Physicists develop a formula that contradicts decades of published research

March 14, 2016, University of Cincinnati
A theoretical physics discovery is about to set the research field buzzing
UC physics researchers Nayana Shah and Carlos Bolech

Bazinga! University of Cincinnati theoretical physicists are about to report on a controversial discovery that they say contradicts the work of researchers over the decades.

The discovery concerns the conventional approach toward bosonization-debosonization. For folks outside the physics lab and the whiteboard, this could affect calculations regarding the future of quantum computers as well as your electronic devices as they become smaller, faster and more advanced. Nayana Shah, a University of Cincinnati assistant professor of physics, and Carlos Bolech, a UC associate professor of physics, will be among researchers from around the world presenting groundbreaking research at the March meeting of the American Physical Society, which takes place March 14-18 in Baltimore.

The discovery involves how to solve problems when there are strong interactions between particles that need to work in harmony with each other – bosons or fermions. An example of a fermion is an electron and an example of a boson is a light particle (photon).

To get these particles to interact with each other and therefore power the high-tech devices of the future, do calculations, a sort of alchemy, to transform fermions into bosons, called bosonization, or in reverse apply formulas for debosonization. "This 'refermionization' is like magic, because it can turn originally intractable problems into exactly solvable ones," explains Shah.

A theoretical physics discovery is about to set the research field buzzing

The researchers, however say they found that certain solutions with and without bosonization were not matching, despite the fact that the two were supposed to be exact. Shah and Bolech report that the issue involved violation of certain conservation laws in the bosonization-based procedure.

"An innovative reworking allowed us to incorporate some of the missing pieces into the steps of bosonization and debosonization and restore the magic," says Bolech. The researchers applied their new consistent formalism toward what's called the Nonequilibrium Kondo Problem in the world, a problem which can be applied to interacting electrons at the nano-scale – the very tiniest scale possible for electronics.

"What are the implications for the large body of past work that has used bosonization since the 1990s and earlier? Many results will have to be reworked," says Bolech.

"The good news is that the consistent formalism gives a general recipe for how to proceed," adds Shah.

Two papers reporting the research were recently published in the American Physical Society's Condensed Matter Physics journal, Physical Review B.

Explore further: ATLAS sees Higgs boson decay to fermions

More information: www.aps.org/meetings/march/index.cfm

Related Stories

ATLAS sees Higgs boson decay to fermions

November 28, 2013

The ATLAS experiment at CERN has released preliminary results that show evidence that the Higgs boson decays to two tau particles. Taus belong to a group of subatomic particles called the fermions, which make up matter. ...

Shaking bosons into fermions

December 4, 2015

Particles can be classified as bosons or fermions. A defining characteristic of a boson is its ability to pile into a single quantum state with other bosons. Fermions are not allowed to do this. One broad impact of fermionic ...

One kind of supersymmetry shown to emerge naturally

April 9, 2014

(Phys.org) —UC Santa Barbara physicist Tarun Grover has provided definitive mathematical evidence for supersymmetry in a condensed matter system. Sought after in the realm of subatomic particles by physicists for several ...

Recommended for you

Study: Pulsating dissolution found in crystals

January 17, 2018

When German researchers examined time-lapse images of dissolving crystals at the nanoscale, they found a surprise: Dissolution happened in pulses, marked by waves that spread just like ripples on a pond.

27 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ogg_ogg
3.8 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2016
I suppose its useless to carp about the claim here that calculations are alchemy. Nor to mention the implication that if a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to calculate its trajectory, then it doesn't exist. So, the Abstract claims the "conventional" approach yields results inconsistent with the "exact" approach, and that their approach IS consistent. OK. Seems like a good thing; Progress, even (in the applicable realm of application, which may indeed include quantum computation) - but the devil's in the details.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2016
Never mind that neither is exact. There are only two particles, a + and a - particle. No others. The idea that particles and waves share a duality is a misinterpretation of the fact: particles emit waves but waves do not emit particles. A static wave from a motionless particles is a sphere about the particle where the E field is equal to the particle's field divided by the surface area of the sphere and stretches to infinity. Motion of the particle provides a changing wave. The idea of duality is absurd. Maybe you should take your head out of your book and look outside! Want to contradict something, try modern physics. https://onedrive....le%2cpdf
KeithMcC
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2016
A generic title for a generic bafflegab Physorg article.
PhysicsMatter
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016
Again level of abstraction is so high that theories are mostly unverifiable speculations that are being taken at face value as related to "reality" until someone comes up with another "better" speculation equally unverifiable but mathematically convincing.

More on surrealism of Quanta can be found here:

https://questforn...-quanta/
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (14) Mar 15, 2016
I suppose its useless to carp about the claim here that calculations are alchemy.

Alchemy: teh art of turning one type of material into another. That's exactly what bosonizatiion/debosonization does (mathematically) in order to solve some particular sets of problems.

Again level of abstraction is so high that theories are mostly unverifiable speculations

Since these theories are being applied to observable phenomena: what are you babbeling about?

Physics is building *models* of reality. Didn't that ever occur to you before?
wizardo
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 15, 2016
Physics is building *models* of reality.

This is why things went awry. Physics should be about studying reality, not "making it up".
More on this: http://youstupidr...gix.html
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 15, 2016

This is why things went awry. Physics should be about studying reality,

What else is physics about? You look at reality and try to find a model that fits. Then you test the sweet Bejeezus out of it to see if it actually is as good as it looks.

What other method did you have in mind when you say "studying reality" except for observing it and forming hypotheses and then validating/falsifying them?

Reality doesn't just go and hand you a slip of paper on which is written: "this is the way it is", you know? (Well, other than in some religious nucases' fantasies, I mean)
swordsman
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2016
They need to correlate this theory with all of the known actions of bosons and fermions that has been demonstrated over and over for two centuries. A theory that is quite unfounded as yet.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2016
we also have formula which covers decades of research: Energy-Mass-Gravity Theory https://www.resea.../figures
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016
I suppose its useless to carp about the claim here that calculations are alchemy.

Alchemy: teh art of turning one type of material into another. That's exactly what bosonizatiion/debosonization does (mathematically) in order to solve some particular sets of problems.

Again level of abstraction is so high that theories are mostly unverifiable speculations

Since these theories are being applied to observable phenomena: what are you babbeling about?

Physics is building *models* of reality. Didn't that ever occur to you before?

Yes, right-on! The model shall match the fairy tale. I like that. I'd rather live in fantasy verified by reality than reality verified by fantasy. "What, mommy, time to go to bed. OK."
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016

This is why things went awry. Physics should be about studying reality,

What else is physics about? You look at reality and try to find a model that fits. Then you test the sweet Bejeezus out of it to see if it actually is as good as it looks.

What other method did you have in mind when you say "studying reality" except for observing it and forming hypotheses and then validating/falsifying them?

Reality doesn't just go and hand you a slip of paper on which is written: "this is the way it is", you know? (Well, other than in some religious nut-cases' fantasies, I mean)

Wow, what a great idea. What I see is a very, very lot of "+" and "-" things called protons and electrons. We manipulate them; but. what are they? Everything has them. They either repel portional to the surface area of the sphere drawn about the sphere or repel. So can that define gravity? Ok study som'n else, like bending space and time, yeah, that's what we'll concentrate upon.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
So the girl running from the monster picks up a banana to defend herself and runs out the door toward the monster!

But it's all Bull $hit darling!

Why is time in degrees and not feet? Or should it be simply unresolved linear space such as a fractal? Or maybe this array of 2 particles in many forms is all there is. "Mommy, I got a headache."

Who's reality!
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2016
The idea of duality is absurd
No, Rufus - what's absurd is the idea that a person trained only in certain aspects of electrical engineering can have sufficient technical and theoretical knowledge of QM to be able to upset the 100 years of study, effort and sheer genius that has gone into making QM THE most successful physical theory EVER devised by mankind.

In an article you link to, you state "No proof of reality of Quantum theory exists to date..." Well, in one sense that's true: physical theories are never proven, only disproved: most (educated) people understand this. QM predicts many quantifiable results however, which are regularly observed millions, trillions of times daily.

You go on to say "Proliferating outrageous myths of science ultimately will not succeed in steering creative minds of young people toward pursuing scientific methods of learning about reality around us". But Rufus: your shallow, hopelessly inept "+/-" hypothesis does just that! Bazinga!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2016
"+/-" hypothesis does just that! Bazinga!

What? QM is a simple wave equation, potential and kinetic energy with maxwell and statistics. Of course it works. My issue that the prediction is not causal or derivable. Not a theory, a mathematical construct. The issue of a model using only the "+" and "-" particles is completely holistic without the error of misinterpretation upon what is possible. Duality, something in two places at once, dead cats or live cats, heads or tails is probability theory. Get real, you have no idea what you're talking about. i.e. my point exactly! Duality using an experiment that does nothing to prove that waves are particles, it's one and the same experiment, idiot. Antimatter, different state of normal matter, switch charges that revolve, do you ever try thinking? Please don't criticize proof. Try logic. I usually don't call names it's not right, so don't be offended, be challenged. Dumb Ass, really no offense its peer pressure
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2016
By the way, I was taking QM and Modern Physics at the same time while obtaining a BSEE. I found them both unnecessary due the false assumptions. No, I did well. My hobby is physics. My desire as a child was to be a theoretical physicist. A accepted the steady state theory as reasonable and the Big Bang as non-sensical. So I was a physicist before I left high school. I am able to define the instrumentation you will use to measure everything. So don't poo poo an MSEE at age 68. The EE will be the one who gives you proof of your absurdities.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2016
Duality, something in two places at once, dead cats or live cats, heads or tails
I see where you're coming from - you're uncomfortable with the these notions as they are derived from QM, or rather from interpretations of QM.

But we are an inquisitive, dare I say "curious", species and one of the things which distinguish us is our ability to operate outside of our comfort zones, to explore - sometimes with little hope of reaching (Columbus?) a far shore. The very act of exploration is often enough to free us from our preconceived notions and to open our minds to new ideas or experiences.

And, even after decades of trying to wrap our heads around the strangeness of quantum systems, where a linear type of logic simply doesn't help, there are still those of us who would rather retreat into the safety of their shells. "Duality? absurd! leave me in peace...".

Have it any way you want, my friend. Just don't berate the world for being the way it is...
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2016
Of course it works. My issue that the prediction is not causal or derivable. Not a theory, a mathematical construct.
But all mathematical models used to describe, or support, physical theories are just that: constructs, tools, models. They're not the thing that's being described or supported, any more than a painting of downtown Manhattan could be taken for the real thing.

There's been a healthy debate going on for centuries as to whether mathematics is an intrinsic property of the world, inextricable from physical reality, or whether it's simply a construct invented purely by mathematicians who like to play mind-games. The jury's still out on that one, though...

Suffice it to say that Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger and others, who were trying to come up with a mathematical framework with which to embody their latent theories, were no doubt delighted to discover that such frameworks had already been established/invented/discovered, years before they were needed as such.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2016


Suffice it to say that Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger and others, who were trying to come up with a mathematical framework with which to embody their latent theories, were no doubt delighted to discover that such frameworks had already been established/invented/discovered, years before they were needed as such.


