Exact solutions on arxiv

As promised in my preceding post (see here), I have posted yesterday a preprint on this matter on arxiv (see here). I have presented all the exact solutions I was able to obtain at a classical level and I have given a formulation of the quantum field theory for a massless quartic theory. The key point in this case is the solution of the equation for the propagator

-\Box\Delta+3\lambda\phi_c^2(x)\Delta=\delta^D(x)

being \phi_c the given exact classical solution. As usual, I have used a gradient approximation and the solution of the equation

\ddot\phi(t)+3\lambda\phi_c^2(t,0)\phi(t)=\delta(t)

that I know when the phase in \phi_c(t,0) is quantized as (4n+1)K(i), being n an integer and K(i) an elliptic integral. This gives back a consistent result in the strong coupling limit, \lambda\rightarrow\infty, with my preceding paper on Physical Review D (see here).

The conclusion is rather interesting as quantum field theory, given from such subset of classical solutions, is trivial when the coupling becomes increasingly large as one has a Gaussian generating functional and the spectrum of a harmonic oscillator. This is in perfect agreement with common wisdom about this scalar theory. So, in some way, Jacobi elliptical functions that describe nonlinear waves behave as plane waves for a quantum field theory in a regime of a strong coupling.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Exact solutions on arxiv

  1. carlbrannen says:

    Marco, as you’re probably aware, the stuff I’ve been doing has been “algebraic” and avoids perturbation theory. My problem is that this technique is not very well physically motivated; it’s more like standard quatnum mechanics than field theory.

    I’ve just finished a new version of the calculations that does it by resumming path integrals over spin. And I’ve written it as a note on “why is it that position measurements screw up position (by giving momentum kicks to particles) but spin measurements do not”. That is, if position and spin are both ontological properties of the particles, why did nature treat them so differently. I’m hoping that this will be a more physically convincing method of getting to Koide’s mass formula.

    I’d love to hear your comments on the idea.

    • mfrasca says:

      Hi Carl,

      Thank you for trusting on my judgment. I do this work anonymously when asked by Editors and you can imagine the reasons by yourself. I would not like to offend you in any way and I generally respect other work.

      Anyhow, I think I could give you some hints for improvements. Parastatistics are well-known matter in physics and these are not born with anyons. This idea was used by Oscar Greenberg to introduce the concept of color for quarks in QCD (independently from others). You should check these early works as this is very near the idea of a tripled Pauli statistics. But when you have seen this, you should prove that such a parastatistics indeed reproduces Lubos’ formula. You must do this to be consistent in all your arguments. Then, you should build a path integral with Grassman variables to recover all your computations.

      Let me do a final note on Lubos’ formula. This kind of situation, integer spins and wrong statistics, is what happens for ghost fields in gauge theories. So, it seems to me that, if this formula has any physical sense, we need a quantum gravity theory to get something out of it.

      Marco

  2. Carl Brannen says:

    Your comments are very useful; Lubos also is concerned with the statistics. Thanks!

    The true message of the paper is supposed to be “making spin-1/2 path integrals look like position path integrals gives you back the usual spin-1/2 plus 3 generations”. My bringing statistics and black holes into it is an unnecessary diversion. And since people tend to only read a paper until they find the first thing they disagree with, it’s better to have a more pure and simple message. So I’m going to remove references to statistics. (Well, maybe I’ll wait until Seattle cools down.)

    At least part of the problem is that “statistics” is an overloaded term. I’m using it in terms of more or less classical statistical mechanics but to particle physicists the term makes them think of how creation and annihilation operators act with space-like separations. But my paper is about path integrals with no spatial dependence so there is no space-like or time-like separations.

    I think this is a substantial improvement, thanks again.

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: