🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov6.201950.26221@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>      Hindsight may well be deceiving you.
> 
>      I await with interest the discovery of the Higgs' boson.

Oh, I agree with Scott that consistency is a powerful tool for telling
that a model might be correct.  (Surprisingly few models pass this
test, and it isn't in the least trivial.)

So, along those lines, you should be aware that there are a great many
people who think that a theory with a Higgs boson in it might not be
self-consistent.  The argument along these lines is called
"triviality."

These arguments aren't completely solid, and, even if they are
actually true, something that looks like a Higgs might exist; it just
might not be a fundamental particle.

Still, the point is that not everyone believes in a Higgs boson.  (I'm
one of the people who is rather skeptical.)  It is quite certain that
there is *some* new physics below or at the 1 TeV scale, and that it
has something to do with electroweak symmetry breaking, but the Higgs
boson is only one of the possibilities---and not necessarily the most
plausible one.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!