Cari Cesarotti

you know, being something that the public really enjoys as much as something like astronomy or biology, where people either see or experience much more of it. Because physics requires, as we are already seeing in this conversation you and I are having, right? Physics requires so much lead up to understanding sort of why it's surprising or exciting or interesting or puzzling, right?

you know, being something that the public really enjoys as much as something like astronomy or biology, where people either see or experience much more of it. Because physics requires, as we are already seeing in this conversation you and I are having, right? Physics requires so much lead up to understanding sort of why it's surprising or exciting or interesting or puzzling, right?

So I think that a lot of this rhetoric comes from the fact that the LHC turned on and we just saw the Higgs boson. And it's kind of a ridiculous sentence to me to say, oh, we just saw the Higgs boson because this was like the linchpin to making sure the standard model was even first order correct.

So I think that a lot of this rhetoric comes from the fact that the LHC turned on and we just saw the Higgs boson. And it's kind of a ridiculous sentence to me to say, oh, we just saw the Higgs boson because this was like the linchpin to making sure the standard model was even first order correct.

So, yeah, I mean, like the answer is just that there's not new particles showing up with sort of the unexpected frequency, which they were in sort of the 50s to 80s. And who ordered that was kind of the motto of particle physicists. But to say that that's a failure versus just the field has matured a lot, I think, is underselling all the work that people have done for the past 70 years.

So, yeah, I mean, like the answer is just that there's not new particles showing up with sort of the unexpected frequency, which they were in sort of the 50s to 80s. And who ordered that was kind of the motto of particle physicists. But to say that that's a failure versus just the field has matured a lot, I think, is underselling all the work that people have done for the past 70 years.

Yeah, absolutely. So sort of the jargon that you might hear people use in particle physics is the hierarchy problem. Um, and if you are not thinking about it all the time, it's kind of easy to write off as, well, is this really a problem? Are you just looking to keep yourselves relevant?

Yeah, absolutely. So sort of the jargon that you might hear people use in particle physics is the hierarchy problem. Um, and if you are not thinking about it all the time, it's kind of easy to write off as, well, is this really a problem? Are you just looking to keep yourselves relevant?

Um, but you know, effectively how I like to describe it is, you know, I, I loved all the sitcoms from the nineties or whatever, where it's like, oh no, like something is going to close unless we find $35,629 and 15 cents. And then behind them, you see the banner that's like talent show grand prize.

Um, but you know, effectively how I like to describe it is, you know, I, I loved all the sitcoms from the nineties or whatever, where it's like, oh no, like something is going to close unless we find $35,629 and 15 cents. And then behind them, you see the banner that's like talent show grand prize.

35,000 dollars 629 and 13 cents I think that was the same number but yeah like the fact that there are numbers that can that for some reason are so big and yet agree down to such a small accuracy is something that should be fundamental fundamentally puzzling right good so let's let's be a little bit more explicit now you know we've we've

35,000 dollars 629 and 13 cents I think that was the same number but yeah like the fact that there are numbers that can that for some reason are so big and yet agree down to such a small accuracy is something that should be fundamental fundamentally puzzling right good so let's let's be a little bit more explicit now you know we've we've

I mean, these days, kind of hard to disentangle, honestly. Yeah, so the hierarchy problem is something specific to understanding the mass of the Higgs boson, which is one of the bosons in the standard model. And the Higgs is the weirdest particle in the standard model by far. It is the only particle that has the properties that it has.

I mean, these days, kind of hard to disentangle, honestly. Yeah, so the hierarchy problem is something specific to understanding the mass of the Higgs boson, which is one of the bosons in the standard model. And the Higgs is the weirdest particle in the standard model by far. It is the only particle that has the properties that it has.

So like I said earlier, a lot of particles sit in three generations. The Higgs boson does not. The Higgs boson stands as a very weird outsider. that you may have heard is responsible for giving particles mass. And if you want to learn all about that, there's a beautiful book by Matt Strassler that you should definitely check out. Very good.

So like I said earlier, a lot of particles sit in three generations. The Higgs boson does not. The Higgs boson stands as a very weird outsider. that you may have heard is responsible for giving particles mass. And if you want to learn all about that, there's a beautiful book by Matt Strassler that you should definitely check out. Very good.

But the Higgs boson gives particles mass, has different what we'll call intrinsic properties. It's called the spin in specific. That doesn't match any other particle. And because of that, effectively, we think that the Higgs boson should have a mass 10 to the 18 times bigger than it does. And so this is the hierarchy problem.

But the Higgs boson gives particles mass, has different what we'll call intrinsic properties. It's called the spin in specific. That doesn't match any other particle. And because of that, effectively, we think that the Higgs boson should have a mass 10 to the 18 times bigger than it does. And so this is the hierarchy problem.

And the hierarchy is just the mass scale that we expect and the mass scale that we see everything else sitting at. And the fact that there's 10 to the 18 differences, I mean, really 10 to the 32, because it's squared and that's the real first principles number. The fact that something can be off by 32 orders of magnitude from our theoretical predictions, where did that come from, right?

And the hierarchy is just the mass scale that we expect and the mass scale that we see everything else sitting at. And the fact that there's 10 to the 18 differences, I mean, really 10 to the 32, because it's squared and that's the real first principles number. The fact that something can be off by 32 orders of magnitude from our theoretical predictions, where did that come from, right?