Physics’ pursuit of uncovering the mysteries of the universe often involves controversy, and seemingly established ideas need to be re-evaluated. One such controversy involves the “maximum synthesis principle” in QCD, the quantum field theory of QCD, QUARKS and GLUON, some basic components of the universe. Often, this “principle” is often seen as a viable approach to addressing major theoretical challenges and has been criticized in a recent study.
Professor Paul Stevenson of Rice University, in a study published in a physical letter, argued that the idea would not solve the problem of re-normalizing program dependence, as it said. He emphasized the role of RG invariance, a fundamental property of quantum field theory, in which physical prediction does not depend on the specific way of defining re-normalized coupling constants (“re-normalization scheme”) . He conducted a more in-depth study of nuances, explaining: “For the exact theory, this symmetry is trivial and rather bland. It’s just a fact that a person is allowed to perform algebraic substitution, change of variables. The problem arises because we don’t have a definite result, which are just the first few terms of its perturbation series – truncating the series will destroy symmetry.”
Professor Stevenson proposed his own approach to solving problems in a well-known but controversial 1981 paper. It is based on what he calls the “minimum sensitivity principle”: approximate results, although not completely unchanged, locally unchanged, and around the best choice, any small scheme change will hardly change the result. He recently completed a book (available online open access) to elaborate on his approach.
He said his new paper is not about defending this principle – “It is an independent argument” but about explaining what is unchanging and what is not. He shows that the number of keys in the “maximum form of guaranteed payment” method is not constant, so the results obtained by the method still depend on the initial arbitrary scheme selection. “It just doesn’t work,” he said, highlighting the widespread misunderstanding of the nature of the program dependence in the scientific community. He stressed that this is not only a matter of determining the correct energy scale of the coupling constant. Indeed, the scale alone makes no sense. It is important that the scale and the scheme itself depend on the ratio of the parameter λ of the scheme, but in a simple and clear way. He shows that a specific number of each order is calculating. He stressed: “RG invariance is a symmetry, and any feasible approach to solving the dependency problem of solution should be formulated based on the symmetry of invariance.”
Professor Stevenson’s critical examination of “the greatest form of formativeness” reminds people that diligent review and re-evaluation in scientific research is always needed. Controversy and debate are needed if our theoretical model is to be as firm and precise as possible so that we can improve our understanding of the quantum world.
Arxiv link to see further discussion:
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2311.17360
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2312.11049
Journal Reference
Paul Stevenson, “Maximum Guarantee” does not work, Physical Letter B, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138288.
About the Author
Paul Stevenson In 1976, he received his bachelor’s degree and doctoral degree from the University of Cambridge. Started from Imperial College in London in 1979. After working at the postdoctoral work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the European Verification Institute, he moved to Rice University in Houston in 1984. At Rice, he often taught courses in quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics, and received one of the two awarded to the university. The famous George R. Brown Teaching Award. He retired early in 2015 and now lives in southwestern England. In addition to his work on re-normalization, he is committed to Gaussian effective potential λφ4 scalar field theory, as well as the possibility of hydrodynamic excitation of symmetric folding vacuums. He also wrote an influential early paper on “weak measurements” in quantum mechanics.
