Explaining the Hierarchy problem for beginners

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter eiyaz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beginners Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the hierarchy problem in physics, particularly the large discrepancy between the strengths of the weak force and gravity, as well as the implications for the Higgs mass. Participants explore the nature of the problem, its mathematical and conceptual aspects, and the philosophical implications of perceived unnaturalness in scientific understanding.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about why the hierarchy problem is considered a problem, questioning if gravity being exponentially weaker is an acceptable explanation.
  • Others highlight the interaction strengths of fundamental forces, noting that gravity's strength appears exceedingly small compared to the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.
  • There is a discussion about the Higgs mass being the sum of its bare mass and quantum corrections, with concerns about the improbability of these two components nearly canceling each other out.
  • Some participants suggest that the perceived unnaturalness of the hierarchy problem may stem from human intuition rather than a fundamental issue in the mathematics.
  • There are references to historical instances where perceived unnaturalness led to significant scientific insights, such as the electron g-value and the Lamb shift.
  • Some participants propose that the hierarchy problem might be a reflection of incomplete understanding rather than a definitive flaw in current theories.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of declaring that everything known might be wrong, with some arguing for a more cautious approach to such claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the hierarchy problem, with multiple competing views presented regarding its significance and implications. Some argue it is a genuine issue, while others suggest it may be a reflection of human perception rather than a fundamental flaw in physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of the hierarchy problem and the relationship between perceived unnaturalness and scientific understanding. There are unresolved questions about the mathematical foundations and the philosophical implications of the discussions.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in theoretical physics, the foundations of particle physics, and the philosophical implications of scientific inquiry may find this discussion relevant.

eiyaz
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem

I understand that hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. But why? Why is the explanation, that gravity is simply a much weaker force not acceptable? Is it possible that gravity is just an exponentially weaker force?

Every explanation says the hierarchy problem is looking for the reason why gravity is so much weaker than other force without explaining why this is a problem in the first place (for non-physics and mathematicians.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two things called hierarchy problem.

The first question is simply the interaction strength. We can express all those as dimensionless values. The interaction strength of the strong interaction is about 0.5, the weak interaction strength is about 0.03, and the electromagnetic interaction strength is about 0.01. The strength of gravity is about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001. Possible? Sure. But it looks very odd.

The second point is the Higgs mass. The Standard Model tells us that the Higgs mass is the sum of two independent components: its bare mass and quantum corrections. While we cannot calculate the quantum corrections exactly, they should be about 1019 GeV (roughly the Planck mass). We also know the sum of the two components: 125 GeV - the two summands cancel each other nearly perfectly. What are the odds that two unrelated numbers agree in the first 16 decimal places?

The two questions are connected: The Higgs mass puzzle comes from the large Planck scale compared to particle masses, which is equivalent to the tiny coupling strength of gravity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, BvU and Nugatory
mfb said:
There are two things called hierarchy problem.

The first question is simply the interaction strength. We can express all those as dimensionless values. The interaction strength of the strong interaction is about 0.5, the weak interaction strength is about 0.03, and the electromagnetic interaction strength is about 0.01. The strength of gravity is about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001. Possible? Sure. But it looks very odd.

The second point is the Higgs mass. The Standard Model tells us that the Higgs mass is the sum of two independent components: its bare mass and quantum corrections. While we cannot calculate the quantum corrections exactly, they should be about 1019 GeV (roughly the Planck mass). We also know the sum of the two components: 125 GeV - the two summands cancel each other nearly perfectly. What are the odds that two unrelated numbers agree in the first 16 decimal places?

The two questions are connected: The Higgs mass puzzle comes from the large Planck scale compared to particle masses, which is equivalent to the tiny coupling strength of gravity.

It feels like something is wrong because we think the discrepancy too large and unnatural to the human mind? Or is something mathematics and scientifically wrong?
 
It looks unnatural. The mathematics is fine, but it looks very odd.

There are other issues with the standard model that lead to mathematical problems, but the hierarchy problem could be "just" a ridiculous amount of fine-tuning.
 
mfb said:
The two questions are connected: The Higgs mass puzzle comes from the large Planck scale compared to particle masses, which is equivalent to the tiny coupling strength of gravity.
Thanks a lot, mfb, I did not know about that. Very interesting! I'd like to know more about this, so I will look on the net for more info. If you happen to have any suggestions of good links/sources regarding this (i.e Higgs mass/particle masses versus gravity coupling), I would be very interested.
 
It looks unnatural. The mathematics is fine, but it looks very odd.

There are other issues with the standard model that lead to mathematical problems, but the hierarchy problem could be "just" a ridiculous amount of fine-tuning.

So is it safe to say there is no hierarchy problem, other than the human mind's feelings of unnaturalness?
 
I know this is a little late, but I just found out marcus died, when I tried to PM him for a clearer answer. Probably the among greatest loss to this forums. May your spirit travel with the neutrinos for all of time.
 
The human minds' feelings of unnaturalness are the hierarchy problem.

Note that we had similar instances in the past where an unnatural value or small deviations from expectations lead to a deeper insight. As an example, the electron g-value shows a small deviation from Dirac's prediction of 2, which was later explained by QFT. Same for the Lamb shift, which helped developing QFT. The proton has a g-value that doesn't have such an explanation - an early hint that it is a composite particle.
 
Last edited:
eiyaz said:
So is it safe to say there is no hierarchy problem, other than the human mind's feelings of unnaturalness?
All the science we have comes from the human mind. If it looks unnatural to the human mind, that may be a sign that it really doesn't fit all the other science.

Maybe everything we know is wrong. Or maybe we can never know anything. I'm sure not going with either of those without double checking...I think it's safe to say that we should take such conundrums seriously unless we want to give up the entire enterprise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
zito1 said:
Maybe everything we know is wrong.

Not wrong - incomplete.
 
  • #11
zito1 said:
Maybe everything we know is wrong.
All our technology is based on things we know. I don't think it's pure coincidence that it works. If you randomly combine different rocks you don't produce a working computer.
 
  • #12
zito1 said:
Maybe everything we know is wrong
Maybe it is. But this no-nothing position is intellectually sterile. It says we can never know anything, so we might as well go back to living in caves and hunting with clubs.
zito1 said:
I think it's safe to say that we should take such conundrums seriously

What conundrums are not being taken seriously?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad All possible models to explain the hierarchy problem?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Undergrad Is Gravity a Force or Curvature?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
High School What is the Hierarchy Problem and its implications for physics?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
Undergrad Deur Gravitational self-interaction Doesn't Explain Galaxy Rotation Curves
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K
Graduate Does Peter Woit's solution of Higgs' naturalness problem work?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Undergrad Two recent tests of loop quantum gravity theory
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Graduate Why is the hierarchy problem a problem?
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
10K
High School Understanding Planck Mass and Gravity Formula for the Hierarchy Problem
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Trouble for Loop Quantum Gravity?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K