The Hierarchy Problem

The Hierarchy Problem | Of Particular Significance
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-ba...
Of Particular Significance
Conversations About Science with Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler
The Hierarchy Problem

What is the Hierarchy Problem?
An important feature of nature that puzzles scientists like myself is known as the hierarchy, meaning the
vast discrepancy between aspects of the weak nuclear force and gravity. There are several different ways
to describe this hierarchy, each emphasizing a different feature of it. Here is one:
The mass of the smallest possible black hole defines what is known as the Planck Mass. [Planck
was the scientist who took the first step towards quantum mechanics.] (A more precise way to
define this is as a combination of Newtons gravitational constant G, Plancks quantum constant
h-bar, and the speed of light c: the Planck mass is the square root of h-bar times c divided by G.)
The masses of the W and Z particles, the force carriers of the weak nuclear force, are about
10,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the Planck Mass. Thus there is a huge hierarchy in
the mass scales of weak nuclear forces and gravity.
When faced with such a large number as 10,000,000,000,000,000, ten quadrillion, the question that
physicists are naturally led to ask is: where did that number come from? It might have some sort of
interesting explanation.
But while trying to figure out a possible explanation, physicists in the 1970s realized there was actually a
serious problem, even a paradox, behind this number. The issue, now called the hierarchy problem,
has to do with the size of the non-zero Higgs field, which in turn determines the mass of the W and Z
particles.
The non-zero Higgs field has a size of about 250 GeV, and that gives us the W and Z particles with
masses of about 100 GeV. But it turns out that quantum mechanics would lead us to expect that this size
of a Higgs field is unstable, something like (warning: imperfect analogy ahead) a vase balanced
precariously on the edge of a table. With the physics we know about so far, the tendency of quantum
mechanics to jostle those quantum fluctuations Ive mentioned elsewhere would seem to imply that
there are two natural values for the Higgs field in analogy to the two natural places for the vase, firmly
placed on the table or smashed on the floor. Naively, the Higgs field should either be zero, or it should be
as big as the Planck Energy, 10,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than it is observed to be. Why is it at
a value that is non-zero and tiny, a value that seems, at least naively, so unnatural?
This is the hierarchy problem.
Many theoretical physicists have devoted significant fractions of their careers to trying to solve this
problem. Some have argued that new particles and new forces are needed (and their theories go by
names such as supersymmetry, technicolor , little Higgs, etc.) Some have argued that our understanding
of gravity is mistaken and that there are new unknown dimensions (extra dimensions) of space that
will become apparent to our experiments at the Large Hadron collider in the near future. Others have
1 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
argued that there is nothing to explain, because of a selection effect: the universe is far larger and far
more diverse than the part that we can see, and we live in an apparently unnatural part of the universe
mainly because the rest of it is uninhabitable much the way that although rocky planets are rare in the
universe, we live on one because its the only place we could have evolved and survived. There may be
other solutions to this problem that have not yet been invented.
Many of these solutions certainly all the ones with new particles and forces or with new dimensions
predict that new phenomena should be visible at the Large Hadron Collider. Even as I write this, the
Large Hadron Collider is slowly but surely excluding many of these possibilities. So far it has not seen
any unexpected new phenomena. But these are still early days.
By the way, you will often read the hierarchy problem stated as a problem with the Higgs particle
mass. This is incorrect. The problem is with how big the non-zero Higgs field is. (For experts
quantum mechanics corrects not the Higgs particle mass but the Higgs mass-squared parameter,
changing the Higgs field potential energy and thus the fields value, making it zero or immense. Thats
a disaster because the W and Z masses are known. The Higgs mass is unknown, and therefore it
could be very large if the W and Z masses were very large too. So it is the W and Z masses and
the size of the non-zero Higgs field that are the problem, both logically and scientifically.)
8/14/11
SHARE THIS:
Twitter 6
Facebook 93
Google
Like
One blogger likes this.
59 RESPONSES TO THE HIERARCHY PROBLEM

Pingback: Standard Model Tutorials for the Masses (er, sorry about the pun) WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot?
Pingback: Mysteries of Science! | John C. Wright's Journal
Alli | January 31, 2012 at 11:46 AM | Reply

This is an awesome explanation of the phenomena. Thank you.
Marcel van Velzen | March 7, 2012 at 6:42 AM | Reply

