Electroweak symmetry breaking without a Higgs

[A/4]

Interesting new paper from John Moffat:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4269

Introduces a non-local, finite QFT that dynamically generates boson and fermion masses as loop corrections. Experimental evidence for the theory will be visible in WW scattering at the LHC (coupling goes to zero, which is distinct from various other models with Higgs fields).

Comments?

 

[ensabah6]

Interesting new paper from John Moffat:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4269

Introduces a non-local, finite QFT that dynamically generates boson and fermion masses as loop corrections. Experimental evidence for the theory will be visible in WW scattering at the LHC (coupling goes to zero, which is distinct from various other models with Higgs fields).

Comments?

1- if this paper holds, and if LHC/TEV does NOT find higgs/top quark condensates/technicolor, it will be an impressive first paper in new research directions,
2- it is very parsimonious in that only the already discovered SM particles "exist" although DM remains a mystery. SUSY doubles the # of particles.
3- it undermines a central argument for SUSY (the hierarchy problem), providing indirect support for NEW/TWP
4- it might provide a big boost to LQG preon ribbon style particle physics.

If LHC/TEV does NOT find higgs/top quark condensates/technicolor, and LHC does find WW scattering in according with his predictions, I think he deserves a nobel prize in physics.

 

[A/4]

1- if this paper holds, and if LHC/TEV does NOT find higgs/top quark condensates/technicolor, it will be an impressive first paper in new research directions,
2- it is very parsimonious in that only the already discovered SM particles "exist" although DM remains a mystery. SUSY doubles the # of particles.
3- it undermines a central argument for SUSY (the hierarchy problem), providing indirect support for NEW/TWP
4- it might provide a big boost to LQG preon ribbon style particle physics.

If LHC/TEV does NOT find higgs/top quark condensates/technicolor, and LHC does find WW scattering in according with his predictions, I think he deserves a nobel prize in physics.

Vis-a-vis points 2 and 3, Moffat has historically omitted orthodox predictions in his theories. In certain ways, this is a plus: simplicity is better than complexity. Why have a model that predicts more particles than we have observed? It's a bold move to address the elephant in the room: what if we see nothing out of the LHC?

But, in other ways it creates more problems than it solves. In the 80s and 90s, he was promoting a non-symmetric gravitational theory (NGT), which posited a spacetime metric with off-diagonal terms. Some of the novel predictions included dipole gravitational radiation. Although it encompassed GR in its formulation, it was obviously inconsistent with other theories that required a symmetric metric. I can't remember what the resolution was to this, but it seems that NGT has since faded away.

 

[Haelfix]

It breaks locality though, so its rather contrived.

In general in phenemonology, people like to have a

1) Well motivated theory (in the sense that there's something more fundamental behind it, or is utilized to solve a particular problem -eg hierarchy)
2) Simple model (so no extra random particles that don't have much use other than to clutter up things)
3) Respect for the usual symmetries and analytic conditions (Gauge invariance, Lorentz invariance, unitarity, etc etc)
4) Natural. In the sense that there's not too much finetunning.

Unfortunately its very rare to find new models that respect those conditions, so people usually relax one or more of the conditions above. But be sure that each such new model tends to be seen as problematic and unlikely.