Mass Gap Solved: New Theory May Address Claymath Problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gap Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the mass gap problem in quantum Yang-Mills (QYM) theory, which is a Clay Mathematics Institute problem. Participants explore claims made by Marco Frasca regarding a proof related to this problem, including references to his published works and interactions with notable mathematicians.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why Frasca's claims about solving the mass gap problem have not gained more media attention, suggesting that his proof may not be established.
  • Another participant interprets Frasca's claims as indicating a proof in the strong coupling limit, supported by lattice calculations, but notes that this may not fully resolve the mass gap issue.
  • A participant references a prior argument between Frasca and Peter Woit regarding Yang-Mills theory, implying that this context is relevant to the current discussion.
  • Frasca details his work, including a published paper that claims to produce an infrared gluon propagator with a massive ground state, and discusses the evolution of his proof, including critiques from Terry Tao.
  • Frasca mentions that his mapping theorem holds perturbatively in the strong coupling limit and cites additional work confirming this theorem through lattice computations.
  • Frasca expresses uncertainty about the lack of attention his work has received, despite its publication in significant journals and the involvement of a prominent mathematician.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of Frasca's claims. There is no consensus on whether the mass gap problem has been resolved or the significance of Frasca's contributions.

Contextual Notes

Frasca's claims rely on specific conditions, such as the strong coupling limit and perturbative mappings, which may not be universally accepted or validated. The discussion includes references to critiques and the evolution of proofs that are not fully resolved.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
If I am not mistaken the problem of the mass gap in in QYM, is a claymath problem, if the author of the next blog has proven it, shouldn't his article make more background noise, i.e be noticed by the media?

Here's the link:
http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/?s=mass+gap

Or he hasn't proven his theorem, math-wise.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think he is saying that he has a proof in the strong coupling limit with evidence from lattice calculations that the underlying idea is valid for finite couplings. That would be nice but still some way short of solving the mass gap problem.
 
Marco Frasca had an argument with Peter Woit at the latter's blog regarding exactly Yang Mills theory:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1657

I think the discussion started at the wiki entry.

If his work is correct maybe he can finally edit that article. :)
 
The question went this way. I have got a paper published on Physics Letters B

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2042"

where I stated some theorems producing as a final result the infrared gluon propagator. This propagator displays a spectrum of excitations with a massive ground state. This result relies on a theorem that I claimed to have been proved that maps a massless quartic scalar theory on a Yang-Mills theory. I stated that these theories have common classical solutions that can be used to obtain a quantum field theory describing an identical behavior for both. QFT for the scalar theory was published, authored by me, in Physical Review D

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511068"

The proof of the mapping theorem was declared wrong by Terry Tao, the Fields medalist, with an intervention on the discussion in the Wiki entry of Yang-Mills theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yang–Mills_theory" in the section "Removed "Integrable solutions of classical Yang-Mills equations and QFT"). After this criticism I have written to Terry asking for clarifications. Indeed, he removed the corresponding entries in his site Dispersive Wiki claiming the proof was incorrect. He asked to me to get a correct proof to be published in an archival journal. I obtained this last year in Modern Physics Letters A

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2357"

Terry recognized, in a private communication and removing the entry to my paper in http://tosio.math.toronto.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Yang-Mills_equations" (just click on FraE2007 in Terry's removal comment and see also follow-up), that my new proof was indeed correct but that these common solutions between the scalar field theory and the Yang-Mills theory hold, in the more general case, only perturbatively in the strong coupling limit: Mapping exists perturbatively. But note that this is all I need to get my proof completed!

Meantime, a proof on the lattice that the mapping theorem holds also in d=2+1 was obtained by Rafael Frigori and published on Nuclear Physics B

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2871"

see also

http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/mapping-is-confirmed-by-lattice-computations/" .

So now, the proof is both correct and complete thanks also to the pivotal intervention of Terry Tao that helped me to fix it by pointing out a flaw in the original demonstration. But until Terry will not ask to me to restate the original material, improved as I said, I will not do that.

Currently, I am working out QCD phenomenology using this low-energy limit of Yang-Mills theory that makes all computations manageable. Indeed, low-energy QCD is reduced to a Yukawa model, reducible yet to a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with all parameters properly fixed by QCD (see arxiv for this). But this is another story.

About the low fuss that my work produced I do not know. But, since now, it was a great privilege to work these problems out, getting the results published on such important journals and rising the interest of a great mathematician like Terry is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
13K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
76
Views
13K