4 ms·
Last I checked the there were enough free parameters in these calculations to make the calculations of less than convincing. For example those 'hadronic observ
by mrjangles 5y ago
Last I checked the there were enough free parameters in these calculations to make the calculations of less than convincing. For example those 'hadronic observables' make up such a big part of the actual results that what is left over is within the error bounds anyway.
However, that was over 7 years ago, and someone else in the comments linked an article talking about the breakthroughs since then, and they seem significant, so things may well have improved since then.
Regardless, lattice QCD has always been real science and always been quite impressive. Any direct attempt to match theory with known experiments always is real science regardless of whether you agree with the methods.
- evanb 5y ago> Last I checked the there were enough free parameters in these calculations to make the calculations of less than convincing. For example those 'hadronic observables' make up such a big part of the actual results that what is left over is within the error bounds anyway. Indeed, this is more like a fifteen-year-old understanding. For example in 2008 , the authors of https://inspirehep.net/literature/804184 https://inspirehep.net/literature/804184 tuned to reproduce the pion and kaon masses (to fix the quark masses) and then predict ~ a dozen further masses, and in 2015 they computed the proton/neutron mass splitting https://inspirehep.net/literature/1300659 https://inspirehep.net/literature/1300659 . In https://inspirehep.net/literature/1675748 https://inspirehep.net/literature/1675748 we reproduced the nucleon axial coupling to ~1%.