If I told you I lost my cellphone somewhere in my house, and we searched 19 out of 20 rooms without finding it, would you say that there's a 95% chance that it never existed?
This isn’t to say the search is over. Quite the contrary, a 95% probability of exclusion still leaves a 5% chance that the Higgs is indeed in the predicted energy ranges and simply hasn’t been observed yet.
Can a physicist explain what mass, energy, space and time "really are", in relation to each other - i.e. our best current metaphors
We have seen many impressive new physics limits set at this conference. But, have we ever truly believed in the models that are being pushed away? Z-prime, CMSSM, split SUSY, to name a few? I myself certainly never believed in these. Take Z-prime. In spite of what you may have heard, this is a completely unmotivated extension of the SM. It solves nothing of its problems and has nothing to do with Naturalness. Same for split SUSY, anathema to Naturalness. CMSSM is the only victim on the list for which I feel sorry, but we can’t give up on SUSY just because this straightjacketed version of it failed.
Another early casualty has been the Large Extra Dimensions scenario. But again, this was hardly a bona fide solution to the hierarchy problem. The mechanism which cuts off the Higgs mass quadratic divergence has not been concretely specified. It’s only because the idea was so original that we ever gave it the benefit of the doubt. Now with LHC limits on the (4+n)-dimensional Planck scale already a factor two above the Tevatron limits, it’s basically gone. The truth is, apart from SUSY, there are only two other motivated scenarios for TeV-scale physics: strong EWSB and Composite Higgs. I mentioned some of the signals expected in these models. Unlike CMSSM, they typically require much higher luminosity to be seen.
« Older Yellowface: A Story In Pictures - A chronicle of ... | "Wash U Photo Captions" back o... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt