The Myth of Naturalness in Physics: Debunking the Crisis

The Supposed Crisis in Physics

In recent years, there has been much discussion about a supposed crisis in physics, particularly in particle physics. This notion has been propagated by many prominent physicists and science communicators. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that this "crisis" is not based on scientific evidence but rather on misconceptions and flawed reasoning.

The Origin of the Crisis Narrative

The idea of a crisis in physics stems from a concept known as "naturalness." Physicists have developed a specific notion of what constitutes "natural" in the laws of nature. According to this view, certain constants and parameters in our physical theories should have values close to 1 when expressed without units. When these values deviate significantly from 1, physicists consider it unnatural and problematic.

The Cosmological Constant Problem

One of the most frequently cited examples of this supposed crisis is the prediction of the cosmological constant. This prediction, often referred to as "the worst prediction in science," is off by a staggering 120 orders of magnitude. However, it's crucial to understand that this prediction is not based on solid scientific grounds but rather on the assumption of naturalness.

The Flawed Logic Behind the Prediction

In general relativity, the cosmological constant is a free parameter that cannot be predicted theoretically. It must be determined through observation and measurement. The same is true for Newton's gravitational constant. Physicists attempted to relate these two constants by multiplying them with suitable exponents and then postulating that the resulting relation should be approximately 1 to satisfy their notion of naturalness.

This approach led to the wildly inaccurate prediction of the cosmological constant. Instead of questioning the validity of the naturalness assumption, many physicists have chosen to construct elaborate explanations involving vacuum fluctuations and quantum gravity to justify their stance.

The Hierarchy Problem

Another aspect of the supposed crisis in physics is what's known as the hierarchy problem. This refers to the question of why the gravitational interaction between elementary particles is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces.

Quantifying the Hierarchy

The hierarchy can be quantified by comparing the ratio of the gravitational attraction to the electrical attraction between an electron and a proton. This ratio is approximately 10^-40, which physicists consider "unnatural" according to their criteria.

An Alternative Perspective

However, it's important to ask: why should this ratio be close to 1? There's no fundamental reason why the strengths of different interactions should be comparable. The fact that gravity is much weaker than other forces at the particle scale is simply an observed feature of our universe. It doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with our theories or understanding.

The History of Naturalness Arguments

The idea of imposing "naturalness" on physical theories is not new. In the 1930s, physicist Paul Dirac proposed what he called the "large number hypothesis."

Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis

Dirac noticed that certain very large dimensionless numbers in nature seemed to be connected by simple mathematical relations. He postulated that any two such large numbers should be related by a simple mathematical expression with coefficients close to 1.

Based on this hypothesis, Dirac made a prediction involving the age of the universe and the ratio of electric to gravitational forces between protons and electrons. However, this prediction was quickly ruled out by observations.

Technical Naturalness

In the 1980s, the concept of naturalness in particle physics evolved into what's known as "technical naturalness."

The Origin of Technical Naturalness

Physicist Gerard 't Hooft observed that in the theories used at the time, small dimensionless numbers were often associated with symmetries. He then conjectured that whenever there is a small number in a theory, there needs to be a symmetry to explain it.

This idea was later generalized to suggest that small numbers need some form of "protection," not necessarily a strict symmetry.

The Misuse of Technical Naturalness

Particle physicists began using technical naturalness as a heuristic tool. When they encountered a small number in their theories, they would look for an underlying symmetry or mechanism to explain it. However, this approach has led to several incorrect predictions and has never resulted in a successful prediction.

Failed Predictions Based on Naturalness

Despite its popularity among some physicists, naturalness arguments have a poor track record when it comes to making accurate predictions.

The Cosmological Constant

As mentioned earlier, naturalness arguments led to a wildly inaccurate prediction for the cosmological constant.

The Axion

In the 1970s, Roberto Peccei and Helen Quinn proposed a solution to the strong CP problem in particle physics, which led to the prediction of a new particle called the axion. This prediction was based on naturalness arguments, but the originally proposed axion was experimentally ruled out.

Supersymmetry and the Large Hadron Collider

Perhaps the most prominent failure of naturalness arguments in recent years has been the prediction of supersymmetric particles at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Many particle physicists believed that the LHC would discover a range of new particles beyond the Higgs boson, based on naturalness considerations. These predictions have not been borne out by experimental results.

Misunderstandings About Naturalness

Despite its poor predictive power, many physicists continue to use naturalness arguments. This persistence is often based on misunderstandings about the concept and its history.

The Charm Quark Prediction

One often-cited success of naturalness is the prediction of the charm quark. However, this prediction was not actually based on technical naturalness as we understand it today. Instead, it was an argument based on simplicity in calculations.

The Positron and Rho Particle

Other supposed successes of naturalness, such as the positron and rho particle, were not predictions at all. These particles were discovered through experimental observations, not theoretical predictions based on naturalness.

The Mathematical Confusion

One reason why naturalness arguments persist is that physicists have confused themselves about the mathematical meaning of these concepts.

Fine-Tuning and the Higgs Mass

Physicists often claim that calculating the Higgs boson mass in the Standard Model requires fine-tuning of parameters. They argue that quantum fluctuations contribute significantly to the Higgs mass, requiring precise cancellations to match observations.

However, this argument is misleading. In reality, we cannot calculate the Higgs mass from first principles; we can only measure it. The supposed fine-tuning occurs in intermediate steps of certain calculation methods but does not correspond to any physical, observable quantity.

Quantum Fluctuations: A Misleading Term

The term "quantum fluctuations" used in these arguments is itself misleading. These so-called fluctuations don't actually fluctuate in time; they represent constant contributions in the mathematical formalism. Physicists sometimes confuse these mathematical properties with physical reality.

A More Rigorous Approach to Naturalness

A mathematically more sound way to discuss technical naturalness involves examining how the constants in the Standard Model depend on energy scales.

Energy Dependence of Constants

In quantum field theory, the values of constants can change depending on the energy scale at which they are probed. Physicists can plot these constants as functions of energy and examine how sensitive they are to small changes in their initial values.

The Problem with This Approach

While this method provides a more rigorous definition of technical naturalness, it still relies on assumptions about the probability distribution of constants at high energies. These assumptions are, once again, based on naturalness arguments, creating a circular logic.

The Real Crises in Physics

While the supposed crisis based on naturalness arguments is unfounded, there are genuine challenges and open questions in physics that could be considered crises in the scientific sense.

Dark Matter

The discrepancy between the observed gravitational effects in galaxies and clusters and the amount of visible matter remains one of the most pressing issues in physics. The nature of dark matter, which is thought to make up about 85% of the matter in the universe, is still unknown.

Cosmological Challenges

There are several areas where the standard cosmological model's predictions disagree with observations. These include tensions in measurements of the Hubble constant and potential anomalies in the cosmic microwave background.

Quantum Gravity

The lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity represents a fundamental inconsistency in our current understanding of physics. General relativity, our best theory of gravity, is not compatible with quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of matter at the smallest scales.

The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics

The process of measurement in quantum mechanics, which appears to involve a non-local "collapse" of the wave function, is difficult to reconcile with the principles of relativity. This represents an internal inconsistency in our current theories.

Conclusion

The supposed crisis in physics based on naturalness arguments is largely a misconception. It stems from unjustified assumptions about what constitutes "natural" in physical theories. These arguments have repeatedly failed to produce accurate predictions and have led physicists astray in their search for new phenomena.

Instead of focusing on these artificial crises, the physics community would be better served by addressing the real challenges that exist in our understanding of the universe. These include the nature of dark matter, the inconsistencies in cosmological models, the unification of quantum mechanics and gravity, and the foundations of quantum mechanics itself.

As we move forward, it's crucial for physicists to critically examine their assumptions and heuristics, especially when they consistently fail to produce results. The history of science shows that progress often comes from challenging established ideas and being open to new perspectives.

The pursuit of knowledge in physics should be guided by empirical evidence and logical consistency, not by preconceived notions of what is "natural." By focusing on real observational and theoretical challenges, physicists can continue to push the boundaries of our understanding and potentially uncover truly revolutionary insights into the nature of the universe.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nloGrjzXkAA