by Yablon » Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:01 pm
Hello again to all:
Shortly after I posted this, I discovered that the Higgs fields in the vicinity of the up and down quarks have widths between quiescent h=0 states of the Higgs field which when summed using appropriate quark content, fall within experimental errors for the proton and neutron radii in a way that also explains why the proton radius is observed differently, with statistical significance, depending on whether electron or muons are used as the probe. This may well solve the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle, which is one of the recognized unanswered problems in physics. With other things going on, it may be a week or two before the presentation is reasonably perfected. But I wanted to let you know why this took longer than I anticipated.
Jay
Yablon wrote:Dear Friends,
I want to let you all be the first to know that in the last 2-3 days, while extending my Kaluza-Klein paper at
https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... in-1-4.pdf to include spontaneous symmetry breaking using Higgs theory to give mass to fermions, I discovered the theoretical cause for the observed pairing of the top quark with the Higgs boson which was only announced by CERN last month, see
https://press.cern/press-releases/2018/ ... -top-quark and
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 120.231801. I have double checked the calculations and will finish writing this up and hopefully post it within the week.
I will simply note for now, that the top mass including experimental errors is very slight less than
, and that this turns out to give a very wide, flat profile to the energy well of Higgs field, which profile makes the Higgs easiest to observe when you have top quarks around.
Jay
Hello again to all:
Shortly after I posted this, I discovered that the Higgs fields in the vicinity of the up and down quarks have widths between quiescent h=0 states of the Higgs field which when summed using appropriate quark content, fall within experimental errors for the proton and neutron radii in a way that also explains why the proton radius is observed differently, with statistical significance, depending on whether electron or muons are used as the probe. This may well solve the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle, which is one of the recognized unanswered problems in physics. With other things going on, it may be a week or two before the presentation is reasonably perfected. But I wanted to let you know why this took longer than I anticipated.
Jay
[quote="Yablon"]Dear Friends,
I want to let you all be the first to know that in the last 2-3 days, while extending my Kaluza-Klein paper at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/covariant-klauza-klein-1-4.pdf to include spontaneous symmetry breaking using Higgs theory to give mass to fermions, I discovered the theoretical cause for the observed pairing of the top quark with the Higgs boson which was only announced by CERN last month, see https://press.cern/press-releases/2018/06/higgs-boson-reveals-its-affinity-top-quark and https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231801. I have double checked the calculations and will finish writing this up and hopefully post it within the week.
I will simply note for now, that the top mass including experimental errors is very slight less than [tex]m_t \approx v/\sqrt2[/tex], and that this turns out to give a very wide, flat profile to the energy well of Higgs field, which profile makes the Higgs easiest to observe when you have top quarks around.
Jay[/quote]