Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexGiven CERN's [announcement](http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/play_higgs.html) today, I wonder what the nPOV about it is. On nLab, 'Higgs' only appears in [[Higgs bundle]], which, according to Wikipedia, is due to Hitchin >who named the field $\phi$ after Peter Higgs because of an analogy with Higgs bosons. We have an unfilled [[Higgs boson]] entry. So what do we have? A Higgs bundle is a holomorphic vector bundle together with a Higgs field. And Higgs fields resemble somehow a field which describes the Higgs boson.

   Given CERN’s announcement today, I wonder what the nPOV about it is. On nLab, ’Higgs’ only appears in Higgs bundle, which, according to Wikipedia, is due to Hitchin

   who named the field $\phi$ after Peter Higgs because of an analogy with Higgs bosons.

   We have an unfilled Higgs boson entry.

   So what do we have? A Higgs bundle is a holomorphic vector bundle together with a Higgs field. And Higgs fields resemble somehow a field which describes the Higgs boson.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexThere is also the notion of a Higgs field for $\Omega G$ bundles for $G$ a (simply-connected) Lie group, dating back to >H. Garland and M. K. Murray. Kac-Moody monopoles and periodic instantons. Comm. Math. Phys., 120(2):335–351, 1988. It is used in the article >M. K. Murray and D. Stevenson. Higgs fields, bundle gerbes and string structures. Comm. Math. Phys., 243(3):541–555, 2003. [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0106179) in relation to string structures, and carried forward in the [work of Murray, Vozzo and collaborators](http://arxiv.org/a/vozzo_r_1).

   There is also the notion of a Higgs field for $\Omega G$ bundles for $G$ a (simply-connected) Lie group, dating back to

   H. Garland and M. K. Murray. Kac-Moody monopoles and periodic instantons. Comm. Math. Phys., 120(2):335–351, 1988.

   It is used in the article

   M. K. Murray and D. Stevenson. Higgs fields, bundle gerbes and string structures. Comm. Math. Phys., 243(3):541–555, 2003. arXiv

   in relation to string structures, and carried forward in the work of Murray, Vozzo and collaborators.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Given CERN's [announcement](http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/play_higgs.html) today, I wonder what the nPOV about it is. Your wondering may be too ambitious. To give a crass analogy: it might be a bit like wondering what the $n$POV is on the fact that the Moon exists. More in detail: there is no lack of proposals for realizing the Higgs field in various big schemes of mathematical structures modelling physics; and _these_ may have an $n$POV. For instance * in the [[technicolor]] model the Higgs field is not a fundamental particle but a compound of fermions. This realizes the Higgs effect entirely in ordinary [[gauge theory]]; (gauge theory has a beautiful nPOV) * in [[string theory]] (see _[[string phenomenology]]_) a Higss can arise in all sorts of ways. Notably in "intersecting brane models" it arises from strings localized at intersecting points (I can't find a introduction to this aimed at a genuine lay audience, but for a typical kind of survey see for instance [around slide 33 here](http://www-tap.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp/sc2/Kobayashi.pdf#page=33)) (string theory seems to have an even more beautiful nPOV: the above nPOV on gauge theory gives rise to all kinds of string-theoretic structures, but of course this is still "being explored") * in [[noncommutative geometry]] it has been [shown](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/standard+model+of+particle+physics#NCGeometry) that the Higgs may be modeled as a component of the gauge bosons assuming that the [[Kaluza-Klein mechanism|KK-reduction]] is over certain non-commutative space of classical dimension 0. (again, this takes gauge theory as fundamental, and adds the aspect of non-commutativity). What will happen next at experiments such as of course the LHC is that people will try to study in detail what exactly it is that they have found at 125 GeV. In principle one imagines that studying this thing closely will reveal what, if any, of the above "models beyond the standard model" give the right description of the Higgs.

   Given CERN’s announcement today, I wonder what the nPOV about it is.

   Your wondering may be too ambitious. To give a crass analogy: it might be a bit like wondering what the $n$POV is on the fact that the Moon exists.

   More in detail: there is no lack of proposals for realizing the Higgs field in various big schemes of mathematical structures modelling physics; and these may have an $n$POV.

   For instance

   • in the technicolor model the Higgs field is not a fundamental particle but a compound of fermions. This realizes the Higgs effect entirely in ordinary gauge theory;

     (gauge theory has a beautiful nPOV)

   • in string theory (see string phenomenology) a Higss can arise in all sorts of ways. Notably in “intersecting brane models” it arises from strings localized at intersecting points (I can’t find a introduction to this aimed at a genuine lay audience, but for a typical kind of survey see for instance around slide 33 here)

     (string theory seems to have an even more beautiful nPOV: the above nPOV on gauge theory gives rise to all kinds of string-theoretic structures, but of course this is still “being explored”)

   • in noncommutative geometry it has been shown that the Higgs may be modeled as a component of the gauge bosons assuming that the KK-reduction is over certain non-commutative space of classical dimension 0.

     (again, this takes gauge theory as fundamental, and adds the aspect of non-commutativity).

   What will happen next at experiments such as of course the LHC is that people will try to study in detail what exactly it is that they have found at 125 GeV. In principle one imagines that studying this thing closely will reveal what, if any, of the above “models beyond the standard model” give the right description of the Higgs.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexWell, I wasn't expecting a derivation of 125.3GeV from first principles ;) I've added what you wrote above to [[Higgs field]] and there's a stub now for [[Higgs boson]]. Perhaps David R. could disambiguate from the sense he described.

   Well, I wasn’t expecting a derivation of 125.3GeV from first principles ;)

   I’ve added what you wrote above to Higgs field and there’s a stub now for Higgs boson.

   Perhaps David R. could disambiguate from the sense he described.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I've added Thanks! Clearly this deserves to be expanded on, but maybe it's a start.

   I’ve added

   Thanks! Clearly this deserves to be expanded on, but maybe it’s a start.