A beautiful paper on arxiv

Keeping on their way of producing sound work, Bogolubsky, Ilgenfritz, Mueller-Preussker and Sternbeck have got their paper (see here) published on Physics Letters B. This is a collaboration between people working in Russia, Germany and Australia. The main aim of this work is the computation on a lattice of the two-point functions and the running coupling of a pure Yang-Mills theory. They carry on lattice computations from (64)^4 to (96)^4 points entering into a deep enough infrared limit to get a meaningful behavior of the lattice theory in this case. I give below their main results

Gluon propagator

Gluon propagator

Dressing function of the ghost propagator

Dressing function of the ghost propagator

Running coupling

Running coupling

These results confirm completely the decoupling solution. The definition of the running coupling is the one proposed by Alkofer and von Smekal and it is my personal conviction that it conveys the right physical behavior of the theory. This is exactly the scenario I have derived in my paper (see here) that has been published on Physics Letters B too and has arisen a lot of rumors around. You will not find this paper cited in this work as these authors have concerns about gauge invariance in my computations. As you may know from my dispute with Terry Tao, gauge invariance is not a problem here. One could ask why a mathematical technique, like a gradient expansion is, should not work for Yang-Mills equations but it does for all other equations of mathematical physics. Anyhow, I am here ready to listen to whoever is able to prove this. With this proof in hand one should also warn all general relativists that use this technique and put it in their handbooks.

The authors conclude their paper by pointing out weaknesses in lattice computations that may bring in discussion their results. Finally, they ask if the other solution, the one with a scaling behavior, can emerge from lattice computations. The understanding of this question is surely of relevant interest. We stay tuned to hear news about.

Advertisements

7 Responses to A beautiful paper on arxiv

  1. Rafael says:

    Hi Marco!

    Yes, again authors’ computations show a clear agreement with decoupling solution. However a puzzling phrase appears on: “Changing the definition… a final conclusion still cannot be drawn”.
    So, don’t they really believe their own data? or
    Are they so “brainwashed” by scalling-like solutions that leaving this idea becomes impossible?
    I just can say that if lattice data can switch its current behavior so drastically on infrared (by mere new definitions) it would be better to throw away the last 20 years of research =(

    • mfrasca says:

      Hi Rafael,

      Nice to hear from you. About the carefulness of these authors you should consider that they belong to the school that produced the scaling solution. I think you can check by yourself the papers they authored on arxiv to get a confirmation of what I am saying. This means that, for this people, is really hard to accept that, for most time of their careers, they worked on something wrong. This is a psychological side of human behavior that is recurring in the history of science. Indeed, those proposing innovative views get always a fierce opposition. This is a part of the scientific endeavor that is difficult to accept, it is never changed in the course of history, and my personal view is that we will have to cope with it for a long time to come yet. It could also happen that in the future we, me and you, will behave in this same way. So, their hope is that a proper understanding of what is going on in the lattice will adjust the situation to their side. Indeed, also their behavior with respect to works like mine or that of Natale and Aguilar is a blatant example of this attitude.

      The main point is that, besides this kind of precaution, they did a very good work, as always, and this must be emphasized.

      I think that what is happening for infrared Yang-Mills is a really painful change of paradigm as we have rarely seen in the history of physics and with a lot of casualties. What we will get in the end is a deeper understanding of quantum field theory that will impact all physics at large.

      Best,

      Marco

  2. Rafael says:

    Hi Marco,

    You are right. I see that “shoting first, asking after” is not a constructive attitude. However, as you commented in:
    https://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/a-sound-confirmation-of-yang-mills-scenario/#comments
    the last paper by Cucchieri & Mendes have a completely different viewpoint about the correct physical solution when compared to Bogolubsky, Ilgenfritz, Mueller-Preussker and Sternbeck paper.
    Actually, I really get shocked by that conclusions. Because, if AC and TM are right other groups are (deliberately?) misinterpretating the crude data to rescue scalling!
    Don´t you think it is more than just a “psychological side of human behavior”?
    You may not know that, but, Attilio Cucchieri was a PhD student of Daniel Zwanziger. The same Zwanziger of the Gribov-Zwanziger scenario! However, by simulating QCD on the Coulomb gauge Attilio has confirmed the analytical predictions of his advisor (on Coulomb gauge), which, by the way, are not seem on the other hand on the lattice for the Landau gauge!
    The puzzling thing I see here is that Attilio´s code is the same for both gauges and I personally bet it is 100% bug-free. So, I believe his results.
    However the same community that believe his Coulomb´s results do not believe his Landau´s ones. I simply can´t understand that…
    Best,

    Rafael.

    • mfrasca says:

      Hi Rafael,

      The attitude “shooting first, asking after” is my personal experience since I started to work in this field of physics (about 2005). Before this I have worked in several other areas of physics and I have never met this aggressive approach as people generally listen to new ideas.

      As you may know, I have a great estimation of the work of Cucchieri and Mendes and, if people do not seem to agree with their results, anyhow their papers go through the most important journals in our field, as it must. But, most important than this is the fact that lattice computations by other groups are confirming their conclusions. I think that is just a matter of time for all this to be generally accepted.

      Let me add that Attilio Cucchieri studied in my same university in Rome. I think this is a good place to study physics in Italy (but there are others, of course). Anyhow, as I can see it, Zwanziger is one of the possible victims of what is going on here. He did a lot of work about this matter and, together with other researchers in Berlin, contributed to the idea of the scaling solution, notably with the idea that the gluon propagator should go to zero in deep infrared. Indeed, in an email exchange with Sternbeck, he said to me that there has been a lot of work in this area and “do we have to throw all away?”. This is the state of mind of this people.

      About Coulomb gauge, I cannot remember Attilio doing this. I have seen his work about but the propagator do not appear to go to zero as Zwanzinger claims. Please, could you explain to what extent Cucchieri & Mendes confirmed this?

      Finally, let me say that Cucchieri & Mendes work will be part of the history of our understanding of Yang-Mills theory. Just great patience.

      Best,

      Marco

  3. carlbrannen says:

    The idea that is in most physicists’s minds is that physics is about adding on to the body of work that already exists. The implication is that the existent body has no errors and needs no corrections, just additions.

    And I also suspect that Marco is right and that the elementary particles section of the community is more resistant to new ideas than others, particularly general relativity. Perhaps because of this, I’m drifting into doing more stuff in gravitation.

  4. Rafael says:

    Hi Marco,

    In A.C.´s own words (in his 0904.4033 paper) we read:
    “In 4D Coulomb gauge, the transverse gluon propagator is well described by a Gribov formula, going to zero at zero momentum”. He refers to: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-lat/pdf/0012/0012024v3.pdf
    On the other hand the colaboration: Cucchieri/Maas/Mendes: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0701011 uses a gauge-definition that interpolate between Landau and Coulomb. Note that they see a vanishing Gluon propagator just for Coulomb-like gauge. For Landau-gauge that propagators are not supressed!
    Best,

    Rafael

    • mfrasca says:

      Hi Rafael,

      I was aware of these results. I have read this one

      http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0610123

      The idea is really bright as they interpolate through different gauges. But take a look at the ghost propagator. Whatever is the value of \lambda, it behaves always in the same way, as a free particle. Is this Zwanziger’s scenario?

      My view about these results is that they see a maximum where there should be a plateau but I would not bet on the fact that the propagator reaches a zero value for momenta going to zero.

      Finally, the volumes are not the same used for Landau gauge (just (40)^4 points). It would be interesting to see these propagators at larger volumes. In any case, some theoretical computations would be really helpful here.

      Best,

      Marco

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: