The new 125 GeV particle

In the most complex and impressive experiment ever conducted, 2 LHC collaborations found a new particle near 125 GeV. The main signature of this particle is its disintegration into two photons. The new particle was observed about 400 times out of 1,000,000,000,000,000 collision events (each collaboration has found about 200 events above a background of about 3000 events).

I wish to do the following in this post:
* Suggest what was found in the LHC
* Make a short analysis of the new particle alternatives
* Suggest a decisive test
* Compare the two alternatives – which one is more plausible?

The missing meson
We all know that several known particles were not observed yet and one of them is the Top-Anti-Top meson (tt). Creating two top quarks in one collision event requires a lot of energy and the probability of creating them is very small. Indeed, previous experiments showed that the top quark tends to decay by the weak interaction and that its mean lifetime is nearly 10-25 seconds. This short half life time reduces the probability that a tt pair will make the bound system of a meson. However, this probability is not zero and such a meson can be created and be detected.

Let’s see why the tt meson is the natural candidate for the new 125 GeV particle.

Finding the difference
A tt meson belongs to a group of composite particles which contains an elementary spin-1/2 fermion and its anti-fermion. We know a lot about other particles in this family, like the positronium, π0 and others. Therefore, we can predict many of the tt system properties. In order to distinguish between tt and the Higgs we should look for a property which can differentiate between them. Measuring such a property can tell us whether we found the God Particle or an innocent tt meson.

Electric charge
The electric charge of the tt and the Higgs are both zero. Therefore, their electric charge cannot distinguish between the two.

A tt system has several angular momentum (spin) possibilities. It may be zero (e.g.: in its ground state) or non-zero. The mass difference between the ground state and other states of a meson that contain heavy quarks, is very small (here), so we can assume that around 125 GeV we will find a mixture of several states of tt with different spins.

However, a disintegration into two photons holds for a spin-zero state of the tt system. This is also the spin of the Higgs boson. Therefore, measuring the spin is not an effective method for differentiating between the two candidates.

Decay channels
tt decay modes can be deduced from other quark-antiquark pairs, like π0. There are additional decay channels which contribute to the quick weak decay of the top quark. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that the following are possible decay modes of the tt:

Photon-Photon. Most of the observed decays of the new 125 GeV particle are photon-photon. A photon-photon decay channel is well known in nature, and we know the following:

– EVERY composite particle which consists of a charged spin-1/2 particle and its anti-particle and has an appropriate spin and parity may decay into photon-photon. For example, for the ground state of the positronium (electron+positron) this is the only decay channel. Regarding π0, this is close to 99% of the π0 decays. The photon-photon decay channel is also seen in the eta and the f0(500) mesons, etc.

– ALL the known particles which decay into a photon-photon pair consist of a charged spin-1/2 particle and its anti-particle.

tt consists of a charged spin-1/2 particle and its anti-particle.

– The Higgs is not.

I want to add a theoretical remark for physicists: like the positronium and the π0, a tt meson is a composite neutral system which is made of charged particles. Its coupling to the electromagnetic fields is thus a self-evident phenomenon. On the other hand, the Higgs boson is an elementary particle. As such, it must be pointlike. Therefore, there is no direct coupling of the chargeless pointlike Higgs boson to the electromagnetic fields. For this reason, one must use a two-step process where the Higgs decays into a charged particle-antiparticle system and this pair disintegrates into two photons in a way which is analogous to that of a composite neutral system like the positronium and the π0.

A decay into Photon + lepton-antilepton, and a decay into 2 lepton-antilepton pairs. The decay to photon+lepton-antilepton exists even in the quite low energy system of the π0 (around 1% of π0s decay into one photon and a pair of electron-positron). An analogous decay should also exist in tt as well. Furthermore, the decay of tt into 2 lepton-antilepton pairs should be significantly less frequent than its decay into one photon+lepton+antilepton.

The photon+lepton+antilepton decay channel is not reported in the LHC experimental Higgs search. Probably because it is not an expected decay channel of the Higgs and therefore scientists didn’t look for such decay mode.

There might be other tt decay channels involving other kinds of weak interactions. Such channels should be explored as well.

A decisive test
From the simple analysis described above, a decisive test for telling which particle was observed near 125 GeV is rather clear. LHC should measure 2 numbers:
A – the number of one photon+lepton-antilepton decay events.
B – the number of 2 pairs of lepton-antilepton decay events.
If A>B then it is not the Higgs. If A<B then it is not tt.

