Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could the Higgs not exist?

  1. Dec 1, 2008 #1
    Assume that fermion masses arise by some other mechanism,
    and that W and Z masses arise as well, would then the Higgs
    be necessary?

    Or could one find a way to use the standard model up to
    the Planck energy without Higgs sector at all?

    Would the unitarity problem at 1 TeV still exist, or could it
    be circumvented in some way, without adding new particles,
    new theories, but keeping a sort of mini-minimal
    standard model, with the known particles only?

    I'm just curious...

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2008 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    There are a number of Higgsless models.

    That, however, will not work. Something needs to be added.
  4. Dec 1, 2008 #3
  5. Dec 1, 2008 #4
    The higgsless models all invent new particle or new dimensions, it seems. If I understand you correctly,sticking to the existing particles and dimensions will lead to deviations between theory and experiment at around 1 TeV. So, if the Higgs is not found, something else is bound to happen at 1 TeV, correct?

    Just to check, what is the experimental situation? Do experiments so far, thus up to a 100 or 200 GeV, follow the standard model with Higgs, or is it impossible to distinguish the two cases: with and without Higgs? (I guess the latter.)

    In other words, the 1 TeV unitarity problem must be solved in some way. Either the Higgs, or something else.

    What exactly is this unitarity problem? Which reaction, or reactions, happen with more than 100% probability? Is there a place/book where this is explained in detail?

  6. Dec 1, 2008 #5
  7. Dec 2, 2008 #6
    Dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking still requires a higgs :)

    The thing that always got me about statements like "minimal" was...who decides what is minimal? The SM certainly isn't minimal. "Minimal" is only a loose guiding principle---probably the physics beyond the standard model is decidedly NON-minimal.
  8. Dec 2, 2008 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Technicolor...er...dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking adds new forces, though. These new forces have particles associated with them. You also get new analogs of existing particles: for example, a WZ resonance would appear in most models.
  9. Dec 2, 2008 #8
    If you don't like new forces, there is also non-commutative geometry by Connes, which also adds new dimensions but in a different manner from usual (namely, one usual and 6 K-dimensions).
  10. Dec 2, 2008 #9
    A fermion condensate is not what people usual call a Higgs, but it may just be a semantic problem. People usually call Higgs a fundamental scalar.
  11. Dec 2, 2008 #10
    So if you're talking about technicolor, then ok---you're right. Some technipions play the role of the higgs. For some reason, I thought "dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking" meant "getting the higgs potential from the MSSM".

    Apologies for the brain fart.
  12. Dec 2, 2008 #11
    There are people who distinguish the Higgs field and the Higgs particle. Some seem to suggest that the Higgs field is more probable to exist than the Higgs boson. How can this be? What are the arguments?

    Just curious

  13. Dec 2, 2008 #12
    Well, if there IS a field, then it's excitations should give the higgs boson, I think...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook