Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Status of lattice standard model

  1. Jul 18, 2015 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What is the "consensus" status of the existence of a lattice standard model? These two sets of notes don't seem to be in agreement.

    Wiese's 2009 notes http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/saalburg/Lectures/wiese.pdf say "Thanks to a recent breakthrough in lattice gauge theory, the standard model is now consistently defined beyond perturbation theory."

    But Kaplan's notes http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2560, also from 2009 say "Thus we lack of a nonperturbative regulator for the Standard Model - but then again, we think perturbation theory suffices for understanding the Standard Model in the real world. If a solution to putting chiral gauge theories on the lattice proves to be a complicated and not especially enlightening enterprise, then it probably is not worth the effort (unless the LHC finds evidence for a strongly coupled chiral gauge theory!). However, if there is a compelling and physical route to such theories, that would undoubtedly be very interesting.

    Even if eventually a lattice formulation of the Standard Model is achieved ..."

    I'm aware of more off-the beaten-track proposals like http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1045, but I would like to have comments on the "mainstream" proposals first.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2015 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5896 reviews and analyzes the Luscher etc method in some detail and http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6947v3 reviews and discusses another method with negative results. At least the latter paper is a couple of years older than Wiese's notes and would have benefited from some consensus on whether the methods referred to have actually been successful. I haven't been following lattice and haven't really read these papers that I'm linking, but will take a closer look when I can. I figure that they at least suggest that Wiese was being a bit premature in declaring success.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook