Weyl geometric gravity and electroweak symmetry “breaking”

A Weyl geometric scale covariant approach to gravity due to Omote, Dirac, and Utiyama (1971ff) is reconsidered. It can be extended to the electroweak sector of elementary particle fields, taking into account their basic scaling freedom. Already Cheng (1988) indicated that electroweak symmetry breaking, usually attributed to the Higgs field with a boson expected at 0.1–0.3 TeV, may be due to a coupling between Weyl geometric gravity and electroweak interactions. Weyl geometry seems to be well suited for treating questions of elementary particle physics, which relate to scale invariance and its “breaking”. This setting suggests the existence of a scalar field boson at the surprisingly low energy of ～ 1 eV. That may appear unlikely; but, as a payoff, the acquirement of mass arises as a result of coupling to gravity in agreement with the understanding of mass as the gravitational charge of fields.     

Erratum to: “Weak corrections to gluon-induced top–antitop hadro-production” [Phys. Lett. B 639 (2006) 513]

This is an Erratum to a Letter of ours [S. Moretti, M.R. Nolten, D.A. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 639 (2006) 513]. After its publication, we have discovered a mistake in a numerical program that affects the results presented therein. We provide here the corrected version.     

Erratum to “Bayesian methods for parameter estimation in effective field theories” [Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 682–708]

We have discovered an error in the numerical calculations for the extraction of parameters from the nucleon mass “data” presented in Sections 4 and 5 of our paper [M.R. Schindler, D.R. Phillips, Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 682. Available from: <hep-ph/0808.3643>]. We present the corrected results and discuss the implications. We stress that the material presented in Sections 1–3 of our paper [M.R. Schindler, D.R. Phillips, Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 682. Available from: <hep-ph/0808.3643>] is unaffected.     

Corrections to “Space-like submanifolds in de Sitter spaces”: [J. Geom. Phys. 40 (2002) 370–378]

In this paper, we corrected some errors in [J. Geom. Phys. 40 (2002) 370]. In [J. Geom. Phys. 40 (2002) 370], the errors in Eqs. (32) and (44) influenced the conclusion of Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.1 and Theorem 3.2.