Time for a Poll: Higgs Mass Prediction

[vanesch]

But that is not the problem. The problem is that the natural mass of the Higgs boson is the new physics scale, so if new physics appears at the Planck scale, the SM predicts the mass of the Higgs boson to be the Planck mass.

This is what I don't understand. Given that the standard model doesn't deal with gravity at all, and given that it might probably need an entire paradigm change in order to include gravity, I don't see how the "planck scale" can pop out of the standard model or any other particle physics model given that it doesn't contain anything related to gravity. How does this "Planck mass" come into play here ? What's wrong with "new physics" at 20 TeV, say ?

 

[Kea]

On the other hand, it is true that something like the Higgs appears in Connes' NCG. Maybe this is what Kea has in his mind.

When Kea voted no Higgs, she was disagreeing with Connes, who is predicting a Higgs boson.

 

[Haelfix]

Err so how do you explain WW scattering? There aren't many alternatives to a higgs like mechanism, the only others I am aware off are riddled with phenomenological problems or are now safely ruled out.

 

[jgraber]

Whatever happened to the old GUTS?

I'm a big believer in GUTs (myriad reasons, including the favored explanation of a nonadhoc seesaw mechanism to set the neutrino masses to experimentally verified values, as well as leptogenesis concerns). Susy helps to make GUTs possible, ergo i'd be very surprised if we didn't see it at some scale. In a related way, its also one of the very few ways to evade Coleman-Mandula and solve the hierarchy problem. There just isn't very many other possibilities.

Since you're a big believer in GUTS, I will ask you a question I was thinking of making into a thread of its own:

Whatever happened to the old GUTS like SO(10), SU(4)xSU(4) and
Flipped SU(5)xU(1)?
As I remember it, these were the three leading contenders once SU(5) was ruled out. You never hear much about them these days. I understand that these GUTS can be included in the SO(32) and E(8)xE(8) that emerge from string theory and so subsumed as part of string theory. Still the bottom level or the level one up from the standard model seems important.
So I will ask a more detailed question related to the current thread:
Will the Higgs mass, or anything else we are likely to see at LHC, help us to distiguish between these three possibilities, or any newer ones?
Curious minds want to know.
TIA
Jim Graber

 

[CarlB]

This is the kind of argumentation to which I'm rather insensitive. There are many possible symmetries in nature which simply do not turn out to be there, and there's no "principle of maximum symmetry" as far as I know. ...

I love this post, (#31).

 

[arivero]

An argument FOR supersymmetry:

taking
d1^ , d2^ = neutrals
d+^ = charged +1, uncoloured
dr^, dg^, db^: colured, and charge -1/3we build:
1 fermion, |0>

6 bosons:
d1, d2, d+, dr, dg, db

15 fermions: as they appear in 5 and 10 of su(5) too
d1^d2, neutrino
d1^d+, positron
d1^dr, d1^dg, d1^db, three d-type quarks

d2^d+ the other degree of freedom of the positron
d2^dr, d2^dg, d2^db, the other three dof for the d-rype quark
d+^dr, d+^dg, d+^db three for the quark up
dr^dg, dr^db, dg^db three for anti-up.

20 bosons, a pretty mess:
d1^d2^d+, d1^d2^dr, d1^d2^dg, d1^d2^db
d1^d+^dr, d1^d+^dg, d1^d+^db
d1^dr^dg, d1^dr^db, d1^dg^db
d2^d+^dr, d2^d+^dg, d2^d+^d2^db
d2^dr^dg, d2^dr^db, d2^dg^db
d+^dr^dg, d+^dr^db, d+^dg^db
dr^dg^db

15 fermions, the oposite ones, in 10 + 5
d1^d2^d+^dr, d1^d2^d+^dg, d1^d2^d+^d2^db
d1^d2^dr^dg, d1^d2^dr^db, d1^d2^dg^db
d1^d+^dr^dg, d1^d+^dr^db, d1^d+^dg^db
d1^dr^dg^db
d2^d+^dr^dg, d2^d+^dr^db, d2^d+^dg^db
d2^dr^dg^db
d+^dr^dg^db

6 bosons
d1^d2^d+^dr^dg, ^d1^d2^d+^dr^db, ^d1^d2^d+^dg^db
d1^d2^dr^dg^db
d1^d+^dr^dg^db
d2^d+^dr^dg^db

1 fermion

d1^d2^d+^dr^dg^db

 

[humanino]

When Kea voted no Higgs, she was disagreeing with Connes, who is predicting a Higgs boson.

I am very sorry if I upset her. My appologies. Would she still please provide more details on her thoughts ? I know very little about NCG.

 

[Kea]

Would she still please provide more details on her thoughts?

The Higgs boson is introduced as an effective mass mechanism within the Standard Model. It cannot hope to explain mass generation within a theory of quantum gravity, which by definition must explain mass quantum numbers. So the question of its existence comes down to how far one is willing to extend the SM notion of Observable. What is a particle? Since our approach to QG (which has nothing to do with Connes' NCG) is not based on Symmetry, and since the effective QFT is not computationally gauge field theory, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the old idea of Observability should carry through to a scale where we fully expect New Physics.

 

[Severian]

It cannot hope to explain mass generation within a theory of quantum gravity, which by definition must explain mass quantum numbers.

