✎ Models [The Physics Travel Guide]

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Models ======

<diagram>
||||||| AA|| |AA=[[models:standard_model]]
||||| || |)@4 |-  |- |-|.@4 | | | |
||| AA|-@8|CC||BB |AA=[[models:standard_model:qed|Quantum Electrodynamics]]|BB=[[models:standard_model:qcd|Quantum Chromodynamics]]|CC=[[models:standard_model:electroweak|Electroweak Model]]
||||:@4||||:@4||||:@4||||
|||CC||BB|| AA|| |AA=[[models:toy_models:sine_gordon|Sine-Gordon Model]]|BB=[[models:toy_models:scalar_1plus1]]|CC=[[models:toy_models:schwinger_model]]
||||||||:@4||||:@4||||
|||||||BB|| AA|| |AA=[[models:basic_models:pendulum|Pendulum]]|BB=[[models:basic_models:harmonic_oscillator|Harmonic Oscillator]]|
</diagram>

The best model for the behaviour and interactions of [[advanced_notions:elementary_particles|elementary particles]] is known as the [[models:standard_model]]. It consists of [[models:standard_model:qcd|Quantum Chromodynamics]], which describes strong interactions, and the [[models:standard_model:electroweak|Electroweak Model]], which describes electroweak interactions. A crucial part of the [[models:standard_model:electroweak|Electroweak Model]] is [[models:standard_model:qed|Quantum Electrodynamics]].

----

Some models are not intended to describe nature accurately. Instead, they are **toy models**. Toy models are //theoretical laboratories// that help us to understand aspects of more complicated theories in a simplified setup. Examples are

* [[models:toy_models:sine_gordon|the Sine-Gordon Model]]
  * [[models:toy_models:scalar_1plus1|the Scalar 1+1 Model]]
  * [[models:toy_models:schwinger_model|the Schwinger Model]].

The simplest kind of toy models where we have essentially isolated one elementary degree of freedom are called **basic models**. Examples for basic models are

* [[models:basic_models:pendulum|the Pendulum]],
  * [[models:basic_models:harmonic_oscillator|the Harmonic Oscillator]].

----

**Definition of a Model**

It is convenient to define a model in terms of a [[formalisms:lagrangian_formalism|Lagrangian]]. However, there are models that cannot be described in terms of a Lagrangian((http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mert2255/papers/symmetries.pdf)).

In addition, there can be multiple Lagrangians for one and the same model. This is known as a [[advanced_notions:duality|duality]].

<tabbox Why are models interesting?>
<blockquote>The traditional approach of theoreticians, going back to the
foundation of quantum mechanics, is to run to Schrödinger’s
equation when confronted by a problem in atomic, molecular or
solid state physics! One establishes the Hamiltonian, makes some
(hopefully) sensible approximations and then proceeds to attempt
to solve for the energy levels, eigenstates and so on. However, for
truly complicated systems in what, these days, is much better
called “condensed matter physics,” this is a hopeless task;
furthermore, in many ways it is not even a very sensible one!

The modern attitude is, rather, that the task of the theorist is
to understand what is going on and to elucidate which are the
crucial features of the problem. For instance, if it is asserted that
the exponent [β] depends on the dimensionality, d, and on the
symmetry number, n, but on no other factors, then the theorist’s
job is to explain why this is so and subject to what provisos. If
one had a large enough computer to solve Schrödinger’s equation
and the answer came out that way, one would still have no understanding
of why this was the case!

Thus the need is to gain understanding, nut just numerical answers: that does not necessarily mean going back to Schrödinger's equation which, in any case, should be really regarded just as an approximation to some sort of gauge field theory. So the crucial change of emphasis of the last 20 or 30 years that distinguishes the new era from the old one is that when we look at the theory of condensed matter nowadays we inevitably talk about a "model". As a matter of fact even Schrödinger's equation and gauge field theories themselves are just models of the physical world, albeit pretty good ones as far as we can presently judge.

We should be prepared to look even at rather crude models, and, in particular,
to study the relations between different models. We may well try to
simplify the nature of a model to the point where it represents a ‘mere caricature’
of reality. But notice that when one looks at a good political cartoon one
can recognise the various characters even though the artist has portrayed them
with but a few strokes. Those well chosen strokes tell one all one really needs
to known about the individual, his expression, his intentions and his character.
So, accepting Frenkel’s guidance, [. . . ] a good theoretical model of a complex
system should be like a good caricature: It should emphasise those features
which are most important and should downplay the inessential details. Now
the only snag with this advice is that one does not really know which are the
inessential details until one has understood the phenomena under study. Consequently,
one should investigate a wide range of models and not stake one’s
life (or one’s theoretical insight) on one particular model alone. Nevertheless,
one model which, historically, has been of particular importance and which
has given us a great deal of confidence in the phenomenological descriptions
of critical exponents and scaling presented earlier deserves special attention:
this is the so-called Ising model. Even today its study continues to provide us
with new insights.

<cite>Michael E. Fisher.
Scaling, universality and renormalization group theory.
In F.J.W. Hahne, editor, Critical Phenomena, volume 186 of
Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin, 1983. Summer School held at
the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa; January 18–29,
1982, Springer-Verlag.</cite>
</blockquote>

</tabbox>

Please solve the following equation to prove you're human. 121 -13 = Please keep this field empty:

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools