The first Landscape in physics appeared after the work of Vladimir Gribov. It represents Gribov copies in non-Abelian gauge theories.
Non-Abelian gauge theories are defined on configuration spaces with a redundancy, the gauge orbit, consisting of all
1/
configurations related by local gauge transformations. In the continuum, Gribov showed in 1977 that standard gauge-fixing conditions are satisfied by multiple inequivalent field configurations (the so-called Gribov copies). The Fundamental Modular Region (FMR), defined
2/
as the set of absolute minima of the gauge-fixing functional, is bounded by the Gribov horizon where the Faddeev-Popov operator develops zero modes (Singer, 1978, Zwanziger, 1989).
I have imagined the FMR as if it were a geographical zone with many different valleys,
3/
but all of them on the same large basin, such that the Gribov horixon is a sort of equipotential rounding that valley.
More concrete, one has a landscape, being the space of all possible gauge configurations as a vast terrain. Because the "terrain" is non-linear and
4/
complicated, the functional often has multiple local minima. Each local minimum is a "valley," and each represents a Gribov copy (different mathematical descriptions of the exact same physical state.)
The First Gribov Region is defined as the set of points where the
5/
Faddeev-Popov operator is positive definite. In my analogy the Gribov Horizon is like "ridge". As long as one is inside the "valley," the ground is curving upward in every direction (technically, the Hessian is positive). The Gribov Horizon is the boundary where the "ground"
6/
becomes flat in at least one direction (the first zero eigenvalue). Beyond that horizon, the terrain starts to slope downward into another valley. The Gribov Region: Contains all the "valleys" (local minima).
While the Gribov Horizon defines the limit of the first valley,
7/
the FMR is the "deepest part of the deepest valley." It is the set of absolute minima of the gauge functional; it is the FMR is the unique "lowest basin" in the center of the terrain.
In my analogy, the "equipotential" aspect is related to the horizon that is defined by
8/
the point where the lowest eigenvalue of the Faddeev-Popov operator M(A)=−∂⋅D(A) hits zero: det(M(A))=0
Following with the analogy, at high energies (short distances), the terrain is simple. But at low energies (long distances), the "terrain" becomes incredibly rugged.
9/
The Gribov horizon effectively acts as a "wall" that modifies the behavior of gluons, potentially explaining why we never see them in isolation.
10/10
(I love analogies)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Unifying Hadrons with SU(3) Symmetry: On the discovery of the SU(3) Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula
Early in the 20th century, the recognized elementary particles were the electron, proton, and neutron, along with the neutrino. After the discovery of mesons
1/
in cosmic rays, the list of known particles expanded to include muons and pions. The similar masses of the proton and neutron, as well as those of the three pions (π⁺, π⁰,π⁻), led to the idea of isotopic-spin invariance of strong interactions,
2/
represented by the SU(2) group.
However, by the 1950s, many new hadrons, like kaons and "strange" baryons (e.g., Lambda and Sigma), were discovered. To account for their properties, a new quantum number called hypercharge (Y) was introduced.
3/
In April 1961 there was a big Centennial Celebration at MIT. Naturally it was a proud, joyous, even intoxicating Celebration. At the week-long event there was a panel discussion on “The Future of Physics”, chaired by Francis Low, with four speakers
1/
in the following order: John Cockcroft, Rudolf Peierls, Yang Chen-Ning and Richard Feynman.
Yang stated that "since there seems to be too ready a tendency to have boundless faith in a 'future fundamental theory', I shall sound some pessimistic notes. And in this Centennial
2/
celebration, in an atmosphere charged with excitement, with pride for past achievements and an expansive outlook for the future, it is perhaps not entirely inappropriate to interject these somewhat discordant
notes.”
3/
An adventure: In a seminar with Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman.
(As told by Lars Brink)
The seminar room has a huge table in the middle and the senior people were sitting along it and we juniors along the walls.
1/
Feynman had a given seat — the first in the row next to the speaker — and he was fully concentrated.
Those were the times of hand-written slides which were shown on a viewgraph projector. Feynman was intensively reading the slides and was always eager to know what
2/
was on the next slide. We used to say that if the answers to his questions were on the next slide it was a talk to his liking, if not the speaker was in some kind of trouble.
With both Feynman and Gell-Mann present at a seminar, the atmosphere was high strung,
3/
Wolfgang Pauli wrote a letter to Alfred Landé where he expressed his views concerning the exclusion principle; it was a preview of an article he was preparing. Pauli's letter arrived at the same moment as
1/
Ralf Kronig was visiting Germany. This young American physicist, then only 20 years old, arrived in Tübingen on 7 January 1925 to represent the University of Columbia at a meeting with Landé and Gerlach.
Landé told him that Pauli was due to arrive the next day and
2/
showed him Pauli's letter.
Kronig: "Pauli stood so high in my estimation that, as I waited for his arrival, I eagerly plunged into the letter... It was a clear and critical exposition of the exclusion principle ... [and] impressed me hugely and naturally I wanted to grasp
3/
Niels Bohr’s explanation of the hydrogen atom, proposed originally in 1913, and its subsequent refinements explained a great deal of experimental data so well that by the early 1920s physicists felt there had to be some truth in it.
1/
Not all were happy with the Bohr's model. Some young physicists criticized it harshly. At that time, Werner Heisenberg still found some value in the model saying something like this: "the model is ugly, but Bohr has a method (of calculating)"
2/
However, by 1925 the model’s failures in providing satisfactory explanations of the stability of atoms, the details of the periodic table of elements, the absorption and emission of radiation by atoms, and the complex behavior of atoms in external electric and
3/