Why not? The fundamental particles become massless above the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, so there is no mass to explain. You haven't explained why they have particular Yukawa couplings, but that is a different issue.

 

[arivero]

It sounds as the old issue of inertial versus gravitational mass.

 

[arivero]

An argument FOR supersymmetry:

Please refer to http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/Newton.pdf for my current view of supersymmetry. Actually, my view three days ago . Page 1 is old stuff, page 2 is newer (to me).

 

[Kea]

Why not?

Quite simply because the Higgs mechanism is not used in the derivation of rest masses.

 

[humanino]

Please refer to http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/Newton.pdf for my current view of supersymmetry. Actually, my view three days ago . Page 1 is old stuff, page 2 is newer (to me).

Ah, this clarifies your eariler post #41

I however still do not quite follow your arguments.
In particular, this hits me :

Having supersymmetry to composites helps to explain some features of charged leptons of the standard model. The pion mass if near of the muon mass. [...]

Do you have an explicit link between pion mass and muon mass !? They are not in the same generation (u and d quarks are in the first family, whereas the muon is in the second family), and even more intriguing, the mass of the pion arises from dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry, so if the muon mass is somehow linked to that, this seems big news to me. Are those only speculations ?

 

[arivero]

In particular, this hits me :Do you have an explicit link between pion mass and muon
mass !? They are not in the same generation (u and d quarks are in the first
family, whereas the muon is in the second family), and even more intriguing, the mass
of the pion arises from dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry, so if the muon mass is
somehow linked to that, this seems big news to me. Are those only speculations ?

what you read is what you get. Indeed, speculations. But note we need all the three generations to get the perfect pairing. So from the point of view of susy the pion is not a object exclusive of the first generation.

Page 2 is more orthodox but I have never seen the argument published neither.

 

[tehno]

No Higgs found (gut feelings).

 

[Severian]

Quite simply because the Higgs mechanism is not used in the derivation of rest masses.

Yes it is. Given the Yukawa couplings, you can predict the rest masses using the Higgs mechnism. (Of course, you have to input the Yukawa couplings, but as I said before, they are not masses, so they don't count.)

 

[Kea]

Yes it is.

I was referring to the rigorous derivation in the new approach to QG. Cheers.

 

[Severian]

I was referring to the rigorous derivation in the new approach to QG. Cheers.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are meaning? What does QG have to do with the Higgs mechanism?

 

[Kea]

What does QG have to do with the Higgs mechanism?

The fact that the QG derivation of particle masses (see Brannen) is carried out in a preon setting, free of any Higgs boson, which we conclude does not exist. I believe the existence of the Higgs boson is the topic of this thread, not the Higgs mechanism in the SM.

 

[Severian]

The fact that the QG derivation of particle masses (see Brannen) is carried out in a preon setting, free of any Higgs boson, which we conclude does not exist. I believe the existence of the Higgs boson is the topic of this thread, not the Higgs mechanism in the SM.

Sorry, I hadn't realized you were talking about BSM physics.

However, I am surprised that your preon setting is Higgs free. In the low energy effective theory where you integrate out the preon degrees of freedom (or rather the boson mediating the preon-preon interaction which holds them together inside the quark/lepton) I would still expect to have a condensate which couples to the fermions via a Yukawa coupling and gives it a mass.

In other words, the Higgs doesn't need to be fundamental to be a Higgs.

Of course, I am not familiar with your model, so it could be very different from what I am imagining.

 

[jgraber]

recently I found a link which reminded me that it is split supersymmetry which has a preference for a Higgs mass near 170 GeV. look at slides 6 and 7 in this reference.

http://james.physik.uni-freiburg.de/Graduiertenkolleg/talks/TPlehnFreiburg.pdf

So now I am puzzled why this option has not gotten more votes.
Best to all. Jim Graber

 

[Siul]

Hello,
Have you ever heard about Tony Smith's ideas in his extensive webpage ? What do you think about them ? Thanks !

 

[Severian]

recently I found a link which reminded me that it is split supersymmetry which has a preference for a Higgs mass near 170 GeV. look at slides 6 and 7 in this reference.

http://james.physik.uni-freiburg.de/Graduiertenkolleg/talks/TPlehnFreiburg.pdf

So now I am puzzled why this option has not gotten more votes.
Best to all. Jim Graber

Hmmm... why on Earth would Tilman be giving a talk on Split Susy. I know he thinks its crap. (I will have to tease him about it :D)

 

[Euclidistheway]

A MSSM Higgs

My bet is the detection of a MSSM light Higgs at 114.5635 GeV. This is dependent on the top quark mass 170.9666 GeV. This lower and upper bound is from the dynamics of two Nambu-Goldstone bosons generating 248 gauge fields (1/2 of the NG superfield). A strong colour mixing of the 124 gauge fields of the single NG boson generates the lower bound while the 248 gauge fields of the two NG bosons strong colour mix to generate the upper bound. This prediction is the precise result of the fermion superstring action on the CFT going massless and bosonic as the potential is pushed. The light Higgs signal is the result of the theory in ½ of the SUSY potential therefore the LHC results will not distinguish between the MSSM and the SM validity on the basis of this specific.