First, thanks for your time again. Wilson loop understood.

Great. You are welcome.

Anyway if you judge your standards by the yardstick of “thinkers” like Mr. Motl, I definitely fell on the wrong blog.

First, if you will be able to overcome your internal pain and decide to read this blog as well as leave comments on it, I would really appreciate if you do not discuss intellectual abilities of other readers.

Your reference on your own defence to Lubos Motl just confirms that these kind of blogs are only written for insiders and innocent bystanders would only get frustration and inferiority complex out of reading them. But then, why all of you think your standards are higher by explaining less instead of more? Or by using post-graduate jargon instead of plain english?

Second, you did ask some physical questions – it took 3 lines. Other 256 or so lines were mostly devoted to complaining and explanation how innocent you are. Although I did appreciate that something bothers you very much, I should say that I am physicist and I am mostly read by physicists. If you are looking for a personal psychoanalyst, you indeed fell in the wrong blog.

Cheers

It looks like the obscurity came out of a so-called “writing vice” typical of people too used to write only for their own peers, a small group of insiders that move fluidly through a maze of “supposs?s” and “understoods”.

Your reference on your own defence to Lubos Motl just confirms that these kind of blogs are only written for insiders and innocent bystanders would only get frustration and inferiority complex out of reading them.

But then, why all of you think your standards are higher by explaining less instead of more? Or by using post-graduate jargon instead of plain english?

Anyway if you judge your standards by the yardstick of “thinkers” like Mr. Motl, I definitely fell on the wrong blog.

Why do you interpret a mathematical expresion that displays a gluon field (Amu) as a qqbar loop? Where are the q fields? Why they don’t appear in the Wilson loop but you still interpret they’re there? And where did the gluon go?

I decided to make a separate post to address these questions. If the thing is still unclear, please keep asking!

Not to mention that you talk about a number of things like E(L), evolution operator, correlation function? that you don’t introduce and neither think you need to spend a word to explain their relationship with the Wilson loop integral.

Do you feel I need to explain these things as well? If you do, then I probably will.

Frankly speaking, the impression an outsider gets is that you’re repeating standard (obscure) text or paper assumtions that one finds many times stated but never explained. In that way knowledge is only transmited to the initiated, excluding every outsider.

Well, in my defence I can say that (as you might have read in the Welcome page) some of the posts are related to my scientific diary. The posts about confinement will hopefully transform into review I intend to write.

Also, please take into consideration that quite different people read this blog. There is Lubos Motl around for example. He is a former Harvard professor, professional string theorist and a very very good physicist – he could convince me that I am wrong even if I am right I just want to keep standards high.

Please, forgive the extension of the comment. Only your kind, fast and warm answer made me so loquacious.

And you are again very welcome.

Cheers

Then, more questions because you promise answers. Or the same but more down to the point.

Why do you interpret a mathematical expresion that displays a gluon field (Amu) as a qqbar loop? Where are the q fields? Why they don’t appear in the Wilson loop but you still interpret they’re there? And where did the gluon go?

About the style and level, if you let me say it, I find that it is what you say it is (reasonably high, not oversimplistic) only apparently. You’re not oversimplifying if you’re able to take people from graduate physics to your post by the same intellectual road that you took to understand the ideas. But your post does, as the large majority of blog expositions, assume that saying things like

“On the other hand, we can interpret this process as the creation of quark-antiquark pair, its propagation during some finite time and subsequent annihilation. It is clear from the form of the evolution operator that the corresponding correlation function can be written as , where is the interaction energy between quark and antiquark. Indeed, in the limit only the ground state of the Hamiltonian contributes into the expression for the amplitude. The energy of the ground state only depends on the distance between the quarks – the latter are heavy and only propagate in time.”

at which you arrive, I’m sure, after some thinking and studying, are understandable to plain physicists or even biologists !?! Not to mention that you talk about a number of things like E(L), evolution operator, correlation function… that you don’t introduce and neither think you need to spend a word to explain their relationship with the Wilson loop integral. Surely this things are in your mind very clear (or maybe not) but you shouldn’t consider them to be equally clear in ours so that, with that fast-paced sentence we can follow the reasoning of such a deep kind of physics.

Frankly speaking, the impression an outsider gets is that you’re repeating standard (obscure) text or paper assumtions that one finds many times stated but never explained. In that way knowledge is only transmited to the initiated, excluding every outsider.

Please, forgive the extension of the comment. Only your kind, fast and warm answer made me so loquacious.

Yes!!! I finally see the one who cares! Let me warmly welcome you. Be angry enough, and you shall be given – that’s how, I think, it works in science.

What kind of explanation is this?
You say that the circulation of the gluon field around a closed path can be interpreted as a quark-antiquark loop just like that? And this is the ?physical introduction??

Normal physical explanation, and what exactly makes you unhappy? Heavy quark propagating back in time is equivalent to antiquark propagating forward in time. Ask more and thou shalt receive.

If you really were writing for people without the ph-d in the field this kind of ?obvious? reasoning would not appear. Do you really think a standard physics graduate would understand this only from your explanation?

Yes, it is written at reasonably high level of complexity – because, I think, it is better to take, say, good monograph or recent reviews and learn the topic using them rather than some oversimplistic textbook. This would prepare you for real science career instead of teaching assistant career in some not so good college. Anyway, I would always try playing as high as I could.

To recommend reading Peskin book we don?t need posts!

Yes, but recommending reading it one more time does not hurt.

Anyway, you see, this is what all this blogging thing for – it is interacting, you can ask the blogger any thing you want, and you are very welcome to do that.

Cheers

Yes, A is in the adjoint representation, so A=A^a T^a, where T^a are generators of SU(N). For SU(3) T^a is given by Gell-Mann matrices \lambda^a.

Cheers