Hello Prof. Strassler,
At least part of the hierarchy problem seems more like a hierarchy gift to me because it
makes the effective field theory picture of physics complete:
The standard model is composed of A and B terms (the renormalizable and
2 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
non-renormalizable terms). The A terms are the normal standard model terms, the B terms
would spoil it. So the assumption is that the B terms are suppressed by some mass scale and
are unobservable at the LHC. Now this seems like an empty statement, one could say: there
are no B terms.
It is here that gravity comes to our rescue. It can be shown that gravity cannot have A terms
and only consists of B terms. So if the above picture is correct then gravity should be far
weaker than the electroweak and strong forces (that contain A terms) and gravity is weak,
thank goodness!
Furthermore, we have indications from the past that when the B terms become important the
problems with the B terms are solved by more substructure (for beta decay these were the W
and Z).
So it tells us: at really high energy (probably near the Planck scale) we will see more
substructure which sounds not too bad.
To me this is a reasonable picture of the current state of physics, it could have been much
worse. Your view on the above would be greatly appreciated.
Rick Ryals | April 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM | Reply

All of the anthropic balances are fixed to produce the most energy efficient structure possible
like an energy conservation law that maximizes gradient breakdown, (work), before energy
becomes inert.
You might like this, Matt:
From here:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/%7Ejs/21st_century_science/lectures/lec28.html
J.R. Cudell | April 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM | Reply
3 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
Black holes can be less massive than the Planck mass. It is not the way it is defined. You can
have TeV black holes if quantum gravity is stronger than its classical conterpart.
Matt Strassler | April 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM | Reply

You are correct of course; I oversimplified. (Though this is not an issue of whether
quantum gravity is stronger than its classical counterpart; black holes are already
semi-classical. It is whether there are extra dimensions that make the true Planck mass
much smaller than it appears at long distance.)
I wanted a physical way of defining the Planck mass that does not involve throwing
around concepts that people have never heard of, but I believe you are right that I could
do a better job, perhaps by defining how heavy a quark would have to be before the strong
nuclear force and gravity between a quark and an antiquark would be equal in strength.
Pingback: Scientific Discoveries That Laugh in the Face of Physics

Pingback: 6 Scientific Discoveries That Laugh in the Face of Physics janbein
Jon Lennox | July 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM | Reply

You mention in this article that the size of the Higgs field is about 250 GeV.
Now that the Higgs particle has been discovered, its notable that its mass is just about half
that figure 125 GeV. Is there any reason to think that this is significant, or is it just
coincidence?
(For that matter, how is the size of the Higgs field known? Calculated based on the W and Z
masses? How precise is that 250 GeV figure?)
Matt Strassler | July 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM | Reply

The value of the Higgs field is 246 GeV.
There is no known reason to think there is a connection with the 125 GeV mass-energy
(i.e. E=mc^2 energy) of the Higgs. A mass-energy of 123 GeV is just about ruled out. As
far as anyone knows, thats a coincidence.
You can play lots of games with numerology; the top quark mass is closed to sqrt(2) * the
Higgs mass, the Z particle mass is close to the Higgs mass / sqrt(2). But when you try to
calculate these things in real theories, such simple ratios do not generally emerge for
particle masses; quantum corrections move things around a lot.
Jon Lennox | July 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM | Reply

Thanks!
I figured it couldnt be that easy otherwise theorists could have predicted the Higgs
4 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
mass based on the value of the Higgs field!

I am still curious about the other question, though how is the value of the Higgs field
determined experimentally?
Tim Preece | July 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM | Reply

A few times Ive seen custodial symmetry mentioned in relation to the hierarchy problem. Is
it something that has a simple explanation?
Matt Strassler | July 17, 2012 at 6:01 AM | Reply

Not without math, no. The statement is simple enough: if you turn off all of the Higgs
fields interactions with matter and all of its interactions with hypercharge, the resulting
theory of weak-isospin particles coupled to the Higgs field has an extra SU(2) global
symmetry. With the interactions turned back on the symmetry is only approximate, but it
is powerful enough to constrain the predictions of the theory in important ways. But to
prove the extra SU(2) global symmetry is there is technical (not very hard, but not
appropriate for this website.)
Pingback: 6 |
Pingback: Why the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated | Of Particular Significance
ewj9 | October 20, 2012 at 7:20 PM | Reply

