English  
Home page  Services  Past achievements  Contact  Site map 


Page d'accueil  Services  Réalisations précédentes  Contact  
Français  

Before the discovery of the Higgs particle was comfirmed, as sumarised (NS, 07Sep2013, Instant Expert No.35), a much earlier issue of New Scientist (NS, 30Mar2002, p28) gave an excellent toplevel summary of the justification for belief that the Higgs particle exists, and a later issue (NS, 03Mar2007, p8) gave a summary of the then present state of the hunt. The former explains how the photon, W^{+}, W^{} and Z particles are all related, but that the Higgs particle interacts asymmetrically with them, so that photons are massless, but the other three are massive. Meanwhile, the latter article includes a graph, showing the contours of a threedimensional plot of the expected mass of the Higgs boson, m_{h}, against any pairing of masses of top quark, m_{t}, and W boson, m_{w}. Unfortunately, it only explicitly shows two contours (m_{h}=114 GeV and m_{h}=400 GeV). 
Here is a somewhat simplistic expression for reading off other values of m_{w}, given any pair of values of m_{t} (in the vicinity of 173.34 GeV) and m_{h} (in the vicinity of 132 GeV, which is the mean of 115 and 150 (NS, 20Feb2010, p5)):
In this radiative correction expression for the W boson, K_{a} (a dimensionless constant of about 0.006) is the gradient of m_{w} against m_{t} for constant m_{h}; K_{b} (a dimensional constant of about 0.07 GeV) is the gradient of m_{w} against ln(m_{h}) for constant m_{t}.
The calculations on the rest of this page are based on data obtained from:
The expression needs a reference point (K_{to}, K_{ho}, K_{wo}) to fix the position of the plane in its threedimensional space. Conventionally, two of the coordinates are chosen to be zero, and the remaining one is set as the intersect on the corresponding axis.
Thus, setting K_{to} and ln(K_{ho}) to zero, and hence setting K_{ho} to one (namely, 1GeV), K_{wo}, as the intersect on the m_{w} axis, has a value of about 80.83 GeV.
The convenience of choosing one of the points of intersection with the axes as the reference is that two of the constants do not need to appear in the final equation (since subtracting zero, or dividing by unity, is an identity operation).
Although (0,1,80.83) (all in GeV) is the obvious choice of constants, it is not the only possibility. For example, using the reference point (0.0,1e9,82.28) puts the m_{h} axis at 1eV rather than 1GeV, but begs the question "why eV, rather than J, or Planckenergy units, or some other unit?"
Using the intercept on the ln(m_{h}) axis instead would have been tempting, giving the reference point (0,K_{ho},0). Unfortunately, K_{ho} then has a value of around 10^{510}, and Excel refuses to work with it directly.
Using the intercept on the m_{t} axis, namely the reference point (K_{to},1,0), gives a value of K_{to} of 13109 GeV (and is little changed for the reference point (K_{to},1e9,0))
There is one further interesting point for this particular function: the one where K_{t}=K_{h}=K_{w} (since, although there are then three constants to handle in the equation, they all have the same value). This leads to the following expression:
An inverse function, to find m_{h} from given values of m_{t} and m_{w}, is therefore:
Now that the discovery of the Higgs particle is confirmed, the role of this expression can be reversed. The observed masses of the three particles can be used as the input (m_{t},m_{h},m_{w}) and the closest fit values can be found for the three constants (K_{a},K_{b},K_{c}).
Date  K_{a}  K_{b}  K_{c} 

Oct1997  0.0065  0.0695  79.70 
7%  3%  +0.16%  
Mar2007  0.006052  0.06760  79.83 
3%  +4%  +1.5%  
Feb2012  0.005855  0.07025  80.99 
+7%  6%  1.4%  
Post Higgs  0.006263  0.06611  79.83 
For convenience, here is a short Excel spreadsheet that has been coded up to evaluate the two expressions given earlier.
It should be noted, though, that care should be taken when using the inverse function (m_{h} in terms of m_{t} and m_{w}) because the exponential function makes it very sensitive to small rounding errors in its argument.