My Masters thesis was on logic, sorta, controls for a hypersonic vehicle downgraded to a flexible wing vehicle, same technique. So any logic is definable; however, Columbus did not reach India, but America. We can absolutely know where we are or we cannot. juz say'n

It takes time to really get it! First define your logic, define your mathematical rules, measure the unknown, define truth as it reveals itself, don't keep calling Native Americans Indians. Ok for you, but an insult to Truth!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2016
I was taking QM and Modern Physics at the same time while obtaining a BSEE. I found them both unnecessary due the false assumptions
why do i find it hard to believe that an EE ignored QM as being "unnecessary due the false assumptions"??

you know, my daughter is also an EE with a PE working in R&D and she also is skeptical of an EE making said above claim

so, does this mean you don't believe in computers?
Columbus did not reach India, but America
uhm, nope. he actually reached the Caribbean islands... totally missed the American continents
define truth
truth is subjective, btw... there is only data and what can be proven by replication
don't keep calling Native Americans Indians
ok, i agree with this because we prefer to be called by our tribal affiliations (like Lakota)

but it is not "truth" per se (again, truth is subjective to the individual)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016


but it is not "truth" per se (again, truth is subjective to the individual)

An analogy for Christ's sake. Whatever, I build better models, not a garbage filter; albeit, 19th century required, but "nuts" today
SkyLy
3 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2016
"We just discovered in equation number 5854654162 that on the 4894651th line, 2698th column, it is not absolute_value(x), but absolute_value(-x). Einstein was wrong."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2016
Of course it works. My issue that the prediction is not causal or derivable. Not a theory, a mathematical construct.
But all mathematical models used to describe, or support, physical theories are just that: constructs, tools, models. They're not the thing that's being described or supported, any more than a painting of downtown Manhattan could be taken for the real thing.
The painting is either accurate or not accurate; it either does or does not accurately depict downtown Manhattan. On the other hand it either is or is not beautiful; and that has nothing to do with whether it is or is not accurate.

But its beauty or lack thereof is immaterial to its accuracy; and if we are speaking of science its accuracy is the only measure of its scientific value; its beauty is immaterial.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
I had intended to say "map", but "painting" came out, and it was too late to change. Of course, maps can also be beautiful, but what I meant was that any kind of representation of "reality" will always fail to fully describe what it is trying to represent.

But it's never intended to do that: it's just a useful model (until a better one comes along) which helps us to understand some aspect of that reality. In the case of the map, it's intended to show us the 2D relationships between objects in that reality, enabling us to plan a route between such objects. The painting would attempt to give us a feel for cultural aspects of what it depicts.

All such representations: paintings, maps, films, whatever: they're all just models of real things, and not those things themselves. Just as mathematical models and physical theories which describe physical events or objects (or aspects thereof) should not be perceived to be, or meant to be, the event or object being described.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
All such representations: paintings, maps, films, whatever: they're all just models of real things, and not those things themselves.
Agreed.

I'll also point out that the individual you were answering seems a bit unclear on the meaning of "theory" in physics. Saying, "Not a theory, a mathematical construct" is kind of like saying, "Not a car, an automobile." It's a category error. You can't make a physics theory without making a mathematical construct.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 21, 2016
Of course it works. My issue that the prediction is not causal or derivable. Not a theory, a mathematical construct.
But all mathematical models used to describe, or support, physical theories are just that: constructs, tools, models. They're not the thing that's being described or supported, any more than a painting of downtown Manhattan could be taken for the real thing.
The painting is either accurate or not accurate; it either does or does not accurately depict downtown Manhattan. On the other hand it either is or is not beautiful; and that has nothing to do with whether it is or is not accurate.

But its beauty or lack thereof is immaterial to its accuracy; and if we are speaking of science its accuracy is the only measure of its scientific value; its beauty is immaterial.

Think you mean serves its purpose.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Mar 21, 2016
Think you mean serves its purpose.
There are many things that are beautiful whose purpose (if any) is not beauty.

However, there is no scientific definition of beauty.

But the real question here isn't about beauty or truth or other philosophy; it's about science, and how science works. And how science works mostly is by using mathematical constructs.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 24, 2016
Think you mean serves its purpose.
There are many things that are beautiful whose purpose (if any) is not beauty.

However, there is no scientific definition of beauty.

But the real question here isn't about beauty or truth or other philosophy; it's about science, and how science works. And how science works mostly is by using mathematical constructs.

You may use science to describe beauty. You may use it also to describe it per individual. Try a fuzzy control.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.