Implications of no proton decay, simplest GUT ruled out

[kodama]

Search for Proton Decay via p→e+π0 and p→μ+π0 in 0.31 megaton⋅years exposure of the Super-Kamiokande Water Cherenkov Detector
M. Miura (The Super-Kamiokande Collaboration)
(Submitted on 12 Oct 2016)
We have searched for proton decay via p→e+π0 and p→μ+π0 using Super-Kamiokande data from April 1996 to March 2015, 0.306 megaton⋅years exposure in total. The atmospheric neutrino background rate in Super-Kamiokande IV is reduced to almost half that of phase I-III by tagging neutrons associated with neutrino interactions. The reach of the proton lifetime is further enhanced by introducing new signal criteria that select the decay of a proton in a hydrogen atom. No candidates were seen in the p→e+π0 search. Two candidates that passed all of the selection criteria for p→μ+π0 have been observed, but these are consistent with the expected number of background events of 0.87. Lower limits on the proton lifetime are set at τ/B(p→e+π0)>1.6×1034 years and τ/B(p→μ+π0)>7.7×1033 years at 90% confidence level.
Comments: 10 pages, 5 figures
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)
Cite as: arXiv:1610.03597 [hep-ex]

experiments put proton lifetime past 1.6 10^34 years, which rules out the simplest GUT's SU(5) and SO(10) GUT

what are the implications to unification, including string unification, that the simplest models have been now ruled out?

larger and more complicated GUT seem to imply more particles and forces and seems less parsimonious than just plain SM with no GUT

What are the implications of an idea there is no GUT, only SM but no GUT or GUT-scale, which the results seem to imply?

 

[MrRobotoToo]

The famous paper by Shaposhnikov and Wetterich where they use asymptotic safety to predict that the Higgs boson should have a mass of 126 GeV to within a few GeV uncertainty looms large in my mind. They assumed that there’s a desert separating the electroweak and Planck scales, i.e. no grand unification and no low-energy supersymmetry. There’s also a series of papers by Roberto Percacci and his collaborators where they investigate the effect of matter fields on the asymptotic safety of gravity. The gist of their work is that too many matter fields fouls up asymptotic safety, and go on to show that most grand unified and supersymmetric models are ruled out by this criterion. So this null result further bolsters these speculations of a desert.

 

[kodama]

The famous paper by Shaposhnikov and Wetterich where they use asymptotic safety to predict that the Higgs boson should have a mass of 126 GeV to within a few GeV uncertainty looms large in my mind. They assumed that there’s a desert separating the electroweak and Planck scales, i.e. no grand unification and no low-energy supersymmetry. There’s also a series of papers by Roberto Percacci and his collaborators where they investigate the effect of matter fields on the asymptotic safety of gravity. The gist of their work is that too many matter fields fouls up asymptotic safety, and go on to show that most grand unified and supersymmetric models are ruled out by this criterion. So this null result further bolsters these speculations of a desert.

is this the paper you are alluding to?

Consistency of matter models with asymptotically safe quantum gravity
P. Donà, Astrid Eichhorn, Roberto Percacci
(Submitted on 16 Oct 2014)
We discuss the compatibility of quantum gravity with dynamical matter degrees of freedom. Specifically, we present bounds we obtained in [1] on the allowed number and type of matter fields within asymptotically safe quantum gravity. As a novel result, we show bounds on the allowed number of spin-3/2 (Rarita-Schwinger) fields, e.g., the gravitino. These bounds, obtained within truncated Renormalization Group flows, indicate the compatibility of asymptotic safety with the matter fields of the standard model. Further, they suggest that extensions of the matter content of the standard model are severely restricted in asymptotic safety. This means that searches for new particles at colliders could provide experimental tests for this particular approach to quantum gravity.
Comments: prepared for the proceedings of Theory Canada 9; new results on the gravitino, 8 pages, 1 figure, 1 table
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as: arXiv:1410.4411 [gr-qc]

it also seems both non-detection of dark matter and electron and neutron EDM seems to support this.
does this imply dark matter should be light weight? i.e keV or ueV

what about high energy SUSY?

