The Higgs Boson

admin · Dec 27, 2014

admin · Dec 27, 2014

Raven

Raven
Posts: 458
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

Post n°1

The Higgs Boson de Thuban Draconis Astrum

Raven on Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:38 pm

ATLAS and CMS experiments present Higgs search status

13 December 2011. In a seminar held at CERN¹ today, the ATLAS² and CMS³ experiments presented the status of their searches for the Standard Model Higgs boson. Their results are based on the analysis of considerably more data than those presented at the summer conferences, sufficient to make significant progress in the search for the Higgs boson, but not enough to make any conclusive statement on the existence or non-existence of the elusive Higgs. The main conclusion is that the Standard Model Higgs boson, if it exists, is most likely to have a mass constrained to the range 116-130 GeV by the ATLAS experiment, and 115-127 GeV by CMS. Tantalising hints have been seen by both experiments in this mass region, but these are not yet strong enough to claim a discovery.

Higgs bosons, if they exist, are very short lived and can decay in many different ways. Discovery relies on observing the particles they decay into rather than the Higgs itself. Both ATLAS and CMS have analysed several decay channels, and the experiments see small excesses in the low mass region that has not yet been excluded.

Taken individually, none of these excesses is any more statistically significant than rolling a die and coming up with two sixes in a row. What is interesting is that there are multiple independent measurements pointing to the region of 124 to 126 GeV. It's far too early to say whether ATLAS and CMS have discovered the Higgs boson, but these updated results are generating a lot of interest in the particle physics community.

"We have restricted the most likely mass region for the Higgs boson to 116-130 GeV, and over the last few weeks we have started to see an intriguing excess of events in the mass range around 125 GeV," explained ATLAS experiment spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti."This excess may be due to a fluctuation, but it could also be something more interesting. We cannot conclude anything at this stage. We need more study and more data. Given the outstanding performance of the LHC this year, we will not need to wait long for enough data and can look forward to resolving this puzzle in 2012."

"We cannot exclude the presence of the Standard Model Higgs between 115 and 127 GeV because of a modest excess of events in this mass region that appears, quite consistently, in five independent channels," explained CMS experiment Spokesperson, Guido Tonelli. "The excess is most compatible with a Standard Model Higgs in the vicinity of 124 GeV and below but the statistical significance is not large enough to say anything conclusive. As of today what we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of the boson. Refined analyses and additional data delivered in 2012 by this magnificent machine will definitely give an answer."

Over the coming months, both experiments will be further refining their analyses in time for the winter particle physics conferences in March. However, a definitive statement on the existence or non-existence of the Higgs will require more data, and is not likely until later in 2012.

The Standard Model is the theory that physicists use to describe the behaviour of fundamental particles and the forces that act between them. It describes the ordinary matter from which we, and everything visible in the Universe, are made extremely well. Nevertheless, the Standard Model does not describe the 96% of the Universe that is invisible. One of the main goals of the LHC research programme is to go beyond the Standard Model, and the Higgs boson could be the key.

A Standard Model Higgs boson would confirm a theory first put forward in the 1960s, but there are other possible forms the Higgs boson could take, linked to theories that go beyond the Standard Model. A Standard Model Higgs could still point the way to new physics, through subtleties in its behaviour that would only emerge after studying a large number of Higgs particle decays. A non-Standard Model Higgs, currently beyond the reach of the LHC experiments with data so far recorded, would immediately open the door to new physics, whereas the absence of a Standard Model Higgs would point strongly to new physics at the LHC's full design energy, set to be achieved after 2014. Whether ATLAS and CMS show over the coming months that the Standard Model Higgs boson exists or not, the LHC programme is opening the way to new physics.

Contact:

CERN Press Office, press.office@cern.ch
41 (0)22 767 34 32
41 (0)22 767 21 41

Resources:

Photos: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/collection/Press Office Photo Selection?ln=en
(Photos will be put the Higgs Selection - on the right hand side of the page, under Current Interest)

Videos: (Footage available as of 16.30 CET)

A roll: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1406052
B roll: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1406051

VNR hosted by Eurovision: http://www.eurovision.net/worldlink/front/view/mediaDetail.php?mediaNo=954

Backgrounders and video interviews with CMS and ATLAS spokespeople:
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/index.html

Further information from:

ATLAS :http://www.atlas.ch/news/2011/status-report-dec-2011.html

CMS : http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/cms-search-standard-model-higgs-boson-lhc-data-2010-and-2011

1. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is the world's leading laboratory for particle physics. It has its headquarters in Geneva. At present, its Member States are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Romania is a candidate for accession. Israel is an Associate Member in the pre-stage to Membership. India, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Turkey, the European Commission and UNESCO have Observer status.

2. ATLAS is a particle physics experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. The ATLAS Collaboration is a virtual United Nations of 38 countries. The 3000 physicists come from more than 174 universities and laboratories and include 1000 students.

3. The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment is one of the largest international scientific collaborations in history, involving more than 3000 scientists, engineers, and students from 172 institutes in 40 countries.

Last edited by Raven on Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

admin · Dec 27, 2014

Carol

Carol
Admin

Posts: 14348
Join date: 2010-04-07
Location: Hawaii

Post n°2

Re: The Higgs Boson de Thuban Draconis Astrum

Carol on Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:58 pm

I'm surprised you edited this Raven. When all those people came to the forum the Thuban threads were the most read.

_________________
What is life?
It is the flash of a firefly in the night, the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
With deepest respect ~ Aloha & Mahalo, Carol

admin · Dec 27, 2014

Raven

Raven
Posts: 458
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

Post n°3

Re: The Higgs Boson de Thuban Draconis Astrum

Raven on Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:20 pm

[7:02:16 AM] Ishtara Raven: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/europe/higgs-boson-q-and-a/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
[7:02:27 AM] Ishtara Raven: "If we don't see it, it actually means that the universe at the most fundamental level is more complicated than we thought," says Archer, "and therefore maybe the way we've been attacking physics isn't right."
[7:02:48 AM] Ishtara Raven: they think they have found signs of the higgs boson
[7:03:05 AM] Ishtara Raven: not conclusive yet though
[7:27:21 AM] Tonyblue: The Higgs Boson is ubiquitous Raven
[7:27:27 AM] Tonyblue: It has many energy levels
[7:28:46 AM] Tonyblue: The specific energy they are exploring about the 130 GeV marker is actually a diquark resonance, which is termed the Dainty DDbar mesonic fundamental in the Dragon science
[7:29:23 AM] Tonyblue: There are 6 elementary quark energy levels not the 3 in the standard books
[7:29:46 AM] Tonyblue: This article of yours did not specify the energy probes
[7:30:37 AM] Tonyblue: 1=J/PSI charm as uubarubaru (a singlet) they got that one at about 3 GeV
[7:31:35 AM] Tonyblue: 2=Upsilon Beauty/Bottonium as udbar ubard (a doublet) they got that one at about 10 GeV
[7:32:56 AM] Tonyblue: 3=Epsilon magic as usbarsbaru (a doublet) as Bottom Resonance they missed that one because it is a resonance at the so 40 GeV level
[7:34:34 AM] Tonyblue: 4=Omicron dainty as ddbardbard as a truth/top resonance (a triplet) they missed that one but think its the Higgs at so 130 GeV
[7:36:38 AM] Tonyblue: 5=Kappa truth/top as dsbarsbard (a triplet) they got that one as the top quark at the 370 GeV marker
[7:38:10 AM] Tonyblue: 6=Higgs/Chi as ssbarsbars (a triplet) they missed that one, but think it is the Vacuum saturation level at the 1,100 GeV marker
[7:38:54 AM] Tonyblue: I have detailed this at many places
[7:47:24 AM] Ishtara Raven: yes tony, i was just pointing to the article with the announcement
[7:48:03 AM] Ishtara Raven: i found it interesting they would come out and announce this today
[7:48:12 AM] Ishtara Raven: sort of fits with the timeline
[7:49:38 AM] Tonyblue: yes, as always they think the populus is too dumb and they dont give the most basic detail
[7:49:51 AM] Tonyblue: Like at what ENERGY they think they have measured it see?
[7:49:56 AM] Ishtara Raven: well yes and it is CNN, major media
[7:57:29 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id60.html
[7:58:47 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id30.html
[7:58:53 AM] Ishtara Raven: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html
[7:59:04 AM] Ishtara Raven: here you go, the cern site
[7:59:57 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id94.html
[8:00:27 AM] Tonyblue: Right now read what I said?
[8:00:33 AM] Tonyblue: See I said 130 GeV?
[8:00:58 AM] Ishtara Raven: yes i saw that
[8:00:58 AM] Tonyblue: They are 'discovering' the Dainty Quark of Thuban
[8:01:23 AM] Tonyblue: I cant get this stuff on facebook
[8:01:29 AM] Tonyblue: It should be there
[8:01:52 AM] Ishtara Raven: hmm it wont link?
[8:05:28 AM] Tonyblue: Xxxxxxxx facebook wont let me paste
[8:05:38 AM] Tonyblue: you have to type everything
[8:05:42 AM] Tonyblue: this stinks
[8:05:53 AM] Tonyblue: not all people are oneliners for abba's sake
[8:06:04 AM] Ishtara Raven: ok i posted them
[8:06:08 AM] Tonyblue: can you paste this onto fb?
[8:06:10 AM] Ishtara Raven: on my page tony
[8:06:14 AM] Tonyblue: [7:57:29 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id60.html
[7:58:47 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id30.html
[7:58:53 AM] Ishtara Raven: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html
[7:59:04 AM] Ishtara Raven: here you go, the cern site
[7:59:57 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id94.html
[8:00:27 AM] Tonyblue: Right now read what I said?
[8:00:33 AM] Tonyblue: See I said 130 GeV?
[8:00:58 AM] Ishtara Raven: yes i saw that
[8:00:58 AM] Tonyblue: They are 'discovering' the Dainty Quark of Thuban
[8:01:23 AM] Tonyblue: I cant get this stuff on facebook
[8:01:29 AM] Tonyblue: It should be there
Ishtara Raven

admin · Apr 1, 2024

Raven

Raven
Posts: 458
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

Post n°4

Re: The Higgs Boson de Thuban Draconis Astrum

Raven on Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:34 pm

The Dawn of Space and Time in a Selfconscious Quantum Universe

The Mass of the Higgs Boson and the Mass Induction of the Weakons

In view of the hoohah surrounding the Large Hadron Collider or LHC soon to begin analysing data from a billion dollar global investment by the scientific community and its political manouverers; I should write an article discussing the predicted findings of this analysis in the model of Quantum Relativity.
Will the multitude of particle physicists find the Higgs Boson?

No, they will not and they will find themselves even more confused as to its existence. They will however find a number of tantalising results hinting at a family of Higgs Bosons and observe an lower energy threshold for the Higgs Boson, which seems to be the energy of the Z^o weakon at 92 GeV.
They will also discover that the nature of this Z^oweakon is closely related to the socalled Majorana Doubleneutrino; a majorana being said to define a neutrinio scenario where neutrinos and antineutrinos are the same particle.
I shall so describe the reasons for this in this treatise and begin with a statement, which might appear to many, as returning science into its historical 'dark ages' of ignorance.

The atom of elementary physics CAN be modelled as a miniature solar system in the footsteps of Niels Bohr and even the concentricities of Ptolemy.
However, this statement does not in any way diminish the relevance of quantum mechanics and the modern theories of Quantum-Electro-Dynamics (QED) and Quantum-Chromo-Dynamics (QCD). What it does however, is to greatly simplify those models from first principles, i.e. it serves as a rough approximation, not subject to perturbation theory and so is descriptive of the quantum geometry as observed in the large scale physics of classical Newtonianism.

First note that the electron/proton mass ratio is about 1/1830 and that this is typical for a solar mass as the proton coupled gravitationally to a large Jupiter sized planet.
For Sol, the ratio Sol/Jupiter=2x10³⁰/1.9x10²⁷~1/1050. Then a halved Jupitermass maps the electronmass to the protonmass approximately.

