tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1477076539577712289..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What’s new in high energy physics? Clockworks. Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72180792128249410662017-06-23T16:21:13.434-04:002017-06-23T16:21:13.434-04:00I think smolin kicked off the apparently now calle...I think smolin kicked off the apparently now called 'clockwork' thread in one of his essays. But it's not a new idea. It pops up here and there but gets called different <br /> It's because the underlying proposition often goes not fully understood that these instances go unassociated. IMHO some of the recent authors have not completely grasped the point and this gives rise to Mickley beergatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01850003322537501886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42746548500137202882017-06-19T05:51:11.574-04:002017-06-19T05:51:11.574-04:00Phillip,
Oops, sorry about this. Looks like a spe...Phillip,<br /><br />Oops, sorry about this. Looks like a spell-check bummer. It is just my opinion. Let me know if you find something like a "general consensus" on anything in particle physics ;)Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44791136424106429702017-06-19T05:45:01.961-04:002017-06-19T05:45:01.961-04:00"Ben Allanach reports from Recontres the Mori...<i>"Ben Allanach reports from Recontres the Moriond"</i><br /><br />Should be "Recontres <b>de</b> Moriond, n'est-ce pas? (Although originally in France, this series of meetings, starting in 1966, is now held just across the border in Italy.)<br /><br />Is it "just" your opinion or general consensus that this is the most important particle-physics meeting? (There Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28728522346350653182017-06-19T01:54:00.037-04:002017-06-19T01:54:00.037-04:00The similarity to toddlers is uncanny. Even the pr...The similarity to toddlers is uncanny. Even the predictable, "I know!" response when you point out something obvious to them.<br /><br />Your writing is as always delectable. Can't wait for the book.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479459346584756683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79941010532182556772017-06-19T00:45:44.929-04:002017-06-19T00:45:44.929-04:00Gatto,
I dunno where you're coming from but o...Gatto,<br /><br />I dunno where you're coming from but on my planet 53 cites in a year is a lot. <br /><br />I didn't say that the SM without the Higgs would be mathematically inconsistent. I said the standard model without Higgs and any other new physics would violate unitarity, which is an inconsistency - it's incompatible with the probabilistic formulation. <br /><br /><i>"As Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23434324736064901122017-06-18T13:27:44.095-04:002017-06-18T13:27:44.095-04:00As a matter of fact these kind of posts don't ...As a matter of fact these kind of posts don't teach anything to anybody and just end up damaging the image of HEP in the public eye, as testified by the last line of previous post "Just don't ask me to fund it.".<br /><br />The Rattazzi, Kaplan paper has 53 citations since November 2015, so this whole discussion is just plain ridiculous. There is no big trend, there is nobody Gatto Spruzzatorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15987004657250305965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82130872573836885882017-06-18T01:27:25.670-04:002017-06-18T01:27:25.670-04:00George,
The Higgs was *not* a prediction made on ...George,<br /><br />The Higgs was *not* a prediction made on aesthetic grounds. It was a prediction based on the requirement of mathematical consistency (loss of unitarity). Indeed the Higgs was (when it was first introduced) widely thought of as an ugly fix. The prediction for the LHC also wasn't specifically that the Higgs would have to be found but that some new physics had to appear aroundSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48847349779076664972017-06-17T23:27:52.840-04:002017-06-17T23:27:52.840-04:00Thanks Dr. H., for your very clear explanation of ...Thanks Dr. H., for your very clear explanation of the "clockwork" mechanism. <br /><br />As you say, a single large number seems less "unnatural" than a bunch of fields with their interaction coefficients. However the clockwork approach has one big advantage. It allows one to predict particles and interactions (associated with the fields) to be found with a collider, so it George Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079808299277959750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55952278451169500312017-06-17T02:46:38.871-04:002017-06-17T02:46:38.871-04:00Gatto,
Not sure what you think I'm repeating ...Gatto,<br /><br />Not sure what you think I'm repeating other than myself, which evidently I'm forced to do constantly. Yeah, sure, aesthetic considerations aren't a priori bad. They can work. Just that, if they don't, scientists shouldn't get stuck on them. So how often do you think should we repeat the attempt to "prettify" the standard model when the outcome has Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56005263306393719762017-06-17T02:40:04.227-04:002017-06-17T02:40:04.227-04:00I'm repeating something heard elsewhere obviou...I'm repeating something heard elsewhere obviously. Exactly like you are.<br /><br />Let me understand your reasoning, what's the maximal number of field N I can add to explain a single number. At which point I enter the realm of 'aesthetic reasoning'? And what is exactly the criterion defining this upper bound?<br /><br />There is the classical example of the electron mass being Gatto Spruzzatorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15987004657250305965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33387240232132590702017-06-17T01:14:02.381-04:002017-06-17T01:14:02.381-04:00Gatto,
