Is the universe . . . unnatural?

[Charmonium]

I can't say I fully understood this article but I thought it was intensely interesting.

On an overcast afternoon in late April, physics professors and students crowded into a wood-paneled lecture hall at Columbia University for a talk by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a high-profile theorist visiting from the Institute for Advanced Study in nearby Princeton, N.J. With his dark, shoulder-length hair shoved behind his ears, Arkani-Hamed laid out the dual, seemingly contradictory implications of recent experimental results at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.


“The universe is inevitable,” he declared. “The universe is impossible.”
The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass, which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans. “The fact that it was seen more or less where we expected to find it is a triumph for experiment, it’s a triumph for theory, and it’s an indication that physics works,” Arkani-Hamed told the crowd.


However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.

Natalie Wolchover/Simons Science News​

“The universe is impossible,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, 41, of the Institute for Advanced Study, during a recent talk at Columbia University.




With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.


In peril is the notion of “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time.

Continues at link. Long but worth the time.

 

[Caravaggio]

I am not sure why the laws of the universe must be "sublimely beautiful"? They just have to be right, at least until the next problem comes along...

When I get a glimpse of the night sky around here, the little bit of the universe I can see appears to be more like a large Jackson Pollock rather than a stunning and carefully executed Rembrandt.

And to say that the LHC has only found "one particle" is silly.

 

[sandorski]

Would seem to indicate there are things yet not understood. Perhaps some kind of inaccuracy in a theory, possibly some other factor we are unaware of.

 

[Murloc]

I don't know that much about physics but I know that every theory becomes too inaccurate in some situation and there's always a new understanding behind the door, and that the final discovery would a theory of everything.

So I'm not amazed that the current theory doesn't work. The entire point of spending billions of dollars in basic research is proving stuff wrong and hopefully having someone come up with something better.

 

[DrPizza]

I don't know that much about physics but I know that every theory becomes too inaccurate in some situation and there's always a new understanding behind the door, and that the final discovery would a theory of everything.

So I'm not amazed that the current theory doesn't work. The entire point of spending billions of dollars in basic research is proving stuff wrong and hopefully having someone come up with something better.

The current theory works to an incredible level of precision. It's some current hypotheses that are getting ruled out. Finding the Higgs was like putting an exclamation point on the Standard Model, though there are still some things that aren't completely understood and need fine tuning.

 

[Greenman]

It was a very long winded way of saying "I don't know".

 

[Charmonium]

It was a very long winded way of saying "I don't know".

True, but there are some very fundamental problems with the standard model. Did you see this section for example

The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.

 

[sandorski]

True, but there are some very fundamental problems with the standard model. Did you see this section for example

What does it mean to be "Fine Tuned"?

 

[Charmonium]

What does it mean to be "Fine Tuned"?

From what I've gathered, fine-tuning is a way to get the data to fit with the equations. I assume that there are legit reasons for massaging the data so it's not considered cheating.

I'm not sure that this would be an example but the std model doesn't predict a lot of specifics about how things work. For example, I don't think you can predict the masses of particles from first principles so you have to actually measure them. Just like no one knew the precise mass of the Higgs until it was actually discovered.

fyi, here's what I got from wikipedia

In theoretical physics, fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a model must be adjusted very precisely in order to agree with observations. Theories requiring fine-tuning are regarded as problematic in the absence of a known mechanism to explain why the parameters happen to have precisely the needed values. The heuristic rule that parameters in a fundamental physical theory should not be too fine-tuned is called naturalness. Explanations often invoked to resolve fine-tuning problems include natural mechanisms by which the values of the parameters may be constrained to their observed values, and the anthropic principle.

 

[Greenman]

True, but there are some very fundamental problems with the standard model. Did you see this section for example

That means that the standard model is flawed.
In the words of Robert A. Heinlein "you can make a scientist believe seven impossible things before breakfast".

 

[sandorski]

That means that the standard model is flawed.
In the words of Robert A. Heinlein "you can make a scientist believe seven impossible things before breakfast".

Source? Google turns up 2 links, both back to Posts made by you.