ΛQCDΛQCD from the beta function of QCD coupling constant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the physical significance of the QCD scale parameter, ##\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}##, derived from the beta function of the strong coupling constant ##g_3##. Participants explore implications related to the validity of QCD at different energy scales, particularly below the QCD scale, and the nature of QCD as a non-perturbative theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the beta function for the strong coupling ##g_3## and derives the expression for ##\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}##, suggesting it serves as a natural cut-off for the theory.
  • Another participant questions whether QCD is undefined below the QCD scale, referencing the absence of a Landau pole in QCD.
  • A different participant agrees that QCD is non-perturbative at low energies and notes that ##\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}## is the energy scale where ##\alpha_3 = 1##, implying that perturbative expansions may not be valid.
  • There is mention of Lattice QCD as a method to address the non-perturbative nature of QCD, though the participant expresses uncertainty about the role of ##\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}## in various renormalization schemes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of ##\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}##, particularly regarding the definition of QCD below this scale and the nature of perturbative versus non-perturbative approaches. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the behavior of QCD at low energies and the dependence on specific renormalization schemes, which are not fully explored in the discussion.

spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
The beta function for the strong coupling ##g_3## is given by

##\displaystyle{\mu \frac{\partial g_{3}}{\partial\mu}(\mu) = - \frac{23}{3} \frac{g_{3}^{3}(\mu)}{16\pi^{2}},}##

with

##\alpha_{3}(\mu = M_{Z}) = 0.118.##

We can use separation of variables to solve the beta function equation:

##\displaystyle{\int \frac{dg_{3}}{g_{3}^{3}} = - \frac{23}{48\pi^{2}} \int \frac{d\mu}{\mu}}##

##\displaystyle{\frac{1}{g_{3}^{2}} = \frac{23}{24\pi^{2}}\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}}\right)}##

##\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\alpha_{3}} = \frac{23}{6\pi}\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}}\right).}##

Using the physical condition, we then find that

##\displaystyle{\Lambda_{\text{QCD}} = \left(91\ \text{GeV}\right) e^{-6\pi/2.714}.}##

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the physical significance of ##\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}## as obtained by solving for the the strong coupling ##g_3##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure I understand your question, but LambdaQCD introduces a natural (lower) cut-off for your theory, as shown by the equation of 1/α3 (or g32)... ? you already used that when you integrated your energy scale.
 
Does this mean that the theory of QCD is undefined below the QCD scale?

I thought that QCD does not have a Landau pole.
 
spaghetti3451 said:
Does this mean that the theory of QCD is undefined below the QCD scale?

I think it's known though that QCD is non-perturbative at low energies? And your LambdaQCD you found (~90MeV) is the energy scale where α3 = 1 (which already whispers that it's not a good idea to expand into powers of α3).
That's why there is Lattice QCD.
Of course there can be more, but I am not very confident to write, for example I think LambdaQCD appears only in some renormalization schemes...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K