 

[MrRobotoToo]

is this the paper you are alluding to?

Consistency of matter models with asymptotically safe quantum gravity
P. Donà, Astrid Eichhorn, Roberto Percacci
(Submitted on 16 Oct 2014)
We discuss the compatibility of quantum gravity with dynamical matter degrees of freedom. Specifically, we present bounds we obtained in [1] on the allowed number and type of matter fields within asymptotically safe quantum gravity. As a novel result, we show bounds on the allowed number of spin-3/2 (Rarita-Schwinger) fields, e.g., the gravitino. These bounds, obtained within truncated Renormalization Group flows, indicate the compatibility of asymptotic safety with the matter fields of the standard model. Further, they suggest that extensions of the matter content of the standard model are severely restricted in asymptotic safety. This means that searches for new particles at colliders could provide experimental tests for this particular approach to quantum gravity.
Comments: prepared for the proceedings of Theory Canada 9; new results on the gravitino, 8 pages, 1 figure, 1 table
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as: arXiv:1410.4411 [gr-qc]

it also seems both non-detection of dark matter and electron and neutron EDM seems to support this.
does this imply dark matter should be light weight? i.e keV or ueV

what about high energy SUSY?

Yes, I believe that’s their most recent paper on the subject. If Percacci et al. are correct, then even Planck-scale supersymmetry is ruled out. But as you may have noticed from Table I of their paper, it’s still possible to add sterile neutrinos and perhaps a scalar or two. There are several $\nu MSM$ models that predict the lightest sterile neutrino will have a mass in the keV region, so that’s what I’m keeping an eye out for.

Overall, the vista looks rather bleak: nothing new at the LHC; no evidence for WIMPs from astrophysical observations; and now this result about the proton’s lifetime.

 

[kodama]

Yes, I believe that’s their most recent paper on the subject. If Percacci et al. are correct, then even Planck-scale supersymmetry is ruled out. But as you may have noticed from Table I of their paper, it’s still possible to add sterile neutrinos and perhaps a scalar or two. There are several $\nu MSM$ models that predict the lightest sterile neutrino will have a mass in the keV region, so that’s what I’m keeping an eye out for.

Overall, the vista looks rather bleak: nothing new at the LHC; no evidence for WIMPs from astrophysical observations; and now this result about the proton’s lifetime.

they do seem bleak, perhaps the most minimal extensions of the SM that address baryogenesis, neutrino masses, dark matter, inflation is what nature has selected out of all possible extensions of the SM.
any idea when LHC will report the 2016 run?

how robust are results from electron and neutron EDM? thus far no EDM has been observed.

 

[MrRobotoToo]

they do seem bleak, perhaps the most minimal extensions of the SM that address baryogenesis, neutrino masses, dark matter, inflation is what nature has selected out of all possible extensions of the SM.
any idea when LHC will report the 2016 run?

how robust are results from electron and neutron EDM? thus far no EDM has been observed.

Don’t know about the LHC results: I’m guessing that if they’re not released before Christmas we’ll have to wait until the winter conferences. With regard to the electron and neutron EDMs, the electron one seems to be the most damning, considering that the supersymmetry predictions are literally orders of magnitude larger than the measured upper bound.

I personally think that $\nu MSM$ coupled to asymptotically safe gravity is the best bet right now as to what is going to replace the Standard Model. As you mentioned, it takes down several problems with a single punch, so to speak. The new result regarding the proton got me thinking about how the problem of electric charge quantization (i.e., why the charge of the electron is exactly three times larger than the charge of the down quark) might be addressed in the absence of grand unification. One of the selling points of $SU(5)$, for example, was that it naturally accounted for this odd relationship. I looked around the interwebs, and discovered a little gem. If it’s really true that all there is is the Standard Model (or some minimal extension of it) and gravity, then when calculating something like the gauge anomaly one has to include the contributions from gravity. The requirement of anomaly cancellation sufficiently constrains the quantum numbers such that electric charge is quantized! The calculation is carried out in Section 5 of http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1146666.files/IV-6-Anomalies.pdf. This result holds even if there's sterile neutrinos, provided they're Majorana.

