It’s paper season! I’ve got another paper out this week, this one a continuation of the hexagon function story.

The story so far:

My collaborators and I have been calculating “six-particle” (two particles collide, four come out, or three collide, three come out…) scattering amplitudes (probabilities that particles scatter) in N=4 super Yang-Mills. We calculate them starting with an ansatz (a guess, basically) made up of a type of functions called hexagon functions: “hexagon” because they’re the right functions for six-particle scattering. We then narrow down our guess by bringing in other information: for example, if two particles are close to lining up, our answer needs to match the one calculated with something called the POPE, so we can throw out guesses that don’t match that. In the end, only one guess survives, and we can check that it’s the right answer.

So what’s new this time?

**More loops:**

In quantum field theory, most of our calculations are approximate, and we measure the precision in something called loops. The more loops, the closer we are to the exact result, and the more complicated the calculation becomes.

This time, we’re at five loops of precision. To give you an idea of how complicated that is: I store these functions in text files. We’ve got a new, more efficient notation for them. With that, the two-loop functions fit into files around 20KB. Three loops, 500KB. Four, 15MB. And five? 300MB.

So if you want to imagine five loops, think about something that needs to be stored in a 300MB text file.

**More insight:**

We started out having noticed some weird new symmetries of our old results, so we brought in Simon Caron-Huot, expert on weird new symmetries. He couldn’t figure out that one…but he did notice an entirely different symmetry, one that turned out to have been first noticed in the 60’s, called the Steinmann relations.

The core idea of the Steinmann relations goes back to the old method of calculating amplitudes, with Feynman diagrams. In Feynman diagrams, lines represent particles traveling from one part of the diagram to the other. In a simplified form, the Steinmann conditions are telling us that diagrams can’t take two mutually exclusive shapes at the same time. If three particles are going one way, they can’t also be going another way.

With the Steinmann relations, things suddenly became a whole lot easier. Calculations that we had taken months to do, Simon was now doing in a week. Finally we could narrow things down and get the full answer, and we could do it with clear, physics-based rules.

**More bootstrap:**

In physics, when we call something a “bootstrap” it’s in reference to the phrase “pull yourself up by your own boostraps”. That impossible task, lifting yourself with no outside support, is essentially what we do when we “bootstrap”: we do a calculation with no external input, simply by applying general rules.

In the past, our hexagon function calculations always had some sort of external data. For the first time, with the Steinmann conditions, we don’t need that. Every constraint, everything we do to narrow down our guess, is either a general rule or comes out of our lower-loop results. We never need detailed information from anywhere else.

This is big, because it might allow us to avoid loops altogether. Normally, each loop is an approximation, narrowed down using similar approximations from others. If we don’t need the approximations from others, though, then we might not need any approximations at all. For this particular theory, for this toy model, we might be able to actually calculate scattering amplitudes exactly, for any strength of forces and any energy. Nobody’s been able to do that for this kind of theory before.

We’re already making progress. We’ve got some test cases, simpler quantities that we can understand with no approximations. We’re starting to understand the tools we need, the pieces of our bootstrap. We’ve got a real chance, now, of doing something really fundamentally new.

So keep watching this blog, keep your eyes on arXiv: big things are coming.

Wyrd SmytheYou sound excited, so this must be pretty good news! Congrats!

What sort of text is in those huge text files, he asked curiously…

LikeLike

4gravitonsandagradstudentPost authorThanks!

It’s literally pretty much just functions and variables: G[{0,q1,q2,1,…},q1] and the like over and over.

LikeLike

Wyrd SmytheKind of like a long jazz piece with a principle theme and endless variations on that theme?

LikeLike

giuliohomeAnd is there a program to produce the file? Is it open source?

LikeLike

4gravitonsandagradstudentPost authorThe file itself is available online. As for the script, the different collaborators had different implementations and we didn’t polish the code to a publicly viewable level by any stretch (pretty typical of these one-off kinds of codes in physics). We describe the process in the paper, the implementation isn’t that tricky if you know what you’re doing.

LikeLiked by 1 person

giuliohome“the implementation isn’t that tricky if you know what you’re doing.” Well, that is actually what I don’t know very well and I was trying to derive a better knowledge of the Feynman diagrams from a reverse engineering of the script… since I’m more confident to understand the software than the theoretical rules 😉

LikeLike

4gravitonsandagradstudentPost authorWell, in my case we don’t use Feynman diagrams anyway. If you’re interested in learning in that fashion though, there is quite a lot of code available that calculates Feynman diagrams, most of it open-source. MadGraph, for example, has a pretty good reputation.

LikeLiked by 1 person