# Higgs - By their evidence

1. Dec 8, 2009

### enotstrebor

I started two Threads on the Higgs mechanism. Both related to wiki statements which I believed were not scientific statements, but both biased and in one case untrue.

I asked for rigorous information, not conjecture. I was pointed to two web sights, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0001/0001283v1.pdf" [Broken] as evidence to the contrary.

In both cases the individuals references contained no new information (to me). The information given is in several parts. Please refer to the part (i.e in Part 1 ...) in any response.

I deal first with the statement,
"Although the evidence for the Higgs mechanism is overwhelming,"

Part 1

What follows presumes that if a standard model feature has effects beyond the particle physics area, these effects are still important to asses the validity of a standard model feature If you do not believe this, then this Part is not relevant to you.

Fact:
The Higgs mechanism results in a cosmological constant that is 10^56 times to large and of the wrong sign. (see evidence below) This is not off just a little but just wrong off.

My interpretation:
I would say that this is overwhelming evidence that the Higgs mechanism SM combination is wrong and thus evidence contrary to the wiki quote. Something is rotten in Denmark when your 10^56 off.

My Evidence:
From http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0241" [Broken] pg37 "because it (the Higgs mechanism) contributes to the cosmological
constant ... It is some 10^56 times larger in magnitude than the observed value $$\Lambda_obs$$ ... and it is of the wrong sign. This is clearly unacceptable."

This problem is also given in the text on the Higgs mechanism and resultants. Page 10

"Such a constant term is irrelevant to physics in the absence of gravity, but will be seen in Section 5 to be one of the most serious problems of the SM when gravity is incorporated because it acts like a cosmological constant much larger (and of opposite sign) than is allowed by observations."

Part 2

If people are looking for other possibilities (maybe ones that don't produce a cosmological constant 10^56 times wrong), is this contrary to the wiki statement?

From http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0241" [Broken] Section 5 - pg 35, Higgs/hierarchy problem
Another possibility is to eliminate the elementary Higgs fields, replacing
them with some dynamical symmetry breaking mechanism based on a new
strong dynamics. In technicolor, for example, the SSB is associated with
the expectation value of a fermion bilinear, analogous to the breaking of
chiral symmetry in QCD.

Part 3

Some people believe that the Higgs particle should have already been found. Though the theory has wiggle room depending on the assumptions made. Unfortunately I do not have the time to get the references, but I believe one reference was Nist SM related.

***********************************

This is about the statement.
"The Higgs mechanism in the standard model successfully predicts the mass of the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons,".

Part 3:

An interpretation:
The statement, "the Higgs mechanism predicts" can easily be said to imply all you need is the Higgs rather than "the Higgs mechanism is a required contributor for the ability of the SM to predict the masses of the W and Z". Thus the statement "the Higgs mechanism predicts" is scientifically misleading.

A less misleading statement: (the correct scientific statement?)
"The Higgs mechanism along with the Salam-Weinberg mass ratio weak angle relationship, a measured weak angle value and the weak theory G_f (measured) allows for a prediction of the W and Z masses."

The Evidence:
From http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0001/0001283v1.pdf" [Broken] refer to page 47, equation 2.32.

You will note:

1) The Higgs mechanism "mass prediction" requires $$s_W$$
2) The Higgs mechanism "mass prediction" requires $$G_f$$
3) The Higgs mechanism "mass prediction" for the Z particle requires $$c_W=M_W/M_z$$

Thus the Higgs mechanism itself does not predict the masses.

The prediction relies on the W/Z mass ratio weak angle relationship of the electroweak theory. Thus (by itself) the Higgs mechanism predicts nothing.

Part 4

The prediction is sensitive to the weak angle value. A weak angle value of .23 instead of .22 results in a not so good value of 77.

So the prediction is not a vary accurate one.

If you want a really accurate prediction of both, admittedly by a non SM approach see http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO4PDF/V16N4STO.pdf"

This is something new:

Part 5

3) The Higgs mechanism "mass prediction" for the Z particle requires $$c_W=M_W/M_Z$$

Note that the Z prediction requires the angle (theta) used in the Higgs mechanism for $$c_W$$ to be the same as the angle in the electroweak theory
$$s_W$$.

What is the scientific reason for this (none is given). It is a natural guess, but ....

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted