Are Higgs bosons really necessary?
very_cryptic_at_hotmail.com
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Frank Hellmann: "Re: Order of indices in tensors..."
- Previous message: Mark Palenik: "Re: Don't symmetries need explaining?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:32:14 +0000 (UTC)
In the original Higgs model, we have the electroweak [SU(2) X U(1)]/Z_2
Yang-Mills theory and a Higgs field which takes values in a (linear)
doublet representation of the gauge group which then acquires a VEV. In
this model, the mass spectrum includes massive W and Z bosons and a
massless photon (which we observe) and a Higgs boson (which we haven't
observed yet).
However, there is no rule in quantum field theory telling us scalar
fields have to come in linear representations. A nonlinear sigma model
is also possible provided it's a realization of the gauge group. So,
why can't we take the Higgs field to be a nonlinear sigma model taking
values in the coset space {[SU(2) X U(1)]/Z_2}/U(1)_em ? This model
would still predict the right spin-1 spectrum but in addition, there
wouldn't be any Higgs boson in the msss spectrum, which is consistent
with current observations.
- Next message: Frank Hellmann: "Re: Order of indices in tensors..."
- Previous message: Mark Palenik: "Re: Don't symmetries need explaining?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
