Deep inelastic scattering and the Q^2 large limit

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of deep inelastic scattering (DIS) and the implications of taking the limit as ##Q^2 \rightarrow \infty##, particularly in relation to the Bjorken limit and the lightcone formulation of the hadronic tensor. Participants explore the mathematical framework and physical interpretations involved in this limit, raising questions about the parametrization of momenta and the behavior of currents in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the parametrization of momenta used in Bailin and Love's argument, suggesting it does not allow for a virtual photon since ##q^2 = 0##.
  • Another participant agrees that the parametrization is problematic, emphasizing the need for a hard scale ##q^2 \neq 0 \gg \Lambda_{\text{QCD}}## for perturbative QCD to be applicable.
  • A question is raised about why the Bjorken limit corresponds to ##q_+ \rightarrow \infty##, arguing that the expression for ##x## is symmetric in ##q_+ \leftrightarrow q_-##.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the implications of having ##x^2 < 0##, with a participant questioning whether this indicates that the currents would be spacelike separated and thus unable to interact.
  • One participant suggests that there may be relevant information in Aitchinson's two-volume work, although they are uncertain about its applicability to the current problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the parametrization of momenta and its implications for the analysis. There is no consensus on the questions raised, as multiple viewpoints and uncertainties persist throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the parametrization and the assumptions underlying the Bjorken limit, as well as the implications of causality in the context of spacelike separation of currents.

CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87
I am reading through Bailin and Love's argument (see P.151-152 of 'Introduction to Gauge Field Theory') that as ##Q^2 \rightarrow \infty##, we probe the product of the two electromagnetic currents appearing in the hadronic tensor for DIS on the lightcone. I will write out the argument here and point out my questions as I go along.

The Bjorken limit is defined as the limit in which ##Q^2 \rightarrow \infty, p \cdot q \rightarrow \infty## with Bjorken ##x## fixed. As we will now show, the Bjorken limit corresponds to studying the light cone in coordinate space. To see this, it is convenient to work in the frame in which ##p = (m_N, 0, 0, 0 )## and ##q = (q^0, 0, 0, q^0)## with the z axis chosen along the direction of momentum of the virtual photon. (1st question: This parametrisation of momenta does not allow for a virtual photon - ##q^2 = 0## no? Perhaps there is a typo in his parametrisation because then the rest of the argument has no foundation I think)

In lightcone variables, ##q^2 = q_+ q_-## and ##p \cdot q = (m_N/2)(q_+ + q_-)## and therefore $$x = \frac{-q_+ q_-}{m_N(q_+ + q_-)}$$The Bjorken limit is thus the limit ##q_+ \rightarrow \infty## with ##q_-## fixed (and negative). Consequently, ##x = -q_-/m_N##. (2nd question: why the Bjorken limit corresponds to ##q_+ \rightarrow \infty##? ##x## as written is symmetric in ##q_+ \leftrightarrow q_-## so singling out ##q_+## as the one that gets large seems incorrect, no?)

Expanding the exponential appearing in the hadronic tensor in terms of lightcone components: $$e^{i qx} = \exp \left(\frac{i}{2} (q_+ x_- + q_- x_+) \right)$$ The exponential oscillates rapidly as ##q^+ \rightarrow \infty## so that the only contribution to the integral comes from the region ##x_- = 0##. Then $$x^2 = x_+ x_- - \mathbf x^2 \leq 0 $$ The strict inequality can't hold because of causality therefore we must have ##x^2 = 0##, as required. (3rd question: ##x^2 < 0## would have implied that the currents were spacelike separated - why is this a bad thing? Is it because they would be in different regions of the lightcone diagram and hence never 'talk' to each other? )

Thanks!
 
What seems to be the problem? ##q^2 = q_0^2-q_0^2=0##, didn't you notice it?
 
MathematicalPhysicist said:
What seems to be the problem? ##q^2 = q_0^2-q_0^2=0##, didn't you notice it?
Yes, that is exactly the problem. The whole point is to have a hard scale ##q^2 \neq 0 \gg \Lambda_{\text{QCD}}## so that perturbative QCD can be applied to this process.I think his parametrisation is just a typo and I thought about 3) more so only 2) is the remaining question I have.
 
I am not expert in physics, but perhaps there's something mentioned in the 2-volume of Aitchinson's about this problem. (don't know, perhaps the same problem arises there as well).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K