For Summer!

Here, I include some important papers (or books) which one (if not already) should read in this Summer. (Of course, I can miss many great which I have read or haven't).


  • Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space by Edward Witten - https://inspirehep.net/literature/307956. This work founds one of the pillar for later developments in JT gravity and Random Matrix theory.
  • Large N field theories, string theory and gravity by O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz - http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905111. One of the best introductions to AdS/CFT and Large N Correspondence (and Gauge-String duality).
  • S. Coleman, “Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures,” 1988.
  • J. H. Schwarz, “Introduction to superstring theory,” NATO Sci. Ser. C 566 (2001) 143–187, arXiv:hep-ex/0008017.
  • A. Eskin and M. Mirzakhani, “Counting closed geodesics in Moduli space,” arXiv e-prints (Nov., 2008) , arXiv:0811.2362 [math.DS]. - It is a highly important work among many by Mirzakhani.
  • P. H. Ginsparg, “APPLIED CONFORMAL FIELD THEORY,” in Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics: Fields, Strings, Critical Phenomena. 9, 1988. arXiv:hep-th/9108028
  • M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1 and 2: INTRODUCTION. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics.
  • G. ’t Hooft, “Large N,” arXiv:hep-th/0204069. Large N is nowadays bread and butter, so you must buy it.
I must repeat that this list is arbitrary but sure are of great help to me.
Happy Reading! - Aayush

Posted in | 1 Comment Print it.

KLT Relations

Kawai-Lewellen-Tye Relation, see here, is a perfect tool to make connections between amplitudes. The most general of them is the relation between a tree gravity amplitude (from Einstein-Hilbert action) and a gauge theory amplitude (from Yang-Mills). We can also relate the closed strings amplitude and open strings amplitude using KLT. (Many connections are there for closed strings algebra and open strings. From a conversation with Ed Witten; Ed - The simplest is that they can be computed in similar ways by integral representations that come from the open or closed string).


From the paper (recommended);


and same paper (sec II, a short review);


More papers on this subject; here, here, and here.

Posted in | 2 Comments Print it.

Old Superstring Formalism

I wrote a very brief discussing note on superstring formalism that was developed in the early years. In the note, I discuss it with required algebra. However, an adopted model for superstrings is good than this one. You can read it from here:


Old Superstring Formalism - Pdf

Posted in | 1 Comment Print it.

Non-criticality and Criticality

Though some papers promise to show the Lorentz invariance in non-critical string theory, I haven't found any strong evidence of it, yet. Except some papers claiming it to be consistent in some scenarios.  Evidently, the addition of longitudinal oscillators in lower dimensions is not harmful, however, we wait for a good scheme for non-critical string theory. (I also have no idea of eliminating anomalies and ghosts in superstring in non-critical dimensions.) We discuss the origin of D=26 (critical dimensions) in bosonic string theory.


Among some ways of proving the criticality, the most famous is by using j_{\mu\nu} (Lorentz elements) - A method involving a very after-canonical quantization process of deriving critical dimensions can be found in Polchinski's volume. You can check if the action you have written for your strings (Polyakov action) is Poincare invariant. If they are Poincare invariant, then they are in critical dimensions. For bosonic string theory, it is D=26 and D=10 for superstring. One can find the critical dimensions for superstring by adding fermions using RNS. For M-theory, a close but not similar process can be carried out. If the theory is critical, then we should not fear the super-conformal ghosts that appear as central charges in algebras of string theory. In D=26, one can have the vacuum state as a tachyon, which is negative mass squared. In superstring theory, tachyons don't appear. Tachyons are unstable.

We can't talk much about non-critical theory, however, some models show good significance, for instance, D \geq 4, but too premature. Also, T-duality is only applicable for critical dimensions in super-string theory (I haven't encountered any support for non-critical dimensions for T-duality). Some good studies are holding for non-critical string theory with its application to AdS (not aware of recent development).


Edit: Paper by Polyakov also had a solution to the critical dimension from 1981 (the original subject of paper was on summation of random surfaces). And, there are also prospects of Liouville thoeries in non-critical dimensions.

Posted in | Leave a comment Print it.

Unparticles and Unnuclear

In this short paper, I sum up the ideas of unparticle field theory (UFT). UFT is a scale-invariant theory. Georgi proposed it in 2007. Some slides (of earlier times) by him are available here on the subject. Despite being a wonderful field theory, it lacks experimental evidence. However, indirect shreds of evidence are possible through the following channels


.

There are more channels other than these. (For technicalities of these interactions, refer to papers.) UFT has a parameter  in the field equations. UFT is unlikely (for now) to be observed because it can be integral values, for instance, 1/2. How would the field theory look? 

In the case of  , UFT is just standard model field theory (these scalar theories are scale-invariant). For instance a UFT with the propagator 


 is phase-space (refer to any paper on UFT).  When , the propagator becomes


which is a familiar propagator in SM. There are many more interesting things about UFT that I cover in the paper with results. You should check first (if new to UFT) papers by Georgi, Tzu-Yiang Yuan, and Kingman Cheung. Georgi is also carrying interesting results in Schwinger's problems. 


Recently, a new term was dropped in this area by Hammer and Son. Unnuclear physics is a non-relativistic theory of unparticles. This EFT claims much more experiments than unparticle physics (which is a relativistic version). A recent talk by Dam Son emphasized the phenomenology of unnuclear physics, which is his next paper (to be released this month). A lot is going in this field. However, it is a newborn field, so a lot can't be said. 

Posted in , | 1 Comment Print it.

Vertex Operators and Conformal Mapping

We can use the Feynman diagrams to replicate the process of scattering with strings. For particle interactions, we can do Feynman diagrams (for , see this - just topologies). For strings, we can do the same; we call them "string diagrams." A closed string forming two closed strings is depicted by changing the point-particle by strings and word line by worldsheet.




The crossing line indicates (this one line is for collective dimensions. However, there should be definitive for each one) that there is not one for all Lorentz frame, unlike in point particle theory, but two. It can be interpreted that the point-particle Feynman diagram is just a limiting case of the string diagrams. Furthermore, one string diagram (with vertex function) can be deformed to a few particle Feynman diagrams. That is one of the reasons why there are not many string diagrams. Lorentz frames are also the reason for the absence of ultraviolet divergence because of independent defined Lorentz sites at interaction.

Similarly, one can do the one-loop of string diagrams as we do in point particle. But, the convenience and Lorentz issue demand something better. We do that by conformally mapping the string diagrams. In this case, we map it to a topological disk (genus-0)




Among the advantages of conformal mapping, one being that there would not be the h (associated with  ) integrals in the matrix calculations. But what about the conservation of quantum numbers after topological mapping? For that, we introduce vertex operators. In the conformal image, cross-markers indicate the strings (the top one shows the far past string, and the bottom two indicates the far future newly born closed strings). The marked area is for the vertex operator. We can introduce it with the symbol , where m is for an m-type particle. This operation is effortless in a 1+1  system, which indeed we are following. The  is the operator for local absorption and emission of string states. We can introduce another operator , which is for the re-parametrization of the mapping. While W operators account for Lorentz transformation, we must also take accounts of translation. That is how we reach a well-known translation operator


The final operator for emission and absorption becomes


We need to fix the residual gauge invariance for the special linear group (when calculating the M-point functions). Conformal mapping for open strings (in this case, it should be on the boundary of the disk) is done in similar ways, however, they are different.

Posted in | Leave a comment Print it.

Veneziano Amplitude

In string theory, when we write the Feynman diagrams, we denote amplitude for open and closed string, as Veneziano and Virasoro-Shapiro amplitudes (a complex beta function) respectively (we will only discuss the former). Veneziano amplitude is an Euler beta function that obeys the crossing symmetry and looks*

where s and t are Mandelstem variables defined;
and  \alpha(s)  is Regge trajectory.