suppose for a moment we exist in a 4D spatial universe. With 2 notions of time. 1.
homogenous and the other relativistic. The primary dimension defined as providing a unity
time value across the entire universe which determines and provides space for anything to
exist and move. Hence the velocity of light. This primary dimension could it not provide the
opening space by virtue of its expansion which locally determines the value of light speed.
Then if we consider Planks constant and change the value of C then all matter dissociates
back into its primordial form. Light is currently constant ( 14 billion years apparently) but
who is to say that it might be due for a change? Who knows what physical dynamics
occurring at the periphery might suddenly affect the local expansion. Then all the matter
which has been created hence gravity just vanishes instantaneously. Max Planks theory can
explain that and the cohesion in the SM. Change the value of C and all known physics
changes with it.
Pingback: Does the Higgs Field Give the Higgs Particle Its Mass, or Not? | Of Particular Significance
Pingback: Why Theories Dont Go Into Hospitals | Of Particular Significance
hpi | December 19, 2012 at 8:38 AM | Reply

Why is gluon effective only at very short distance even though it is massless like photon?
5 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
Pingback: Its (not) The End of the World | Of Particular Significance
Joe Barrera | January 17, 2013 at 11:38 PM | Reply

Do GUTs make this problem very much worse? E.g. if there exist X and Y bosons that couple
quarks to leptons, they would have to be much more massive than the W and Z. The Higgs
would have to couple to X and Y, right? Is this (yet more) bad news for GUTs, or is it assumed
that anything that fixes the hierarchy problem for SM would also solve it for GUTs?
Matt Strassler | January 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM | Reply

No, GUTs (grand unification of the three non-gravitational forces, which, if it occurs at all,
probably does so for physics processes with energy above 10^16 GeV compare to the
LHC which has a collision energy of about 10^4 GeV) dont make the problem hierarchy
worse. The hierarchy problem at the weak scale is a problem of 1 part in 10^32:
specifically, (M_Planck/m_W)^2. A GUT would only have a problem of
(M_Planck/M_GUT)^2 ~ 10^6, totally negligible by comparison.
devin | January 30, 2013 at 3:12 AM | Reply

On your warning! bad analogy, might a better one be to a coin on edge? Wed not be
surprised if it landed heads (0 GeV) or tails (1000etc GeV), but to land on its edge (246 GeV),
between heads and tails: very weird. Maybe?
Rick Ryals | January 30, 2013 at 9:47 AM | Reply

I gave a similar example, but I think that Matts point is that the value is balanced much
closer to zero, (the top of the table), than it is the floor, which is a unique and different,
(perhaps better), way of describing it that I cant for the life of me repeat with a similar
example.
Matt Strassler | January 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM | Reply

Yes, thats the problem with the coin. But hey, theres no perfect example.
island001 | January 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM | Reply
Rick Ryals | January 30, 2013 at 5:37 PM |

A motorboat perched just over the edge of a waterfall that is kept in place by the
counterbalancing force of the spinning propeller.
I say that because the balance is fixed dynamically when it is observed in other
facets of nature, e.g. the tendency for the boat to go over the falls if the water
speeds up is quickly offset by an increase in the speed of the engine and the
propeller.
Maybe it doesnt apply here, but dont bet on it ;)
6 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
Greg Garrison | April 20, 2013 at 11:40 AM | Reply

could dark energy and dark matter be seeping into our universe,and thats why we dont know
much about it,like an ocean that exists beyond,and were just a bubble that is slowly being
filled,,,would this solve any part of the hierarchy problem,,,
callousk9 | July 19, 2013 at 1:46 PM | Reply

Hw can da weak nuclear force carrier be 10 quadrillion times smaller den plancks mass? i
thought that plancks mass is the smallest a mass could be? im confused, can sum1 please
explain it to me.
Doc | September 4, 2013 at 9:15 PM | Reply

Planck mass in /not/ the smallest possible mass .. far from it. I think the confusion here is
because planck time and planck distance ARE smallest possible measures. In contrast,
Planck mass gets its name from the fact that it is the mass of a black hole whose
Schwarzchild radius equals planck length. Actually, the question Why is Planck mass so
large? can be rephrased as Why is Gravity so weak? Theyre more or less equivalent
questions.
Pingback: A Couple of Rare Events | Of Particular Significance

Pingback: SEARCH day 1 | Of Particular Significance
Greg Garrison | September 5, 2013 at 12:14 AM | Reply

is gravity really so weak at the planck length,what is holding mass together,maybe at the
macro end gravity becomes weak,I believe this is refered to as the hierarchy problem,am I
correct

What holds mass together at the subatomic scale are the electromagnetic force and the
strong nuclear force.
Its not that gravity is weak at Planck length its weak at ALL lengths (micro and macro),
and constant over an infinite range. In contrast, the strong nuclear force has an extremely
limited range. So I guess it would be acceptable to say that gravity at Planck length is
RELATIVELY weak, since at larger range it doesnt have to compete with powerful, yet
short-range, forces. Note, however, that electormagnetism also has infinite range.

