There’s been certain thrill lately about uncertainties concerning the presence of the Higgs boson. The general media has picked up on this a little, resulting to statements that it’s alike to the BICEP2 misfortune. In this scenario of Higgs Boson the contrast is groundless. There’s been certain exciting work, but nothing that merits tracing down Peter Higgs and leading towards taking back his Nobel Prize. The buzz is grounded upon a fresh article in PhysicalReview D appealing there isn’t sufficient proof to support the Higgs above other options. That might sound alike to the BICEP2 situation for cosmic inflation, but it isn’t like that. The “other options” offered in the paper include an extension of the standard model acknowledged as technicolor. The term originates from the standard model of particle physics, where the quarks that contain protons and neutrons (surrounded by other particles) interrelate through strong nuclear “color” charges. Technicolor models lengthen the color model, hence the name “Technicolor”.
Image Credit: Michael Hoch/CMS
Technicolor models were established to help with definite problems in the standard model, for example symmetry breaking in the weak nuclear force, by which particles can attain mass. In the standard model the Higgs field is used as the mass tool, but in technicolor theory it is done by technicolor gauge particles. It all gets more complex, but the outcome is that in the technicolor theory there isn’t a Higgs boson, and particle mass is produced by other means. But provided that we’ve discovered the Higgs boson, and even presented Nobel prizes for it, doesn’t that conclude the technicolor theory must be incorrect? Not essentially, which is what this paper issued in Physical Review D is about. Even though the Higgs boson doesn’t occur as an essential particle in technicolor models, there are means that technicolor can create a compound particle that looks related to the Higgs, which the authors call a techni-Higgs. Just like a proton is made of quarks, a techni-Higgs is prepared of techni-quarks.
What the authors display is that the facts we have so far isn’t enough to differentiate among the Higgs and the techni-Higgs. While that’s accurate, it isn’t enough to create suspicion on the Higgs at this point. Although there are certain theoretical leads to technicolor, there is presently no experimental proof to support it. This type of work is valuable because it helps avoid us from supposing too much about the data we have, but just because what we’ve detected might be a techni-Higgs, doesn’t conclude it is.
So, in my opinon, there’s no cause to doubt the Higgs discovery so far. What’s your?????