The amplitude is a result of the work on the duality between s and t channels. According to this duality, the sum of all the s channels and t channels should be equal. It was written for a model obeying the Regge trajectory which at the time was indicating not the string theory, but a QCD theory.  The Euler form of the amplitude can be written through expansions as**


because any beta function of the form
can be written as 

Note * has only one pole rather than two and ** is written in t poles. What we can do is writing ** in s poles, which then


And that is the duality. We can study various aspects of it by keeping t fixed or s fixed. This is done in the very first paper on this by Veneziano, here. Also, in integral representation, as like a beta function, this amplitude can be written as 
                  
                  
In large s and fixed t
                                               
it is valid for a complex large s plane unless one gets too close to the positive real line. This indicates that quantum corrections would be received by the imaginary part. In large s and fixed t, one can also write A(s,t) \sim s^{\alpha(t)} (for linear Regge trajectory), and since in general Regge theory A(s,t)\sim s^J where J is averaged (effective) angular momentum, we see  

\boxed{ J = \alpha(t)}


For a good understanding of this amplitude (or string theory), you can read Superstring Theory by Green, Schwarz, and Witten. Or Polchinksi's volumes.

Posted in | 2 Comments Print it.

Half-Baked Problems with Quantum Mechanics

In quantum mechanics, there are many problems; the biggest of them (according to a group) is finding the first and initial state. We are talking about the initial state of the observable universe; it sounds cliche. But people believe that if we can find the initial state, we can determine the difference between the macroscopic and microscopic world. I have not any thoughts on that. However, as like many, my respect for quantum mechanics is just fundamental (and theoretical). When you do quantum mechanics, without any evidence of research, you will likely come to believe that 'what is true and what is wrong' is differently to be seen in the subject.


Just like the statistical mechanics, we have \rho the density matrix in quantum mechanics. This looks like

which tells you the probability of each state into finding, the bracket notations used in this style is called projection operator. If you are a realist, you should not see this as a superposition, and in fact, it is not any superimposed thing. This \rho being classical shouldn't be the problem. 


When we come to 'Copenhagen's Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is heavily misguided in different ideologies, we can observe incompleteness and loss of determinism. The former and latter can be written to co-exist as 'no macroscopic evidence.' It is not entirely true. However, it is accepted that the interpretations can be completed by the completeness of matching the probabilistic theory to macroscopic lurches of evidence. Indeed, we would enjoy a version like this. Rather than this, the Copenhagen interpretation is widely celebrated as a successful interpretation.

_____________________


The reason these are half-baked problems that no one now cares about it. These problems are widely accepted as 'reality and fundamental.' Even when young people try to think about it, they fall into the prey of 'cancellation' and 'no go' which they say are occults of the subject. But, my stance is quantum mechanics is an achievement that we should sing from time to time.


Notes; A friend of mine shared with me an unlisted link of a talk by Weinberg at 'Standard Model at 50', in which he talks the same. And in fact, this post is inspired by his talk. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBninatwq6k



Posted in , | 1 Comment Print it.

How 'His Majesty' was interested in Nature?

As I have called out on 'curiosity' in the past post. I am very much now interested in reading the 'wunderkammer and curiosity centers of the kings or ancients people. Surprisingly, some kings were too interested in finding the occults of nature, and their funding was too high for science. Although, it can be debated whether that science can be said 'science.' Notwithstanding, the alchemists working for a life-serum or turning things into gold.


Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II of Prague was interested in science. He was the king who is credited for 'thirty years war.' Despite that political naivety, he was superbly interested and invested in science, and he built his curiosity buildings all over Europe. His curiosity building was divided into three rooms, namely - scientifica, artificialia, and naturalia. Not to mention that while Rudolf was busy finding the occults - which he didn't find, he used to gather mathematicians, alchemists, and other types of scientists (Kepler was in this group for a time) and tell them to reveal the mysteries about skies, wizards - people declared him mad


In Prague, where he built the institute, there were too many researchers working in the shadow of Rudolf II. Now, this is the concept of today's institutions. For instance, a much-developed idea is Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton. It shows that when fine minds work together, then there is always some outcome, not necessarily positive. Although Rudolf's team was busy finding the magic of nature, they were doing some things, not necessarily science. It fascinates me how were the scientists in the 17th century. I may not like the workflow and their ideas, but I like the lurch in their stargazing.


There is a word 'Rudolfine' that is used to describe the arts that he patronized.



With Alchemists and other sorts of mathematicians. Taken from here.

Posted in | Leave a comment Print it.

Canonically Quantized Strings

A course into Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is passed through the passage of Quantization. In QFT, we quantize our classical fields using canonical quantization. However, one can also quantize the fields using the path integrals. A canonical quantization, also known as second quantization, is a series of steps. In order to quantize a field using canonical quantization, we first find its Lagrangian. A Lagrangian is yet another formalism to develop theories, and every Lagrangian gives an equation of motion using the Euler Lagrange equation;

S({q})=\int_{a}^{b} \mathrm{d} t L(t, {q}(t), \dot{{q}}(t))

\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q_{i}}-\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t}\left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial q_{i}^{\prime}}\right)=0

In our following coordinates, we tend to use light-cone coordinates for a target space (a space where our strings action are parameterized, typically where our \eta_{\mu \nu} is 

X^{\pm} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (X^0 \pm X^{D-1})

\eta_{+-} = \eta_{-+} = -1,\ n_{ij}=\delta_{ij}

our inner product follows

X^2 = - 2X^+X^- + \dot{X}^i  \dot{X}^i

    For those who are familiar with the string theory notion, we use coordinates as a function of \tau, \sigma. An expansion of X^+(\tau, \sigma) gives us 

X^{+}(\tau, \sigma)=x^{+}+\alpha^{\prime} p^{+} \tau+i \sqrt{\frac{\alpha^{\prime}}{2}} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}, n \neq 0} \frac{1}{n} \alpha_{n}^{+} e^{-i n \xi^{-}}+i \sqrt{\frac{\alpha^{\prime}}{2}} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}, n \neq 0} \frac{1}{n} \tilde{\alpha}_{n}^{+} e^{-i n \xi^{+}}

these equation contains residual infinite dimensional symmetry (conforming killing vectors) which comes because of the choosen light cones gauge. The equation has a lot of oscilaltor modes, which can be killed by the residual infinite dimensional symmetry, hence we set the oscillator modes to 0

X^{+}(\tau, \sigma)=x^{+}+\alpha^{\prime} p^{+} \tau

we impose Virasoro constaints 

\partial_{\pm} X^{-}=\frac{1}{\alpha^{\prime} p^{+}}\left(\partial_{\pm} X^{i}\right)^{2}

    We can see that X^- comes from the transverse oscillator X^i, and the X^i have independent degrees of freedom. And X^i contains two independent oscillator modes in light cones gauge. And, clearly, it helps us to with two polarization of string, i.e. X^+, X^-.

    Now the action, after turning to light cones, reads

\begin{aligned} S_{lc} &=\frac{1}{4 \pi \alpha^{\prime}} \int_{\Sigma} d \tau d \sigma\left[\left(\partial_{\tau} X^{i}\right)^{2}-\left(\partial_{\sigma} X^{i}\right)^{2}+2\left(-\partial_{\tau} X^{+} \partial_{\tau} X^{-}+\partial_{\sigma} X^{+} \partial_{\sigma} X^{-}\right)\right] \\ &=\frac{1}{4 \pi \alpha^{\prime}} \int_{\Sigma} d \tau d \sigma\left[\left(\partial_{\tau} X^{i}\right)^{2}-\left(\partial_{\sigma} X^{i}\right)^{2}\right]-\int d \tau p^{+} \partial_{\tau} q^{-} \\ & \equiv \int d \tau L \end{aligned}

where

q^{-} \equiv \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{0}^{2 \pi} d \sigma X^{-} .

from the action, we can find out the canonical momenta

p_{-} \equiv \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}^{-}}=-p^{+}, \quad \Pi_{i} \equiv \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{X}^{i}}=\frac{\dot{X}_{i}}{2 \pi \alpha^{\prime}}

and the commutation relation, we can infer, is

\left[X^{\mu}(\tau, \sigma), \Pi^{\mu}\left(\tau, \sigma^{\prime}\right)\right]=i \eta^{\mu \nu} \delta\left(\sigma-\sigma^{\prime}\right)

    The next step in the usual canonical process is tuning the oscillator modes to operators using construction and destruction operators. We say, that \alpha^i_{-n} are creation operators with n>0 and \alpha^i_{n} is destruction operator that kills the vacuum with n<0. They read

\alpha_{n}^{-}=\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2 \alpha^{\prime}} p^{+}} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{m=\infty} \alpha_{n-m}^{i} \alpha_{m}^{i}

After ordering operator 

\alpha_{n}^{-}=\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2 \alpha^{\prime}} p^{+}}\left(\sum_{m=-\infty}^{m=\infty}: \alpha_{n-m}^{i} \alpha_{m}^{i}:-a \delta_{n, 0}\right)

where we define

\alpha_{m}^{i} \alpha_{n}^{i}: \equiv\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\alpha_{m}^{i} \alpha_{n}^{i} & \text { for } m \leq n \\ \alpha_{n}^{i} \alpha_{m}^{i} & \text { for } n<m\end{array}\right.

    This was the usual canonical quantization, that we read in QFT, applied in string theory. There are other options to quantize strings, but this introductory process is ideal for first-time string learners.

Posted in | 4 Comments Print it.

Particle Physics for Begineers!

Recently, Prof. David Tong has released a set of lecture notes on particle physics. In the introduction, it has been claimed that notes cover things in high school mathematics, and it is true. However, a little more than high school, but a keen learner would find it suitable to learn through the process. 

You may check the notes and bookmark it if you are interested;

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/particle.html

Posted in , | Leave a comment Print it.

On Unparticle Physics!

The major paper, on which I was working, is finally out yesterday night. It is on unparticle physics. Just because that I am now quite attracted by this scheme of unparticle physics, which I have described here.

You can read and enjoy the paper following this;

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3834261

Posted in , | Leave a comment Print it.

A Theatre of Curiosity

Curiosity is a priceless yet costly character that one can achieve by abolishing many senseless predefined characters. It is a fundamental gift that everyone should receive, and better to accept it now, not any old. In history, it is beautifully depicted how impeccable a person can be with his curiosity and ability to find what can't be found.


You, at some point, will or already have realized that being idle is also a curiosity. Not virtuous, yet you are finding, not consciously, the results for being nothing. That, however, never promotes you to do "nothing." 


Curiosity drives more than it stops. 


My cabinet couldn't afford fancy and expensive collections but was a pure collection of paintings, some books I considered worthy, some notebooks, and a book on 'F=ma.' I am sure the last piece in my anachronistic chronology was pure gold (Hawking's small books), at least when I was 8 or 9. My cabinet also had a book on Geometry; I still have that,


But what constitutes a perfect cabinet of curiosity? I don't know, but I guess in ancient times, or perhaps medieval, when kings and connoisseurs were making their cabinets, they included many precious things in them. We can't imagine even finding some of them now as they were exquisite in that period. I recommend you read some articles and books on it. Kings of those times were likely to build one hall or building to showcase what they had. Now, what they had is a different matter, but what to emphasize is that we have lost its culture. Though people, often academians, build a library that contains only books. I know some people who like to collect paintings, and their house is just paintings by artists like Van Gogh. I haven't seen any theatre of curiosity, and I hope to see it soon.


Curiosity is different for different persons. It pushes us to know what we can't, and I assume many have this definition in their books. However, some believe it to be a pause for us to stop searching. Curiosity doesn't mean you have to find what is to be found; you have to find what you want to find, which is the classic definition. Some doubt, in philosophy, how much curiosity is good. I have no idea; curiosity is not an entity of quantity, so how can we put an upper or lower bound on it? Curiosity is nothing if tied to the environment, and hence environment is the key to the 'subject' for defining what lies beyond curiosity.


