More Physics Quick Hits

A relationship between the Higgs boson, top quark, and Z boson masses

Maybe a coincidence, maybe meaningful. The only relation that fits, using pole masses, holds at 1.4 sigma, but tends to predict either a rather high Higgs boson mass, or a rather low top quark mass.

I have little doubt that there are deeper functional relationships between the fundamental constants of the Standard Model (or at least some of them) than are contained within the Standard Model (what I call "within the Standard Model new physics" as opposed to "beyond the Standard Model new physics"). And, even if this particular relationship is not actually true, it is close enough that it is fruitful to ask, if there is some deeper source for these experimentally measured physical constant values, what kind of relationship would produce a close coincidence like this one.

For example, I wonder if an approximation of this relationship is favored in some way by the LP & C relationship that the square of the Higgs vev is equal to the sum of the squares of the fundamental SM particle masses, or by the approximate, but not exact, equality between the sum of the squares of the fundamental fermion masses and the sum of the squares of the fundamental boson masses.

I also seem to recall that there theoretically expected mass of the W boson in the Standard Model is a function of the Z boson mass, the top quark mass, and the Higgs boson mass, based upon electroweak unification in some way, but have never seen that relationship spelled out in detail.

The relation M(H)^2 ≃ M(Z)*M(t), previously proposed as a non-trivial Higgs mass coincidence, is reconsidered with present electroweak inputs and with a scheme-consistent matching analysis. With the 2025 PDG values for M(Z), M(W) and M(H), and the ATLAS-CMS direct top-mass combination, the pole-level ratio is ρ(Zt)=M(Z)*M(t)/M(H)^2 = 1.00362 ± 0.00261. Thus an exact pole-level geometric relation predicts either M(H) = 125.426 ± 0.120 GeV or M(t) = 171.898 ± 0.302 GeV, which is still a 1.4σ test rather than an exclusion. 

By contrast, the companion arithmetic relation gives ρ(Wt) = (M(W)+M(t))/(2M(H))=1.00994±0.00159 and is not a viable exact mass sum rule. 

We then evaluate the complete NNLO weak-scale MS bar matching formulae at μ=M(t). In the standard convention one obtains ρˆ(Zt(M(t)) = √(g(2)^2+g(Y)^2) * y(t)/(4√2λ) = 0.96714±0.00361. Consequently, the exact running-coupling boundary condition λ =  g(Z)y(t)/(4√2) at the top scale would predict M(H) = 123.19 ± 0.20 GeV, or equivalently M(t) = 177.81 ± 0.50GeV when M(H) is held fixed. This is incompatible with the measured point. 

A possible symmetry explanation must therefore act on pole-level threshold quantities, or provide a finite matching factor κ(th) = 1.0340 ± 0.0039 at the electroweak scale. We formulate this requirement as a target for custodial/top-Higgs or triality-like symmetry extensions.

E. Torrente-Lujan, "The Higgs-top-Z mass coincidence relation after NNLO matching" arXiv:2605.21721 (May 20, 2026) (Report number: FISPAC-TH/3145-26, UQBAR-TH/26-97234).

Bounds on new neutrino physics

The constraints on BSM physics continue to narrow. In the Standard Model, the neutrino magnetic moment is predicted to be far below the threshold of current experimental detection, and the neutrino has an exactly zero electromagnetic charge. These results are consistent with those predictions and thus constrain BSM neutrino physics to very slight deviations from the SM predictions. Non-standard interactions of neutrinos are likewise constrained materially.

CODATA 2022^[4] gives the value

     ${\displaystyle {\sin }^2{\theta }_{\mathsf{\text{w}}}=1-{\left(\frac{m_{\mathsf{\text{W}}}}{m_{\mathsf{\text{Z}}}}\right)}^2=0.22305(23).}$

So, the Weinberg angle measurement from the CONUS collaboration, while consistent with the world average measurement at the two sigma level, is too imprecise by two orders of magnitude to add meaningfully to our knowledge of that physical constant.

I'll have to look at the body text more closely to see what there is 3.7 sigma evidence of which the abstract does not clarify well at all.

Its detections with pion-decay-at-rest, solar and recently with reactor antineutrinos by the CONUS collaboration render coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) an established tool for investigations within and beyond the Standard Model (SM). The CONUS experiment located at the nuclear power plants in Brokdorf (Germany) and Leibstadt (Switzerland) operates Germanium semiconductor detectors in a compact shield at close distance to the reactor core. An observation with 3.7σ significance is reported at the Leibstadt site, showing good agreement with its SM prediction.

Physics investigations performed with the last datasets collected at the Brokdorf reactor and with the first data obtained at the Leibstadt site are summarized. By using the experimental analysis framework, the presented results contain the full systematics that underlie the experiment. 

Previously determined limits with neutrino-electron scattering on the neutrino magnetic moment and a neutrino millicharge are improved to μ(ν) < 5.18⋅10^−11μB and q(ν) < 1.76⋅10^−12e0 (90% C.L). Further, the scale of new physics related to NSIs is improved to ΛNSI = 145 GeV and limits on the coupling of light new mediators are lowered down to 4⋅10−7 (90% C.L.) with the new data. Finally, the determination of the Weinberg angle with CEνNS and reactor antineutrinos yields sin(θ(W))^2  = 0.28 +0.03 −0.04 at a momentum transfer of ∼10 MeV.

N. Ackermann, et al., "New constraints on physics within and beyond the standard model from the latest CONUS datasets" arXiv:2605.22815 (May 21m 2026).

Ancient Tooth Proteins Tell Tales

An analysis of six ancient Homo erectus tooth proteins from three locations in China, a Denisovan tooth protein, and some modern human and animal tooth proteins reveal some notable insights. Bernard's Blog has the story. Proteins in teeth are easier to recover than ancient DNA and can serve as a proxy for it in cases like these.

Interestingly, it implies that a tooth enamel protein found in 1% of humans in or near the former Denisovan range, and Denisovans have a tooth enamel protein also found in Chinese Homo erectus, probably due to introgression from Homo erectus to Denisovans and then from Denisovans to modern humans, in the view of the researchers.

John Hawk has a discussion of the paper, however, that interprets the data differently:

All six teeth share two derived amino acid changes, both in the sequence of an enamel matrix protein known as ameloblastin, or AMBN. One of these hasn’t before been seen in hominins: a change from alanine to glycine at position 253 of the sequence, or A253G. The other is 20 positions downstream, swapping in valine for the ancestral methionine, M273V. The DNA mutation encoding this change is shared by both the Denisova 3 and Denisova 25 genomes. The M273V amino acid change itself is in the Harbin and Penghu 1 dental proteomes—part of why they align with Denisovans. A number of genomes from modern people also share this change, possibly from Denisovan ancestors.

The hypothesis presented by Fu and coworkers is that Homo erectus was the source of M273V, and its presence in Denisovans is a result of introgression. In support of this idea of introgression, they note earlier research on the Denisova 3 and Denisova 25 genomes that suggests a contribution from a “superarchaic” source population. Many—including me—have speculated that this superarchaic ancestry came from H. erectus. Fu’s team may have just proved it.

But I don’t think these teeth are Homo erectus.

Their estimated ages, all around 400,000 years ago, are prime Denisovan time. Fu and coworkers find that all the teeth share a derived link with later Denisovan genomes. For me, the most likely hypothesis is that these teeth come from a population within the Denisovan branch of humanity.

This situation is basically the same as the Sima de los Huesos fossils. Those remains are around 430,000 years old. Those fossils look like Neanderthals in some subtle ways, but until DNA was recovered from them, many researchers considered them to be part of a different group, often called Homo heidelbergensis. DNA revised both the timeline and their identification.

It may seem heretical, but I think protein data may be about to do the same for fossils from East Asia.