Talk:Alternatives to the Standard Higgs Model

Page badly in need of updating

Given that the Higgs has pretty much been proven to exist at this point, there needs to be some substantial changes to this page. It feels like the best way to do it is to split the page between 'Theories that no longer make sense' and 'Theories that still make sense'.

I think it's important to keep this page though. The higgs was a huge discovery in our own lifetimes, and it's important for people to know that it was never a forgone conclusion, that there were all of these other possibilities that could have been true, and until recently most of them did a good job of explaining the world in a different way. We shouldn't throw these pages out just because they turned out not to be true. It's important that people are able to understand that science isn't a consensus, and there are always competing theories. 81.129.11.5 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge

This article should probably be merged with Heim theory, and then modified to give a less biased account more appropriate to an encyclopedia. CH 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This should happen a.s.a.p., so that we can write about serious theories like this.Count Iblis 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In addition a statement "Heim theory has not been studied extensively" would be less biased. 206.208.110.32 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd state of affairs. If/when someone shows up who wants to write about real higgs-less theories, then all mention of heim theory should be deleted from this article. linas 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

this article needs a rewrite. Higgless is susceptiple of two interpretations. A. Heim Theory (HT) does not have the Higgs Boson or B. HT does not need the HT to account for mass. It is the latter meaning that is true. HT has an independent mass creation mechanism other than the Higgs boson so it therefore Higgsless. This does not mean that the Higgs boson cannot exist within the parameters of HT. In fact, there is a scenario in which the metron lattice vibrations can account for gravitaional mass and the Higgs boson for inertial mass. Since this article has not had much activity, I will proceed to make the changes. Take Care!--Will314159 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

the following is not proposed for inclusion in the article but strictly FYI. from the Physorg forum. " Droscher, with Hauser, has found some indication that it might be present after all. Its mass was calculated using two different methods with essentially the same result. So this preliminary work indicates that its mass should be about twice the Z0 boson. A gravitophoton pair should be present in the corresponding Feynman diagram. This preliminary mass range involved is thus 182.7 +- 0.6 GeV. " Take Care!--Will314159 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a merge with Heim theory. There are some widely-accepted mainstream non-Higgs models, such as technicolour, which I'll add. There should be no merge because in widely-accepted mainstream physics, Heim theory would not be considered worth mentioning as a part of Higgsless models. Rotiro 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a bunch of changes and re-arranged things a bit. Shouldn't this article be a particle physics stub? Isn't there a lot that could be added under category #1 to make this a valuable mainstream physics article? I don't know why there was, or why there should be, an emphasis on category #2 and Heim theory. Rotiro 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To Higgs boson

As is pretty crappy, not much of an article, IMO properly belongs as a § in Higgs. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Warning

This article is not about HEIM THEORY. It is about Higgsless theories. HT right now has gotten the main attention. But LQG theory also has a mass creation mechanism. That may be a consequence of all background dependent spacetime quantization theories. Anway the POV warning is directed at HEIM. So put the warning about HEIM in the body just like on the Heim theory article where it was removed by consensus. So hopefully this will satisfy everybody and we can quit playing tag.--Will314159 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation

One source for citation "Heim theory has many similarities with loop quantum gravity" would be the IAAA paper of Jochen Häuser. Although that may be a bit narrow centered.Slicky 05:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Novelty

It seems like some new developments in Higgsless theories is recently taking place. Given none was updating this page from 2006, I decided to add a couple of new "methods" and an old one. References for LQG mass production or eventually other techniques are welcome, the same for discussions. Omar.zanusso (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed high importance rating

I think the importance of this article, thinking at LHC future measurement, should be set to "high". Omar.zanusso (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing RCMT

It might be an idea to include something about Eliyahu Comay's Regular Charge Monopole Theory. Recently he and his son have created a somewhat more accessable blog to discuss the theory further on The world without higgs.

The original website of Comay including all the articles are [here].

I don't know anything about the validity of this theory, I'm no physicist nor mathematician, but it certainly caught my eye. Partouf (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The "List of alternative models" really needs fixing.

This section is currently arbitrarily complete. "Top quark condensate", for instance, has no description at all, while other have a sentence. By doing the following, IMO science might progress more rapidly:

1. Section needs to be comprehensive enough to list all "reasonable" contenders. More is better.
2. It needs a mini-summary for each, even if there is a separate wikipedia article for it. At least a sentence. Each theory should be hyperlinked to a more detailed internal and external page. Example: Top quark condensate A theory employing the standard SU(3)_C × SU(2)_L × U(1)_Y gauge interactions but without the Higgs doublet. Loose the footnotes, since you are going to be using hyperlinks anyway.
3. The order of the theories listed should be in rough correlation to citation frequency, or, alternatively, estimated physicist popularity. No, it's not that hard to get this information these days. Ideally, the popularity would be also listed, but I'll confess that I'm fantasizing on that.

My $0.02 PPP. Jason Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontaylor7 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)