• 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.


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

201 submissions , 159 unreviewed
4,953 questions , 2,122 unanswered
5,324 answers , 22,571 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
809 active unimported users
More ...

  What is a "free" non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory?

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

I hope this question will not be closed down as something completely trivial!

I did not think about this question till in recent past I came across papers which seemed to write down pretty much simple looking solutions to "free" Yang-Mill's theory on $AdS_{d+1}$. The solutions looks pretty much like the electromagnetic fields!

  • Aren't classical exact solutions to Yang-Mill's theory very hard to find? Don't they have something to do with what are called Hitchin equations? (..I would be grateful if someone can point me to some expository literature about that..)

I would have thought that non-Abelian Yang-Mill's theory has no genuine free limit since it always has the three and the four point gauge vertices at any non-zero value of the coupling however arbitrarily small. This seemed consistent with what is called "background gauge field quantization" where one looks at fluctuations about a classical space-time independent gauge fields which can't be gauged to zero at will since they come into the gauge invariant quantities which have non-trivial factors of structure constants in them which are fixed by the choice of the gauge group and hence nothing can remove them by any weak coupling limit.

But there is another way of fixing the scale in which things might make sense - if one is working the conventions where the Yang-Mill's Lagrangian looks like $-\frac{1}{g^2}F^2$ then the structure constants are proportional to $g$ and hence a weak coupling limit will send all the gauge commutators to zero!

  • So in the second way of thinking the "free" limit of a non-Abelian $SU(N_c)$ Yang-Mill's theory is looking like an Abelian gauge theory with the gauge group $U(1)^{N_c^2 -1}$. So is this what is meant when people talk of "free" non-Abelian Yang-Mills theory? (..which is now actually Abelian!..)

I would grateful if someone can help reconcile these apparently conflicting points of view.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Dec 20, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Anirbit (585 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

Free nonabelian gauge theory is the limit of zero coupling. So it is true, in a sense, that free $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory is a theory of $N_c^2 -1$ free "photons." There's a crucial subtlety, though: it's a gauge theory, so we only consider gauge-invariant states to be physical. Thus, already in the free theory, there is a "Gauss law" constraint that renders calculations (e.g. of the partition function) nontrivial and the physics of nonabelian free theories different from that of abelian ones (at least in finite volume). See, for instance, this beautiful work of Aharony, Marsano, Minwalla, Papadodimas, and van Raamsdonk, which shows that many thermodynamic aspects of confinement appear already in free theories at finite volume.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 20, 2011 by Matt Reece (1,630 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
In that paper there is this concept of writing Gauss's law as a statement of representation theory which I could not understand. The statement somehow is that Gauss's law for $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory is that physical states are invariant under global $SU(N_c)$ transformations - this is something I could not understand and what it means in the language of representations. Though I could independently understand the Polya theory counting but their integral representation and their very crucial equations 3.12 to 3.20 were totally unclear to me!

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I have edited my question about the typo I had about what the effective gauge theory is at the $g=0$ point. Each independent generator of $SU(N_c)$ now becomes "free" and hence the gauge theory at $g=0$ is $U(1)^{N_C^2-1}$ But it somehow feels a bit weird that perturbation theory makes sense even when the point about which one is doing the perturbation and the actual theory are seeing two different gauge groups. Also can you kindly explain as to how the "Gauss's law" (in the above sense!) is preserved in the $g=0$ limit unlike the commutators?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The "Gauss law" constraint is just that the states should be color singlets; physical states are always gauge invariant, in other words. I'm not sure I understand the rest of what you're asking here.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The "Gauss's Law" that one learns in school is the statement that the electric flux through any surfaces is proportional to the total charge contained in it. Now how does that generalize to the statement that the all states in an Yang-Mill's theory are colour singlets? I am not sure how to rephrase this other part of the question - I was comparing perturbation theory in non-Abelian field theory with that in any other theory -

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
- unlike in any other theory here it seems that one is doing perturbative expansion about a point ($g=0$) where infact the symmetry group of the theory is apparently different than that of the full theory! In hindsight that looks a bit freaky - its almost like saying that $SU(N_c)$ non-Abelian processes are only perturbative effects on a $U(1)^{N_c^2 -1}$ Abelian theory - though as you point out the $g=0$ theory still has many of the non-Abelian effects like confinement! (..though it has an Abelian gauge group!..)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
Note that the original group G survives as a symmetry in this limit, acting on the Lie algebra in the adjoint representation. It is precisely invariance under this symmetry that comes from the Gauss law constraint. Now, a power of U(1) would result if you took the quotient of the Abelian group by a lattice, but this would violate the G-symmetry

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The quantum mechanical operators Qi corresponding the charges generate the G-symmetry. Because of Gauss law we need to impose the constraints Qi Psi = 0. This means Psi has to be G-invariant. Another way to understand this is remember G is a _gauge_ symmetry even though it becomes a global symmetry in this limit

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).
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