Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?

TL;DR

This paper examines the concept of naturalness in quantum field theory, revealing its role as a socio-historical heuristic rather than an objective criterion, and explores its implications for model comparison and scientific falsification.

Contribution

It analyzes the historical development of fine-tuning definitions and introduces the concept of Gedankenfrequency, highlighting naturalness as a socio-historical heuristic rather than an objective measure.

Findings

Naturalness functions as a socio-historical heuristic.

The argument from naturalness influences model comparison.

Naturalness contributes to a probabilistic falsification framework.

Abstract

The argument from naturalness is widely employed in contemporary quantum field theory. Essentially a formalized aesthetic criterion, it received a meaning in the debate on the Higgs mechanism, which goes beyond aesthetics. We follow the history of technical definitions of fine tuning at the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. It is argued that they give rise to a special interpretation of probability, which we call Gedankenfrequency. By extension of its original meaning, the argument from naturalness is used to compare different models beyond the Standard Model. We show that in this case naturalness cannot be defined objectively. Rather, it functions as socio-historical heuristics in particle physics and it contributes to the advent of a probabilistic version of Popper's falsificationism.