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

Time for a Poll: Higgs Mass Prediction

  1. No Higgs found

    56.0%
  2. Less than 114 GeV

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. 114-130 GeV

    28.0%
  4. 130-150 GeV

    4.0%
  5. 150-180 Gev

    8.0%
  6. 180-220 Gev

    4.0%
  7. 220-360 GeV

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Above 360 GeV

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Dec 8, 2006 #1
    What mass will the lightest Higgs found in the next three years have?

    No Higgs found in next three years,
    Below 114 GeV
    114-130 GeV
    130-150 Gev
    150-180 GeV
    180-220 Gev
    220-360 Gev
    Above 360 GeV

    Notes:
    1. MSSM Higgs predicted less than 130 GeV, non supersymmetric SM Higgs probably higher.
    See the graph in this post in Tomasso Dorigo’s blog. http://qd.typepad.com/6/2005/06/a_new_top_mass_.html

    2. Below 114 Gev supposedly already excluded by LEP results.

    3. Top Mass around 175 GeV

    If you have a reason for your vote, please explain it briefly.

    I hope many people vote, so I have set the poll to close in 60 days.

    We need to reopen or repost the poll in about a year and a half or so, when
    LHC starts to take real data.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 8, 2006 #2

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If mass is conveyed by the Higgs boson and gravitational attraction is mediated by the gravitational field (perhaps with gravitons), then both the Higgs field and the gravitational field must be perfectly congruent everywhere in the Universe, or the Universe would not behave consistently. The need for this incredible fine-tuning to explain what we observe argues strongly against the existence of the Higgs, and for the concept that mass, gravitational attraction, and inertia all arise from matter's interaction with a single field. Einstein tried to determine the nature of this field in his search for a GR ether in the 1920's and thereafter, and Sakharov revisited this idea in the 1960's, positing that these qualities of matter arose from matter's interaction with the vacuum in which it is embedded. More recently, Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff have been following this line of thought, and even Thanu Padmanabhan has revived it, although with a static vacuum that admits of no polarization and thus cannot be dynamical. A background independent theory of quantum gravity cannot arise from a theory with a static vacuum, so there is more to be done. Anyway, I do not believe the Higgs boson will ever be found.
     
  4. Dec 8, 2006 #3
    Any mass term that you can write down for the electron will break SU(2). Since I believe in gauge symmetry, I believe SU(2) should be a local symmetry at high energies, so the symmetry must be dynamically broken. Therefore, there must be an object (not necessarily fundamental) which couples the left handed fermions to right handed ones, so that it can give an effective mass term when it gains an expectation value. I see no other way around this, so I am sure that the Higgs boson will exist (though it may not be fundamental).

    The fine tuning problem is elegantly removed by supersymmetry, so I predict a Higgs mass below 130GeV but above the 114GeV LEP limit.
     
  5. Dec 8, 2006 #4

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I guess all your "MeV" must be "GeV" ?

     
  6. Dec 8, 2006 #5
    Poll needs fixing

    Sorry, you're absolutely right.
    I have edited the text, but I don't know how to edit the poll.
    Jim Graber
    If I can't figure out how to fix it, maybe I'll put up a separate corrected version.
     
  7. Dec 8, 2006 #6
    Edit: Thanks to moderator Evo for fixing the poll.
     
  8. Dec 9, 2006 #7

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I voted in all ignorance "no Higgs found" because at least, that would be something genuinely new and unexpected!
     
  9. Dec 9, 2006 #8

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In a recent poll there was the option
    "something not in the above, that must surprise everybody"

    And I was left thinking about the option "something not in the above list, that must surprise nobody"
     
  10. Dec 9, 2006 #9

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I voted for 114-130 given a series of rational and irrational motivations.

    The most rational one are the plots of compatibility with the standard model. While I believe (now) in supersymmetry, I do not believe in the kind of supersymmetry we are being told to look for.

    A step away rationality are the events during the closing days of the LEP, pointing to 115 GeV.

    A mile away, this plot:
    http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/NZ.jpg
    that shows that the plot of known beta-intestable nuclei (in turn, related perhaps to the distribution of for uranium disintegration products) peaks for nuclei having the same mass than the W particle. That, and other suggestions, induced me to believe that the extreme cases of nuclear unstability are able to feel the mass of heavy particles (an unlikely thing, giving the many-to-one combination of degrees of freedom). And the areas of 115, 175 and 246 GeV appear clearly in any model of nuclear stability, see for example here overposed on four different models:
    http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/uno.gif

    (note that these plots, honoring nuclear physics, have the units in "amu" instead of "GeV". The conversion is obvious and even Google is programmed to do it)
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2006
  11. Dec 11, 2006 #10
    I voted for 114-130 as well, the main reason for me being the constraints from supersymmetry. It would of course be much more exciting if the Higgs is not found, but it would also be a political disaster for founding...
    I'm sorry, I do not quite follow what is shown here. :redface: Could you provide more details please, it seems interesting :smile: Are you suggesting that these plots are hints for a "light" Higgs ? They do not look like experimental plots : how were they produced ?
     
  12. Dec 11, 2006 #11
    Those considerations are very interesting, but a little too "poetic" for my taste. This is very qualitative, and comes merely from vague analogies. I would like to remind that ordinary mass around us does not even care for the Higgs boson : it is hadronic, in the glue field. The infamous problem of the mass gap is a mathematically well defined one, at least as interesting as the quantification of gravity, with $1M for its solution, but it is maybe too difficult to be addressed by average theoreticians... Very unfortunate in my opinion that so many people spend so many time on the same topics...
     
