Latest Neutrino Project Hopes To Make Progress Beyond Current Experimental Limits

The lower panel shows the ratio of measured data at Daya Bay (China)  to the theoretical prediction. The spectrum overall shows a 6 percent deficit when compared with the data. But in the 5- 7 MeV range the bump in the spectrum shows up as an excess compared with model predictions.  The total flux of reactor neutrinos detected at Daya Bay has also fallen short of predictions.

Let's cut to the chase: DO neutrinos exist or not?   The inherent problem, based on the results of collective experiments, may be in the question itself.  That is, instead we ought to be asking: Does the neutrino exist as a stable, permanent subatomic particle or identity?  And the answer so far appears to be that it does not. 

To fix ideas, and for reference, two Nobel -winning scientists showed that neutrinos -  which are found in three “flavors,” -  can oscillate from one flavor to another. In other words, they can change identities like a spy on the run, and hence there is no such entity as "the neutrino" - i.e. which is relatively permanent in its properties (namely its flavor).

Logically then, it makes more sense to refer to  "flavor states" than such and such a neutrino. These states are: electron, muon and tau - which are in fact superpositions of mass eigenstates.

Let's review again the basis for these neutrino flavor states. If there are three such states: electron, muon and tau, then there must be three different corresponding neutrino masses which we can call: m1, m2 and m3. Further, the three "flavors" are really different superpositions of the 3 basic neutrino mass states.  Moreover, and to make it more complex, we know that quantum interference between mass states means a neutrino originating in one "flavor" can transmogrify to another over its transit.

Because of the oscillations and quantum interference we need to reckon in a "misalignment" between flavor and the basic neutrino masses. This is done by reference to three independent "mixing angles": Θ ₁₂ , Θ ₂₃  and Θ ₁₃. To a good approximation, oscillation in any one regime is characterized by just one Θ _ij and a corresponding mass difference, defined:

 D m _ij² = [m _j² - m _i²]

As an example, the probability that a muon neutrino of energy E acquires a different flavor after traversing distance L is:

P = sin² Θ ₂₃  sin² (l₂₃)


where l23 is the energy -dependent oscillation length, given by:

4ħ E c /  (D m ₃₂²)

How well do we know the parameters? Atmospheric neutrino observations yield:

 Θ ₂₃  ~ 45 degrees, while D m ₃₂² = 0.0024 eV².

Meanwhile, solar neutrino data yield roughly 33 degrees for Θ₁₂ and  D m ₂₁² = 0.00008 eV². (Note: ħ is the Planck constant of action divided by 2 π)  If then:


D m ₃₁²  =  [D m ₂₁²    +  D m ₃₂² ] = 0.00008 eV² + 0.0024 eV²

We know, D m ₃₁²  =  0.00248

which is close to D m ₃₂²



The experiments reported in Physics Today (May, p. 16) were initiated to track the apparent "disappearance" of electron antineutrinos from nuclear power plants proximate to the Daya Bay reactor.  But the measurements have shown a puzzling divergence between those applicable to  models for antineutrino production in reactors. This has led to the unsavory acceptance of one of two conclusions: 1) the emergence of a new physics superseding the "Standard Model" of particle physics, or 2) there exist major deficiencies in our understanding of nuclear reactor physics.

Hence, the need for more detailed neutrino experiments.  These are now about to commence with the construction of a combined $1 billion experiment funded by the U.S. Dept. of Energy,  CERN and institutions from 30 countries.

One component of the experiment is based at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) at Fermilab, a DOE national laboratory in Batavia, IL. It will fire an intense beam of neutrinos at near light speed (c = 300,000 km/sec) through the Earth's mantle toward detectors at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD. The total time for the trip is estimated at 0.004 s or 4 milliseconds.

Construction began last Friday on the specialized neutrino detectors at the Sanford lab site. These will each be about a mile deep and filled with 70,000 tons of liquid argon.  The construction of the Fermilab, beamline, meanwhile, is scheduled to begin in 2021. Its first neutrino beam will fire in about ten years.

The project, make no mistake, is immense and dwarfs the Daya Bay experiments. More than one thousand physicists from around the world will observe and record the changes the neutrinos undergo  in their 4 millisecond journey from Illinois to South Dakota.  They will be expected to analyze the interactions  that then result when the neutrinos strike the extremely cold liquid and ascertain the extent to which 'flavor states' change in transit.

At the end of the experiments might we expect all neutrino results (e.g. from nuclear reactors, solar flux,  atmospheric) can finally be reconciled?   We can't say for certain yet, but at the least neutrino physicists hope that the divergences between the theoretical model predictions and actual data will be significantly reduced. Certainly below the 6 percent threshold noted at Daya Bay.

Is There Really A "Discrepancy" In The Hubble Constant? Is It Truly A Constant?

According to Dennis Overbye, writing recently in the NY Times "there is a crisis brewing in the cosmos, or perhaps in the community of cosmologists". He adds that some astronomers believe  the universe seems to be expanding too fast.   Further, recent measurements of the distances and velocities of faraway galaxies don’t agree with a hard-won “standard model” of the cosmos that has prevailed for the past two decades. The latest result shows a 9 percent discrepancy in the value of the Hubble constant, which describes how fast the universe is expanding.

First, a bit of background: thanks to astronomer Edwin Hubble cosmology was put on a more secure observational footing on the basis of his "Hubble law". It is encapsulated by the graph shown below:

This relation between distance D  to an extra-galactic object  e.g. quasar, galaxy cluster) and its recessional velocity (v), has since come to be known as Hubble's law and is  expressed:

v = cz = HD

where H is known as the Hubble constant, c is the speed of light and z is the red shift.

This quantity z measures the extent to which spectral lines, say L1 and L2,  are shifted to the red  (longer wavelengths) compared to the normal spectrum, say of an element like hydrogen. The greater this shift the higher the velocity of recession.

The image below illustrates this for two extragalactic objects:



In fact 'H' is more technically the Hubble "scale factor".  The REAL Hubble constant (H o ) is the scale factor (a) divided by the distance in megaparsecs  MPC (km) where 1 parsec = 3.26 light years.

If then currently MPC (km)   =   3.08 x 10  ¹⁹     km/ Mpc  then:

H o =   a / MPC(km)   =  2.26 x 10 ^-18  s ^-1

Then the age of the cosmos can be obtained from:  t o =  1 / H o =

 (1 /   2.26 x 10 ^-18  s ^-1 )   =   4.4 x 10 ¹⁷  s   = 1.3 x 10 ¹⁰  yrs. or 13 billion years in age

The scale factor a, called the "Hubble constant",  is currently a »  70 km/ sec/Mpc. But as I reported last summer, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/06/arriving-at-hubble-constant.html

has since been refined to a = 72.8  km/ sec/Mpc.

Clearly then what we call the Hubble constant depends on the accuracy of a, and this in turn depends on the latest techniques to attain more exact values.  As I noted in the preceding link the newer,  more exact value has been based on refining the universe’s current expansion rate to unprecedented accuracy, reducing the uncertainty to only 2.4 percent.

However, an uncertainty of even just 2.4 percent means we cannot be talking about a real physical constant, but only an approximate factor that determines the proportionality value H in the Hubble law.  This is important to process before continuing.  My point is that the "discrepancy" with the standard model is a separate issue, because the standard model itself is still under scrutiny, although it's gained much more traction with the discovery of the Higgs boson.

This elicits the question of whether this small "mismatch" (Overbye's term)  is truly an indicator of  how well we know the cosmos. According to  Wendy Freedman of the University of Chicago, who has spent most of her career charting the size and growth of the universe:

“If it is real, we will learn new physics,”

Perhaps. But I don't think the 'new physics' will enter until we also are able to incorporate the role of dark energy, which has been identified as the primary agent responsible for the accelerated expansion. Relevant to this we invoke what can be called a cosmological "equation of state" (think of something like the equation of state for an ideal gas, e.g. P = nkT) for the vacuum energy presumed to underlie most theories of  dark energy . This is:

w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1

One advantage is that this equation of state is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. 

In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts. (See, e.g. 'Supernovae, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe', by Saul Perlmutter, in Physics Today, April, 2003, p. 53.) Of course, simple algebra applied to the above also shows that the energy density would have to be negative, e.g. energy density =  - (pressure).

Specifically the term (r + 3p) acts as a source of gravity in general relativity, (where r = energy density).

 Set:  0 = (r + 3p),   then the pressure :

 p =  -r /3   (or  r  = - 3p)

 and if:  p <  (r /3) we have gravity that repels.

To ascertain the proportions of dark matter and dark energy one uses graphs derived from supernova  data with corrected apparent visual magnitude m v , redshift (z),   to give different combinations of  W _dark to W _matter over the range. However, only one of the graph combination bests fits the data. Currently this yields:

Wd_ark = 0.68 and  W_matter = 0.27


As a result,  astronomers have accepted that the universe consists of roughly 5 percent atomic matter by weight, 27 percent dark matter and 68 percent dark energy . The last is what's speeding up the cosmic expansion.

Back to the link above for my earlier post last summer citing a team led by Adam Riess of Johns Hopkins University and the Space Telescope Science Institute, using the Hubble Space Telescope and the giant Keck Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii . They obtained a value with  only 2.4 percent uncertainty - but as I pointed out-   this is still nowhere near acceptable constant territory. Check any table of physical constants - actual ones, like the Newtonian G, or speed of light c - for comparison.

The claim of Overbye  in his piece is that this "made waves because it meant that, if true, the Hubble constant as observed today was now clearly incompatible with a result of the lower slower value of 67 inferred from data obtained in 2013 by the European Planck spacecraft of relic radiation from the Big Bang."

But how big were these "waves",  really? Those  Planck mission observations revealed the universe when it was only 380,000 years old  and these are considered "the gold standard of cosmology."  But how reliable and trustworthy is this gold standard?  Interestingly, whether the standard cosmic recipe might now need to be modified  depends on whom you talk to.

Personally, I side with the higher  H values because I place more confidence in the supernova data and observations, redshifts derived therefrom, than the Big Bang Plank observations. Heresy? Maybe, but there it is. Also, Prof.  Riess has admitted that the Planck mission measured the Hubble constant only indirectly as one of several parameters, i.e. in the standard model of the universe. So why would you place more faith in those measures than the supernovae data?

Bolstering this POV, another group called H0LiCOW (short for H0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL’s Wellspring),  from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, reported its own value of 72 km/ sec/Mpc , also inconsistent with the lower value from the Planck space mission’s analysis.  This interjects the question of whether the "Big Bang' results might themselves be spurious and based on as yet undetected systematic or other errors. Or, perhaps the Standard Model itself needs revision. (See addendum).

Stay tuned, because the issue isn't resolved yet, but for my money, the high z supernova data hold the key. Until I see much more consistency in the results from the "Big Bang"- Standard model teams.
--------------------------------------
Addendum on the Standard Model- Higgs boson discovery:

The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above denotes a specific matrix, or more exactly a group. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/looking-at-groups.html

In the case of SU(2) we describe it as the "special unitary group" which has the form:

S =

(a.........-b*)
(b..........a*)

where a*, b* are complex conjugates and we have (aa* + b*b) = 1. Thus the elements of SU(2) are the unitary 2 x 2 matrices with DET (determinant) = 1. These groups thus define the behavior of a specific class of subatomic particles. Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks:

 SU(2) x U(1)

associated with the electro-weak force.

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism, and it demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

Enter now the putative discovery of the Higgs, thanks to the large hadron collider, which  was announced at CERN. Dr. Rolf Heuer, director general of CERN, while referring to the new discovery as "a historic milestone"  nevertheless cautioned that it was too soon to know for sure if the new particle (coming in at 125 billion electron volts) is actually the long sought particle.

The problem? The culmination of analyses of over 800 trillion proton-proton collisions over the 2 years leading up to the announcement generated a quandary. When buttonholed,  the physicists admitted they  actually knew little. The CERN results were mostly based on measurements of two or three of the dozen different ways, or “channels,” by which a Higgs boson could be produced and then decay. Worse, there were hints that some of the channels were overproducing the Higgs while others might have been underproducing. In either case, false positives or false negatives, one had to look askance at the initial results.

The upshot? There may not have been a real Higgs discovered but a spurious 'mirage' imitating some of its properties but more a confection of the data than based in reality. Also, assuming a genuine signal or find, it may not have been unique but only ONE of two or three different Higgs bosons. Much like the case of the neutrino, which was once believed to be one entity only, but we now know is THREE: the electron neutrino, the tau neutrino and the muon neutrino, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/solving-neutrino-puzzleand-matter.html

Whither All The Missing Neutrinos?

