I read the first reference that you supplied and found it interesting. My understanding of QFT is very limited so that avenue is not available.
There may be much more evidence than I am aware of regarding the behavior of the Higgs, but I am of the understanding that there are not many of these to observe. Of course, the decay particles can be measured, but in my way of thinking this is a long way removed from proving that a particle has an exact function. A good question is: Are there additional particles waiting discovery with more mass than the current one? Can there be any confidence that this is the end of the story? Being the skeptic that I am, I have little reason to think that there is nothing else lurking in the shadows. Actually, I would bet that there is an entire new family of hidden particles waiting for the right machine. Something must eventually explain dark matter, and that might show up at any time with a bigger device. Who can guess what will be discovered in the future? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joseph S. Barrera III <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA screws up bad. On 4/21/2013 6:15 PM, David Roberson wrote: > It is important that the "Higgs" appears to have the correct spin. This apparently is required to get to the starting gate. Are you aware of any recent measurements of this interaction with other particles which can only occur in this manner? I can point you again to Matt Strassler's blog. Beyond that, it's hard to discuss this matter unless you understand QFT. If you have questions with his line of argument, I can try to clarify. - Joe http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/12/the-spin-of-the-higgs-like-particle/ "A quick note: I’ve had a number of questions from commenters about whether the new Higgs-like particle really has spin 0 (as it must if it is truly a Higgs particle) or whether it might have spin 2. Well, spin 2 (with positive parity) is now strongly disfavored, as a result of new results from the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. CMS has disfavored it at the 98.5-99.9% confidence level (the number depending on assumptions about whether the particle is produced in collisions of gluons or in collisions of a quark and anti-quark) using their data from the particle’s decays to two lepton/anti-lepton pairs. ATLAS has disfavored it at the 95%-99% confidence level (similarly depending on assumptions) using their data from decays of the new particle to a lepton, anti-lepton, neutrino and anti-neutrino. Meanwhile, there is no reason for a spin-2 particle (especially with negative parity) to have the relative decay probabilities that are observed in the data, so the fact that all these probabilities are similar to those of a simple Higgs particle disfavors spin 2 and favors spin 0. And there’s simply no theory of a spin-2 particle (with either parity) that doesn’t have other observable particles rather nearby in mass. No one of these arguments is definitive, but in combination they are pretty convincing. "Meanwhile all the data is consistent with a spin 0 particle with decay probabilities roughly similar to that of a Standard Model Higgs (the simplest type of Higgs particle.) "So let’s stop spending much bandwidth on spin 2: it is disfavored by both ATLAS and CMS — directly by measurement of the particle’s spin, and indirectly via its relative probabilities to decay to various types of particles — and it is disfavored theoretically. The more important measurement is to check whether this apparently spin-0 particle really has positive parity, or whether it has a mix of positive and negative parity."
