Norbert’s opinion on the matter was that the Hilbert approach probably solves the mass-gap problem. Only to this he referred to, when suggesting that the Hilbert-path might be the way to go. And then I saw a potential connection to the Yang-Mills millennial problem within the wider "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" via the Nature article I read.
With respect to the millennium prize, however, he wrote the following:
“Moin Troy, I’m afraid the definition of the task is such that the mass-gap problem is not really solving their problem. The theory on which they insist to explain it all comes with an intrinsic difficulty, perhaps even an inconsistency, namely the one they want to have solved. This is not a task, but a catch 22 and I have no time to play mill, right now. Could well be that I misunderstood the task, but in its current formulation I doubt that.
So again, I think that the Hilbert approach would help to solve the mass-gap problem, but I do not see that this answers their intrinsic question.
About your question how to get started:
a) Apply a metric Higgs formalism by using the usual scaling function F[f[x0,x1,…]] to the metric tensor
b) Evaluate the Ricci scalar R for this and see that you obtain the right Higgs fields with a setting of f*(4*F*F’’+(6-n)*F’*F’)/4=F’/F, because this gives you F=(f^2+Cf)^2 in the case of n=4
c) Solve the resulting differential equation for f when demanding R=0, which will give you wave functions
d) With this Einstein-Hilbert-Higgs approach move on
e) …
Not sure, but at least we have a metrically derived Higgs field with the expected Mexican hat structure and this I’d consider a not too bad of a start."
So it seems the millennium prize is likely asking the wrong question, but that does not mean the mass-gap problem is unsolvable, only a paradigm shift is required.
By leveraging this paradigm shift that western society appears to be blind too, enormous project opportunities are available to jump to the next evolutionary growth curve. If these opportunities interest you, please get in touch.
Norbert’s opinion on the matter was that the Hilbert approach probably solves the mass-gap problem. Only to this he referred to, when suggesting that the Hilbert-path might be the way to go. And then I saw a potential connection to the Yang-Mills millennial problem within the wider "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" via the Nature article I read.
With respect to the millennium prize, however, he wrote the following:
“Moin Troy, I’m afraid the definition of the task is such that the mass-gap problem is not really solving their problem. The theory on which they insist to explain it all comes with an intrinsic difficulty, perhaps even an inconsistency, namely the one they want to have solved. This is not a task, but a catch 22 and I have no time to play mill, right now. Could well be that I misunderstood the task, but in its current formulation I doubt that.
So again, I think that the Hilbert approach would help to solve the mass-gap problem, but I do not see that this answers their intrinsic question.
About your question how to get started:
a) Apply a metric Higgs formalism by using the usual scaling function F[f[x0,x1,…]] to the metric tensor
b) Evaluate the Ricci scalar R for this and see that you obtain the right Higgs fields with a setting of f*(4*F*F’’+(6-n)*F’*F’)/4=F’/F, because this gives you F=(f^2+Cf)^2 in the case of n=4
c) Solve the resulting differential equation for f when demanding R=0, which will give you wave functions
d) With this Einstein-Hilbert-Higgs approach move on
e) …
Not sure, but at least we have a metrically derived Higgs field with the expected Mexican hat structure and this I’d consider a not too bad of a start."
So it seems the millennium prize is likely asking the wrong question, but that does not mean the mass-gap problem is unsolvable, only a paradigm shift is required.
By leveraging this paradigm shift that western society appears to be blind too, enormous project opportunities are available to jump to the next evolutionary growth curve. If these opportunities interest you, please get in touch.
I am not a physicist, but I am curious, are there any truth in these articles and if there is why is the problem open?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372044873_Yang-Mills_Mass_Gap_Problem_A_Possible_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352008896_Proposed_Solution_to_the_Yang-Mills_Mass_Gap_Problem_and_Proof_of_the_Mass_Gap
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386092118_A_Solution_to_the_Yang_Mills_Existence_and_Mass_Gap_Problem
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280940773_EXISTENCE_OF_NON-TRIVIAL_YANG-MILLS_THEORY_ON_R4