Some background information
Higgs boson: Glimpses of the God particle

02 March 2007

NewScientist.com news service

Anil Ananthaswamy

More Fundamentals Stories

Higgs boson: Glimpses of the God particle Editorial: Higgs with a difference Inside inflation: after the big bang Moslem tilers were hundreds of years ahead of their time Soap suds and cosmic secrets

Standard model shows the strain

If the blips in the debris of the Tevatron particle smasher really are signs of the Higgs boson then it's not what we expected. It might mean that it's time to replace the standard model with a more complex picture of the universe On 9 December last year, as John Conway looked at the results of his experiment, a chill ran down his neck. For 20 years he has been searching for one of the most elusive things in the universe, the Higgs boson - aka the God particle - which gives everything in the cosmos its mass. And here, buried in the debris generated by the world's largest particle smasher, were a few tantalising hints of its existence. Conway first revealed the news of his experiment earlier this year in a blog. Experimental particle physicists are sceptics by nature, loath to claim the discovery of any new particle, let alone a particle of the Higgs's stature, and in his blog Conway dismissed hints of its existence as an aberration, just as many other supposed signs of the elusive particle have proved to be after closer examination. The tiny blips in Conway's data have so far simply refused to go away. What's more, using data made public last week in a second blog, another team of researchers has independently seen hints of a new particle with similar mass. Both results may yet be dismissed, but the coincidence is striking, and is one that is getting physicists excited. If they have found evidence of a Higgs particle, then it points towards the existence of a universe in which each and every particle we know of has a heavier "super-partner", an arrangement of the cosmos known as supersymmetry. The Higgs boson is infamous as the only particle predicted by the standard model of physics that remains undetected. In theory, every other particle in the universe gets its mass by interacting with an all-pervading field created by Higgs bosons. If the Higgs is discovered, the standard model could justifiably claim to be the theory that unifies everything except gravity. But the model is creaking. Take the Higgs itself. The standard model tightly links the masses of the Higgs, the W boson (the carrier of the weak nuclear force), and the top quark (one of the fundamental constituents of matter). Experiments at the Large Electron-Positron (LEP) collider at CERN, near Geneva, in the late 1990s, and at the Tevatron, Fermilab's 6.3-kilometre-long particle accelerator at Batavia, Illinois, where Conway detected his blips, have homed in on the mass of the W boson and the top quark. If you use these measurements to calculate the mass range of the Higgs, and compare it with the standard model's predictions, you run into trouble. "The best measurements of the W and top quark mass don't agree well with the standard model," says Conway, who is based at the University of California, Davis (see Diagram). Physicists such as John March-Russell of the University of Oxford go further. "If you ask most theorists about the Higgs, they will say it is very unlikely that we'll see just the standard model Higgs," he says. And that is what makes the hints of new particles seen by Conway and others so intriguing.

Super-partners

With the help of the Collision Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Conway's team has been searching for a more complex version of the Higgs than the standard model predicts - one that might support the supersymmetry model of the universe. "Conway's team has been searching for a more complex version of Higgs, one that might support supersymmetry" In supersymmetry, an electron has a heavier partner called the selectron, while quarks have squarks, and so on. Although none has yet been found, supersymmetry solves some niggling questions raised by the standard model. For instance, when particle physicists take the measured strengths of the electromagnetic and the weak and strong nuclear forces, and extrapolate them to the ultra-high energies of the early universe, they are supposed to unify. The idea is that in the early universe these forces were the same. To get the forces to unify at this grand unified theory (GUT) scale, the parameters of the standard model have to be tuned to an astounding precision of 1 part in 10³². This extreme fine-tuning makes many theorists uneasy. Why should the properties of the early universe have to be so exact to give rise to the universe we have today? "It is like creating in a straitjacket," says March-Russell. Supersymmetry, specifically a version called the minimal supersymmetric model, achieves this grand unification more naturally, with far less fine-tuning. The theory predicts five Higgs bosons of different masses, which makes the process by which the universe gets its mass more complicated than that laid out by the standard model with its single Higgs. "But very often, in the history of science, nature likes simple concepts, but it has quite complicated realisations," says March-Russell. It's a manifestation of this complex reality that Conway's team has been probing. They are after one of the five Higgs predicted by minimal supersymmetry. Such a Higgs could be produced by the collision of protons and antiprotons at the Tevatron and some would decay into two tau leptons, which are heavier cousins of the electron. The taus decay immediately into other particles, and it is this debris the team was sifting through. Essentially, they were creating a plot which showed the mass of the particles that could give rise to two tau leptons on the x-axis, and the number of such particles on the y-axis. Conway admits they only expected to see known particles decaying into tau leptons. But then, on that Saturday morning before Christmas, the CDF team saw the blip in their plot: signs that the Tevatron had produced a small number of some unknown particle with a mass of 160 gigaelectronvolts (GeV), which had promptly decayed to two tau leptons. "I thought maybe, just maybe, this could be the beginning of something," says Conway. Convinced by their analysis, the entire CDF experiment team approved the data on 4 January and Conway presented it at a conference in Aspen, Colorado, a few days later. The team had found a signal which, in particle physics lingo, had a 2-sigma significance - a 1 in 50 chance of being a random fluctuation. Normally, to merit new particle status a signal must be significant to 5-sigma - where there's only a 1 in 10 million chance of it being a fluctuation. "People were excited to see this," says Conway. But why was there so much excitement if the signal was statistically insignificant? That's because a supersymmetric Higgs at this mass is extremely plausible. "This kind of [Higgs] mass of 160 GeV is on the lower end of what we were expecting, but we are comfortable with it, in the context of supersymmetric models," says Jack Gunion, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Davis. He has been advocating another version of supersymmetry called next-to-minimal supersymmetry. When Gunion saw Conway's graph showing a possible Higgs with a mass of 160 GeV, he realised he only had to tune the parameters of his theory by about 1 part in 10 to explain it - an amount most physicists are willing to accept. "You can only do that in next-to-minimal supersymmetry," says Gunion. To make the minimal supersymmetry model of the universe fit, you would have to tune it to levels that would make many physicists uncomfortable, he says. This is not the first time Gunion has used next-to-minimal supersymmetry to explain an anomalous signal. In the late 1990s, the LEP collider at CERN, which smashed electrons and positrons head-on, saw what seemed to be a new particle with a mass of 100 GeV. Again, the significance of the signal was about 2-sigma, not enough to claim a discovery. Because the signal did not sit well with a standard model Higgs, it was mostly ignored, and the LEP shut down in 2000, making it impossible to check the signal further. "It is still a big deal," says Gunion, because nobody could explain it." But Gunion's next-to-minimal model could and does. "I claim that the model provides a simple explanation, namely that there is a Higgs at 100 GeV, and that it decayed in some extra ways that weren't expected." That means the LEP data from the 1990s and Conway's latest findings from the CDF experiment could point to two of the five supersymmetric Higgs particles, one with a mass of 100 GeV and the other with a mass of 160 GeV. Gunion, for one, says that it is not such a stretch to think so. "These are very naturally explained in next-to-minimal supersymmetry."

First find the lepton

The story doesn't end there, however. Conway's initial analysis had given them an approximate mass for the Higgs, but there was a more accurate way to determine it. Conway looked specifically for those tau leptons that were moving in the so-called transverse plane, which is perpendicular to the Tevatron's beam of protons and antiprotons. In particle interactions in a collider, energy should be conserved, but some energy can be emitted as neutrinos which cannot be detected directly. In the transverse plane, the detector can indirectly account for the missing energy of neutrinos with great precision. So by limiting themselves to interactions in the transverse plane, the researchers were able to accurately calculate the mass of the heavy particles that gave rise to the tau pairs, and put those heavy particles into bins of different masses. In each bin, they could explain, from known physics, what gave rise to the tau pairs. "Except in one bin," says Gunion. "And guess where that one bin is?" It turns out that the bin is at about 160 GeV. It shows the merest hint of a new particle. "There are few events out there, right at the place where we might expect a bump," says Conway. "It is so preliminary, but it is there." "It shows the merest hint of a new particle, right at the place where we might expect a bump. It is so preliminary, but it is there" Conway's team is intrigued enough to pursue their signal. "We have got data pouring in now," says Conway. "We are going to take it to the next step." This involves doubling the statistics, increasing the sensitivity of the instruments, and even searching in other channels besides looking for tau-lepton pairs. While increasing statistics could help verify the veracity of the signal, one particular analysis could nail the identity of the mystery particle. A supersymmetric Higgs should turn up with b-quarks, also known as bottom quarks, one of the six types of quarks. "If we see a Higgs being produced in association with b-quarks, that's a dead giveaway," says Conway. "That's the analysis we have been working towards for six to seven years now." Meanwhile, another team led by Tomasso Dorigo of the University of Padua, Italy, has been independently analysing an entirely different set of particle interactions seen by the CDF experiment and it too has found hints of some unknown particle at 160 GeV. While the team is far from convinced that the signal is real, the coincidences are intriguing (see "Sticking with the standard model"). Markus Schumacher of the University of Siegen in Germany is also highly sceptical that the Tevatron has seen anything new. "If you look back in the history of particle physics, we have had a lot of 2-sigma effects," says Schumacher. "You have to wait until the Fermilab experiment analyses more of the data." Dorigo agrees that any claims of supersymmetry, based on the CDF data so far, are premature. "I have seen hints of new physics beyond the standard model coming and going, coming and going," he says. Conway also remains cautious, expecting his team's own 2-sigma signal to be a fluctuation and "evaporate". If that is the case, then at least he has proved that the Tevatron collider is sensitive enough to catch glimpses of a host of other theoretical particles (see "Race you to the gluino"). But if the two teams have glimpsed a supersymmetric Higgs, then the doors to the unknown are wide open. "It's like the first few pages of a thriller," says March-Russell. "You get the first little hint that something strange is happening and that things are not quite what they seem. Then the evidence accumulates. We are turning the first few pages of this very interesting story."
From issue 2593 of New Scientist magazine, 02 March 2007, page 8-11

Race you to the gluino

The chill felt by John Conway in December could be a foretaste of things to come. The 160-gigaelectronvolt (GeV) signal seen at the Tevatron particle collider suggests that it is capable of testing the supersymmetry model of the universe by searching for the "super-partners" of some of the known particles, and means that the race to find new particles between the Tevatron and CERN's 27-kilometre-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is due to start up later this year, enters new territory. The Tevatron is scheduled to run at full throttle until 2009, collecting data faster than ever before. By 2009, the LHC is expected to have enough data to start searching for supersymmetry. "If we were to make a discovery before the LHC after all these years and billions of dollars, that would be really amazing," says Conway. Markus Schumacher of the University of Siegen in Germany, who works on the ATLAS detector for the LHC, knows only too well that the Tevatron could find new particles with undisputed certainty before the LHC. "There was always a race between the Tevatron and the LHC," he says. "It might well be that the Tevatron will be the first collider to see something." That something could be not just Higgs particles, but other supersymmetric partners as well. Of course, it depends on whether next-to-minimal supersymmetry, with its modest fine-tuning, is the right description of reality. In that model, the masses of some of the super-partners should be in the range of about 300 to 400 GeV. That puts such particles in the sights of both the Tevatron and the LHC. Specifically, partners for the top quark and the gluon, namely the stop and the gluino, would be up for grabs.

Sticking with the standard model

Tomasso Dorigo of the University of Padua in Italy has put his money where his mouth is. A believer in the standard model of particle physics, Dorigo has bet his theorist friends a cool $1000 that it's the right description of reality. There's a small chance, however, that his own experiment will lose him that bet. Last week, Dorigo's team announced the results from the CDF experiment looking at how Z bosons decay to b-quarks, a process described by the standard model of the universe. However, his team has seen, just as John Conway's team did last month, a few anomalous events at a mass of about 160 gigaelectronvolts. If this is indeed a supersymmetric Higgs boson, then theory predicts the researchers should have recorded 100 such events based on the amount of data they have collected. According to Dorigo, the possibility that they have already done so cannot be ruled out. "There is an upward fluctuation of the data right at about that mass value, of the size one would expect from minimal supersymmetry," he says. However, he still firmly believes that the signals his team has picked up are just noise in the data, and he's far from conceding his bet. "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence," he says. "After thirty years of incredibly precise confirmations of the standard model we need a huge signal of new physics before I get convinced there is something beyond."

Tony B.:
This newest data/discovery about the Higgs Boson aka the 'God-Particle' states, that there seems to be a 'resonance-blip' at an energy of about 160 GeV and as just one of say 5 Higgs Bosons for a 'minimal supersymmetry'. One, the lowest form of the Higgs Boson is said to be about 110 GeV in the Standard Model. There is also a convergence of the HB to an energy level of so 120 GeV from some other models.
Now the whole thing , according to Quantum Relativity' about the Higgs Boson, is that IT IS NOT a particular particle, but relates to ALL particles in its 'scalar nature' as a restmass inducer.

I have discussed the Higgs Boson many times before; but would like here to show in a very simple analysis that the Higgs Boson MUST show a blip at the 160 GeV mark and due to its nature as a 'polarity' neutraliser (a scalar particle has no charge and no spin, but can be made up of two opposite electric charges and say two opposing chiralities of spin orientations.)
Without worrying about details, first consider the following table which contains all the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics. The details are found in the Planck-String transformations discussed elesewhere.
The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xm_ps/[ec]) modulated in (SNI/EMI={Cuberoot of [Alpha]}/[Alpha]), the intrisic unified Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x([ec])/(m_psxa<2/3>), where the (Cuberoot of [Alpha]² is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:
VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: p^o, p⁺, p^-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: K^o, K⁺, K^-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.

Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.
The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (m_c=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xm_P) and setting (m_c) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);

Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n⁰;p⁺)=939.642 MeV*}.

admin · Dec 27, 2014

Raven

Raven
Posts: 458
Join date: 2010-04-10
Age: 47
Location: The Emerald City

Post n°5

Re: The Higgs Boson de Thuban Draconis Astrum

Raven on Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:36 pm

Ok, now I'll print some excerpt for the more technically inclined reader regarding the Higgs Boson and its 'make-up', but highlight the important relevant bit (wrt to this discovery of a 160 GeV Higgs Boson energy, and incorporating the lower energy between 92 GeV and to the upper dainty level at 130 GeV as part of the diquark triplet of the associated topomium energy level) at the end.

