![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The diagrams in the figures are incorrect and should be removed because the second diagram does not exist (count the number of doublets at each vertex)! The correct set of diagrams for the cancellation of the quadratic divergence from the Higgs quartic coupling involvings the gauginos and gauge bosons (as the quartic coupling arises from the D-terms). The diagram could in principle be related to the top quark quadratic divegence, but would require relabelling (and then technically it would require both the left handed and right handed top squarks in seperate diagrams, but that is splitting hairs). -- jay 00:48 & 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"the weak force is 1032 times stronger than gravity."
Fundamental interaction shows the relative strength of the weak force (compared to gravity) as 1025. Although it also mentions that the strengths are approximate, 107 is quite a difference. How can these numbers be reconciled?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.59.24.222 (
talk) 21:35, 14 June 2007
If gravity is weaker than the other forces because it "leaks" into other dimensions, then why don't the other forces also leak into other dimensions ? And second question - could gravity leaking explain the Pioneer Anomaly ? If the other dimensions are small, then their effects would be proportionally less over the huge (three dimensional) distances pioneer has traveled, thus producing a slightly stronger gravitational pull than would be expected. Salsa man ( talk) 04:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Are the two problems mentioned in the particle physics section the same problem or different problems? The first being the difference in scale between the weak force and gravity and the second being the stability of the Higgs mass to radiative corrections. For example, can I imagine solutions that solve one problem and not the other? I know it is fashionable in these days of extra dimensions to consider the two as being solved by the same mechanism, but what, for example, does supersymmetry have to say about the relative weakness of gravity? -- Eujin16 ( talk) 06:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically they are the same problem, but they mean two different things. the Higgs mass corrections asks why the Higgs mass does not shoot up to the Planck Scale when there are quantum corrections, while the other asks about the weakness of gravity. Both problems ask why the Planck Scale is so large (Planck Scale being very large implies that Gravity is very weak). Extra Dimensions solve 'both' problems since the fundamental scale is actually quite smaller, meaning that Gravity is actually a lot stronger. Because the fundamental scale is a lot smaller, then the cutoff is a lot smaller, producing quantum corrections that are reasonable, and dont let the Higgs mass shoot up (I think this is what you meant). Supersymmetry on the other hand treats the problem pertaining to the Higgs mass, and does not actually explain why Gravity is weak. However, unlike extra dimensional models, Supersymmetry actually explains gravity!! If you hold Supersymmetry locally, (well the Super-poincare group, which does include the poincare group), then you get a spin 2 tensor field which couples to energy, also known as the graviton
--
Drgnrave (
talk)
05:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If I'm understanding right, a Higgs mass near the Planck scale would imply that the weak force was much weaker.
Fermi's constant is proportional to where is the mass of the
W boson. If I remember right, is related to the Higgs mass, so if the Higgs mass were close to the
Planck mass you'd expect the W mass to be very large, and thus would be almost as small as the gravitational constant G. So in explaining why the Higgs mass isn't close to the Planck mass, you explain why is so much larger than G. (But I don't think this explains why G is so small -- and thus the Planck mass so large -- in the first place. That's where other ideas like large extra dimensions come in.) --
Tim314 (
talk)
07:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually do not know how to cite on Wikipedia, and I don't have time to learn (sorry if it is really easy to do, and I seem lazy because of that). But, for the new sections (SUSY corrections and ADD) I have listed the sources of the 'proofs', so in case anyone wants to clean up/ add to this article, can they please also do the citations:
-- Drgnrave ( talk) 23:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Drgnrave
Can someone please help me spell out the common source of both Hierarchy problem and Cosmological constant problem? I seem to see a clear connection here. Mastertek ( talk) 08:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Is this the same problem, or a different problem with the same name? I'm having trouble understanding how gravity and other force's strength relate to a cosmological constant. -- 99.245.28.74 ( talk) 23:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel "cancellation" should have a link. Not sure it should be Cancellation property or that might even be misleading so I didn't dare put it (I'm not a physicist). Leaving the next step for somebody more in the know for the sake of correctness, cheers -- 217.81.173.136 ( talk) 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
From the lede:
In theoretical physics, the hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. There is no scientific consensus on, for example, why the weak force is 10^32 times stronger than gravity.
From the technical definition (note I reworded this, and my rewording might be wrong):
A hierarchy problem occurs when the fundamental value of some physical parameter, such as a coupling constant or a mass, in some Lagrangian is vastly different from its effective value, which is the value that gets measured in an experiment.
How is the discrepancy between the weak force and gravity a hierarchy problem in the sense given in the technical definition? Wouldn't that only be the case if the weak force and gravity exist inside the same theory and one is the renormalized-corrected version of the other?
My understanding is that they don't exist inside the same theory. There are only speculative proposals for such a theory. But the statement that the weak/gravity ratio is a hierarchy problem is only meaningful relative to such a proposed theory. So the name of this theory should be mentioned. "Within the framework of grand unified theory X, the large weak/gravity ratio becomes a hierarchy problem."
Furthermore, enough explanation should be given -- at least on an abstract, cocktail-party-conversation level -- so that we can see how the weak force constant is the effective value of the gravity constant, or vice versa. (It's hilarious that I don't know which direction this might go, isn't it?) 178.38.171.5 ( talk) 09:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
178.38.171.5 ( talk) 10:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore if the Standard Model is used to calculate the quantum corrections to Fermi's constant, it appears that Fermi's constant is surprisingly large and is expected to be closer to Newton's constant, unless there is a delicate cancellation between the bare value of Fermi's constant and the quantum corrections to it.
I can't tell what counterfactual leads to what, and therefore what is supposed to surprise me, partly because I don't know the factual background, which in any case is not reported in this sentence.
If the Standard Model is used to calculate the quantum corrections to Fermi's constant, what comes out? Please state this background result first, before expressing an assessment of it or surprise about it.
Furthermore if the Standard Model is used to calculate the quantum corrections to Fermi's constant, it appears that Fermi's constant is surprisingly large and is expected to be closer to Newton's constant...
Why it it expected to be closer to Newton's constant? The phrasing of the sentence suggests that this is due to a calculation using the Standard Model. But the description of a hierarchy problem suggests that such an expectation arises from fundamental intuitions about what is natural in a physical theory.
...it appears that Fermi's constant is surprisingly large and is expected to be closer to Newton's constant, unless there is a delicate cancellation between the bare value of Fermi's constant and the quantum corrections to it.
Wouldn't a delicate cancellation make the effective value of Fermi's constant much smaller, so there'd be a chance that it would be closer to Newton's constant? I'm lost concerning the dependencies of the counterfactuals. 178.38.171.5 ( talk) 08:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
178.38.171.5 ( talk) 10:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently there's a problem in the hierarchy. If only we knew what hierarchy we were talking about in the first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 ( talk) 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In other words, a hierarchy problem is when we don't know why two things that seem similar are not the same size? Seems like a lot of jargon to convey this idea... Student298 ( talk) 00:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The attempt to connect the hierarchy problem to the size of the Monster Group seems unconvincing. This section also doesn't cite any sources. Is this something any published papers discuss, or is this just the speculation of whoever wrote this section? John Baez ( talk) 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. At the very least, the section does not hold encyclopedia quality. Since no one has defended or improved it, I will just go ahead and remove it right now. Presupposing innocence does not work on Wikipedia, especially for physics articles. The field seems to attract and harbor many eccentrics, arguably a great asset in the big scheme of things. Mad geniuses are a thing, and balancing on the edge is hard. Elias ( talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Most of the sources here are papers published via Arxiv. Per WP:ARXIV, these likely aren't all valid. Should we add bsn, cn, etc after some of the sections for various hypothesis, or are these good cites? Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)