Banner
    Confidence In New Physics And SUSY Dropping Like A Stone
    By Tommaso Dorigo | September 27th 2013 08:50 AM | 47 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    UPDATE: Just found out that Peter Woit anticipated me on this - see his blog entry.
    ---

    Just five years ago, on the eve of the start of the Large Hadron Collider, most particle physicists - experimentalists and theorists alike - would have been willing to bet their left testicle or ovary on the fact that new physics would very soon be discovered, most likely Supersymmetric particles (if a suitable payoff had been offered in exchange).

    We all know that the picture has changed dramatically since then: the failure of ATLAS and CMS to observe any hint of new physics in their large datasets -albeit at an energy almost halved from the design 14 TeV- has significantly cooled everybody down.

    Seeing a statistics drawing a picture of the real way physicists nowadays think of the discovery potential of collider physics at the LHC and elsewhere, however, is quite different from catching the general feeling of colleagues in lab corridors or departments halls. Therefore I was quite intrigued by looking at a few pie charts produced by a polling of the participants to a workshop on the Higgs boson going on as we speak in Madrid.

    Take for instance question (3) "Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?". I am sorry to be unable to prove it, but I strongly believe that 90% of my colleagues five years ago would have answered a resounding "YES". Now, 41% of the participants to the Madrid workshop say NO.

    A more involved question concerned the hierarchy problem - the riddle concerning the unnaturally small mass of the Higgs boson, which apparently ends up this light because of unbelievably accurate cancellations of many unrelated quantum processes, each capable of raising its value by orders of magnitude: (1) "Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth?". Here the possible answers were many, and I need to post the original pie chart to best represent the mix of answers, which could be chosen from the following list:

    a) Low energy SUSY solves the hierarchy problem.

    b) There is no hierarchy problem, it is a misinterpretation of how field theory works.

    c) The hierarchy may be understood in the context of anthropic arguments, perhaps in connection with the existence of a landscape of string vacua.

    d) There is new physics above the TeV scale (e.g. compositeness, Randal-Sundrum, some technicolor version).

    e) There is a low scale string theory above a few TeV.

    f) Other



    As you can see above, there is no consensus. Opinions vary and are equally split between the alternative possibilities. Worth noting is that answer (b) (the one I would choose, incidentally) has as many supporters as answer (a). Low-energy Supersymmetry has indeed lost much of its appeal, and apparently this has caused many to reconsider the hierarchy problem and reason that it might just be a misinterpretation on our part.

    Also interesting, although not directly related to the results so far produced by the LHC, is the answer to question (6) "Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?" (my answer: NO). Here we see a funny split between believers (YES - 27%) and sceptics (NO - 27%); however the question foresaw a third answer: "it is a step" in the right direction. This is what the remaining 44% voted (I should mention that physicists at the conference were in majority theorists, a fact which is more relevant to this answer than to others IMHO).

    I suggest you to visit the web site of the poll to see answers to the other interesting questions that were asked in Madrid. And I also suggest you to write below what your answers are to those questions - it would be fun to compare what scientists and non-scientists believe. If you do, please specify if you are a particle physicist (theorist or experimentalist) or not, and provide at least your answers to the three questions above; the other questions you might want to answer are:

    2) "Will the LHC and/or the ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson ?"
    (my answer: NO)

    4) "Will dark matter (either WIMPS, axions, or other) be detected in the course of the next decade ?" (my answer: NO - but by a small margin; had they said "20 years" I'd answer yes...).

    Question 5 is a bit too technical for this blog, but you're welcome to answer that one too... "Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?"

    Have fun!

    Comments

    I'm a PhD student in theoretical high energy physics. My answers are:

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    b) There is no hierarchy problem, it is a misinterpretation of how field theory works.

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    b) No.

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    b) No.

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    b) No.

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    b) Yes.
    But not in the next decade.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    b) No.

    dorigo
    Esben, your answer are the same as mine!
    Thanks for your input.
    T.
    Undergrad in Physics back in the 90s, turned system engineer / software developer.

    - Identical answers to You and Esben.

    I thought string theory was barking up the wrong tree back in the 90s, so my answer to #6 has been 'No' for a long time (and it didn't take me a PhD or the LHC results to figure that one out).

    I'm a engineer
    1) SUSY ( but LHC not find SUSY, need new colider)
    2) no
    3) no
    4)Yes - 20 years
    5)Yes
    6)Yes

    Hi Tommaso,
    OK, but if all your answers turn out to be true, what about the long list of unsolved challenges of the Standard Model?
    Cheers,
    Ervin

    Hi Tommaso,
    My answers are basically the same as yours (including not answering number 5, with my grounds not being well-enough informed about the issues involved). On number 4, maybe I'm a bit less optimistic, with even 20 years not enough to figure out what dark matter is. On this one, and number 2 (no non-standard Higgs), I hope to be wrong, and think there's a decent chance for this.

    Maybe this shd be answered with the last cop out option removed from question 6.

    My answers below .....I am theoretical particle physicist...

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    f) Other. There maybe a solution that does not require TeV scale physics.

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    b) No

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    b) No.

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    b) No.

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    cant say.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    b) No

    (1) Anthropics then SUSY at a scale just out of reach
    (2) No
    (3) No
    (4) No
    (5) No
    (6) Step in the right direction
    However I expect to be wrong on one of the answers (2) to (5)

    I am a composer of computer music, algorithmically generated. I have never studied physics except for looking at a lot of these blogs for a few years now, which is great fun.

    My 1/2 cent:

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:

    f) Other (specify briefly) Not sure what, but "other."

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?

    b) No.

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?

    a) Yes.

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?

    a) Yes.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?

    b) No.

    Hi Tommaso! My answers are the same as yours, while I would hope to be proven wrong about dark matter (4). I have no hope about other questions. Count me in with practicing physicists. :-)

    Best, :-)
    Marko

    Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson? Yes, it observed it already (formation of microblack holes in form of atom nuclei). Will the LHC and/or the ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson? IMO we are observing them already http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/cmbr_higgs.gif Will dark matter (either WIMPS, axions, or other) be detected in the course of the next decade ? Again, we are already observing the antimatter, neutrinos and scalar waves. 6) - nope, many theories (like the forty years old Heim's theory) are much more successful phenomenologically, than the string theory and another, much more general are waiting in line.

    I guess I'll add my two cents. (Ph.D. candidate in high energy theory)
    1) My hunch is b
    2) No, although one can hope...
    3) No, but again I'm hoping...
    4) I'm actually thinking yes on this one, although it depends on how some experimental upgrades go (and as always, funding issues...) But I'd say yes in 15 years.
    5) Yes
    6) No

    Recent Ph.D. in physics (cosmology theory)

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    f) Other (close second: (b) -- no hierarchy problem)

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    b) No

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    b) No

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    b) No

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    Tough one, but I'll venture "no" because I find the standard picture of inflation (a primary origin of predicted tensor modes) troublesome for theoretical (not observational) reasons

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    b) No

    1) b (I have a model which is natural)
    2) no
    3) no
    4) no
    5) yes
    6) no

    I'm a mathematician.
    1) Other: probably some inflationary mechanism caused by GUT-scale physics.
    2) No: the Higgs is a fermion condensate, but the LHC is not able to determine its fine structure (which cannot be too "non-standard" anyway).
    3) No.
    4) No: a decade is too short. (Certainly not axions: they don't exist.)
    5) Yes.
    6) No. (And not a step in the right direction in any reasonable sense.)

    I'm a hep-ex PhD student.

    1) f (though you may call it b). Similar to Yakutsk. Some higher energy physics forces the observed Higgs mass to take on its value. There really is a fine tuned cancellation at work, but for good reason. Instead of "elegantly" canceling its own corrections, nature has a reason for the fine tuning. Similarly for the Yukawas. I have no good reason for this stance except aesthetic appeal.

    2) No, but this is not necessarily to say that no such properties exist.

    3) No, but what do I know? I hope so.

    4) Not quite. In my lifetime, axions.

    5) Yes.

    Let me rephrase my answer to 1). "The Standard Model's essential storyline about TeV physics is correct. What it's missing is only an awareness that some of its parameters are not so free as it believes."

    Interested layperson with some advanced physics background.

    1) Yes there is a hierarchy problem.
    2) No. Not of the HIggs Boson.
    3) Yes, and it will be a complete surprise.
    4) Dark matter? No. But in my expected lifetime the dark matter problem will be solved, even if particles are not detected.
    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    ?
    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory? No.

    I'm a fictitious crackpot.

    1. f) The LHC is not observing the Higgs. The real Higgs is a graviton-antigraviton bound state with a mass-energy of 10^12 GeV. The LHC is observing what I call the "shadow" of the real Higgs, a bound state of a graviton *hole* and an antigraviton *hole*, with a mass-energy determine by the "running balance" principle recently elucidated by my collaborator Elefantov.

    2 & 3. Yes and Yes. The constituent holes of the Higgs shadow will necessarily be filled at some multiple of the dark scale (see below).

    4. Yes and No. There is no dark matter, but there is a universal dark scale at about 10 GeV, which marks the phase transition between locally flat space and locally curved space. Its effects have already been observed many times, in many branches of physics.

    5. An exciting possibility is that we will be able to reconstruct from the CMB, the quantum imprint of civilizations from the end of the previous cosmic cycle. According to my Theory of Inter-Aeonic Equilibrium Games (Salad, W., 2007), as the free energy of the universe runs out, it becomes rational for a civilization to expend the enormous energies required to leave an imprint in the Higgs field of the next cycle. If there is a secondary dark scale, even more amazing signs become possible, such as mathematical and cultural information visible in high-resolution Quasar Correlation Functions (Salad, W., work in progress)!!

    6. Of course not. The landscape is a the greatest mirage ever to hypnotize a generation of science. Those "theories" do not even exist mathematically, as demonstrated by Elefantov, because they violate the principle of constructive reversibility. Real physics has to begiun with sensory viscosity and remain rigorously concrete, in its concepts as well as its predictions.

    Thanks to all the real crackpots for inspiration

    @Word Salad

    I'm just a stupid armchair crackpot pet theorist :) I wonder what should I do with my pet theory (ToEbi) because I can explain with it things like dark matter, dark energy, usage of antimatter, flyby anomaly etc? Those are on top of all other phenomena in physics explained by my pet theory. Actually there is Juno Earth flyby coming next month. Here are the prediction for anomalous acceleration based on my pet theory.

    Depending on the spacecraft's spin frequencies (Disclaimer: The spin plane of Juno must point towards Earth during the flyby). Most likely spin frequency might be 2 rpm (there probably is some scientific measurements done during the flyby). Total anomalous acceleration is in case of

    1 rpm: 0.278 mm/s^2
    2 rpm: 1.111 mm/s^2
    5 prm: 6.944 mm/s^2

    What is the prediction based on contemporary physics?

    John Duffield
    I'm an IT guy with big interest in fundamental physics. Here's what I think:

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    f) Other. Gravity is weak because it's a trace force which remains when other forces mask one another. 

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    b) No. But I think they'll be overtaken by events, like the "Higgs field" underlies photon momentum as well as electron mass, and the "Higgs mechanism" accounts for 100% of the mass of matter not 1%. 

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    a) Yes. But it will be "within the standard model" rather than "beyond the standard model". 

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    a) Yes. But it won't be in the form of particles. It will be inhomogeneous spatial energy. 

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    b) Yes. We will measure the "reducing strength of space".
       
    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    b) No. But I think the standard model will evolve to include some aspects of string theory as well as some aspects of other theories. 

    Edit: by the way I have to say I feel somewhat unmoved by surveys conducted amongst "beyond the standard model" physicists. Instead I'd like to see a workshop entitled Why mₑ =511keV? IMHO you have to fully understand the electron before proposing a selectron.
    rholley
    I do not have enough insight into the matter even to choose between one slice of the pie or other.

    But the title does remind me of the following scene from the the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, The Yeomen of the Guard.  It consists of the duet between Wilfred Shadbolt, Head Jailer and Assistant Tormentor, and Jack Point, a strolling jester, who are vigorously relating their concocted account of events.

      W.S:  I discharged it without winking,
      Little time I lost in thinking,
      Like a stone I saw him sinking--
     
      J.P:  I should say a lump of lead.
     
      ALL:  He discharged it without winking,
      Little time he lost in thinking.
     
      W.S:  Like a stone I saw him sinking —
     
      J.P:  I should say a lump of lead.
     
      W.S:  Like a stone, my boy, I said —
     
      J.P:  Like a heavy lump of lead.
     
      W.S:  Like a stone, my boy, I said —
     
      J.P:  Like a heavy lump of lead.
     
      W.S:  Anyhow, the man is dead,
      Whether stone or lump of lead!

      ALL:  Anyhow, the man is dead,
      Whether stone or lump of lead!
      Arquebus from sentry seizing,
      With the view his King of pleasing,
      Arquebus from sentry seizing,
      With the view his King of pleasing,
      Wilfred shot him through the head,
      And he’s very, very dead!
     



    Source: http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Complete-Plays-of-Gilbert-and-Sullivan15.html
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    I'm a fictitious tenured physicist.

    1. c) Working within the paradigm of the MMVSSM (Maximal-Minimality-Violating Supersymmetric Standard Model), anthropic considerations could well be the reason why the Higgs mass in our vacuum is just at the SM stability threshold, depending on the measure used (Roachcock, Gall, HC 2013).

    2. Again working within the paradigm of the MMVSSM, we can say that if there *are* non-standard SM Higgs behaviors within reach of the LHC, then they will be detected. For example, 1 TeV f-stops would imply a 5% increase in bottom decays. However, the f-stops could easily be at 10 TeV, rendering this channel indistinguishable from the SM.

    3. According to the MMVSSM, there are many exciting possibilities ahead for LHC Run II: parity-restoring sweakons, "conjugated" gluinos, minijets from R-ball decay. However, this all depends on whether the irregular operators responsible for J-term coefficients are missing. If there *are* strongly irregular operators, then many of these phenomena could be suppressed, even at the ILC.

    4. The MMVSSM says that dark matter could be axions. Or it could be axions and qinos, or axions and qinos and LSRBs (lightest stable R-balls), or axions and qinos and LSRBs and neutra-shadrons and more axions and still more axions. All these possibilities create many exciting opportunities for detection.

    5. In mixed crystalfold landscape models (HC, 2013), the Higgs tuning may be produced by a deviation from flux/volume duality that also results in a small cosmological constant. The smoking gun for this would be non-Gaussian signatures in the CMB dodecupole.

    6. Over the decades, we have learned to approach string theory with humility. Of course it's the answer. But we humans may not be smart enough to prove it.

    H.C. is supported by DOA grant QWERTY-314159-po-po-po-poker-face and by a Templeton-Simons-FQXi-Krypton visiting visionary fellowship.

    I am an independent researcher in Quantum Field Theory and particle phenomenology. I beg to differ in many respects with you and other contributors. This is why:

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth?

    Question may be ill-posed. We don’t understand where the mass of the Higgs scalar comes from, nor do we know where the electroweak scale comes from. Without grasping the true nature of EWSB (electroweak symmetry breaking), there is really no way to judge if this question makes sense or not.

    2) Will the LHC and/or the ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?

    Unknown, for the same reasons as above.

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?

    Unknown, because “new physics” may refer to a layer of reality fundamentally different from the one described by the Standard Model.

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMPS, axions, or other) be detected in the course of the next decade?

    Unknown, as “dark matter” may also refer to a layer of reality fundamentally different from the one described by the Standard Model.

    5) I skip this question since I am too ignorant to answer.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?

    Unknown, as “ultimate unified field theory” may very well be a misnomer, lacking a sensible interpretation as falsifiable physical theory.

    Thoughts of a hep-th PhD student, but I don't hold any of these very tightly:

    (1) "Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth?"

    Leaning mostly towards "b) There is no hierarchy problem, it is a misinterpretation of how field theory works."

    (2) "Will the LHC and/or the ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson ?"

    ILC/other next gen collider maybe; LHC unlikely

    (3) "Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?"

    Depends on my mood. I don't have a really convincing argument one way or the other.

    (4) "Will dark matter (either WIMPS, axions, or other) be detected in the course of the next decade ?"

    Marginal, optimistic yes for first detections. Real understanding will take another decade, probably with a rich dark sector at least as bizarre as the standard model itself.

    (5) "Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?"

    Not sure, though certainly not enough to rule out inflation.

    (6) "Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?"

    No. Important insights will come from understanding the connections between string theory and ordinary quantum field theory, but string theory itself will not be a complete or correct theory of nature. Most important string-inspired breakthroughs will be efficient techniques for calculations in ordinary gauge theories, but new principles will be required to understand the field content of the universe.

    The Stand-Up Physicist
    Hello:

    I used to have a unified field proposal until it flamed out on respecting conservation of angular momentum.  So sad, but so it goes.  That effort colors my responses.

    My reply is most like the first one by Esben Mølgaard.  I would embellish two of the answers.

    4. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain the movements of very large system that we cannot explain using the simplest form of Newtonian gravity theory (a great approximation given the low speeds and densities involved).  There may be an errant assumption in such simple models that may remove the need for the dark matter hypothesis.

    6. When I think about doing spactime calculus, one should be free to work with dancing dots, speeding strings, moving membranes, or bouncing blobs all with the same starting equations.  A small slice of 4D stringie physics may have lasting value.
    This post has been really popular.
    I'm not sure what my answers would be. But I really hope someone finds out what dark matter is soon. If all the LHC does is find some new quark combinations I will be disappointed, even if Tommaso greets Y and X particles with screams of delight.

    Hfarmer
    For what my opinions are worth...


    2) "Will the LHC and/or the ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson ?"
    Probably not.  So far betting against the SM has been a loosing bet.  

    4) "Will dark matter (either WIMPS, axions, or other) be detected in the course of the next decade ?"
    Detected directly, no.  Detected via searches for DM anti DM annihilation to cosmic ray photons (a very small but non zero crosssection)... yes.
    Question 5 is a bit too technical for this blog, but you're welcome to answer that one too... "Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?"
    Like the SM betting against General Relativity has been a loosing bet.  So as gravity waves (tensor b-modes) are predicted by GR I will say yes.   According to a question answered at one of the plenary talks at the April APS meeting last year the simplest models of inflation have almost been eliminated by Planck data.   More complex tensor and vector modes predict a slightly non Gaussian CMB power  spectrum.
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    HEP-Pheno
    1) a)
    2) Yes
    3) Yes
    4) Yes
    5) Yes
    6) B. There is an effective field theory of our universe, that is likely dual to a weakly coupled string theory. In the deep UV, we might need to go beyond this paradigm in some way.

    I am a little disturbed by people who pick B for the first question. The hierarchy problem is demonstrably real whether people like it or not.

    What if you knew how this hierarchy emerges? Would you still call it a problem?

    If you have a solution or explanation for the hierarchy, that's fine. Eg technicolor, RS and super symmetry amongst other models all provided an a priori solution. What you can't do is argue it away based on simple field theory considerations like people tried to do in the late 70s and early 80s. For instance, by invoking dimensional regularization.

    I totally agree.

    John Duffield
    I think you can go some of the way using classical electromagnetism and general relativity along with for every action there is a reaction.  
    "I am a little disturbed by people who pick B for the first question. The hierarchy problem is demonstrably real whether people like it or not."

    The hierarchy problem is demonstrably real in perturbative approach to the Standard Model (or QFT in general). This means that it might be really real, or it might be an artifact of the perturbation theory. In other words, it is possible that it has a quite reasaonable but nonperturbative explanation.

    Besides, QFT is at best an effective theory, and if you want to explain the difference between the weak scale and the Planck scale, you'd better do it in the context of some theory of quantum gravity, rather than the SM itself. QFT is just an approximation, and if it has certain issues with fine-tuning here and there, I am not disturbed too much. It can turn out to be just an artifact of the approximation scheme, rather than anything fundamental.