 

[kodama]

I personally think that νMSM coupled to asymptotically safe gravity

i infer you are alluding to this paper

The νMSM, Inflation, and Dark Matter
Mikhail Shaposhnikov, Igor Tkachev
(Submitted on 27 Apr 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Aug 2006 (this version, v2))
We show how to enlarge the νMSM (the minimal extension of the standard model by three right-handed neutrinos) to incorporate inflation and provide a common source for electroweak symmetry breaking and for right-handed neutrino masses. In addition to inflation, the resulting theory can explain simultaneously dark matter and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe; it is consistent with experiments on neutrino oscillations and with all astrophysical and cosmological constraints on sterile neutrino as a dark matter candidate. The mass of inflaton can be much smaller than the electroweak scale.
Comments: 9 pages, misprints corrected, final version appeared in Phys. Lett
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Astrophysics (astro-ph); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Journal reference: Phys.Lett.B639:414-417,2006
DOI: https://arxiv.org/ct?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10%252E1016%2Fj%252Ephysletb%252E2006%252E06%252E063&v=62eaf2e0
Report number: CERN-PH-TH/2006-069
Cite as: arXiv:hep-ph/0604236

νMSM coupled to asymptotically safe gravity in 4d sounds much simpler than string theory

and vMSM and asymptotically safe gravity be embedded or made compatible with string theory or lqg?

 

[MrRobotoToo]

νMSM coupled to asymptotically safe gravity in 4d sounds much simpler than string theory

and vMSM and asymptotically safe gravity be embedded or made compatible with string theory or lqg?

Part of the motivation behind the asymptotic safety scenario is to render ideas like string theory superfluous. After all, if there exists a quantum field theory of gravity that is well behaved in the non-perturbative regime, then what’s the point of string theory? There may also be a tension between AS and LQG. The analyses that have been carried out about the structure of spacetime at sub-Planckian length scales indicate that it has a fractal character, i.e. no evidence of discreteness.

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508202
https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.2274
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5431

 

[kodama]

How does AS address QG issues like black hole information loss to holography

i did find these 2 papers

Fractal Structure of Loop Quantum Gravity
Leonardo Modesto
(Submitted on 11 Dec 2008)
In this paper we have calculated the spectral dimension of loop quantum gravity (LQG) using simple arguments coming from the area spectrum at different length scales. We have obtained that the spectral dimension of the spatial section runs from 2 to 3, across a 1.5 phase, when the energy of a probe scalar field decrees from high to low energy. We have calculated the spectral dimension of the space-time also using results from spin-foam models, obtaining a 2-dimensional effective manifold at hight energy. Our result is consistent with other two approach to non perturbative quantum gravity: causal dynamical triangulation and asymptotic safety quantum gravity.
Comments: 5 pages, 5 figures
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Journal reference: Class.Quant.Grav.26:242002,2009
DOI: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/24/242002
Cite as: arXiv:0812.2214 [gr-qc]

Fractal Quantum Space-Time
Leonardo Modesto
(Submitted on 11 May 2009)
In this paper we calculated the spectral dimension of loop quantum gravity (LQG) using the scaling property of the area operator spectrum on spin-network states and using the scaling property of the volume and length operators on Gaussian states. We obtained that the spectral dimension of the spatial section runs from 1.5 to 3, and under particular assumptions from 2 to 3 across a 1.5 phase when the energy of a probe scalar field decreases from high to low energy in a fictitious time T. We calculated also the spectral dimension of space-time using the scaling of the area spectrum operator calculated on spin-foam models. The main result is that the effective dimension is 2 at the Planck scale and 4 at low energy. This result is consistent with two other approaches to non perturbative quantum gravity: "causal dynamical triangulation" and "asymptotically safe quantum gravity". We studied the scaling properties of all the possible curvature invariants and we have shown that the singularity problem seems to be solved in the covariant formulation of quantum gravity in terms of spin-foam models. For a particular form of the scaling (or for a particular area operator spectrum) all the curvature invariants are regular also in the Trans-Planckian regime.
Comments: 33 pages, 14 figures
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as: arXiv:0905.1665 [gr-qc]

 

[MrRobotoToo]

How does AS address QG issues like black hole information loss to holography

i did find these 2 papers

Fractal Structure of Loop Quantum Gravity
Leonardo Modesto
(Submitted on 11 Dec 2008)
In this paper we have calculated the spectral dimension of loop quantum gravity (LQG) using simple arguments coming from the area spectrum at different length scales. We have obtained that the spectral dimension of the spatial section runs from 2 to 3, across a 1.5 phase, when the energy of a probe scalar field decrees from high to low energy. We have calculated the spectral dimension of the space-time also using results from spin-foam models, obtaining a 2-dimensional effective manifold at hight energy. Our result is consistent with other two approach to non perturbative quantum gravity: causal dynamical triangulation and asymptotic safety quantum gravity.
Comments: 5 pages, 5 figures
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Journal reference: Class.Quant.Grav.26:242002,2009
DOI: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/24/242002
Cite as: arXiv:0812.2214 [gr-qc]

Fractal Quantum Space-Time
Leonardo Modesto
(Submitted on 11 May 2009)
In this paper we calculated the spectral dimension of loop quantum gravity (LQG) using the scaling property of the area operator spectrum on spin-network states and using the scaling property of the volume and length operators on Gaussian states. We obtained that the spectral dimension of the spatial section runs from 1.5 to 3, and under particular assumptions from 2 to 3 across a 1.5 phase when the energy of a probe scalar field decreases from high to low energy in a fictitious time T. We calculated also the spectral dimension of space-time using the scaling of the area spectrum operator calculated on spin-foam models. The main result is that the effective dimension is 2 at the Planck scale and 4 at low energy. This result is consistent with two other approaches to non perturbative quantum gravity: "causal dynamical triangulation" and "asymptotically safe quantum gravity". We studied the scaling properties of all the possible curvature invariants and we have shown that the singularity problem seems to be solved in the covariant formulation of quantum gravity in terms of spin-foam models. For a particular form of the scaling (or for a particular area operator spectrum) all the curvature invariants are regular also in the Trans-Planckian regime.
Comments: 33 pages, 14 figures
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as: arXiv:0905.1665 [gr-qc]

That’s very interesting and rather encouraging. I suppose the main difference is that in the asymptotic safety scenario this fractal structure continues at arbitrarily short length scales, whereas in LQG the Planck scale is a ‘hard bottom’.

 

[kodama]

That’s very interesting and rather encouraging. I suppose the main difference is that in the asymptotic safety scenario this fractal structure continues at arbitrarily short length scales, whereas in LQG the Planck scale is a ‘hard bottom’.

what would happen if you attempt to express loop gravity as a quantum field theory and take a
Renormalization group flow?

 

[MrRobotoToo]

what would happen if you attempt to express loop gravity as a quantum field theory and take a
Renormalization group flow?

If any prospective PhD candidates are reading this thread, you've just gave them a great idea for a research topic.

 

[kodama]

If any prospective PhD candidates are reading this thread, you've just gave them a great idea for a research topic.

i was thinking, doesn't LQG imply a nontrivial UV fixed point? if LQG could be expressed as a QFT, how would it differ from As gravity?

 

[MrRobotoToo]

i was thinking, doesn't LQG imply a nontrivial UV fixed point? if LQG could be expressed as a QFT, how would it differ from As gravity?