In particular, as the bottomium doublet minimum is at 5,245.495 MeV* and the topomium triplet minimum is at 55,956.0 MeV* in terms of their characteristic Kernel-Means, their doubled sum indicates a particle-decay excess at the recently publisized ~125 GeV energy level in 2x(5.246+55.956) GeV* = 122.04 GeV* (or 121.78 GeV SI).
These are the two means from ATLAS {116-130 GeV as 123 GeV} and CMS {115-127 GeV as 121 GeV} respectively.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html

Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.75 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.35 GeV SI.

Robert Sceptico:
Indeed it does!
The key is the electronic radius as upward scaling of the manifesting supermembrane.
The Outer Leptonic Ring or OLR oscillates and defines the quark structure in its strangeness, its magic, its topness and its superness.
The Inner Mesonic Ring or IMR also oscillates and sets the quarks in their downness, their bottomness, their daintyness and also their topness.

A trisected kernel, the neutrinocore, geometrically defines the magnified singularity in its charm.
It is an intricate structure; this Kernel K-Inner Ring IR-Outer Ring OR quantum geometry.
You see, basically only two quarks are required to construct all restmass-induced particles.
We term it the up-quark and the down-quark with a strange-quark forming the oscillating energetic resonance of the down-quark in an energy differential between the IR and the OR.

The revolution in particle physics was the realisation that all quarks are magnified superbranes, which have a mgnetopolic duality in higher dimensional omnispace.
We so describe intersecting wavefunctions in forms of sectorial mappings, using the idea of colour mixing known as the gluonic hadron chromaticity of the strong nuclear interaction.

In terms of unitary symmetry, 9 quarks are defined in the KKKIROR geometry of the revised Standard Model.
Kernel K is the up-quark u and KIR is a Kernel K surrounded by a mesonic IR as down-quark d.
A KOR or s-quark is just like a KIR with an leptonic OR replacing a mesonic IR in oscillation.
Because KOR is basically the resonance of KIR, all KOR-based subatomic particles have higher energy than the superbraned particles who carry a KIR substitution.

The symmetry of the prespacetime wavefunctions defines the blueprints for the superbraned particles via 12 intersections of monopolic circuit-loops of colour-magnetic electricity.
Those current-knots, so to say, became magnetic monopoles fixed in energy as the superbrane of class IIB; its energy is exactly (ec) kilogram units or 27,000 trillion electronic units, which are called Gigaelectronvolts or GeV.
Each and every magnetic-current-knot or magnetic monopole has a KKKIROR geometry and so is a manifested supermembrane from the 11th dimension of M-space.
This potential materialisation then occurs within the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity or UFoQR and in accordance with the spacequanta set in a fourfold repetition for the angular source wavelength, spanning the 12 monopolic intersection points as the linear radian extent of the UFoQR.

The universal blueprint KKKIROR is then defined in gluonic chromaticity and links to the mechanism of the RestMass-Induction or HBRMI under the agency of that template.

This we term the Higgs Boson or HB, the 'Giver of Restmass'.

Logan Antico:
How can the layperson make sense of the Higgs Boson, Robert; is there a more familiar analogy?

Robert Sceptico:
There is a similar particle almost universally known by High School graduates, Logan.

A first derivative from the HB blueprint is the subatomic particle known as the Neutron with a dud or KIRKKIR quarkstructure, and rather different from particle udd=KKIRKIR, because of an asymmetric alignment of the individual quarks along a defining magnetoaxis.

Logan Antico:
Yes, the first particles manufactured in the Big Bang furnace were the ylems or dineutrons as the nucleons forming the ylemic protostars.

Their radii depend solely on their temperature, ranging from so 1.2 trillion Kelvin at 114 seconds after the Big Bang to so 200 billion Kelvin at 1150 seconds after timeinstantenuity, setting radioactive neutron decay into that time interval and forming protostar generations for magnetars, pulsars and neutronstars in later generations.

Robert Sceptico:
The KKIRKOR=uds particle is the superbrane known as the Neutral Lambda (L⁰) and it decays into a neutron (n^o) and a neutral meson, called pion (p⁰), or it transforms into a proton (p⁺) with a negatively charged pion (p^-) under the conservation laws of energy and momentum in their linear vand angular propagations.
All subatomic particles can be defined from the basic uds-blueprint of the KKIRKOR structure.

There is a quark triplet containing the Super* S*=ss, the Top* t*=ds and the Dainty* D*=dd; complemented in a quark doublet of the Magic* m*=us and the Bottom* b*=ud and completed in a quark singlet in the Charm* U*=uu.

The Charm* is also known as the Double-Up, the Dainty* as the Double-Down and the Super* as the Double-Strange.

All of the starred (*) quarks are diquarks, consisting of two of the basequarks u,d or s.

The bottom-quark is also known as the beauty-quark and the top-quark is also the truth-quark.

The quark singlet manifests in the charm-quark c=Uu(bar)=(uu)u(bar)=u(uu(bar)) and is so a resonance of the u-quark, not associating with the IR-OR oscillation of d*s=s*d.

The quark doublet manifests in the bottom-quark b=b*u(bar)=(ud)u(bar)=d(uu(bar)) as a d-quark resonance, the u-s or K-KOR oscillation of the m-quark becoming suppressed in ud*s=s*du.

The quark triplet manifests in the top-quark t=t*d(bar)=(ds)d(bar)=s(dd(bar)) as a s-quark resonance, the d-s or KIR-KOR oscillation for the D- and S-quarks suppressed in ud*s=uds*.

The (bar) denotes antiquarks, so that the antiup=up(bar) has a colourcharge of (-2/3) and both, the antidown and the antistrange have a charge of (+1/3), being made up of an antiK of charge (-2/3) added to the +1 charge of the antiring of the IMR or the OLR respectively.

Logan Antico:
So where is the supersymmetry of the shadow particle in the setup of the quarkian hierarchies in the quantum geometry of the HB blueprint KKIRKOR?

Robert Sceptico:
The supersymmetry enters because the KKIRKOR is scalar as the Higgs Boson, it doesn't quantum spin, but the lambda and the neutron do.

The latter two are defined as baryons, but the lambda is a shortlived hyperon and the neutron is a longlived or stable nucleon, both with a quantum spin of 1/2.

Superbranes with halfintegral spin are called fermions and their supersymmetric partners of integral spin are the bosons.

So the great realisation in particle physics was the fact, that the Higgs Boson is ubiquitous; it itself is the bosonic supersymmetric partner for all the fermions, which include all the leptons associated with the rings and the neutrinos and antineutrinos of the kernel.

The upper limit for the quark energies is the Superdiquark S=(ss)d(bar), forming a particle called the Higgs/Chi (H/C)-resonance with an energy mean of (1,194 GeV) in a quark structure SS(bar).

1/365th of a second into the cosmic evolution sets the symmetry breaking between the electromagnetic- and weak nuclear interactions at a temperature of 3.4 quadrillion Kelvin and a bosonic particle energy of (298.5 GeV).

This is the Fermi Constant for the Weak Nuclear Interaction or WNI and can be considered a quasimass for the Higgs Boson as a 'Vacuum Expectation Mass', which basically simply adds the Weakon masses (Z⁰, W⁺ and W^- together.

This energy calculates as the Vortex-PE mean or VPE for the HB-Kernel induction for the SS(bar).

The VPE-K-mean for the tt(bar) resonance is (182.758 GeV) and the VPE-R(ing)mean is calculated as (38.882 GeV), the latter being contained in the former.
The mean for the top-antitop resonance is the mass for the neutral Z⁰ Weakon fieldagent in (91.38 GeV*=91.19 GeV).

Summing the VPE-K-means up to the Dainty quark state of the doube-down, then gives the energy for the (W^-) charged weakons in (80.64 GeV*=80.47 GeV) as the gauge field particles for the WNI.

Tony B. Commentary:

Now for the simplicity.

The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.

As I have shown, the energy resonances of the Z-boson (uncharged) represents an 'average' or statistical mean value of the 'Top-Quark' and the Upper-Limit for the Higgs Boson is a similar 'Super-Quark' 'average' and as the weak interaction unification energy.

The hitherto postulated Higgs Boson mass of so 110 GeV is the Omicron-resonance, fully predicted from the table above (unique to Quantum Relativity).
Now the most fundamental way to generate the Higgs Boson as a 'weak interaction' gauge is through the coupling of two equal mass, but oppositely charged W-bosons (of whom the Z^o is the uncharged counterpart).

We have seen, that the W-mass is a summation of all the other quark-masses as kernel-means from the strangeness upwards to the truth-quark level.
So simply doubling the 80.47 GeV mass of the weak-interaction gauge boson must represent the basic form of the Higgs Boson and that is 160.9 GeV.

Simplicity indeed and just the way Quantum Relativity describes the creation of the Higgs Boson from even more fundamental templates of the so called 'gauges'. The Higgs Boson is massless but consists of two classical electron rings and a massless doubled neutrino kernel, and then emerges in the magnetocharge induction AS mass carrying gauges.

This massless neutrino kernel now crystallises our atomic solar system.

Hypersphere volumes and the mass of the Tau-neutrino

Consider the universe's thermodynamic expansion to proceed at an initializing time (and practically at lightspeed for the lightpath x=ct describing the hypersphere radii) to from a single spacetime quantum with a quantized toroidal volume 2π²r_w³ and where r_w is the characteristic wormhole radius for this basic building unit for a quantized universe (say in string parameters given in the Planck scale and its transformations).

At a time t_G, say so 18.85 minutes later, the count of space time quanta can be said to be 9.677x10¹⁰² for a universal 'total hypersphere radius' of about r_G=3.39x10¹¹ meters and for a G-Hypersphere volume of so 7.69x10³⁵cubic meters.

{This radius is about 2.3 Astronomical Units and about the distance of the Asteroid Belt from the star Sol in a typical (our) solar system.}

This modelling of a mapping of the quantum-microscale onto the cosmological macroscale should now indicate the mapping of the wormhole scale onto the scale of the sun itself.

r_w/R_Sun(i)=R_e/r_E for R_Sun(i)=r_wr_E/R_e=1,971,030 meters. This gives an 'inner' solar core of diameter about 3.94x10⁶ meters.

As the classical electron radius is quantized in the wormhole radius in the formulation R_e=10¹⁰r_w/360, rendering a finestructure for Planck's Constant as a 'superstring-parametric': h=r_w/2R_ec³; the 'outer' solar scale becomes R_Sun(o)=360R_Sun(i)=7.092x10⁸ meters as the observed radius for the solar disk.

19 seconds later; a F-Hypersphere radius is about r_F=3.45x10¹¹ meters for a F-count of so 1.02x10¹⁰³ spacetime quanta.
We also define an E-Hypersphere radius at r_E=3.44x10¹⁴ meters and an E-count of so 10¹¹² to circumscribe this 'solar system' in so 230 AU.

We so have 4 hypersphere volumes, based on the singularity-unit and magnified via spacetime quantization in the hyperspheres defined in counters G, F and E. We consider these counters as somehow fundamental to the universe's expansion, serving as boundary conditions in some manner. As counters, those googolplex-numbers can be said to be defined algorithmically and independent on mensuration physics of any kind.

The mapping of the atomic nucleus onto the thermodynamic universe of the hyperspheres

Should we consider the universe to follow some kind of architectural blueprint; then we might attempt to use our counters to be isomorphic (same form or shape) in a one-to-one mapping between the macrocosmos and the microcosmos. So we define a quantum geometry for the nucleus in the simplest atom, say Hydrogen. The hydrogenic nucleus is a single proton of quark-structure udu and which we assign a quantum geometric template of Kernel-InnerRing-OuterRing (K-IR-OR), say in a simple model of concentricity.

We set the up-quarks (u) to become the 'smeared out core' in say a tripartition uuu so allowing a substructure for the down-quark (d) to be u+InnerRing. A down-quark so is a unitary ring coupled to a kernel-quark.

The proton's quark-content so can be rewritten and without loss of any of the properties associated with the quantum conservation laws; as proton → udu → uuu+IR=KKK+IR.

We may now label the InnerRing as Mesonic and the OuterRing as Leptonic.

The OuterRing is so definitive for the strange quark in quantum geometric terms: s=u+OR.

A neutron's quark content so becomes neutron=dud=KIR.K.KIR with a 'hyperon resonance' in the lambda=sud=KOR.K.KIR and so allowing the neutron's beta decay to proceed in disassociation from a nucleus (where protons and neutrons bind in meson exchange); i.e. in the form of 'free neutrons'. The neutron decays in the oscillation potential between the mesonic inner ring and the leptonic outer ring as the 'ground-energy' eigenstate.

