Higgs Boson, place your bets...

[YT2095]

will we find the Higgs Boson to be present/absent in the upcoming LHC experiments?

[ajb]

I voted yes as it is hard to imagine not finding it(them).

 

However, if it is lacking then it would be fantastic as we would have to do a lot more work on the standard model and its extensions.

[Royston]

Not that I know enough particle physics to give an informed response, but I voted yes.

[insane_alien]

i'm also voting yes. although to be honest i hope they don't but find something completely new and unexpected.

[YT2095]

I voted no, I think we`ll find a whole bunch of new "Stuff" we were never aware existed, but the idea of the Higgs field seems a little too convenient to fill in the "Ugly" parts of the standard model.

I`v a feeling we`re in for quite a few surprises.

[Mr Skeptic]

I voted no, I think we`ll find a whole bunch of new "Stuff" we were never aware existed, but the idea of the Higgs field seems a little too convenient to fill in the "Ugly" parts of the standard model.

I`v a feeling we`re in for quite a few surprises.

 

Same here. It seems to me that the Higgs is wishful thinking, but then again, I don't really understand the theory.

[ajb]

Not wishful thinking!

 

In part it comes down to a theorem of t'Hooft who showed that you can renormalise gauge theories that have spontaneously broken gauge symmetries (Higgs-Kibble mechanism). Only after that was such theories really investigated from a phenomenological angle.

 

So far, the Higgs-Kibble mechanism seems the best way to give mass to particles in a gauge theory.

 

Again, not just wishful thinking.

[Mr Skeptic]

In part it comes down to a theorem of t'Hooft who showed that you can renormalise gauge theories that have spontaneously broken gauge symmetries (Higgs-Kibble mechanism). Only after that was such theories really investigated from a phenomenological angle.

 

So far, the Higgs-Kibble mechanism seems the best way to give mass to particles in a gauge theory.

 

That's pretty much what I meant by "I don't really understand the theory."

[swansont]

"We" have found all the other particles as predicted, so yes, I think we'll find the Higgs. I'm not a particle guy, but it's hard for me to fathom that the rest of the particles would exist if the model was very wrong.

[Martin]

I also think the Higgs will eventually be found----I have no idea how soon, or if it is realistic to expect enough data to establish its existence will accumulate in the near term, like 2009 or 2010. We may be in for a wait.

 

what I'm curious about is what the mass will turn out to be, if the particle is found.

 

Apparently Fermilab has recently ruled out the possibility that the Higgs, if it exists, could have a mass around 170 GeV (a range which some people had predicted was likely).

 

If the Higgs is found (as I expect it eventually will be) then presumably the mass would have to be substatiatially less----like around 130 GeV??---or substantially more.

 

Does anyone know of one or more informed guesses out there?

[Severian]

I am fairly sure we will find a Higgs Boson. I am not sure it will be fundamental, but there will be some sort of propagating state which fills the role of a Higgs. We need one simply to construct SU(2) invariant mass terms for the quarks and leptons.

[ajb]

Severian,

 

are there any other possible mechanisms for creating mass in gauge theories? I do remember David Olive telling me something about solitons in this context.

[Severian]

Severian,

 

are there any other possible mechanisms for creating mass in gauge theories? I do remember David Olive telling me something about solitons in this context.

 

Of course. In fact, we have already seen another mechanism for creating mass. The masses of hadrons are not just the sum of the masses of the constituent quarks. QCD provides the extra mass - the strength of the interaction forced condensates to form.

 

The high energy equivalent of this would be Technicolor.

 

Does anyone know of one or more informed guesses out there?

 

The elctroweak precision tests give: M_H = 76⁺³³_-24GeV, or in other words M_H < 144 GeV with 95% confidence.

 

If you fold in the LEP constraint this becomes M_H < 182 GeV with 95% confidence.

[ajb]

Do technicolor theories violate the Weinberg-Witten theorem?

[Severian]

Do technicolor theories violate the Weinberg-Witten theorem?

 

No, in the same sense that QCD doesn't. In principle Technicolor could just be another QCD at higher scales, and the W and Z are then composite particles. (This model, and technicolor models generally, have many other problems though.)

