Timeline for Is the exact form of the Higgs potential known?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2022 at 17:04 | comment | added | R. Rankin | Is there any reason a $(\Psi \Psi^*)^{-2}$ term can't be present (renormalizable) perhaps with an additive constant to bound it? | |
| May 29, 2020 at 7:56 | comment | added | Mathieu Krisztian | @ACuriousMind : thank you | |
| May 28, 2020 at 21:15 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | @MathieuKrisztian 1. It would also not be a scalar. 2. Linear terms can be transformed away anyway. | |
| May 28, 2020 at 20:03 | comment | added | Mathieu Krisztian | And why is the $\phi$ term at power one is forbidden ? | |
| May 6, 2015 at 11:00 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | @SuperCiocia: If you know the power-counting renormalizability argument, it's obvious from the mass dimension the coupling must have for terms of order higher than 4, if not, then not. | |
| May 5, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | SuperCiocia | Is there an easy/intuitive way of understanding why the $\mathcal{O}(\phi^5)$ term in non-renormalisable? | |
| May 5, 2015 at 18:06 | vote | accept | SuperCiocia | ||
| May 5, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | innisfree | but the effective potential can look a bit different a la Coleman-Weinberg | |
| May 5, 2015 at 15:13 | history | answered | ACuriousMind♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |