Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr. - 2011

Great Pumpkin and Golden Channel Higgs
3 Higgs States consistent with ElectroWeak Gfitter


It is likely that by end (around Halloween) of its 2011 Higgs search run at 7 TeV energy,
the Great Pumpkin will have brought 5/fb of Higgs search data to the LHC.
The Pumpkin Mouth Plot shows that the Electroweak Gfitter best fit, if the Tquark mass is allowed to float,
is for a Higgs state with central value of 141 GeV and upper bound 141+209 = 350 GeV.
The Pumpkin Eye-Nose-Eye Plots are for data (about 2/fb) made public by Halloween 2011:
Green Eye: Higgs -> GammaGamma 1.7/fb CMS analysis for 110-160 GeV Higgs search;
Cyan Nose: Higgs -> ZZ -> 4 lepton 2/fb ATLAS histogram for  160-210 GeV Higgs search; 
Magenta Eye: Higgs -> ZZ -> 4 lepton 2/fb ATLAS histogram for 210-260 GeV Higgs search.

The 3 Higgs mass search ranges correspond to the 3 Higgs states of the 3-state Higgs-Tquark system
of E8 Physics with Higgs related to the Primitive Idempotents of the real Clifford Algebra Cl(8):

The Green Dot   is the low-mass state of a 130 GeV Truth Quark and a 145 GeV Higgs.
That low-mass Higgs is in the 110-160 GeV range where a Higgs is needed for
the Standard Model to work up to the Planck Scale.
The Cyan Dot  is the middle-mass state of  a 174 GeV Truth Quark and a 180 GeV Higgs.
That mid-mass Higgs is in the 160-210 GeV range of the Higgs Triviality Boundary.
The Magenta Dot   is the high-mass state of a 220 GeV Truth Quark and a 240 GeV Higgs.
That high-mass Higgs is in the 210-260 GeV range of the Higgs Vacuum Instability Boundary
which range includes the Higgs VEV.


The Golden Channel Higgs -> ZZ -> 4 lepton 2/fb ATLAS histograms for the Pumpkin Cyan Nose
and Magenta Eye were based on the ATLAS histogram



It was used for the middle and high mass Higgs states because it is expected that with 5/fb of data the Golden Channel might find 3-sigma evidence for Higgs states in the range 190-350 GeV, as shown by Roberto Vega-Morales in "The Higgs "Golden Channel" at 7 TeV" at PHENO 2011: May 10, 2011 where he said: "... Golden Channel: H -> ZZ -> 4l ... Very "clean" channel due to high precision with which e and mu are measured and is fully reconstructible ... Suffers from small cross sections ...
  ...".




As the Golden Channel is expected to be less effective with 5/fb of data in the low 110-160 GeV Higgs mass range,
the Higgs -> GammaGamma 1.7/fb CMS analysis was used for the Pumpkin Green Eye plot. It was based on this plot



which was based on slide 57 of "Higgs Searches at the LHC" (August 2011) by Eilam Gross,
who said in the presentation including that slide, slide 22, and others:
"... H -> GammaGamma ... the most important channel for very low mass Higgs ...
Clean signature: 2 energetic isolated photons -> narrow mass peak
A narrow peak is searched for over a large, smooth background ...



... There is 2.8 sigma with H -> GammaGamma which is reduced to 1.7 sigma with the LEE ...".
I think that the LEE (Look Elsewhere Effect) should not be used in this case (see for example vixra 1107.0048).

Therefore:
I think that 2.8 sigma is the correct value for the 140 GeV peak of the Pumpkin Green Eye plot.
It has Local p-value about 0.002
(Eilam Gross said: "... The local p-value is the probability that the background only will fluctuate up to the observed local significance ... or more ...".).


Tommaso Dorigo in his 22 Aug 2011 blog post "New CMS Limits on Higgs Mass" said:
"... CMS ... combined all their results [not just H -> GammaGamma and the Golden Channel] ...
... the "best fit" of the signal rate provided by the data, as a function of mass ...[I have added color coding and some lines for peaks for the 3 Higgs mass states of E8 Physics]...



... the fluctuation at 140 GeV is less than half as strong as it would be expected to be,
if a 140 GeV Higgs existed. ...".

In my opinion,
the high peak around 120 GeV is based on channels much less reliable in the low mass region
than H -> GammaGamma for which it has only about 1 sigma significance in the Eilam Gross plot shown above,
so the 120 GeV peak is not physically real.

The Best-fit plot seems to me to say about my E8 Physics 3-state Higgs model:

There are 3 peaks that are located roughly where my 3-state Higgs model has its 3 mass states
(therefore look-elsewhere effect corrections should not be applied)
and the 3 peak heights are:
low-mass peak is 55 per cent of what a SM Higgs should be;
mid-mass peak is 20 per cent of what a SM Higgs should be;
high-mass peak is 25 per cent of what a SM Higgs should be.

If you add the strengths of the 3 peaks you get 55 + 20 + 25 = 100 per cent
therefore
since my 3-state Higgs model splits the single SM Higgs into 3 states,
the CMS Best-fit plot supports my 3-state Higgs model.







References:

my web site

vixra 1109.0037 also pdf - ClCl4Cl16
vixra 1108.0027 also pdf - Introduction to E8 Physics - KM phase - 3 Generation Combinatorics
vixra 1107.0044 also html and pdf - EPS HEP 2011
vixra 1107.0048 also pdf - Will LEE Hide the Higgs?
vixra 1108.0031 also pdf - Golden Channel at 2/fb - Shpongle
vixra 1112.0035 - LHC Higgs: 140 or 125 GeV?

vixra 1110.0015