There actually exist three uds-quark states which decay differently via strong, electromagnetic and weak decay rates in the uds (Sigma^o Resonance); usd (Sigma^o) and the sud (Lambda^o) in increasing stability. This quantum geometry then indicates the behaviour of the triple-uds decay from first principles, whereas the contemporary standard model does not, considering the u-d-s quark eigenstates to be quantum geometrically undifferentiated.

The nuclear interactions, both strong and weak are confined in a Magnetic Asymptotic Confinement Limit coinciding with the Classical Electron radius R_e=ke²/m_ec² and in a scale of so 3 Fermi or 2.8x10^-15 meters.
At a distance further away from this scale, the nuclear interaction strength vanishes rapidly. The wavenature of the nucleus is given in the Compton-Radius R_compton=h/2πmc with m the mass of the nucleus, say a proton; the latter so having R_{compton-proton}=r_p=2x10^-16 meters or so 0.2 fermi.

The wave-matter (after a de Broglie generalising wavespeed v_dB from c in R_compton) then relates the classical electron radius as the 'confinement limit' to the Compton scale in the electromagnetic finestructure constant in R_e=Alpha.R_compton.

The extension to the Hydrogen-Atom is obtained in the expression R_e=Alpha².R_Bohr1 for the first Bohr-Radius as the 'ground-energy' of so 13.7 eV at a scale of so 10^-11 to 10^-10 meters (Angstroems).

These 'facts of measurements' of the standard models now allow our quantum geometric correspondences to assume cosmological significance in their isomorphic mapping.
We denote the OuterRing as the classical electron radius and introduce the InnerRing as a mesonic scale contained within the geometry of the proton and all other elementary baryonic- and hadronic particles.

Firstly, we define a mean macro-mesonic radius as: r_M=½(r_F r_G)~ 3.42x10¹¹ meters and set the macro-leptonic radius to r_E=3.44x10¹⁴ meters.

Secondly, we map the macroscale onto the microscale, say in the simple proportionality relation, using (de)capitalised symbols:

R_e/R_m=r_E/r_M.

We can so solve for the micro-mesonic scale R_m=R_e.r_M/r_E ~ 2.76x10^-18 meters.

So reducing the apparent measured 'size' of a proton in a factor about about 1000 gives the scale of the subnuclear mesonic interaction, say the strong interaction coupling by pions.

The Higgsian Scalar-Neutrino

The (anti)neutrinos are part of the electron mass in a decoupling process between the kernel and the rings. Neutrino mass is so not cosmologically significant and cannot be utilized in 'missing mass' models'.
We may define the kernel-scale as that of the singular spacetime-quantum unit itself, namely as the wormhole radius r_w=10^-22/2π meters.

Before the decoupling between kernel and rings, the kernel-energy can be said to be strong-weakly coupled or unified to encompass the gauge-gluon of the strong interaction and the gauge-weakon of the weak interaction defined in a coupling between the OuterRing and the Kernel and bypassing the mesonic InnerRing.

So for matter, a W-Minus ( weakon) must consist of a coupled lepton part, yet linking to the strong interaction via the kernel part. If now the colour-charge of the gluon transmutates into a 'neutrino-colour-charge'; then this decoupling will not only define the mechanics for the strong-weak nuclear unification coupling; but also the energy transformation of the gauge-colour charge into the gauge-lepton charge.

There are precisely 8 gluonic transitive energy permutation eigenstates between a 'radiative-additive' Planck energy in W(hite)=E=hf and an 'inertial-subtractive' Einstein energy in B(lack)=E=mc², which describe the baryonic- and hyperonic 'quark-sectors' in: mc²=BBB, BBW, WBB, BWB, WBW, BWW, WWB and WWW=hf.
The permutations are cyclic and not linearly commutative. For mesons (quark-antiquark eigenstates), the permutations are BB, BW, WB and WW in the SU(2) and SU(3) Unitary Symmetries.

So generally, we may state, that the gluon is unfied with a weakon before decoupling; this decoupling 'materialising' energy in the form of mass, namely the mass of the measured 'weak-interaction-bosons' of the standard model (W^- for charged matter; W⁺ for charged antimatter and Z^o for neutral mass-currents say).

Experiment shows, that a W^- decays into spin-aligned electron-antineutrino or muon-antineutrino or tauon-antineutrino pairings under the conservation laws for momentum and energy.
So, using our quantum geometry, we realise, that the weakly decoupled electron must represent the OuterRing, and just as shown in the analysis of QED ( Quantum-Electro-Dynamics). Then it can be inferred, that the Electron's Antineutrino represents a transformed and materialised gluon via its colourcharge, now decoupled from the kernel.

Then the OuterRing contracts (say along its magnetoaxis defining its asymptotic confinement); in effect 'shrinking the electron' in its inertial and charge- properties to its experimentally measured 'point-particle-size'. Here we define this process as a mapping between the Electronic wavelength 2πR_e and the wormhole perimeter λ_w=2πr_w.

But in this process of the 'shrinking' classical electron radius towards the gluonic kernel (say); the mesonic ring will be encountered and it is there, that any mass-inductions should occur to differentiate a massless lepton gauge-eigenstate from that manifested by the weakon precursors.

{Note: Here the W- inducing a lefthanded neutron to decay weakly into a lefthanded proton, a lefthanded electron and a righthanded antineutrino. Only lefthanded particles decay weakly in CP-parity-symmetry violation, effected by neutrino-gauge definitions from first principles}.

This so defines a neutrino-oscillation potential at the InnerRing-Boundary. Using our proportions and assigning any neutrino-masses m_n as part of the electronmass m_e, gives the following proportionality as the mass eigenvalue of the Tau-(Anti)Neutrino as Higgsian Mass Induction in the Weak Nuclear Interaction at the Mesonic Inner Ring Boundary within the subatomic quantum geometry utilized as the dynamic interaction space:

m_Higgs/Tauon=m_eλ_w.r_E/(2πr_MR_e) ~ 5.4x10^-36 kg or 3.0 eV*.

So we have derived, from first principles, a (anti)neutrinomass eigenstate energy level of 3 eV as the appropriate energy level for any (anti)neutrino matter interaction within the subatomic dynamics of the nuclear interaction.

This confirms the Mainz, Germany Result as the upper limit for neutrino masses resulting from ordinary Beta-Decay and indicates the importance of the primordial beta-decay for the cosmogenesis and the isomorphic scale mappings stated above.

The hypersphere intersection of the G- and F-count of the thermodynamic expansion of the mass-parametric universe so induces a neutrino-mass of 3 eV* at the 2.76x10^-18 meter marker.

The more precise G-F differential in terms of eigenenergy is 0.052 eV as the mass-eigenvalue for the Higgs-(Anti)neutrino (which is scalar of 0-spin and constituent of the so called Higgs Boson as the kernel-Eigenstate). This has been experimentally verified in the Super-Kamiokande (Japan) neutrino experiments published in 1998 and in subsequent neutrino experiments around the globe, say Sudbury, KamLAND, Dubna, MinibooNE and MINOS.

Recalling the Cosmic scale radii for the initial manifestation of the primordial 'Free Neutron (Beta-Minus) Decay', we rewrite the Neutrino-Mass-Induction formula:

r_E = 3.43597108x10¹⁴ meters and an E-count of so 1.00x10¹¹² spacetime quanta

mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=m_eλ_w.{r_E/r_E}(2πR_e) ~ 5.323x10^-39 kg* or 0.003 eV* as Weak Interaction Higgs Mass induction.

r_F = 3.45107750x10¹¹ metres for the F-count of so 1.02x10¹⁰³ spacetime quanta
mn_Higgs-F=mn_muon=m_eλ_w.{r_E/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 5.300x10^-36 kg* or 2.969 eV* as Weak Interaction Higgs Mass induction.

r_G = 3.39155801x10¹¹ metres for the G-count of so 9.68x10¹⁰² spacetime quanta
mn_Higgs-G=mn_tauon=m_eλ_w.{r_E/r_G}(2πR_e) ~ 5.393x10^-36 kg* or 3.021 eV* as Weak Interaction Higgs Mass Induction.

The mass difference for the Muon-Tau-(Anti)Neutrino Oscillation, then defines the Mesonic Inner Ring Higgs Induction:

mn_Higgs=m_eλ_w.r_E{1/r_G-1/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 9.301x10^-38 kg* or 0.0521 eV* as the Basic Cosmic (Anti)Neutrino Mass.

This Higgs-Neutrino-Induction is 'twinned' meaning that this energy can be related to the energy of so termed 'slow- or thermal neutrons' in a coupled energy of so twice 0.0253 eV for a thermal equilibrium at so 20° Celsius and a rms-standard-speed of so 2200 m/s from the Maxwell statistical distributions for the kinematics.

Sterile neutrino back from the dead
22 June 2010 by David Shiga
http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2766

A ghostly particle given up for dead is showing signs of life.

Not only could this "sterile" neutrino be the stuff of dark matter, thought to make up the bulk of our universe, it might also help to explain how an excess of matter over antimatter arose in our universe.
Neutrinos are subatomic particles that rarely interact with ordinary matter. They are known to come in three flavours – electron, muon and tau – with each able to spontaneously transform into another.
In the 1990s, results from the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico suggested there might be a fourth flavour: a "sterile" neutrino that is even less inclined to interact with ordinary matter than the others.

Hasty dismissal

Sterile neutrinos would be big news because the only way to detect them would be by their gravitational influence – just the sort of feature needed to explain dark matter.
Then in 2007 came the disheartening news that the Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment (MiniBooNE, pictured) at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, had failed to find evidence of them.
But perhaps sterile neutrinos were dismissed too soon. While MiniBooNE used neutrinos to look for the sterile neutrino,
LSND used antineutrinos – the antimatter equivalent. Although antineutrinos should behave exactly the same as neutrinos, just to be safe, the MiniBooNE team decided to repeat the experiment – this time with antineutrinos.

Weird excess

Lo and behold, the team saw muon antineutrinos turning into electron antineutrinos at a higher rate than expected – just like at LSND. MiniBooNE member Richard Van de Water reported the result at a neutrino conference in Athens, Greece, on 14 June.
The excess could be because muon antineutrinos turn into sterile neutrinos before becoming electron antineutrinos, says Fermilab physicist Dan Hooper, who is not part of MiniBooNE. "This is very, very weird," he adds.
Although it could be a statistical fluke, Hooper suggests that both MiniBooNE results could be explained if antineutrinos can change into sterile neutrinos but neutrinos cannot – an unexpected difference in behaviour.
The finding would fit nicely with research from the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search, or MINOS, also at Fermilab, which, the same day, announced subtle differences in the oscillation behaviour of neutrinos and antineutrinos.
Antimatter and matter are supposed to behave like mirror versions of each other, but flaws in this symmetry could explain how our universe ended up with more matter.

Neutrinomasses

The (Anti)Neutrino Energy at the R_E nexus for R_E=r_w∛(26x65⁶¹) m* and
for mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=l_wh.Alpha/4p²R_e²c=30e²l_w/2pR_e²c or 15l]_w{Monopole GUT masses ec}/pR_e² = 2.982...10^-3 eV*.
This can also be written as mn_Higgs-E=mn_electron=mn_Tauon² to define the 'squared' Higgs (Anti)Neutrino eigenstate from its templated form of the quantum geometry in the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity (UFoQR).

Subsequently, the Muon (Anti)Neutrino Higgs Induction mass becomes defined in the difference between the masses of the Tau-(Anti)Neutrino and the Higgs (Anti)Neutrino.

mn_Tauon= B⁴G⁴R⁴[0]+B²G²R²[-½]=B⁶G⁶R⁶[-½] = √(mn_electron)=√(0.002982)=0.0546... eV*

mn_Higgs= B⁴G⁴R⁴[0] = m_eλ_w.r_E{1/r_G-1/r_F}/(2πR_e) ~ 9.301x10^-38 kg* or 0.0521... eV*
mn_Muon = B²G²R²[-½] = √(mn_Tauon² - mn_Higgs²) = √(0.00298-0.00271) = √(0.00027) = 0.0164... eV*
mn_Electron = B²G²R²[-½] = (mn_Tauon)²= (0.054607...)²=0.002982... eV*

This energy self state for the Electron (Anti)Neutrino then is made manifest in the Higgs Mass Induction at the Mesonic Inner Ring or IR as the squared mass differential between two (anti)neutrino self states as:
(mn₃ + mn₂).(mn₃ - mn₂) = mn₃² - mn₂² = 0.002981...eV*² to reflect the 'squared' energy self state of the scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino as compared to the singlet energy Eigen state of the base (anti)neutrinos for the 3 leptonic families of electron-positron and the muon-antimuon and the tauon-antitauon.

The Electron-(Anti)Neutrino is massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate and inducted at R_E at 0.00298 eV*.
The Muon-(Anti)Neutrino is also massless as base-neutrinoic weakon eigenstate and inducted at the Mesonic Ring F-Boundary at 2.969 eV* with an effective Higgsian mass induction of 0.0164 eV*.

The Tauon-(Anti)Neutrino is not massless with inertial eigenstate inducted at the Mesonic Ring G-Boundary at 3.021 eV* and meaned at 3.00 eV* as √(0.0521²+0.0164²) = 0.0546 eV* as the square root value of the ground state of the Higgs inertia induction. The neutrino flavour mechanism, based on the Electron (Anti)Neutrino so becomes identical in the Weakon Tauon-Electron-Neutrino oscillation to the Scalar Muon-Higgs-Neutrino oscillation.

The weakon kernel-eigenstates are 'squared' or doubled (2x2=2+2) in comparison with the gluonic-eigenstate (one can denote the colourcharges as (R²G²B²)[½] and as (RGB)[1] respectively say and with the [] bracket denoting gauge-spin and RGB meaning colours Red-Green-Blue).
The scalar Higgs-Anti(Neutrino) becomes then defined in: (R⁴G⁴B⁴)[0] and the Tauon Anti(Neutrino) in (R⁶G⁶B⁶)[½].

The twinned neutrino state so becomes MANIFESTED in a coupling of the scalar Higgs-Neutrino with a massless base neutrino in a (R⁶G⁶B⁶)[0+½]) mass-induction template.
The Higgs-Neutrino is bosonic and so not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle; but quantized in the form of the FG-differential of the 0.0521 Higgs-Restmass-Induction.
Subsequently all experimentally observed neutrino-oscillations should show a stepwise energy induction in units of the Higgs-neutrino mass of 0.0521 eV. This was the case in the Super-Kamiokande experiments; and which was interpreted as a mass-differential between the muonic and tauonic neutrinoic forms.

mn_Higgs + mn_electron = mn_Higgs + (mn_Tauon)² for the 'squared' ground state of a massless base (anti)neutrino for a perturbation Higgsian (anti)neutrino in (mn_Tauon)² = (mn_Higgs + d)² = mn_Electron for the quadratic mn_Higgs² + 2mn_Higgsd + d² = 0.002982 from (mn_Higgs + d) = √(mn_electron) and for a d = √(mn_electron) - mn_Higgs = mn_Tauon - mn_Higgs = 0.0546-0.0521 = 0.0025.

mn_Higgs+ d = 0.0521 + 0.0025 = (mn_Higgs) + (mn_electron) - 0.00048 = mn_Tauon = 0.0521+0.00298 - 0.00048 + ... = 0.0546 eV* as a perturbation expression for the 'squared' scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino.

(mn_Muon - mn_Electron){(mn_Muon+ mn_Electron) - (mn_Muon- mn_Electron)} = 2mn_Electron(mn_Muon - mn_Electron)
as the squared mass difference:

mn_Muon² - mn_Electron² = 2mn_Electron(mn_Muon - mn_Electron) + (mn_Muon - mn_Electron)²

and {mn_Muon² - mn_Electron²} - mn_Muon² + 2mn_Muonn_Electron - mn_Electron² = 2mn_Muonmn_Electron - 2mn_Electron² = ({3mn_Electron}² - 0²)
= (0.00894..)² = 7.997..x10^-5 eV^2* as the KamLAND 2005 neutrino mass induction value for 11mn_Electron = 2mn_Muon.

For 3 (anti)neutrinos then, the cosmological summation lower and upper bounds for (anti)neutrino oscillations are:
0 + mn_{electron-muon} + mn_{electron-tauon} + mn_muon-tauon = 3(0.002982) = 0.00895 eV* and 3(0.0030+0.0546) = 3(0.0576) = 0.1728 eV* or 0.1724 eV [SI] respectively.

Inclusion of the scalar Higgs (anti)neutrino as a fourth (anti)neutrino inertial self state extends this upper boundary by 0.0521 eV* to 0.2249 eV* or 0.2243 eV [SI].

Sn = mn_Electron + mn_Muon + mn_Higgs+ mn_Tauon = 0.0546..+0.0521..+0.0164..+0.0030 = 0.1261 eV* or 0.1258 eV.

(Starunits[*] calibrate as {SI}: {J}=0.9948356[J*]; {s}=0.99902301[s*]; {m}=0.9983318783[m*]; {kg}=0.9962135[kg*];
{C}=0.997296076[C*]; {eV}=0.99753285[eV*])

In terms of the Higgs Mass Induction and so their inertial states, the Neutrinos are their own antiparticles and so Majorana defined; but in terms of their basic magneto charged nature within the Unified Filed of Quantum Relativity, the Neutrinos are different from their AntiNeutrino antiparticles in their Dirac definition of R²G²B²[+1] for the AntiNeutrinos and in B²G²R²[-1] for the Neutrinos.

Mass

The Standard Model of particle physics assumed that neutrinos are massless. However the experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which mixes neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states (analogously to CKM mixing), requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses.^[20]

Massive neutrinos were originally conceived by Bruno Pontecorvo in the 1950s. Enhancing the basic framework to accommodate their mass is straightforward by adding a right-handed Lagrangian. This can be done in two ways. If, like other fundamental Standard Model particles, mass is generated by the Dirac mechanism, then the framework would require an SU(2) singlet. This particle would have no other Standard Model interactions (apart from the Yukawa interactions with the neutral component of the Higgs doublet), so is called a sterile neutrino. Or, mass can be generated by the Majorana mechanism, which would require the neutrino and antineutrino to be the same particle.

The strongest upper limit on the masses of neutrinos comes from cosmology: the Big Bang model predicts that there is a fixed ratio between the number of neutrinos and the number of photons in the cosmic microwave background. If the total energy of all three types of neutrinos exceeded an average of 50 eV per neutrino, there would be so much mass in the universe that it would collapse.^[37] This limit can be circumvented by assuming that the neutrino is unstable; however, there are limits within the Standard Model that make this difficult. A much more stringent constraint comes from a careful analysis of cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy surveys, and the Lyman-alpha forest. These indicate that the summed masses of the three neutrinos must be less than 0.3 eV.^[38]

In 1998, research results at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector determined that neutrinos can oscillate from one flavor to another, which requires that they must have a nonzero mass.^[39] While this shows that neutrinos have mass, the absolute neutrino mass scale is still not known. This is because neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the difference in the squares of the masses.^[40]
The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: |Δm₂₁²| = 0.000079 eV².^[41]

In 2006, the MINOS experiment measured oscillations from an intense muon neutrino beam, determining the difference in the squares of the masses between neutrino mass eigenstates 2 and 3. The initial results indicate |Δm₃₂²| = 0.0027 eV², consistent with previous results from Super-Kamiokande.^[42]

Since |Δm₃₂²| is the difference of two squared masses, at least one of them has to have a value which is at least the square root of this value. Thus, there exists at least one neutrino mass eigenstate with a mass of at least 0.04 eV.^[43]

In 2009, lensing data of a galaxy cluster were analyzed to predict a neutrino mass of about 1.5 eV.^[44]
All neutrino masses are then nearly equal, with neutrino oscillations of order meV. They lie below the Mainz-Troitsk upper bound of 2.2 eV for the electron antineutrino.^[45]
The latter will be tested in 2015 in the KATRIN experiment, that searches for a mass between 0.2 eV and 2 eV.

A number of efforts are under way to directly determine the absolute neutrino mass scale in laboratory experiments. The methods applied involve nuclear beta decay (KATRIN and MARE) or neutrinoless double beta decay (e.g. GERDA, CUORE/Cuoricino, NEMO-3 and others).

On 31 May 2010, OPERA researchers observed the first tau neutrino candidate event in a muon neutrino beam, the first time this transformation in neutrinos had been observed, providing further evidence that they have mass.^[46]

In July 2010 the 3-D MegaZ DR7 galaxy survey reported that they had measured a limit of the combined mass of the three neutrino varieties to be less than 0.28 eV.^[47]

A tighter upper bound yet for this sum of masses, 0.23 eV, was reported in March 2013 by the Planck collaboration,^[48]
whereas a February 2014 result estimates the sum as 0.320 ± 0.081 eV based on discrepancies between the cosmological consequences implied by Planck's detailed measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background and predictions arising from observing other phenomena, combined with the assumption that neutrinos are responsible for the observed weaker gravitational lensing than would be expected from massless neutrinos.^[49]

If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, the mass can be calculated by finding the half life of neutrinoless double-beta decay of certain nuclei. The lowest upper limit, on the Majorana mass of the neutrino, has been set by EXO-200 0.140–0.380 eV.^[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass

Shiloh Za-Rah

{1} Matter interacts with matter based Anti-Neutrinos via Unified Weakon Action {W^-+W⁺}

Protons transform into neutrons with antimatter positrons, the latter which annihilate with electrons produced by the decay of 'free neutrons' back into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos and then with energy-momentum conserving photons and so ending the process with the same components it began with.
{Mass produced photons (by acceleration of inertia coupled electro charges), have no magnetocharge and so form their own anti-particles; whilst gauge or 'virtual' photons carry cyclic and anticyclic colour charges as consequence of the matter-antimatter asymmetry}.

Antin_electron[+½] + Proton p⁺[-½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Anti-Neutrino Spin Induction to 'flipped' Electron of the partial Matter W-minus Weakon manifesting the other part as Antineutrino Scalar
Antin_electron[0] + {Antin_electron[+½] + Electron e^-[+½+½]} + Graviphoton[-1] + {n_electron[-½] + Positron e⁺[-½]} + Graviphoton[+1] + p⁺[-½]

⇨ {Antin_electron[+½] + n_electron[-½]}-Kernel VPE[0] + e⁺[+½] + {p⁺[-½] +OR^-[0]} ⇨ Kernel-VPE[0] + Neutron^o[-½] + Positron e⁺[+½], the scalar Electron Outer Ring being absorbed in the Proton spin as the resultant Neutron quantum spin

⇨ Kernel-VPE[0] + {p⁺[-½] + e^-[-½] + e⁺[+½] + Antin_electron[+½]} ⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + p⁺[-½] + Antin_electron[+½] ⇨ Antin_electron[+½] + Proton p⁺[-½] + Photon[-1] + Photon[+1] in Pair-Annihilation tranforming the Mass Energy {E=mc² into Radiation Energy E=hf for the Electron-Positron Matter-Antimatter Interaction.

{2} Matter interacts with antimatter based Neutrinos via Unified Weakon Action {W^-+W⁺}

Neutrons transform into protons with muons, the latter decaying into electrons and anti-neutrinos and neutrinos, so reducing the elementary matter-neutrino interaction to basic neutron beta-minus-deacay with the leptonic coupling between the 'resonance electron' as a basic muon coupled to its neutrino.

n_muon[-½] + Neutron n^o[+½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Neutrino Spin Induction to 'flipped' Anti-Muon of the partial W-plus Weakon manifesting the other part as Neutrino Scalar
n_muon[0] + {n_muon[-½] + Anti-Muon m⁺[-½-½]} + Graviphoton[+1] + {Antin_muon[+½] + Muon m^-[+½]} + Graviphoton[-1] + n^o[+½]

⇨ {Antin_muon[+½] + n_muon[-½]}-Kernel VPE[0] + m^-[-½] + {n^o[+½] +Anti-OR⁺[0]} ⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + Proton⁺[+½] + Muon m^-[-½], the scalar Anti-Muon Outer Ring being absorbed in the Neutron spin as the resultant Proton quantum spin

⇨ (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] + {p⁺[+½] + e^-[-½] + Antin_electron[+½] + n_muon[-½]}
⇨ n_muon[-½] + n^o[+½] + (KKK+OR)-VPE[0] in the original neutrino-matter interaction accessing the VPE/ZPE of the UFoQR.

{3} Matter interacts with antimatter based Neutrinos and matter based Antineutrinos in Majorana Weakon Action Electron Capture {W^-+W⁺}

An Electron in the inner atomic nucleus is captured by a proton to create a neutron accompanied by an electron neutrino. This requires a u-quark of the proton to transform into a d-quark of the neutron. As the d-quark is a KIR quark of inner mesonic ring of electro charge [+2/3] coupled to the MIR of electro charge [-1], a W-minus weakon must be engaged to couple to a left handed proton via the nonparity of the weak nuclear interaction. However in electron capture a left handed electron neutrino is emitted, requiring the interaction of a W-plus weakon as the kernel gauge for any such right handed antimatter weak decay.
(This 'confusion' as to which weakon becomes engaged in electron capture can be seen in the three diagrams above, two of which infer the left handed W-plus and one the W-minus).

It is in fact a W-minus, that interacts, but coupling to the left handed electron instead of a left handed proton, the latter quantum spinning right handed to allow the charge and spin conservation to crystallize the emission of the left handed electron neutrino.
The W-minus then supplies the required KIR for the up-quark to down-quark transmutation with the gauge spin neutralizer of the left handed Graviphoton [-1] flipping the right handed electron antineutrino constituent of the W-minus into its antiparticular form of a left handed electron neutrino.
Electron capture so displays the Dirac-Majorana nature of the two base neutrinos of the electron-positron and muon-antimuon definition in their massless gauge nature when engaged in the direct interaction or 'tapping' of the UFoQR in the Vortex-Potential-Energy or VPE/ZPE.
The Majorana-Dirac nature of the base neutrinos then can be said to apply to all (anti)neutrinos carrying mass in their oscillation potential and properties exhibited in their wave mechanical dynamics.

