tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post3518374677230751789..comments2021-10-29T09:10:56.180+01:00Comments on RĂ‰SONAANCES: Drowning the Hierarchy ProblemJesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-17659508491433847602007-09-24T15:37:00.000+01:002007-09-24T15:37:00.000+01:00Sorry guys for a late replay. FlipTomato: Of cours...Sorry guys for a late replay. <BR/><BR/>FlipTomato: Of course, just postulating a huge number of new species is no solution. You need to find a good reason. One possible reason is large extra dimensions. Gia showed that ANY mechanism that produces a huge number of new states at TeV automatically addresses the hierarchy problem. And this generalization is what i find interesting and inspiring. <BR/><BR/>Tommaso: i'm not sure i understand your question. But if i understood correctly, the same answer as above applies ;-)Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844247827820646813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-39695082116687274792007-09-15T04:13:00.000+01:002007-09-15T04:13:00.000+01:00Hi Jester -- thanks for the post and summary. A qu...Hi Jester -- thanks for the post and summary. A quick question: Is it fair, to call this scenario a `solution' to the Hierarchy problem? Doesn't it just shift the mystery of 10^30 orders of magnitude from a mass hierarchy into a `hierarchy' in the number of gauged symmetries? Or is a huge number of discrete symmetries considered less `problematic' than a mass hierarchy? (If so, why?)<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>FlipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-11569966497448352862007-09-14T07:03:00.000+01:002007-09-14T07:03:00.000+01:00Hi Jester,interesting post. So let me take this fu...Hi Jester,<BR/><BR/>interesting post. So let me take this further a bit: Imagine there are N distinct SM families, all degenerate in mass, and distinguished by some as-of-yet unfathomed quantum number, say serendipity S. This would also solve some of the issues, but we would only be faced with finding a clue about S, not about N families.<BR/>Would this be a scenario ?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-58314363328685927892007-09-04T13:12:00.000+01:002007-09-04T13:12:00.000+01:00In fact, the example of N copies of the standard m...In fact, the example of N copies of the standard model appeared in Gia's talk. There are some cosmological issues one would have to face (e.g. reheating after inflation should not populate all these standard models with the same abundance), but one can certainly do model building along these lines.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844247827820646813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-33677012716695750682007-09-03T20:38:00.000+01:002007-09-03T20:38:00.000+01:00> Suppose there exists N particle speciesstupid qu...> Suppose there exists N particle species<BR/><BR/>stupid question. could it be possible that one has N copies of the standard model, at different (random) energies, which do not interact with each other, except via gravity? would this explain the hierarchy problem and dark matter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com