Can a new LHC bump rescue the {Higgs Nonsense}?

Can a new LHC bump rescue the {Higgs Nonsense}?

Absolutely NOT!

On December 15, 2015, CERN released the 13 Tev data from its two labs (ATLAS and CMS), and both of them showed that there is a hint of a new bump around 750 (to 766) Gev.

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler (December 16, 2015; http://profmattstrassler.com/2015/12/16/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-standard-model/ ) wrote: “We’re in that interesting moment when all we can say is that there might be something real and new in this data, and we have to take it very seriously.  We also have to take the statistical analyses of these bumps seriously, and they’re not as promising as these bumps look by eye…. Will we bury this little excess, or the Standard Model itself?”

Well, the Standard Model itself will not be buried in its entirety by this new bump, but the {Higgs nonsense} will definitely be.

 

In addition to this new bump, the {Higgs nonsense} is dead with three FACTs (not speculations).

Fact one: Higgs mechanism is not VERIFIED thus far.

First, theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler wrote (on December 15, 2015): “We are calling the new Higgs particle ‘Standard Model-like’ because we have a lot of work left to do before we can be confident that it really is the one that is present in the Standard Model. (http://profmattstrassler.com/2015/12/15/exciting-day-ahead-at-lhc/ ).

Second, three years after the discovery of the new boson (with 125.4 Gev), the Higgs mechanism (elephant swims in a tar-lake) is not verified (see the article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ).

Third, Peter Woit (a prominent particle physicist) commented on September 28, 2015: “You need to, when possible, experimentally test an idea like the Higgs mechanism, not just believe it since it seems to be the most plausible idea. Often ideas you think are the most plausible turn out to be wrong (or only part of the story); http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8002&cpage=1#comment-220120 .”

 

Fact two, in fact, the mass of this newly discovered particle (named as Higgs boson) cannot be calculated by ALL mainstream physics models, and this is confirmed in the article {China’s Great Scientific Leap Forward, [on Sept. 24, 2015, by DAVID J. GROSS (Nobel Laureate in physics) and EDWARD WITTEN (recipient of the U.S. National Medal of Science)], They wrote: “But the discovery [new boson] also left many questions unanswered. These include the mass of the Higgs particle, the unification of all subatomic forces, … “,see http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-great-scientific-leap-forward-1443136976 }. On the other hand, this new boson was predicted long ago as VACUUM BOSON, and its mass was precisely calculated (derived) as 125.46 +/- Gev. (See, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong ).

 

Fact three: Higgs mechanism plays ZERO role in the followings.

First, the calculation of any nature constant (such as Alpha, etc.).

Second, the Planck CMB data (dark energy and dark mass).

 

eggcarton104a

 

Third, ruling out the nonsenses (SUSY, Multiverse, …)

 

Now, there could be a new LHC bump.

There is a very little chance for the Higgs mechanism to explain this new bump (if it exists). On the other hand, the vev (vacuum energy) should be quantized, that is, with higher excited states with the following equation.

X = the ground state of vev, with n = 0

X (n) = (2n + 1) X, n is the nth excited state

If 13 Tev moves the vev into an excited state (not a particle), a new bump will appear while the OLD bump (the 125.46 Gev vacuum boson) will be reduced (although not completely eliminated) in accordance to a dynamic equation. That is, the {Higgs nonsense} vs the VACUUM BOSON can be tested. But, the first three FACTs are so powerful, and I will bury the {Higgs nonsense} right now.

 

Note (added on June 28, 2016): a new data from Albert De Roeck (CERN)

eggcarton164

A new data from Albert De Roeck (CERN)

 

 

Note (added on August 4, 2016; after some LHC 2016 data are released):

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler wrote at (https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/08/04/a-flash-in-the-pan-flickers-out/ ): “ I’m certainly disappointed, but hardly surprised.”

For the excited vacuum state is at 738 Gev, it mainly dissipates (not decay as particle).

Then, there is no SUSY.

eggcarton216

Re-thinking = {the old ideas are wrong}.

The {old ideas} = {SUSY, WIMPs, M-string theory, etc.}

Now, more and more data are supporting G-string while killing the {old ideas}.

One, the Planck CMB data

Two, the LUX data

Three, the vacuum mass data

Four, the LHC 2016 data

I have written a post {Before the CERN LHC 2016 data release: three predictions (https://medium.com/@Tienzen/before-the-cern-lhc-2016-data-release-7fdb0eba4ace#.57cd50f09 )} for predicting the LHC 2016 data.

 

In fact, these predictions were presented at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )} held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016), by my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China). The key points of his presentation is available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-final-total-toe-theory-of-everything/ .

Spring2016Li02

 

Dr. Li xiaojian discusses my “The Final Total TOE” and this LHC 2016 data with Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) on August 5, 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

Note (added on August 29, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

 

 Copyright © December 2015 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

 

Advertisements