Time for a Poll: Higgs Mass Prediction

[Severian]

Quite simply because the Higgs mechanism is not used in the derivation of rest masses.

Yes it is. Given the Yukawa couplings, you can predict the rest masses using the Higgs mechnism. (Of course, you have to input the Yukawa couplings, but as I said before, they are not masses, so they don't count.)

 

[Kea]

Yes it is.

I was referring to the rigorous derivation in the new approach to QG. Cheers.

 

[Severian]

I was referring to the rigorous derivation in the new approach to QG. Cheers.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are meaning? What does QG have to do with the Higgs mechanism?

 

[Kea]

What does QG have to do with the Higgs mechanism?

The fact that the QG derivation of particle masses (see Brannen) is carried out in a preon setting, free of any Higgs boson, which we conclude does not exist. I believe the existence of the Higgs boson is the topic of this thread, not the Higgs mechanism in the SM.

 

[Severian]

The fact that the QG derivation of particle masses (see Brannen) is carried out in a preon setting, free of any Higgs boson, which we conclude does not exist. I believe the existence of the Higgs boson is the topic of this thread, not the Higgs mechanism in the SM.

Sorry, I hadn't realized you were talking about BSM physics.

However, I am surprised that your preon setting is Higgs free. In the low energy effective theory where you integrate out the preon degrees of freedom (or rather the boson mediating the preon-preon interaction which holds them together inside the quark/lepton) I would still expect to have a condensate which couples to the fermions via a Yukawa coupling and gives it a mass.

In other words, the Higgs doesn't need to be fundamental to be a Higgs.

Of course, I am not familiar with your model, so it could be very different from what I am imagining.

 

[jgraber]

recently I found a link which reminded me that it is split supersymmetry which has a preference for a Higgs mass near 170 GeV. look at slides 6 and 7 in this reference.

http://james.physik.uni-freiburg.de/Graduiertenkolleg/talks/TPlehnFreiburg.pdf

So now I am puzzled why this option has not gotten more votes.
Best to all. Jim Graber

 

[Siul]

Hello,
Have you ever heard about Tony Smith's ideas in his extensive webpage ? What do you think about them ? Thanks !

 

[Severian]

recently I found a link which reminded me that it is split supersymmetry which has a preference for a Higgs mass near 170 GeV. look at slides 6 and 7 in this reference.

http://james.physik.uni-freiburg.de/Graduiertenkolleg/talks/TPlehnFreiburg.pdf

So now I am puzzled why this option has not gotten more votes.
Best to all. Jim Graber

Hmmm... why on Earth would Tilman be giving a talk on Split Susy. I know he thinks its crap. (I will have to tease him about it :D)

 

[Euclidistheway]

A MSSM Higgs

My bet is the detection of a MSSM light Higgs at 114.5635 GeV. This is dependent on the top quark mass 170.9666 GeV. This lower and upper bound is from the dynamics of two Nambu-Goldstone bosons generating 248 gauge fields (1/2 of the NG superfield). A strong colour mixing of the 124 gauge fields of the single NG boson generates the lower bound while the 248 gauge fields of the two NG bosons strong colour mix to generate the upper bound. This prediction is the precise result of the fermion superstring action on the CFT going massless and bosonic as the potential is pushed. The light Higgs signal is the result of the theory in ½ of the SUSY potential therefore the LHC results will not distinguish between the MSSM and the SM validity on the basis of this specific.