With a week of delay due to Italian bureaucracy-induced commitments, my Week 17 summaries are now out. There is a new entry in terms of topics covered, i.e. the thorny issue of naturalness in particle physics and cosmology (besides two papers covering limits on the duration of inflation, and independent inferences of the baryon energy density from Planck). As always, comments are very welcome!
#1 2004.08372: Holographic Naturalness by Andrea Addazi
The idea of naturalness has been around with particle physicists at least since the 1980s, but possibly even earlier. To be fair, there is a lot of confusion in the community as to what naturalness really means, and there is the common misconception that naturalness means that “dimensionless parameters should be of order 1” (the Wikipedia naturalness page starts with this, in my opinion misleading, statement). In my opinion, a cleaner definition of naturalness is that “hierarchies should be stable under radiative corrections”, where hierarchies can be characterized in terms of ratios between energy scales, hence dimensionless quantities. In the Standard Model (SM) plus General Relativity, the only explicit scales appearing besides the Planck mass are the cosmological constant and the mu^2 term in the Higgs potential, and hence there are two hierarchies. The two associated problems, usually referred to as the cosmological constant problem (CCP) and the Higgs hierarchy problem (HHP), ask why these hierarchies are so stable. It is worth pointing out that the HHP is not a problem of the SM per se, but rather of the SM plus new physics: with only the SM particle content the mu^2 term is relatively stable, but any new physics contribution which couples to the Higgs would tend to push the Higgs VEV towards the scale of new physics itself. So, unless one believes there is a desert above the LHC scale, the HHP is a legitimate one (I hope I don’t need to convince you that the CCP is a serious problem, period).
There is an important concept called technical naturalness (TN), attributed to ‘t Hooft. The point is that you can have a parameter, let’s call it X, being small and radiatively stable, if in the limit X->0 one’s symmetry group is enhanced. The classical example is fermion masses. Take for example the electron mass me: how can the electron be so light? The reason is that in the limit me->0 one recovers an additional chiral symmetry, i.e. you can perform separate rotations of the left- and right-handed electron fields eL and eR, which you can’t do otherwise since the mass term mixes the two (schematically, the mass term bar{e}e = bar{e}L eR+bar{e}R eL - sorry for the messy notation!). Technically speaking, what happens then is that fermion masses get multiplicatively renormalized, i.e. any renormalization of fermion masses is proportional to the masses themselves. Two important things follow: 1) the fermion mass can depend at most logarithmically on the cut-off scale where new physics appears, and 2) if one starts with a massless fermion, radiative corrections cannot generate a non-zero mass. I’ve spent so much talking about technical naturalness as it will be important to understand Addazi’s paper, albeit in an indirect manner. In my opinion, an excellent accessible description of naturalness is in this blog post from my friend Jackson Clarke - unfortunately this was also the last post of his excellent blog before he left the field (a real pity!).
Now, where does Addazi’s paper fit in all this? The truth is that, despite the CCP and HHP being sort of the elephants in the room, nobody has yet found convincing solutions to either (SUSY is no exception). People have tried with all sorts of symmetries to protect both hierarchies a la ‘t Hooft, but nothing really worked. Addazi’s proposal is instead quite different and begins by asking a different question: why is the amount of entropy due to SM degrees of freedom (10^88) so much smaller than the holographic entropy (assuming that vacuum information storage is holographically scaling) of a de Sitter Universe with cosmological constant of the observed magnitude (10^123)? Where is all the missing information? Addazi proposes that the missing information is due to the SM vacuum not being the full cosmological vacuum, which instead contains a large number of quantum hairs, whose corresponding quantum field he calls hairons. This leads to a number of predictions, the most important one being that UV corrections to the bare cosmological constant and mu^2 terms are “thermal” rather than “quantum”, and scale as the bare parameters themselves. In other words, these parameters are multiplicatively renormalized, just as parameters protected by technical naturalness (now you understand why I insisted so much on technical naturalness above)! However, in Addazi’s proposal, which he dubs holographic naturalness (HN), this multiplicative renormalization is somewhat of a “coincidence”, or at least it is very different from technical naturalness a la ‘t Hooft in that there is no enhanced symmetry in the limit where the bare parameters go to zero. This was, in my opinion, a very interesting ideas paper, and anyone interested should read the companion paper 2004.07988 where further implications of the HN principle are discussed. I found this to be a typical “Addazi paper”, which I’ve been reading for many years now: extremely interesting although not necessarily easy to read, because of its intrinsically very new and bold ideas (Addazi is not new to bold ideas, see e.g. 1607.08107), but sure to never bore you. Bold ideas are high-risk high-reward, in that they are usually wrong, but if right, then they can be field-changing. In this respect, the sentence that comes to my mind is the old Latin saying “audaces fortuna iuvat” (which loosely could be translated to “fortune favors the bold”).
#2 2004.10702: Gravitational wave constraints on the observable inflation by Erwin Tanin and Tommi Tenkanen
Inflation, an early epoch of accelerated expansion, is the leading paradigm for explaining both the high level of isotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), but at the same time the small level of anisotropy thereof, anisotropies reflecting inhomogeneities in the early Universe which then grew under the influence of gravity to form the large-scale structure we observe today. However, we do not know how long inflation lasted, this information being usually characterized by the so-called number of e-folds N, given by the natural logarithm of the ratio between the scale factors at the end of inflation and when a certain mode of interest exited the horizon. It is important to know how much inflation lasted, because knowledge of that can allow us to better connect its predictions to cosmological observations. To set limits on the amount of e-folds of inflation N, one has to connect N to directly observable quantities, and use the latter to set limits on N. This is what Tanin and Tenkanen do in this week’s paper.
Tanin and Tenkanen make a few assumptions about what happened after inflation. In particular, they assume that one needs not enter a radiation dominated (RD) era immediately, but can go through an intermediate era which the two choose to describe in a simplistic way by characterizing it through its constant equation of state w (if w is close to 1, that’s what we call a stiff era, which can be due to the kinetic energy of a scalar field). Now, inflation usually also produces gravitational waves (GWs). If the era between the end of inflation and RD is non-standard, these GWs can be amplified. However, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints on the abundance of light elements sets limits on how much these GWs can be amplified during a non-standard era between inflation and RD. Using BBN limits, Tanin and Tenkanen revise the earlier limits, essentially encapsulated in their Eq.(9), to the new Eq.(19). The most important result is that BBN limits on the amount of GWs set more stringent limits on N by about Delta N~9, which corresponds to 4 orders of magnitude more stringent limits on how much the scale factor expanded during inflation. It turns out that this limit is unlikely to be improved by future GW observatories, be they space- or ground-based. The way it can be improved, albeit not by much, is by improving constraints on the amount of extra radiation at BBN. Overall, this was a rather light and easy to read paper making an interesting and valuable point which, at least to the best of my knowledge, hadn’t been appreciated earlier.
#3 2004.11351: Testing consistency of Ωbh2 in the Planck data by Pavel Motloch
The physical baryon density, Ωbh2, is one of the 6 fundamental parameters of the ΛCDM model. It can be constrained to better than 1% using CMB data, or to about 1% using BBN. How do baryons affect the CMB? The usual lore is that changing the amount of baryons changes the sound speed of the photon-baryon fluid, and the amount of baryon loading. The result is that increasing the amount of baryons enhances the compressional phase of baryon acoustic oscillations in the photon-baryon fluid, which in turn enhances the odd CMB acoustic peaks over the even ones. Therefore, the relative height of the odd and even peaks of the CMB power spectrum are sensitive to the amount of baryons, and hence to Ωbh2. But in general, how does Ωbh2 enter in the computation of the CMB power spectrum? In this week’s paper, Motloch instead asks precisely this question. What Motloch does is to basically go through the Boltzmann code CAMB and identify all the independent ways in which Ωbh2 enters. He identifies 8 independent effects of Ωbh2, on the following physical processes: background expansion, Helium abundance, recombination, evolution of metric perturbations (x2), non-linear lensing, Thomson scattering, and momentum conservation during Thomson scattering. Of all these 8 effects, the latter two are expected to be the most important ones.
What Motloch then does is, instead of having only 1 Ωbh2 parameter, to have 8 independent ones, to try and jointly constrain them and, most importantly, check whether the resulting constraints are mutually consistent. The most important finding is that the two Ωbh2 parameters associated to Thomson scattering and momentum conservation, which are the most tightly constrained ones, turn out to be highly consistent with each other (say 2%). In other words, the Thomson scattering cross-section changes by at most 2% since recombination, and momentum is conserved to better than 2% during Thomson scattering. This is actually a non-trivial consistency test, which confirms once more, if needed, the high internal consistency of Planck data when it comes to certain parameters such as Ωbh2. When allowing for 8 independent baryon parameters, there are some subtleties having to do with initial conditions and the computation of shear time derivatives, which are discussed in Section IIIC. As with the previous paper of Tanin and Tenkanen, this too was a rather short and easy to read paper, which reports on an interesting analysis. In hindsight, it is not surprising that it was Motloch to have done such an analysis, given that he was a student of Wayne Hu, who developed the very well-known animations and tutorials showing where each wiggle in the CMB power spectrum is coming from, and how the latter is affected by each and every cosmological parameters: you can find the list of tutorials here, and many of them contain animations, otherwise you can look at these animations. Needless to say I highly recommend anyone interested in the CMB, especially graduate students, to spend some time going through these animations!