The Yang-Mills Mass Gap Solution

Friends,

I have been a bit behind with this blog, but wanted to let you know that I have pulled together many of the various threads I have posted over the past several years into a complete solution to the Yang-Mills and Mass Gap Problem, which paper is here:

The Yang-Mills Mass Gap Solution.

The Mass Gap problem was specified back in 2000 by Arthur Jaffe and Edward Witten at

http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory

This problem really has four aspects, which are as follows: 1) the mass gap itself, 2) QCD confinement, 3) chiral symmetry breaking and 4)  proof of the existence of a relativistic quantum Yang-Mills field theory in four-dimensional spacetime.  Each of these is respectively presented in sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of this paper.

You can read the paper abstract, so I will not repeat it here.  But I will also be delivering an oral presentation of this work at the April 2014 APS meeting in Savannah, Georgia.  Yesterday, I submitted the abstract for that presentation, which is below:

APS Abstract: The Yang-Mills Mass Gap problem is solved by deriving SU(3)_C Chromodynamics as a corollary theory from Yang-Mills gauge theory.  The mass gap is filled from the finite non-zero eigenvalues of a configuration space inverse perturbative tensor containing vacuum excitations.  This results from carefully developing six equivalent views of Yang-Mills gauge theory as having: 1) non-commuting (non-Abelian) gauge fields; 2) gauge fields with non-linear self-interactions; 3) a “steroidal” minimal coupling; 4) perturbations; 5) curvature in the gauge space of connections; and 6) gauge fields related to their source currents through an infinite recursive nesting.  Based on combining the Yang-Mills electric and magnetic source field equations into a single equation, confinement results from showing how the magnetic monopoles of Yang-Mills gauge theory exhibit color confinement and meson flow and have all the required color symmetries of baryons, from which we conclude that they are one and the same as baryons.  Chiral symmetry breaking results from the recursive behavior of these monopoles coupled with a view of the Dirac gamma matrices as Hamiltonian quaternions extended into spacetime.  Finally, with the aid of the “steroidal” view, the recursive view of Yang-Mills enables polynomial gauge field terms in the Yang-Mills action to be stripped out and replaced by polynomial source current terms prior to path integration.  This enables an exact analytical calculation of a non-linear path integral using a closed recursive kernel and yields a non-linear quantum amplitude also with a closed recursive kernel, thus proving the existence of a non-trivial relativistic quantum Yang–Mills field theory on R⁴ for any simple gauge group G.

I am of course interested in any comments you may have.

Jay

Advertisement

My first published paper “Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles” at Hadronic Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 399-467 (2012)

My first paper “Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles” has now been published in Hadronic Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 399-467 (2012). Though the Hadronic Journal has not yet put this issue online, I have a hardcopy of this and have uploaded a scan at the link below:

Hadronic Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 399-467 (2012)

As I have advised on some earlier blog entries, I have two more accepted papers which will be published next month (April 2013) in the Journal of Modern Physics, Special Issue on High Energy Physics.

Jay

Accepted for Publication: Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles!

I am very pleased to report that the paper linked below, “Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles,” has been accepted for publication in Number 4, Volume 35, 2012 pp 401-468 of the Hadronic Journal.  This is due to be released in early January, 2013.

Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles Final for Publication

As you can see from elsewhere in this blog and in my various newsgroup posts, I have been advocating since 2005, the view that protons and neutrons and other baryons are Yang-Mills magnetic monopoles.  In this paper, I have finally developed the empirical proof, by predicting nuclear binding energies between such monopoles which accord with empirical binding data within a fraction of a percent, and by explaining how the nuclear binding energies relate to the energies which confine quarks within their respective nucleons.

If you want to start somewhere other than at the beginning, go to page 61 where you will see how I derive the up and down quark masses to six digit in MeV accuracy based on the electron rest mass and the deuteron binding energy, and where I show a predicted maximum available binding energy for ^56Fe of 493.028394 MeV.  The empirical data show that this nucleus has an empirical binding energy of 492.253892 MeV, which means that ^56Fe utilizes 99.8429093% of the energy predicted to be available, for actual binding.  The remaining 0.16% is used to continue to confine quarks within the nucleons that comprise ^56Fe, and this utilization of available binding energy is the maximum among all of the known nuclei, and sets the boundary between fusion and fission physics.

I believe that this will become big news as this work gains exposure and people begin to see what problems have been solved here.

Happy holidays to all!

Jay

Might Baryons be Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles?

If you have followed my blog the past few years or been a participant sci.physics.foundations, you will know that since early 2007 I have been advocating that baryons are Yang-Mills magnetic monopoles, hiding in plain sight.   Now, finally, I have developed rigorous mathematical proof of this, and it is in a paper you may read at:

2012 Baryon Paper Final

The equation which encapsulates the entire thesis, is (8.1), and I have copied it below into this post.  Now you can read the paper, see how I got to (8.1), and understand exactly what this equation is saying about nuclear physics.

Jay

Baryons and Confinement; Exact Quantum Yang Mills Propagators; Mass Gap

To all:

I have started work on physics again this last month after two years “sabbatical.”  I am also again working with my friend Andrej Inopin.

In particular, I am touching up a paper that I was working on in 2008 which shows that baryons are simply magnetic charges in a non-Abelian (Yang Mills) gauge theory, and shows how confinement phenomena are a natural outgrowth of the properties of these “magnetic charge baryons.”  This paper is linked at:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/baryon-paper-3-1.pdf

Now, in returning to this paper after several years, I have always known that my equation (3.5) in the above was a “shortcut” to get to the results  afterwards, because it relies upon an analogy from QED and does not fully develop propagators / inverses for Yang-Mills theory.

This is because back in 2008, I did not know how to quantize Yang-Mill theory and obtain exact propagators that embody all of the non-linearity that comes from Yang-Mills.  Nobody knew / knows how to do this.  That is why people still use perturbation theory even though it breaks up the gauge invariance of Yang-Mills, or use lattice gauge theory even though it breaks up Lorentz symmetry and they have to calculate numerically on computers rather than analytically.  These are “compromises” that everybody uses because exact Yang-Mills quantization solutions simply are not known to date.

But in the last several weeks, I returned to this problem that had been a roadblock for me in 2008, and have now solved it!   The link below is the current version of a paper I have written in the last two weeks which contains this solution.

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/quantum-yang-mills-3-for-spf.pdf

Sections 2 and 3 in the above just link replace the “shortcut” of (3.5) in the previous link further up this page.  Section 4 shows that the perturbation which is an important object in this theory actually transforms just like a GRAVITATIONAL field.  I write this with the view that this is a possible path to non-Abelian quantum gravity, but am reserving judgment on this and would like to hear other views.  But what I think is unmistakable is that this shows that gauge transformations in the perturbation — which might be reason to doubt using this perturbation to calculate invariant numbers — are equivalent to no more and no less that plain old general coordinate transformations.  In essence, the perturbation combines several dot products which alone are not invariant, but which together, are.

The work in this paper lays the foundation and provides the calculating machinery for solving the “mass gap” problem.  I will continue developing this in the week ahead, but I have enough already that I wanted to share.

Starting a new paper on Baryons and Confinement

Today, I began work on a new paper dealing with the Yang-Mills foundations of baryons and QCD confinement.  The first draft is linked below, and I will provide updates as they develop.

Yang-Mills Foundations of Baryons and Confinement Phenomena

I may get diverted a bit by my US tax filing the next few days, and I am quite busy at work right now so this will mostly be a weekend and after-midnight project, but I do hope to get this paper, which I hope will synthesize many individual insights I have had and subjects I have studied over the past several years, into a something of value for others.

Constructive comments are always appreciated.

Thanks to the Princess and Peter and Ken and Igor and Ben for feedback and insights posted on the various newsgroups.

Jay.

Finite Amplitudes Without +i\epsilon

To all,

I have now completed a paper at the link below, which summarizes the work I have been doing for the past two months (and in a deeper sense, for much of my adult life) to lay a foundation for understanding and calculating particle masses:

finite-amplitudes-without-i-epsilon

I have also taken the plunge and submitted this for peer review. ;-)?

The abstract is as follows:

By carefully reviewing how the invariant amplitude M is arrived at in the simplest Yang-Mills gauge group SU(2), we show how to arrive at a finite, pole-free amplitudes without having to resort to the “+i prescription.”  We first review how gauge boson mass is generated in the SU(2) action via spontaneous symmetry breaking in the standard model, and then carefully consider the formation of finite, on-shell amplitudes, without +i.

Comments are welcome, and I wish everyone a happy holiday and New Year!

Jay.

Understanding the QCD Meson Mass Spectrum

Dear Friends:

It has been awhile since I last posted and it is good to be back.

