Imagining a Higgsless Universe

[Orodruin]

Got reminded of this thread from https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-second-third-generation.890021/#post-5599190

Step 1: set the Higgs coupling to the W and Z to zero. The W and Z masses don't go to zero: they go to about 30 MeV because they still get a QCD mass from the quark condensate.

Step 2: Let's set the Higgs couplings to the quarks to zero. This should set all the 0- masses to a 36-fold degenerate zero, because they are all Goldstones. Other mesons will still be massive, as will the baryons, because their mass is governed by LambdaQCD and not the quark current masses. Surely that will set the W and Z masses to zero. And...now they weigh about 100 keV.

What exactly do you mean by step 1? The Higgs will still be an SU(2) doublet and the coupling is fixed by the SU(2) coupling constant because the interaction term originates in the covariant derivative of the kinetic term for the Higgs field. Putting the Higgs coupling to the SU(2) gauge bosons to zero would imply putting the SU(2) coupling constant to zero and the SU(2) part of the theory would then be free and meaningless. If you make the Higgs an SU(2) singlet, clearly it will no longer couple to the SU(2) gauge bosons, but then you have fundamentally changed the field content of your model. On the other hand, if you do that you will no longer have a scalar doublet that you can use to create the Yukawa couplings that you want to turn off in step 2.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The steps are not intended to be viable, consistent and renomalizable theories on their own. They are there to illustrate the consequences in a simple way. Think of it like removing and then reinserting the corilois force in discussing classical mechanics.

 

[rootone]

I don't see why it is interesting to discuss a model where a Higgs boson/field does not exist when there is now good evidence that it does.

 

[arivero]

I don't see why it is interesting to discuss a model where a Higgs boson/field does not exist when there is now good evidence that it does.

Well, depends of your view of the goals of discussing. Towards publication of a pheno paper, it is sort of absurd. Towards learning or even as advanced undergraduate work, it is valuable.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't see why it is interesting to discuss a model where a Higgs boson/field does not exist when there is now good evidence that it does.

It helps illustrate the role played by the Higgs.

 

[Orodruin]

We also are happy to let our students play with several hypothetical scenarios in order to understand the theory better. I see no reason why we should not do the same ourselves.