Paper detail

PREdicted the Higgs Mass

We like to investigate the idea of taking as non-accidental a remarkably good agreement of our (C.D. Froggatt and myself, and also with Yasutaka Takanishi) prediction of the Higgs mass. Our modernized most simple "multiple point principle" prediction $129.4 \pm 2$ GeV versus the recently observed $126 \pm 1$ GeV agrees well. The PREdicted Higgs mass is essentially the smallest value, that would not make our present vacuum unstable. There are two slightly different versions in as far as we can either use absolute stability by the alternative vacuum being required to have higher energy density than the present one or just metastability requiring that our vacuum should not have decayed in the early time just after big bang (or later if that should be easier). This is of course provided we suppose that the Standard Model would function almost all the way up to the scale relevant for the alternative vacuum (which as we shall see is close to the Planck energy scale for the Higgs field expectation value). The principle we used to our PREdiction were the requirement of degenerate vacua which we called "multiple point principle" and I shall seek to deliver some arguments that this MPP is "nice" to assume, i.e. it is likely to be true.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.