  13. Dec 11, 2006 #12
    Nice summary, thanks! Do you know where I can find a reference list of single-field theories? So far W.F Hagen's work on nuclear energiewirbel seems to offer the most promise.
     
  14. Dec 11, 2006 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know if there is a comprehensive listing anywhere, but you might want to chase down Padmanabhan's papers (if you Google his last name, you'll find his home page) and use Citebase to track back to Sakharov's papers, then find out which authors have cited those papers. That type of searching will lead you into some interesting areas - remember that papers can be cited for a number of reasons, and often you will find citations pointing out theoretical problems, conflicts with observation, etc. Good luck.
     
  15. Dec 11, 2006 #14

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    First, note that this was the far far far far fetched argument of my list.

    The plots you see are theoretical models to predict the mass of nucleons. State-of-art mass formulae, if you wish. Because of the complications of the strong force, all these models still use/need empirical parameters. For instance more spin-orbit terms are introduced to alter the shell model plain prediction and then its value is adjusted to fit predictions. So the model has, say, one or two dozen of free parameters and then it is used to predict the masses of some hundreds of known nuclei. No bad.

    The point is, they also predict the proton and neutron "driplines", the lines such that beyond them it is not possible to add a neutron or a proton. These are the lines yoy see in the plots and that, specially for the neutron dripline, present irregularities. Then antidiagonally I have traced the "isobars", the lines joining nuclei with equal mass.

    The conjecture was that nuclear stability could feel the onset of new particles. This was motivated, as I told, by the coincidence between the mass of W and the huge quantity of beta disintegrations recorded in nuclei having the same mass than W. And becaues I examined the plots and I saw that the antidiagonal of 175 GeV was clearly distinguished. Then another two ones, at 246 GeV and about 115 GeV seem to hint for particles or some kind of QFT effect at these energies. Still, it could be a coincidence (two, actually, the W and the top) and everything being just an artifact of the shell model that every nuclear model mimics.

    From these plots my bets should be: something at 115, something at 246 (sqrt(2) top), and something -a charged boson?- perhaps low at 69 GeV. I myself would not put a lot of money on it.


    Ah, remember the plots are in atomic mass units. 1 amu = 0.931 GeV
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2006
  16. Dec 11, 2006 #15
    Big Surprise!

    I am very surprised at the results of this poll so far. I expected the 114-130 GeV category would be the overwhelming winner, for two reasons:
    first, experimental evidence indirectly supporting a light Higgs, and
    second, theoretical preference for an MSSM Higgs.

    Instead this 114-130 category is running second, with No Higgs found the clear leader. I almost left that category out. So lots of people are expecting or hoping for a No Higgs revolution.
    A year or so ago, I was definitely an MSSM fan. Now, I am thinking about just a standard model Higgs, perhaps similar to Tommaso Dorigo, in his bet with Jacques Distler and Gordon Watts.
    http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/12/7/1
    http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2006/09/04/this-1000-says-there-aint-new-physics-at-the-tev-scale/
    http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2006/09/06/the-bets-are-on/

    (Perhaps I can invite them to vote or comment)
    But I don’t know where this SM Higgs will show up. Maybe it will also be light. Maybe it will be up near the Top Mass, so perhaps I will vote for 150-180 GeV. Norman voted for 180-220 GeV, but didn’t explain his vote. I’m dying to know why he picked that mass range.
    Thanks for voting. Ask all your friends to vote.
    Best to everyone.
    Jim Graber
     
  17. Dec 11, 2006 #16

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, note that the answer is "No Higgs found in next three years". Now I wonder how many of the "no higgs" people had voted "No Higgs ever" too. And how about the theoretically impossible question "No Higgs, No New Physics, No experimental failure" (There was a 10% vote on "nothing found" in a experimental lab, and I do not know if it was theoretical pessimism or experimental pessimism".
     
  18. Dec 11, 2006 #17

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Let me clarify a bit. We currently have a model in which mass is conferred upon matter by the Higgs boson - carrier particle for the Higgs field. We also have a separate gravitational field that mediates the attractive force between these now-massive lumps of matter (whether or not the gravitational field is simply the mathematical model of curved space-time or whether there must be a graviton acting as a carrier particle). In this model, there are two different fields required before we can see gravitational behavior. Naively, we should expect that these fields are dynamic and they can exhibit not only evolution but polarization as they interact with matter. We do not see this, even when we look back a significant percentage of the age of the universe. This implies that either the Higgs field and the gravitational field are congruent to the nth degree everywhere we can observe OR that mass, gravitation and inertia arise from matter's interaction with a single field. I prefer the latter interpretation with no Higgs boson and no graviton. For Einstein's thoughts on this (On the Ether, 1924):

    I think it is time to revisit Einstein's ideas and give them a fair consideration. I don't think he was wrong in this regard, just ignored, as people grabbed his mathematical approximation of curved space-time and rejected his quest for an extension of GR that would explain the mechanics of gravitation and inertia and encompass EM.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2006
  19. Dec 11, 2006 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're right, but the option of "no Higgs ever" was not available. I would have gone for that one.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2006
  20. Dec 11, 2006 #19

    Kea

    User Avatar

    So would I.

    :smile:
     
  21. Dec 11, 2006 #20

    arivero

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :bugeye:

    To clarify: what about the opticn

    "No Higgs, No New Physics, No experimental failure"

    or its equivalent

    "I do not believe the unitarity argument".

    Any votes here?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Time for a Poll: Higgs Mass Prediction
  1. Higgs mass (Replies: 2)

  2. Higgs mass (Replies: 19)

Loading...