It is possible that the suggested decay mode of photon+lepton-antilepton was not even considered so far. I hope that CERN scientists will look in the near future for this decay channel near 125GeV.

Why it is not the Higgs
The new observed particle certainly walks like tt and quacks like tt: the very small number of observed events is compatible with this heavy meson. The decay of the new particle into two photons strongly suggests that it is a composition of charged spin-1/2 particle-antiparticle, like tt. The very small number of 2 pairs of lepton-antilepton decay is also compatible with the expected tt decay channels.

Furthermore, it cannot be the Higgs, without introducing a new and very complicated mechanism which creates two photons out of a chargeless elementary pointlike particle via an intermediate particle-antiparticle state.

And last but not least – it cannot be the Higgs because the Higgs equations are inconsistent. Anyone who is interested can read 3 proofs showing these flaws in chapter 4 in the following article: Physical Consequences of Mathematical Principles.

The top quark is by far the heaviest quark and therefore a tt bound state belongs to the heaviest meson family. But I’m afraid that tt is not as attractive as the God particle. Let’s hope that the LHC physicists will make the decisive test which I mentioned above. After all, scientists look for the scientific truth. Doing this test obviously will tell us more about the new observed particle, no matter what our expectations are.


31 thoughts on “The new 125 GeV particle

  1. […] 3. Is impossible by quantum theory. In a carefully crafted press release, CERN claimed that zero-spin would confirm the Higgs then found it so but quantum theory clearly states that a spin-zero point particle with mass is impossible (Comay, 2009). All known point particles with mass are spin-half particles and only matter-antimatter mixes like mesons have spin zero. Since not-yet-found higher order mesons have zero-spin, are in that mass range and have the same photon decay and detection frequency, “The Higgs” is more likely a top or anti-top meson. […]

  2. A Reply to Rod Kehler.

    Dear Rod,

    I understand that a crucial point of your idea is the existence of a unit mass which is one half of the electronic mass. You argue that the mass of every particle is a product of this value by an integer. Let us examine the correctness of your idea and use the official data presented here . The electronic mass is

    M_e = 0.5109989 MeV.

    One half of this value is

    M_half = 0.2554995 MeV.

    Now the muon mass is

    M_muon = 105.65837 MeV.


    M_muon/M_half = 105.65837/0.2554995 = 413.536.

    This result is very nearly the maximal error of your idea.

    BTW. I think that the clarity of a textual form of a scientific idea is by far greater than that of a corresponding vocal form. Indeed, unlike a listener, a reader controls the reading’s pace and is able to stop and think about the meaning of the idea.

    Cheers, Eli

    • Dear Eli,

      Thank you for taking the time.

      You are absolutely right about the muon error and the same is true of about 5% the data used but considering that there is always some degree of error in any scientific measurement, it would be unreasonable to expect perfect agreement with all accepted data. In fact it would be unlikely that there should be perfect agreement with any established value, and bare in mind, when we speak of a mass one half that of an electron, we are talking about very tiny particles indeed and the smaller the mass, the greater the effect of any systemic or systematic error present.

      If a fundamental “factor of mass” did exist, all we could expect is a gravitation of the results, of this type of evaluation, toward the integer value and that gravitation should take the exact form demonstrated in the graph, and if and only if, it were a true factor of mass. As demonstrated in the video, even the slightest variation of the factor’s value produces complete randomization of the graph, which is exactly what we would expect of any value that is not a true factor.

      These results are far and away more substantial and more compelling than anything coming out of the LHC.

      If you would like to have a closer look at the data, send me an email and I will send to you the spreadsheet.

      All the best,


      • Dear Rod,

        1. I really wonder about the accuracy of your statements. Testing your idea with the proton mass I see that your error is about 0.3, which is 60% of the maximal error (see ). Adding your muon failure, it can be concluded that two gross errors (out of two tests) indicate that your idea is not very promising.
        2. Physicists use two different kinds of mathematical structures called theories and models. Theories are tested by the accuracy of their relevant predictions and experiments can falsify them. Models are used (or not used) for practical calculations and are tested by their usefulness. (In spite of its name, the Standard Model is an assembly of theories.)
        3. The foregoing two errors indicate that your idea is a model (if it is a theory then it is already falsified and it should be forgotten).
        4. This site is dedicated to the examination of particle physics theories. It means that your idea does not belong to it.
        5. You are not right about the measured accuracy of the muon mass (see your comment below). As a matter of fact the measured error is 0.0000035 MeV. Thus, it is not 0.1% of the muon mass but about 0.000003% of it.

