Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,873 answers , 20,701 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Perturbative vs. non-perturbative approaches to a well-defined Yang-Mills theory in 4 dimensions

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
468 views

Another question regarding the Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap problem (http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/yangmills.pdf). Does the problem require that the "construction" of a four dimensional quantum Yang-Mills be non-perturbative? I get the feeling that this problem is to make notions such as the renormalization group rigorous, and thus is perturbative, but isn't lattice gauge theory already mathematically well-defined? If so, why can this not be used as an approach to this problem? Essentially, which is the preferable approach as specified by the problem: perturbative or non-perturbative?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-27 11:25 (UCT), posted by SE-user user47299
asked Jun 25, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by user47299 (50 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Jun 27, 2014
It is believed that the mass gap is a purely non-pertubative effect hence a pertubative approach does not work.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-27 11:25 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tobias Diez
@TobiasDiez Why is this?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-27 11:25 (UCT), posted by SE-user user47299
The reason is, that the mass gap is proportional to $exp(- g^2)$, where $g$ is the coupling constant. So in perturbation theory you send $g \rightarrow 0$ and hence the mass gap also vanishes. See for example, page 29 in media.scgp.stonybrook.edu/presentations/20120117_3_Witten.pdf

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-27 11:25 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tobias Diez
@TobiasDiez Perfect, thanks.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-06-27 11:25 (UCT), posted by SE-user user47299

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

An important correction to the answer of Tobias Diez. the correct expression is exp(-1/g2), as Witten points out in his talk.

answered Jun 27, 2014 by Prathyush (695 points) [ no revision ]

That is why it is extremely important to start from a qualitatively better initial approximation where some part of permanent interaction is taken into account exactly ;-). Then the perturbative corrections will be smaller and will not affect the qualitative part of solutions.

@Vladimir: don't know why your comment is downvoted. It is useful to start from an approximation where the mass-gap is explicit at long-distances. The renormalization issues are at short-distances and can be separated out and dealt with essentially perturbatively.

@Ron Miamon: Thanks, Ron, for your support. Indeed, mathematically, if one has a series $f(x) = f(0) + f'(0)\cdot x + ...$ and manages to sum up a part of it into a another function $f1(x)$ like this $f(x) = f1(x) + a\cdot x + b\cdot x^2+...$, then convergence of the new series may be different, in particular, improved. It means starting the series expansion for $f(x)$ from another initial approximation $f1(x)$, which takes into account the expansion parameter $x$ exactly. If one manages to choose it conceptually from the very beginning, then one gets a better series only giving small quantitative corrections. I myself had in the past such examples. In physics it is well known, for example, in the BCS superconductivity description (Cooper pairs as the initial approximation). In my opinion, those downvoters are just not that experienced.

@VladimirKalitvianski @RonMaimon Oops, sorry for the downvote, it was accidental. I have removed it now.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...