Electron^-[-½] + Proton p⁺[+½] + VPE[0] ⇨ Electron Spin Neutralization as Induction to Matter Parity as OR^- - IR^--VPE Oscillation of the partial W-plus Weakon manifesting the other part as flipped Neutrino from its Dirac AntiNeutrino base template
Electron[0] + {Electron^- [+½-½] + Antin_electron[+½] + Graviphoton[-1]} + Proton p⁺[+½] (proton as u[+½]u[-½].d[+½])

⇨ Proton K[+½]KIR[-½]K [+½] + OR^-[0] + {Antin_electron[+½] + Graviphoton[-1]} = Proton udu[+½] + OR^-[0] + {n_electron[-½]}
⇨ Neutron udd[+½] + VPE[0] + n_electron[-½] = KIR[+½]K[-½]KIR[+½] + n_electron[-½] + VPE[0] = Neutron n^odud[+½] + n_electron[-½] + VPE[0]

A Magneto axis symmetric Proton K(KIR)K transforms into Magneto axis symmetric Neutron KIR(K)KIR as one of the proton's end Kernel up-quarks 'captures' the Weakonic VPE scalar OR^- Electron Outer Ring in the Unified Field of Quantum Relativity.

mν_Higgs=m_eλ_w.r_E/(2πr_MR_e){1/r_G-1/r_F} ~ 9.3x10^-38 kg or 0.052 eV.

A Link to the Cosmology of the Higgs Boson
Unlike some past announcements centered on the Higgs in the past few years, which have produced as much ambiguity and confusion as anything else, this one did not disappoint. ATLAS physicists said that their most recent data reveal the presence of an unknown particle with a mass of about 126.5 GeV, or 126.5 billion electron-volts. An electron-volt is a physicist’s unit of mass or energy; for comparison, the proton has a mass of about 1 GeV. The CMS collaboration found evidence for a new particle with a mass of 125.3 GeV.
"""Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI."""

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=higgs-cern-lhc-discovery

New Particle Resembling Long-Sought Higgs Boson Uncovered at Large Hadron Collider

The CERN collider, the most powerful atom smasher in history, appears to have fulfilled its primary quest.

By John Matson - July 4, 2012

The Higgs Boson at Last? A newfound particle at the Large Hadron Collider looks much like the fabled Higgs »July 12, 2012

GATHER ROUND: Dozens of students and physicists gathered at Columbia University's Low Library early Wednesday morning to get the latest news on the Higgs boson.
Image: John Matson

NEW YORK—The city that never sleeps was mostly asleep. The bars were closed. But at 4:45 A.M., inside a library on Columbia University's Manhattan campus, Michael Tuts was getting ready to pop the champagne.

The physicist had good reason to celebrate. The massive team of scientists of which he is a part—3,000 researchers working on the ATLAS experiment at Europe's Large Hadron Collider—had just announced the discovery of a new particle. The particle looks an awful lot like the long-sought, and long-hypothetical, Higgs boson, most famous for explaining why elementary particles, such as quarks, have mass. A competing, comparably sized experiment, known as CMS, had arrived at a very similar finding at the collider facility.

Both research teams announced their results during a morning seminar at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics that operates the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC. But the morning start in Geneva meant that U.S. physicists and other curious observers were tuning in to the announcement during the predawn hours. Tuts and his Columbia colleagues decided to host a viewing party at the campus library, with a live video feed from CERN as well as coffee, cookies, soft drinks and chips. About 50 people, many of them students, turned up for the event, which began around 2:30 A.M.

Unlike some past announcements centered on the Higgs in the past few years, which have produced as much ambiguity and confusion as anything else, this one did not disappoint. ATLAS physicists said that their most recent data reveal the presence of an unknown particle with a mass of about 126.5 GeV, or 126.5 billion electron-volts. An electron-volt is a physicist’s unit of mass or energy; for comparison, the proton has a mass of about 1 GeV. The CMS collaboration found evidence for a new particle with a mass of 125.3 GeV.

Crucially, both teams' findings appear exceptionally robust. In physics terms, evidence for a new particle requires a “3-sigma” measurement, corresponding to a 1-in-740 chance that a random fluke could explain the observations, and a claim of discovery requires a 5-sigma effect, or a 1-in–3.5 million shot that the observations are due to chance. In December representatives of the two experiments had announced what one called “intriguing, tantalizing hints” of something brewing in the collider data. But those hints fell short of the 3-sigma level. The new ATLAS finding met not just that level of significance but cleared the gold standard 5-sigma threshold, and CMS very nearly did as well, with a 4.9-sigma finding.

"This is the payoff," Tuts said after the two teams had announced their latest analyses in the Higgs hunt. "This is what you do it for." Peter Higgs himself, who was in Geneva for the seminar along with other eminent physicists who developed the theory, sounded a similar note after the ATLAS and CMS teams had unveiled their conclusions. "For me, it's really an incredible thing that it's happened in my lifetime," Higgs said to the audience at CERN. He was among a half-dozen physicists who in the 1960s proposed what is now known as the Higgs mechanism, hypothesizing the existence of a field permeating all of space, along with an associated particle. The field imparts particles with mass by exerting a sort of drag on them, slowing them down much like a human being slows down when she tries to walk through water instead of air.

The newfound particle fits the bill for the Higgs boson, but the researchers cautioned that more work is needed to compare the properties of the particle to those predicted for the Higgs. After all, the LHC’s detectors cannot identify the Higgs directly. The LHC accelerates protons to unprecedented energies of four trillion electron-volts (4 TeV) before colliding a clockwise-traveling proton beam with a counterclockwise beam. From the smash-up new particles emerge, some of them existing for just an instant before decaying to other particles.

{Commentary on the Higgs Boson Discovery}
JCER - Vol 2, No 13 (2011) Journal of Consciousness Exploaration & Research

Hints of Higgs Boson at 125 GeV Are Found:
Congratulations to All the People at LHC!

Refined Higgs Rumours, Higgs Boson Live Blog: Analysis of the CERN Announcement, Has CERN Found the God Particle? A Calculation, Electron Spin Precession for the Time Fractional Pauli Equation, Plane Wave Solutions of Weakened Field Equations in a Plane Symmetric Space-time-II, Plane Wave Solutions of Field Equations of Israel and Trollope's Unified Field Theory in V5, If the LHC Particle Is Real, What Is One of the Other Possibilities than the Higgs Boson? What is Reality in a Holographic World? Searching for Earth’s Twin.

Editor: Huping HU, Ph.D., J.D.; Editor-at-Large: Philip E. Gibbs, Ph.D.

ISSN: 2153-8301
Dear Huping!

The Higgs Boson resonance, found by ATLAS and CMS is a diquark resonance.

Excerpt:

"Ok, now I'll print some excerpt for the more technically inclined reader regarding the Higgs Boson and its 'make-up', but highlight the important relevant bit (wrt to this discovery of a 160 GeV Higgs Boson energy, and incorporating the lower energy between 92 GeV and to the upper dainty level at 130 GeV as part of the diquark triplet of the associated topomium energy level) at the end.

In particular, as the bottomium doublet minimum is at 5,245.495 MeV* and the topomium triplet minimum is at 55,956.0 MeV* in terms of their characteristic Kernel-Means, their doubled sum indicates a particle-decay excess at the recently publisized ~125 GeV energy level in 2x(5.246+55.956) GeV* = 122.404 GeV* (or 122.102 GeV SI).
These are the two means from ATLAS {116-130 GeV as 123 GeV} and CMS {115-127 GeV as 121 GeV} respectively.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html

Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI.""

This newest data/discovery about the Higgs Boson aka the 'God-Particle' states, that there seems to be a 'resonance-blip' at an energy of about 160 GeV and as just one of say 5 Higgs Bosons for a 'minimal supersymmetry'.
One, the lowest form of the Higgs Boson is said to be about 110 GeV in the Standard Model. There is also a convergence of the HB to an energy level of so 120 GeV from some other models.
Now the whole thing , according to Quantum Relativity' about the Higgs Boson, is that IT IS NOT a particular particle, but relates to ALL particles in its 'scalar nature' as a restmass inducer.

I have discussed the Higgs Boson many times before; but would like here to show in a very simple analysis that the Higgs Boson MUST show a blip at the 160 GeV mark and due to its nature as a 'polarity' neutraliser (a scalar particle has no charge and no spin, but can be made up of two opposite electric charges and say two opposing chiralities of spin orientations.)

Without worrying about details, first consider the following table which contains all the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics. The details are found in the Planck-String transformations discussed elesewhere.

The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xm_ps/[ec]) modulated in (SNI/EMI={Cuberoot of [Alpha]}/[Alpha]), the intrisic unified Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x([ec])/(m_psxa<2/3>), where the (Cuberoot of [Alpha]² is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: p^o, p⁺, p^-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: K^o, K⁺, K^-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (m_c=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xm_P) and setting (m_c) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n⁰;p⁺)=939.642 MeV*}.

The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.

As I have shown, the energy resonances of the Z-boson (uncharged) represents an 'average' or statistical mean value of the 'Top-Quark' and the Upper-Limit for the Higgs Boson is a similar 'Super-Quark' 'average' and as the weak interaction unification energy.

The hitherto postulated Higgs Boson mass of so 110 GeV is the Omicron-resonance, fully predicted from the table above (unique to Quantum Relativity).
Now the most fundamental way to generate the Higgs Boson as a 'weak interaction' gauge is through the coupling of two equal mass, but oppositely charged W-bosons (of whom the Z^o is the uncharged counterpart).

We have seen, that the W-mass is a summation of all the other quark-masses as kernel-means from the strangeness upwards to the truth-quark level.
So simply doubling the 80.47 GeV mass of the weak-interaction gauge boson must represent the basic form of the Higgs Boson and that is 160.9 GeV.

Simplicity indeed and just the way Quantum Relativity describes the creation of the Higgs Boson from even more fundamental templates of the so called 'gauges'. The Higgs Boson is massless but consists of two classical electron rings and a massless doubled neutrino kernel, and then emerges in the magnetocharge induction AS mass carrying gauges.

This massless neutrino kernel now crystallises our atomic solar system.

Next we interpret this scalar (or sterile) Double-Higgs (anti)neutrino as a majoron and lose the distinction between antineutrino and neutrino eigenstates.

We can only do this in the case of the Z^o decay pattern, which engage the boson spin of the Z^o as a superposition of two antineutrinos for the matter case and the superposition of two neutrinos in the antimatter case from first principles.

So the Z^o IS a Majorana particle, which merges the templates of two antineutrinos say and SPININDUCES the Higgs-Antineutrino.
And where does this occur? It occurs at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring Boundary previously determined at the 2.776x10^-18 meter marker.
This marker so specifies the Z^o Boson energy level explicitely as an upper boundary relative to the displacement scale set for the kernel at the wormhole radius r_w=l_w/2π and the classical electron radius as the limit for the nuclear interaction scale at 3 fermis in: R_comptonxAlpha.

So the particle masses of the standard model in QED and QCD become Compton-Masses, which are HIGGS-MASSINDUCED at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring (MIR) marker at R_MIR=2.776x10^-18 meters.

The Compton masses are directly obtained from E=hf=mc²=hc/λ and say as characteristic particle energies.
At the Leptonic-Outer-Ring or LOR; λ_LOR=2πR_e and at the MIR λ_MIR=2πR_MIR for characteristic energies of 71.38 GeV and 71.33 MeV respectively.

So we know that the Higgs-Mass-Induction occurs at those energy levels from the elementary template and as experimentally verified in terms of the neutrino masses by Super-Kamiokande in 1998.
The LOR-energy of course indicates the Muon mass as a 'heavy electron' and the MIR-energy indicates the associated 'heavy quark' mass.

This has been described before in the general mass induction scales for the diquarks as consequence from the bosonic bifurcation of string masses (XL-Boson string splits into quark- and lepton fermions as fundamental supersymmetry and the magnification of the Planck-scale).
We also know, that the elementary proto-nucleon seed m_c has grown in a factor of Yⁿ~(1.618034)ⁿ~1.72 for a present n=1.1324..to create the present nucleonmasses in a perturbation of its finestructure.
Subsequently, the MIR-energy of 71.38 GeV represents a Z^o-Boson seed, which has similarly increased between a factor of √(Yⁿ)~1.313 and Yⁿ~1.724.

These values so give present boundary conditions for the Higgs Boson in terms of its Z^o coupling as the interval {93.73-123.09} GeV* or {93.50-122.79} GeV. The latter interval reduces by 1.58% to {92.02-120.85} GeV, as we have used the 'effective electron mass' m_e, differing in that percentage from the bare electron's restmass in our calculations.
The lower bounded HB so manifests in the form of the Z^o and as the majorana Higgs-Induction and coupled to the Spin-Induction of the Scalar Higgs Antineutrino.
As described previously; the Z^o-Boson mass is the mean of the top-quark K-Mean as 91.380 GeV* = 91.155 GeV and so relates the quark energy levels to the Higgs inductions for both spin and inertia. This occurs at the down-strange ds-diquark level of the cosmogenesis.

