• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,075 questions , 2,226 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,743 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  What is the hierarchy problem?

+ 4 like - 0 dislike


So far I understood that the hierarchy problem was the large difference between the gravitational scale, $M_{pl}\sim 10^{18}\; [GeV]$, compared with the electroweak scale, $M_{ew}\sim 10^3\;[GeV]$.

However, I heard that the hierarchy problem is due to the existence of quadratic divergences in the scalar sector of the Standard Model.


Can someone explain with ease the hierarchy problem?

Additionally, Is it possible to relate both of the above points of view?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-06 06:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dox
asked Nov 6, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Dox (20 points) [ no revision ]
Possible duplicate physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43303/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-06 06:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user DJBunk
@DJBunk: Thank you for pointing out that post. There exist an overlap between the questions! Cheers

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-06 06:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dox

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

The hierarchy problem is not only about big numbers, such as $M_{pl}/M_{EW}$, per se'. In fact in QCD there is no hierarchy problem associated to the ratio $M_{pl}/\Lambda_{QCD}$. The problem is actually about the quantum numbers of certain operators in a Wilsonian EFT. The point is that we understand the SM as an effective low-energy description of the dynamics associated to relatively light degrees of freedom. Because of QM, the heavy degrees of freedom that one has integrated out actually leak into the effective description by changing the couplings of the local operators of the EFT. It's pretty simple, by means of dimensional analysis, to see what operators are strongly affected by the UV degrees of freedom that live at the scale $\Lambda$ or above: $\delta\mathcal{L}=\sum_{\mathcal{O}}c_\mathcal{O}\Lambda^{4-\Delta_{\mathcal{O}}}\mathcal{O}$, where $\Delta_{\mathcal{O}}$ is the scaling dimension of the operator $\mathcal{O}$. It's thus clear that relevant operators, i.e. with $\Delta<4$, are very sensitive to the scale of UV physics. Marginal ($\Delta=4$) or almost marginal ($\Delta\simeq 4$) are pretty much insensitive to the scale of UV physics whereas irrelevant operators ($\Delta>4$) are suppressed by large $\Lambda$. Notice that in the SM the smallness of neutrino masses, and the conservation of B and L quantum numbers, follow from the irrelevance of the operators associated to those operators. However, in the SM, the operator $|H|^2$ is relevant and one would expect its coefficient to scale with $\Lambda^2$: a light Higgs and an hierarchically small vev (especially if compared to $\Lambda\sim M_{pl}$), are hard to accommodate without finely tuning some cancellation in the UV. One could solve the hierarchy problem by introducing new degrees of freedom that enforce such cancellation to occur as a symmetry requirement (rather than accidentally) which suppresses the couplings of the relevant operator. Example: SUSY.

bdw, QCD doesn't have the hierarchy problem (apart for the CP-problem...) because of two facts: 1) the QCD gauge coupling is almost marginal so tha the actual scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$ is generated only when the coupling has ran for for very long (that is, for very a large energy range) to get into a strong coupling regime which allows for strong bound states to form; 2) there are no relevant operators that are not forbidden by symmetry.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-06 06:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user argopulos
answered Nov 6, 2012 by argopulos (100 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights