There is a lot of work about the pursuing of a deep understanding of Yang-Mills theory in the low energy limit. The interesting case is in four dimensions as our world happens to have such a property. But we also know that a Yang-Mills theory in D=2+1 is not trivial at all and worthwhile to be studied. In this area there has been a lot pioneering work mostly due to V. Parameswaran Nair and Dimitra Karabali . These authors proved that a Hamiltonian formulation may be truly effective to manage this case. Indeed, they obtained a formula for the string tension that works quite well with respect to lattice computations. We would like to remember that, in D=2+1, coupling constant is such that its dimension is while, in D=3+1, is dimensionless.

Quite recently, some authors showed how, from such a formulation, a functional can be given from which one can obtain the spectrum (see here, here and here). These papers went all published on archival journals. Now, these spectra are quite good with respect to lattice computations, after some reinterpretation. We do not know if this is due to some problems in lattice computations or in the theoretical analysis. I leave this to your personal point of view. My idea is that this quenched lattice computations are missing the true ground state of the theory. This happens to be true both for D=3+1 and D=2+1. I do not know why things stay in this way but in this kind of situations are always theoreticians to lose. On the other side, being a physicist means that one should not have a blind faith in anything.

Finally, one may ask how my work performs with respect all this. Yesterday, I spent a few time to try to figure this out. The results I obtain agree fairly well with those of the theoretical papers. I obtain the zero Lionel Brits gets at being m a mass proportional to ‘t Hooft coupling. Brits wrote the third of the three papers I cited above. The string tension I get is in agreement with lattice computations. This zero is the problem on lattice computations and the same problem is seen in D=3+1. This fact is at the root of our presenting difficulty to understand what resonance is. We know that people working on a quenced lattice computation for the propagator do see this resonance. This difference between this two approaches should be understood and an effort in this direction must be made.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 25th, 2009 at 12:41 pm and is filed under Physics, QCD. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

[…] you about this paper as it appears really interesting. As you may know from my preceding post (see here), these author have found a fruitful approach to Yang-Mills theory for 2+1 dimensions. The most […]

[…] you about this paper as it appears really interesting. As you may know from my preceding post (see here), these author have found a fruitful approach to Yang-Mills theory for 2+1 dimensions. The most […]