- #51
ohwilleke
Gold Member
- 2,649
- 1,607
The point is that the hierarchy problem is not a "problem" in the ordinary sense of the word and therefore doesn't call for an answer.
The physical constants of Nature have various values that are a fact of life. And, as long at those particular values that really exist in Nature are internally consistent with each other (for example, leading to the sum of all possible results of each possible situation adding up to 100% in each case and not leading to contradictory answers, in which case we probably screwed up measuring something), physical constants just "are", and it is basically a category error to ask "why" they are that value and not another when they are axioms and not theorized conclusions that flow from some other axioms.
There is nothing that forbids Nature from having a dozen huge contributions to another value that almost, but not quite cancel out. Nature is under no obligation to have terms of order 1 or any other order it wishes. And, it is illogical and absurd to use a definition of "naturalness" that results in Nature being unnatural. When that happens, it means the chain of reasoning screwed up somewhere.
The "hierarchy problem" is solved because all of the contributions to the total add up just so. The inputs are not moveable. They stay the same for all of eternity, in all times and places. And, as long as they add up correctly, it is all cool. The fact that some physicists think that this is ugly is a sign of their lack of sophistication and good taste, and not a "problem" with Nature that needs to be solved.
Now, it could be (and probably is the case) that at least some of the experimentally measured constants of the Standard Model could be derived theoretically from some of the other experimentally measured constants of the Standard Model, if we only knew the functional relationship between them.
For example, I would bet all of the equity in my house that the mass of the tau lepton predicted by Koide's rule and the measured values of the muon mass and electron mass are a more accurate estimate the true mass of the tau lepton than the mass of the tau lepton that is measured experimentally. And, if Koide's rule is correct, then the Standard Model has one less experimentally measured parameter.
But, relationships like those are opportunities to discover new "within the Standard Model" physics, and not invitations to say that Nature screwed it up. Nature is always right and our challenge is to come up with simplified reasons consistent with the data why Nature is right, not to sit around trying to come up with reasons why Nature is wrong, which is essentially what you are doing when you call the "hierarchy problem" a problem in the first place.
I'm not saying that physicists having Nightmares are less qualified physicists than I am. I'm saying that their natural philosophy is leading them astray, and they would be well advised to worry about something different instead.
The physical constants of Nature have various values that are a fact of life. And, as long at those particular values that really exist in Nature are internally consistent with each other (for example, leading to the sum of all possible results of each possible situation adding up to 100% in each case and not leading to contradictory answers, in which case we probably screwed up measuring something), physical constants just "are", and it is basically a category error to ask "why" they are that value and not another when they are axioms and not theorized conclusions that flow from some other axioms.
There is nothing that forbids Nature from having a dozen huge contributions to another value that almost, but not quite cancel out. Nature is under no obligation to have terms of order 1 or any other order it wishes. And, it is illogical and absurd to use a definition of "naturalness" that results in Nature being unnatural. When that happens, it means the chain of reasoning screwed up somewhere.
The "hierarchy problem" is solved because all of the contributions to the total add up just so. The inputs are not moveable. They stay the same for all of eternity, in all times and places. And, as long as they add up correctly, it is all cool. The fact that some physicists think that this is ugly is a sign of their lack of sophistication and good taste, and not a "problem" with Nature that needs to be solved.
Now, it could be (and probably is the case) that at least some of the experimentally measured constants of the Standard Model could be derived theoretically from some of the other experimentally measured constants of the Standard Model, if we only knew the functional relationship between them.
For example, I would bet all of the equity in my house that the mass of the tau lepton predicted by Koide's rule and the measured values of the muon mass and electron mass are a more accurate estimate the true mass of the tau lepton than the mass of the tau lepton that is measured experimentally. And, if Koide's rule is correct, then the Standard Model has one less experimentally measured parameter.
But, relationships like those are opportunities to discover new "within the Standard Model" physics, and not invitations to say that Nature screwed it up. Nature is always right and our challenge is to come up with simplified reasons consistent with the data why Nature is right, not to sit around trying to come up with reasons why Nature is wrong, which is essentially what you are doing when you call the "hierarchy problem" a problem in the first place.
I'm not saying that physicists having Nightmares are less qualified physicists than I am. I'm saying that their natural philosophy is leading them astray, and they would be well advised to worry about something different instead.
Last edited:
