The top quark was experimentally discovered in 1995 although experimenters were hot on its path a couple of years earlier, and the Higgs boson was discovered and its mass was first measured in 2012. The masses predicted in this 1993 paper are close to the values ultimately measured.
A model for composite electroweak bosons is re-examined to establish approximate ranges for the initial predictions of the top and Higgs masses. Higher order corrections to this 4-fermion theory at a high mass scale where the theory is matched to the Standard Model have little effect, as do wide variations in this scale. However, including all one loop evolution and defining the masses self-consistently, at their respective poles, moves the top mass upward by some 10 GeV to near 175 GeV and the Higgs mass down by a similar amount to near 125 GeV.
David E. Kahana, Sidney H. Kahana, "Top and Higgs Masses in Dynamical Symmetry Breaking" (December 21, 1993).
Of course, this doesn't mean that the approach taken to make these predictions in 1993 was necessary an accurate explanation of why those particles have the masses that they do. Hundreds of predictions with significant margins of error were made and somebody had to be right as a matter of random chance, since a general ballpark in which the mass values had to fall was already known.
Arguably, this is little more than numerology. But, it is particularly interesting numerology as the ultimate prediction was correct long in advance.
While an accurate prediction doesn't insure that the reasoning used to produce that prediction is valid, if the reasoning used by an investigator produces an inaccurate prediction then we known that there was something wrong with that investigator's method or source data that informed the prediction.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the approach taken to make these predictions in 1993 was necessary an accurate explanation of why those particles have the masses that they do. Hundreds of predictions with significant margins of error were made and somebody had to be right as a matter of random chance, since a general ballpark in which the mass values had to fall was already known.
Arguably, this is little more than numerology. But, it is particularly interesting numerology as the ultimate prediction was correct long in advance.
While an accurate prediction doesn't insure that the reasoning used to produce that prediction is valid, if the reasoning used by an investigator produces an inaccurate prediction then we known that there was something wrong with that investigator's method or source data that informed the prediction.
do you know what the current status is of dynamical symmetry breaking?
ReplyDeleteI do not know.
ReplyDelete