Is the Higgs Field the Only Way to Explain Mass in the Standard Model?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter franoisbelfor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Higgs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of the Higgs field in explaining mass within the Standard Model of particle physics. Participants explore alternative mechanisms for mass generation, including Higgsless models and dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking, while questioning the implications of these alternatives on theoretical consistency and experimental observations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if fermion masses and W and Z boson masses could arise from mechanisms other than the Higgs field, the necessity of the Higgs could be questioned.
  • Others argue that existing Higgsless models typically introduce new particles or dimensions, suggesting that a purely minimal Standard Model may not suffice to avoid theoretical issues like the unitarity problem at 1 TeV.
  • A participant mentions that the unitarity problem must be addressed, either through the Higgs or an alternative mechanism, and questions the nature of reactions that could exceed 100% probability.
  • There is discussion about the distinction between the Higgs field and the Higgs boson, with some suggesting that the existence of the field does not necessarily imply the existence of the particle.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the concept of "minimal" models, arguing that the Standard Model itself is not minimal and that new physics may inherently be more complex.
  • Technicolor and dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking are mentioned as alternatives that introduce new forces and particles, complicating the landscape further.
  • Questions arise regarding the current experimental situation and whether results up to 200 GeV can distinguish between scenarios with and without the Higgs field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of the Higgs field, with multiple competing views on alternative mass generation mechanisms and the implications of these alternatives remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of "minimal" and the unresolved nature of the unitarity problem, as well as the ambiguity surrounding the distinction between the Higgs field and the Higgs boson.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in theoretical physics, particularly in the context of particle physics, mass generation mechanisms, and the Standard Model may find this discussion relevant.

franoisbelfor
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
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...

François
 
Physics news on Phys.org
franoisbelfor said:
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?

There are a number of Higgsless models.

franoisbelfor said:
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?

That, however, will not work. Something needs to be added.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
There are a number of Higgsless models.

That, however, will not work. Something needs to be added.

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?


François
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
BenTheMan said:
Dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking still requires a higgs :)
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.
 
  • #10
humanino said:
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.

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.
 
  • #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

François
 
  • #12
Well, if there IS a field, then it's excitations should give the higgs boson, I think...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K