Yes, the alternatives you suggest are also fine.
Markus Luty
============================================
Physics Department
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: +1 530 554 1280
Skype: markus_luty
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Peskin, Michael E. <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Markus,
>
> line 164: I made the change to:
>
> We do have a hint from the principle of ``naturalness.''
>
> line 184, 188: Yesterday, Kaustubh suggested
>
> The corresponding naturalness bounds for one-significant-figure
> cancellations
> are
>
> and
>
> This gives a bound for one-significant-figure cancellation
>
> Is this OK with you?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael E. Peskin [log in to unmask]
> HEP Theory Group, MS 81 -------
> SLAC National Accelerator Lab. phone: 1-(650)-926-3250
> 2575 Sand Hill Road fax: 1-(650)-926-2525
> Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________
> From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Markus A.
> Luty [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:25 AM
> To: Ashutosh Kotwal
> Cc: Peskin, Michael E.; snowmass-ef
> Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] more about the naturalness section -- please
> read and reply
>
> The main difference that I was trying to make from the version of Michael
> and Chip was to avoid the impression that I got from their version that
> naturalness is not a legitimate concept. I was trying to emphasize that it
> is something we actually do every day when we are faced with a scientific
> problem, namely dimensional analysis. I felt that the current version made
> it seem something mysterious.
>
> Since there seems to be no consensus among the conveners that the
> different approach in my version is preferred, I agree with Michael that
> the original version remains the default.
>
> I would then request the following small changes:
>
> Line 164: Please remove the phrase "slippery principle." This is
> unnecessarily florid and makes it sound like naturalness is not something
> to be taken seriously. I would suggest no adjective at all:
>
> We do have a hint from the principle of "naturalness."
>
> The fact that it says "hint" makes it clear that this is not a precise
> concept.
>
> Lines 184-185: "The corresponding naturalness bounds are" > "The
> corresponding bounds suggested by naturalness are"
>
> Line 188: "This gives the bound" > "This suggests the bound"
>
> The idea is to make it clear that naturalness "bounds" are not not sharp
> boundaries.
>
>
> Markus Luty
>
> ============================================
> Physics Department
> University of California, Davis
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
>
> Phone: +1 530 554 1280
> Skype: markus_luty
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Ashutosh Kotwal <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> hi all,
> Its clear we all agree there are no guarantees. Its hard
> to make an incisive argument for the slope of the prior distribution for
> the amount of fine tuning, But its not unreasonable that there is some
> slope (i.e. all else being the same, less fine tuning is preferred over
> more fine tuning). In the end, this is a decision-making criterion, not a
> prediction. Its a reason to bet a certain way. The past is a guide: people
> thought SU(5)-motivated proton decay was a good bet, and people thought the
> top quark should be 30 GeV and tristan (or even Petra before that) had a
> good chance to see it. So these projects were done.
>
> As Chip said, at 1 TeV we are in the game and there is a
> good chance we will win.
>
> I will add one comment about the bet placed on the Higgs
> for the LHC (SSC). In the absence of Higgs, we always say "unitarity would
> be violated in longitudinal Vector boson scattering". But as an
> experimentalist who is not motivated by quantum mechanics arguments, I
> would say that observing this "unitarity violating" cross section is
> actually very hard. All it says is that the amplitude A has a condition
> that Im(A) > |A|^2 (factor of 2 somewhere maybe). But A is pretty small
> and its really hard to see this rising cross section at high VV mass…
>
> In other words, the Higgs was again a bet on nature
> choosing the easy solution and not the hard solution to find. And we won
> this bet.
>
> I am ok with betting on ~ 1 TeV new particles. Especially
> when the LHC is already on the field…we just have to step up to the plate.
> Are we really going to turn our back on this game (might I add "again?') ?
>
> regards,
> Ashutosh
>
> On Oct 13, 2013, at 4:21 PM, "Peskin, Michael E." <
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Sally has a very nice analysis of the difference between the naturalness
> sections of the long report
> > (section 1.2.2) proposed by me and by Markus. The current draft was
> agreed upon between Chip
> > and me before we sent it to you, but I will take responsibility for its
> attitude. Sally's reply to my
> > email yesterday is pasted in below. I sent Markus' version yesterday,
> and it appears again below.
> >
> > Anyone who wants to weigh in on this -- especially to object to what is
> in the current draft -- should write
> > back by Monday morning if possible. My attitude is that if I have an
> honest difference of opinion with one
> > of the conveners, I should win, but if I have an honest difference of
> opinion with most of the conveners,
> > their (your) opinion should win. So, let us all know your opinion by
> replying to snowmass-ef.
