I heard some theory, such as technicolor, predicts the Higgs-like particle discovered at LHC should be a composite particle (correct me if I am wrong). Has this possible been completely excluded already?


2 Answers 2


In this article of January 17, 2013, Matt Strassler quotes Riccardo Rattazzi as follows:

  • we can’t rule out the possibility completely,
  • there’s some amount of circumstantial evidence against this new particle being a composite Higgs
  • if it is a composite Higgs, there are some indirect near-term measurements that could well reveal it; completely direct measurements are many years off

Strassler summarizes that

...the new particle is probably not a generic composite Higgs particle; it behaves too much like an elementary Higgs is expected to behave.

But the jury is still out, because there are some classes of composite Higgs particles that do specifically resemble elementary ones.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Seems Strassler's webpage is not available to me, unless I remove "/quotes". $\endgroup$
    – user26143
    Jul 27, 2014 at 19:49

The Higgs is a composite particle. It's just a combination of more elementary fields than quarks and leptons. There simply is no coupling of massless particles to a supposed condensate of a Higgs field (with a 246GeV VEV). The assigning of a finite VEV is completely arbitrary and constructed to fit the facts. Mass is a property coming about by massless particles interacting vectorially with one another and not by interacting with a virtual scalar field. I haven't seen one good explanation of how mass arises from this. I mean, as Einstein suggested, an understandable explanation that could be given to a six year old child. The math points out that mass comes about, yes. But how in practice? Mass is just put in by hand. In a way though ghat maintains gauge invariancy, which was the reason it couldn't be added manually in the first place. So it's thrown in by means of Higgs. But still by hand, not as a property of particles. While it is. Indeed by interaction, as per Higgs, but not with Higgs, as per Higgs. But with themselves.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.