Letters : Hope for Higgs
I would argue even more strongly that the precision data does not support
the standard model prediction of the mass of the Higgs boson, based on my recent
analysis of the data (Physics Review Letters, vol 87, p 23802).
The standard model may well be “dead” but the Higgs boson can survive,
accompanied by other鈥攁s yet unknown鈥攏ew physics. Until the nature of
this new physics is known, we cannot predict the mass of the Higgs boson.
The good news, as your editorial
on 8 December
suggests, is that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is sure to uncover the workings
of the Higgs mechanism, be it a Higgs boson or a more complex set of Higgs
“surrogates”.
Letters : . . . . .
Princeton, New Jersey
Unfortunately, your article on the search for the Higgs boson combined two
rather different questions and may have created confusion as a result
(8 December, p 4).
One question is whether the Higgs boson exists; the answer is almost
certainly yes. The detailed tests of the standard model of particle physics that
have taken place at the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) and elsewhere
give us confidence in its existence.
The second question is whether the Higgs boson was within reach of the LEP
accelerator at CERN or if it needs the higher energy of future accelerators,
such as Fermilab’s Tevatron II and the LHC project at CERN. This will not be
clear until we have the data from future experiments.
There is a very good chance that the next generation of accelerator
experiments will uncover not just a Higgs boson but much more, possibly a new
“supersymmetric” structure of space-time. Numerous hints from experiment and
theory point in this direction.
Letters : . . . . .
Your recent news item concerning the Higgs boson is misleading and even
harmful. You quote two physicists based in the US who say that LEP has excluded
most of the mass range allowed for the Higgs boson, and you say that it
“probably does not exist”. I strongly disagree with both these assertions, as
would most physicists who have thought deeply about these issues.
The striking agreement between measurements at LEP, and other accelerators,
and the standard model of particle physics is only possible if the Higgs boson
(or something equivalent) does exist. Those measurements suggest strongly that
the particle weighs less than about 200 gigaelectronvolts (GeV). Direct searches
for the Higgs boson at LEP tell us that it must weigh more than about 114 GeV,
leaving plenty of space for it to exist, including the range of masses favoured
in many extensions of the standard model, such as supersymmetry. The LHC will be
able to discover many sorts of new particles weighing less than about 1000 GeV,
including the Higgs boson and supersymmetric particles.
You quote John Swain as being prepared to bet large amounts of money that the
Higgs boson will not be found: many of us particle physicists are each prepared
to bet 拢100 against him. Let us see how much money he is prepared to put
where his mouth is!
Letters : . . .and here too
Stockholm
Your feature on GPS, floating messages and the CoolTown project isn’t so far
from reality
(1 December, p 38).
Here in Stockholm I was recently out with
friends, looking for a restaurant in a part of town we didn’t know. We couldn’t
find one anywhere, so a friend reached for his cellphone and said: “I can look
it up. This is a WAP phone, and it has GPS.” He went onto the Internet, we were
pinpointed in space by the GPS and sent a list of restaurants in the
neighbourhood.
Pretty close to CoolTown, don’t you think?
Letters : Tragic trails
Penzance, Cornwall
Following the discussion on wake turbulence
(24 November, p 13) and my many
years’ flying, it occurred to me that one way to study wake vortices outside the
wind tunnel would be to equip at least some large planes with dispensers that
pump out coloured vapour along the trailing edge of the wings. This would show
up the persistence of the air vortex during take-off and landing. It could be
filmed and tied in with meteorological analysis.
As an extra advantage, following aircraft could spot these coloured trails
and avoid them. Over time, as a wealth of experience built up, the trial could
be stopped. Admittedly, clouds of coloured vapour probably wouldn’t please the
unfortunates living under flight paths.
Letters : Sign language
Northampton
Not so much a case of semiopathy, as pedantry, perhaps鈥攂ut I still
applaud my colleague John Gulliver for his recent stand in support of accurate
signs at a supermarket in Northampton.
