Advertisement

Two Notions of Naturalness

  • Porter Williams
Article
  • 28 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Naturalness, Hierarchy, and Fine-Tuning

Abstract

My aim in this paper is twofold: (i) to distinguish two notions of naturalness employed in beyond the standard model (BSM) physics and (ii) to argue that recognizing this distinction has methodological consequences. One notion of naturalness is an “autonomy of scales” requirement: it prohibits sensitive dependence of an effective field theory’s low-energy observables on precise specification of the theory’s description of cutoff-scale physics. I will argue that considerations from the general structure of effective field theory provide justification for the role this notion of naturalness has played in BSM model construction. A second, distinct notion construes naturalness as a statistical principle requiring that the values of the parameters in an effective field theory be “likely” given some appropriately chosen measure on some appropriately circumscribed space of models. I argue that these two notions are historically and conceptually related but are motivated by distinct theoretical considerations and admit of distinct kinds of solution.

Keywords

Naturalness Effective field theory Beyond the standard model Multiverse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Tony Duncan, Michael Miller, and an insightful referee for this journal for helpful comments on an earlier draft, and Greg Anderson and Diego Castaño for helpful correspondence about the motivation for the notion of naturalness they introduced in [3]. I would also like to thank audiences at the Aachen workshop “Naturalness, Hierarchy, and Fine-tuning,” the University of Michigan workshop “Foundations of Modern Physics: the Standard Model after the Discovery of the Higgs Boson,” and at Balliol College, Oxford for their valuable feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, A., Arkani-Hamed, N., Dubovsky, S., Nicolis, A., Rattazzi, R.: Causality, analyticity, and an IR obstruction to UV completion. JHEP 2006, 014 (2006)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, G.W., Castaño, D.J., Riotto, A.: Naturalness lowers the upper bound on the lightest higgs boson mass in supersymmetry. Phys. Rev. D 55, 2950–54 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, G.W., Castaño, D.J.: Measures of fine tuning. Phys. Lett. B 347, 300–08 (1995)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, G.W., Castaño, D.J.: Naturalness and superpartner masses or when to give up on weak scale supersymmetry. Phys. Rev. D 52, 1693–1700 (1995)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appelquist, T., Carazzone, J.: Infrared singularities and massive fields. Phys. Rev. D 11, 2856–61 (1975)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopolous, S.: Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC. JHEP 2005, 073 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arvanitaki, A., Baryakhtar, M., Huang, X., Van Tilburg, K., Villadoro, G.: The last vestiges of naturalness. JHEP 2014, 22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Athron, P., Miller, D.J.: New measure of fine-tuning. Phys. Rev. D 76, 07510 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baer, H., Tata, X.: Weak Scale Supersymmetry: From Superfields to Scattering Events. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Banks, T.: Modern Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barbieri, R.: Electroweak theory after the first LHC phase. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3473 (2013)
  12. 12.
    Barbieri, R., Guidice, G.F.: Upper bounds on supersymmetric particle masses. Nucl. Phys. B 306, 63–76 (1988)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barbieri, R., Strumia, A.: About the fine-tuning price of LEP. Phys. Lett. B 433, 63–66 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bogoliubov, N.N., Shirkov, D.V.: Introduction to the theory of quantized fields. Interscience, New York (1959)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brennan, D., Carta, F., Vafa, C.: The String landscape, the Swampland, and the missing corner. arXiv:1711.00864 (2017)
  16. 16.
    Carroll, S.: Is our Universe natural? Nature 440, 1132 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chankowski, P.H., Ellis, J., Pokorski, S.: The fine-tuning price of LEP. Phys. Lett. B 423, 327–336 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christ, N.: Renormalizable theory of the weak interactions. Phys. Rev. 176, 2086 (1968)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ciafaloni, P., Strumia, A.: Naturalness upper bounds on gauge-mediated soft terms. Nucl. Phys. B 494, 41–53 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collins, J.: Renormalization: an introduction to renormalization, the renormalization group and the operator-product expansion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Craig, N.: The state of supersymmetry after run I of the LHC. http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0528 (2013)
  22. 22.
    Dawson, S.: Introduction to electroweak symmetry breaking. In: Masiero, A., Senjanovic, G., Smirnov, A. (eds.) ICTP High Energy Physics and Cosmology. Cornell University, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Carlos, B., Casas, J.A.: One-loop analysis of the electroweak breaking in supersymmetric models and the fine-tuning problem. Phys. Lett. B 309, 320–328 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denef, F.: Les Houches lectures on constructing string vacua. http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1194 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Denef, F., Douglas, M.R.: Distributions of flux vacua. JHEP 2004, 072 (2004)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dine, M.: Naturalness under stress. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 43–62 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dine, M., Gorbatov, E., Thomas, S.: Low energy supersymmetry from the landscape. JHEP 2008, 098 (2008)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dirac, P.A.M.: The cosmological constants. Nature 139, 323 (1937)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Douglas, M.R.: The statistics of string/M theory vacua. JHEP 2003, 046 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Douglas, M.R.: Basic results in vacuum statistics. Comptes Rendus Phys. 5, 965–977 (2004)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Douglas, M.R.: The string landscape and low energy supersymmetry. In: Rebhan, A., et al. (eds.) Strings, Gauge Fields, and the Geometry Behind: The Legacy of Maximilian Kreuzer, pp. 261–288. World Scientific, Singapore (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Douglas, M.R., Kachru, S.: Flux compactification. Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 733 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Farina, M., Pappadopulo, D., Strumia, A.: A modified naturalness principle and its experimental tests. JHEP 2013, 22 (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Feng, J.L.: Naturalness and the status of supersymmetry. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 351–382 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gell-Mann, M., Low, F.E.: Quantum electrodynamics at small distances. Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giudice, G.F.: Naturally speaking: the naturalness criterion and physics at the LHC. In: Kane, G., Pierce, A. (eds.) Perspectives on LHC Physics, pp. 155–178. Cornell University, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Giudice, G.F.: Naturalness after LHC8. http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7879 (2013)
  38. 38.
    Giudice, G.F.: The dawn of the post-naturalness era. http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07663 (2017)
  39. 39.
    Giudice, G.F., Romanino, A.: Split supersymmetry. Nucl. Phys. B 699, 65–89 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Giusti, L., Romanino, A., Strumia, A.: Natural ranges of supersymmetric signals. Nucl. Phys. B 550, 3–31 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grinbaum, A.: Which fine-tuning arguments are fine? Found. Phys. 42, 615–631 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guth, A.: Eternal inflation and its implications. J. Phys. A 40, 6811 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hall, L.J., Nomura, Y.: Evidence for the multiverse in the standard model and beyond. Phys. Rev. D 78, 035001 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hossenfelder, S.: To understand the foundations of physics, study numerology. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/06/to-understand-foundations-of-physics.html (2017)
  45. 45.
    Hossenfelder, S.: Screams for Explanation: Finetuning and Naturalness in the Foundations of Physics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02176 (2018)
  46. 46.
    Ibáñez, L.E., Uranga, A.M.: String Theory and Particle Physics: An Introduction to String Phenomenology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kummer, W., Segre, G.: A model of weak interactions mediated by scalar bosons. Nucl. Phys. 64, 585–592 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Landsman, N.P.: Large-mass and high-temperature behaviour in perturbative quantum field theory. Commun. Math. Phys. 125, 643–660 (1989)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Manoukian, E.B.: Renormalization. Academic Press, Cambridge (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Murayama, H.: Supersymmetry Phenomenology. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002232 (2000)
  51. 51.
    Ooguri, H., Vafa, C.: On the geometry of the string landscape and the swampland. Nucl. Phys. B 766, 21–33 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Peskin, M.E., Schroeder, D.V.: An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Westview Press, Boulder (1995)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Richter, B.: Theory in particle physics: theological speculation versus practical knowledge. Phys. Today 59, 8–9 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosaler, J., Harlander, R.: Naturalness, Wilsonian Renormalization, and “Fundamental Parameters” in Quantum Field Theory (2018)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schellekens, A.N.: Life at the interface of particle physics and string theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1491 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schweber, S.S.: QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Silverstein, E.: Counter-intuition and scalar masses. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407202 (2004)
  58. 58.
    Susskind, L.: Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg–Salam theory. Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619–25 (1979)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Susskind, L.: Supersymmetry breaking in the anthropic landscape. In: Shifman, M., Vainshtein, A., Wheater, J. (eds.) From Fields to Strings: Circumnavigating Theoretical Physics: Ian Kogan Memorial Collection, pp. 1745–1749. World Scientific, Singapore (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    ’t Hooft, G.: Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. In: ’t Hooft, G., Jaffe, A., Itzykson, C., Lehmann, H., Singer, P.K., Singer, I., Stora, R. (eds.) Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, pp. 135–157. Springer, Boston (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Vafa, C.: The string landscape and the swampland, arXiv preprint arXiv:hep-th/0509212 (2005)
  62. 62.
    Terning, J.: Modern Supersymmetry: Dynamics and Duality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Veltman, M.: The infrared-ultraviolet connection. Acta Phys. Pol. B12, 437 (1981)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weinberg, S.: Living in the multiverse. In: Carr, B. (ed.) Universe or Multiverse?, pp. 29–42. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Weisskopf, V.F.: On the self-energy and the electromagnetic field of the electron. Phys. Rev. 56, 72 (1939)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wells, J.D.: Implications of Supersymmetry Breaking with a Little Hierarchy between Gauginos and Scalars. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306127 (2003)
  67. 67.
    Wells, J.D.: PeV-scale supersymmetry. Phys. Rev. D 71, 015013 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wells, J.D.: The utility of naturalness, and how its application to quantum electrodynamics envisages the standard model and Higgs boson. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part B 49, 102–108 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Williams, P.: Naturalness, the autonomy of scales, and the 125 GeV Higgs. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part B 51, 82–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wilson, K.G.: Renormalization group and strong interactions. Phys. Rev. D 3, 1818–46 (1971)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wilson, K.G.: The origins of lattice gauge theory. Nucl. Phys. B 140, 3–19 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zee, A.: Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations