Table of Contents of this web page:


For a pdf version (130k) of these remarks, ClickHere or go to physics/0006041at

Golden Bars of Consensus

Burton Richter, in remarks at Stanford in 1999(hep-ex/0001012) said "... The next big machine, the LHC, is underconstruction at CERN ... The two main experiments ATLAS and CMS willeach have 1500 to 2000 collaborators. ... In the 500-strongcollaborations of today, we already have a bureaucratic overlay tothe science with committeesthat decide on the trigger, data analysis procedures, erroranalysis, speakers, paper publications,etc. The participatingscientists are imprisoned by golden bars ofconsensus .... thiswill become more difficult as the collaborations grow to three timesthe size of today's largest. This needs thinking about and talkingabout, ...".

Do the golden bars ofconsensus already imprison useful data and analysis? Consider, as anexample, the mass of theT-quark.

In April 1994, CDF at Fermilab (inFERMILAB-PUB-94/097-E) reported a T-quark mass of 174(+/-10)(+13/-12) GeV. The data analyzed by CDF included a 26-eventhistogram for W + (3 or more) jets, without b-tags, which is Figure65 of the report, to which I have added blue and green colors to makediscussion easier.

Some of the CDF histogram events, shown in blue,are in the 150-190 GeV range and do support the CDF analysis.However, there is a peak of 8 events in the 140-150 GeV bin, shown ingreen, that were excluded from the analysis by CDF, saying (on page140 of the report) "... the bin with masses between 140 and 150GeV/c^2 has eight events.

We assume the mass combinations inthe 140 to 150 GeV/c^2 bin represent a statistical fluctuation sincetheir width is narrower than expected for a topsignal. ...".

If the 140-150 GeV peak were only a statisticalfluctuation seen by the CDF detector, one would not expect to findsuch a peak repeated in the data seen by the D0 detector at Fermilab.However, in March 1997, D0 (in hep-ex/9703008) reported a T-quarkmass of 173.3 GeV (+/- 5.6 stat +/- 6.2 syst), based on dataincluding a histogram similar to Figure 65 of the April 1994 CDFreport which is Figure 3 of the D0 report, to which I have added blueand green colors to make discussion easier:

Some of the D0 histogram events, shown in blue,are are in the 150-190 GeV range and do support the CDF analysis.However, similar to the 140-150 GeV bin peak seen and thrown out byCDF, there is a peak of 5events in the 130-140 GeV bin, shown in green,that were excluded from the analysis by D0. I did not see in the D0report an explicit discussion of the 5-event peak in the 130-140 GeVbin.

Those 130-150 GeV peaks are from untaggedsemileptonic events.

Tagged semileptonic events may be a more reliablemeasure of T-quark mass, although there are fewer of them, so thatstatistics are not as good.


CDF (in hep-ex/9801014, dated 30 September 1997)reported a T-quark mass of 175.9 +/- 4.8(stat.) +/- 4.9(syst.) GeVbased on events that were either SVX tagged, SVX double tagged, oruntagged. However, CDFanalysis of tagged semileptonic events (14 of them) gave a T-quarkMass of 142 GeV (+33, -14), as shown in theirFigure 2, which is a plot of events/10 GeV bin vs. Reconstructed Massin GeV:

D0 (in hep-ex/9801025) also analyzed taggedsemileptonic events, with the result shown in their figure25:

The figure shows3 events in the 130-150 GeVrange, one event in the 170-180 GeV bin, andone event in the 200-210 GeV bin. According to footnote 10 ofhep-ex/9801025,

One eventwhich would have otherwise passed the cuts, event (95653; 10822),was removed byD0 from its analysis because it was selectedby the dilepton mass analysis. If this event is treated as a l + jetscandidate,

it hasa fit Chi-squared of 0.92 andfitted Truth Quark mass of138.7 GeV.


Dilepton events may be the most reliable measureof T-quark mass, although they are the least numerous type of event,so that statistics are not so good.


In October 1998 (in hep-ex/9810029) CDF analyzed 8dilepton events and reported a T-quark mass of 167.4 +/- 10.3(stat)+/- 4.8(syst) GeV. Figure 2 of the report shows the 8 events:

have colored green the events with T-quark massless than 160 GeV, and blue the events with T-quark mass greater than160 GeV. The hep-ex/9810029 CDF report stated that it "... supersedesour previously reported result in the dilepton channel ...".


The superseded previous CDF dilepton report(hep-ex/9802017) analyzed 9 events out of a total of 11 events, which11 events are shown on the following histogram:

I I have colored green the events with T-quarkmass less than 150 GeV, and blue the events with T-quark mass greaterthan 150 GeV.

