Comments on: A Higgs boson without the mess http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/06/26/a-higgs-boson-without-the-mess/ extra dimensions of particle physics Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:11:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Many http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/06/26/a-higgs-boson-without-the-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-49928 Many Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:54:13 +0000 http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/?p=3876#comment-49928 Most of first post is true but Higgs did not select a gauge - made some general approximations but did not select gauge or show how goldstone theorem really fails. Most of first post is true but Higgs did not select a gauge – made some general approximations but did not select gauge or show how goldstone theorem really fails.

]]> By: Larry http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/06/26/a-higgs-boson-without-the-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-20240 Larry Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:14:02 +0000 http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/?p=3876#comment-20240 Yes. I posted it. The differences between the PRL papers from 1964 by Brout and Englert; Higgs; and Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble have been a bit lost over time. With some in Europe trying to write the GHK team out of the history it is a good time to note the differences. http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/05/16/the-jpsi-particle-original-papers http://prl.aps.org/50years/milestones#1964 Yes. I posted it. The differences between the PRL papers from 1964 by Brout and Englert; Higgs; and Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble have been a bit lost over time. With some in Europe trying to write the GHK team out of the history it is a good time to note the differences.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/05/16/the-jpsi-particle-original-papers

http://prl.aps.org/50years/milestones#1964

]]> By: Mary http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/06/26/a-higgs-boson-without-the-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-20239 Mary Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:37:09 +0000 http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/?p=3876#comment-20239 Speaking of PRL...someone posted this on another SB blog that highlighted the original differences in the 1964 PRL mass boson papers. Thought it was interesting as so much is written about the Fermi vs. CERN battles that the theorists just get ignored. ... Both PH and EB worked in the Lorentz (i.e., manifestly covariant) gauge. Thus the Goldstone theorem would be fully expected to apply. However, PH is also done purely classically (i.e., without quantum theory), which means that the Goldstone theorem (a result from QUANTUM field theory) really has no obvious application. What PH does is to show that with a broken symmetry condition the classical field equations can be juggled into the form of the equations of a MASSIVE vector boson. Namely, the broken symmetry condition gives mass. That is a good thing, but what of the radiation gauge avoidance of the Goldstone theorem which PH had touted in his earlier paper? Is it not strange that that avoidance mechanism is not mentioned in the PH paper? EB do some calculations in quantum field theory in which they impose a broken symmetry condition. Given the fact that a broken symmetry condition introduces a mass parameter into the theory it is not surprising that they also find a MASSIVE vector boson. But what of the zero mass particle which they must have according to the Goldstone theorem. They need to show that there is a decoupling of that particle from the physical sectors of the theory. In other words, it needs to show the zero mass particle is purely a so-called gauge excitation. That is in fact the case, but is not shown in EB. GHK uses the radiation gauge and shows that a massive vector particle emerges from a broken symmetry condition. Thus GHK achieves the goal of lending mass to the vector particle, but is not plagued by the encumbrance of the Goldstone theorem. Moreover, GHK shows explicitly the precise way in which the Goldstone theorem fails in the context of their model. One can thus sum up by saying that in a sense PH and EB solved half of the problem – namely massifying the gauge particle. GHK really solved an entire problem – massifying and also showing how the deadening hand of the Goldstone theorem is avoided. Speaking of PRL…someone posted this on another SB blog that highlighted the original differences in the 1964 PRL mass boson papers. Thought it was interesting as so much is written about the Fermi vs. CERN battles that the theorists just get ignored.

…

Both PH and EB worked in the Lorentz (i.e., manifestly covariant) gauge. Thus the Goldstone theorem would be fully expected to apply. However, PH is also done purely classically (i.e., without quantum theory), which means that the Goldstone theorem (a result from QUANTUM field theory) really has no obvious application. What PH does is to show that with a broken symmetry condition the classical field equations can be juggled into the form of the equations of a MASSIVE vector boson. Namely, the broken symmetry condition gives mass. That is a good thing, but what of the radiation gauge avoidance of the Goldstone theorem which PH had touted in his earlier paper? Is it not strange that that avoidance mechanism is not mentioned in the PH paper?

EB do some calculations in quantum field theory in which they impose a broken symmetry condition. Given the fact that a broken symmetry condition introduces a mass parameter into the theory it is not surprising that they also find a MASSIVE vector boson. But what of the zero mass particle which they must have according to the Goldstone theorem. They need to show that there is a decoupling of that particle from the physical sectors of the theory. In other words, it needs to show the zero mass particle is purely a so-called gauge excitation. That is in fact the case, but is not shown in EB.

GHK uses the radiation gauge and shows that a massive vector particle emerges from a broken symmetry condition. Thus GHK achieves the goal of lending mass to the vector particle, but is not plagued by the encumbrance of the Goldstone theorem. Moreover, GHK shows explicitly the precise way in which the Goldstone theorem fails in the context of their model.

One can thus sum up by saying that in a sense PH and EB solved half of the problem – namely massifying the gauge particle. GHK really solved an entire problem – massifying and also showing how the deadening hand of the Goldstone theorem is avoided.

]]>