\documentclass[12pt,titlepage]{article}

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{ucs}
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\usepackage{xparse}
\usepackage{hyperref}

%----Macros----------
%
% Unresolved issues:
%
%  \righttoleftarrow
%  \lefttorightarrow
%
%  \color{} with HTML colorspec
%  \bgcolor
%  \array with options (without options, it's equivalent to the matrix environment)

% Of the standard HTML named colors, white, black, red, green, blue and yellow
% are predefined in the color package. Here are the rest.
\definecolor{aqua}{rgb}{0, 1.0, 1.0}
\definecolor{fuschia}{rgb}{1.0, 0, 1.0}
\definecolor{gray}{rgb}{0.502, 0.502, 0.502}
\definecolor{lime}{rgb}{0, 1.0, 0}
\definecolor{maroon}{rgb}{0.502, 0, 0}
\definecolor{navy}{rgb}{0, 0, 0.502}
\definecolor{olive}{rgb}{0.502, 0.502, 0}
\definecolor{purple}{rgb}{0.502, 0, 0.502}
\definecolor{silver}{rgb}{0.753, 0.753, 0.753}
\definecolor{teal}{rgb}{0, 0.502, 0.502}

% Because of conflicts, \space and \mathop are converted to
% \itexspace and \operatorname during preprocessing.

% itex: \space{ht}{dp}{wd}
%
% Height and baseline depth measurements are in units of tenths of an ex while
% the width is measured in tenths of an em.
\makeatletter
\newdimen\itex@wd%
\newdimen\itex@dp%
\newdimen\itex@thd%
\def\itexspace#1#2#3{\itex@wd=#3em%
\itex@wd=0.1\itex@wd%
\itex@dp=#2ex%
\itex@dp=0.1\itex@dp%
\itex@thd=#1ex%
\itex@thd=0.1\itex@thd%
\advance\itex@thd\the\itex@dp%
\makebox[\the\itex@wd]{\rule[-\the\itex@dp]{0cm}{\the\itex@thd}}}
\makeatother

% \tensor and \multiscript
\makeatletter
\newif\if@sup
\newtoks\@sups
\def\append@sup#1{\edef\act{\noexpand\@sups={\the\@sups #1}}\act}%
\def\reset@sup{\@supfalse\@sups={}}%
\def\mk@scripts#1#2{\if #2/ \if@sup ^{\the\@sups}\fi \else%
  \ifx #1_ \if@sup ^{\the\@sups}\reset@sup \fi {}_{#2}%
  \else \append@sup#2 \@suptrue \fi%
  \expandafter\mk@scripts\fi}
\def\tensor#1#2{\reset@sup#1\mk@scripts#2_/}
\def\multiscripts#1#2#3{\reset@sup{}\mk@scripts#1_/#2%
  \reset@sup\mk@scripts#3_/}
\makeatother

% \slash
\makeatletter
\newbox\slashbox \setbox\slashbox=\hbox{$/$}
\def\itex@pslash#1{\setbox\@tempboxa=\hbox{$#1$}
  \@tempdima=0.5\wd\slashbox \advance\@tempdima 0.5\wd\@tempboxa
  \copy\slashbox \kern-\@tempdima \box\@tempboxa}
\def\slash{\protect\itex@pslash}
\makeatother

% math-mode versions of \rlap, etc
% from Alexander Perlis, "A complement to \smash, \llap, and lap"
%   http://math.arizona.edu/~aprl/publications/mathclap/
\def\clap#1{\hbox to 0pt{\hss#1\hss}}
\def\mathllap{\mathpalette\mathllapinternal}
\def\mathrlap{\mathpalette\mathrlapinternal}
\def\mathclap{\mathpalette\mathclapinternal}
\def\mathllapinternal#1#2{\llap{$\mathsurround=0pt#1{#2}$}}
\def\mathrlapinternal#1#2{\rlap{$\mathsurround=0pt#1{#2}$}}
\def\mathclapinternal#1#2{\clap{$\mathsurround=0pt#1{#2}$}}

% Renames \sqrt as \oldsqrt and redefine root to result in \sqrt[#1]{#2}
\let\oldroot\root
\def\root#1#2{\oldroot #1 \of{#2}}
\renewcommand{\sqrt}[2][]{\oldroot #1 \of{#2}}

% Manually declare the txfonts symbolsC font
\DeclareSymbolFont{symbolsC}{U}{txsyc}{m}{n}
\SetSymbolFont{symbolsC}{bold}{U}{txsyc}{bx}{n}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{U}{txsyc}{m}{n}

