Wilson loops (srednicki eqn. 82.37)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RedX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Loops
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and implications of string tension between quarks as presented in Srednicki's equations, particularly focusing on the apparent contradictions in the expressions for string tension under different coupling regimes. Participants explore the relationship between coupling 'g', lattice spacing 'a', and the resulting string tension, as well as the area law associated with Wilson loops.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the consistency of Srednicki's equations for string tension, specifically whether it should be expressed as \(\tau=\frac{\ln(g^2)}{a^2}\) or \(\tau=Ce^{-\frac{1}{b_1g^2}}/a^2\).
  • It is noted that the first formula applies when \(g \gg 1\) and \(a \gg 1/\Lambda\), while the second applies when \(g \ll 1\) and \(a \ll 1/\Lambda\).
  • Some participants argue that the existence of two distinct formulas suggests a potential phase transition, while others assert that the transition is smooth between the two limits.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of integrating a convergent power series leading to a divergent series, depending on the value of 'g'.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about Srednicki's assumption that the string constant can be generalized as \(\frac{c(g(a))}{a^2}\) despite its derivation being limited to a specific case.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the form \(\tau=c(g(a))/a^2\) arises from dimensional analysis, with 'a' being the only dimensionful parameter.
  • There is a discussion on the challenges of computing \(c(g)\) for weak coupling and the necessity of using computational methods to verify its expected form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the consistency of Srednicki's equations and the nature of the transition between coupling regimes. There is no consensus on whether the transition is smooth or indicates a phase transition, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the derived formulas.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the derivation of the string tension formulas, particularly the dependence on the coupling constant and lattice spacing, as well as the implications of convergence in power series expansions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying quantum field theory, lattice gauge theory, and the dynamics of quarks, particularly in relation to string tension and Wilson loops.

RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
In eqn. (82.37) Srednicki derives for the string tension between two quarks as [tex]\tau=\frac{c(g)}{a^2}[/tex] where [tex]c(g)=ln(g^2)[/tex], 'g' is the coupling, and 'a' is the lattice spacing. He later goes on to say that the string tension should be independent of the lattice spacing 'a', and using this condition, calculated the string tension for small 'g' and small lattice spacing 'a' (82.41): [tex]\tau=Ce^{\frac{-1/(b_1g^2)}{a^2}}[/tex]. But didn't he just contradict himself? If the string tension must be the same, then which is it, [tex]\tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2}[/tex], or [tex]\tau=Ce^{\frac{-1/(b_1g^2)}{a^2}}[/tex]?

Also, it seems to me that the result eqn. (82.35), [tex](\frac{1}{g^2})^{\frac{A}{a^2}}[/tex], the area law (A=area of the Wilson loop), doesn't depend on its derivation whether g is large or small. You can always expand an exponential [tex]e^x[/tex] about x=0 whether x is big or small! And in order for the Wilson loop to not be zero via eqns (82.31), (82.32), and (82.33), then (82.35) must hold!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RedX said:
If the string tension must be the same, then which is it, [itex]\tau=\ln(g^2)/a^2[/itex], or [itex]\tau=C\exp[-1/(b_1g^2)]/a^2[/itex]?
The first formula applies when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex] and [itex]a\gg 1/\Lambda[/itex], where [itex]\Lambda\sim 1\,\rm GeV[/itex] is the characteristic energy scale of QCD, and the second when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex] and [itex]a\ll 1/\Lambda[/itex].
RedX said:
Also, it seems to me that the result eqn. (82.35) ... doesn't depend on its derivation whether g is large or small.
You can expand the exponential for any [itex]g[/itex], but after you do the integrals over [itex]U[/itex], the resulting series may have a finite radius of convergence. This is what is supposed to happen for U(1) lattice gauge theory.
 
Avodyne said:
The first formula applies when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex] and [itex]a\gg 1/\Lambda[/itex], where [itex]\Lambda\sim 1\,\rm GeV[/itex] is the characteristic energy scale of QCD, and the second when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex] and [itex]a\ll 1/\Lambda[/itex].

But how can such a sharp, discontinuous contrast exist? Even if both of those formulas (on their respective regimes) give the same value of the string constant, surely such discontinuity indicates some nth order phase transition?

