Comments on: Did we scr** up all the Higgs branching ratios ? http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/did-we-scr-up-all-the-higgs-branching-ratios/ private thoughts of a physicist and chessplayer Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:26 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: dorigo http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/did-we-scr-up-all-the-higgs-branching-ratios/#comment-97655 dorigo Wed, 28 May 2008 12:22:25 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1276#comment-97655 Well, I did not take the existing Tevatron limits in consideration, but if you do, you get better limits at low mass (due to the higher BR of H->bb) and worse limits at intermediate to high mass (due to the worse BR of H->WW). Looking at the latest <a href="http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/tevatron-higgs-limits-winter-2008/" rel="nofollow">Tevatron limit plot</a> and the graph above for BR boosts, and keeping in mind that a double BR becomes a halved limit and vice-versa, I would say that little would change if you were to marry the model by Giudice and Lebedev: you'd get a limit curve which peaks at 120 GeV more or less at the same value as before (6xSM, say), then a steeper descent to 1.5xSM at 140 GeV, and a flattening out to the same value up to 175 GeV (instead then the dipping to 1.1xSM of the existing plot). I believe it is not worth playing the game though. Rather, it is useful to keep in mind that a $latex H \to \mu \mu$ search might be interesting to do as soon as we collect >1/fb of data. Cheers, T. Well, I did not take the existing Tevatron limits in consideration,
but if you do, you get better limits at low mass (due to the higher BR of H->bb) and worse limits at intermediate to high mass (due to the worse BR of H->WW).
Looking at the latest Tevatron limit plot and the graph above for BR boosts, and keeping in mind that a double BR becomes a halved limit and vice-versa, I would say that little would change if you were to marry the model by Giudice and Lebedev: you’d get a limit curve which peaks at 120 GeV more or less at the same value as before (6xSM, say), then a steeper descent to 1.5xSM at 140 GeV, and a flattening out to the same value up to 175 GeV (instead then the dipping to 1.1xSM of the existing plot).

I believe it is not worth playing the game though. Rather, it is useful to keep in mind that a H \to \mu \mu search might be interesting to do as soon as we collect >1/fb of data.

Cheers,
T.

]]> By: Tripitaka http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/did-we-scr-up-all-the-higgs-branching-ratios/#comment-97654 Tripitaka Wed, 28 May 2008 12:04:13 +0000 http://dorigo.wordpress.com/?p=1276#comment-97654 Cool! Since you didn't mention anything, I assume that there are no potential consequences arising from this theory in relation to work being done at Tevatron, is that right? Cool!
Since you didn’t mention anything, I assume that there are no potential consequences arising from this theory in relation to work being done at Tevatron, is that right?

]]>