> >
> > I do think it is important to say that it is more likely to find the
> first new particles at 1 TeV than at 5 TeV.
> > Otherwise, why is LHC so highly motivated?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > The naturalness sections that Michael and Marcus wrote reflect honest
> > differences of scientific opinion. Michael is trying to quantify
> naturalness
> > and Marcus is arguing that this isn't really well defined. From what
> Marcus
> > wrote, the reader would infer that 5 TeV is just as likely as 1 TeV for
> new
> > particles so we should look at as high an energy as possible. From what
> Michael
> > wrote, you would take home that 1 TeV new particles are much more likely
> > than 5 TeV.
> >
> > I subscribe to Marcus's view, but as long as the naturalness section
> which
> > Michael wrote refrains from saying that there must be particles at 1 TeV,
> > I'm ok.
> >
> > Sally
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael E. Peskin [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > HEP Theory Group, MS 81 -------
> > SLAC National Accelerator Lab. phone: 1-(650)-926-3250
> <tel:1-%28650%29-926-3250>
> > 2575 Sand Hill Road fax: 1-(650)-926-2525
> <tel:1-%28650%29-926-2525>
> > Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/<
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/>
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ________________________________________
> >
> > from Markus:
> >
> >
> > Lines 152-196. I do not think that naturalness is a "bothersome hint" or
> a "slippery principle." I think it can be explained in very basic physical
> terms. I suggest the following:
> >
> > "Naturalness" is at bottom the use of dimensional analysis to estimate
> unknown parameters. If a quantity such as the Higgs mass is sensitive to a
> physics associated with a mass $M$, then dimensional analysis suggests that
> the Higgs mass should be of order $M$. Of course, this does not take into
> account the possibility that this dependence is absent, in which case we
> expect to have a good reason why this sensitivity is absent, such as a
> symmetry or some kind of decoupling.
> >
> > Decades of theoretical work in quantum field theory has shown that
> elementary scalar masses are generically sensitive to physics at higher
> scales, and only three mechanisms have been established that can avoid this
> sensitivity. These are supersymmetry, (SUSY), Higgs compositeness, and
> extra dimensions. Each of these predict a rich spectrum of new states at
> the scale where the new structure becomes apparent. In SUSY, these consist
> of the superpartners of all known particles, while in both composite and
> extra-dimensional models we expect towers of massive resonances. (The fact
> that the phenomenology is qualitatively similar is the first sign that
> extra-dimensional models are in fact a realization of Higgs compositeness,
> a fascinating and deep equivalence that was discovered in string theory and
> has propagated to particle phenomenology and back again to fundamental
> theory.)
> >
> > These mechanisms allow the Higgs mass to be calculated from other more
> fundamental parameters, and they confirm the expectations of naturalness in
> the sense that the Higgs mass is indeed sensitive to the new particles
> associated with SUSY or compositeness. The Higgs mass therefore cannot be
> much smaller than the scale $M$ of new particles predicted in these models.
> The Higgs mass can be much smaller than $M$ only if there is an unexplained
> accidental cancellation, or "fine tuning."
> >
> > We can see the naturalness problem even without knowing what the new
> fundamental physics is. If we simply assume that there is *some* new
> physics at a scale $M$ we can estimate the sensitivity of the Higgs mass to
> new physics at the scale $M$ by computing quantum loops in the standard
> model with a cutoff of order $M$. The parameter in the Higgs potential then
> receives corrections of order
> >
> > Eq. (1.4) with $M$ instead of $\Lambda$
> >
> > where $g_{Htt}$ is the same Yukawa coupling as in (1.2), $\alpha_w$ and
> $\lambda$ are the couplings of these particles, and $\theta_w$ is the weak
> mixing angle. Note that all terms are proportional to $M^2$, simply as a
> result of the fact that it is the Higgs mass squared that appears in the
> Lagrangian. Experience with many specific models teaches us that if there
> is new physics at the scale $M$, (1.4) gives a reasonable estimate of the
> contribution of new physics at the scale $M$ to the Higgs mass. The
> suppression factors in (1.4) mean that the natural expectation for the
> scale $M$ is that it cannot exceed the Higgs mass by about a factor of 10.
> >
> > Although there is no general agreement on how to quantitatively measure
> the (un)naturalness of a given model, it is clear that the degree of tuning
> required to obtain $m_h \ll M$ grows quadratically with $M$. This means
> that if we increase the sensitivity to heavy particle masses by a factor of
> 10, we increase our probing of naturalness by a factor of 100. This
> provides a very strong motivation to for searches at the largest possible
> energies.
> >
> >
> > ########################################################################
> > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
> > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
> >
> > ########################################################################
> > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
> > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
>
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