A sign on the machine in the supermarket car park said he was eligible for a
refund on the 50-pence parking charge if he bought goods from the supermarket.
“Maximum purchase 拢1”, the sign told him. So he dutifully went in and
bought a packet of crisps and a Mars bar鈥攖otal value 97 pence鈥攁nd
went up to the checkout to pay and claim his refund.
The young woman at the checkout refused to refund him on the grounds that
he’d spent less than 拢1, and would not accept John’s interpretation of the
sign in the car park. After some discussion, during which a lengthy and
interested queue built up, the manager was called. He, too, refused to accept
John’s story. A short bout of “yes it does”, “no it doesn’t” ensued until the
manager, reluctantly, agreed to accompany John back to the car park to view the
sign.
There, confronted with the evidence, though clearly not impressed and
grumbling that no one else had ever interpreted maximum to
mean鈥攚ell鈥攎aximum, he eventually gave in, reached into his pocket
and refunded John’s 50p. But the car-park attendant, who had overheard the
discussion, had the last word. “You’re lucky to find anything in there less than
拢1, at the prices they charge.”
Letters : Not so versatile mousse
Cardiff
You commented on the 60+ uses of Johnson & Johnson’s shower mousse
(Feedback, 1 December).
That refers to the number of washes, not the number of
different uses it can be put to.
Letters : . . . . .
Edgware, Middlesex
It seems to me that the concept of a “Higgs boson” bears all the hallmarks of
being a prime example of that common fudge well known to classical dramatists as
the deus ex machina, otherwise known as the Variable Scientific Constant (sic).
Its other name, the “God particle”, is not entirely inappropriate.
Letters : The future is here. . .
Oslo
Barry Fox reports on a technology that would let you “use your mobile to name
any song in three seconds flat”
(1 December, p 22).
Such a service already exists at www.mobiquid.com. The way it works is a lot
simpler. It is connected to a range of radio stations via the Web. When you call
up the access number, it compares the incoming audio stream to the various
stations’ playback to work out what station you’re tuned in to. Then it fetches
the current song name from the station’s playlist and sends it to your
mobile.
It has just opened here in Norway as well鈥攃ombined with an mCommerce
platform that gives you the option of buying the CD.
Letters : . . . . .
It is well known that the mass of the Higgs could be more than twice the
experimental limit, and that there is still a considerable “window” even for a
supersymmetric Higgs. The fact that some data were reanalysed with a slightly
more negative conclusion has not changed the view of most theorists that I
know.
Concerning the supposedly “most likely” values of the Higgs mass, which
indeed have been experimentally excluded, this calculation is done on the
assumption of no new physics apart from the Higgs. Even if you accept this
assumption it is nowhere near ruling out the particle. It’s as if you looked for
your keys in three out of four rooms in a house, and then concluded they would
never be found.
It may be that experimentalists are getting worried that they will “never
find the Higgs”, but a closer look at the background of this claim, and a few
more interviews in order to get other views on the subject, would have shown
that hopes of the Higgs are still high, and justifiably so.
Concerning the Brookhaven measurement of the magnetic moment of the muon,
your reporter was unaware that a theoretical analysis of a particular
contribution was recently found to have had a sign error
(see www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112102).
When you correct this error it puts the measurement back within
the standard model range and is consistent with other recent analyses. Even if
the discrepancy had persisted, it would have been a sign of new physics, not of
a breakdown in the standard model, and the question of the Higgs boson would not
have been affected.
Letters : . . . . .
If ever there was a castle built on air, it is your article on the
“non-existence” of the Higgs. The “disagreement” between the Higgs mass inferred
from electroweak measurements and the experimental limit is less than one
standard deviation鈥攂y definition, such discrepancies are commonplace, and
hence of little significance. Had you shown the scale on the probability curve,
statistically literate readers could have seen this for themselves.
It would be valid to say that this data favours a low mass for the Higgs, but
to infer it doesn’t exist is, to say the least, premature.