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
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Quantum Yang-Mills Theory and AdS/CFT

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
110 views

I just read the first chapter of Becker-Becker-Schwarz. To quote:

A remarkable discovery made in the late 1990s is the exact equivalence (or duality) of conformally invariant quantum field theories and superstring theory or M-theory in special space-time geometries.

Can this AdS/CFT duality be used to work in string theory or M-theory instead of quantum Yang-Mills theory, make the corresponding theory rigorous, and then go back to quantum Yang-Mills theory, thereby solving the open Millenium Prize question?


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Aman Chawla

asked Sep 2, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Aman Chawla (10 points) [ revision history ]
edited Oct 14, 2014 by Dilaton
Mapping the problem to string theory (if that could be done) would not in itself be an increase in rigor, since string theory uses the same QFT concepts that lack rigorous mathematical formulation. (btw apparently the work of Fields Medalist Hairer will help with the latter.) But mapping it to string theory might be a source of ideas or intuitions which could then be inspiration for a proof.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter

2 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

In principle yes, but there are several conceptual and technical issues that make it unclear how this could be achieved. Even though the AdS/CFT correspondence is conjectured to be exact(with much evidence hinting at this), it is hard to prove this essentially because in order to do calculations, one still has to use approximations and perturbation theory on one side or the other. This is essentially due to its dual nature: it relates a strongly coupled theory on the one side to a weakly coupled one on the other.

This can be understood much better in terms of the fundamental coupling constants of the theory: the string coupling is given by $g_s$ and the Yang-Mills coupling by $g_{YM}$, they are related by $g_{YM}^2=4\pi g_s$.

On the gravity/string side, calculations are feasible (unless you want to solve string theory on curved backgrounds, which is essentially an open problem) in the supergravity approximation of the theory. This is valid if we take $g_s\rightarrow0$ and also assume that the degree of the gauge group (the number of colours) $N$ is taken to infinity. Their product, the 't Hooft coupling $\lambda=g_{YM}^2N=4\pi g_sN$ however must be held fixed but much larger than one. For the Yang-Mills theory, perturbation theory is valid just on the other end of the parameter range, namely when $\lambda$ is very small.

This is useful for many calculations, since it allows one to chart the nonperturbative region of one theory by looking at the perturbative region of the other, but it makes it hard to prove anything in a rigorous way, especially within the axiomatic approach required for the solution of the Millenium problem. The requirement of large $N$ further restricts the applicability of the duality with respect to proving something for the generic gauge group $SU(N)$.

Apart from this, as mentioned in the other answer, the original and most well-known formulation of is, as the name suggests, between string theory and a conformal field theory, which by definition has no mass gap. In order to adress issues like confinement and the associated mass gap, one would have to work in other versions of the duality, e.g. the Witten model, which is $AdS_7\times S^4$, with a compactified dimension on the $AdS$ part, which breaks supersymmetry and introduces a mass scale.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Frederic Brünner
answered Sep 2, 2014 by Frederic Brünner (1,060 points) [ no revision ]
Could you point me to a reference for the Witten version of the AdS/CFT duality?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Aman Chawla
Here you go: arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9803131 . It is actually a very important reference, with over 2000 citations.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Frederic Brünner
It seems that there is a paper that already takes an approach similar to the one I suggested: arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0402207

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Aman Chawla
How is that paper related to the Millennium problem?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mitchell Porter
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

To be clear what we're talking about (as I'm not totally sure this is what the question intended), I'll talk about the paradigmatic example of AdS/CFT, the equivalence between $\mathcal N=4$ Yang-Mills on the one hand, and IIB string on (asymptotically) $AdS_5\times S^5$ on the other (at general parameters: no t'Hooft limits etc).

We are very much closer to defining rigorously the left hand side of this correspondence than the right. What I have in mind here is putting the theory on a lattice, and taking some appropriate limit as the lattice spacing becomes small. The difficulty is in proving that this works, and gives all the properties that you'd expect (the right symmetries must be restored in the limit for example, since the lattice will break some of these). On the other side, I think it's fair to say that there is not a clear idea of what a formulation of nonperturbative string theory would even look like.

Indeed, it's quite common to hear something like "Take your favourite theory of quantum gravity, for example N=4 Yang-Mills..." with the implication that it is the 4d field theory that defines the bulk string theory, rather than the other way round as you'd like to suggest. The challenge here is to repackage the CFT variables to that what you get bears some resemblance to gravity...

As a final point, in reference to the Millennium Prize, is that $\mathcal N=4$ is qualitatively different from ordinary Yang-Mills, in particular being conformal, so there is no mass gap. Integrability gives some chance to `solve' $\mathcal N=4$, without reference to $AdS$, but this would not bag you a million dollars (though it may lead to some insight in how to proceed).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-14 10:40 (UTC), posted by SE-user Holographer
answered Sep 2, 2014 by Holographer (70 points) [ no revision ]

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$\hbar$ysicsOver$\varnothing$low
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
...