added pointer to:
with this quote:
[pp 135:] “it is unlikely that the microscopic equations contain various free parameters that are carefully adjusted by Nature to give cancelling effects such that the macroscopic systems have some special properties. This is a philosophy which we would like to apply to the unified gauge theories: the effective interactions at a large length scale, corresponding to a low energy scale should follow from the properties at a much smaller length scale, or higher energy scale , without the requirement that various different parameters at the energy scale match with an accuracy of the order of . That would be unnatural.”
and appended to the item
this quote:
]]>“we seem to have to dial various renormalized quantities to small values. The situation of having numerous arbitrary dimensional parameters is even more humiliating when some of them are very small. […] First of all, we’d like to interpret small or nearly symmetric quantities as coming from a slightly broken symmetry; otherwise they don’t make sense to us. […] When we can’t avoid dialing some renormalized quantity to a small value […] that situation has recently been described as a problem of ’naturalness’.”
added the following pointer to this preprint, updated today:
This already appeared last year, and was recorded then at hierarchy problem, but it deserves to go here into naturalness, too. The authors conclude:
]]>The aim of this work has been to stress that there is no physical sense in the naturalness criterion.
added pointer to yesterday’s
on the occasion of adding one more recent reference (Wells 18) I gave the paragraphs criticizing the concept their own subsection Problems with the concept.
And then I took the liberty to add what I think is the key problem, which is however generally overlooked in these discussions, away from the small community of mathematical field theorists: Dependence on the renormalization scheme
]]>