tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post4756404122048276468..comments2024-02-21T12:00:06.397-07:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: In Physics, Rigor Is Often Late To The PartyAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-83190235342772727212018-12-11T00:51:30.483-07:002018-12-11T00:51:30.483-07:00The earlier work by these two authors - ref 1 in t...The earlier work by these two authors - ref 1 in this paper - <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04852" rel="nofollow">has been challenged as incorrect</a>. <br /><br />I would have to think about it a little, but I think that the gauge invariance of the standard model would widely be regarded as trivially proven, on the grounds that once you understand how anomalies work, that's it. Either the theory has local anomalies and it breaks down, or it doesn't and it's OK. <br /><br />On the other hand, I can find papers from the early 1990s saying that proving gauge invariance in QED is quite difficult, so I may be missing something. <br /><br />One detail may be, whether these proofs are in the context of a particular calculation scheme. Then you have to worry about ghost fields, renormalization methods, etc. The attitude might be that proving that a QFT is gauge-invariant "in principle" is (relatively) simple, but then you also have to check that a particular calculational framework also gives gauge-invariant results. And if it doesn't, you don't say the theory is not gauge-invariant, you say that the method of calculation is incorrect. <br /><br />Arnold Neumaier might be someone within our communities who knows the formal side of this topic. Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.com