I Determinant problem in an article about QCD phase diagram

Ken Gallock
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi.
I'm reading an article about QCD phase diagram. https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4814.
I want to derive eq(20), but I don't know how.
Does anyone know how to derive this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It just uses that the determinant of a matrix is given by the product of its eigenvalues. The eigenvalues of ##D(0)## come in pairs, ##\gamma_i## and ##\gamma_i^*##. The Mass matrix is proportional to the unit matrix and thus the eigenvalues are ##\gamma_i+m_q## and ##\gamma_i^*+m_q##. Do you get
$$\det (D(0)+m_q)=\prod_i (\gamma_i+m_q)(\gamma_i^*+m_q)$$
which is Eq. (20) in the paper.
 
vanhees71 said:
It just uses that the determinant of a matrix is given by the product of its eigenvalues. The eigenvalues of ##D(0)## come in pairs, ##\gamma_i## and ##\gamma_i^*##. The Mass matrix is proportional to the unit matrix and thus the eigenvalues are ##\gamma_i+m_q## and ##\gamma_i^*+m_q##. Do you get
$$\det (D(0)+m_q)=\prod_i (\gamma_i+m_q)(\gamma_i^*+m_q)$$
which is Eq. (20) in the paper.

Thanks.
If there is no mass, (##m_q=0##), then will it be like this?:
$$
\det D(0)=\prod_i \gamma_i \gamma_i^*.
$$
I'm not familiar with 'a pair (##\gamma_i, \gamma_i^*##)' part. Why do we have to think about pair of eigenvalues?
 
The point is to show that without baryo-chemical potential you have always pairs of conjugate omplex eigenvalues and that's why in this case the fermion determinant is positive. For finite ##\mu_{\text{B}}## it's not longer real (except for imaginary chemical potential). That's why you cannot use Lattice QCD so easily to evaluate the QCD phase diagram at finite ##\mu_{\text{B}}##. Ways out of this trouble is subject of vigorous ungoing research in the nuclear-physics/finite-temperature-lattice community.
 
vanhees71 said:
The point is to show that without baryo-chemical potential you have always pairs of conjugate omplex eigenvalues and that's why in this case the fermion determinant is positive. For finite ##\mu_{\text{B}}## it's not longer real (except for imaginary chemical potential). That's why you cannot use Lattice QCD so easily to evaluate the QCD phase diagram at finite ##\mu_{\text{B}}##. Ways out of this trouble is subject of vigorous ungoing research in the nuclear-physics/finite-temperature-lattice community.
Thanks!
Problem solved.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top