The W-Boson masses are the summation of the quark K-Means and represents the summation of all lower diquark energy levels from doubleup to doubledown.
As the down-strange or MIR-LOR energy level is coupled as a Kernel-MIR level in the bottom-antibottom mesonic diquark system, the energy difference between the Z^o- and the W-bosons should amount to that b-quark energy of about 10 GeV and which indeed is experimentally verified as such.
Finally the doublestrange diquark level then becomes the well known Fermi-Energy of the Superquark K-Mean at 298.453 GeV*=297.717 GeV and which reduces to 293.013 GeV in the 1.58% in the SI mensuration system for an Fermi energy of 1.165x10^-5 1/GeV².

Quantum Relativity then stipulates, that the Higgs-Mass-Induction energies will assume particular energy value related to the diquark mass induction table of the K-Means, coupled to the weakon masses as indicated.
The overarching energy level is however that at 92 GeV as the lower bound and as represented in the definition of the Z^o-Boson as a Majorana Spininduced scalar Higgs boson. The upper bound is the Fermi energy of the Super-Diquark as a doublestrange.
This 92 GeV level represents a seedling energy of 71.38 GeV from the primordial universe and when the XL-Boson aka the heterotic string class HO(32) decayed into a fermionic quark-lepton bifurcation and which today is represented in the diquark eigenstates of the standard model in particle physics through its Unitary Symmetries.

Tony B. - December 28th, 2014 -Queanbeyan, NSW, Australia

http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/
http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/ind...tring-and-supermembrane-epsess.886/#post-4827

Last edited: Today at 7:33 PM

Successful Submission of a Manuscript to Science

Manuscript Title: The Higgs Neutrino
Author: Bermanseder
Manuscript Number: aaa5755

Dear Dr. Bermanseder:

Thank you for your submission to Science. We have successfully received your Report.

You can see the status of your manuscript at any time by logging into your account at the Science Journals Submission and Information Portal at https://cts.sciencemag.org. Your manuscript number is noted above. Your manuscript is now undergoing an initial screening to determine whether it will be sent for in-depth review. If the manuscript is sent to review, its status will change to "To Review".

We encourage you to login and link your account to your ORCID ID, an identifier that facilitates correct attribution of your publications. To learn more about ORCID or to obtain an ORCID ID, visit their site at: http://orcid.org.

Sincerely,
The Editors
Science

Cover Letter:

The existence of a scalar neutrino of 0.052 eV and centred at a 3 eV energy level within the subatomic quantum geometric template of the Higgs Boson is proposed.
The mass induction of elementary particles by the Higgs mechanism so proceeds as a Kernel-Ring coupling between the boundary conditions of the subatomic template descriptive for the quantum geometry of the Higgs Boson, upper bounded by the classical electron radius also being a kernel-ring oscillation between the up-quark and the s-quark.

It encompasses a gluon-neutrino transformation as the asymptotic confinement of the colour charge here extended as a cosmic magneto charge related to a magnetic GUT-monopole at the string epoch, preceeding and not following the standard Big Bang cosmogenesis.
Four cosmological (Anti)Neutrino masses are found.
{mTauon; mHiggs; mMuon; mElectron} = {0.0546 eV; 0.0521 eV; 0.0164 eV; 0.002982 eV}.

The current energy level separating the Tauon- and Muon neutrinos is found to be the 0.052 eV level from Super Kamiokande (1998) and MINOS (2006); but is proposed to add the energies of the Higgs Neutrino and the Muon Neutrino to result in the energy of the Tauon Neutrino. The scalar nature of the Higgs neutrino so supplements the Majorana form of the Muon Neutrino.
The current energy level separating the Muon- and Electron neutrinos is found to add 3 electron neutrino masses as the difference between the standard squared mass difference and a superposed squared differential between their mass eigenvalues. This energy value calculates as the current measured KamLAND (2005) value of 0.00008 eV².

The electron neutrino mass is defined from first principles as the energy value for the ratio between the Higgs neutrino mass and the electron mass in the Big Bang cosmogenesis so 1.1 million seconds (about 13 days) after the Big Bang.
The quantum geometry of the nuclear gauge interactions is shown to manifest the standard Big Bang classical geometry then found in the dynamics of an expanding universe as a Planckian Black Body Radiator which manifested the energy gradients of the first generation stars (here termed ylem stars) not as function of their masses, but as a function of their temperatures relative to the temperature background of the Black Body expansion.
The Higgs Boson mass of about 125 GeV is confirmed in a cosmological model here termed Quantum Relativity (QR) and is shown to represent the summation of lower diquark-lepton energy levels.

In particular, as the bottomium doublet minimum is at 5,245.495 MeV* and the topomium triplet minimum is at 55,956.0 MeV* in terms of their characteristic Kernel-Means, their doubled sum indicates a particle-decay excess at the recently publisized ~125 GeV energy level in 2x(5.246+55.956) GeV* = 122.404 GeV* (or 122.102 GeV SI).
These are the two means from ATLAS {116-130 GeV as 123 GeV} and CMS {115-127 GeV as 121 GeV} respectively.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html
Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:
2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI.""

Requested Editor: Science Editor

[2:32:24 AM-December 28th, 2014 -+11UCT] Shiloh Za-Rah: I resubmitted, as this lot is actually the most prestigous science publisher next to Nature-UK. Look here:
[2:33:33 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science
[2:34:06 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: They reject 93% of papers from university addresses, so my chances of being published are basically 0
[2:34:45 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: BUT, as said, this represents evidence that if the ET science arrives it will not be an invasion but a change of the guard
[2:35:22 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: The above is the covering letter
[5:37:39 AM] Sirius 17: can you resend the pdf in here, it didn't send
[5:38:34 AM] *** Shiloh Za-Rah sent The Higgs Neutrino.pdf ***
[5:39:28 AM] Sirius 17: thanks
[5:39:37 AM] Sirius 17: i just checked my email
[5:39:43 AM] Sirius 17: i think i am seeing everything ok
[5:42:18 AM] Sirius 17: so what happens if they do publish and you become famous? lol
[5:42:39 AM] Sirius 17: win the nobel ect
[5:43:38 AM] Sirius 17: then you can tell them that Einstein was waiting for someone to listen so he could finish his work lol
[5:43:38 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: Not very likely, but Logos wanted me to at least send this to folks who COULD understand this.
[5:44:17 AM] Shiloh Za-Rah: They reject it it is fine, because then when ET contacts occurs the proof that the ET science is a product of Gaian ETs is established
[5:44:41 AM] Sirius 17: yes true

Well, this described some of the technical details behind this press release and you asked for it Carol.
So please see it as a simple data sharing and nothing else from us dragon philosophers.
All the best and this forum is the first to receive this information

In Lakech from Allisiam

Last edited by Raven on Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:01 pm; edited 35 times in total

admin · Dec 27, 2014

Carol

Carol
Admin

Posts: 14348
Join date: 2010-04-07
Location: Hawaii

Post n°6

Re: The Higgs Boson de Thuban Draconis Astrum

Carol on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:10 pm

Thanks Raven. I had been reading about this elsewhere and appreciate your posting it in more detail. It also reminded me of the Tesla wormhole technology that perhaps is being used for the jump rooms used to go to other planets.

_________________
What is life?
It is the flash of a firefly in the night, the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
With deepest respect ~ Aloha & Mahalo, Carol

admin · Dec 20, 2015

The Top-Super Diquark Resonance of CERN - December 15th, 2015

As can be calculated from the table entries below; a Top-Super Diquark Resonance is predicted as a (ds)bar(ss)=(ds)barS or a (ds)(ss)bar=(ds)Sbar diquark complex averaged at (182.758+596.907)GeV=779.67 GeV.

In the diquark triplet {dd; ds; ss}={Dainty; Top; Super} a Super-Superbar resonance at 1.194 TeV can also be inferred with the Super-Dainty resonance at 652.9 GeV and the Top-Dainty resonance at 238.7 GeV 'suppressed' by the Higgs Boson summation as indicated below. Supersymmetric partners become unnecessary in the Standard Model, extended into the diquark hierarchies.

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: p^o, p⁺, p^-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: K^o, K⁺, K^-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (m_c=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xm_P) and setting (m_c) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n⁰;p⁺)=939.642 MeV*}.

The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.

Is This the Beginning of the End of the Standard Model?

Posted on December 16, 2015 | 15 Comments
Was yesterday the day when a crack appeared in the Standard Model that will lead to its demise? Maybe. It was a very interesting day, that’s for sure. [Here’s yesterday’s article on the results as they appeared.]
I find the following plot useful… it shows the results on photon pairs from ATLAS and CMS superposed for comparison. [I take only the central events from CMS because the events that have a photon in the endcap don’t show much (there are excesses and deficits in the interesting region) and because it makes the plot too cluttered; suffice it to say that the endcap photons show nothing unusual.] The challenge is that ATLAS uses a linear horizontal axis while CMS uses a logarithmic one, but in the interesting region of 600-800 GeV you can more or less line them up. Notice that CMS’s bins are narrower than ATLAS’s by a factor of 2.

The diphoton results from ATLAS (top) and CMS (bottom) arranged so that the 600, 700 and 800 GeV locations (blue vertical lines) line up almost perfectly. (The plots do not line up away from this region!) The data are the black dots (ignore the bottom section of CMS’s plot for now.) Notice that the obvious bumps in the two data sets appear in more or less the same place. The bump in ATLAS’s data is both higher (more statistically significant) and significantly wider.

Both plots definitely show a bump. The two experiments have rather similar amounts of data, so we might have hoped for something more similar in the bumps, but the number of events in each bump is small and statistical flukes can play all sorts of tricks.
Of course your eye can play tricks too. A bump of a low significance with a small number of events looks much more impressive on a logarithmic plot than a bump of equal significance with a larger number of events — so beware that bias, which makes the curves to the left of the bump appear smoother and more featureless than they actually are. [For instance, in the lower register of CMS’s plot, notice the bump around 350.]

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. If I hadn’t seen the statistical significances that ATLAS and CMS quoted, I’d have been more optimistic.

Also disappointing is that ATLAS’s new search is not very different from their Run 1 search of the same type, and only uses 3.2 inverse femtobarns of data, less than the 3.5 that they can use in a few other cases… and CMS uses 2.6 inverse femtobarns. So this makes ATLAS less sensitive and CMS more sensitive than I was originally estimating… and makes it even less clear why ATLAS would be more sensitive in Run 2 to this signal than they were in Run 1, given the small amount of Run 2 data. [One can check that if the events really have 750 GeV of energy and come from gluon collisions, the sensitivity of the Run 1 and Run 2 searches are comparable, so one should consider combining them, which would reduce the significance of the ATLAS excess. Not to combine them is to “cherry pick”.]

By the way, we heard that the excess events do not look very different from the events seen on either side of the bump; they don’t, for instance, have much higher total energy. That means that a higher-energy process, one that produces a new particle at 750 GeV indirectly, can’t be a cause of big jump in the 13 TeV production rate relative to 8 TeV. So one can’t hide behind this possible explanation for why a putative signal is seen brightly in Run 2 and was barely seen, if at all, in Run 1.
Of course the number of events is small and so these oddities could just be due to statistical flukes doing funny things with a real signal. The question is whether it could just be statistical flukes doing funny things with the known background, which also has a small number of events.
And we should also, in tempering our enthusiasm, remember this plot: the diboson excess that so many were excited about this summer. Bumps often appear, and they usually go away. R.I.P.

The most dramatic of the excesses in the production of two W or Z bosons from Run 1 data, as seen in ATLAS work published earlier this year. That bump excited a lot of people. But it doesn’t appear to be supported by Run 2 data. A cautionary tale.

Nevertheless, there’s nothing about this diphoton excess which makes it obvious that one should be pessimistic about it. It’s inconclusive: depending on the statistical questions you ask (whether you combine ATLAS and CMS Run 2, whether you try to combine ATLAS Run 1 and Run 2, whether you worry about whether the resonance is wide or narrow), you can draw positive or agnostic conclusions. It’s hard to draw entirely negative conclusions… and that’s a reason for optimism.

Six months or so from now — or less, if we can use this excess as a clue to find something more convincing within the existing data — we’ll likely say “R.I.P.” again. Will we bury this little excess, or the Standard Model itself?

http://profmattstrassler.com/2015/12/16/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-standard-model/

Hints of Higgs Boson at 125 GeV Are Found:
Congratulations to All the People at LHC!

Refined Higgs Rumours, Higgs Boson Live Blog: Analysis of the CERN Announcement, Has CERN Found the God Particle? A Calculation, Electron Spin Precession for the Time Fractional Pauli Equation, Plane Wave Solutions of Weakened Field Equations in a Plane Symmetric Space-time-II, Plane Wave Solutions of Field Equations of Israel and Trollope's Unified Field Theory in V5, If the LHC Particle Is Real, What Is One of the Other Possibilities than the Higgs Boson? What is Reality in a Holographic World? Searching for Earth’s Twin.

