Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proof found for unifying quantum principle: Twenty-three-year-old conjecture set to guide...
Nature News ^ | 14 November 2011 | Eugenie Samuel Reich

Posted on 11/16/2011 5:53:30 PM PST by neverdem

Twenty-three-year-old conjecture set to guide future quantum field theories.

When John Cardy proposed a far-reaching principle to constrain all possible theories of quantum particles and fields1, he expected it to be quickly rebutted. But for almost 25 years that hasn’t happened — and it now seems that his theorem may have been quietly proved earlier this year.

If the solution holds, it is likely to guide future attempts to explain physics beyond the current standard model. It will certainly have implications for any previously unknown particles that may be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, Europe’s particle physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland.

“I’m pleased if the proof turns out to be correct," says Cardy, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford, UK. “I’m quite amazed the conjecture I made in 1988 stood up.”

His conjecture is called the a-theorem. It says that the number of ways in which quantum fields can be energetically excited (a) is always greater at high energies than at low energies.

The proposed proof2, from theorists Zohar Komargodski and Adam Schwimmer of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, was put forward in July 2011, and is now gradually gaining acceptance as other theoretical physicists have a chance to check it.

“I think it’s quite likely to be right,” says Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

Many quantum field theories have yet to be exactly solved, meaning that they cannot be used to produce comprehensive predictions of what particles will do. One example is quantum chromodynamics — the theory of the strong nuclear force that describes the interactions between quarks and gluons. That lack leaves physicists struggling to relate physics at the high-energy, short-distance scale of quarks to the physics at longer-distance,...

(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: cardy; johncardy; physics; quantumfieldtheories

1 posted on 11/16/2011 5:53:33 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


2 posted on 11/16/2011 5:54:11 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; FredZarguna; Fred Nerks; Robert A. Cook, PE; Wonder Warthog; decimon; ...

Like, *PING*, dudes and dude-ettes.


3 posted on 11/16/2011 5:58:07 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
25 years languishing on the sidelines and now he tells us.

See if I got that ~ (1) At real low energy levels you have fewer options than you have at real high energy levels.

(2) Corollary 1: At real high energy levels you have more options than you have at real low energy levels.

(3) Corollary 2: At real low energy levels you might have no options, but at real high energy levels you might have many options.

(4) Corollary 3: At real high energy levels you might have many options ~ but not an infinite set of options, which is better than being at real low energy levels with no options at all.

I am sure there are thousands of permutations and combinations. Uh, that's a conjecture. No doubt some teenager is working on that one to see what the limits are.

At the rate this sucker progressed he'll be famous in a couple of hundred years!

4 posted on 11/16/2011 6:05:32 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
So, Grey_whiskers, the "proof" ~ is that being done from a strictly mathematical standpoint, or is it based on some sort of conjecture testable with an experiment?

Why I ask is it was recently brought up that math seems to have an existence totally separate and apart from "reality" which means purely mathematical proofs can really lead us astray.

5 posted on 11/16/2011 6:08:33 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ping me when these taxpayer-supported theorists figure out anti-gravity drive, faster-than-light propulsion, or any other useful advancement.


6 posted on 11/16/2011 6:18:37 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"That lack leaves physicists struggling to relate physics at the high-energy, short-distance scale of quarks to the physics at longer-distance..."

Oh, like I don't have enough to do at my day job?

7 posted on 11/16/2011 6:18:40 PM PST by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think it’s amazing how physical theoreticians come up with their guesses, often decades in advance of any experiment that could prove them true or false. In the field, I wonder what the guess to hit ratio is? Are there a thousand, a million almost-Einsteins to every Albert Einstein?


8 posted on 11/16/2011 6:23:30 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

It’s an intriguing area of study, whatever else it is, and sometimes theoreticians do anticipate stuff that doesn’t become apparent in the lab for years.

I don’t know about faster than light travel (the G forces would be to kill), but faster than light signaling would be a good start. And earlier this year someone allegedly found that this was happening with a beam of neutrinos. Not all that much faster than light, just a trifle. But the fabled tachyon, a particle which cannot travel any slower than light, might have been seen in the lab.


9 posted on 11/16/2011 6:27:48 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
NOVA has a show on quantum mechanics now in NYC.

Milk thistle stops lung cancer in mice

Study links Parkinson's disease to industrial solvent (trichloroethylene)

Too long after heart attack, bone marrow cells lose effect: study The story links a FReebie.

AHA: Cardiac Stem Cells Show Promise in Heart Failure

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

10 posted on 11/16/2011 6:27:58 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Simply put: If it quarks lika luck, it musta be a gluon. I believe this theory was originally developed by Chico during a night at the opera.


11 posted on 11/16/2011 6:32:48 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
But what about medium energy levels? I might be so bold as to conjecture that there are somewhat more options than at low energy levels, but not nearly so many as at high energy levels, but I'm sure it will take many years of painstaking study before this can be proved either way.

... and one more time: read John Horgan's book, The End of Science

12 posted on 11/16/2011 6:38:24 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
...sometimes theoreticians do anticipate stuff that doesn’t become apparent in the lab for years.

Perhaps, but for every theoretician who brings forth a new understanding of fundamental physics that leads to a practical and useful advancement, there are hundreds more who do nothing with their lives but poke around with arcane and esoteric formulas, while sucking a living off the taxpayers.

Some, like Stephen Hawking, even become cultural icons, while giving back little of exchangeable value to the world. Pardon if I don't hold most of these people in high esteem.

13 posted on 11/16/2011 6:43:54 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Seems like Albert Einstein came up with some gnarly stuff without taking a taxpayer dime. Reforming the system wouldn’t kill it. There is some measure of national prestige, however, viewed by high muckety mucks. Kind of like the space and moon shots.


14 posted on 11/16/2011 6:48:22 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Seems like Albert Einstein came up with some gnarly stuff without taking a taxpayer dime.

If I recall my history correctly, Einstein wrote his most famous work while he was a postal employee, and yes, his work led to some practical applications.

Reforming the system wouldn’t kill it. There is some measure of national prestige, however, viewed by high muckety mucks. Kind of like the space and moon shots.

Engineers did more to put men on the moon than any physicists did.

15 posted on 11/16/2011 6:59:07 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Albert Einstein was a Patent Examiner in Bern, Switzerland.


16 posted on 11/16/2011 7:16:51 PM PST by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
Albert Einstein was a Patent Examiner

Right you are. Thanks for the correction.

17 posted on 11/16/2011 7:25:13 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Ping me when these taxpayer-supported theorists figure out anti-gravity drive, faster-than-light propulsion, or any other useful advancement.


Already been done.
See "Beyond Einstein's Unified Field: Gravity and Electro-magnetism Redefined" John Brandenburg, PhD.

Experiments so far have seen changes of mass, well, I should say changes in weight, because it is the gravity field that is modified, not anything intrinsic about the object being worked with, of a few percent.

Gravity turns out to be something like the third derivative of the electro-magnetic complex, at right angles to the electric field, and at right angles to the magnetic field. No static electric current or magnetic field can change gravity, it must be pulsing.

But it takes a huge - HUGE - amount of electricity to do it because the electric/magnetic fields are many, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than the gravity component.

I suspect that alot of the testing in this area is still black. But more and more will come to light.

Also, Brandenburg proves that FTL is possible. It's just that travel AT C is not. So it's kind of a can't get there from here phenomena.
18 posted on 11/16/2011 7:37:47 PM PST by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Donate Today!

19 posted on 11/16/2011 7:55:58 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Windflier
“...Engineers did more to put men on the moon than any physicists did...”

I certainly agree with you if we were to tabulate the diploma fields of NASA for example. But keep in mind that this was not the case when the theoretical foundations of space flight and its machines were being developed in the 1930s though about the 1950s.

Physicists are engineers but the opposite of this does not hold too accurately. That is, an engineer is a physist usually only at a basic level or narrow specialty. Physicists and engineers work within the same universe if you'll pardon the pun but a physicist usually tends to the theoretical whereas the engineer tends to the applied. Chemists also overlap with physicists in the area of thermodynamics and kinetics for examples. To give a specific example, I worked with one physicist that designed the computer chip in my company's process analyzer products that ran at gigahertz speed in the late 1980s plus designed the circuits (electrical engineering), the math algorithms that needed the high speed (mathematics) and wrote the programming (computer science). I am an engineer and my job was to apply the technology so the company could make a profit.

20 posted on 11/16/2011 8:17:20 PM PST by Hootowl99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: musicman

"So NOW can I cross-circuit to B?"


21 posted on 11/16/2011 8:29:08 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It's mathematical, but it has (if you will) "implications" as they say. See slide 11 within here.

Cheers!

22 posted on 11/16/2011 8:35:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Or, in English (being generous!)

Cheers!

23 posted on 11/16/2011 8:43:11 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: djf
See "Beyond Einstein's Unified Field: Gravity and Electro-magnetism Redefined" John Brandenburg, PhD.

Thanks!

"Beyond Einstein's Unified Field: Gravity and Electro-magnetism Redefined" John Brandenburg, PhD.

24 posted on 11/16/2011 8:47:21 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Here is a recent interview.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7863474644720138495


25 posted on 11/16/2011 8:48:41 PM PST by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl99
Physicists are engineers but the opposite of this does not hold too accurately. That is, an engineer is a physist usually only at a basic level or narrow specialty.

I've actually observed the truth of your second statement, but never in the case of your first statement. Now, that's just a layman's observation. Your mileage may vary.

I suppose that the work of some theoretical physicists has produced solutions and insights that engineers were able to apply in the real world. That kind of thinking is something that I can admire and appreciate, because it leads to tangible advancements for everyone.

What I have a problem with, are all these government tit sucking eggheads who sit around postulating 11 dimensions, dark matter, the multiverse, etc. Perhaps their work will one day lead to something worthwhile that benefits the human race, but from where I sit, it's too far out for me to see.

26 posted on 11/16/2011 9:04:13 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Re: “I’m pleased if the proof turns out to be correct," says Cardy...

Gadzooks, Cardy! If it's over 100 proof, it has quite a kick to it... but don't stop sipping less than 100 proof 'cause it may cause you to loose you buzz. Right, Deano?

You got it, Bend... just keep on drinking!

If red X above go to http://nuravebrainwave.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Dean+Martin+winedrinker.png

27 posted on 11/17/2011 3:25:29 AM PST by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
"I've actually observed the truth of your second statement, but never in the case of your first statement."

Almost always true in the case of "experimental physicists", almost never true in the case of "theoretical physicists".

There are some truly gifted individuals who can do both extremely well. Einstein was NOT one of them. I think Robert Bussard was.

I forget which high level physicist the comment was made of (it might even have been Einstein), that apparatus started to break as soon as he walked through the door..... :^)

28 posted on 11/17/2011 5:10:34 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If the solution holds, it is likely to guide future attempts to explain physics beyond the current standard model.
Good, the stanard models always stink.
I want upgrade options like a Hemi, 409 with positraction, or GTO package.


29 posted on 11/17/2011 5:11:50 AM PST by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

30 posted on 11/17/2011 9:01:52 AM PST by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded

LOL! My point exactly.


31 posted on 11/17/2011 10:18:00 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa

save for later


32 posted on 11/18/2011 9:33:26 PM PST by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson