Difference between QED & QCD Vacuum

  • Thread starter dev70
  • Start date
58
0
Hi pf, i have been wondering what differentiates QED Vacuum from QCD Vacuum? How would u explain its implications? I mean, how can u define pure vacuum in 2 ways?
 
58
0
no reply..what does that imply...:p
 

Bill_K

Science Advisor
Insights Author
4,155
193
Hi pf, i have been wondering what differentiates QED Vacuum from QCD Vacuum?
The difference is, QED vacuum contains no electrons, while QCD vacuum contains no quarks. :smile:
 

tom.stoer

Science Advisor
5,759
158
There are several differences. The first one is that in low-energy QCD there is a phase with broken chiral symmetry indicated by order parameter (the so-called quark condensate) with non-vanishing expectation value

##\langle \bar{q} q \rangle > 0##

whereas in QED the electron-positron expectation value vanishes

##\langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle = 0##
 
58
0
ok..fine..then would you please explain the QED vacuum and the creation of virtual particles and more about vacuum fluctuations?
 

tom.stoer

Science Advisor
5,759
158
What is your background in physics and your knowledge in quantum field theory?
 
58
0
well.nothing much..just 12th grade..nd beginner of quantum physics...
 

tom.stoer

Science Advisor
5,759
158
OK.

In quantum field theory one introduces a so-called vacuum state |vac>. This is not trivial mathematically, but the main idea is that
- the vacuum state is the state with lowest energy
- the vacuum state is empty, so the are no particles present

1) Now one can calculate the energy expectation value (in a finite volume) and one can calculate the expectation value for the particle numbers (particles species s, e.g. electrons and positrons, photons, quarks, gluons). One expectes something like

##\langle H \rangle_\text{vac} = \langle\text{vac} | H | \text{vac}\rangle = 0##
##\langle N_s \rangle_\text{vac} = \langle\text{vac} | N_s | \text{vac}\rangle = 0##

where H and N are so-called operators which define energy and particle number.

If you do that for QED (for s = electrons, positrons and photons) you find zero (as expected).

But for QCD the two definitions do not coincide!!

So one has a vacuum state with lowest energy 0, but for which the expectation value of N does not vanish. So the two equations become

##\langle H \rangle_\text{vac} = \langle\text{vac} | H | \text{vac}\rangle = 0##
##\langle N_s \rangle_\text{vac} = \langle\text{vac} | N_s | \text{vac}\rangle \neq 0##

The so-called quark condensate which I introduced in the previous post is something that measure the quark content of the vacuum. So the non-vanishing of this condensate means that the vacuum (defined as the state with lowest energy) is not empty.

2) There is a related phenomenon, namely the excitatons of the vacuum. In quantum field theory these quantized excitatons are interpreted as particles.

In QED one can find states with arbitrary small energy ε>0 (ε can be any positive number). This is rather simple b/c the energy of a photon is just E=hf, so a single photon with small frequency f (long wave length λ) defines such a state

##\langle f| H | f \rangle = hf##

Again in QCD the situation is different. There is no such state with arbitrary small but non-zero energy ε. Adding a single excitatation (a quark, a gluon) results in an unphysical state which is forbidden due to symmetry reasons and due to (infinite) energy. So in QCD there is a mass-gap, which means that one must add a rather large energy (a few hundred MeV) to find the next state above the vacuum state.

3) In order not t confuse you too much I due not (yet) discuss exceptions to 2) which are closely related to 1)
 
58
0
this is awesome..though i wont get all of it now...but still, i will. thanks a lot...its wonderful..
 

tom.stoer

Science Advisor
5,759
158
Ok then, if it is not zero, what is its value?
I was cheating a little bit b/c one does not determine <N> but the (flavor-specific) quark condensate; afaik the (ren.-scheme dep.) values are in the range of 300 MeV3; afaik in two-flavor QCD the value can be related to the pion mass and decay constant via the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner relation, e.g. in current algebra and chiral perturbation theory; there should be lattice gauge calculations as well.

I have to find some references.
 
Last edited:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top