Why I have not published in Particle Physics journals for ten years? Marko B Popovic October 4, 2011

Answer PART 1 Ten years ago everyone in particle physics community was proposing models with new exciting physics at energies accessible in the near future -- myriad of new particles, interactions, even dimensions. I made "mistake” and suggested that Standard Model (SM) might be after all a very good approximation even at high energies. I analyzed that possibility and obtained interesting result that effective Higgs mass squared, according to the full-SM renormalization group equations, should change sign at about 1 TeV scale. Sign of new physics and/or Higgs tachyon? (Recently, the Gran Sasso / CERN collaboration observed neutrinos moving at speeds slightly larger than speed of light. Could that phenomenon have anything to do with my observations…? Maybe…) My hep-ph/ (2002) paper got rejected. I haven’t proposed new exciting physics beyond SM, instead I investigated transitional scale, came up with prediction of Higgs mass range, and mentioned SM tachyons... “Reviewer” was clearly more concerned about my, his/her and/or ‘third party’ career development than actual physics…

M. B. Popovic, “Upper Limit on the Higgs Particle Mass”, hep-ph/ , (2002) (rejected by Phys Rev D)

M. B. Popovic, “Upper Limit on the Higgs Particle Mass”, hep-ph/ , (2002)

Answer PART 2 In my next paper hep-ph/ I again mentioned negativity of the Higgs mass squared. I investigated the SM validity up to very high energies; I obtained interesting intersection of three curves (that doesn’t happen often!) at Planck mass energy for 138 GeV Higgs mass. I also introduced the Composite Particles Model (CPM); I discovered that Higgs mass might be stable against leading loop divergences in 2D if Higgs and top quark are composite. That finding suggested 115 GeV Higgs mass that exactly coincided with late CERN LEP event excess in 2000! “Reviewer”, was clearly again more concerned about someone’s career development than physics and throw my year long effort straight to garbage can. I felt devastated... Those two rejections (= two years of my work) eventually contributed a lot to me leaving physics for the next 8 years! I thought then, if I can not contribute to particle physics I might be useful to some other field. I ended up doing biomechanics, biomedical engineering, robotics…I enjoyed it

M. B. Popovic, “The Standard Model hierarchy, fine- tuning, and negativity of the Higgs mass squared”, hep-ph/ , (2002) (rejected by Phys Rev D)

Answer PART 3 In 2010, after 9 years working at MIT, I suddenly found myself unemployed, with large debt, and even immobilized in bed – I broke my leg. Not extremely happy moments… At that time I was single, my daughters were 6 and 8 years old… I was searching for new job…Because I didn’t fit any standard profile I was not getting many interviews. Very frustrating…I decided to keep my inner peace by thinking on physics. During next three months I carefully reiterated (already mentioned) hep-ph/ and hep-ph/ , removed parts that didn’t seem relevant anymore and tried to come up with better explanation for what I observed earlier. Based on cancelation of leading loop divergences I obtained two solutions for Higgs mass, one around 115 GeV and one around 143 GeV. I also discovered beautiful relationship between top quark Yukawa coupling and strong (QCD, i.e. nuclear) gauge coupling which I believe might defines the Z mass and maybe even the scale of the electroweak symmetry breaking. All these resulted in 52 Pages, 11 Figures, 1 Table, 155 References, document arXiv: created on July 24, But again, “reviewer” was clearly not interested in actual physics and throw my paper to garbage can.

M. B. Popovic, “Thanks to 2D and maybe even beyond: 115 GeV and 140 GeV almost Standard Model Higgs without problems”, arXiv: , (2010) (rejected by Phys Rev D)

Answer PART 4 In April 2011, CERN LHC and Fermilab Tevatron related rumors pinpointed 115 GeV and 144 GeV event excesses respectively, i.e. “Higgs sightings”. These were all over the news. I realized that these “Higgs sightings” rumored by two top particle physics laboratories in the world exactly coincide with theoretical predictions of my model. I decided to write a brief paper. I thought, I am now physics professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, respected both by students and colleagues, and it obviously make sense for me to publish results of my particle physics research. Especially when it is so reasonable, relevant and important! I obtained cancellation of leading loop divergences in both 2D and 4D for the same Higgs masses. I properly motivated Composite Particles Model and explained exactly what these solutions mean. Finally, I properly explained the Z mass generation; solution to the 40 years old hierarchy problem that the best particle physics minds could not solve. But again, “reviewer”, was clearly not concerned about actual physics and throw my paper straight to garbage can. (!!!!!) I thought: “This is enough now!”

M. B. Popovic, “~115 GeV and ~143 GeV Higgs mass considerations within the Composite Particles Model”, arXiv: , (2011) (rejected by Physics Letters B and Nuclear Physics B)

Importance of result The Higgs and top quark might be composite objects made of constituents interacting through strong interactions. The Z mass might be generated via massless Goldston bosons explained as fluctuations of background top-anti top condensate field -- solution to the longstanding hierarchy problem! Furthermore, the Higgs might be a tachyon at high energies and that might help explain neutrinos faster than light, maybe dynamics of early Universe and subsequently why our world is at it is today. Clearly, the Composite Particles Model may assist the continued search at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN near Geneva at 14 TeV energy, i.e. approximately 70,000 times larger than the scale of the strong nuclear reactions (≈200 MeV). Even the world’s safety might be at stake if this physics is not properly understood in timely manner. For example: What if there is a possibility of chain reaction that could be triggered at these unnaturally high collision energies? Which group/agency could with clear conscience say that there is no reason to worry, prohibit knowledge sharing, and take full responsibility for its actions? NONE!

Investigation and consequences And yes, this might be important to you as well…to best of my knowledge or lack of knowledge. After being affected with this injustice I decided to start an investigation. Maybe it was all just a scam…I even suspect that some of my communications were forged. Maybe it was all about stealing intellectual property or prohibiting me to prove that interesting physics could be just within the SM or the slightly modified SM (the Composite Particles Model is slightly modified SM in massless phase). If you have any information or proof that could help me learn on causes, events, perpetuators I will appreciate if you could get in touch with me and let me know. The best way is by phone. If you are in Massachusetts we could meet. The other option is mail and the least recommended option is ; in this unfortunate age of e-jungle communications may be easily forged. Dr Marko B Popovic Home: 115 Harvard St. apt 3, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, cell , Office: Olin Hall 215, Physics Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA 01609,