LQG purports to be a quantization of the ordinary Einstein-Hilbert field theory of gravity. A renormalization group flow analysis of that particular truncation of gravity’s effective action has already been performed by several people, and it does reveal an ultraviolet fixed point. If the asymptotic safety scenario is correct about spacetime having a fractal structure at sub-Planckian scales, then it means that observables like volume and surface area can only be well defined over some coarse-graining of space. Perhaps LQG’s results of quantized volume and surface area are merely pointing at the finest coarse-graining over which these observables can be defined, and not some ‘hard bottom’ to space as is usually supposed.

 

[kodama]

To what extent can LQG reproduce AS physics, including its success, over a wide range of values up to the Planck scale, including prediction higgs mass and possible hiearchy problem. or vice versa, since LQG (supposedly) predicts black hole entropy and hawking radiation, among others, can AS also reproduce these? i.e can LQG and AS be merged?

incidentally in the news feed physics similar to MOND with the intention of doing away dark matter all over the news is this paper and results

First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements
Margot M. Brouwer, Manus R. Visser, Andrej Dvornik, Henk Hoekstra, Konrad Kuijken, Edwin A. Valentijn, Maciej Bilicki, Chris Blake, Sarah Brough, Hugo Buddelmeijer, Thomas Erben, Catherine Heymans, Hendrik Hildebrandt, Benne W. Holwerda, Andrew M. Hopkins, Dominik Klaes, Jochen Liske, Jon Loveday, John McFarland, Reiko Nakajima, Cristóbal Sifón, Edward N. Taylor
(Submitted on 9 Dec 2016 (v1), last revised 19 Dec 2016 (this version, v2))
Verlinde (2016) proposed that the observed excess gravity in galaxies and clusters is the consequence of Emergent Gravity (EG). In this theory the standard gravitational laws are modified on galactic and larger scales due to the displacement of dark energy by baryonic matter. EG gives an estimate of the excess gravity (described as an apparent dark matter density) in terms of the baryonic mass distribution and the Hubble parameter. In this work we present the first test of EG using weak gravitational lensing, within the regime of validity of the current model. Although there is no direct description of lensing and cosmology in EG yet, we can make a reasonable estimate of the expected lensing signal of low redshift galaxies by assuming a background LambdaCDM cosmology. We measure the (apparent) average surface mass density profiles of 33,613 isolated central galaxies, and compare them to those predicted by EG based on the galaxies' baryonic masses. To this end we employ the ~180 square degrees overlap of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) with the spectroscopic Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey. We find that the prediction from EG, despite requiring no free parameters, is in good agreement with the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing profiles in four different stellar mass bins. Although this performance is remarkable, this study is only a first step. Further advancements on both the theoretical framework and observational tests of EG are needed before it can be considered a fully developed and solidly tested theory.
Comments: 14 pages, 3 figures. Accepted for publication in MNRAS. Added references for section 1 and 6
Subjects: Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3192
Cite as: arXiv:1612.03034 [astro-ph.CO]
(or arXiv:1612.03034v2 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)

 

[MrRobotoToo]

To what extent can LQG reproduce AS physics, including its success, over a wide range of values up to the Planck scale, including prediction higgs mass and possible hiearchy problem. or vice versa, since LQG (supposedly) predicts black hole entropy and hawking radiation, among others, can AS also reproduce these? i.e can LQG and AS be merged?

Keep in mind that asymptotic safety by itself doesn’t provide a quantized field theory gravity, but only indicates that such a theory exists, and puts constraints on the running of its couplings. Those constraints are what allowed Shaposhnikov and Wetterich to correctly predict the mass of the Higgs. LQG is one possible quantization of general relativity, and its results on black hole entropy are encouraging. So AS and LQG may complement each other, each making predictions that can’t be extracted from the other. If there does exist a well-behaved quantum field theory of gravity, then it’s important to verify that different quantization procedures be consonant with each other. So one possible line of research is to compare the results of LQG to, for example, those of causal dynamical triangulations.

BTW, in their recent paper on the gauge hierarchy problem, Wetterich and Yamada promise more results to come: “Forthcoming quantum gravity computations will reveal if the required positive value of $A_{\gamma }^{UV}$ is indeed realized.”

incidentally in the news feed physics similar to MOND with the intention of doing away dark matter all over the news is this paper and results

First test of Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements
Margot M. Brouwer, Manus R. Visser, Andrej Dvornik, Henk Hoekstra, Konrad Kuijken, Edwin A. Valentijn, Maciej Bilicki, Chris Blake, Sarah Brough, Hugo Buddelmeijer, Thomas Erben, Catherine Heymans, Hendrik Hildebrandt, Benne W. Holwerda, Andrew M. Hopkins, Dominik Klaes, Jochen Liske, Jon Loveday, John McFarland, Reiko Nakajima, Cristóbal Sifón, Edward N. Taylor
(Submitted on 9 Dec 2016 (v1), last revised 19 Dec 2016 (this version, v2))
Verlinde (2016) proposed that the observed excess gravity in galaxies and clusters is the consequence of Emergent Gravity (EG). In this theory the standard gravitational laws are modified on galactic and larger scales due to the displacement of dark energy by baryonic matter. EG gives an estimate of the excess gravity (described as an apparent dark matter density) in terms of the baryonic mass distribution and the Hubble parameter. In this work we present the first test of EG using weak gravitational lensing, within the regime of validity of the current model. Although there is no direct description of lensing and cosmology in EG yet, we can make a reasonable estimate of the expected lensing signal of low redshift galaxies by assuming a background LambdaCDM cosmology. We measure the (apparent) average surface mass density profiles of 33,613 isolated central galaxies, and compare them to those predicted by EG based on the galaxies' baryonic masses. To this end we employ the ~180 square degrees overlap of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) with the spectroscopic Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey. We find that the prediction from EG, despite requiring no free parameters, is in good agreement with the observed galaxy-galaxy lensing profiles in four different stellar mass bins. Although this performance is remarkable, this study is only a first step. Further advancements on both the theoretical framework and observational tests of EG are needed before it can be considered a fully developed and solidly tested theory.
Comments: 14 pages, 3 figures. Accepted for publication in MNRAS. Added references for section 1 and 6
Subjects: Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3192
Cite as: arXiv:1612.03034 [astro-ph.CO]
(or arXiv:1612.03034v2 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)

Meh, I tend to be skeptical of Verlinde’s ideas. Interferometry experiments on cold, freely falling neutrons indicate that gravity isn’t entropic:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5414
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161

 

[the_pulp]

Keep in mind that asymptotic safety by itself doesn’t provide a quantized field theory gravity, but only indicates that such a theory exists, and puts constraints on the running of its couplings.

Sorry I can´t follow that! (most probably because of my ignorance). What I understand is that if I have a Lagrangian with some couplings and we find that they are AS, then that theory is well defined. The only problem is that we cannot calculate the Amplitudes using Perturbation methods. As a consequence, if we find that Standard Model + General Relativity Lagrangian is AS, then that Lagrangian is a quantized field theory that allows the computation of amplitudes taking into account Gravity interactions.

What am I loosing?

 

[MrRobotoToo]

Sorry I can´t follow that! (most probably because of my ignorance). What I understand is that if I have a Lagrangian with some couplings and we find that they are AS, then that theory is well defined. The only problem is that we cannot calculate the Amplitudes using Perturbation methods. As a consequence, if we find that Standard Model + General Relativity Lagrangian is AS, then that Lagrangian is a quantized field theory that allows the computation of amplitudes taking into account Gravity interactions.

What am I loosing?

Yes, you’re basically correct. But you’d still have to take that Lagrangian and stick it into the path integral in order to calculate probability amplitudes. Since the couplings for gravity will presumably be large in the ultraviolet regime, one can’t resort to perturbation theory, so one has to calculate the path integral directly with the help of computers, as is done in lattice QCD. That’s the basic idea behind approaches like causal dynamical triangulations.

