Part One of a Series on N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory
In one of my old posts, I called Wikipedia’s explanation of N=4 super Yang-Mills theory only “half-decent”. It’s not particularly bad, though it could use more detail. What it isn’t, and what I wanted, was an explanation that would make sense to a general audience (i.e., you guys!).
Well, if you want something done right, you have to quote that cliché. Or, well, do it yourself.
This is the first in a series of articles that will explain N=4 super Yang-Mills theory. In this series I take that phrase apart bit by bit, explaining as I go. And because I’m perverse and out to confuse you, I’ll start with the last bit and work my way up.
N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory
Now as a relatively well-educated person, you may be grumbling at this point. “I know what a theory is!”
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Ah. It appears you’ve been talking to the biologists again. This is exactly why we needed this post. Let’s have a chat.
To be clear, when a biologist says that something (evolution, say, or germ theory) is a theory, this is exactly what they mean. They are describing an idea that has been repeatedly tested and that actually describes the real world. Most other scientists work the same way: geologists (plate tectonics theory), chemists (molecular orbital theory), even most physicists (big bang theory). But this isn’t what theoretical physicists mean when they say theory. In contrast, most things that theorists call theories have no experimental evidence, and usually aren’t even meant to describe the real world.
Unlike the AAAS definition above, theoretical physicists don’t have a formal definition of their usage of theory. If we did, it might go something like this:
“A theory (in theoretical physics) consists of a list of quantum fields, their properties, and how they interact. These fields do not need to be ones that exist in the natural world, but they do have to be (relatively) mathematically consistent. To study a theory is then to consider the interactions of a specific list of quantum fields, without taking into account any other fields that might otherwise interfere.”
Note that there are ways to get around parts of this definition. The (2,0) theory is famously mysterious because we don’t know how to write down the interactions between its fields, but even there we have an implicit definition of how the fields interact built into the theory’s definition, and the challenge is to make that definition explicit. Other theories stretch the definition of a quantum field, or cover a range of different properties. Still, all of them fit the basic template: define some mathematical entities, and describe how they interact.
With that definition in hand, some of you are already asking the next question: “What are the quantum fields of N=4 super Yang-Mills? How do they interact?”
Tune in to the next installment to find out!