The hierarchy problem is roughly: A scalar particle such as the Higgs receives quadratically divergent corrections, that have to cancel out delicately with the bare mass to give the observed Higgs mass. I have a couple of related questions about that:

Why is this a problem, isn't this just ordinary renormalization? Other particles receive similar divergent corrections - not quadratically divergent, but still. The regulator gives you a parameter $\Lambda$ that you'd like to take to infinity, but can't, because the corrections would blow up. Renormalization adds a counterterm that cancels the divergent term, and stuffs it into the bare mass. Now $\Lambda$ is gone from the expression for your measurable parameter, and you can let it go to infinity. I know you can choose a finite value of $\Lambda$, and regard the theory as an effective field theory, valid up to that scale. But that doesn't seem necessary if the divergence vanishes into the bare parameter.

Framed differently: Why is the quadratic divergence in case of the Higgs a problem, but not the logarithmic one in QED? If you insert a value for $\Lambda$, say $m_\mathrm{Pl.}$, OK, then $\Lambda^2 \gg \log \Lambda$. But if we don't and keep $\lim_{\Lambda\rightarrow\infty}$ in mind, then... infinity is infinity... and haven't we got rid of $\Lambda$ by renormalizing anyway?

The second part was touched in another question: Why worry about what value the bare mass has, isn't it unphysical and unobservable anyway? I always thought that it is just a symbol, like $m_0 = \lim_{x\rightarrow\infty} x^2$, and it is meaningless to ask how many GeV it is. Just like it's meaningless to ask about the value of a delta function at zero (while it is well-defined if you integrate over it with a test function). But according to this comment by Ron Maimon, the bare mass is experimentally accessible. Is it? I thought you can keep pushing and pushing to higher energies, but will principally never observe the bare mass, just as you cannot observe a bare electron charge (you'll hit the Planck scale or the Landau pole first).

(Apologies that I put two questions in one, but I have a strong feeling that they might share the same answer.)


Let us suppose that that the Standard Model is an effective field theory, valid below a scale $\Lambda$, and that its bare parameters are set at the scale $\Lambda$ by a fundamental, UV-complete theory, maybe string theory.

The logarithmic corrections to bare fermion masses if $\Lambda\sim M_P$ is a few percent of their masses. The quadratic correction to the bare Higgs mass squared is $\sim M_P^2$. A disaster! - Phenomenologically we know that the dressed mass ought to be $\sim -(100 \,\text{GeV})^2$.

You are right that the SM is in any case renormalisable: our calculations are finite regardless of our choice of $\Lambda\to\infty$. But we have many reasons to believe that we should pick $\sim M_P$.

Also, if there are new massive particles, their contributions to the RG cannot be absorbed into the bare mass; they will affect the RG for the renormalised running mass.

PS apologies if I've repeated things you know and have written in the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "we have many reasons to believe that we should pick ~ M_P" Someone should state these reasons. $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Feb 28 '14 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ Sounds like you are volunteering @MitchellPorter ;) or are you suggesting I am mistaken and that there are no such reasons? $\endgroup$ – innisfree Feb 28 '14 at 20:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, the repetition is OK, I'm trying to reaffirm what I basically should know :-). But some confusion remains: I understand, if you insert a finite value for Λ, you have to adjust $m_0$, and get the hierarchy $|m_0| \ll |\delta m|$. But if you leave Λ open, with the intent to let it go to infinity, then $m_0$ must cancel the divergence (not just a large number!). Then $m_0$ is just symbolic, and has no well-defined value of its own. I thought the main purpose of renormalization was eliminating the divergent Λ depencency from the equation! ... $\endgroup$ – jdm Feb 28 '14 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ So... I don't understand why people are surprized that choosing a value for Λ implies a hierarchy. I mean you explicitly put in the hierarchy by saying Λ = Mpl... I also don't understand why the bare mass should have a meaningful (measurable) value, since it is not observable... or is it? $\endgroup$ – jdm Feb 28 '14 at 20:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MitchellPorter: I think the argument goes: We expect the SM to break down at the latest at $M_P$, since that's where quantum gravity comes into play. Choose $\Lambda = M_P$ $\Rightarrow$ hierarchy problem $\Rightarrow$ BSM physics (e.g. SUSY). But if you don't go up that far, and say new physics comes already at $M_{BSM} = 1$ TeV, then there is no hierarchy problem (or you solved it, depending on how you look at it), but in any case $\Rightarrow$ BSM physics. Am I right? I've always found this argument oddly circular. (Nevertheless, I'd like to see the reasoning for why exactly M_P too) $\endgroup$ – jdm Feb 28 '14 at 20:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.