##
The five searches *October 25, 2007*

*Posted by dorigo in games, humor, internet, personal, physics.*

trackback

trackback

If you’ve read Chad Orzel’s claim to be #1 and you own a blog you can’t help trying the game out. It consists in finding five google searches which return your site above all others.

Here is a list I put together in five minutes (oh, I am sooo good at bragging 😉 :

- Jet energy scale
- Top quark mass uncertainty
- Lisa Randall black holes
- Higgs limits
- Babysitting physicist

Ok, the third is a bit of a cheat, since I have a post with that very title (but hey, Chad has “bunnies made of cheese” as his first entry!). Instead, I am quite surprised of the fourth one: just two words which everybody is muttering in these pre-LHC times, and they point to my blog. I am flattered.

Advertisements

## Comments

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Ah! Tommaso..

You will be killed by the Talibans of the web, for list entry no. 3 😉

no. 4 shows the power of blogging: google puts fnal as #2, and cern #10 -and it a comment of 1998-. Hmm, really, particle talibans could be more furious really about no. 4 than about no. 3.

Here’s something for mine: intro wavelet, or

nbody methods, and sputter Cadillac One something fun…

Heh, heh. And I can show off with

1. twistor topos operad

2. DNA functor

3. parrot smuggling alert

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

And me with

Newtonism

Mathematics Village

Newton force scholasticism

lisa randall shaman

tommaso dorigo negotiation basis

My websites show first on google for the following:

measurement algebra

schwinger measurement

painleve simulation

koide geometric algebra

Pauli algebra

Hi Matteo, I had not even thought about the fact that those words could be interpreted in a twisted way !

Alejandro, sure – but those are two different sets of talibans. Sexist ones on one side, conspiracy theory ones on the other.

Thanks all for your own top searches. I am sure that by digging you’d find more… I think Carl’s list is pretty impressive, especially the last entry. Congratulations, Carl!

Arun, that’s true and that’s false. I would love 48-hour days, but it is also a question of priorities. This blog has become important for me.

It makes me feel like I’m an accomplished physicist, while the reality is something else. I’m not a failure either, but I have work ahead of me…

Cheers,

T.

Ah, my sister was #1 for 2 years in google.es with “maya”, and also with the plural “mayas”. Now the wikipedia leads.

Dear Tommaso,

a comment or question or perhaps even proposal for a topic of future posting related to the link in earlier posting.

It seems that high precision electroweak parameters containing radiative corrections involving Higgs exhange give widely varying Higgs masses. The variation range is one order of magnitude.

Could this mean that the dependence of some of these parameters on Higgs mass is much weaker than expected or that it is at least different than predicted by standard model?

TGD allows the possibility that the couplings of Higgs to fermions are much weaker than in standard model since vacuum expectation does not determine fermion mass. This would effectively drop loops in which fermion couples to Higgs and modify profoundly the formulas from which one can estimate Higgs mass.

Could it be that the high precision parameters for which widely different values are obtained depend on Higgs exchange between fermion in loop. Is it possible to make rough estimates what happens if these contributions are simply dropped?

Could it be that the high precision parameters not involving Higgs-fermion couplings could give same estimates for Higgs mass?

Best Regards,

Matti

Dear Matti,

answering most of your questions is largely beyond my powers… My knowledge of the theory of radiative corrections is rather scholastic, while to answer meaningfully one needs to be very fluent with the nuisances of the computation. However, let me try to give some un-meaningful answer.

Yes, the individual determinations have a wide range of variation. The dependence of Higgs mass on radiative corrections is logarithmic, and so, in a way, plotting the logarithm of the mass in a plot such as the one you are mentioning (the one in Resonaance’s recent post) is reasonable. If you tried to pass a line through the data points you would get some inconsistency, but not too much so – the SM is still alive and kicking, although current fit values for Mh lie in an excluded region by LEP.

I think the data does not lend itself to understanding whether the dependence on higgs mass is weaker or not. What you are asking is basically a plot of the derivative of Mh as a function of each observable in the SM, to study together with the mass resulting from the fit. I have not seen such a plot around.

I think it would be interesting to compare the results on electroweak observables after radiative corrections are taken into account with an alternative theory to SM Higgs with the canonical ones.

Of course, I believe that non-standard assumptions about Higgs couplings to fermion do modify the expectations for the Higgs mass in the fits in different ways for different observables. For instance, the A_fb for b quarks is very sensitive to the top quark mass, while the A_fb for leptons has a different dependence. However, I am not able to perform the calculations you mention.

I suggest you ask Resonaances, he has a post on the very same topic (which I think you already saw).

Cheers,

T.

Arun: I cheated with my nbody methods and my wavelet pages because they are not blogs (I’m not a blogger). My wavelet page(s more than one) has a long history going back to 1994, too.

Thank you Tommaso. I looked a little bit about the high precision observables and it is clear that most of them are sensitive to fermion-Higgs coulings. Logarithmic dependence on Higgs mass could indeed as such explain the large variation.

Matti

Ok Matti, thank you for the info!

cheers, t.

[…] a five minute exercise that I learnt from Tommaso, here is a list of ten search phrases for this blog’s useless claim to Google […]

[…] the academic ones, are quirks and narcissists. And not to lose the quirk in me, I listen to Dorigo of Quantum Diaries Survivor, and play the simple chest-beat game he picked from Chad of Uncertain […]

[…] the academic ones, are quirks and narcissists. And not to lose the quirk in me, I listen to Dorigo of Quantum Diaries Survivor, and play the simple chest-beat game he picked from Chad of Uncertain […]

[…] the academic ones, are quirks and narcissists. And not to lose the quirk in me, I listen to Dorigo of Quantum Diaries Survivor, and play the simple chest-beat game he picked from Chad of Uncertain […]