• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,346 answers , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  What evidence do we have for S-duality in N=4 Super-Yang-Mills?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Do we have anything resembling a proof*? Or is it just a collection of "coincidences"?

Also, do we have evidence from lattice gauge theory computations?

*Of course I'm not talking about a proof in the mathematical sense, only a compelling albeit heuristic argument e.g. an argument involving formal manipulations with path integrals.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

asked Oct 26, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Squark (1,725 points) [ revision history ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10
Just a quick feedback: I doubt there is something resembling a proof in a mathematical sense of anything at all for a fully fledged QFT (which has infinitely many states and divergences -- leading to non-trivial critical exponents), so I am not sure this is productive. Asking for evidence seems interesting though a bit broad, maybe there is a place to add some motivation. I am also not sure by what you mean by “numerical” and why you single out such evidence.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks, much better.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 11 like - 0 dislike

There is a "proof" of S-duality in free abelian gauge theory. See, for example, Witten's On S-Duality in Abelian Gauge Theory or his IAS lecture. Morally, you should think of this as a Fourier transform. The non-Abelian version, of course, is much harder and requires N=4 SUSY. But this isn't a surprise as the non-Abelian Fourier transform is a tricky thing.

Now, at least from the math side, you should be thinking about Geometric Langlands which is pretty closely related and has the same distinction between the Abelian case (which I understand to reduce to some class field theory stuff) and the more difficult non-Abelian version. Long before Kapustin-Witten and all that has come after, this connection was first shown in Harvey, Moore and Strominger and Bershadsky, Johansen, Sadov and Vafa.

There is, of course, a long, long list of "coincidences", too.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 26, 2011 by Aaron (420 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
Right, so how does it relate it to Fourier transform?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The short answer is that it's a closely related to Abelian duality which mathematically is related to a Fourier-Mukai transform.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
This should remind you a lot of Poisson resummation, too.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Are you sure that the geometric Langlands program is close to being proved? I've always been under the impression that it would occupy mathematicians for generations to come...

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Geometric Langlands is, in large parts, proved. Langlands for number fields is much harder.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
Welcome, Aaron!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I must be thoroughly confused. Isn't the Abelian case just ordinary electric-magnetic duality? If so, it just acts as the Hodge star on the field strength tensor. How does Fourier transform enter the picture?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights