ahh the terrible feeling of defeat that comes when no one will believe in you(other than your dog!).
Well I have, since my last post, proceeded to explain to my supervisor the method of finding my exact solution but alas, he does not understand the mathematics and thus does not trust the result! I think that Theoretical Physicists should be forced to complete a degree in abstract mathematics concurrently with on in theoretical physics! I could just go on and on about how this would be a wise thing to do before entering into the precarious field of theoretical physics!
Anyways today I was told/threatened into attending a colloquium about demonstrating in the LAB. This was interesting as I have never understood the purpose of a session in the lab: was it to prove that I can follow some rules in a manual and get some results OR to learn some deep principles and to learn about how to use the equipment? LAB has been an ABSOLUTE waste in my undergrad (well not entirely I learnt how to write a report 
) Well I am a theorist so you can forgive me if I appear biased. Anyway I think its more important to learn how to use equipment properly before attempting to recreate classical experiments, even this whole business of repeating classic experiments serves no purpose other than to verify that the student can use the equipment!
Alas my rant will fall on deaf ears as it always does as no one changes their methods of teaching/demonstrating even when they know its leading to know where.
well its been quite a while since my last post, I sought of feel energized now!!
Anyway recently I have been working/looking at the Renormalization Group Equation for the strong coupling constant, and lo and behold I think I can provide an exact solution to it!! (Well I just need to tidy up the differential equation and well then we’ll have it) I spoke to my supervisor last Thursday and he was adamant that there could not be a solution for the differential equation since it is highly non-linear and that there has been no solution for the past ~40 years!! hahaha
My stubbornness and persistance at looking for exact solutions seems to have paid of this time. I shall have to try to convince him of the validity of the solution tomorrow and maybe we can put into a paper!!! (it’s always good to publish!).
On another note the weather seems to have gotten better (last week was a scorcher with temperatures between 34-36 degrees celsius) ahhhh I soo need to show my supervisor my exact solution to the RGE.
Sometimes I think I should have been in the Applied Mathematics department instead of the Physics department, not many in my department see the need to finding exact solutions! Most of them are satisfied with numerical solutions/simulations which I find appalling! Ahh but alas this is what they are satisfied with and thats that!
I came across some interesting information yesterday about the QCD phase diagram.
Last night I attended the retirement party of a legendary theoretical physicist Prof. J.W.A. Cleymans. There were a few talks about Cleymans work and his contributions to theoretical physics.
Anyway during one of the talks there was a slide of the QCD phase diagram
I had seem this diagram many times and thought that I understood generally all details of it but the surprising thing about this diagram is that Cleymans had been one of the pioneers at creating it. One of the speakers even called it the “Cleymans Plot”. Cleymans main contribution was the statistical hadronic model, which allowed physicists to realize that a phase boundary exists between hadronic and quarkonic matter seen clearly below
The line marked by the critical point is where the bulk of Cleymans work lays. Anyway on the way home his current PhD student Dawit and I were chatting about the origin of this line. Surprisingly there is no function in theoretical physics that describes this boundary line as yet! Much the work comes from analysis of that experimental data from RHIC, and FAIR and when the LHC starts running again(well actually it started running 2 days ago!) Also the line doesnt actually cross the T or \mu axes as yet. Maybe with data from the LHC the boundary line can be shown to cross the T axis but for the crossing of the \mu axis data from superdense objects like possibly neutron and quark stars. I’m not certain whether its possibly to extract this data from black holes.
