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

180 submissions , 140 unreviewed
4,598 questions , 1,850 unanswered
5,203 answers , 22,211 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
728 active unimported users
More ...

  Non-abelian string in QCD?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
43 views

It is easy to find various/many papers in HEP-lattice talk about "Non abelian string in QCD".

  1. What does it mean to say "non abelian string in QCD?" Does "non abelian string" happen for pure Yang-Mills (say $\mathrm{SU(N)}$ or $\mathrm{SO(N)}$) without any fermions? Or do we require additional fermions?

  2. Does "non abelian string" have any thing to do with the quantum statistics of strings are non abelian? Like non abelian Majorana for certain solid state systems?

  3. Should the string form a worldsheet in the spacetime, thus it should be descried by some 2-form field locally? Any precise math formulation?

P.s. Let us focus on the non-SUSY theory first. There is some question "How about SUSY?" that I removed just to get more focused.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
asked Jun 18, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by annie marie heart (450 points) [ no revision ]
To reopen this post (v1), consider to only ask one subquestion per post.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
all questions are related. Are you sure you are making the correct decision by a single force opinion? The only thing can be removed is probably SUSY version. I can focus on non-SUSY but everything else is totally related.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
Yes. For starters, explicit res. recom. qs are restricted on Phys.SE and can usually not be mixed with actual physics qs.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
@ Qmechanic, I just remove SUSY -- other parts if you read, they are basically related questions. If one intends to answer just the sub questions, one can focus on the 1 and 2.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart
Related meta post: physics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/9943/2451

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
Hi annie, I've removed the resource-recommendation part of the thread to keep things focused and help get the question reopened. I would like to encourage you to ask that part separately - it will work much better in this format.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user Emilio Pisanty
Concerning SUSY actually it's the other way around. People usually have to focus on supersymmetric theories because they are easier to study and only then can ask "What about non-SUSY?", often with handwaving only.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user OON

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Most of these questions don’t have answers as of now, but we can make some remarks:

  1. It is believed by arguments by t’Hooft, that large N gauge theories have dual descriptions as string theories. Only a few examples are known, the most famous being $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM, whose string theory dual lives on 5d anti-de-Sitter space. One of the hopes is to find a similar description for QCD.
  2. The non-abelian refers to the non-abelian gauge group. Roughly the flux tubes connecting quarks are string-like. This doesn’t have much to do with the statistics of the strings (unless you introduce magnetic monopoles).
  3. Yes, the string should have a worldsheet description. The problem is that the spacetime on which the string moves is not the same as the spacetime on which the gauge theory lives. This is the hard part of the problem. The string should be described by a non-linear sigma model on some target space. There is currently no precise mathematical procedure for extracting this information from a gauge theory such as QCD.

Bonus: like one of the comments said, the supersymmetric case is actually simpler, since we can identify dual descriptions more easily and compute things to check these dualities.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-10-28 19:07 (UTC), posted by SE-user Adolfo Holguin
answered Sep 23 by Adolfo Holguin (10 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$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
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
...