One of six neutrino detectors at Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment in China.

How is it  that a species of neutrino can be missing en route from a source to a detector? One explanation that had arrived compliments of two Nobel -winning scientists showed that neutrinos, which are found in three “flavors,” could oscillate from one flavor to another — changing identities like a spy on the run.  These flavor states: electron, muon and tau were in fact superpositions of mass eigenstates. Hence, one explanation is that if a detector wasn't sensitive to all three flavors then the "in flight" transformation of one neutrino flavor to another could mimic a neutrino deficit. In other words, the missing neutrinos amounted to an artifact of the measurements.

Let's review again these neutrino flavors for good measure. If there are three flavors: electron, muon and tau, then there must be three different corresponding neutrino masses which we can call: m1, m2 and m3.Further, the three "flavors" are really different superpositions of the 3 basic neutrino mass states.  Moreover, and to make it more complex, we know that quantum interference between mass states means a neutrino originating in one "flavor" can transmogrify to another over its transit.

Because of the oscillations and quantum interference we need to reckon in a "misalignment" between flavor and the basic neutrino masses. This is done by reference to three independent "mixing angles": Θ_12 , Θ_23  and Θ_13. To a good approximation, oscillation in any one regime is characterized by just one Θ_ij and a corresponding mass difference, defined:

 D m _ij² = [m _j² - m _i²]

As an example, the probability that a muon neutrino of energy E acquires a different flavor after traversing distance L is:

P = sin² Θ ₂₃  sin² (l₂₃)


where l23 is the energy -dependent oscillation length, given by:

4ħ E c /  (D m ₃₂²)

How well do we know the parameters? Atmospheric neutrino observations yield:

 Θ ₂₃  ~ 45 degrees, while D m ₃₂² = 0.0024 eV². Meanwhile, solar neutrino data yield roughly 33 degrees for Θ₁₂ and  D m ₂₁² = 0.00008 eV². (Note: ħ is the Planck constant of action divided by 2 π)  If then:


D m ₃₁²  =  [D m ₂₁²    +  D m ₃₂² ] = 0.00008 eV² + 0.0024 eV²

We know, D m ₃₁²  =  0.00248

which is close to D m ₃₂²

Earlier this decade, three experiments were initiated to track the apparent "disappearance" of electron antineutrinos from nearby nuclear power plants. The experiments are the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment in China. the Reactor Experiment for Neutrino Oscillation in South Korea, and Double Chooze in France. All three have shown that the mixing angle Θ_13 is nonzero. (Though smaller than Θ_12 and  Θ_23 )

These results, as reported in Physics Today (May, p. 16) raised hopes that the solution to the problem of matter's preponderance over antimatter in the universe could reside in neutrino physics.

It should be added here that since the nonzero finding for Θ_13 in 2012, Daya Bay has been constantly improving its measurement of Θ_13   to reach ever greater precision. The upshot has been a puzzling divergence between the measurements and models for antineutrino production in reactors. This has led to the unsavory acceptance of one of two conclusions: 1) the emergence of a new physics superseding the "Standard Model" of particle physics, or 2) there exist major deficiencies in our understanding of nuclear reactor physics.

What then are these deviations, these divergences? One is that the total flux of reactor neutrinos detected at Daya Bay has fallen short of predictions. The other is that the shape of the antineutrino spectrum doesn't match that for the theoretical models, e.g.

The lower panel shows the ratio of measured data to the theoretical prediction. The spectrum overall shows a 6 percent deficit when compared with the data. But in the 5- 7 MeV range the bump in the spectrum shows up as an excess compared with model predictions.


The new calculations took into account thousands od beta decay branches involved in reactor neutrino production. At the end of the day, so to speak Daya Bay's 6 detectors monitored electron neutrinos emitted by six reactors at distances from 300m to 2 km. Over a 217 day detection period the six detectors counted 6 % fewer electron neutrinos than the new models predict.  This deficit is in line with earlier flux measurements from the 1980 and 1990s which actually led some researchers to speculate that the discrepancy might be accounted for a 4th entity: the "sterile neutrino".