An important thing to note is that there is a sentence in literature, "curiosity killed the cat," so we better not pry much and call it curiosity. Some works can be done without curiosity, and some need them badly. Science falls in the latter category.

Posted in , | 1 Comment Print it.

A Glorification in Darkness

 Amid the tensions anent many things, of which, the most destructible is COVID. I recall some verses from a book I read.

THAT I WANT thee, only thee-let my heart repeat

without end. All desires that distract me, day and night, are false

and empty to the core.

As the night keeps hidden in its gloom the petition for light,

even thus in the depth of my unconsciousness rings the cry-I want thee,

only thee.

As the storm stills seeks its end in peace when it strikes against

peace with all its might, even thus my rebellion strikes against

thy love and still its cry is-I want thee, only thee.


However, it can be interpreted that it was written to call some divine power. I interpret it differently. I just had a feeling to share this awaken poem, and you are allowed to search for the poet who wrote these beautiful verses.

Posted in | 2 Comments Print it.

Renormalization 1: Self-Interactions and Gell-Mann and Low

 We use Feynman diagrams to calculate some scattering or interaction, as we show in Fig 1. We try to maximize our knowledge of interaction by doing some integrals and eventually getting the matrix elements, which then is used for calculating the cross-sections (\sigma) and many more things.



Fig 1. Interaction of leptons through the neutral weak force.

There is a level, too basic but realistic in the classical sense, called "Tree Level," we compute anything first at the tree level to ignore the divergences, which will come if we go beyond (or under) the tree level. Where is this tree-level defined? It is defined differently. Fig 1 is a first-order Feynman Diagram. However, when we try to compute some higher-order diagrams at short distances, which inductively means high energy, we will get a diagram somewhat like the following.




Fig 2. Feynman Diagram of e^- e^+ \rightarrow e^-e^+ with the loops of pair production \gamma \gamma \rightarrow e^- e^+

    The circles [1] are screening and background process; those loops are still the first order Feynman diagram, but now built inside some other diagram. If we try to calculate the matrix elements of higher-order diagrams, just like Fig 2, we will get some divergences. This was then a big problem; whenever doing higher-order scattering, they got these divergences, which diverged the mainstream calculations to a more typical solution to these divergences.

As we go through the history of the physics of renormalization group (RG), there is a whole group theory of it, we see they built renormalization on the idea of field theory, which is where divergences appeared in those days, and still field theory [2] dominates the renormalization group studies. Murray Gell-Mann and Francis Low gave the solution, however, not the first in 1954. The solution then gave a whole new subject to the field theory. However, we can say Gell-Mann and Low solution is old-school after a detailed thesis on the Renormalization Group. They were not on the thought of giving much importance to the study of renormalization. Instead, they were working to eliminate the infinities in QED and Strong Confinement [3].

The solution which Gell-Mann and Low had given was a differential equation. Before we jump to that differential equation, there is more to discuss. The solution which Gell-Mann and Low had given was a differential equation. Before we jump to that differential equation, there is more to discuss. There is a shorter, yet too wrong, way to understand RG. Let us say a theory is divergent after some scale M, and then we impose a cutoff \Lambda which describes the theory under scale M. It is called Effective Field Theory, a hot topic of study whenever doing some speculative field theory.

Then, it was introduced that there are two notions of one measurement, one bare and second renormalized. Speaking of which, let us say an electron which we denote here as e_{\lambda} oscillates between two values. The first is the bare charge, and the second is the physical charge. When \lambda \rightarrow 0 the case is of former, and for \lambda \rightarrow \infty latter takes the command. We use bare quantities, which are renormalized contents, in measurements. So, renormalized charges are those charges which are defined at some energy level which in turn is defined using \Lambda. The remaining quantities are called counter-terms. With these counter-terms, the theory is appropriately not divergent now.

We have now touched the RG [4]. There is a lot more motivation for RG, including practical application in high-energy physics and condensed matter.


Footnotes;


[1] These are called self-interactions. We try to minimize these self-interactions. However, studying these loops gives us more intuition of particular theory when needed.


[2] Both Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Field Theory.


