tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post4212039626828404168..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: Sit down and relaxion Jesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-22067442667369629762015-07-12T22:45:21.815+01:002015-07-12T22:45:21.815+01:00Unfortunately, the number is correct (give or take...Unfortunately, the number is correct (give or take 10^10 that depends on assumptions about the cutoff scale). This is one of the problems with this idea. Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-10955534826445581272015-07-11T18:52:34.845+01:002015-07-11T18:52:34.845+01:00"10^40 e-folds" seems excessive. Do you ..."10^40 e-folds" seems excessive. Do you mean 40 e-folds or ln(10^40) = 92.1... e-folds?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-90836883782624482762015-07-10T15:57:55.067+01:002015-07-10T15:57:55.067+01:00In this model inflation happens below the Lambda_...In this model inflation happens below the Lambda_QCD scale, so the cos potential is effectively present during inflation. As for the 2nd point: the discussion is phi-shift-invariant, but i agree it's more transparent to present it the way you suggest. I changed the text accordingly. Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-32260285566631469972015-07-08T15:43:55.696+01:002015-07-08T15:43:55.696+01:00Sorry, I'm confused by a couple things. At ear...Sorry, I'm confused by a couple things. At early times the last term you write is actually a coupling to free gluons via G^~G; the last term only assumes the form you write after the chiral condensate forms -- right? More importantly: at early times phi is large, not small, and the first term is positive *because* phi is big -- it becomes negative later because phi decreases (which happens simply because that's the direction of the energy minimum).<br /><br />The rest of the discussion, about the kind of hidden features, is nice, though!claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-33399821733347149872015-06-30T22:04:56.833+01:002015-06-30T22:04:56.833+01:00That's right, this wasn't quite precise. I...That's right, this wasn't quite precise. I modified this part slightly. Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-1444613200468785172015-06-30T19:54:04.032+01:002015-06-30T19:54:04.032+01:00Hi Jester,
Great post.
Regarding your line &qu...Hi Jester, <br /><br />Great post. <br /><br />Regarding your line "The toy-model above ultimately fails: since the QCD axion is frozen at a non-zero value"...<br /><br />I wouldn't call what fails a toy model.... I rather think that the minimal model with the idea is ruled out due to the smallness of strong CP phase and we have to build non-minimal and more contrived models.<br /><br />Maybe what I am saying is just semantics....<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-66579010126633158362015-06-30T15:03:24.403+01:002015-06-30T15:03:24.403+01:00Anthropics is not an ugly theory, but an excuse fo...Anthropics is not an ugly theory, but an excuse for the absence of a theory. The two statements, "God chose these constants" and "Multiverse chose these constants", are quantitatively equivalent (if not qualitatively). It is not an explanation, but a surrender of attempts to find one.<br /><br />In this sense, "to seek solace in religion" is a very accurate description of what is going on. It's just that multiverse/anthropics crowd are living in a delusion that their stance is based on more than just blind faith in a "cosmological accident".<br /><br />And to preempt some comments --- no, life could very well have existed in the same way as it does even if, say, neutrino masses were exactly zero. Anthropic arguments just cannot account for all the values of all constants.<br /><br />vmarkohttp://www.vmarko.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-70316085274435988752015-06-30T14:56:26.714+01:002015-06-30T14:56:26.714+01:00Antropic argument answers no scientific question. ...Antropic argument answers no scientific question. If the question is "why A (unnaturalness)"? then "from A (may be) follows B, B is true so" is no answer at all. Even if there's solid scientific argument that strong unnaturalness is required for emergence of intelligent observer (I doubt that), it'd still shed no light on the underlying physical cause for such unnaturalness.RBShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05190152376766693948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-42756014112783148562015-06-30T14:56:15.410+01:002015-06-30T14:56:15.410+01:00Adding new fields and/or symmetries beyond SM may ...Adding new fields and/or symmetries beyond SM may be an obvious solution for the naturalness problem, yet it remains unconvincing at this point for (at least) a couple of reasons:<br /><br />a) no shred of evidence so far,<br /><br />b) general inability to account for ALL open puzzles associated with the SM.<br /><br />There are solutions to the naturalness problem that do not explicitly rely on BSM physics. Unfortunately, they are too much off-topic to be discussed here.Ervin Goldfainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07585008304556273617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-29530477916818263332015-06-30T12:32:46.526+01:002015-06-30T12:32:46.526+01:00Speaking of logic holes in the context. [And I was...Speaking of logic holes in the context. [And I was greatly encouraged by the comment instructions of "insulting the author of this blog is allowed and even encouraged", guess it means a fair trade of insults is to be expected?] <br /><br />But for a layman that comes to Jester's court for clearly laid out facts, the claim that "[anthropics is] to seek solace in religion" seems an untenable juggling of claims. [Say, by being mentioned here or in the first sentence in the Graham et al paper, instead of in a theological journal.] Much as untenable as Dine's plaint that since anthropics is difficult that is somehow a fault instead of an interesting feature. [Or "impossible", but I think Weinberg's anthropic CC paper rejects that, especially if that model later failed in the face of better observations as far as I know.]<br /><br />To patch these holes, and make the logic crystal clear, wouldn't it be better to claim that "It is ugly. Burn it with fire!" (At which point the arguable usefulness of such logic can start.)<br /><br />Supersymmetry on the other hand is so beautiful - it seems to this layman - it ought to be fact. Who didn't order that? =DTorbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13304729731231255545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-20068025656999934232015-06-30T10:49:40.122+01:002015-06-30T10:49:40.122+01:00In quantum field theory scalar masses are expected...In quantum field theory scalar masses are expected to be near the cut-off scale of the theory, m~M, unless there's a symmetry that protects them (for example, pion in low-energy QCD). That's why naturalness typically implies that the SM should be replaced by another theory at 100 GeV. In this new theory m should be protected, otherwise it would have the same naturalness problem as the SM. Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-15794788283220111582015-06-30T10:05:53.691+01:002015-06-30T10:05:53.691+01:00In your introduction it seems to be a logic hole. ...In your introduction it seems to be a logic hole. Why one needs to "Protect" the parameter m from quantum corrections (at >-100-GeV scale)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-62394727814739198492015-06-30T09:21:35.372+01:002015-06-30T09:21:35.372+01:00Oops, thanks, corrected. Oops, thanks, corrected. Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-91542335957694621332015-06-30T03:52:45.295+01:002015-06-30T03:52:45.295+01:00Hi, just to state the obvious: The correct link to...Hi, just to state the obvious: The correct link to the article is http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.07551 <br />(Feel free to remove this comment after fixing.)tulpoeidnoreply@blogger.com