The deviation of the antineutrino spectrum also begs the question of the underlying cause. Moreover, despite the overall deficit, the Daya Bay measurements found an excess of antineutrinos between 5 MeV and 7 MeV. (1 MeV = 10 ⁶ (1.6 x 10^-19 J)  =   1.6 x 10^-13 J)

Physicist Chao Zhang at Brookhaven National Laboratory suspects the shape discrepancy in the spectrum again interjects arguments for the sterile neutrino. Quoted in Physics Today, he says:

"If the theory didn't predict the spectral shape correctly should we trust its total flux prediction?"

He has a valid point, so perhaps indeed the deficit in the flux by 6 percent, consonant with earlier flux deficits, shows there is such a thing as a sterile neutrino.

The final conclusion will likely have to await further Daya Bay measurements of the mixing angle (Θ_13  ) as well as for the antineutrino flux and spectrum.  In the meantime the "sterile neutrino" hypothesis will be kept on the backburner until new evidence either confirms it or renders it redundant.

These Two Researchers Deserve Physics Nobel Prize for Work on Neutrinos

The news that the Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Takaaki Kajita in Japan and Arthur B. McDonald of Canada would probably not have come as a surprise to those involved in neutrino physics.  For those unaware, neutrinos are the second most abundant subatomic particles in the universe, after photons, which carry light. Their existence was predicted in 1930, but for decades they remained some of the most enigmatic elements of astrophysics.

The neutrino carries no electric charge and was assumed for many years to have no mass. But the two Nobel -winning scientists showed that neutrinos, which are found in three “flavors,” could oscillate from one flavor to another — changing identities like a spy on the run, as they traveled through the atmosphere or through space from the Sun — demonstrating that they have mass.

Dr. Kajita was part of a team of researchers who in 1998 discovered that neutrinos from the atmosphere switched between two identities on their way to the Super-Kamiokande detector, nearly two-thirds of a mile below the earth’s surface.  In 1999, Dr. McDonald announced that neutrinos from the Sun were not disappearing, but merely changing disguises, on their way to the Earth. He and his colleagues had captured the neutrinos using a uniquely sensitive new detector 6,800 feet below ground, at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, which is part of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.

This is extremely important because neutrino counts factor directly in testing our nuclear fusion models for the Sun. If then neutrino were really "missing in action" or absent from the reactions, our fusion models would have to be scrapped. McDonald's research - as well as Kajita's- showed major model revisions were not needed.

What's the basis of all this?

Contrary to the old notion that there was only one type ("flavor") of neutrino, we now know there are three: electron, muon and tau neutrinos. In effect, there must be three different corresponding neutrino masses which we can call: m1, m2 and m3.

Second we now know that the three "flavors" are really different superpositions of the 3 basic neutrino mass states.  Moreover, and to make it more complex, we know that quantum interference between mass states means a neutrino originating in one "flavor" can transmogrify to another over its transit. (Accounting for Kajita's "changing identities" and McDonald's appeal to "changing disguises".)  Experimental confirmation of this (and over large distances) arrived from MeV neutrinos from the Sun and muon neutrinos from the high atmosphere.

Because of the oscillations and quantum interference we need to reckon in a "misalignment" between flavor and the basic neutrino masses. This is done by reference to three independent "mixing angles": Θ_12 , Θ_23  and Θ_13. To a good approximation, oscillation in any one regime is characterized by just one Θ_ij and a corresponding mass difference, defined:

 D m _ij² = [m _j² - m _i²]

As an example, the probability that a muon neutrino of energy E acquires a different flavor after traversing distance L is:

P = sin² Θ ₂₃  sin² (l₂₃)

where l23 is the energy -dependent oscillation length, given by:

4ħ E c /  (D m ₃₂²)

How well do we know the parameters? Atmospheric neutrino observations yield Θ ₂₃  ~ 45 degrees, while D m ₃₂² = 0.0024 eV². Meanwhile, solar neutrino data yield roughly 33 degrees for Θ₁₂ and
 D m ₂₁² = 0.00008 eV². (Note: ħ is the Planck constant of action divided by 2 π)  If then:

 D m ₃₁²  =  [D m ₂₁²    +  D m ₃₂² ] = 0.00008 eV² + 0.0024 eV²

We know, D m ₃₁²  =  0.00248

which is close to D m ₃₂²
 

Hence, the capacity for the neutrino to alter its identity. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the prize, said in a statement.
 

“The discovery has changed our understanding of the innermost workings of matter and can prove crucial to our view of the universe,”

Which is putting it mildly!

The Sun, let's be clear, isn't the only generator of neutrinos. The universe is deluged with neutrinos that are left over from the Big Bang, and many more are created in nuclear reactions on Earth.

Once thought to travel at the speed of light, they are able to pass through the Earth and our own bodies like moonlight through a window. Knowing that they can change identities — and that they have mass — has helped cosmologists understand how the universe has evolved and how the Sun works. The very first reaction of the proton-proton cycle can be written, for example:

                                                                                                                       

¹H + ¹H + e^- ®  ² H   + n + 1.44 MeV

Where n  denotes the neutrino given off.

Knowledge such as this applied to the Sun's fusion reactions may help us to create fusion reactors on Earth.

Michael S. Turner, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that the Standard Model, a suite of equations that has dominated physics for the last half-century, was not complete. The reason is that it requires neutrinos to be massless, while the newer observations have clearly shown neutrinos possess mass. Hence,  the Standard Model cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe Turner also suggested that neutrinos left over from the Big Bang might make up part of the dark matter that dominates the universe.

Turner, clearly excited by the Nobel Physics Prize, wrote in an email:

“Neutrinos contribute about as much to the mass budget of the universe as do stars!”

Which is something seriously mind-boggling to consider.

'God Particle' Theorists Get Nobel Prize in Physics - But Pieces of Higgs Puzzle May Still Be Missing

The announcement yesterday of the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics created quite a media storm. Half a century after he formulated the theory that would change the world, Peter Higgs,  84, of Edinborough University, shared the 8 million Swedish kronor (£775,000) prize with François Englert at the Free University of Brussels.

The pair received the prize for showing how fundamental particles get their masses. Before the theory, the answer to this basic question was unknown After all, they had postulated the existence of the "God Particle" - otherwise known as the Higgs boson. It can be thought as the "glue" which holds particles of mass together.


In the parlance of The Royal Swedish Academy, the prize was awarded  for "the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the Atlas and CMS experiments at Cern's Large Hadron Collider."

What is the background here? It basically began when the two theorists produced a series of papers in 1964 that described how an invisible field that lurks in the vacuum of space interacts with elementary particles and gives some of them mass.  Now, this was still before Arno Penzias and  Robert Wilson's detection of the 2.7 K isotropic radiation subsequently traced to the "Big Bang". And hence, before the cohering process that resulted in what's been called the Standard Model.

Elaborating a bit: this so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above denotes a specific matrix, or more exactly a group. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/looking-at-groups.html

In the case of SU(2) we describe it as the "special unitary group" which has the form:

S =

(a.........-b*)
(b..........a*)

where a*, b* are complex conjugates and we have (aa* + b*b) = 1. Thus the elements of SU(2) are the unitary 2 x 2 matrices with DET (determinant) = 1. These groups thus define the behavior of a specific class of subatomic particles. Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks:

 SU(2) x U(1)

associated with the electro-weak force.

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism, and it demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

Last year, theory evidently transmuted into reality when the discovery (thanks to the large hadron collider)  was announced at CERN. As I noted (in a July 4 blog post), Dr. Rolf Heuer, director general of CERN, while referring to the new discovery as "a historic milestone"  nevertheless cautioned that it was too soon to know for sure if the new particle (coming in at 125 billion electron volts) is actually the long sought particle. (Also, was it a unique Higgs, or just one of several?)

The problem? The culmination of analyses of over 800 trillion proton-proton collisions over the 2 years leading up to the announcement generated a quandary. When buttonholed,  the physicists admitted they  actually knew little. The CERN results were mostly based on measurements of two or three of the dozen different ways, or “channels,” by which a Higgs boson could be produced and then decay. Worse, there were hints that some of the channels were overproducing the Higgs while others might have been underproducing. In either case, false positives or false negatives, one had to look askance at the initial results.

