Paper detail

Spontaneously broken Standard Model (SM) symmetries and the Goldstone theorem protect the Higgs mass and ensure that it has no Higgs Fine Tuning Problem (HFTP)

B.W.Lee/K.Symanzik proved that Ward-Takahashi identities and tadpole renormalization force all ultra-violet quadratic divergences (UV-QD) to be absorbed into the physical renormalized pseudo-scalar pion mass in O(4)LSM (linear sigma models) across the Higgs-VEV vs. Pion-Mass-Squared half-plane. We show that all UV-QD vanish identically in the "Goldstone mode" Zero-Pion-Mass spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) limit. The Higgs mass is protected to all loop-orders and Goldstone-mode O(4)LSM has no Higgs fine-tuning problem (HFTP). We insist that self-consistent renormalization of the Standard Model (SM) requires that the scalar-sector UV-QD-corrected effective Lagrangians of the SM and Goldstone-mode O(4)LSM are smoothly identical in the zero-gauge-coupling limit. Lee/Symanzik's two conditions must be imposed on the SM: the Higgs cannot simply disappear into the vacuum; SM Nambu-Goldstone boson (NGB) masses (i.e. the pre-Higgs-mechanism longitudinal Wand Z masses) must vanish identically. At 1-loop, the Higgs-VEV is neither UV-QD divergent nor fine-tuned. Loop-induced-artefact NGB masses absorb all SM UV-QD, which vanish identically in the Zero-NGB-Mass limit, i.e. the SSB SM. Simply another (un-familiar) consequence of the Goldstone theorem, no fine-tuning is necessary for a weak-scale Higgs mass. Our SM results can (almost certainly) be extended to include all-orders perturbative electro-weak and QCD loops. SM symmetries (as realized by SSB and the Goldstone theorem) are sufficient to protect the Higgs mass, and ensure that the SM does not suffer a HFTP. It is un-necessary to impose any new Beyond the Standard-Model (BSM) symmetries. Mistaken belief in a 1-loop SM HFTP has historically driven an expectation that new BSM physics must appear < 14 TeV. But our results re-open the possibility that LHC discovery potential might be confined to SM physics.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

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 map preview

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.