Range of strong force as strength gets weaker.

Spinnor
Gold Member
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
419
Say we can set the strength of the strong force weaker, can the glouns then range further and further from a quark? Can we eventually get the strong force to look like the electromagnetic force as far as the range of the force is concerned?

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sort of. And, no. For any non-zero QCD coupling, the strong force will be confining. But, as you turn down the coupling strength, the QCD bound states will tend to get physically larger. And, if you turn down the coupling strength far enough, fragmentation of QCD states becomes exponentially suppressed. With a sufficiently weak strong force you could, in principle, get macroscopic bound states. However, the range would never get to infinity.
 
Parlyne said:
...For any nonzero QCD coupling, the strong force will be confining...

Hmmm?? I think you express a general belief by a majority of the physicists, but I have never seen a proof of it. Can you refer me to an article where this is proven.
 
fermi said:
Hmmm?? I think you express a general belief by a majority of the physicists, but I have never seen a proof of it. Can you refer me to an article where this is proven.

So far as I know, there is no first-principles proof of this. However, my impression was that the presence of confinement can't be coupling-dependent. So, given that the strong force is seen phenomenologically to be confining, that should continue to apply to an identical theory no matter where you set its coupling.
 
If you forget about absolute mass scales from current quark masses, you still get dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and the generation of a scale from a growing of the perturbative coupling at long distances. Another way to say it, setting a lower coupling in QCD with massless quarks merely amounts to a change of scale : the coupling takes arbitrarily low values at high energies.

You can obtain confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking with massless quarks for instance in instanton models of the vacuum.

At any rate, I think it is not controversial that QCD itself will still be confining whichever coupling you choose at a given scale. You just get a larger proton. But the issue is that if you make the coupling too weak, other interactions (electroweak) might become important.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top