 

[the_pulp]

So why are you saying that it would not be a quantized theory of gravity? or perhaps you meant that it would not be a perturbative quantum field theory, am I right?

I am no chalenging, I'm just checking if I understand correctly...

Thanks!

 

[MrRobotoToo]

So why are you saying that it would not be a quantized theory of gravity? or perhaps you meant that it would not be a perturbative quantum field theory, am I right?

I am no chalenging, I'm just checking if I understand correctly...

Thanks!

Just that the RG techniques of asymptotic safety don't help one actually calculate the path integral.

 

[mfb]

The famous paper by Shaposhnikov and Wetterich where they use asymptotic safety to predict that the Higgs boson should have a mass of 126 GeV to within a few GeV uncertainty looms large in my mind.

With about 1 prediction per GeV, several predictions had to be consistent with the Higgs mass.

any idea when LHC will report the 2016 run?

First results will be shown at Moriond, March 18th to April 1st. Some other analyses will need more time.

 

[kodama]

With about 1 prediction per GeV, several predictions had to be consistent with the Higgs mass.First results will be shown at Moriond, March 18th to April 1st. Some other analyses will need more time.

but the predictions that were close to 126 gev certainly deserve careful scrutiny.

March 18th to April 1st. sounds like a long time from now.
any rumors of any bsm, such as susy?

 

[mfb]

but the predictions that were close to 126 gev certainly deserve careful scrutiny.

More than the others, but still - we know most to all of them are in the right range just by chance.

any rumors of any bsm, such as susy?

Ignore rumors. And it would be too early anyway, the experiments are still analyzing the data.

 

[kodama]

More than the others, but still - we know most to all of them are in the right range just by chance.Ignore rumors. And it would be too early anyway, the experiments are still analyzing the data.

i wouldn't say "just by chance"

Shaposhnikov and Wetterich assumption is no new physics, no GUT physics and AS, they get 126 to within 1 gev uncertainty, and the latest results of proton decay seem to support this.

also, as the LHC thus far found no evidence of SUSY, higgs compositeness, extra dimensions, or conformal there's this paper

Gauge hierarchy problem in asymptotically safe gravity--the resurgence mechanism
Christof Wetterich, Masatoshi Yamada
(Submitted on 9 Dec 2016)
The gauge hierarchy problem could find a solution within the scenario of asymptotic safety for quantum gravity. We discuss a "resurgence mechanism" where the running dimensionless coupling responsible for the Higgs scalar mass first decreases in the ultraviolet regime and subsequently increases in the infrared regime. A gravity induced large anomalous dimension plays a crucial role for the required "self-tuned criticality" in the ultraviolet regime beyond the Planck scale.
Comments: 5 pages, 1 figure
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1612.03069 [hep-th] Shaposhnikov and Wetterich predicts 126 gev higgs boson mass, no new physics from fermi scale to Planck scale and also predicts the higgs is stable under asymptotic safety for quantum gravity, with no need for susy, technicolor, conformal or extra dimensions

can the other proposals that predict 126 gev higgs boson mass also explain other observations and challenges?

 

[mfb]

Please don't misrepresent the predictions.
In 2009, they predicted 126.3 ± 2.2 GeV, based on "Assume that gravity is asymptotically safe, that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales, that the gravity induced anomalous dimension of the Higgs selfcoupling is positive"
Also in 2009, they predicted 150 ± 24 GeV, based on "Assume that gravity is asymptotically safe, that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales."

Both are "no new physics", and the second prediction is compatible with the whole mass range allowed by electroweak precision fits.

can the other proposals that predict 126 gev higgs boson mass also explain other observations and challenges?

Probably not all, but certainly some of them. Taking the theory uncertainties as standard deviation (they are not), there are 24 predictions within 1 sigma, and 33 within 2 sigma of the current world average of 125.09 (+- 0.2x) GeV. I didn't include predictions with an uncertainty of 50 GeV or more. Do you really think all apart from this one got excluded?

The hype around the Shaposhnikov and Wetterich paper started in July 2012, at that time nothing apart from the Higgs mass got added. But it is easy to point to a specific paper and say "see, there was a reasonable mass estimate", while ignoring (a) tens of other papers with wrong but equally justified mass estimates and (b) tens of other papers with compatible mass estimates.

 

[MrRobotoToo]

Please don't misrepresent the predictions.
In 2009, they predicted 126.3 ± 2.2 GeV, based on "Assume that gravity is asymptotically safe, that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales, that the gravity induced anomalous dimension of the Higgs selfcoupling is positive"
Also in 2009, they predicted 150 ± 24 GeV, based on "Assume that gravity is asymptotically safe, that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales."

Both are "no new physics", and the second prediction is compatible with the whole mass range allowed by electroweak precision fits.

They were merely pointing out that the predicted Higgs mass depends on the sign of the gravity induced anomalous dimension. If its positive, one gets the 126 prediction; and if its negative, one gets the less certain 150 prediction. But as they made clear in the abstract: "The case $A_{\lambda }> 0$ is favored by explicit computations existing in the literature." https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0208

 

[mfb]

It is favored. They put enough effort into studying the other option to make another paper.

 

[kodama]

It is favored. They put enough effort into studying the other option to make another paper.

i was going to mention that the result is consistent with "gravity induced anomalous dimension of the Higgs selfcoupling is positive"

Please don't misrepresent the predictions.
In 2009, they predicted 126.3 ± 2.2 GeV, based on "Assume that gravity is asymptotically safe, that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales, that the gravity induced anomalous dimension of the Higgs selfcoupling is positive"
Also in 2009, they predicted 150 ± 24 GeV, based on "Assume that gravity is asymptotically safe, that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales."

Both are "no new physics", and the second prediction is compatible with the whole mass range allowed by electroweak precision fits.Probably not all, but certainly some of them. Taking the theory uncertainties as standard deviation (they are not), there are 24 predictions within 1 sigma, and 33 within 2 sigma of the current world average of 125.09 (+- 0.2x) GeV. I didn't include predictions with an uncertainty of 50 GeV or more. Do you really think all apart from this one got excluded?

The hype around the Shaposhnikov and Wetterich paper started in July 2012, at that time nothing apart from the Higgs mass got added. But it is easy to point to a specific paper and say "see, there was a reasonable mass estimate", while ignoring (a) tens of other papers with wrong but equally justified mass estimates and (b) tens of other papers with compatible mass estimates.

the result then is evidence of the assumption of

"that there are no intermediate energy scales between the Fermi and Planck scales"

which thus far to date, lhc, electron edm, proton decay and dark matter searches currently favor

"that the gravity induced anomalous dimension of the Higgs selfcoupling is positive"

is positive

Wetterich also argues that under AS, the higgs by itself is stable, with no additional physics such as susy or technicolor needed. thus far lhc results seems to support this claim, and it's fairly minimal

some of the others papers are based on SUSY which have not yet been observed, or other physics which have not been observed. and 126.3 ± 2.2 GeV seems to be the tightest fit.

i.e a paper that is based on low energy susy and predicts 140 gev ± 20 gev is "right" but the susy is not supported and its margin of error is much higher than S&W paper.

 

[kodama]

If any prospective PhD candidates are reading this thread, you've just gave them a great idea for a research topic.

there's this paper published today

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02311
Hypercuboidal renormalization in spin foam quantum gravity
Benjamin Bahr, Sebastian Steinhaus
(Submitted on 9 Jan 2017)
In this article we apply background-independent renormalization group methods to spin foam quantum gravity. It is aimed at extending and elucidating the analysis of a companion letter, in which the existence of a fixed point in the truncated RG flow for the model was reported. Here we repeat the analysis with various modifications, and find that both qualitative and quantitative features of the fixed point are robust in this setting. We also go into details about the various approximation schemes employed in the analysis.


one potential drawback is breaking GR diffeomorphism invariance