tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post736688336208993222..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Why the LHC is such a disappointment: A delusion by name “naturalness”Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26352166737673921872016-07-11T12:05:27.418-04:002016-07-11T12:05:27.418-04:00Andrew wrote: There's very little information ...Andrew wrote: <i>There's very little information in pi.</i><br /><br />Yes, that little parenthetical reference to pi was misleading. It was just intended to convey an idea of how much "room" there is in a real number to encode information, not to suggest that pi itself is a fully general real number - it obviously has a finite definition. That's why I said a real number <i>Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00595591283398023248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21725622583101902432016-07-10T17:52:27.050-04:002016-07-10T17:52:27.050-04:00Amos,
the theory exists, it is on Progress In Phy...Amos,<br /><br />the theory exists, it is on Progress In Physics titled "on quantization and the resonance paths". If you find some time to look, please let me know what you think of the real number (X/mu therein).<br /><br />J. <br />akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2957771991956059192016-07-10T17:15:34.678-04:002016-07-10T17:15:34.678-04:00Maybe, the "natural" - is Benford's ...Maybe, the "natural" - is Benford's law.<br /><br />https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_lawinMatrix.ruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13043825547072634468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15070093135778117262016-07-10T16:28:32.061-04:002016-07-10T16:28:32.061-04:00Maybe, the "natural" - is prime number: ...Maybe, the "natural" - is prime number: 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23...inMatrix.ruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13043825547072634468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73953034220379007382016-07-10T15:07:34.508-04:002016-07-10T15:07:34.508-04:00Amos: "a single real-valued number can contai...Amos: "a single real-valued number can contain infinite information (e.g., your entire DNA sequence is in the digits of pi). I think we could encode essentially anything into the digits."<br /><br />Be careful with how you talk about "information". There's very little information in pi. I could write a program to generate the digits of pi and it would be just a few lines Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075608749064975687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42716713237723257642016-07-10T06:55:33.353-04:002016-07-10T06:55:33.353-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.inMatrix.ruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13043825547072634468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28484699326664101652016-07-10T04:06:41.723-04:002016-07-10T04:06:41.723-04:00Interesting question. I'd be comfortable with ...Interesting question. I'd be comfortable with the integers 1, 2, and 3, but the "one real constant" would worry me, because a single real-valued number can contain infinite information (e.g., your entire DNA sequence is in the digits of pi). I think we could encode essentially anything into the digits of a single real number.Mohsinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03591604262529179705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43897713225581696202016-07-08T13:24:00.271-04:002016-07-08T13:24:00.271-04:00Naturalness in physics is sometimes double-edged. ...Naturalness in physics is sometimes double-edged. The most clear example is the transition to turbulence. in fluid Mechanics usually the order of magnitude of dimension less parameters much lower tan the unity indicates that the related fiscal process is negligible;usually a factor of 10 works very well but transition to turbulence happens at high Reynolds numbers (about 2000 in a straight tube????https://www.blogger.com/profile/04920563321292978570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69413851956786960752016-07-08T08:12:16.396-04:002016-07-08T08:12:16.396-04:00akidbelle wrote: assume all free parameters of th...akidbelle wrote: <i>assume all free parameters of the SM related to energy quantities (that is masses and couplings) can be expressed logically from 1, 2, 3, two simplistic geometrical equations, and one real constant. Would that be natural enough?</i><br /><br />Interesting question. I'd be comfortable with the integers 1, 2, and 3, but the "one real constant" would worry me, Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00595591283398023248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55188675255491752002016-07-08T07:46:56.049-04:002016-07-08T07:46:56.049-04:00Considering the difference in strength between gra...Considering the difference in strength between gravity and other fundamental forces, it wouldn't surprise me to see "unnatural" numbers pop up.<br /><br />Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10542938146428749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12493208780380660852016-07-07T16:04:38.589-04:002016-07-07T16:04:38.589-04:00I think the value of the fine structure constant i...I think the value of the fine structure constant is generally regarded as a complete mystery. Not "natural".Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075608749064975687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62749872789570969962016-07-07T14:05:52.148-04:002016-07-07T14:05:52.148-04:00Amos,
assume all free parameters of the SM relate...Amos,<br /><br />assume all free parameters of the SM related to energy quantities (that is masses and couplings) can be expressed logically from 1, 2, 3, two simplistic geometrical equations, and one real constant. Would that be natural enough? <br /><br />J.<br /><br />akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23931979159818809072016-07-07T11:26:24.552-04:002016-07-07T11:26:24.552-04:00Andrew wrote The number of dimensions of space (3)...Andrew wrote <i>The number of dimensions of space (3) is itself a natural number, a small dimensionless constant. So we find natural constants because space is natural. If space was unnatural, yes, we would find unnatural constants...