tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post5452848969612787937..comments2023-03-30T00:55:03.648-07:00Comments on theory: t, H, W, ZUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-84534220684444938902015-02-26T19:04:07.904-08:002015-02-26T19:04:07.904-08:00F. Himpsel has a theoretical framework which he sa...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06438" rel="nofollow">F. Himpsel has a theoretical framework</a> which he says can produce, as a first approximation, the relation that m_H = 1/2 v. But at first glance, I doubt it makes sense; see comments <a href="http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-theoretical-case-for-higgs-boson-as.html?showComment=1425005929787#c2938878068166726123" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-55389813266788937802014-01-21T01:56:04.953-08:002014-01-21T01:56:04.953-08:00"The Higgs quartic coupling, lambda, needs to..."The Higgs quartic coupling, lambda, needs to be -1/4 to make the Higgs VEV twice the Higgs mass."<br /><br />That was wrong, the true value is 1/8, see edit #2 <a href="http://snarxivblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/coupling-constants-ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-79542670652811799412013-10-30T07:54:49.042-07:002013-10-30T07:54:49.042-07:00This one is really crazy: ten years ago, A. Rivero...This one is really crazy: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0312003" rel="nofollow">ten years ago</a>, A. Rivero pointed out a coincidence between mass scales of tHWZ and of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28physics%29#Double_magic" rel="nofollow">"doubly magic"</a> nuclei. I mention it now because when he wrote, the hip value for the Higgs boson was 115 GeV; but the coincidence has <i>improved</i> - sharply! - now that we have the experimental value of 125 GeV. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-83157564672353394102013-08-15T22:22:53.417-07:002013-08-15T22:22:53.417-07:00Andrew Oh-Willeke examines the predictive value of...Andrew Oh-Willeke examines the predictive value of some of the more prominent formulas in comments <a href="http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/higgs-numerology-from-lp-c-paper-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-7028369147954042652013-07-22T03:26:11.990-07:002013-07-22T03:26:11.990-07:00A ten-year old paper which predicts a Higgs mass o...A <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211396" rel="nofollow">ten-year old paper</a> which predicts a Higgs mass over three times too big. The prediction comes from requiring that "physical cosmological constant is renormalization scale independent", which is said to imply a relation among fourth powers of masses. It might be relevant for explaining <a href="http://snarxivblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/t-h-w-z-again.html" rel="nofollow">this "vev-squared sum rule"</a>. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-52740673289169586232013-07-16T20:07:15.382-07:002013-07-16T20:07:15.382-07:00More RG mysteries: I haven't even parsed what ...More RG mysteries: I haven't even parsed what <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4226" rel="nofollow">this paper</a> is saying, except that pole mass and running mass of the top quark have ... some special relationship ... at an energy between m_Z and 2 m_W. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-45242984929559942882013-07-15T00:43:45.025-07:002013-07-15T00:43:45.025-07:00Also see remarks on page 31 about mass ratios m_H/...Also see remarks on page 31 about mass ratios m_H/m_t and m_H/m_W. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-73221810128213976052013-07-14T23:31:59.984-07:002013-07-14T23:31:59.984-07:00Section 5 of 1307.3536 discusses numerous possible...Section 5 of <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3536" rel="nofollow">1307.3536</a> discusses numerous possible interpretations of the RG behavior of the Higgs couplings and the top yukawa. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-19173900570908129142013-06-28T06:17:32.094-07:002013-06-28T06:17:32.094-07:00The noncommutative or spectral approach to the sta...The noncommutative or spectral approach to the standard model generates "numerology" in the form of relations between standard model parameters. <br /><br />The "Connes-Lott model" was an early one and I have learned (from <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9412185" rel="nofollow">hep-th/9412185</a> page 2, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9501142" rel="nofollow">hep-th/9501142</a> page 23) that it produced the relations m_t = 2 m_W, m_H = 3.14 m_W. Which are not very good. But like <a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8999/115-gev-170-gev-and-the-noncommutative-standard-model/69385#69385" rel="nofollow">some old musings of mine</a> which aimed at the wrong value for m_H, the overall framework may still be of interest. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-76788726374825894742013-06-16T23:34:27.543-07:002013-06-16T23:34:27.543-07:00I have to correct this comment, I don't know h...I have to correct this comment, I don't know how I could have read Tony's paper as saying that. Anyway, the relevant passage is halfway through version 1, and the actual formula is ((Mpl/Mep)(Mw/Mep))^2 = 9 x 10^53, where Mpl is the Planck mass and Mep ~ 1 MeV is "the positronium mass". <br /><br />Also, later he considers ((Mpl/Mep)(Higgsvev/Mep))^2 = 9 x 10^54, and we have the more recent formula that HiggsVEV^2 = mt^2+mH^2+mW^2+mZ^2, so this is a little more like what I said he said. But basically, I completely misread him. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-5569785717752236592013-03-25T14:26:30.902-07:002013-03-25T14:26:30.902-07:00The Higgs quartic coupling, lambda, needs to be -1...The Higgs quartic coupling, lambda, <a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/58014/higgs-boson-mass-and-electroweak-energy-scale" rel="nofollow">needs to be -1/4</a> to make the Higgs VEV twice the Higgs mass. <br /><br />Note that in Hill's paper, if we approximate the top yukawa as 1 at high energies (which Rodejohann and Zhang say is possible, if we take into account neutrinos, I think), we get that lambda = 1/2 at high energies. And meanwhile, the current discussion of a tuned Higgs mass revolves around the idea that lambda = 0 at high energies. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-49535254165707905332013-02-06T17:58:59.792-08:002013-02-06T17:58:59.792-08:00A model from Christopher Hill (inventor of "t...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1487" rel="nofollow">A model from Christopher Hill</a> (inventor of "topcolor") in which m_t = m_H (to a first approximation). Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-66450177038326649662012-11-01T08:03:01.278-07:002012-11-01T08:03:01.278-07:00Volovik and Zubkov have updated their paper (menti...Volovik and Zubkov have updated <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0204" rel="nofollow">their paper</a> (mentioned in a comment on September 3), so I will mention <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6015" rel="nofollow">Moffat's paper</a> that also proposes a "second Higgs" at 325 GeV. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-67365486947952686402012-10-25T00:53:23.684-07:002012-10-25T00:53:23.684-07:00Matt Strassler comments on tHWZ numerology in July...<a href="http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/#comment-13999" rel="nofollow">Matt Strassler comments on tHWZ numerology in July.</a> Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-70446453003772837462012-10-15T03:16:20.749-07:002012-10-15T03:16:20.749-07:00Tony Smith says the sum of the squares of the W an...Tony Smith <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1210.0072" rel="nofollow">says</a> the sum of the squares of the W and Z masses in Planck units is about the order of the monster group. That has to be the least likely relation of any listed here :-) but the monster is good to think about, on account of its role in pure gravity in AdS3. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-32011647775730780122012-09-24T20:17:17.920-07:002012-09-24T20:17:17.920-07:00S.Vik says "Mass of H^2 = W^2 + Z^2 give or t...S.Vik <a href="http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/h-day-morning-after.html?showComment=1344223302471#c7974718000473295304" rel="nofollow">says</a> "Mass of H^2 = W^2 + Z^2 give or take a quark." The coincidence is unimpressive, but this goes on the list because sum rules often have this form. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-7596356067934561562012-09-20T20:06:01.499-07:002012-09-20T20:06:01.499-07:00Equation 10 in this paper is rather odd - why is m...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.4460" rel="nofollow">Equation 10 in this paper</a> is rather odd - why is m_q the constituent quark mass, rather than the current mass? - but since they derive the Higgs mass later, using m_top as an input, it goes on the list. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-32037184211566065492012-09-13T19:50:15.374-07:002012-09-13T19:50:15.374-07:00Latest tHWZ mass fits. Contains a M_W prediction.<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2716" rel="nofollow">Latest tHWZ mass fits</a>. Contains a M_W prediction. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-27145088956156060452012-09-04T19:12:47.090-07:002012-09-04T19:12:47.090-07:00In search of an explanation for Reece's "...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0474" rel="nofollow">In search of an explanation</a> for Reece's "coincidence". Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-87975612425641770472012-09-03T17:18:22.383-07:002012-09-03T17:18:22.383-07:00A sum rule for Higgs, top, and second Higgs.<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0204" rel="nofollow">A sum rule for Higgs, top, and second Higgs.</a>Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-88648311252861703242012-08-02T03:06:28.052-07:002012-08-02T03:06:28.052-07:00Matt Reece (in comments): m_H =approx sqrt(m_Z) sq...Matt Reece <a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29533/top-quark-and-z-w-bosons/29534" rel="nofollow">(in comments)</a>: m_H =approx sqrt(m_Z) sqrt(m_t). "Just a coincidence. There are lots of them if you look. They mean nothing."Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-23135705031863916652012-07-26T07:00:25.207-07:002012-07-26T07:00:25.207-07:00It's a good observation. Still, "t=W+Z&qu...It's a good observation. Still, "t=W+Z" is a strange relationship, so I wouldn't be surprised if that one is a coincidence and the other ones are the meaningful relations. The masses are all about the same order of magnitude, so it wouldn't be surprising to have one or two spurious relations mixed in with the relations which genuinely have a cause.Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-21429168415746107362012-07-25T11:59:46.806-07:002012-07-25T11:59:46.806-07:00Mitchell, you say:
"… If you set the two exp...Mitchell, you say: <br />"… If you set the two expressions for m_top equal to each other, <br />you get that m_W + m_Z "equals" sqrt(2) x (m_W + 1/2 m_Z), <br />which would be true if m_W = 1/sqrt(2) m_Z, <br />which isn't true. …".<br /><br />As you say since mW = 80 is not equal to (1/sqrt(2))mZ = 64 <br />exact algebra relations imply <br />that the two expressions are not consistent<br />and <br />it looks like the discrepancy is very large <br />like 16/80 = 20 per cent. <br /><br />If you look at the error bars for the two expressions <br />and use the values <br />mH = 125 and mW = 80 and mZ = 91 GeV and mT = 173 GeV<br /><br />then you get for each expression separately:<br /><br />(1/2) x (mW + mZ + Mw) = (1/2)( 251 ) =(rounding)= 125 GeV = mH <br />error = 0 per cent<br /><br />mW + mZ = 171 GeV = 2 GeV lower than mT <br />error = 2/173 = 1 per cent<br /><br />sqrt(2) x mH = 177 GeV = 4 GeV higher than mT<br />error = 4/173 = 2 percent<br /><br />So: <br /><br />sqrt(2) x (1/2) x (2 mW + mZ) - 4 = mW + mZ + 2<br />and <br />sqrt(2) x (1/2) x (2 mW + mZ) - mW - mZ = 6<br />and <br />(sqrt(2) - 1)mW = (1 - (1/sqrt(2))mZ + 6<br />and<br />0.414 mW = 0.293 mZ + 6<br />and <br />33 = 27 + 6<br /><br />and <br /><br />in reality the total error is about 6/173 = 3 per cent<br />which is really pretty good <br />and <br />certainly is not horrible like the 20 per cent error <br />that seems to me to be an artifact of doing exact algebra <br />without taking error bars into account. <br /><br />TonyTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01814523823342741091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-36556070318922221222012-07-22T04:11:13.091-07:002012-07-22T04:11:13.091-07:00Alejandro Rivero points out a discovery of Hans de...Alejandro Rivero points out <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606171" rel="nofollow">a discovery of Hans de Vries</a> in which the eigenvalues of a certain operator are close to m_W, m_Z, m_t, and m_H. But the eigenvalues are supposed to be associated with values of "spin" which are wrong.Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-59087172243228722622012-07-09T08:25:58.518-07:002012-07-09T08:25:58.518-07:00Further discussion... see comments.<a href="http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/higss-discovery-confirmed-and-close-to.html" rel="nofollow">Further discussion</a>... see comments.Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.com