Are hadrons quasiparticles?

  • #1
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411

Main Question or Discussion Point

First, let me ask moderators not to move this thread to the High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics forum, because I am interested in hadrons from a wider perspective, especially from the perspective of condensed-matter QFT.

A hadron (e.g. proton, neutron, or pi-meson) is a complicated mixture involving 2 or 3 quarks and a sea of gluons. From perspective of non-perturbative QCD, one would say that it is a bound state of quarks and gluons. But how about condensed-matter perspective? Can we say that hadron is a collective particle-like excitation of quark and gluon fields? Or more specifically, can we say that hadron is a quasiparticle in the condensed-matter terminology? If it is not a quasiparticle, then what property of quasiparticles is missing in the case of hadrons?

A wider goal of such questions is to better understand the similarities and differences between QFT concepts in high-energy and condensed-matter physics.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,401
2,578
A quick look using Google seems to show that people don't use "quasiparticle" to include "composite particle", but I'm not sure if there is a principled reason why not.
 
  • #3
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
is a complicated mixture
no, it is a bound state, not a mixture.
what property of quasiparticles is missing in the case of hadrons?
It has far too few constituents. To define a quasiparticle in the condensed matter sense you need a macroscopic amount of substance.
 
  • #4
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
It has far too few constituents.
Roughly how many gluons a hadron has?

To define a quasiparticle in the condensed matter sense you need a macroscopic amount of substance.
Why a macroscopic amount of substance is important?
 
  • #5
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
Roughly how many gluons a hadron has?
Why a macroscopic amount of substance is important?
The first question has no answer since gluons are massless; hence there is an unlimited number of very soft gluons (which don't count in a statistical mechanics treatment). One has to sum these up into a coherent state. The contribution of hard gluons (which would count) is small; one can probably even neglect it to a good approximation.

A macroscopic amount of substance is important in order that statistical mechanics (in the usual sense) is applicable. Formally, one has to perform a thermodynamic limit, in which the Bogoliubov transformation that defines the quasiparticles produces a representation inequivalent to the vacuum representation (in which the ordinary particles are defined).
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
A macroscopic amount of substance is important in order that statistical mechanics (in the usual sense) is applicable.
Why is it important that statistical mechanics is applicable? Are you saying that quasiparticles only make sense in the context of statistical mechanics?
 
  • #7
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
What would be your definition of a quasiparticle without statistical mechanics?
 
  • #8
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
What would be your definition of a quasiparticle without statistical mechanics?
A primary example of a quasiparticle I have in mind is a phonon, as described e.g. in Sec. 1.1 of Ben Simons's Concepts in Theoretical Physics which can be freely download here
http://free-ebooks.gr/en/book/concepts-in-theoretical-physics [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
A primary example of a quasiparticle I have in mind is a phonon, as described e.g. in Sec. 1.1 of Ben Simons's Concepts in Theoretical Physics which can be freely download here
http://free-ebooks.gr/en/book/concepts-in-theoretical-physics
The phonon makes sense only in a solid lattice, hence presumes a many-body system in the background.

Of course you may consider relativistic QFT with cutoff as a strongly interacting many-body system of bare particles (a kind of ether) and the vacuum as its ground state. Then all elementary particles (not only the composite ones) become quasiparticles in this picture. The problem is that this picture makes no longer sense if the cutoff is removed.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
The phonon makes sense only in a solid lattice, hence presumes a many-body system in the background.
Why solid? I think there are phonons in fluids too. I agree with the importance of the many-body background, which leads us to the next point ...

Of course you may consider relativistic QFT with cutoff as a strongly interacting many-body system of bare particles (a kind of ether) and the vacuum as its ground state. Then all elementary particles (not only the composite ones) become quasiparticles in this picture.
Yes, that philosophy is much more in the spirit I had in mind. But intuitively, hadron is somehow more "quasi" than quark or gluon, in the sense that it is more "emergent" and less "elementary". I am not sure if such intuition can be made to make more sense.

The problem is that this picture makes no longer sense if the cutoff is removed.
Fine, but QFT without cutoff does not make sense for many other reasons, so let us work with the cutoff all the time.
 
  • #11
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
intuitively, hadron is somehow more "quasi" than quark or gluon, in the sense that it is more "emergent" and less "elementary". I am not sure if such intuition can be made to make more sense.
With a cutoff, the many-body background would be a non-covariant ether consisting of highly interacting bare particles with an interaction that depends heavily on the cutoff.

On this background one can liken elementary bosons to phonons in a solid or fluid, elementary fermions to effective electrons in a conductor, mesons to Cooper pairs in a superconductor, and baryons in a more figurative way to a kind of ''Cooper triples'', since they are dressed versions of single particles, particle pairs, and triples. But I have no idea what one would gain from using this analogy (which apparently was widespread in the 1950s but since then lost ground). Maybe because you want to build a Bohmian mechanics on top of it? But then you have to explain why all the couplings are extremely sensitive to the cutoff!

In practice, it is rather the opposite way, that one wants to liken quasiparticles to particles! Indeed, one works in condensed-matter physics with quasiparticles precisely since these behave somewhat like elementary quantum particles.
 
  • #12
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
With a cutoff, the many-body background would be a non-covariant ether consisting of highly interacting bare particles with an interaction that depends heavily on the cutoff.
I don't see why would that be a problem.

But I have no idea what one would gain from using this analogy ... Maybe because you want to build a Bohmian mechanics on top of it?
That too, but I have other reasons as well:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04088
 
  • #13
atyy
Science Advisor
13,732
1,871
  • #14
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
I don't see why would that be a problem.
It is of the same kind as the fine-tuning problem in grand unification. It is not a problem if you treat the interactions as God-given.
 
  • #15
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
"quasiparticle method of Weinberg"
Weinberg's notion of quasiparticles is different from that of condensed matter physics.
One can see this from the abstract of his 1963 paper http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.131.440 [Broken].
Weinberg said:
Perturbation theory always works in nonrelativistic scattering theory, unless composite particles are present. By "composite particle" is meant a bound state or resonance, or one that would exist for an interaction of opposite sign; in fact, this provides a precise definition of resonances. It follows that if fictitious elementary particles (quasiparticles) are first introduced to take the place of all composite particles, then perturbation theory can always be used. There are several ways of accomplishing this [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
atyy
Science Advisor
13,732
1,871
Weinberg's notion of quasiparticles is different from that of condensed matter physics.
One can see this from the abstract of his 1963 paper Quasiparticles and the Born Series.
I was thinking in the sense that a "quasiparticle" is a particle in the low energy effective theory. Eg. if the electron is emergent, then it is a quasiparticle. So in that sense, Weinberg's quasiparticles are quasiparticles. (I see you said something like this in poist #11.)
 
Last edited:
  • #17
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
I was thinking in the sense that a "quasiparticle" is a particle in the low energy effective theory. Eg. if the electron is emergent, then it is a quasiparticle. So in that sense, Weinberg's quasiparticles are quasiparticles. (I see you said something like this in poist #11.)
Weinberg's paper is not about low energy approximations. He calculates the bound states exactly from a bigger Hilbert space in which free quasiparticles are added artificially to be able to do an improved perturbation theory. The bound statres computed are complicated composites of the original particles and the added quasiparticles. This is very unlike what is done in condensed matter theory.

On the other hand, post #11 assumes from the start that we have a cutoff (in order to be able to define the background), which means working in a truncated Hilbert space and then defines quasiparticles to be the bound states of the truncated description. This is analogous to thedressing of an elecron in condensed matter theory.

Thus the two concepts of quasiparticles go into opposite directions.
 
  • #18
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
It is of the same kind as the fine-tuning problem in grand unification. It is not a problem if you treat the interactions as God-given.
How else can interactions be given?
 
  • #19
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
How else can interactions be given?
Many people interested in grand unification or string theory believe that a really fundamental theory should have no tunable parameter (except those for which the predictions are fairly insensitive) but be completely determined by symmetry principles. To need the constants to 20 digits relative accuracy to get a prediction accuracy of 2 digits is considered by them as too unnatural for a fundamental theory. This is what is behind the so-called fine-tuning problem.

If one works with a fixed value of cutoff and bare couplings, one has the same problem.
 
  • #20
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
Many people interested in grand unification or string theory believe that a really fundamental theory should have no tunable parameter (except those for which the predictions are fairly insensitive) but be completely determined by symmetry principles. To need the constants to 20 digits relative accuracy to get a prediction accuracy of 2 digits is considered by them as too unnatural for a fundamental theory. This is what is behind the so-called fine-tuning problem.

If one works with a fixed value of cutoff and bare couplings, one has the same problem.
OK, but I don't think that QFT is fundamental theory. And I am not alone, many high-energy physicists do not think that QFT is fundamental theory. Many (including Weinberg) hold the view that all quantum field theories are only effective theories. Such a view is also implicit in the Wilsonian approach to renormalization (group), which is rather condensed-matter-like in spirit, and yet quite popular among high-energy physicists.
 
  • #21
atyy
Science Advisor
13,732
1,871
OK, but I don't think that QFT is fundamental theory. And I am not alone, many high-energy physicists do not think that QFT is fundamental theory. Many (including Weinberg) hold the view that all quantum field theories are only effective theories. Such a view is also implicit in the Wilsonian approach to renormalization (group), which is rather condensed-matter-like in spirit, and yet quite popular among high-energy physicists.
I think it is explicit in Wilsonian renormalization, since it is with Wilson that non-renormalizable theories like gravity are ok. Wilson is truly condensed matter and HEP in spirit. Wilson was a HEP physicist, but the theory of critical phenomena and the Kondo problem where he first carried out his calculations were condensed matter, but it was clear that the calculations were linked to HEP renormalization calculations.

So HEP is a far superior field of physics, since it saved condensed matter. In contrast, condensed matter physicists only contributed one God particle to HEP.
 
  • #22
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
Most QFT textbooks promote either high-energy or condensed-matter style of thinking, not both. Those that promote both are quite rare. I think it would be useful to have a list of books that promote both, so here is my (probably incomplete) list of such both-styles-in-one-book textbooks:

Non-free:
- Lancaster and Blundell - QFT fot the Gifted Amateur (very pedagogic)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/019969933X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
- Ziman - Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory (very old - 1969)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521099498/?tag=pfamazon01-20
- Padmanabhan - QFT (very new - 2016)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319281712/?tag=pfamazon01-20
- Le Bellac - Quantum and Statistical Field Theory
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198539649/?tag=pfamazon01-20
- Zee - QFT in a Nutshell
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691140340/?tag=pfamazon01-20
- Umezawa - Advanced Field Theory
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1563960818/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Free:
- Kleinert - Particles and Quantum Fields (very big - more than 1600 pages in the current edition, and frequently updated*)
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/qft.pdf
- Simons - Concepts in Theoretical Physics (very pedagogic)
http://free-ebooks.gr/en/book/concepts-in-theoretical-physics

Please add any relevant book you know that I might have missed.

--------------------
* Off-topic: For those who like good, big, free and frequently updated textbooks, let me also recommend
- Blau - Lecture Notes on General Relativity (more than 900 pages in the current edition)
http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf
If "frequently updated" is not the requirement, then the following one also fits
- Mauch - Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers (more than 2300 pages)
http://physics.bgu.ac.il/~gedalin/Teaching/Mater/am.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
atyy
Science Advisor
13,732
1,871
In a sense, the exposition http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/lectures/basisqft.pdf by 't Hooft is condensed matter in spirit, because he says: "Often, authors forget to mention the first, very important, step in this logical procedure: replace the classical field theory one wishes to quantize by a strictly finite theory. Assuming that physical structures smaller than a certain size will not be important for our considerations, we replace the continuum of three-dimensional space by a discrete but dense lattice of points."
 
  • #24
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,222
3,111
in this logical procedure
In which logical procedure?
 
  • #25
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,689
3,411
In which logical procedure?
Quantization of a classical field theory.
 

Related Threads on Are hadrons quasiparticles?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
653
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Top