        Cheers, Eli

      • Dear Eli,

        Thank you for your patience and for giving me the benefit of the doubt but I am not sure that you truly grasp the concept or meaning of what I suggest.

        No experimental scientist at the LHC or anywhere else for that matter, would base their conclusions on only three pieces of data. My theory is not verified by individual items or entries in the data list but by the trend observed over the entire data set, which includes not just the individual Physical constants of the electron, proton and neutron but all the atomic masses of all of the element and their isotopes, which are the product of actual experimental measurement but excluding those that are mathematically derived. As with any experimental investigation, it is only when the entire data set are considered, that a trend or conclusion can be derived.

        You seem to have misunderstood my derivation which means that I have not expressed myself succinctly and that is entirely my fault. Let me try to clarify.

        In the case of the muon (from your data);
        M_e = 0.5109989 MeV.
        One half of this value is
        M_half = 0.2554995 MeV.
        Now the muon mass is
        M_muon = 105.65837 MeV.
        M_muon/M_half = 105.65837/0.2554995 = 413.536.
        In this case, according to my theory, the muon is constructed of about 413 Halflecs with 0.536 Halflecs in question.
        M_half = 0.2554995 MeV * 0.536 = 0.136947732 MeV (the mass in question)

        0.136947732 MeV / (M_muon = 105.65837 MeV.) = 0.001296137
        0.001296137 * 100 = 0.129% M muon

        If the Halflec is in fact a factor of mass that would imply that the established muon mass is in error by about 0.129%.

        In the analysis presented in the afore mentioned YouTube, this would put the muon data in the 0.5 column of the graph and as you say at about the maximal error. True and it is part of only about 5% of the data set, a very good agreement for any experiment.

        I must say that I am a little confused about your proton statement. Please allow me to clarify.

        ( per: );

        M_p = 938.272046 MeV / M_half = 0.2554995 MeV = 3672.30534
        According to my theory this means that the proton is constructed of about 3672 Halflecs with 0.30534 of a Halflec in question and places the proton in the 0.3 column of the afore mentioned graph. Moving on,
        0.30534 * (M_half = 0.2554995 MeV ) = 0.078014206 MeV
        0.078014206 MeV / (M_p = 938.272046 MeV ) = 0.000083147
        Once again according to my theory this suggests that the proton mass may be in error by about;
        0.000083147 * 100 = 0.0083147%.
        This is, granted, far greater than the stated uncertainty, however, we must bear in mind that all Physical Constants, measurement techniques, mathematical rationalizations and apparatus, are constantly being updated and revised as new information becomes available. What I have presented is just, new information, a new tool that could allow us to establish these values with far greater accuracy and it shows us a whole new Universe.
        The scientists at the LHC have processed Billions of data items and have focused on only about One Billionth of that data set and are claiming success based on this tiny, teeny fraction of all that data, a miniscule bump in the graph, which represents a particle pair (a pair of photons) that are suggested to be the second or third generation of decay, of a theoretical particle, with no way to substantiate that It, is actually the source. By those standards I should need less than one data entry to substantiate my claim. The truth is that the majority of the data that I present supports my theory. There is a clear and distinct trend in the graph with the exception of the anomaly noted and if the single category of the Lanthanides were removed from the data set, the results would be perfect and would agree completely with the predicted result, which begs the question of the accuracy of that group of data.
        I know and realize that at this point in your career it has to be very difficult to entertain the notion of a whole new Physics and I wouldn’t blame you if you became frustrated and just ignored me and my ideas but I believe that your life has been a genuine and sincere search for understanding, as has mine. I believe we have more in common than you may think and I do appreciate your feedback.
        Thank you!
        Best regards,

    • Dear Eli,

      Just one more observation. The error in muon mass represents a potential error of about 0.1% of the mass of the muon. Does this seem out of the question to you?

      Thanks again!


  3. Dear Eli,

    I suspect that you may have a truly exceptional intellect, it is too bad that you are only interested in selling books. I doubt that you have looked seriously at the proof I directed you to.

    Until such time as you are willing to look with an open mind, you will continue to miss the mark.

    Good luck!


    • Dear Rod,

      1. There is no doubt that science has an objective meaning. Therefore, personal matters should not be included in scientific discussions.
      2. Here I wish to tell you an advice that my M.Sc. mentor has told me a long time ago: When writing a scientific text you must always think on your readers and help them understand what you want to say. I think that this is a very important advice.
      3. You say: “I doubt that you have looked seriously at the proof I directed you to.” This is certainly an unclear statement because I really do not know what you are talking about. As a matter of fact, I cannot find your name elsewhere on this page and neither in my mailbox.

      Cheers, Eli

      • I do humbly apologize. You are absolutely right, it was completely unfair and unreasonable of me to assume that you would intuitively know who I was; after all, it has been a long time since I last posted on your forums.

        The last time I post, you suggested that:

        1) I take up the study of Physics and

        2) I do a mathematics analysis of what I was presenting to you.

        First of all, the fact is that I am 64 years old and I have been a student of Physics my whole adult life, so I do have some small familiarity with the fundamentals of the subject.

        The last time I posted, I left you a link to a YouTube presentation that presents the mathematical analysis you were asking for, which I had already done. That presentation is a straight forward, spreadsheet analysis, of well established, fundamental, Physics data and it demonstrates quite succinctly that the Higgs Boson can not and does not exist.

        Here is the link to that YouTube should you find that you have time and are willing to consider a possible alternative to the Standard Model:

        Thank you for your patience.

        Best regards,


  4. Dear Dave,

    Here are few remarks on your ideas.

    1. If north is not antisouth then I wonder why you speak on 2 additional generations only. Language and imagination can coin words for additional generations.
    2. Experiment indicates that the muon, like the electron, behaves as a pointlike particle. This evidence casts doubt on your idea that the muon is a bound state of an electron and a kind of a weak dipole.
    3. There is another very serious problem with this idea. Indeed, if this bound state is stable (namely, the muon mass is smaller than the sum of the electron and of your neutrino mass) then why the muon disintegrates into an electron, a muon neutrino and an electron antineutrino and how energy conservation is satisfied in this process. On the other hand, if that bound state is unstable and the sum of the self-mass of the muon components is greater than the muon mass, then why the muon exists with a half-life of the order of 10^(-6) seconds? (Remember that in particle processes, this time interval is really a very very long period.)
    4. Unlike the outcome of your analysis of the figure, the disintegration of the Lambda baryon into a proton and a pion conserves energy and momentum and there is no additional particle. Particle physics data analysis is done by very professional teams and I rely on them. (See ).

    In conclusion, I’m quite sure that your paper does not take the right direction and I advise you to forsake it.

    Cheers, Eli

    • Dear Eli:

      In response to your points:

      1) My reasoning was that the weak south monopole, and weak anti-south monopole constituted the 2nd generation muon neutrino and muon anti-neutrino, while the weak north monopole and weak anti-north monopole constituted the 3rd generation tau neutrino and tau anti-neutrino, respectively. Thus, there can be only two extra generations of neutrinos, The same logic applying to the 2nd and 3rd generation quarks, except they are assumed to be short-lived bound states.

      2) My twin brother told me of an article in Scientific American that reports evidence of substructure for quarks and electrons. If this evidence holds up then the point-like muon, like the point-like electron, could potentially have substructure. I haven’t read the article yet.
      3) I’m a little confused by this one. The total mass of the products of muon decay – electron, muon neutrino and electron antineutrino are much less than the mass of the original muon; the neutrinos having negligible mass, and the electron being 207 times lighter than the muon. So, no problem with the rule that decays have to lead to the lightest possible particle(s).

      4) This is definitely a problem with my theory. I predict that charm and strange quarks should carry one unit of ‘muoness’ (a.k.a. south weak monopole), and thus a muon neutrino (or antineutrino), should be among the decay products, along with an extra electron neutrino (or antineutrino) to balance spin and lepton number accounts. But I’m aware that not all particles carrying strangeness or charm have muon neutrinos among their final decay products. Could they be overlooked? Neutrinos are invisible, except for their momentum contribution. Maybe, just maybe, in most cases the extra neutrino pair balance out in their net momentum. But that seems unlikely based on statistical randomness.
      I also have a question on your model. I’m working slowly through your site and remarkable theory. In “What’s Inside the Proton?”, there’s a nice graphic showing a blue ball at the center, which from the text seems analogous to the nucleus of an atom. Aside from 1 unit of magnetic charge what characteristics distinquish this blue ball from the 7 magnetically charged quarks orbiting around it in two shells?

      Best Regards,

      • Dear David,

        Your attempts to construct a physical theory before accomplishing successfully your studies in physics prove that you have taken a very dangerous course and that you are vulnerable of making many errors. Referring to the third item of your Comment, if you think that the muon is a bound state of particles that are much lighter than the muon itself then this muon is an anti-bound state. Such an anti-bound state decays at a time of about the order of magnitude of 10^{-23} sec. This is inconsistent with the very long lifetime of the muon.

        In conclusion, I really advise you to finish successfully your studies in physics before starting to propose physical theories.

        Referring to your question about the figure, please give me the link or the name of the page where it is displayed and I’ll answer to your question.

        Cheers, Eli

    • Dear Eli:

      The page for the drawing was

      I’ve been slowly going through your website, printing out pages, and am intrigued by the simplification you achieve by eliminating an entire force – the color force and the gluons – and replacing it with magnetic monopoles. While reading the Scientific American article “The Inner Life of Quarks”, there was mention of Haim Harari’s theory of pre-quarks. I remember reading about his theory years ago, and was equally intrigued by his ideas.

      Yes, I agree, I need to complete my studies in physics before attempting to create theoretical models of how nature works at the particle level.

      Best Regards,


  5. I just found your site from a link at Mat Strassler’s site. This is a very interesting alternative to the presumed discovery of the Higgs. I briefly looked at Eli’s very sophisticated idea that involves magnetic monopoles in the quark structure. I had a similar, but much less sophisticated idea with regard to the weak force, which I submitted to three different journals in 94 and 95, all of which rejected it:

    • Dear David,

      Thank you for your Comment. I’ve looked briefly into the paper linked therein and at present I want to say the following:

      1. It is not clear to me why antinorth is different from south.

      2. I think that the figure mentioned in the paper plays an important role in the discussion. However, I cannot see the figure in the text seen on my screen. Therefore, I cannot continue reading.

      Cheers, Eli

      • Dear Eli:
        Thank you for your critique. Not being a physicist, the weak monopole idea is, admittedly, rather amateurish, but it seemed plausible to me. Your raise a very valid concern. I was thinking along the lines that there was not a perfect symmetry between the weak south monopole (a.k.a. muon neutrino), and the weak north monopole (a.k.a. tau neutrino); that there was something that distinquished them. So it wouldn’t be possible to treat them as exact antiparticles of one another.
        I arrived at that conclusion by noting that, in their interactions, the muon neutrino and tau neutrino act like distinctly different particles. Moreover my theory considers the muon to be a bound state of an electron and muon neutrino, with the tau being a bound state of an electron and tau neutrino. Since the muon and tau differ greatly in mass this suggests the muon neutrino and tau neutrino differ in mass. In fact, the neutrino oscillation theory requires a difference in mass between the neutrinos, so that’s also supportive of a mass difference.
        As with the difference in masses between the muon and tau, the differences in the masses of the 2nd and 3rd generation quarks would have the same origin. But in those cases the 2nd and 3rd generation quarks would be bound states of one of the 1st generation up or down quark with either a muon neutrino or tau neutrino. Thus there would be four combinations (not counting antiquarks), giving rise to the strange, charmed, and top and bottom quarks.
        I’m presently looking for the file from my 1995 computer with the particle collision diagram on it. As soon as I find it I’ll post it on the page with the paper. If you have Donald H. Perkins “Introduction to High Energy Physics”, 3rd edition, it’s on page 115.
        I’m going to print out your paper so I can study it at my leisure, without having the computer turned on. From what I’ve seen it’s a very deeply and carefully thought out theory, far beyond my amateur efforts, and will take some concentration to understand.
        Best Regards,
        David Schroeder

  6. Dear Ivan,
    Thank you for the interesting link that explains the present experimental status of the LHC work on the 125 GeV particle. The theoretical structure of a physical idea pertains to a different aspect of the problem. A general principle says that a physical idea that relies on an inconsistent mathematical structure is unacceptable. Thus, the following link points to an article containing a proof that the Higgs boson relies on an inconsistent mathematical structure . Furthermore, as stated on this page, an electrically neutral elementary pointlike particle (like the assumed Higgs boson) cannot decay directly into two photons. In is shown in the following article that the WW mediating channel has an inconsistent mathematical structure .
    For these reasons it is claimed here that the Higgs boson does not exist and that the 125 GeV particle is a top-antitop meson.

