QCD string tension at strong coupling: log(g^2) vs. g^2

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the discrepancies in the computation of string tension (\tau) in lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) at strong coupling. Two formulations yield different results: the Euclidean path integral formulation gives \tau = \frac{\log g^2}{a^2}, while the Hamiltonian version provides \tau = \frac{3}{8} \frac{g^2}{a^2}. These lead to distinct beta-functions, with the Euclidean formulation yielding \beta(g) = - g \log(g^2) and the Hamiltonian formulation yielding \beta(g) = -g. The differences highlight the dependence of the beta-function on the regularization scheme used.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
  • Familiarity with lattice gauge theory concepts
  • Knowledge of path integral formulation in quantum field theory
  • Basic grasp of beta-functions and their significance in quantum field theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of regularization schemes in quantum field theories
  • Study the derivation of beta-functions in both Euclidean and Hamiltonian lattice QCD
  • Examine the book "The Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics" by Kogut & Stephanov for further insights
  • Explore the original literature referenced, particularly DOI 10.1016/0370-2693(81)90369-5 for additional context
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum field theory, lattice QCD researchers, and graduate students seeking to deepen their understanding of confinement and string tension in QCD.

bajo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I am trying to understand some things about confinement in lattice QCD. It has been very difficult so far to find a clear book chapter or review article, so I had to resort to the original literature in many cases, and I came across some apparently incompatible statements about the string tension in QCD.

I am very confused by the following: many books present the computation of the string tension (that I am going to denote with \tau) in the Euclidean path integral formulation, which gives:

<br /> \tau = \frac{\log g^2}{a^2},<br />

where a is the Lattice spacing and g is the YM coupling constant. Since \tau is a physical quantity, it must be independent of the regulator a, and as a consequence g becomes a function of the regulator a.

In other words, we can compute the strong-coupling limit of the \beta- function

<br /> \beta(g) = - a \frac{dg(a)}{da},<br />

by just asking that the derivative of \tau with respect to a vanishes. The minus sign comes about because a is related to the UV cutoff by a \propto 1/\Lambda.

It turns out that the Hamiltonian version of Lattice QCD gives a completely different result for \tau as a function of the coupling constant:

<br /> \tau = \frac{3}{8} \frac{g^2}{a^2}.<br />

(this formula can be found, for example, in the book by Kogut & Stephanov "The Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics", eq. (6.49)).

Of course these two results for \tau give two different \beta-functions at strong coupling: the first gives

<br /> \beta(g) = - g \log(g^2) + \ldots<br />

where the ellipses denote terms of higher order in 1/g, while the second gives

<br /> \beta(g) = -g + \ldots<br />

This latter result can also be found in the literature, for example DOI 10.1016/0370-2693(81)90369-5 (sorry, I do not yet have clearance for links in posts :)

I know that the \beta-function depends on the regularization scheme, so I should not expect a precise matching between two, but I still feel uneasy about it. I have the strong feeling I am missing something in this story, so I would like to ask you: are things really like that? Are the \beta-functions for Euclidean and Hamiltonian Lattice QCD really different, so that one grows as g and the other as g \log g^2 in the strong coupling limit?

Sorry for the long post and thank you in advance for any answers/comments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In case anyone is interested, I asked an expert in Lattice QCD working in my department, and he confirmed that what I said in the previous post is correct.
Therefore this is a nice example where you can explicitly appreciate the regularization scheme dependence of the \beta-function.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K