Register to reply

Higgs model predicts a universe the size of a football.

Share this thread:
my2cts
#19
Oct22-13, 02:26 PM
P: 80
Quote Quote by Bill_K View Post
The link you gave originally has disappeared, but I found what I think is the same paper here. So he gets a (100 GeV)4 contribution to the cosmological constant, which is only off by 55 orders of magnitude.
It is still there, after a bounce I retried and retrieved the paper. It is almost the same to the one you link to, but there the conclusion is weakened by adding unknown terms.
mfb
#20
Oct22-13, 02:41 PM
Mentor
P: 11,889
Quote Quote by my2cts View Post
If the Higgs mechanism is so well established, why is the question "Are the branching ratios of the Higgs Boson consistent with the standard model" listed as the nr 1 unsolved problem on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rticle_physics ?
The list is not ordered by importance.
Out of all elementary particles, the Higgs is the one with the smallest set of measurements, and the largest uncertainty in those measurements. The branching ratios are a powerful test to see if the Higgs boson acts as expected.
Chronos
#21
Oct22-13, 02:55 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,444
For discussion of the 'vacuum catastrophe' problem, see Quantum vacuum fluctuations, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105053
dauto
#22
Oct22-13, 04:00 PM
Thanks
P: 1,948
Quote Quote by Bill_K View Post
The link you gave originally has disappeared, but I found what I think is the same paper here. So he gets a (100 GeV)4 contribution to the cosmological constant, which is only off by 55 orders of magnitude.
That's the improvement provided by supersymmetry that I quoted from memory as being off by "only" about 60 orders of magnitude. Veltman is not out for a laugh. His point is to show that despite the standard models successes, there are still important questions that should be answerable within the context of particle physics for which the standard model fails miserably. That does not detract from the correctness of the standard model but highlights its limitations. Presumably a correct treatment for that question can only be envisioned within the context of a wider theory.
Bill_K
#23
Oct22-13, 04:31 PM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
Bill_K's Avatar
P: 4,160
Quote Quote by dauto View Post
That's the improvement provided by supersymmetry that I quoted from memory as being off by "only" about 60 orders of magnitude.
No it isn't. Veltman makes no mention of supersymmetry.

All these discussions are similar, but the radically different answers they get boil down to a choice of scale. The vacuum energy is ρ ~ M4. If you use in this the Planck mass, MPl = 1019 GeV, you'll be off by 120 orders of magnitude. Veltman says to use the electroweak scale, M = 100 GeV, which is only off by 55 orders. Supersymmetry so far has not been seen, so its scale keeps going up, but it appears to be 1000 GeV or more, which is off by 60 orders.

By comparison the scale from the observed cosmological constant is Mobs = 0.001 eV, which makes you wonder if they are even looking in the right place.
my2cts
#24
Oct22-13, 04:41 PM
P: 80
Quote Quote by Bill_K View Post
No it isn't. Veltman makes no mention of supersymmetry.

All these discussions are similar, but the radically different answers they get boil down to a choice of scale. The vacuum energy is ρ ~ M4. If you use in this the Planck mass, MPl = 1019 GeV, you'll be off by 120 orders of magnitude. Veltman says to use the electroweak scale, M = 100 GeV, which is only off by 55 orders. Supersymmetry so far has not been seen, so its scale keeps going up, but it appears to be 1000 GeV or more, which is off by 60 orders.

By comparison the scale from the observed cosmological constant is Mobs = 0.001 eV, which makes you wonder if they are even looking in the right place.
Veltman just works out the consequences of the Higgs model Lagrangian, which contains a constant m2M2/8g2. He does not pick a scale.
Bill_K
#25
Oct22-13, 05:07 PM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
Bill_K's Avatar
P: 4,160
Quote Quote by my2cts View Post
Veltman just works out the consequences of the Higgs model Lagrangian, which contains a constant m2M2/8g2. He does not pick a scale.
The scale of the electroweak Lagrangian is set by the parameters that describe the Higgs potenial, namely μ and λ. These, along with the weak coupling constant g, determine the masses for the Higgs boson and the gauge bosons, all around 100 GeV. This is the electroweak scale, or sometimes called the Fermi scale.

Notice that his result is only one contribution to the vacuum energy. There are other contributions, equally important. With this approach, the puzzle is how the remaining contributions can nearly cancel this one.
my2cts
#26
Oct22-13, 05:40 PM
P: 80
Quote Quote by Bill_K View Post
The scale of the electroweak Lagrangian is set by the parameters that describe the Higgs potenial, namely μ and λ. These, along with the weak coupling constant g, determine the masses for the Higgs boson and the gauge bosons, all around 100 GeV. This is the electroweak scale, or sometimes called the Fermi scale.

Notice that his result is only one contribution to the vacuum energy. There are other contributions, equally important. With this approach, the puzzle is how the remaining contributions can nearly cancel this one.
Ok, I see why you wrote "picks the scale".
The case of the Higgs model is however special in that a constant appears in the lagrangian. It is not an infinity due to vacuum fluctuations. I would therefore hesitate to lump it up with the vacuum catastrophe.
my2cts
#27
Nov3-13, 04:22 PM
P: 80
Quote Quote by Bill_K View Post
The scale of the electroweak Lagrangian is set by the parameters that describe the Higgs potenial, namely μ and λ. These, along with the weak coupling constant g, determine the masses for the Higgs boson and the gauge bosons, all around 100 GeV. This is the electroweak scale, or sometimes called the Fermi scale.

Notice that his result is only one contribution to the vacuum energy. There are other contributions, equally important. With this approach, the puzzle is how the remaining contributions can nearly cancel this one.
One of these "other" contributions, th eEM zero point energy is probably a fluke:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503158v1.pdf


Register to reply

Related Discussions
If your model predicts Tachyons is that bad? High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 2
Higgs Model Equations High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 1
Standard Model Predicts Subatomic Particles, Then They Are Observed, But Do We Know.. High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 2
Football rating model Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 1
Higgs and the Standard Model High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 5