Recent content by JohnStanton

Well, I think it is fair to say: if something cannot be measured, it does not exist. And behind a horizon, nothing can be measured. Thus nothing exists there, not even space.

All agree that there is something behind a horizon, The reason being that other observers do not have/share the same horizon and do see something there. But if I summarize correctly, the observer that has the horizon could as well say that there is nothing behind the horizon, as long as he...

Ok. The question is also whether there is space behind a horizon. Some people say that behind a horizon there is space (e.g. behind a black hole horizon, or behind the cosmic horizon) others say that behind them there is nothing. Is the difference just a change of reference, or is more...

In flat space-time, an accelerated observer sees a horizon behind him. But any inertial observer sees the events behind that horizon. Around a black hole, a distant observer sees a horizon, a freely falling observer sees none. In all these cases, one observer can say "there is nothing behind...

I see. So in fact the problem is where the mass of the particles comes from. If one had a solution for that, it could still be that the standard model were valid up to Planck energies (even though this is naive and unbelievable). John

Thank you for the feedback! Can I try to summarize? Experiment says that the cosmological constant (or the Higgs mass) is small, and theory says it is about 10^120 times larger (10^17 times for the Higgs mass). It is obvious to everybody that the theory is wrong. There are two options: (1)...

I just happened to read two papers that pretend that the quadratic divergence of the Higgs mass is not a problem. The first is "Vacuum energy: Quantum Hydrodynamics vs Quantum Gravity" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505104 (Update: this is now the correct paper from arxiv) where Volovik says that...

I found a post by Haelfix in 2004 where he says: --- It's just hidden naively b/c of the assumptions in the scheme (1/epsilon divergences etc) gobbling up the physical quantities of interest. eg It's only in pure SDM valid at all scales where the above claim is true.. there really isn't a...

Fine Tuning and the Higgs mass - not necessary? The 4 page paper arXiv:0712.0402 by Pivovarov and Kim provides a different opinion than most. It is quite new (Phys Rev D, July 2008) and says in its summary: --- Let us summarize our findings. Taking into account higher order perturbative...

Yes, I meant that the Higgs is part of the standard model. Does you comment mean that there is definitely no problem with the standard model, if the Higgs exists? John

Every now and then one reads that the standard model does not work for energies above 1 or 2 TeV. Can anybody explain where this statement comes from? As far as I understand, there are no deviations of the standard model form experiment. There is only the issue of Higgs mass being...