    • Dear Ivan,
      Thank you for another interesting link that explains the present experimental status of the LHC work on the 125 GeV particle. Reading its contents I really wonder about a statement which is made time and again in official documents. Here I refer to the statement that argues that the Standard Model (SM) “has enabled theorists to make extremely precise predictions”. (Below, this statement is called “Statement A”.) Statement A is certainly not the whole truth. Thus, it is very well known that QCD is a fundamental element of the SM. Now, QCD is plagued by many experimental failures which are described on many pages of this blog. Here I point out just two examples.
      1. The rise of the elastic cross-section in high energy proton-proton scattering is a well documented effect (ask your colleagues at TOTEM or see p. 11 here ). Now, the electromagnetic interaction, whose potential near the origin increases like 1/r yields a strongly decreasing cross-section. A fortiori, QCD’s asymptotic freedom should yield an even stronger decrease of the elastic pp scattering with the increase of energy. The data strongly contradict QCD.
      2. The volume of the proton’s antiquarks is inconsistent with QCD. See .
      In the light of this blog in general and of points 1,2 in particular, can you please explain me why Statement A is used so frequently?

      Cheers, Eli

  7. Thank you for these contributions including the answers! So tantit is a good candidate. I confess that I never fully understood the theoretic argument for the non-existence of the Higgs boson and see the discussion now revived.

  8. The decay-time of the Higg-like object is of the order of the top anti-top meson and the decay-channel in two photons is also consistent with the decay of the top anti-top, so I guess that the 125 GeV particle just is the top-meson discovered at last. The only problem I still have is the low rest-energy (mass) of the detected top-anti-top meson! A(n anti-)top quark has a mass of almost 180 GeV, so how is it possible that the combination top anti-top reduces the total mass of the 2 constituents to less than the mass of a single top-quark?

    • I didn’t claim that the Higgs doesn’t decay into two photons. I claimed that the Higgs doesn’t exist…

      The point about the new particle is this: without the Higgs, every particle which decays into two photons has very specific structure: it is a composition of a fermion (like quarks or electrons) and its anti-fermion. These are the only particles that disintegrate into two photons. Now, we are told that there is a new particle which decays into two photons and its mass is near 125GeV. The question is as follows: what is more plausible? That the new particle is again a composite of fermion and its antifermion or it is the Higgs, for which we need to invent a new physical mechanism which no other particle obeys?

      I know that for many people the Higgs is more plausible, just because they are looking for him and want him so much. Therefore, I suggested a test that would tell whether this new particle may the Higgs or may not.

  9. The argumentation above shown is very sound in terms of decay rates and decay channels, but it is not OK in terms of energy because of the following. In bottomonium, for example, the ground state has an energy of about 9.4 GeV and the b quark has a mass of about 4.5 GeV, and thus, the ground state energy is about twice the quark mass. This feature has also been observed for the other mesons such as charmonium. Thus, as the top quark has a mass of about 174 GeV, we expect that the ttbar system shoul have a mass above 300 GeV, around 350 GeV which is much higher than 125 GeV. I think that the newly found boson is one of the 3 bosons predicted by de Souza. For more details, please go to the web page

    • Hey Mario. You mix the mass of a free top quark (174 GEV) with the mass of a bound bottom quark (the bottom quark was never measured as a free quark because it cannot exist as such).

      The mass of a bound quark is significantly lower than the mass of a free quark.

  10. Dear Eli
    Thanks a lot for your analysis. I was hoping, that you would present your interpretation of the recent findings at the LHC. I appreciate it a lot!

    • Eli asked me to send his thanks for your comment. The tt was almost obvious for him at the very first moment but it took some time to put all the arguments in a clear and hopefully convincing way.

      The trick that now the Higgs searchers look not for a direct decay channel but for a “two step decay channel” gives them many options to declare that the Higgs was found. For example, they might say that the Higgs decays to tt which immediately decays to two photons and after they will see that it decays to photon+lepton+antilepton it will be still OK, because tt really decays in this manner.

      Anyhow, I hope that LHC searchers will count the photon+lepton+antilepton in the next coming months. If anyone who has influence in LHC reads this blog – he/she may help and send them such request.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s