## Yang-Mills and mass gap

What is the situation at the present for this problem? I have seen on arxiv
some papers as hep-th/0511173 that claims to have solved the problem. Could
someone out there describing me the current situation?

 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> A quantum simulator for magnetic materials>> Atomic-scale investigations solve key puzzle of LED efficiency>> Error sought & found: State-of-the-art measurement technique optimised
 "Marc Reynaud" wrote in message news:443ec868$0$18287\$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it... > What is the situation at the present for this problem? I have seen on arxiv > some papers as hep-th/0511173 that claims to have solved the problem. Could > someone out there describing me the current situation? This is one of the Clay Mathematics Institute's Millennium Prizes so you would expect there might something more recent on their site but it seems there is only this review from 2004, http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Y...Theory/ym2.pdf http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/ I am not so sure that hep-th/0511173 solves the problem completely. More study is needed. ;-) FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps http://www.vacuum-physics.com
 Marc Reynaud wrote: > What is the situation at the present for this problem? I have seen on arxiv > some papers as hep-th/0511173 that claims to have solved the problem. Could > someone out there describing me the current situation? The problem is the rigorous construction of a Hilbert space with a unitary representation of the Poincare group, such that a perturbation argument recovers the traditional renormalized order by order approximation of Yang-Mills quantum field theory. The above paper contributes nothing to this problem. The mass gap problem for Yang-Mills (and the associated Millenium price) is a mathematical problem, while hep-th/0511173 consists of a bunch of heuristic arguments. That the author, Frasca, calls it a proof doesn't turn it into a mathematical proof. See the contribution ''Is there a rigorous interacting QFT in 4 dimensions?'' in my theoretical physics FAQ at http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt Arnold Neumaier