Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
added a brief historical comment to Higgs field and added the historical references
I have added references that discuss the vacuum in-stability of the measured Higgs potential: here.
(That useful list of references I extracted from Gordon Kane’s latest arXiv:1802.05199. It’s fun to see somebody go all in. I suppose this comment still applies.)
Edit to: Higgs field by Urs Schreiber at 2018-04-01 15:58:34 UTC.
Author comments:
added quote for conclusion of vacuum stability from Bednyakov et al:
“Their conclusion is that the best theoretical fit to measured parameters, including the Higgs and top-quark masses, points to a metastable Universe. However, their analysis also concludes that values of parameters are closer to a region of absolute stability than suggested by previous studies: it is possible for the Universe to be fully stable (and for the standard model to work all the way up to the Planck scale), if the true values of measured parameters are only 1.3 standard deviations away from the current best estimates.”
Edit to: Higgs field by Urs Schreiber at 2018-04-01 18:09:13 UTC.
Author comments:
I have given discussion of Higgs-vacuum (in-)stability its own Properties-subsection, with plots from what should be the two main publications.
Have further expanded the section on the Higgs vacuum (in-)stability. Connected the discussion to the references on potential vacuum decay during inflation and citations arguing that a mechanism like supersymmetry would explain why this is being avoided.
Maybe a good sign here is that I did not know until I checked the logs whether #5 was a generated announcement or whether Urs manually added the comment; from the logs, I believe it was indeed generated. Is that true, Urs?
I also see that from the logs that you made some ’trivial edits’ which have not polluted the nForum, so that seems to be working as well.
Yes, that’s both right!
The only thing missing now is hyperlinks back to the edits. If these could be provided, I think it would be perfect.
With Mike I seem to agree that the software should simply generate a link to the corresponding “diff” version of the article. In the present case we should have a link to
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Higgs+field/19
This would be useful in a variety of ways. And should be trivial for you to implement, I suppose?!
Great, thanks very much for letting me know!
I’ve now implemented the hyperlinking, following exactly Mike’s suggestion for syntax, except that I’ve changed the order slightly. Let me know if you’d like me to tweak it.
Philip Gibbs kindly informs me that he may have been the very first to discuss the near-criticality of the observed Higgs vacuum at https://vixra.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/what-would-a-higgs-at-125-gev-tell-us/. I have added pointer and expanded slightly.
Hi Richard,
excellent! Thanks!!
I have now started also a subsection “Asymptotic safety?”, so far mainly containing a quote and a figure from the precisision computation in BDGGSSS13, indicating that the beta-function of the quartic Higgs self-coupling does not actually asymptote to zero, contrary to what the principle of “asymptotic safety” might suggest.
1 to 15 of 15