Almost two years ago in the course of my work on Yang Mills, I came across what I believe is an approach by which mass spectrum of the massive mesons of QCD might be understood.  I had what I still believe is the right concept, and many of the pieces, but I could not figure out the right execution of the concept in complete detail.  Over the past year and a half I walked away from this to let the dust settle and to also arrive at a place where the basic principles of quantum field theory were no longer “new” to me but had become somewhat ingrained.  Now, I believe I have found the right way to execute this concept, and the results are intriguing.

In the file linked below, which I will update on a regular basis in the coming days:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/su-3-paper-20.pdf,

 I review how mass is known to be generated in SU(2), as a template for considering SU(3) QCD.  I have tried to explain as simply as possible, what I believe to be the origin of QCD meson masses, as well as to lay the foundation for theoretically predicting these.  Keep in mind, finding out how the vector mesons of QCD obtain their non-zero masses, which make the QCD interaction short range despite supposedly-massless gluons, is one aspect of the so-called “mass gap” problem, see point 1) on page 3 of
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/yangmills.pdf at
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/.

Then, I extend this development, in detail, to SU(3).

Several interesting results are already here:

1)  This approach neatly solves the problem of propagator poles (infinities) in a manner which I believe has not heretofore been discovered.  Goodbye to the +i\eta prescription, off mass-shell particles, and other inelegant dodges to achieve a finite propagator.

2) This approach may solve the confinement and the mass gap problems simultaneously.  It is important to understand that electroweak SU(2)xU(1) is a special case in which the gauge bosons are synonymous with the observed vector mesons, but that in SU(3) and higher order theories they are not.  The gauge bosons aka gluons, which show up in the Lagrangian, are not observed.  What is observed are the vector mesons which pass through to the denominator of the propagator in the invariant amplitude.

3) There emerges is a quantum number that is restricted to three discrete values, and depending on which value of chosen, all the meson masses are scaled up or down on a wholesale basis.  I believe that this may resolve the problem of generation replication.

I expect to be churning out mass calculations in the next day or two.  You may wish to check out the meson mass tables at http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/tables/rpp2008-qtab-mesons.pdf, because that table contains the data which I am going to try to fit to equation (6.1), via (6.5).

Hope you enjoy!

Jay.

Lab Note 3, Part 2: Unification of Particle, Nuclear and Atomic Phenomonology

This lab note will be brief.

On April 28, 2007, I posted a paper which went from baryons and confinement to strings to particle phenomenology to atomic physics and deuterons and a whole range of phenomenology including fermion generation replication which appeared to lend itself to a common, underlying explanation based on the work I have previously discussed with respect to baryons and confinement in particular.  The underlying thread throughout, is to connect spacetime symmetry to internal symmetry using the Pauli fermionic exclusion principle.   I am afraid, however, that this paper may have been buried amidst all of the other postings, so I want to specifically call it to your attention, at the link below:

On The Natural Origin of Baryons, Short-Range Mesons, and QCD Confinement, from Maxwell’s Magnetic Equations for a Yang-Mills Field

In the spirit of “Lab Notes” which are a scientific diary of theoretical explorations, I ask you in particular to look at the second half of this paper, starting at section 6.  In football, there is something known as a “Hail Mary” pass where the quarterback throws the ball all the way down the field hoping for a touchdown.  The second half of the above paper is just that.  While certainly speculative, it seems to me that this ties together a very diverse range of observable phenomenology which has not previously been tied together.   It is probably the most audacious piece of physics writing I have done, and I don’t want it to get lost in the shuffle.

So, if nothing comes of it, so be it.  But, it may well be that someone in the end zone will catch this long pass, and physics will come to rest in a different place from where it rests today.  That is why it is so important to take good lab notes!

Lab Note 3, Part 1: Yang Mills Theory, the Origin of Baryons and Confinement, and the Mass Gap

(You may download this Lab Note in a PDF file at: qcd-confinement-handout-10.pdf)

This is part 1 of a Lab Note dealing with the origin of baryons and confinement in Yang-Mills theory, and attempting to lay the foundation for a solution to the so-called “Mass Gap” problem.  I have organized this into eight brief, bite-sized sections.

  1.  What Makes Yang-Mills Gauge Theory Different from an Abelian Gauge Theory like QED?

    In an Abelian Gauge Theory such as QED, a field strength two-form is expressed in terms of a potential one-form for a field of vector bosons, in this case photons, using the compact language of differential forms, as:   

, (1.1) 

where .

    In Yang Mills theory, also known as non-Abelian gauge theory, there is an extra term in the field strength, and in particular, if the vector potential one-form is now , then:   

, (1.2) 

where , and g is the group “running charge” strength.     

The only difference is the existence of this extra term !