Note first, that in the earlier 11-event histogram5 events are shown as greater than 150 GeV, but only 4 events areshown as greater than 160 GeV, while in the 8-event revised histogram5 events are shown as greater than 160 GeV. This indicates to me thatsome changes in the analysis have shifted the event mass assignmentsupward by about 10 GeV.

Note second, thatthe earlier 11-event histogramcontains 3 events from 120-140 GeV that are omitted from the 8-eventrevised histogram.


D0 (in hep-ex/9706014 and hep-ex/9808029) hasanalyzed 6 dilepton events, reporting a T-quark mass of about 168.4GeV. The 1997 UC Berkeley PhD thesis of Erich Ward Varnes which canbe found on the web at containsdetails of the events and the D0 analyses. Each of the 6 events hasits own characteristics. In this letter I will only discuss one ofthem, Run 84676 Event 12814, an electron-muon dilepton event. Thisfigure

from page 159 of the Varnes thesis, shows aT-quark mass likelihood plot calculated by the neutrino weightingalgorithm.

In this event there were 3 jets instead ofthe 2 jets you would normally expect in a Dilepton event.

The solid line is the plot if all 3 jets areincluded, and the dashed line is the plot if only 2 of the jets areincluded by excluding the third (lowest transverse energy) jet.

The 3-jet interpretation supports the 170 GeVmass favored by the Fermilab consensus, while

the 2-jet interpretation supportsa 130-140 GeV mass analysis that may beimprisoned by the golden bars of Fermilab consensus.



Could the golden bars of consensus do any real harm tophysics ?


Consider the work going on now in planning experiments tobe done on future machines, such as the LHC.

A recent paper (hep-ph/0002205), The StandardModel Instability and the Scale of New Physics, by J.A. Casas, V. DiClemente and M. Quiros, concludes that "... with the present lowerbounds on the Higgs mass,

the new physics couldeasily (but not necessarily)escape detection in thepresent and future accelerators. ...".

They state "...In this paper we will fix Mt to itsexperimental mean value and disregard the effect due to theexperimental error deltaMt. ...".

If Fermilab had not bound Casas, Di Clemente, andQuiros within the golden bars of consensus of T-quark mass Mt atabout 175 GeV, then their paper might have included effects ofdifferent values of Mt.

In other words,

restriction of considerationof T-quark masses to around 175 GeV could produce a much morepessimistic view of the likelihood of success of new physics searchesat LHC,

while breaking the golden bars of consensus togive freedom to consideration of T-quark masses well below 175 GeVproduces a much more optimistic view of the likelihood of success ofnew physics searches at LHC.


Although the economies contributing to the LHC arenow prosperous enough to say that it will be built, things can change(and, as was the case for the SSC, not always for the better).Therefore,

I don't think that it is a good idea toimprison ideas that can lead to optimism about the potential fordiscovery at the LHC.


Since the T-quark is a key part of the truth ofnature that physics seeks to understand,

I prefer to call it the Truthquark

(although I realize that now I am in a tiny minority, as most nowcall it Top).

For a pdf version (130k) of these remarks, ClickHere or go to physics/0006041at

How are the Golden Bonds of Consensus related to myD4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model?


If the Truth quark mass is about 130 GeV,it is consistent with the prediction of my D4-D5-E6-E7-E8VoDou Physics model made in 1984,shown as the dark blue line:

My D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel prediction was made before CERNannounced in 1984 the "discovery" of the Truth quark with mass 40GeV, shown as purple, and that duringthe time that the CERN announcement was generally considered to bevalid, I still maintained that CERN was wrong and that my predictionwas right.

My D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel prediction was consistent with theARGUS indirect B-Bbar experimental determination, shown asgold; and with theDalitz-Goldstein analysis of 1988-89 CDF events, shown inred.

The green bar represents my analysisof Fermilab's Run 1, and the cyan barrepresents Fermilab's analysis of that data.


What about indirect electroweak experimentaldeterminations of the Truth quark mass?

The chart above, from Figure 6 of Chris Quigg's paper hep-ph/0001145,shows "... Indirect determinations of the top-quark mass from fitsto electroweak observables (open circles) and 95%confidence-level lower bounds on the top-quark mass inferred fromdirect searches in e + e annihilations (solidline) and in pbar-p collisions, assuming that standard decaymodes dominate (broken line). Anindirect lower bound, derived from the W-boson width inferred frompbar-p to (W or Z) + anything, is shown as thedot-dashed line. Direct measurements ofmt by the CDF (triangles) and D0(inverted triangles) Collaborations areshown at the time of initial evidence, discovery claim, and at theconclusion of Run 1. The world average from direct observations isshown as the crossed box. ...". I have added theblue line at 130 GeV, and the colorof cyan for the region or Fermilabanalysis of CDF and D0 events and the color ofgreen for the region of my analysis ofthem.


If the 170-180 GeV peak is not the Truth quark, then whatis it ?  

I don't know for sure, but maybe it is poorly understoodbackground, perhaps related to miscounting the number of jetsassociated with events, and/or perhaps related to some phenomena seenat HERA and CERN.

According to hep-ex/9910012by the H1 and ZEUS Collaborations at HERA: "...Between mid-1994 andthe end of 1997 the electron-proton collider HERA at DESY has beenoperated ... . In this period, ZEUS and H1 have collected e + p datasamples corresponding to integrated luminosities of 47.7 pb^(-1) and37 pb^(-1), respectively. In 1998 and the first half of 1999, eachexperiment has taken about 15 pb^(-1) of ... data ... The excess inthe H1 data is still present at Me = 200 GeV but has not beencorroborated by the 1997 data. Also ZEUS observes an excess at Mej> 200 GeV; however, the decay angular distribution does notsupport a LQ interpretation ...

... The symbols with statistical error bars represent the data,the histograms the DIS MC. The H1 data are shown before (opentriangles) and after (full dots, hatched histogram) a cuty>ymin(Me). The shaded area indicates the uncertainty of the SMprediction. ...".  



In hep-ex/0001014,Recent Results from the L3 Experiment, Salvatore Mele of CERNsays, [with some comments by me set off by brackets]: "... A data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of232 pb^(-1) was collected in 1997 and 1998 by the L3 experiment atLEP in e+ e- collisions at centre-of-mass energies between 181.7 GeVand 188.7 GeV. ... the cross sections for single W production ...[are compared in this figure] ...

... to the SM predictions obtained with the EXCALIBUR and GRC4FMC [Monte Carlo]programs. ...".

The data in the 175 GeV region is consistent with 4 generations ofneutrinos, rather than 3, also indicating to me that processes inthat region are incompletelyunderstood.


[note added 25 Feb 2002: Late last night (Sunday 24 Feb 2002)I first viewed an e-mail message sent to me by Salvatore Mele, a copyof which message is quoted here in full:

" Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.netX-Authentication-Warning: smele owned process doing -bsDate: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 16:43:41 +0100 (CET)From: Salvatore Mele <>X-Sender: tsmith@innerx.netSubject: Your interpretation of hep-ex/0001014MIME-Version: 1.0      Dear Mr. Smith,   	you authored both the following paper and the following web page:   	I appreciate your reference to the results I summarise inhep-ex/0001014. I have to draw your attention to the fact that inexperimental physics we do quote an uncertainty associated to measurments.In the three plots you've extracted from my publication, this isrepresented by the vertical bars, called error bars. These concepts aredescribed in introductory textbooks on statistics.   	 Physics results have to be interpreted within theseuncertainties, conventionally associated to a probability of 68% that thetrue value of the measured quantity lies in that range.   In this spirit, the first and last of my plots are in excellent agreementwith the predictions and your statement "substantially higher" is void ofany statistical meaning and simply wrong.   As for the neutrino plot, in experimental physics you claim a deviationfrom a model when your data are three lenghts of those error bars awayfrom your prediction that means more than 99% probability of aninconsistency. This is cleary not the case. In addition, to claimdiscoveries or lose faith into a model, five of those error bar lengthsare needed, corresponding to probabilities of the order of 10^-5   	Regards,   	Salvatore Mele	Research Staff	CERN - European Organisation for Nuclear Research "

My comments on Salvatore Mele's message quoted above are:


Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr.

2000 - 5760 - Year of Metal Dragon


The first paper I ever put on the Los Alamos e-print archive,hep-ph/9301210 -Calculation of 130 GeV Mass for T-Quark, was at MENTOR.LANL.GOVfor years:

A few people. including me, who like the conceptsof Truth and Beauty, still call the T-Quark the Truth Quark insteadof the Top Quark.

I also call itTruth CengZi, because Ceng Zi means quark in thelanguage of the physicist who first proposed it,LiuYao-Yang.

Around 1960, he invented the CengZi (quark) model of particle physics. He was working at theUniversity of Science and Technology of China, which was then locatedat Beijing, when he invented the Ceng Zi model. He wrote a paper andsubmitted it to a Chinese journal. It was turned down because theeditors thought the paper was not correct. After the quark model hadbeen independently re-invented around 1962-1964, with most of thecredit going to Murray Gell-Mann, the editors apologized forrejecting the paper. Liu Yao-Yang is, the last that I heard, stillworking at the University of Science and Technology of China, whichis now at Anhui, in the fields of atomic and molecular physics,quantum field theory, and quantization of gravity.



For a pdf version (130k) of these remarks, ClickHere or go to physics/0006041at