to prove any point - it was proven the first time I posted the exact same response to the previous post of the same worthless publication. All caps was to get their attention.

But it flushed out the troll to make their meaningless attack.

And if something has not been peer-reviewed it's not real nor possible...LOL!


The troll can't distinguish between "not real nor possible" and "can't tell whether it's real because without peer review nobody credible has vetted it".
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
impossible


That kind of empty assertion is precisely why you're not a peer in any peer review.


1. It does not matter who or what reviews nonsense. Start with an undeniable axiomatic structure!

2.Nothing!

3. Credible?

4. Professional?

Not possible without a well defined logic and a basic set of axioms.

There only exist the field. It is opposite spherical spheres with the intensity of what we call the E field as = 1/Surface Area of the sphere of which the charge is assumed at the center. Whatever charge is, it does not have mass. Apparently an infinite number of pairs within an infinite universe never created or destroyed. Take that as Axiom 1: Not reviewed a fact of existence with multiple proofs. Anything else is a misinterpretation based upon nonsense; although.

Essentially these are the only things in space; so, I call the conglomerate space.

gravity, simple, the source of Newtons question, the field
EmceeSquared
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
1. It does not matter who or what reviews nonsense. Start with an undeniable axiomatic structure!


Literally nobody is intersted in your non sequiturs.
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
1. It does not matter who or what reviews nonsense. Start with an undeniable axiomatic structure!


Literally nobody is intersted in your non sequiturs.


Referring to using logic or existing like comments and theories.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2017
OK, my point, I used the word "impossible" to beg the question of how we think. My view of the world can only see a continuum with no beginning, with no end, with an infinite set of diametrical fields(not.solid, a pair, +/-, no/yes, etc) . There is only the center of spheres that exist from its center to infinity, or just see! E portional to the a 1/r^2 law, i.e from 0 to infinity. This we know, it's how we built the instrumentation. Therefore, this paper, "impossible!"

You cannot get there from here!

First look at what exist! It's somebody's falsely-understood axiom, "There exist a beginning." My point, this is false, our existence is only a state within an infinite time and and infinite space. So why assign attributes that do not exist, like "particle", etc.

My point, nonsense!
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2017
The simplest conjectures have been eliminated. This is not failure; it's progress.

It's amusing to watch the #physicscranks whine about the simplest scenarios not panning out; nature is always definitive, but never simple. Get over it.
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2017
The simplest conjectures have been eliminated. This is not failure; it's progress.

It's amusing to watch the #physicscranks whine about the simplest scenarios not panning out; nature is always definitive, but never simple. Get over it.

Nature is simple, our thoughts add complexity, GR. However, we know Lamba_Emitted/Measured_Period, interpretation? 0 to infinity, velocity, +/-. We have not begun to observe correctly!

So yes, complex, if you believe nonsense.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
So yes, complex, if you believe nonsense.


Has anyone ever replied positively to your gibberish?

Go post on #physicscranks instead of here already. You're nothing but a PITA.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2017
Hyperfuzzy: So yes, complex, if you believe nonsense.

Has anyone ever replied positively to your gibberish?

I have seen a few people who understand physics and aren't impeded by interpreting somewhat broken English respond positively to his remarks. Then there's what people who only "think" they understand physics say:
Go post on #physicscranks instead of here already. You're nothing but a PITA.

You can't even follow a statistical pattern, and when called out for it won't admit you made an erroneous remark. Go post on #physicsposers instead of here.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2017
We have never measured inflation; instead, a childish interpretation. Of course it can be forgiven, we've always seen our world with as "an unspoken axiom." So we accept theory that fits these concepts; however, there were many, many, questions, and nutty measurements. In fact we blamed every anomaly on this sort of thinking.

Radiation is the fabric of a single charge as it oscillates or moves. It never changes, it gives rise to sight, burns, blah, blah, 'cause the charge centers always responds.

Add common sense, a bubble simulator with motion defined as the amount of time you wish to observe; maybe, multi-screen. Try optical processors or the best you got; however, each memory location is an object.

A Worldwide generation growing with no concern for money with the tools. Earthly consumption solvable. Race to space, no limits, it's all about the field!

Think about it. If you win a nobel, give me a Tesla.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2017
bschott:
I have seen a few people


Oh, so there's some troll camaraderie for them to stand on. It's not the broken English, but the fringe assertions without substance. Peer review in discussions by fellow trolls doesn't count for anything.

And as for whatever you've converted some previous thread's fallacious claptrap into, now "a statistical pattern", keep polishing that turd until you see someone who still wants to talk about it.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
So yes, complex, if you believe nonsense.


Has anyone ever replied positively to your gibberish?

Go post on #physicscranks instead of here already. You're nothing but a PITA.

Yes, those who think with knowledge and do not blindly follow idiots looking for nonsense to fit their paradigm with at least 5 sigma, sometimes allowing 3 sigma, with numbers but no causality.

But only with Maxwell!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.