[3] This quest was why quarks could not be found in open space in free form, while leptons are found in their free form.


[4] This post was just a visualization of a brief history and crux of renormalization. There are many counter-intuitive feelings in a person who is studying RG. There is much more to discuss and much more to doubt.


Feel free to comment about questions and typos.

Posted in , | Leave a comment Print it.

Renormalization 0

Infrared and Ultraviolet Divergences are two common words that you can find in every field theory calculation. Withholding their appearance, they are pretty much important for understanding a universe in the way we can. 

And there is a typical advancement of a particular theory with some hidden divergence, either infra or ultra. We believe that Infra means "under", so infrared typically means under some threshold. In contrast, ultra means higher. You can think of ultra as more complicated than infra, but both are pretty much abstruse topics.

There is a famous term which is, in fact, a whole subject called Renormalization. They forge the story of Renormalization between two likely descriptions, namely SFT and QFT. QFT had its pioneers, Gell-Mann and Francis Low, who constantly tried to overcome the divergences coming on a high energy scale in Feynman diagram scatterings. The simple, yet very un-intuitive, idea was to make the infinity absorbed in a certain quantity. However, this description had many flaws. However, it wasn't actually solved until Kenneth Wilson jumped to the subject with his Renormalization notion, which was completely out of the herd. He had his papers published in Physical Review and more writing length on the topic, which many wanted to ignore.

-----

And here we stop. There will be some series of blogs and writings on Renormalization, so more to follow up.

Posted in , | Leave a comment Print it.

Unparticle Physics; Weirdness and Reminder

It is fascinating to read about abstruse Unparticle Physics. But it is very uncommon for an ordinary person to even hear the name "Unparticle Physics". It was first coined and explained by Howard Georgi in 2007 in a short paper. However, it is not a self-contained subject, it involves interesting, challenging, intricate topics like Scale Invariance and Banks-Zaks Field.

A scale-invariant theory is scale conserving theory. If you know the Mandelbrot set, you know they are scale-invariant. But a more simple example would be a circle and a radius. You can zoom in to the circle and still get the same angle (\theta). 

That is pretty much the idea of scale invariance. It comes with another invariance called Conformal Invariance. Conformal Invariance preserves the angle in a transformation ignoring the Lorentz transformations. Scale-Invariant theories are also pretty much Conformal Invariant theory. Any high energy theory contains at least two fields, in this scenario, Standard Model and Bank-Zaks Field. The latter field is called theory with non-trivial IR fixed point. Both the fields interact with the exchange of particle M_{\mu}, but under the energy M_{\mu} they don't interact, they can, but couplings are suppressed. 

Unparticle Physics has been structured on the M_{\mu} scale. It was wise to use Bank-Zaks operators as Unparticle operators in an Effective Field Theory with below \Lambda_{\mu} energy. The paper shows that it matches onto. For an O_{BZ} operator with mass dimension we have O_{\mu} with low dimensions. 

The propagator for unparticle physics is also quite useful. And the important note is that unparticle stuff ignores the gauge interactions from Standard Model. There are many things one can note from Unparticle Physics. One of them is its "Weirdness". It assumes particles with scale invariance that we haven't seen yet. It is impossible, right now, to test this theory. However, if we ever achieve it, it is going to be tremendous. One can ask, whether particles with conformal invariance exists or such questions.

In another paper, Georgi showed a simple interaction e^+ e^- \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-. It showed different scales of cross-sections, considering different symmetries and propagators. I will recommend you to check that paper. 

References

  1. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703260
  2. https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2457

Posted in | 1 Comment Print it.

The Game Theory Behind Tit for Tat

 People are often heard whispering "Tit for Tat", but reciprocally. Yet, what is the game theory behind Tit for Tat (TFT)? For that, what is TFT? 

TFT is the usual game for two/more individuals or two/more groups. It starts with a situation where one of the teams is given a chance to first act. This act can be of two types, either defection or cooperation. Then the second player acts according to the previous move. The most classic and well-known example is Chess. When white moves its piece, the black always makes a move according to the first. But this is not always right. In chess, if a move doesn't concern you much, you can follow your lead using your strategy without being in a situation where you have to act accordingly. 