% Manually declare the stmaryrd font
\DeclareSymbolFont{stmry}{U}{stmry}{m}{n}
\SetSymbolFont{stmry}{bold}{U}{stmry}{b}{n}

% Manually declare the MnSymbolE font
\DeclareFontFamily{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{}
\DeclareSymbolFont{mnomx}{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{m}{n}
\SetSymbolFont{mnomx}{bold}{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{b}{n}
\DeclareFontShape{OMX}{MnSymbolE}{m}{n}{
    <-6>  MnSymbolE5
   <6-7>  MnSymbolE6
   <7-8>  MnSymbolE7
   <8-9>  MnSymbolE8
   <9-10> MnSymbolE9
  <10-12> MnSymbolE10
  <12->   MnSymbolE12}{}

% Declare specific arrows from txfonts without loading the full package
\makeatletter
\def\re@DeclareMathSymbol#1#2#3#4{%
    \let#1=\undefined
    \DeclareMathSymbol{#1}{#2}{#3}{#4}}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\neArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{116}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\neArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{116}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\seArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{117}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\seArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{117}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\nwArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{118}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\nwArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{118}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\swArrow}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{119}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\swArr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{119}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\nequiv}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{46}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\Perp}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{121}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\Vbar}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{121}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\sslash}{\mathrel}{stmry}{12}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\bigsqcap}{\mathop}{stmry}{"64}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\biginterleave}{\mathop}{stmry}{"6}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\invamp}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{77}
\re@DeclareMathSymbol{\parr}{\mathrel}{symbolsC}{77}
\makeatother

% \llangle, \rrangle, \lmoustache and \rmoustache from MnSymbolE
\makeatletter
\def\Decl@Mn@Delim#1#2#3#4{%
  \if\relax\noexpand#1%
    \let#1\undefined
  \fi
  \DeclareMathDelimiter{#1}{#2}{#3}{#4}{#3}{#4}}
\def\Decl@Mn@Open#1#2#3{\Decl@Mn@Delim{#1}{\mathopen}{#2}{#3}}
\def\Decl@Mn@Close#1#2#3{\Decl@Mn@Delim{#1}{\mathclose}{#2}{#3}}
\Decl@Mn@Open{\llangle}{mnomx}{'164}
\Decl@Mn@Close{\rrangle}{mnomx}{'171}
\Decl@Mn@Open{\lmoustache}{mnomx}{'245}
\Decl@Mn@Close{\rmoustache}{mnomx}{'244}
\makeatother

% Widecheck
\makeatletter
\DeclareRobustCommand\widecheck[1]{{\mathpalette\@widecheck{#1}}}
\def\@widecheck#1#2{%
    \setbox\z@\hbox{\m@th$#1#2$}%
    \setbox\tw@\hbox{\m@th$#1%
       \widehat{%
          \vrule\@width\z@\@height\ht\z@
          \vrule\@height\z@\@width\wd\z@}$}%
    \dp\tw@-\ht\z@
    \@tempdima\ht\z@ \advance\@tempdima2\ht\tw@ \divide\@tempdima\thr@@
    \setbox\tw@\hbox{%
       \raise\@tempdima\hbox{\scalebox{1}[-1]{\lower\@tempdima\box
\tw@}}}%
    {\ooalign{\box\tw@ \cr \box\z@}}}
\makeatother

% \mathraisebox{voffset}[height][depth]{something}
\makeatletter
\NewDocumentCommand\mathraisebox{moom}{%
\IfNoValueTF{#2}{\def\@temp##1##2{\raisebox{#1}{$\m@th##1##2$}}}{%
\IfNoValueTF{#3}{\def\@temp##1##2{\raisebox{#1}[#2]{$\m@th##1##2$}}%
}{\def\@temp##1##2{\raisebox{#1}[#2][#3]{$\m@th##1##2$}}}}%
\mathpalette\@temp{#4}}
\makeatletter

% udots (taken from yhmath)
\makeatletter
\def\udots{\mathinner{\mkern2mu\raise\p@\hbox{.}
\mkern2mu\raise4\p@\hbox{.}\mkern1mu
\raise7\p@\vbox{\kern7\p@\hbox{.}}\mkern1mu}}
\makeatother

%% Fix array
\newcommand{\itexarray}[1]{\begin{matrix}#1\end{matrix}}
%% \itexnum is a noop
\newcommand{\itexnum}[1]{#1}

%% Renaming existing commands
\newcommand{\underoverset}[3]{\underset{#1}{\overset{#2}{#3}}}
\newcommand{\widevec}{\overrightarrow}
\newcommand{\darr}{\downarrow}
\newcommand{\nearr}{\nearrow}
\newcommand{\nwarr}{\nwarrow}
\newcommand{\searr}{\searrow}
\newcommand{\swarr}{\swarrow}
\newcommand{\curvearrowbotright}{\curvearrowright}
\newcommand{\uparr}{\uparrow}
\newcommand{\downuparrow}{\updownarrow}
\newcommand{\duparr}{\updownarrow}
\newcommand{\updarr}{\updownarrow}
\newcommand{\gt}{>}
\newcommand{\lt}{<}
\newcommand{\map}{\mapsto}
\newcommand{\embedsin}{\hookrightarrow}
\newcommand{\Alpha}{A}
\newcommand{\Beta}{B}
\newcommand{\Zeta}{Z}
\newcommand{\Eta}{H}
\newcommand{\Iota}{I}
\newcommand{\Kappa}{K}
\newcommand{\Mu}{M}
\newcommand{\Nu}{N}
\newcommand{\Rho}{P}
\newcommand{\Tau}{T}
\newcommand{\Upsi}{\Upsilon}
\newcommand{\omicron}{o}
\newcommand{\lang}{\langle}
\newcommand{\rang}{\rangle}
\newcommand{\Union}{\bigcup}
\newcommand{\Intersection}{\bigcap}
\newcommand{\Oplus}{\bigoplus}
\newcommand{\Otimes}{\bigotimes}
\newcommand{\Wedge}{\bigwedge}
\newcommand{\Vee}{\bigvee}
\newcommand{\coproduct}{\coprod}
\newcommand{\product}{\prod}
\newcommand{\closure}{\overline}
\newcommand{\integral}{\int}
\newcommand{\doubleintegral}{\iint}
\newcommand{\tripleintegral}{\iiint}
\newcommand{\quadrupleintegral}{\iiiint}
\newcommand{\conint}{\oint}
\newcommand{\contourintegral}{\oint}
\newcommand{\infinity}{\infty}
\newcommand{\bottom}{\bot}
\newcommand{\minusb}{\boxminus}
\newcommand{\plusb}{\boxplus}
\newcommand{\timesb}{\boxtimes}
\newcommand{\intersection}{\cap}
\newcommand{\union}{\cup}
\newcommand{\Del}{\nabla}
\newcommand{\odash}{\circleddash}
\newcommand{\negspace}{\!}
\newcommand{\widebar}{\overline}
\newcommand{\textsize}{\normalsize}
\renewcommand{\scriptsize}{\scriptstyle}
\newcommand{\scriptscriptsize}{\scriptscriptstyle}
\newcommand{\mathfr}{\mathfrak}
\newcommand{\statusline}[2]{#2}
\newcommand{\tooltip}[2]{#2}
\newcommand{\toggle}[2]{#2}

% Theorem Environments
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem*{utheorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem*{ulemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem*{uprop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem*{ucor}{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{defn}{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem*{udefn}{Definition}
\newtheorem*{uexample}{Example}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newtheorem{note}{Note}
\newtheorem*{uremark}{Remark}
\newtheorem*{unote}{Note}

%-------------------------------------------------------------------

\begin{document}

%-------------------------------------------------------------------


\section*{naturalness}

\begin{quote}%
This entry is about the notion of naturalness in ([[particle physics|particle]]-)[[physics]]. For the notion in [[mathematics]] see at \emph{[[natural transformation]]}.


\end{quote}
\hypertarget{context}{}\subsubsection*{{Context}}\label{context}

\hypertarget{physics}{}\paragraph*{{Physics}}\label{physics}

[[!include physicscontents]]

\hypertarget{philosophy}{}\paragraph*{{Philosophy}}\label{philosophy}

[[!include philosophy - contents]]

\hypertarget{contents}{}\section*{{Contents}}\label{contents}

\noindent\hyperlink{idea}{Idea}\dotfill \pageref*{idea} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{ProblemsWithTheConcept}{Problems with the concept}\dotfill \pageref*{ProblemsWithTheConcept} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{DependenceOnRenormalizationScheme}{1) Dependence on renormalization scheme}\dotfill \pageref*{DependenceOnRenormalizationScheme} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{2_general_viability}{2) General viability}\dotfill \pageref*{2_general_viability} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{related_concepts}{Related concepts}\dotfill \pageref*{related_concepts} \linebreak
\noindent\hyperlink{references}{References}\dotfill \pageref*{references} \linebreak


\hypertarget{idea}{}\subsection*{{Idea}}\label{idea}

In ([[particle physics|particle]]-)[[physics]] the term ``naturalness'' refers to the vague idea that a [[model (physics)|model]] of physics is expected to work without requiring unlikely-looking ad-hoc coincidences or ``fine-tuning'' of its parameters, and that instead all such ``conspiracies'' among parameter values are to have some systematic cause, such as some [[symmetry]] of the model.

An archetypical example, which at times has been referred to as \emph{the} naturalness probem of the [[standard model of particle physics]], is that the [[mass]] of the [[Higgs boson]] is first of all many orders of magnitude below the [[Planck scale]], while at the same time potentially receiving very large potential [[renormalization|quantum corrections]] from the presence of (potentially undetected) heavy particles, which therefore must coincidentally cancel out. This is also called the \emph{[[hierarchy problem]]}.

Accordingly, a popular suggestion has been that there should be a [[symmetry]] in nature which is to naturally explain this otherwise coincidental cancellation, namely low-energy [[supersymmetry]]. The failure of such a symmetry to be observed at the [[LHC]] experiment is leading the high energy physics community to a re-examination of the naturalness paradigm and/or to focus on alternative mechsnisms, such as a [[composite Higgs boson]].

The next main example of (lack of) naturalness often considered is the \emph{[[cosmological constant]]} ([[dark energy]]), which seems tiny when compared to the [[renormalization|quantum corrections]] which it naively receives from the [[vacuum energy]] of all [[field (physics)|fields]] in the [[observable universe]].

\hypertarget{ProblemsWithTheConcept}{}\subsection*{{Problems with the concept}}\label{ProblemsWithTheConcept}

A key problem is arguably that the principle of naturalness has been used in a very vague and very ambiguous sense. Even apart from the problem of which large or small numbers are to be regarded as ``unlikely'' (see the \hyperlink{WilsonOnNaturalness}{quote below} from \hyperlink{Wilson04}{Wilson 04}), there is technical fine print.

\hypertarget{DependenceOnRenormalizationScheme}{}\subsubsection*{{1) Dependence on renormalization scheme}}\label{DependenceOnRenormalizationScheme}

Both the [[mass]] of the [[Higgs particle]] as well as the [[cosmological constant]] are subject to [[renormalization]] in [[perturbative quantum field theory]], whence ``quantum corrections''.

(For more on the [[renormalization]]-freedom in the [[cosmological constant]] see \href{cosmological+constant#InPerturbativeQuantumGravity}{there}.)

A key fact, that seems to be mostly overlooked in discussion of naturalness/fine-tuning, is that [[renormalization]] parameters a priori take values in an [[affine space]] (see \href{geometry+of+physics+--+perturbative+quantum+field+theory#ExistenceRenormalization}{this theorem}).

This means that without choosing an arbitrary origin and then a set of [[coordinates]], there is no sense in which a [[renormalization|quantum correction]] is ``large'' or ``small''. An origin and a set of coordinates is however provided by a choice of \emph{[[renormalization scheme]]}, and discussions in the literature typically implicitly take such a choice for granted.

\hypertarget{2_general_viability}{}\subsubsection*{{2) General viability}}\label{2_general_viability}

Even if one assumes that the parameters under consideration are invariantly defined [[numbers]], independent on choices like [[renormalization schemes]] (see \hyperlink{DependenceOnRenormalizationScheme}{above}) it has been questioned whether it is fruitful to consider the ``naturalness'' of the values they take

 The following is from \hyperlink{Kane17}{Kane 17} (there in a discussion of [[G2-MSSM]] [[model (physics)|model building]]):

\begin{quote}%
Until recently there were no theories predicting the values of superpartner masses. The arguments based on ‘naturalness’ are basically like saying the weather tomorrow should be the same as today. The opposite of naturalness is having a theory. $[$\ldots{}$]$ Claims $[$superpartners$]$ should have been seen would be valid given so called naturalness arguments, but are wrong in actual theories. Many of us think that is a misuse of the idea of naturalness, but it is the fashionable use.


\end{quote}
(p. 33 (3-2))

\begin{quote}%
Some arguments (‘naturalness’) can be used to estimate what values $[$MSSM parameters$]$ might have. If those arguments were correct some superpartners would already have been discovered at the CERN LHC. It would have been nice if the naturalness arguments had worked, but they did not. Since they were not predictions from a theory it is not clear how to interpret that.