Avodyne said:
You can expand the exponential for any [itex]g[/itex], but after you do the integrals over [itex]U[/itex], the resulting series may have a finite radius of convergence. This is what is supposed to happen for U(1) lattice gauge theory.

I wish Srednicki would have mentioned that. I didn't realize after you integrate a convergent power series that the resulting series could be divergent. So whether the resulting power series has a finite or infinite radius of convergence depends on the size of 'g'?
 
RedX said:
But how can such a sharp, discontinuous contrast exist?
It's not discontinuous, it changes smoothly from one limiting case when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex] to the other when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex].
RedX said:
I didn't realize after you integrate a convergent power series that the resulting series could be divergent.
Sure. As a trivial example, consider
[tex]I=\int_{0}^{\infty}dx\;e^{-x} \;e^{gx}.[/tex]
Expand in powers of [itex]g[/itex] and do the integral term by term; the result is
[tex]I=1+g+g^2+g^3+\ldots\;,[/tex]
which only converges if [itex]|g|<1[/itex]. Of course, since the integrand can be written as [itex]e^{-(1-g)x}[/itex], it's obvious that the integral only makes sense if [itex]g<1[/itex].
 
So I guess what Srednicki is saying is that the formula for the string constant for strong coupling is [tex]\tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2}[/tex]. It would be great if [tex]g(a)=\sqrt{e^{Ca^2}}[/tex], because plugging that back in, the string constant will always remain the constant 'C' for all 'a'. However the relationship between 'g' and 'a' is governed by the beta function and not the string equation [tex]\tau=\frac{ln(g^2)}{a^2}[/tex].

So out of nowhere, to resolve this problem, Srednicki says instead of [tex]ln(g^2(a))[/tex], let's call it c(g(a)), and determine a function c(g(a)) that keeps the string constant the same.

So Srednicki is assuming that the string constant can always be written as [tex]\frac{c(g(a))}{a^2}[/tex], despite the fact that the 1/a^2 dependence was derived only in a special case.

This is not really satisfying.

edit: I can actually believe the [tex]\frac{c(g(a))}{a^2}[/tex] area law now, even though technically it was only derived in the strong coupling limit case. Although the power series expansion gets messed up (after integration) in the weak coupling limit, I guess the same physical arguments hold, that you have to have every plaquette inside the loop.
 
Last edited:
The form [itex]\tau=c(g(a))/a^2[/itex] follows just from dimensional analysis; [itex]a[/itex] is the only dimensionful parameter in the theory, and [itex]\tau[/itex] has dimensions of inverse length squared (with [itex]\hbar=c=1[/itex]).

Then, we know from the strong coupling analysis that [itex]c(g)=\ln g^2[/itex] when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex], and from the weak coupling analysis (that is, the perturbative computation of the beta function) that [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex] when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex], where [itex]C[/itex] is just a numerical constant.
 
Avodyne said:
Then, we know from the strong coupling analysis that [itex]c(g)=\ln g^2[/itex] when [itex]g\gg 1[/itex], and from the weak coupling analysis (that is, the perturbative computation of the beta function) that [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex] when [itex]g\ll 1[/itex], where [itex]C[/itex] is just a numerical constant.

Why is [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex] so difficult that we have to use computers instead? As you say we have the beta function for perturbative computation to one loop (i.e., order [tex]g^3[/tex]). Can we not integrate this beta function to get g(a), plug this g(a) into [itex]c(g)=C\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/itex], and then take the limit as 'a' goes to zero? Srednicki comments that the exponential [tex]\exp(-1/b_1 g^2)[/tex] is not analytic at g=0 so that the exponential can't be expanded in Taylor series, but why expand in Taylor series when you can just plug it directly into the exponential? Also if you were to do a lattice calculation, can you plug in a Wilson loop of any shape to figure out [tex]\tau[/tex]?
 
We need computers to check that c(g) has the expected form at weak coupling, and to compute the constant C. What we really want to compute is dimensionless numbers that characterize the physics, such as the string tension in units of the mass of the lightest glueball. The mass of the lightest glueball would be given in the lattice theory by a formula like m = d(g)/a. At small g, we expect d(g) = D exp(-1/2 b1 g^2), so that tau/m^2 = C/D^2 when g goes to zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K