English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Experiments are once again under way at the LHC. This time around, however,the mood in the high-energy physics community is pessimistic. There is agrowing suspicion that naturalness arguments that predict new physics near theweak scale are faulty and that prospects for a new discovery are limited. Weargue that such doubts originate from a misunderstanding of the foundations ofnaturalness arguments. In spite of the first run at the LHC, which aggravatedthe little-hierarchy problem, there is no cause for doubting naturalness ornatural theories. Naturalness is grounded in Bayesian probability logic - it isnot a scientific theory and it makes no sense to claim that it could befalsified or that it is under pressure from experimental data. We should remainoptimistic about discovery prospects; natural theories, such as supersymmetry,generally predict new physics close to the weak scale. Furthermore, from aBayesian perspective, we briefly discuss 't Hooft's technical naturalness and acontentious claim that the little-hierarchy problem hints that the StandardModel is a fundamental theory.

The little-hierarchy problem is a little problem: understanding the  difference between the big- and little-hierarchy problems with Bayesian  probability