Talk:Noncommutative standard model

Higgs mass constraint

The introduction currently says,

This unification implies a few constraints on the parameters of the Standard Model. One of these constraints determines the mass of the Higgs boson to be around 170 GeV....

As far as I can tell, however, this constraint is based on

the daring hypothesis of the big desert, popular since grand unification. It says: above presently explored energies and up to Λ no more new particle, no more new forces exist, with the exception of the Higgs, and that all couplings evolve without leaving the perturbative domain.

So, if I'm reading this right, Noncommutative Standard Model + Big Desert gives you a constraint on the Higgs mass, which has been ruled out by the Tevatron---but Noncommutative Standard Model alone doesn't give you a constraint on the Higgs mass, and is therefore safe from the measurements that have ruled out Noncommutative Standard Model + Big Desert.

If everything I've said so far is correct, the sentences I quoted at the beginning are rather misleading, because they imply that Noncommutative Standard Model has been ruled out. If nobody objects, I'll change these sentences to:

This unification implies a few constraints on the parameters of the Standard Model. Under an additional assumption, known as the "big desert" hypothesis, one of these constraints determines the mass of the Higgs boson to be around 170 GeV....

Vectornaut (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The 126 GeV Higgs mass proved to be correct. --JWB (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Untitled

I don't see why the note relating to inappropriateness of tone is there. While short, the page seems accurate and on point and seems to maintain an appropriate tone.

Observations

I'm not an expert, but in reading this article, I see some things I think could be better explained.

• gauge symmetries: the article seems to be suggesting that GR is described by a "global" gauge symmetry, but that the standard model is only described by "local" (perturbative?) symmetries. The way I'm reading it, the non-commutative model is an attempt to provide a global Lagrangian description of the Standard Model local symmetries. Is this even close to accurate? If it is, can the article say this a little more explicitly?

• noncommuting operators: the article only mentions this algebraic concept in passing, but it certainly isn't obvious what noncommuting operators means in a geometric context

Thanks! 70.247.169.197 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To my taste both questions, symmetry groups and operators in the geometric context are technically involved and beyond the scope of this introduction. Schucker (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)