</i><br /><br />I'm not sure if the number 100 is considered "unnatural". (Is the fine structure constant, ~137, considered unnatural?) Also, we don&Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00595591283398023248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66953061915208016362016-07-07T08:29:40.566-04:002016-07-07T08:29:40.566-04:00Perhaps we are being a bit anthropocentric in our ...Perhaps we are being a bit anthropocentric in our definition of natural. A creature who could envision a collection of 100,000 objects as easily as we can envision 5 might say that a physical model was natural as long as the constants were all <1,000,000. <br /><br />On a more speculative note, I've often felt that the reason we see so much order in physical laws and connections with Matt Graysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15444613363564208069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44066103753461880222016-07-07T04:36:29.145-04:002016-07-07T04:36:29.145-04:00Amos, that's a really good point. John Barrow ...Amos, that's a really good point. John Barrow also makes that point in his book The Constants of Nature. But I think it ignores one crucial factor ...<br />... the number of dimensions of space (3) is itself a natural number, a small dimensionless constant. So we find natural constants because space is natural. If space was unnatural, yes, we would find unnatural constants - but that is not Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075608749064975687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50073912564620010312016-07-07T04:35:56.488-04:002016-07-07T04:35:56.488-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.MarkusMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431499396962852389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31931656604397641282016-07-06T21:16:48.713-04:002016-07-06T21:16:48.713-04:00@Andrew Thomas The pendulum equation lacks its bo...@Andrew Thomas The pendulum equation lacks its bob. Galileo said "universal gravitation." Newton opens <i>Principia</i> by demanding mass and weight are in constant proportion. Special becomes general relativity given the Equivalence Principle (EP), that all local bodies in vacuum free fall pursue identical minimum action parallel-displaced trajectories.<br /><br />Classical Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66240883619468946272016-07-06T19:45:39.053-04:002016-07-06T19:45:39.053-04:00Andrew wrote: If you find a number like 20 millio...Andrew wrote: <i>If you find a number like 20 million in any fundamental equation, then I'd be asking where the heck did that come from, and suspect my theory was missing something fundamental. But if I get the number 5 appearing in my equation, then that makes me think my logic is basically correct. Because I'm just missing a 2*pi term, or similar.</i><br /><br />That's interesting.Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00595591283398023248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58690894769613543002016-07-06T16:09:06.045-04:002016-07-06T16:09:06.045-04:00Andrew, At the risk of sounding like Peter Woit I ...Andrew, At the risk of sounding like Peter Woit I would say that we have zero chance to discover where these numbers come from, unless we get off the anthropics/multiverse bandwagon.<br /><br />JRJan Reimershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06781503851880276529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59101045037759917622016-07-06T13:01:55.100-04:002016-07-06T13:01:55.100-04:00I'm glad you pointed of that there are very ma...I'm glad you pointed of that there are very many other criteria for naturalness besides the existence of small numbers. Where it is common to say, as you have, that the SM is natural except for the Higgs mass, I would say that the SM is natural except for the Higgs not having any spin. Every other fundamental particle, nearly 20 of them, have non-zero spin so what the heck is this Higgs guyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297797012627743675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88875576056966221562016-07-06T12:12:48.538-04:002016-07-06T12:12:48.538-04:00Sorry to keep on badgering the same point over and...Sorry to keep on badgering the same point over and over again without knowing the details of quintessence theory! I personally find it appealing that inflaton and cc may be related. What I was asking was that, does quintessence help with the problem of naturalness of cc which is one of the points under discussion. Naively there are strong fields like strong interactions and there are extremely kashyap vasavadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732897306667764590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53661063760433195372016-07-06T08:23:36.865-04:002016-07-06T08:23:36.865-04:00Thanks for your responses, Bee. Yes, I suspect nat...Thanks for your responses, Bee. Yes, I suspect naturalness might not be applicable for particle physics.<br /><br />I'm afraid an alternative might be that we just never discover where these numbers come from.Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075608749064975687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71681041628708781812016-07-06T07:43:52.229-04:002016-07-06T07:43:52.229-04:00Andrew,
The problem with your argument is this:
...Andrew,<br /><br />The problem with your argument is this: <br /><br />"as we get to more fundamental levels, these are likely to be the numbers we encounter" <br /><br />There is absolutely no reason why that should be the case. <br /><br />Besides this, I'm not even sure the premise is right. Take the example that Kaleberg mentioned above, the dimensions of the smallest Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8666700359223614492016-07-06T07:30:03.069-04:002016-07-06T07:30:03.069-04:00I guess what I'm saying is that there *is* som...I guess what I'm saying is that there *is* something special about numbers of order one - because that's the case for so many fundamental mathematical constants. And as we get to more fundamental levels, these are likely to be the numbers we encounter.<br /><br />Thing is, if you find a number like 20 million in any fundamental equation, then I'd be asking where the heck did that comeAndrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075608749064975687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51955934992608373452016-07-06T07:06:26.894-04:002016-07-06T07:06:26.894-04:00Andrew,
Well that's because there are no othe...Andrew,<br /><br />Well that's because there are no other constants in the equations. I don't know what your point is: If there are only numbers of order one in the equations then dimensional analysis works well up to numbers of order one? That's got nothing to do with technical naturalness, which is about the question what numbers are (or aren't) in the equations to begin with. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com