Editor: Huping HU, Ph.D., J.D.; Editor-at-Large: Philip E. Gibbs, Ph.D.

ISSN: 2153-8301
Dear Huping!

The Higgs Boson resonance, found by ATLAS and CMS is a diquark resonance.

Excerpt:

"Ok, now I'll print some excerpt for the more technically inclined reader regarding the Higgs Boson and its 'make-up', but highlight the important relevant bit (wrt to this discovery of a 160 GeV Higgs Boson energy, and incorporating the lower energy between 92 GeV and to the upper dainty level at 130 GeV as part of the diquark triplet of the associated topomium energy level) at the end.

In particular, as the bottomium doublet minimum is at 5,245.495 MeV* and the topomium triplet minimum is at 55,956.0 MeV* in terms of their characteristic Kernel-Means, their doubled sum indicates a particle-decay excess at the recently publisized ~125 GeV energy level in 2x(5.246+55.956) GeV* = 122.404 GeV* (or 122.102 GeV SI).
These are the two means from ATLAS {116-130 GeV as 123 GeV} and CMS {115-127 GeV as 121 GeV} respectively.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html

Then extending the minimum energy levels, like as in the case to calculate the charged weakon gauge field agent energy in the charm and the VPE perturbations as per the table given, specifies the 125 GeV energy level in the Perturbation Integral/Summation:

2x{55.956+5.246+1.606+0.491+0.151+0.046+0.014} GeV* = 127.02 GeV*, which become about 126.71 GeV SI as an UPPER LIMIT for this 'Higgs Boson' at the Dainty quark resonance level from the Thuban Dragon Omni-Science.
Using the 3 Diquark energy levels U,D and S yield 2x{55.956+5.246+1.606} GeV* = 125.62 GeV* and 125.31 GeV SI.""

This newest data/discovery about the Higgs Boson aka the 'God-Particle' states, that there seems to be a 'resonance-blip' at an energy of about 160 GeV and as just one of say 5 Higgs Bosons for a 'minimal supersymmetry'.
One, the lowest form of the Higgs Boson is said to be about 110 GeV in the Standard Model. There is also a convergence of the HB to an energy level of so 120 GeV from some other models.
Now the whole thing , according to Quantum Relativity' about the Higgs Boson, is that IT IS NOT a particular particle, but relates to ALL particles in its 'scalar nature' as a restmass inducer.

I have discussed the Higgs Boson many times before; but would like here to show in a very simple analysis that the Higgs Boson MUST show a blip at the 160 GeV mark and due to its nature as a 'polarity' neutraliser (a scalar particle has no charge and no spin, but can be made up of two opposite electric charges and say two opposing chiralities of spin orientations.)

Without worrying about details, first consider the following table which contains all the elementary particles of the standard model of particle physics. The details are found in the Planck-String transformations discussed elesewhere.

The X-Boson's mass is: ([Alpha]xm_ps/[ec]) modulated in (SNI/EMI={Cuberoot of [Alpha]}/[Alpha]), the intrisic unified Interaction-Strength and as the L-Boson's mass in: ([Omega]x([ec])/(m_psxa<2/3>), where the (Cuberoot of [Alpha]² is given by the symbol (a<2/3>)=EMI/SNI).

Ten DIQUARK quark-mass-levels crystallise, including a VPE-level for the K-IR transition and a VPE-level for the IR-OR transition:

VPE-Level [K-IR] is (26.4922-29.9621 MeV*) for K-Mean: (14.11358 MeV*); (2.8181-3.1872 MeV*) for IROR;
VPE-Level [IR-OR] is (86.5263-97.8594 MeV*) for K-Mean: (46.09643 MeV*); (9.2042-10.410 MeV*) for IROR;
UP/DOWN-Level is (282.5263-319.619 MeV*) for K-Mean: (150.5558 MeV*); (30.062-33.999 MeV*) for IROR;
STRANGE-Level is (923.013-1,043.91 MeV*) for K-Mean: (491.7308 MeV*); (98.185-111.05 MeV*) for IROR;
CHARM-Level is (3,014.66-3,409.51 MeV*) for K-Mean: (1,606.043 MeV*); (320.68-362.69 MeV*) for IROR;
BEAUTY-Level is (9,846.18-11,135.8 MeV*) for K-Mean: (5,245.495 MeV*); (1,047.4-1,184.6 MeV*) for IROR;
MAGIC-Level is (32,158.6-36,370.7 MeV*) for K-Mean: (17,132.33 MeV*); (3,420.9-3,868.9 MeV*) for IROR;
DAINTY-Level is (105,033-118,791 MeV*) for K-Mean: (55,956.0 MeV*); (11,173-12,636 MeV*) for IROR;
TRUTH-Level is (343,050-387,982 MeV*) for K-Mean: (182,758.0 MeV*); (36,492-41,271 MeV*) for IROR;
SUPER-Level is (1,120,437-1,267,190 MeV*) for K-Mean: (596,906.8 MeV*); (119,186-134,797 MeV*) for IROR.

The K-Means define individual materialising families of elementary particles;

the (UP/DOWN-Mean) sets the (PION-FAMILY: p^o, p⁺, p^-);
the (STRANGE-Mean) specifies the (KAON-FAMILY: K^o, K⁺, K^-);
the (CHARM-Mean) defines the (J/PSI=J/Y-Charmonium-FAMILY);
the (BEAUTY-Mean) sets the (UPSILON=U-Bottonium-FAMILY);
the (MAGIC-Mean) specifies the (EPSILON=E-FAMILY);
the (DAINTY-Mean) bases the (OMICRON-O-FAMILY);
the (TRUTH-Mean) sets the (KOPPA=J-Topomium-FAMILY) and
the (SUPER-Mean) defines the final quark state in the (HIGGS/CHI=H/C-FAMILY).

The VPE-Means are indicators for average effective quarkmasses found in particular interactions.
Kernel-K-mixing of the wavefunctions gives K(+)=60.210 MeV* and K(-)=31.983 MeV* and the IROR-Ring-Mixing gives (L(+)=6.405 MeV* and L(-)=3.402 MeV*) for a (L-K-Mean of 1.50133 MeV*) and a (L-IROR-Mean of 4.90349 MeV*); the Electropole ([e-]=0.52049 MeV*) as the effective electronmass and as determined from the electronic radius and the magnetocharge in the UFoQR.

The restmasses for the elementary particles can now be constructed, using the basic nucleonic restmass (m_c=9.9247245x10^-28 kg*=(Squareroot of [Omega]xm_P) and setting (m_c) as the basic maximum (UP/DOWN-K-mass=mass(KERNEL CORE)=3xmass(KKK)=3x319.62 MeV*=958.857 MeV*);
Subtracting the (Ring VPE 3xL(+)=19.215 MeV*, one gets the basic nucleonic K-state for the atomic nucleus (made from protons and neutrons) in: {m(n⁰;p⁺)=939.642 MeV*}.

The HB discussed in the New Scientist post below is said of having been measured in the decay of W's, Z's and Tau Leptons, as well as the bottom- and top-quark systems described in the table and the text above.

Now in the table I write about the KIR-OR transitions and such. The K means core for kernel and the IR means InnerRing and the OR mean OuterRing. The Rings are all to do with Leptons and the Kernels with Quarks.

So the Tau-decay relates to 'Rings' which are charmed and strange and bottomised and topped, say. They are higher energy manifestations of the basic nucleons of the proton and the neutrons and basic mesons and hyperons.

As I have shown, the energy resonances of the Z-boson (uncharged) represents an 'average' or statistical mean value of the 'Top-Quark' and the Upper-Limit for the Higgs Boson is a similar 'Super-Quark' 'average' and as the weak interaction unification energy.

The hitherto postulated Higgs Boson mass of so 110 GeV is the Omicron-resonance, fully predicted from the table above (unique to Quantum Relativity).
Now the most fundamental way to generate the Higgs Boson as a 'weak interaction' gauge is through the coupling of two equal mass, but oppositely charged W-bosons (of whom the Z^o is the uncharged counterpart).

We have seen, that the W-mass is a summation of all the other quark-masses as kernel-means from the strangeness upwards to the truth-quark level.
So simply doubling the 80.47 GeV mass of the weak-interaction gauge boson must represent the basic form of the Higgs Boson and that is 160.9 GeV.

Simplicity indeed and just the way Quantum Relativity describes the creation of the Higgs Boson from even more fundamental templates of the so called 'gauges'. The Higgs Boson is massless but consists of two classical electron rings and a massless doubled neutrino kernel, and then emerges in the magnetocharge induction AS mass carrying gauges.

This massless neutrino kernel now crystallises our atomic solar system.

Next we interpret this scalar (or sterile) Double-Higgs (anti)neutrino as a majoron and lose the distinction between antineutrino and neutrino eigenstates.

We can only do this in the case of the Z^o decay pattern, which engage the boson spin of the Z^o as a superposition of two antineutrinos for the matter case and the superposition of two neutrinos in the antimatter case from first principles.

So the Z^o IS a Majorana particle, which merges the templates of two antineutrinos say and SPININDUCES the Higgs-Antineutrino.
And where does this occur? It occurs at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring Boundary previously determined at the 2.776x10^-18 meter marker.
This marker so specifies the Z^o Boson energy level explicitely as an upper boundary relative to the displacement scale set for the kernel at the wormhole radius r_w=l_w/2π and the classical electron radius as the limit for the nuclear interaction scale at 3 fermis in: R_comptonxAlpha.

So the particle masses of the standard model in QED and QCD become Compton-Masses, which are HIGGS-MASSINDUCED at the Mesonic-Inner-Ring (MIR) marker at R_MIR=2.776x10^-18 meters.

The Compton masses are directly obtained from E=hf=mc²=hc/λ and say as characteristic particle energies.
At the Leptonic-Outer-Ring or LOR; λ_LOR=2πR_e and at the MIR λ_MIR=2πR_MIR for characteristic energies of 71.38 GeV and 71.33 MeV respectively.

So we know that the Higgs-Mass-Induction occurs at those energy levels from the elementary template and as experimentally verified in terms of the neutrino masses by Super-Kamiokande in 1998.
The LOR-energy of course indicates the Muon mass as a 'heavy electron' and the MIR-energy indicates the associated 'heavy quark' mass.

This has been described before in the general mass induction scales for the diquarks as consequence from the bosonic bifurcation of string masses (XL-Boson string splits into quark- and lepton fermions as fundamental supersymmetry and the magnification of the Planck-scale).
We also know, that the elementary proto-nucleon seed m_c has grown in a factor of Yⁿ~(1.618034)ⁿ~1.72 for a present n=1.1324..to create the present nucleonmasses in a perturbation of its finestructure.
Subsequently, the MIR-energy of 71.38 GeV represents a Z^o-Boson seed, which has similarly increased between a factor of √(Yⁿ)~1.313 and Yⁿ~1.724.

These values so give present boundary conditions for the Higgs Boson in terms of its Z^o coupling as the interval {93.73-123.09} GeV* or {93.50-122.79} GeV. The latter interval reduces by 1.58% to {92.02-120.85} GeV, as we have used the 'effective electron mass' m_e, differing in that percentage from the bare electron's restmass in our calculations.
The lower bounded HB so manifests in the form of the Z^o and as the majorana Higgs-Induction and coupled to the Spin-Induction of the Scalar Higgs Antineutrino.
As described previously; the Z^o-Boson mass is the mean of the top-quark K-Mean as 91.380 GeV* = 91.155 GeV and so relates the quark energy levels to the Higgs inductions for both spin and inertia. This occurs at the down-strange ds-diquark level of the cosmogenesis.

The W-Boson masses are the summation of the quark K-Means and represents the summation of all lower diquark energy levels from doubleup to doubledown.
As the down-strange or MIR-LOR energy level is coupled as a Kernel-MIR level in the bottom-antibottom mesonic diquark system, the energy difference between the Z^o- and the W-bosons should amount to that b-quark energy of about 10 GeV and which indeed is experimentally verified as such.
Finally the doublestrange diquark level then becomes the well known Fermi-Energy of the Superquark K-Mean at 298.453 GeV*=297.717 GeV and which reduces to 293.013 GeV in the 1.58% in the SI mensuration system for an Fermi energy of 1.165x10^-5 1/GeV².

Quantum Relativity then stipulates, that the Higgs-Mass-Induction energies will assume particular energy value related to the diquark mass induction table of the K-Means, coupled to the weakon masses as indicated.
The overarching energy level is however that at 92 GeV as the lower bound and as represented in the definition of the Z^o-Boson as a Majorana Spininduced scalar Higgs boson. The upper bound is the Fermi energy of the Super-Diquark as a doublestrange.
This 92 GeV level represents a seedling energy of 71.38 GeV from the primordial universe and when the XL-Boson aka the heterotic string class HO(32) decayed into a fermionic quark-lepton bifurcation and which today is represented in the diquark eigenstates of the standard model in particle physics through its Unitary Symmetries.

Tony B. - December 28th, 2014 -Queanbeyan, NSW, Australia

Log in or Sign up

The Higgs Boson

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Higgs Boson

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches