Wilson loops (srednicki eqn. 82.37)

  • Thread starter RedX
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Loops
In summary, Srednicki presents two different formulas for the string tension between two quarks, depending on the values of the coupling 'g' and the lattice spacing 'a'. The first formula, \tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2}, applies when g is large and a is small, while the second formula, \tau=C\exp[-1/(b_1g^2)]/a^2, applies when g is small and a is large. However, these formulas are not contradictory, as they smoothly transition from one to the other. Srednicki also mentions that the exponential term in the second formula cannot be expanded in a Taylor series, but it can still be evaluated numerically
  • #1
RedX
970
3
In eqn. (82.37) Srednicki derives for the string tension between two quarks as [tex]\tau=\frac{c(g)}{a^2} [/tex] where [tex]c(g)=ln(g^2)[/tex], 'g' is the coupling, and 'a' is the lattice spacing. He later goes on to say that the string tension should be independent of the lattice spacing 'a', and using this condition, calculated the string tension for small 'g' and small lattice spacing 'a' (82.41): [tex]\tau=Ce^{\frac{-1/(b_1g^2)}{a^2}} [/tex]. But didn't he just contradict himself? If the string tension must be the same, then which is it, [tex]\tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2} [/tex], or [tex] \tau=Ce^{\frac{-1/(b_1g^2)}{a^2}} [/tex]?

Also, it seems to me that the result eqn. (82.35), [tex](\frac{1}{g^2})^{\frac{A}{a^2}} [/tex], the area law (A=area of the Wilson loop), doesn't depend on its derivation whether g is large or small. You can always expand an exponential [tex]e^x [/tex] about x=0 whether x is big or small! And in order for the Wilson loop to not be zero via eqns (82.31), (82.32), and (82.33), then (82.35) must hold!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
RedX said:
If the string tension must be the same, then which is it, [itex]\tau=\ln(g^2)/a^2 [/itex], or [itex] \tau=C\exp[-1/(b_1g^2)]/a^2[/itex]?
The first formula applies when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex] and [itex]a\gg 1/\Lambda[/itex], where [itex]\Lambda\sim 1\,\rm GeV[/itex] is the characteristic energy scale of QCD, and the second when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex] and [itex]a\ll 1/\Lambda[/itex].
RedX said:
Also, it seems to me that the result eqn. (82.35) ... doesn't depend on its derivation whether g is large or small.
You can expand the exponential for any [itex]g[/itex], but after you do the integrals over [itex]U[/itex], the resulting series may have a finite radius of convergence. This is what is supposed to happen for U(1) lattice gauge theory.
 
  • #3
Avodyne said:
The first formula applies when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex] and [itex]a\gg 1/\Lambda[/itex], where [itex]\Lambda\sim 1\,\rm GeV[/itex] is the characteristic energy scale of QCD, and the second when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex] and [itex]a\ll 1/\Lambda[/itex].

But how can such a sharp, discontinuous contrast exist? Even if both of those formulas (on their respective regimes) give the same value of the string constant, surely such discontinuity indicates some nth order phase transition?

Avodyne said:
You can expand the exponential for any [itex]g[/itex], but after you do the integrals over [itex]U[/itex], the resulting series may have a finite radius of convergence. This is what is supposed to happen for U(1) lattice gauge theory.

I wish Srednicki would have mentioned that. I didn't realize after you integrate a convergent power series that the resulting series could be divergent. So whether the resulting power series has a finite or infinite radius of convergence depends on the size of 'g'?
 
  • #4
RedX said:
But how can such a sharp, discontinuous contrast exist?
It's not discontinuous, it changes smoothly from one limiting case when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex] to the other when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex].
RedX said:
I didn't realize after you integrate a convergent power series that the resulting series could be divergent.
Sure. As a trivial example, consider
[tex]I=\int_{0}^{\infty}dx\;e^{-x} \;e^{gx}.[/tex]
Expand in powers of [itex]g[/itex] and do the integral term by term; the result is
[tex]I=1+g+g^2+g^3+\ldots\;,[/tex]
which only converges if [itex]|g|<1[/itex]. Of course, since the integrand can be written as [itex]e^{-(1-g)x}[/itex], it's obvious that the integral only makes sense if [itex]g<1[/itex].
 
  • #5
So I guess what Srednicki is saying is that the formula for the string constant for strong coupling is [tex]\tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2} [/tex]. It would be great if [tex]g(a)=\sqrt{e^{Ca^2}}[/tex], because plugging that back in, the string constant will always remain the constant 'C' for all 'a'. However the relationship between 'g' and 'a' is governed by the beta function and not the string equation [tex]\tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2} [/tex].

So out of nowhere, to resolve this problem, Srednicki says instead of [tex]ln(g^2(a))[/tex], let's call it c(g(a)), and determine a function c(g(a)) that keeps the string constant the same.

So Srednicki is assuming that the string constant can always be written as [tex]\frac{c(g(a))}{a^2} [/tex], despite the fact that the 1/a^2 dependence was derived only in a special case.

This is not really satisfying.

edit: I can actually believe the [tex] \frac{c(g(a))}{a^2} [/tex] area law now, even though technically it was only derived in the strong coupling limit case. Although the power series expansion gets messed up (after integration) in the weak coupling limit, I guess the same physical arguments hold, that you have to have every plaquette inside the loop.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
The form [itex]\tau=c(g(a))/a^2[/itex] follows just from dimensional analysis; [itex]a[/itex] is the only dimensionful parameter in the theory, and [itex]\tau[/itex] has dimensions of inverse length squared (with [itex]\hbar=c=1[/itex]).

Then, we know from the strong coupling analysis that [itex]c(g)=\ln g^2[/itex] when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex], and from the weak coupling analysis (that is, the perturbative computation of the beta function) that [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex] when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex], where [itex]C[/itex] is just a numerical constant.
 
  • #7
Avodyne said:
Then, we know from the strong coupling analysis that [itex]c(g)=\ln g^2[/itex] when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex], and from the weak coupling analysis (that is, the perturbative computation of the beta function) that [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex] when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex], where [itex]C[/itex] is just a numerical constant.

Why is [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex] so difficult that we have to use computers instead? As you say we have the beta function for perturbative computation to one loop (i.e., order [tex]g^3[/tex]). Can we not integrate this beta function to get g(a), plug this g(a) into [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex], and then take the limit as 'a' goes to zero? Srednicki comments that the exponential [tex]\exp(-1/b_1 g^2) [/tex] is not analytic at g=0 so that the exponential can't be expanded in Taylor series, but why expand in Taylor series when you can just plug it directly into the exponential? Also if you were to do a lattice calculation, can you plug in a Wilson loop of any shape to figure out [tex]\tau [/tex]?
 
  • #8
We need computers to check that c(g) has the expected form at weak coupling, and to compute the constant C. What we really want to compute is dimensionless numbers that characterize the physics, such as the string tension in units of the mass of the lightest glueball. The mass of the lightest glueball would be given in the lattice theory by a formula like m = d(g)/a. At small g, we expect d(g) = D exp(-1/2 b1 g^2), so that tau/m^2 = C/D^2 when g goes to zero.
 

What are Wilson loops in physics?

Wilson loops are mathematical objects used in quantum field theory to study the behavior of gauge fields. They are named after physicist Kenneth Wilson, who introduced them in the 1970s.

What is the significance of Wilson loops in physics?

Wilson loops are important for understanding the dynamics of gauge theories, particularly in the context of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). They provide a way to calculate the strength of the interaction between particles, as well as study the confinement of quarks in hadrons.

How are Wilson loops calculated?

Wilson loops are typically calculated using path integral methods, which involve summing over all possible paths of a particle or field. In practice, this involves breaking the loop into small segments and calculating the contribution from each segment, then combining them all to get the final result.

What is the Srednicki equation 82.37?

The Srednicki equation 82.37 is a specific equation within the Srednicki text, "Quantum Field Theory". It refers to the equation used to calculate Wilson loops, which is given by the path integral over the gauge potential A. This equation is important for studying the behavior of gauge fields in quantum systems.

What are the applications of Wilson loops?

Wilson loops have a wide range of applications in theoretical physics, particularly in the study of quantum chromodynamics, quantum gravity, and topological field theories. They are also used in lattice QCD simulations and in understanding the properties of quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions. Additionally, Wilson loops have been used in condensed matter physics to study topological phases of matter.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
705
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
587
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
489
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
1K
Back
Top