Timeline for Quantum Gravity is non-renormalizable...So what?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 30 at 19:02 | history | edited | Gabriel Ybarra Marcaida | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added a word
|
| Sep 6 at 19:25 | comment | added | Connor Behan | Experiments looking for new physics induced by dimension 6 operators are a good idea whether or not the old physics is explained by a UV complete theory. Out of the theories that we can write down on a T-shirt, UV complete theories are expected to not describe nature exactly because they're fine tuned. The ones like GR eare expected to not describe nature exactly for more severe reasons. | |
| Sep 6 at 15:06 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 769 characters in body
|
| Sep 6 at 15:00 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 769 characters in body
|
| Sep 6 at 14:55 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 769 characters in body
|
| Sep 6 at 14:37 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 237 characters in body
|
| Sep 6 at 14:21 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 896 characters in body
|
| Sep 5 at 20:22 | comment | added | MadMax | "it's conceivable the Standard Model actually does just make sense to arbitrarily high energies": that is something we can theoretically entertain. But in all likelihood, various experimental evidences point to the direction that SM is not a UV complete theory. Mother nature has the final say, right? | |
| Sep 5 at 20:18 | comment | added | Andrew | So, just to emphasize the difference: it's conceivable the Standard Model actually does just make sense to arbitrarily high energies (modulo non-perturbative things like Landau poles, triviality), and things like the seesaw mechanism and GUTs are theoretical illusions and don't occur in Nature. Whereas general relativity has a built-in cutoff scale where it becomes non-predictive, so something outside of our usual EFT approach must happen. | |
| Sep 5 at 20:14 | comment | added | Andrew | Got it. Yeah then I'd say I agree with that point but then I would say my response to your question "So why are we complaining about no UV completion for gravity only?" is that "we" as a field do complain about finding non-gravitational high energy physics; there are tons of papers about right handed neutrinos and GUTs. One difference between the SM and gravity in this context is that the SM on its own doesn't have any irrelevant operators so we don't know there is a scale where it breaks down (unless you look at non-perturbative effects like Landau poles). | |
| Sep 5 at 20:10 | comment | added | MadMax | @Andrew, there are plenty hints that SM is not UV complete at the energy level of See-Saw scale (manifested by the tiny effective mass of neutrinos) or GUT scale. Since these scales are lower than the Planck scale, these sort of UV incompleteness issue of SM is not necessarily related to unifying with gravity. And FYI, experiments are commissioned to detect non-renormalizable mass-dimension 6 or higher correction terms to SM based on the widely believed premise that SM in its current state is not a UV complete theory. | |
| Sep 5 at 20:02 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Sep 5 at 20:01 | comment | added | Andrew | What do you mean by: "we don't have the correct UV completion of the Standard Model either." One interpretation is that the SM has a Landau pole; in that case a standard response to why people talk more about the problem with gravity than the Landau pole is that the Planck scale happens at a lower energy scale. Another response is that we know the standard model isn't complete since a full theory of physics has to include gravity, so "completing the reductionist paradigm" must include a step of unifying the standard model with general relativity. | |
| Sep 5 at 19:57 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 5 at 19:50 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 5 at 19:44 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Sep 5 at 19:39 | history | edited | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Sep 5 at 19:23 | history | answered | MadMax | CC BY-SA 4.0 |