However, there is one fascinating game theory called the Prisoner's Dilemma, which uses TFT (and its extensions) very much. It is intricate at first but self-realizing after you allow the logic to play itself. Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher were the first ones to realise this game. Afterwards, Robert Axelrod influenced this game theory.

Prisoner's Dilemma is a situation concerning the two criminals who are arrested. Let's say A and B are criminals. Just for the sake of game theory, we give both the criminals a chance to get free from charges. Conditions are that A and B are given two choices. These choices are imagined on a ground where both are standing with each other. The options are to either defect/betray the opponent or remain silent. The catch is, they are not allowed to talk or get informed about one another. Rules are as follows,

  • If A betrays B, and B betrays A, both will be charged with two years of the sentence.
  • If A betrays B and B remains silent. Then A will get free, and B will be charged for three years.
  • If B betrays A and A remains silent. Then B will get free, and A will be charged for three years.
  • If neither A nor B defects each other, they get only one year of charge.
This game is often played in analysing society and its next move. But, reading a criminal mind is not that easy.

For instance, A believes that if he defects the B, he will be free. And B at the moment decided to cooperate because B thought it would be in everyone's favour. Hence, on-ground A defected B and B cooperated, so B was defeated and charged for three years. You can analyse the same using replacing B with A. What if they both are willing to cooperate? This is uncertain, because A doesn't know what B has planned, and vice versa. The prisoner's dilemma offers a lot in the study of human minds and social actions.

Let us move to a more realistic example. When two soldiers of contrast political demographics join one another on the battleground to fight. They have two options, either they attack or stay calm. But this is also uncertain. For instance, one soldier wants to cooperate because he(/she) doesn't want to die, but he doubts the second soldier, may he attacks the first. And if that happens, the first one loses. So here comes the TFT. If one soldier shoots the other, then the second one will do the same, so TFT. If the first one cooperates, may the second cooperate or take the lead from the situation and kill the first.

So, it can be seen that the game is impressive. But what is the ideal situation in TFT? Most say that cooperators win most of the game. Only if both of them are rational. But, your every step should be structured using the tactics the opponent used in the last round. Cooperators or defectors, both can be found in society. And game theory suggests you perform, eye to eye, head to head, elbow to elbow, and most crucial peace to peace.

- A.V

Posted in , | Leave a comment Print it.

The First One on Philosophy of Science

It is very wondrous and naive to think of the Philosophy of Science as not a part of Science. It is merely innocence. From Socrates to Russell, from Newton to Dyson, everyone intelligently used this philosophy as a weapon to turn down the disturbances and get the very thing they wanted. In fact, intellectuals used this in their private life too.


By definition, Philosophy of Science seems nothing but an old-school study. And that deceives the overall person pursuing science to think relatively modern. And by modern, we mean something extraordinary. However, in quite a sense, remarkable and unparalleled are basically locations inside philosophy. But going through the works of Kant says nothing, I mean supposedly, about the cultural science. This cultural science is nothing but the experimental science that is usually derived from theoretical works. 


Here, Kant (1) is talking innocently about physics, and if we agree to a point, then we might lose the other point we were holding then. And yet if we are not satisfied, we are in a state of war with ourselves. However, if we are adequately met, we defeat a so-called monstrous idea. However, the outlandish idea is still a golden idea for someone else.


Conclusively, philosophy tells us much about War (2). However, this war is not dangerous (until a political angle jumps in), because it is some ideological war. And if we patiently derive what we would gain, then it would be some answers and confusions: Technically, both. The philosophy of science teaches us the importance of doing science, not just cultural science (or empirical), but also the science that deserves to be studied. While doing so, the individual must not be deceived by evils' ideas, otherwise, the person would be paralyzed in a peculiar non-cultural and baloney science. 


References and Footnotes


1) Citing Immanuel Kant works, such as Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, etc. 

2) It is quite an educational war. 



Posted in | Leave a comment Print it.