# What can we gain/learn by knowing the Higg boson completely?

• I
mfb
Mentor
If we live in a simulation then the parameters are whatever the creators of the simulation wanted them to be and all these questions become meaningless. We could still study if other parameters would lead to an interesting universe, however, of if this was the only choice.

If we live in a simulation then the parameters are whatever the creators of the simulation wanted them to be and all these questions become meaningless. We could still study if other parameters would lead to an interesting universe, however, of if this was the only choice.
But if we would be taught how the simulation occur and the mathematical principles behind it. Then since the parameters were not random. And the fine tuning was not random. Then can you call it naturalness? It is undefined or meaningless only if we won't ever understand it. But if we could understand it, like how the progamming is done. Then it's naturalness, right?

If we live in a simulation then the parameters are whatever the creators of the simulation wanted them to be and all these questions become meaningless. We could still study if other parameters would lead to an interesting universe, however, of if this was the only choice.
Remember I was asking you example of Naturalness in daily life and you mentioned:

"I'm not sure if there are good analogies, but here is a try:
If careful measurements have established that a parking lot has a width of 1.63456619494 m and a car has a width of 1.63456619436 m this might be coincidence - but you'll spend some time to determine if both values might have some causal relation. "

Then you added:

"That's the point of the discussion. Can we find a theory that explains these values? Is there such a theory?

In my example the deeper "theory" is: The car manufacturer or the parking lot builder looked at the other object to set the width of their object. ". "

Going to Tegmark Simulation Universe. The car manufacturer above is analogy to the universe programmer. Therefore if you give the car manufacturer case as example of naturalness. Why is it meaningless in the wider universe where the universal programmer sets the parameters (or the measurements in your car manufacturer example)? The deeper "theory" is the universe programmers sets the parameters. So it's not meaningless to call it naturalness just like it's not meaningless to refer to your car manufacturer example as naturalness.

I'm asking all this because I will re-read every page of Hossenfelder "Lost in Math" so I need to be thoroughly familiar with the concept of naturalness in all forms and glory as she discusses it about it every few pages.

Roughly, we can divide human constructions into four categories.

One, tool: with definite utility mission, such as, house, high way, vehicle, etc.
Two, toy: for unlearned to learn.
Three, art: to express the human spirituality, above the utility.
Four, tomb: to house the dead.
Very creative, I certainly chuckled.
Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC) was a toy by design. So, it has produced absolute nothing (a big zero), and it is expected and excused. But, the 100 Tev pp collider can never be claimed as a toy while all the data and evidences already guarantee that it will produce absolute nothing (a bigger zero); as SPPC is definitely a SUSY machine while SUSY is definitely dead below 100 TeV.

So, SPPC cannot be a tool for new physics. It will be a joke as a toy. It is simply a tomb which house the dead.
Again loving the colourful metaphors, you should write comedy!

The data and evidence don't guarantee anything: they just make it less likely i.e. they reflect a shrinkage of the prior probability in Bayesian statistics. This just means I wouldn't bet my money on it, nor do I think it is all that responsible to bet the public's money on it; convincing the public to spend billions for null results is strategically just stupid.

Seeing the money can only be spent once, I would advise for spending it on new experimental and theoretical avenues instead of yet another collider; as @mfb pointed out there are plenty of alternative endeavors.
Can other mentors give me permission to share just one link for the open secret that gives the Chinese so much motivation for the CEPC and SPPC? It involves the Institute of High Energy Physics,
I'm curious, send it to me in a PM.
When we drive a car, dance, or go about our daily routine. Is it Naturalness (with formulas close to unit 1 and not 0.000000637)? Or what is the counterpart of "Naturalness" (used in physics and particle physics) in daily life.
If the seemingly fine tuned values in the standard model parameters (19 or so of them) don't have further derivations. Let's say there were just inputted by design. Do you still consider these beyond standard model (or called them) as naturalness? or simply fine tuned? or fined tuned naturalness?
So when we have a theory, it's not called naturalness?
But what I was asking before was what if we don't have a theory and fine tuning were done on purpose, or inputted by hand by some 100D dynamics or complexities that we can never understand already. Do we still call it naturalness?
Or in everyday life, let's take the case of computer. Say we are programming Sim City or Sim Universe. We input certain parameters like the forces of their gravity or electromagnetism or Higgs field. Are these called Naturalness too by the beings in the program which can never figure out if it's MAC or PC or what programming language was used?
So in the simulated universe hypothesis, then the question whether the constants of nature and Higgs Hierarchy Problem has naturalness or not is undefined or the question doesn't make sense? Is this the consensus by the rest?
But if we would be taught how the simulation occur and the mathematical principles behind it. Then since the parameters were not random. And the fine tuning was not random. Then can you call it naturalness? It is undefined or meaningless only if we won't ever understand it. But if we could understand it, like how the progamming is done. Then it's naturalness, right?
A few observations and remarks: it seems obvious to me that English is not your first language, which definitely seems to be causing some confusion in the communication and because of your 'zeal' even lead to unnecessary conflict in the discussion.

What you seem to be asking is whether finely tuned numbers which seem to be random but actually aren't random are considered to be natural or unnatural; phrased this way, the answer is clear: they would be considered natural because there is a good explanation which is explained by a deeper theory.

To make it conceptually clear: a theory is considered natural if there aren't any large unexplainable numerical discrepancies between parameters in the theory; it is considered unnatural otherwise. Unnatural theories are seen by some physicists as problematic because the large numerical discrepancies in the theory seem to warrant or require an explanation.

However, according to Hossenfelder, naturalness, i.e. the view that theories should have no large discrepancies, is purely a convention, not a proper scientific criterium. In other words, having an unnatural theory, i.e. seeing large numerical discrepancies between parameters within the theory, is not actually a real or proper scientific problem warranting explanation; notice however that this doesn't imply the converse must also be true.

Last edited:
Very creative, I certainly chuckled.

Again loving the colourful metaphors, you should write comedy!
I didn't write it. Note they were inside quotes. It's from a china citizen who hates the projects. He thought instead of SUSY, we should look for compositeness which requires the muon collider, not the CEPC nor the SPPC.

The data and evidence don't guarantee anything: they just make it less likely i.e. they reflect a shrinkage of the prior probability in Bayesian statistics. This just means I wouldn't bet my money on it, nor do I think it is all that responsible to bet the public's money on it; convincing the public to spend billions for null results is strategically just stupid.

Seeing the money can only be spent once, I would advise for spending it on new experimental and theoretical avenues instead of yet another collider; as @mfb pointed out there are plenty of alternative endeavors.
So you are not a CEPC/SPPC supporters. Let's update the list I put earlier:

"For some figure. Right now who are the physicists pessimistic of the CEPC and SPPC?

pessimistic:

1. Dr. Hossenfelder
2. Dr. Yang
3. Auto-Didact
4. who else?

optimistic or actively supporting it:

5. mfb
6. the rest?

I'm curious, send it to me in a PM.
Never mind, it's just random rubbish from the net because the data doesn't support the standard model. So we must follow the advice that any data that doesn't conform to the standard model should be ignored, for our sanity's sake.

A few observations and remarks: it seems obvious to me that English is not your first language, which definitely seems to be causing some confusion in the communication and because of your 'zeal' even lead to unnecessary conflict in the discussion.

What you seem to be asking is whether finely tuned numbers which seem to be random but actually aren't random are considered to be natural or unnatural; phrased this way, the answer is clear: they would be considered natural because there is a good explanation which is explained by a deeper theory.
Ok, so for the Max Tegmark Simulated Universe Hypothesis, you agreed it was still naturalness. But I was perflexed by mfb who considered it meaningless or undefined. Maybe it's because he assumed we would never understand the simulator principles it so undefined and meaningly? And if we could understand it, it's natural? mfb, please clarify this. I need to be thoroughly familiar with this because one of these days when I visited LHC in Switzerland, I want to meet and talk to Hossenfelder nearby in Germany so I need to be adept with naturalness arguments to strike any meaningful conversations. So please tackle this "it's meaningless" issue so I don't have to ask this again and again here in the future.

To make it conceptually clear: a theory is considered natural if there aren't any large unexplainable numerical discrepancies between parameters in the theory; it is considered unnatural otherwise. Unnatural theories are seen by some physicists as problematic because the large numerical discrepancies in the theory seem to warrant or require an explanation.

However, according to Hossenfelder, naturalness, i.e. the view that theories should have no large discrepancies, is purely a convention, not a proper scientific criterium. In other words, having an unnatural theory, i.e. seeing large numerical discrepancies between parameters within the theory, is not actually a real or proper scientific problem warranting explanation; notice however that this doesn't imply the converse must also be true.

mfb
Mentor
@seazal: You have repeatedly misrepresented facts or statements from others, I have repeatedly told you that this doesn't work here, and yet you did it again in your last post. This is not how discussions here work. I closed the thread.

weirdoguy