Are you a physicist yourself or are you ju...Gatto,<br /><br />Are you a physicist yourself or are you just repeating something you heard elsewhere? Why do you think it's better to put in several fields (plus numbers) by hand than to put in one number by hand? Sure this is aesthetic reasoning. Really, I think you don't know what you are even talking about. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34024640563697381962017-06-16T15:25:37.726-04:002017-06-16T15:25:37.726-04:00I'm not necessarily talking about clockworks, ...I'm not necessarily talking about clockworks, which I find just a nice model building curiosity, but I though your sentence wasn't either.<br /><br />All solution of the hierarchy problem consist in 'adding N copies of some new field with a particular coupling pattern'. The coupling pattern is typically enforced by a symmetry. This in turn allows to EXPLAIN a number that would be Gatto Spruzzatorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15987004657250305965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69916724200342293982017-06-16T03:54:44.898-04:002017-06-16T03:54:44.898-04:00Hi Sabine,
I want to comment on "one that is...Hi Sabine,<br /><br />I want to comment on "one that isn't based on aesthetic reasoning" - with which I agree with you. The Bohr model was not aesthetic, but very explanatory and eventually reductionist. I think physics has now taken the opposite path, like noting truly explanatory is needed - like (seen on this blog) "we have the right equations to model nature". In my akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17458870098396422112017-06-16T00:19:17.087-04:002017-06-16T00:19:17.087-04:00Gatto,
Humor me and explain your comment. Come on...Gatto,<br /><br />Humor me and explain your comment. Come on, just give it a try. Give me one rational justification for this, one that isn't based on aesthetic reasoning. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69431268731820611642017-06-15T23:26:23.722-04:002017-06-15T23:26:23.722-04:00Must say I really enjoy your take-downs of current...Must say I really enjoy your take-downs of current high energy theoretical physics. :D<br />It's a real shame that "publish or perish" has reduced a subject with such a great past record to fashion-chasing, parameter tweaking and media hype.<br />Any hope of change on the horizon ?<br /><br />A.senanindyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04275136786127034360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72442281386486843492017-06-15T14:56:45.629-04:002017-06-15T14:56:45.629-04:00'I fail to see how choosing one constant to ma...'I fail to see how choosing one constant to match observation is supposedly worse than introducing not only a new constant, but also N copies of some new field with a particular coupling pattern. '<br /><br />That's because you fundamentally misunderstand Quantum Field Theory. It's fine though.<br />Gatto Spruzzatorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15987004657250305965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6297179716161284012017-06-15T05:06:25.092-04:002017-06-15T05:06:25.092-04:00hardas,
Sorry, it's a typo - I fixed that. Ye...hardas,<br /><br />Sorry, it's a typo - I fixed that. Yes, I mean diagonalize. If you diagonalize the matrix you have the eigenvalues on the diagonal and can just read them off. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67731415271195989432017-06-15T04:50:37.621-04:002017-06-15T04:50:37.621-04:00Is "diagnonalizing" actually a thing, or...Is "diagnonalizing" actually a thing, or just a typo? I suspect you meant "diagonalize", but if it's a thing can you offer a brief definition, please, as the internet seems quite unhelpful on the matter.<br /><br />Otherwise, keep up the great writing,<br /><br />s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77924484342096428512017-06-14T10:03:57.266-04:002017-06-14T10:03:57.266-04:00Behaving gear trains are a special case. Heretica...Behaving gear trains are a special case. Heretical chains, or loops, or Borromean rings of meshed gears can work,<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGAnmRb66s0<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v=fFsA6hDc7z8<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mf0JpTI_gg<br /><br />Physics spurns an obvious and testable vacuum structure. Gravitation and particle theory curve fittings can be Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9499602098073302582017-06-14T08:31:14.480-04:002017-06-14T08:31:14.480-04:00Hi Sabine,
I guess you do not know that a solutio...Hi Sabine,<br /><br />I guess you do not know that a solution exists (first paper in 2012 or so, and now complete or close - I think), where all the gearing coefficients come from 2, 3, 7, 19 and pi, and where alpha and other couplings (of this model) are gear ratios which are computed from the same numbers. <br /><br />Best,<br />J.<br />akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.com