• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

143 submissions , 120 unreviewed
3,899 questions , 1,377 unanswered
4,835 answers , 20,496 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
495 active unimported users
More ...

  What are the implications for quantum gravity if the LHC sees no higgs?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Following the news in serious "non-hype" physics blogs I`ve learnd that as things are now one needs a lot of patience and more data to learn what happens in the higgs sector. There are already a number of good questions and discussions about what the absence of a higgs would mean for the standard model or more general for theoretical physics on this site.

So I want to "extrapolate" this a bit and ask about what would be the implications for the different quantum gravity approaches if no higgs boson(s) (are) seen at the LHC ?

asked Sep 10, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Dilaton (4,295 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10

2 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

For string theory: If the LHC sees no Higgs, then the standard model has to change (a bit or a lot), so string phenomenology will have a slightly different target to aim at.

For loop quantum gravity: They still can't even describe a particle moving through space, so they have bigger things to worry about than the Higgs.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter
answered Sep 10, 2011 by Mitchell Porter (1,245 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks Mitchell, good to know that ST would still work somehow ... In his post about the implications of the higgs search up to now profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/… Matt Strassler says that if no higgs is seen it would be not so unlikely that hints of a technicolor scenario could kick in whe LHC runs at 14 TeV. Would technicolor change the picture ? I admit that I know not more about it than Matt Strassler writes ;-/ ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
String phenomenology is still about guessing by trial and error the shape of the extra dimensions. In principle the vacuum ought to be determined by cosmic initial conditions and/or anthropic selection, but that's just too hard for now. So the only way LHC observations could actually disfavor string theory - as opposed to simply moving the target for string phenomenology - would be if they provided evidence that the field theory of the real world is in Vafa's "swampland" of field theories not in the string landscape.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

"The field of Higgs would be an exciting new discovery would have found the last pillar of the standard model, ie how to get the mass of elementary particles?" But it would exclude an interesting discovery, because it would mean that the standard model, which has stood for decades as well as many precision experiments, it would be wrong! It was the first real hole in this theory and would challenge the LHC to find another mechanism to do the work of Higgs. "

The Higgs mechanism contained in the Standard Model, the theory that describes elementary particles and their interactions, could explain how fundamental particles acquire mass.

According to the Higgs mechanism, the space is filled with so-called "Higgs field" with which the particles interact. Those that interact strongly with the field have more mass than the weakly interacting, and a racing car with aerodynamic cut short the air more easily than a bus.

so if the boson is not found, the answer is simple, the implications would be such as would have to rethink everything that has to date. find something else, for example.

I recommend you see this paper on Arxiv, entitled: If no Higgs Then what?


In the Absence of a Higgs boson, the Standard Model Becomes Strongly coupled Above a TeV. Heavy coupled spin-1 fields W and Z bosons to delay the breakdown of dog perturbativity. We Carefully regions of parameter space Identify WHERE Addition to minimal - a single spin-1 SU (2)-triplet resonance custodial - allows one to Retain perturbative control in all channels.

Elastic scattering of longitudinal W and Z bosons alone Seems to permit a very large cut-off Beyond the Naive Dimensional Analysis expectation. We find howeve Including That scattering of the spin-1 leads to an Resonances Then Earlier onset of strong coupling. Most importantly for LHC searches, we define a self-consistent set-up With A well-defined range of validity Without recourse to physical unitarization Schemes Whose Meaning is obscure.

We discuss the phenomenology and the LHC discovery reach for electroweak These Resonances and mention The Possibility of a nightmare scenario rules With No Higgs resonance Within the LHC reach. Finally, we discuss the effects of parity breaking in the heavy resonance Which industry you reduce the Contributions to the S parameter.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-17 03:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user jormansandoval
answered Sep 10, 2011 by jormansandoval (20 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights