Effective Field Theories and the Role of Consistency in Theory Choice

TL;DR

This paper argues that in theory choice, consistency—both observational and mathematical—outweighs attributes like simplicity and predictability, especially in the context of effective field theories, impacting future research directions.

Contribution

It emphasizes the primacy of consistency over simplicity in evaluating effective field theories, including nonrenormalizable ones like gravity.

Findings

Consistency justifies the use of infinite-term effective theories.

Finite-term truncations compromise key attributes but are less critical than consistency.

Implications for collider physics and future theory development are discussed.

Abstract

Promoting a theory with a finite number of terms into an effective field theory with an infinite number of terms worsens simplicity, predictability, falsifiability, and other attributes often favored in theory choice. However, the importance of these attributes pales in comparison with consistency, both observational and mathematical consistency, which propels the effective theory to be superior to its simpler truncated version of finite terms, whether that theory be renormalizable (e.g., Standard Model of particle physics) or nonrenormalizable (e.g., gravity). Some implications for the Large Hadron Collider and beyond are discussed, including comments on how directly acknowledging the preeminence of consistency can affect future theory work.