    HTH, :-)
    Marko

    Hierarchies due to quadratic divergences are nonperturbative statements, you see the same problem on eg the lattice.
    It is precisely when you couple the standard model to gravity where the problem is at its sharpest. The exact details are not known, but as long as you have some new (momentum transfer) physics scale somewhere up there, you are led to this issue. Namely, the sensitive dependence upon parameters that are controlled in the deep UV. The question can be phrased as " why should details and cancellations within theories about GUTs or quantum gravity, yield impossibly tiny but non zero results that just happens to coincide with the physics of the electroweak scale.. It seems like the former knows something about the latter).

    "It is precisely when you couple the standard model to gravity where the problem is at its sharpest."

    When you couple SM to gravity, the vacuum is gone, renormalization drops dead, and all hell breaks loose (so to speak :-) ). In that setting, fine-tuning is the least of your problems, even if it could be formulated rigorously. That said, I am not claiming that the problem doesn't exist at all. Rather, from my POV the formalism of QFT is a wrong place to discuss the hierarchy problem, just like the similar issue with the cosmological constant. And in the more appropriate context of some quantum gravity model, it might turn out to have a natural or otherwise obvious resolution.

    "The question can be phrased as " why should details and cancellations within theories about GUTs or quantum gravity, yield impossibly tiny but non zero results that just happens to coincide with the physics of the electroweak scale.. It seems like the former knows something about the latter)."

    GUTs aside, my personal feeling is that the relation between gravity and Higgs mass should actually be expected. If you look at the SM Lagrangian, the only real mass parameter in the theory is the Higgs mass (all other coupling constants are dimensionless). Therefore only the Higgs mass can be expressed as a multiple of the Planck mass, and one can expect that some quantum theory of gravity will account for the (very small) proportionality factor in some way. So I even expect that the former knows something about the latter, it is by no means a surprise. The only issue is that so far we do not have a serious candidate for QG where this relationship can be appropriately formulated and discussed.

    Best, :-)
    Marko

    John Duffield
    Problem on the lattice? Start with a stiff lattice. Now think "bag model" and stretch it like this to form a hump. The action h is "under the hump", and is associated with a small spatial extent wherein action = momentum x distance. But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The reaction is "above the hump", and is associated with a rather bigger spatial extent. Quite a lot bigger. You might think a simplistic four-potential depiction of a photon can be nothing to do with the strong force, but ask yourself this: in low energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons, where does the strong force go?
    I'm always reluctant to make predictions, particularly out of my field ;), but since Tommaso asked, I will participate. My field is computer science but I have had a love for physics since an early age, particularly particle physics, and I try to keep up with the field as good as I can - but I'm no physicist. And my guesstimates are:

    1) b) There is no hierarchy problem, it is a misinterpretation of how field theory works.
    2) No.
    3) No. At least not beyond the Standard Model.
    4) Yes. But I will admit that it's the optimistic part of me who won here.
    5) I know too little about this, so I pass on that question.
    6) No.

    Rick Ryals
    Is it the "multiverse", or is it the "anthropic"?... that is the question, since the two terms are use synonymously on the cutting edge, where the AP is *only* recognized if there is an infinite number of worlds!  Otherwise it and all it's extremely interesting life oriented physics is just the Fine Tuning Problem, the obvious is not allowed... 

    What a joke, and they wonder what's wrong with the scientific method...
    Ex HEPster.

    Left the field, post Ph.D., ~ two decades ago as it seemed to me that the future potential for progress was glacial at best. Switched to a rapidly advancing field in biophysics.
    Anyways, my two quanta worth:

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    b) There is no hierarchy problem, it is a misinterpretation of how field theory works.

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    b) No.

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    b) No.

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    b) Don't know. Have to wonder if dark matter actually exists or are the observed phenomena due to something else.

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    b) Don't know enough to comment.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    b) No. Qualifier: if someone figures out to get String Theory to work in 4D, without the need for additional dimensions, then maybe.

    Historical observation and comment. String theory became hot the year I started grad school. Back then the prevailing belief was that a TOE would be worked out in a few years. I had already attended colloquiua on supersymmetry [ van Nieuwanhuizen, Ellis] as an undergrad.

    Find it amazing that these are still the prevailing theories in the field some three decades plus later despite the ever growing theoretical difficulties and complete lack of experimental evidence.

    Can't imagine spending my entire career working on the same speculative hypotheses that keep leading to ever more complicated dead ends.

    The anthropomorphic stuff is depressing to read. To me a sign of desperation and decline, as it goes beyond metaphysics into the realm of Ubuian pataphysics.

    Okay, a bit more than two quanta worth.

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    -The hierarchy problem is not a problem at all. I presume it is a hint about a (multi)fractal energy scale.

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    -It depends on what you mean by non-standard. If you mean anomalous behaviour with respect to the SM expectations in the quantum numbers of the Higgs bosons, I would say no. If you meant new scalars and a Higgs boson mixing with other exotic fields, I would say yes IF the Higgs have some microstructure. However, I am afraid that the LHC or the ILC can not study with great detail the Higgs boson substructure, and I am quite sure that the own Higgs mass could hide some exotic microstructure to be unveiled somehow. But I am not sure how much the LHC or the ILC could explore these options.

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    -Yes, but not where people is expecting to find them...

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    -No. WIMPs are just a misconception. Axions are too hard to be detected in the near future. WISPs? Only if we build very low temperature/energy detectors, and it is not easy at all. In order to detect dark matter, if it is real, we should explore the low energy/temperature window much better. And it is not going to happen in the next decade...

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    -Yes, but not in the next 2 decades...Non-gaussianities will provide to be more difficult to detect than what we expect.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    -No. String theory/M-theory are only effective of Quantum Gravity. The true unified field theory will not arise until we master some special mathematics and we understand Quantum Mechanics better. It has not happened yet.

    HEP-theory. and my leanings are

    1) b
    2) no
    3) no
    4) no
    5) no
    6) no

    how can someone seriously say b is not an option for 1? it sure is - i refer to e.g. the "minimal TOE" by Wetterich for a nice example.

    Um, Wetterich's model still has a hierarchy. It doesn't even attempt to solve it.

    Err, Wetterichs model still has the full hierarchy. It doesn't even attempt to solve it, and given the author's philosophy, they don't seem to care about finetuning in general.

    exactly! they have the hierarchy but they have no problem. so they day b), right?

    i am nobody but i am very interested in Quantum Physics.

    1) Concerning the hierarchy problem, which of these options is in your opinion closer to the truth:
    d) or e)

    2) Will the LHC and/or ILC eventually detect non-standard properties of the Higgs boson?
    b) Yes

    3) Will the LHC eventually find new physics other than the Higgs boson?
    b) Yes

    4) Will dark matter (either WIMP, axions or other) be detected in the next decade?
    b) Yes

    5) Will we eventually measure non-Gaussianities or tensor modes or other cosmological new effects?
    cant say.

    6) Do you think that String Theory will eventually be the ultimate unified theory?
    b) No

    Dileep Sathe

    Confidence in old physics:

    Tommaso Dorigo’s story takes to a recent welcome speech by Neil Turok (05 September 2013) to the participants of P.S.I. program and also a story on the Scientific American, 29 November 2012, indicating that the failure of super-symmetry requires physics to have new ideas. But I am more concerned with the old physics than with the new physics because the year 2005 was celebrated as the Einstein year for the popularization of physics. Let me add just one surprising observation, which was described on 11 April 2009, title: Wadia Experience www.science20.com/carl_wieman/scientific_approach..._technology

    I think the main problem is in the way in which we have been teaching uniform circular motion, for many years and all over the world. Also I think, some lacunae remained in our teaching because our Solar System is a troubling one, see the second point in my Letter to CHANGE, http://changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/May-June%202008/letters-to-editor.html For more discussion, one can use dvsathe@gmail.com