The upshot? There may not have been a real Higgs discovered but a spurious 'mirage' imitating some of its properties but more a confection of the data than based in reality. Also, assuming a genuine signal or find, it may not have been unique but only ONE of two or three different Higgs bosons. Much like the case of the neutrino, which was once believed to be one entity only, but we now know is THREE: the electron neutrino, the tau neutrino and the muon neutrino, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/solving-neutrino-puzzleand-matter.html


By March 15 of this year the issue appeared settled, to the extent that at least that ONE Higgs had indeed been  found,  when CERN's brain trust stopped dithering and announced that the particle described in July 2012 was, in fact, a Higgs Boson. Spokesman Joe Incandela said in a statement issued March 15 :

“The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is,”

 To make this final determination, the dataset was analyzed to see if the quantum properties of the boson discovered in July matched the properties that are currently predicted by physics. After tests in two different detectors, it was confirmed that the particle possessed those properties

Ben Allanach, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University, said:

"This is the recognition of a triumph for fundamental physics that will stay in the history books for millennia to come. I am thrilled about the prize, and Englert and Higgs both deserve it well. I cannot over-stress the importance of the discovery. The mass mechanism that the Higgs boson is a signal for has had a huge impact on particle physics over the last 50 years. I think many of us felt that it had to be correct, although we were willing to let data dissuade us."

Maybe. But it would still be nice to finally also settle the issue of whether the putative discovery is unique, or if other Higgs bosons may be lurking in the vacuum. To that end further experiments using an upgraded Large Hadron Collider may be called for. Unfortunately,  the LHC is  currently closed down for repairs. But the team is working on making it faster and more powerful. By then, the final questions may be settled at last and we can then know the extent to which the Standard Model needs to be revised.

Let's Not Jump the Gun with the Higgs!

CERN physicists in a webcast tried to share their excitement with colleagues around the world, on their putative discovery of the Higgs. Well, can you blame them for being somewhat impatient? We're talking about a search lasting decades that's likely been one of the costliest in the history of science. We're talking of a location with its Large Hadron Collider, that was set up as THE place to dig out the Higgs boson - especially after the Superconducting Supercollider in the U.S. fell through due to lack of funding. One of the sorriest retrenchments in our history, followed by the retreat from space (and please don't get me going on the so-called "private sector" space exploits!)

Anyway, Dr. Rolf Heuer, director general of CERN, while referring to the new discovery as "a historic milestone" was nevertheless cautious in asserting that it's too soon to know for sure if the new particle (coming in at 125 billion electron volts) is actually the long sought particle. I totally agree and would suggest hypers, humpers and pumpers pipe down until further analyses are made. To be blunt, it's way too soon to be saying definitiely that THE Higgs has been found. (People may still recall how too many jumped the gun last year on the discovery of "superluminal neutrinos")

To fix ideas here, the subatomic particles are basically classified into two groups according to their "spin" - see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-quantum-mechanics-electron-spin.html

as either FERMIONS (example: the electron) or BOSONS. The Fermions are called so because they obey Fermi- Dirac statistics, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics

while the BOSONS (for example the photon, and Higgs boson) obey Bose-Einstein statistics: E.g.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics

Thus, these "statistics" are critical in basically determining, or rather predicting, the extent of occupancy of the particular species of particle with reference to the energy state of the particle.

The existence of the Higgs itself is tied to the so-called "Standard Model", according to which the Higgs is the only visible (and accessible) manifestation of an invisible field called the "Higgs field".   The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry: SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the factors defines a matrix. (Readers can review any of the past blogs on matrices, including unitary or posed as groups. See, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/05/looking-at-matrix-groups.html. )Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.:

SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks

SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism. It demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

The problem? The culmination of analyses of over 800 trillion proton-proton collisions over the past 2 years have generated a quandary. When the physicists are buttonholed they admit they know little. The CERN results are mostly based on measurements of two or three of the dozen different ways, or “channels,” by which a Higgs boson could be produced and then decay. Worse, there are hints that some of the channels are overproducing the Higgs while others might be underproducing.

The upshot? There may not be ONE Higgs here, but two or three. Much like the case of the neutrino, which was once believed to be one entity only, but we now know is THREE: the electron neutrino, the tau neutrino and the muon neutrino, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/solving-neutrino-puzzleand-matter.html

All we can say now is stay tuned!