Article View: sci.physics
Article #4197Re: Standard Model without Higgses (Was : Size of a PHOTON?)
From: Matt Austern
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 13:53
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 13:53
37 lines
2931 bytes
2931 bytes
In article <5NOV199211015169@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes: > From an experimental point of view, the entire question of mass generation > is only now becoming a tractable problem. I am sure that Matt will flame > me for lending so much credence to this, but I'll tell you anyway. Ellis > et.al. have done fits to the large body of LEP data on Z physics, treating > M(top) and M(Higgs) as two open parameters of the SM. The fact that > radiative corrections set nice limits on M(top) is well known and widely > accepted. You find, roughly, that on the assumption that the SM is correct, > M(top) = 130+/-30 GeV. Ellis finds that you can also now constrain the Higgs > mass, though very weakly. I'll try not to make this too much of a flame... :-) My complaint with an analysis like this is that the Higgs boson is only one possibility for what's breaking the electroweak symmetry (and, hence, what's generating fermion masses), and not necessarily even all that plausible. Personally, I don't like the idea of elementary scalar particles---not without supersymmetry, anyway. We're certainly seeing radiative corrections from *some* heavy physics. We have enough precision so that we distinguish between models just a little bit (enough, for example, so that technicolor is in serious trouble), but not enough, in my opinion, so that we can really say that what we're seeing is a Higgs. The most we can say is that we haven't yet made any measurement that rules out the minimal Standard Model with a single Higgs boson. I take the top measurement more seriously. This is a much bigger effect, and it's also much less model-dependent. We'll see, though, when the top is found. If we're lucky, that will be at the Tevatron, in the next couple of years. -- 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!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MATT.92Nov6135343@physics3.berkeley.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!agate!mattReferences:
<1992Nov3.175155.27867@impmh.uucp> <4NOV199204224018@reg.triumf.ca> <4NOV199211145034@csa1.lbl.gov> <1992Nov4.223548.8659@physics.ucla.edu> <5NOV199211015169@csa2.lbl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!agate!matt From: matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Standard Model without Higgses (Was : Size of a PHOTON?) Date: 6 Nov 92 13:53:43 Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) Lines: 37 Distribution: world Message-ID: <MATT.92Nov6135343@physics3.berkeley.edu> References: <1992Nov3.175155.27867@impmh.uucp> <4NOV199204224018@reg.triumf.ca> <4NOV199211145034@csa1.lbl.gov> <1992Nov4.223548.8659@physics.ucla.edu> <5NOV199211015169@csa2.lbl.gov> Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu In-reply-to: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov's message of 5 Nov 1992 11:01 PST