\end{quote}
(p. 39 (4-3))

\begin{quote}%
The failure of naïve naturalness to describe the world tells us we should look harder for a theory that does, an ‘ultraviolet completion’. Compactified string/ M-theories appear to be strong candidates for such a theory.

 The alternative to naturalness, often neglected as an alternative, is having a theory.


\end{quote}
(p. 57 (6-1))

Similarly \hyperlink{Wilson04}{Wilson 04, p. 10}:

\begin{quote}%
 $[ \cdots ]$ The claim was that it would be unnatural for such particles to have masses small enough to be detectable soon. But this claim makes no sense when one becomes familiar with the history of physics. There have been a number of cases where numbers arose that were unexpectedly small or large. An early example was the very large distance to the nearest star as compared to the distance to the Sun, as needed by Copernicus, because otherwise the nearest stars would have exhibited measurable parallax as the Earth moved around the Sun. Within elementary particle physics, one has unexpectedly large ratios of masses, such as the large ratio of the muon mass to the electron mass. There is also the very small value of the weak coupling constant. In the time since my paper was written, another set of unexpectedly small masses was discovered: the neutrino masses. There is also the riddle of dark energy in cosmology, with its implication of possibly an extremely small value for the cosmological constant in Einstein's theory of general relativity. This blunder was potentially more serious, if it caused any subsequent researchers to dismiss possibilities for very large or very small values for parameters that now must be taken seriously.

(\hyperlink{Wilson04}{Wilson 04, p. 10})


\end{quote}
\hypertarget{related_concepts}{}\subsection*{{Related concepts}}\label{related_concepts}

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[hierarchy problem]]


\item [[split supersymmetry]]



\end{itemize}
\hypertarget{references}{}\subsection*{{References}}\label{references}

Early discussion:

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Murray Gell-Mann]], introductory talk at \emph{\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelter_Island_Conference}{Shelter Island II}}, 1983 ([[Gell-Mann\_ShelterIslandII\_1983.pdf:file]])

in: \emph{Shelter Island II: Proceedings of the 1983 Shelter Island Conference on Quantum Field Theory and the Fundamental Problems of Physics}. MIT Press. pp. 301--343. ISBN 0-262-10031-2.



\end{itemize}
Survey and discussion includes

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Jackson Clarke]], \emph{\href{http://syymmetries.blogspot.de/2017/06/naturalness-pragmatists-guide.html}{Naturalness: A Pragmatist's Guide}}, 2017


\item [[Gian Francesco Giudice]], \emph{Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC} (\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2562}{arXiv:0801.2562})


\item [[Porter Williams]], \emph{Naturalness, the autonomy of scales, and the 125 GeV Higgs}, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Volume 51, August 2015, Pages 82--96 (\href{http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219815000416}{publisher}, \href{http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11529/}{PhilSciArchive})


\item [[Matthew Strassler]], \emph{\href{http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/naturalness/}{Naturalness}}


\item [[Simon Friedrich]], \emph{\href{https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fine-tuning/}{Fine-Tuning}}, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017


\item [[Gian Francesco Giudice]], \emph{The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era} (\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07663}{arXiv:1710.07663})



\end{itemize}
An attempt to make the notion precise is due to

\begin{itemize}%
\item Greg Anderson, Diego Castano, \emph{Measures of fine tuning}, Phys. Lett.B 347:300-308, 1995 (\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9409419}{arXiv:hep-ph/9409419})

\end{itemize}
Critical comments are in

\begin{itemize}%
\item [[Kenneth Wilson]], \emph{The Origins of Lattice Gauge Theory}, (\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0412043}{arXiv:hep-lat/0412043})


\item [[Petr Horava]], \emph{Surprises with Nonrelativistic Naturalness}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D25 (2016) 1645007 (\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06287}{arXiv:1608.06287})


\item [[Gordon Kane]], \emph{String theory and the real world}, Morgan \& Claypool, 2017 ()


\item [[James Wells]], \emph{Naturalness, Extra-Empirical Theory Assessments, and the Implications of Skepticism} (\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07289}{arXiv:1806.07289})


\item [[James Wells]], \emph{Finetuned Cancellations and Improbable Theories} (\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03374}{arXiv:1809.03374})


\item Matěj Hudec, [[Michal Malinský]], \emph{Hierarchy and decoupling} (\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04470}{arXiv:1902.04470})



\end{itemize}
See also

\begin{itemize}%
\item Wikipedia, \emph{\href{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_%28physics%29}{Naturalness (physics)}}

\end{itemize}
[[!redirects naturality]]

[[!redirects fine-tuning]] [[!redirects fine-tunings]]



\end{document}