John Donoghue

Seems problematic.

Did something happen recently?

Yes, I would expect it to be the Sommerfeld enhancement, but I was thinking that the top Higgs coupling was larger than its QCD coupling. And it should have a similar enhancement. Do we know how they compare in the actual amplitude?

Do you think that this if from Higgs exchange, which I think is stronger than QCD for the top quark at this energy?

Mine is shorter - I did not use a period. ( The arXiv refused to let me post with this abstract and made me say No in many words, so I am surprised that he got it past the ArXiv admin. The journal was happy to use it as written.)

www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/fulltext?ser...

This is my talk at the Campagna conference www.pifp2025.it/home

This was quite an interesting and well organized conference.

Incredibly stupid. Such a major investment, and tremendous output - one of biggest success stories of our time. To cut this at its peak output is a crime.

That one was indeed great. Also, their paper on the renormalization group of the weak nonleptonic Hamiltonian was a foundational classic.

journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...

I haven’t seen it mentioned here yet, but we have gotten word from CERN that both Mary K Gaillard and Jonathan Rosner have died. Their paper with Ben Lee was the entry to charm physics for so many of us, but each had separately a large impact on particle physics.

Yes this is incredibly damaging.

These work very well. I brought several home from a recent trip. Why not in the US?

It is a compilation of a lot of articles by many authors. All are on the arXiv. You can find many of them by using the search term Handbook of Quantum Gravity when searching via INSPIRE

Aren’t you likely to run into trouble with the Witten-Weinberg theorem when you try for a relativistic model of this type?

The shape near the minimum needs to be a quadratic. Probably the first deviation from that is also fixed by the need for the Higgs potential to be part of a renormalizable Lagrangian. Can measurements of the shape really tell us much?

Probably Ampere rather than Lorentz

Great news! Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics by Ta-Pei Cheng and Ling-Fong Li (Oxford) is now OPEN ACCESS! 🎉 You can read and download it for free using the PDF link below. 📖✨

fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/...

Our expectation of background is the equivalent of an undergraduate Quantum Mechanic course. Two examples are the commutation relation of [x,p] and an introduction to perturbation theory.

A Prelude to Quantum Field Theory A concise, beginner-friendly introduction to quantum field theory

I don't mean to keep harping on my books, but I just noticed that my QFT book with Lorenzo Sorbo "A Prelude to Quantum Field Theory" is presently discounted to only $22.37 on the Princeton University Press website. Seems to be a good price.
press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/...

Dynamics of the Standard Model Cambridge Core - Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics - Dynamics of the Standard Model

Maybe this is a good moment to reiterate that our book “Dynamics of the Standard Model”, which Gene contributed so much to (including Barry Holstein), is available for free (open access) at Cambridge University Press.

www.cambridge.org/core/books/d...

This was posted due to the news that Gene Golowich has passed away. A sad event an an end of an era for many of us.

Thanks for highlighting this. I had felt that it was mostly forgotten. Also thanks for doing these posts throughout December - I have enjoyed them and saved many for further study.

Its popularity was probably initially hurt because Truong was a prickly character who started off fighting against EFTs (because unitarity was realized only order by order in the energy expansion) . There were unnecessary arguments at the start but gradually we all reached a better understanding.

As an aside, the abstract in the published version is just the simple word "No". This is done for impact, although the use is elaborated in the first two paragraphs of the paper. But the abstract nazis at arXiv would not allow this, and made me add a sentence which just repeats what I meant by "No".

Do $Λ_{CC}$ and $G$ run? No. In this brief pedagogic note, I describe why the cosmological constant and Newton's constant are not running parameters in physical reactions.

My new paper giving reasons why the cosmological constant and Newton's constant should not be treated as running parameters in physical processes.
arxiv.org/abs/2412.08773

On GB: Its integral over all space becomes a surface term, which I would normally assume vanishes at infinity. Maybe r=0 counts as a boundary with your softened divergence solution. Does that work? But if it does not vanish, then shouldn’t you have GB in your action Eq. 2.2?

Interesting.. Complex metrics?? And complex action??! I can see these being part of an analysis technique, but don’t see how they can be actual solutions in our Lorentzian space. And don’t the relations about Eq 2.6, 2.7 violate the Gauss-Bonnet term being a total derivative? I’ll read more…

And do their debates accomplish anything? I can see physicists providing new results on these issues, but does a philosopher have anything novel to say? I would be interested if there is any positive example.