I should also have pointed out that the expression holding mass together doesnt make
sense. (Sorry that I carelessly used that expression myself.) Holding matter together or
holding stuff together .. these would be acceptable. Mass is not stuff; mass is a
property that stuff has.
7 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
Pingback: Did the LHC Just Rule Out String Theory?! | Of Particular Significance
Pingback: The Hierarchy Problem in California science | Atomic and molecular social science expressions
Pingback: Quantum Field Theory, String Theory, and Predictions (Part 7) | Of Particular Significance
Pingback: Whats the Status of the LHC Search for Supersymmetry? | Of Particular Significance
Pingback: Global warming and the end - Page 89 - Christian Forums
Should You Really Use Web Tracking Software at Work? | June 28, 2014
at 6:40 AM | Reply
fantastic points altogether, you just received a new reader.

What might you suggest about your submit that you
made a few days ago? Any positive?
Pingback: 6 Scientific Discoveries Which Break The Laws Of Physics | Earth. We are one.
Pingback: 6 Scientific Discoveries That Laugh in the Face of Physics | Reason Science
vt quay lng sn | September 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM | Reply

My partner and I stumbled over here by a different web address and thought I might as
well check things out. I like what I see so i am just following you.
Look forward to finding out about your web page for a second time.
Pingback: Quotation of the Day: Higgs boson God particle Cornerston of the Simple Theory of Everything |
People's Advocacy Council
epoxy flooring | September 26, 2014 at 9:33 PM | Reply

I must thank you for the efforts youve put in penning this website.
I am hoping to see the same high-grade blog posts by
you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has motivated me to get my
own, personal website now ;)
garage Flooring Nh | October 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM | Reply

Excellent post however , I was wanting to know if you could write
a litte more on this subject? Id be very thankful if you
could elaborate a little bit more. Thanks!
Epoxy flooring nh | October 3, 2014 at 9:03 PM | Reply

Youre so cool! I do not believe Ive read something like this before.
So good to find somebody with a few unique thoughts on this issue.
8 of 9
10/21/15 10:30 AM
Really.. thanks for starting this up. This web site is something that is needed on the web,
someone with some originality!
greg garrison | October 4, 2014 at 3:31 PM | Reply

at ten to the minus 33 cm,or planck length,gravity must be stronger than first realized,?
Edward Johnson | October 5, 2014 at 5:53 AM | Reply

Maybe there is a scalar affect ?Amazing why we simply do not know what causes it its
just there !
Ashly | October 8, 2014 at 2:20 AM | Reply

Wow, this post is good, my sister is analyzing these kinds of
things, therrefore I am going to let know her.
Pingback: 6 Scientific Discoveries Which Break The Laws Of Physics | Conscious Ninja
Georges Melki | January 8, 2015 at 5:47 AM | Reply

Amazing how different physicists give different explanations! Here is what one of your very
well known colleagues has to say about the hierarchy problem: Moving down the hierarchy,
10^-16 times the Planck scale is a TeV, the energy at which the unification of the weak and
electromagnetic forces take place. This is called the weak interaction scale. This is the region
in which we should see the Higgs boson, and it is also where many theorists expect to see
supersymmetry. The LHC is being built to probe the physics at this scale(this is from a book
published in 2006). A proton mass is 71,000 of that(!), another 71,000 brings us down to the
electron, and perhaps 71,000,000 of that is the neutrino. Then, way down at the bottom, is
the vacuum energy, which exists throughout space even in the absence of matter.
Now, Dr Strassler, I would be very grateful if you could explain where all those multiples of 71
came from.
Thanks
Pingback: The Asimov equation Mia Farrow married Frank Sinatra

Pingback: Solar system EM waves and EARTH versus BOSTON PBS station | The Earth government Military
Command Structure
Pingback: Super Physics Blog / | Asperger: The HypoSocial Human
Pingback: Natures military SYMBOL tool .the tau particle and its WAR casualties
Pingback: The Tau particle atomic social science communications battle in Waco, Texas | The Z-papers
explain modern WAR
Blog at WordPress.com.
9 of 9
The Coraline Theme.
10/21/15 10:30 AM

The Hierarchy Problem - of Particular Significance

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Hierarchy Problem - of Particular Significance

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Hierarchy Problem | Of Particular Significance