[ajb]

Without knowing very much about technicolor, I was under the impression that they generally have many problems and people today don't think they are phenomenologically viable.

 

Are there any other possible mechanisms known?

 

If not, or indeed if they are also not viable then the Higgs missing would be a great new for particle theory. You will have lots of work to do Severian.

[Severian]

Without knowing very much about technicolor, I was under the impression that they generally have many problems and people today don't think they are phenomenologically viable.

 

It is quite constrained (mainly the prediction for S and T), but there are ways around most of the obstacles. The problem is that a previously aesthetically pleasing idea becomes less pleasing when you have to contort it wildly to avoid constraints.

 

Are there any other possible mechanisms known?

 

There are also composite Higgs models (eg. the BHL model where the Higgs is a top-antitop bound state - iirc this also needs susy otherwise the top quark needs to be too heavy) and Higgless models (togther with extra dimensions, where the KK states solve the WW scattering unitarity violation).

[abskebabs]

Does anyone know hawking's reasons for betting that it won't be found?

[swansont]

Does anyone know hawking's reasons for betting that it won't be found?

 

My speculation is that he hopes there's more physics to be discovered.

[dichotomy]

Yes, you don’t put all that work and money in to get nothing out. If nothing, they might even discover how to make a Mk2 LHC that works! Something unintentional and interesting will no doubt come from it. Although it does remind me of dooms day machine scifi stories.

[npts2020]

Many years ago I was in the navy and worked at a reactor onboard ship, yet I barely understand the physics behind higgs bosons. However, not understanding something never stopped me from talking about it before, so here goes. I do not like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" proposed by more famous physicists than myself. It is probably my lack of imagination but I can envision no undetectable mechanism for it. The alternative, is the idea of some kind of aether, one rejected by Einstein and most others, that connects everything. My bet is with Mr. Hawking and having to come up with a new paradigm. Imho things should become less complex the smaller we go rather than more.

The sideshow of "the world will end" seems far more widespread among people with no understanding of science than among scientists. Videos like sillygirl, er I mean lonelygirl. seem to not take into account much the fact that such a thing will violate nearly every law of physics ever observed.

[Gilded]

Many years ago I was in the navy and worked at a reactor onboard ship, yet I barely understand the physics behind higgs bosons.

 

Don't worry about that, yourdadonapogos is a navy reactor technician at the moment and has trouble putting his socks on in the morning.

 

I do not like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" proposed by more famous physicists than myself. It is probably my lack of imagination but I can envision no undetectable mechanism for it. The alternative, is the idea of some kind of aether, one rejected by Einstein and most others, that connects everything. My bet is with Mr. Hawking and having to come up with a new paradigm. Imho things should become less complex the smaller we go rather than more.

 

It's not an undetectable mechanism just because we haven't detected it yet.

 

On the things becoming less complex the closer you look is a weird concept to me. If anything they should become more complex, just like a small insect might look rather simple but up close is actually made of all sorts of neat plates and cells. And as you look at these cells you see that they're actually incredibly complex structures. At this point you might see a bit of DNA as some sort of small strand but upon closer inspection it's revealed that it's actually made of atoms and so forth. Then people formed equations to describe the behavior of atoms but noticed that these equations were too simple and had to be expanded. And soon came the era of quantum mechanics, which is just batshit insane to be honest, no offense.

[bombus]

I reckon we won't. That would be far too easy woudn't it. Well probably find the HB to actually be a thousand and one new particles!

[Severian]

I do not like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" proposed by more famous physicists than myself.

 

The Standard Model has no action at a distance. Everything is mediated by the exchange of particles. So electrons which move apart due to electromagnetism are transferring momentum by exchanging a photon, just like two ice skaters moving apart when one throws a ball at the other.

[npts2020]

The Standard Model has no action at a distance. Everything is mediated by the exchange of particles. So electrons which move apart due to electromagnetism are transferring momentum by exchanging a photon, just like two ice skaters moving apart when one throws a ball at the other.

 

Thanks for the clarification, it really has been a long time since giving any serious thought to this. Do these exchanges in any way change mass or charge of the particles they come from while the exchange is taking place? Also, how does such a force act in every direction at the same time?