Whatever happened to Thirring and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio

  • Thread starter OOO
  • Start date
In summary: Estes"), with especially dreadful results; we stood together in a creek basin behind the woods near my house, and both of us wore goggles and hard hats. My friend stood behind a tree, and I fired the thing up the hill. It did exactly as we were hoping for it to do... until it bounced off of a rock. It came shrieking back down the hill at us, rolling end-over-end, and landed in the creek right at my feet. We watched it finish burning out underwater. We went home a bit freaked out after that. If I had taken pictures I would post them, but I never took any pictures...
  • #1
OOO
304
0
I have noticed that in the nineties there was a boost of activity on the Thirring and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio models and bosonization, which I find highly interesting. I have already got me a huge (virtual) pile of papers to wade through.

But probably it will save me a lot of wasted time if somebody here could answer the following questions:

* What stopped interest in these models ?
* Are they too simple ?
* Have they got serious flaws ?
* Is bosonization related to supersymmetry ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
people are still working on it, but what is it you want to do? These models basically showed us how to spontaneously break a gauge symmetry by a fermion condensate, in direct analogy with BCS superconductors. OK, now what? We already have (and ruled out) technicolor. Also, as you mention, they're kind of silly models: D=2, large N... They were (and are) very important to justify things, but what do you plan to do with them now that they've been worked out?
 
  • #3
blechman said:
They were (and are) very important to justify things, but what do you plan to do with them now that they've been worked out?

I have just noticed the equivalence between Thirring and Sine-Gordon and thought it is interesting that bosons and fermions are in a sense equivalent. Especially if one thinks of the difficulties with fermions in several applications...

I've already learned about the special role of the conformal group being infinite dimensional in D=2 but not in D>2. But I can hardly believe that this only works in 2D. Perhaps there are some yet undiscovered connections between fermions and bosons. Hence my question about the connection to SUSY, though I don't know if this is at all in the same league.

But I'm a novice and probably this is all pointless.
 
  • #4
OOO said:
But I'm a novice and probably this is all pointless.

Nothing pointless in a good question! ;-)

A famous example of this kind of thing (susy + fermion condensation) is "gaugino condensation". Look that one up. There are others as well.

Play with it, have fun! Historically, I think that NJL was important in high-energy theory to motivate technicolor, and after that, people were satisfied (it's in that context that I learned it). I'm not an expert in NJL research of the 1990's though, so maybe it's found another home.
 
  • #5
blechman said:
Play with it, have fun!

Sane attitude. :smile: Although one tries not to reinvent the wheel... It's not easy to do something new, let alone finding something important.

Thanks a lot, blechman.
 
  • #6
OOO said:
Although one tries not to reinvent the wheel... It's not easy to do something new,

Empirical proof attached: myself, a bored day about 2005 or 2006. Yes, 2006 CE, no 2006 BCE. Note: Hereby I put the last picture in the public domain, license free, just in case you want to use it as example somewhere.
 

Attachments

  • pb090012.jpg
    pb090012.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 523
  • pb090013.jpg
    pb090013.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 388
  • pb090016.rueda.jpg
    pb090016.rueda.jpg
    39.6 KB · Views: 458
Last edited:
  • #7
arivero said:
Empirical proof attached: myself, a bored day about 2005 or 2006. Yes, 2006 CE, no 2006 BCE. Note: Hereby I put the last picture in the public domain, license free, just in case you want to use it as example somewhere.

LOL... at least you chose something safe to reinvent, arivero. One of my best friends in high school and I, back in 1999, decided to "reinvent" the shoulder-fired rocket launcher (with model rocket engines, parts, and equipment from "Estes"), with especially dreadful results; we stood together in a creek basin behind the woods near my house, and both of us wore goggles and hard hats. My friend stood behind a tree, and I fired the thing up the hill. It did exactly as we were hoping for it to do... until it bounced off of a rock. It came shrieking back down the hill at us, rolling end-over-end, and landed in the creek right at my feet. We watched it finish burning out underwater. We went home a bit freaked out after that. If I had taken pictures I would post them, but I never took any pictures...

On a more relevant note, I think it is often a good idea to "reinvent" some things for yourself, just so you can become familiar with them. Alot of my experience in particle physics has been all about "reinventing" different aspects of the standard model that I've been interested in. I gained a better understanding that way than I ever got from my undergrad classes. Its interesting; some of my earliest, and most embarrasingly naive, work in physics research, when I was in the "reinventing" phase, led directly to some of my latest and most notable journeys in physics theory.
 
  • #8
mormonator_rm said:
LOL... at least you chose something safe to reinvent, arivero. One of my best friends in high school and I, back in 1999, decided to "reinvent" the shoulder-fired rocket launcher .

Bah, as they say, that is not rocket science. Oh, wait, it is.
 
  • #9
OOO said:
It's not easy to do something new, let alone finding something important.

tell me about it!

I also agree whole-heartedly with mormonator_rm. I've done a whole lot of "reinventing" - you'll never learn anything if you just read it and take the word of fools like me! ;-)
 
  • #10
mormonator_rm, arivero, blechman,

thanks again for all your encouraging and entertaining words. So I guess the first thing for me to do will be trying to forget that I may be hit by my own rocket...
 
  • #11
OOO said:
mormonator_rm, arivero, blechman,

thanks again for all your encouraging and entertaining words. So I guess the first thing for me to do will be trying to forget that I may be hit by my own rocket...

Just a word of advice...

If you are going to "reinvent" something, choose the item wisely.

As I discovered, weapons are not safe to "reinvent"... :biggrin:

Physics theories, however, are certainly safe to "reinvent", as long as you can get good information from the right sources. In the beginning you just need to focus on having fun, and don't take it too seriously. You will follow in the footsteps of many who have gone before you, and you will find a sense of accomplishment in figuring out how they did it, and seeing your results match theirs. As you go further along, you will find yourself "reinventing" things which may not have been invented yet, at which point you are no longer "reinventing". Just enjoy what you are doing, finish your education, and in time you will happily go down your chosen path.
 
  • #12
well said!
 

Related to Whatever happened to Thirring and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio

1. What is the Thirring model?

The Thirring model is a quantum field theory that describes the behavior of a massless Dirac field interacting with an external electromagnetic field. It was proposed by Walter Thirring in 1958 as a simplified version of quantum electrodynamics.

2. What is the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model?

The Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model is a quantum field theory that describes the dynamics of fermions interacting through a four-fermion interaction. It was proposed by Yoichiro Nambu and Giovanni Jona-Lasinio in 1961 as a simplified model of the strong nuclear force.

3. Why were these models important in the past?

Both the Thirring and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio models were important in the past because they provided valuable insights into the behavior of quantum field theories, particularly in the context of the strong nuclear force. They also served as building blocks for more complex theories.

4. What happened to these models?

While the Thirring and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio models were groundbreaking at the time of their proposals, they were eventually superseded by more advanced theories that better described the behavior of the strong nuclear force and other fundamental interactions.

5. Are these models still relevant today?

Although the Thirring and Nambu-Jona-Lasinio models may not be as widely used in current research, they are still studied and referenced in the context of historical developments in quantum field theory. They also serve as important examples of simplified models and their limitations in describing complex phenomena.

Similar threads

Back
Top