Kyoto, arXiv and all that

12/11/2012

ResearchBlogging.org

Today, Kyoto conference HCP2012 has started. There is already an important news from LHCb that proves for the first time the existence of the decay B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-. They find close agreement with the Standard Model (see here). Another point scored by this model and waiting for new physics yet. You can find the program with all the talks to download here. There is a lot of expectations from the update on the Higgs search: The great day is Thursday. Meantime, there is Jester providing some rumors (see here on twitter side) and seem really interesting.

I have a couple of papers to put to the attention of my readers from arXiv. Firstly, Yuan-Sen Ting and Bryan Gin-ge Chen provided a further improved redaction of the Coleman’s lectures (see here). This people is doing a really deserving work and these lectures are a fundamental reading for any serious scholar on quantum field theory.

Axel Weber posted a contribution to a conference (see here) summing up his main conclusions on the infrared behavior of the running coupling and the two-point functions for a Yang-Mills theory. He makes use of renormalization group and the inescapable conclusion is that if one must have a decoupling solution, as lattice computations demand, then the running coupling reaches an infrared trivial fixed point. This is in close agreement with my conclusions on this matter and it is very pleasant to see them emerge from another approach.

Sidney Coleman (2011). Notes from Sidney Coleman’s Physics 253a arXiv arXiv: 1110.5013v4

Axel Weber (2012). The infrared fixed point of Landau gauge Yang-Mills theory arXiv arXiv: 1211.1473v1


Running coupling and Yang-Mills theory

30/07/2012

ResearchBlogging.org

Forefront research, during its natural evolution, produces some potential cornerstones that, at the end of the game, can prove to be plainly wrong. When one of these cornerstones happens to form, even if no sound confirmation at hand is available, it can make life of researchers really hard. It can be hard time to get papers published when an opposite thesis is supported. All this without any certainty of this cornerstone being a truth. You can ask to all people that at the beginning proposed the now dubbed “decoupling solution” for propagators of Yang-Mills theory in the Landau gauge and all of them will tell you how difficult was to get their papers go through in the peer-review system. The solution that at that moment was generally believed the right one, the now dubbed “scaling solution”, convinced a large part of the community that it was the one of choice. All this without any strong support from experiment, lattice or a rigorous mathematical derivation. This kind of behavior is quite old in a scientific community and never changed since the very beginning of science. Generally, if one is lucky enough things go straight and scientific truth is rapidly acquired otherwise this behavior produces delays and impediments for respectable researchers and a serious difficulty to get an understanding of the solution of  a fundamental question.

Maybe, the most famous case of this kind of behavior was with the discovery by Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang of parity violation in weak interactions on 1956. At that time, it was generally believed that parity should have been an untouchable principle of physics. Who believed so was proven wrong shortly after Lee and Yang’s paper. For the propagators in the Landau gauge in a Yang-Mills theory, recent lattice computations to huge volumes showed that the scaling solution never appears at dimensions greater than two. Rather, the right scenario seems to be provided by the decoupling solution. In this scenario, the gluon propagator is a Yukawa-like propagator in deep infrared or a sum of them. There is a very compelling reason to have such a kind of propagators in a strongly coupled regime and the reason is that the low energy limit recovers a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model that provides a very fine description of strong interactions at lower energies.

From a physical standpoint, what does it mean a Yukawa or a sum of Yukawa propagators? This has a dramatic meaning for the running coupling: The theory is just trivial in the infrared limit. The decoupling solution just says this as emerged from lattice computations (see here)

What really matters here is the way one defines the running coupling in the deep infrared. This definition must be consistent. Indeed, one can think of a different definition (see here) working things out using instantons and one see the following

One can see that, independently from the definition, the coupling runs to zero in the deep infrared marking the property of a trivial theory. This idea appears currently difficult to digest by the community as a conventional wisdom formed that Yang-Mills theory should have a non-trivial fixed point in the infrared limit. There is no evidence whatsoever for this and Nature does not provide any example of pure Yang-Mills theory that appears always interacting with Fermions instead. Lattice data say the contrary as we have seen but a general belief  is enough to make hard the life of researchers trying to pursue such a view. It is interesting to note that some theoretical frameworks need a non-trivial infrared fixed point for Yang-Mills theory otherwise they will crumble down.

But from a theoretical standpoint, what is the right approach to derive the behavior of the running coupling for a Yang-Mills theory? The answer is quite straightforward: Any consistent theoretical framework for Yang-Mills theory should be able to get the beta function in the deep infrared. From beta function one has immediately the right behavior of the running coupling. But in order to get it, one should be able to work out the Callan-Symanzik equation for the gluon propagator. So far, this is explicitly given in my papers (see here and refs. therein) as I am able to obtain the behavior of the mass gap as a function of the coupling. The relation between the mass gap and the coupling produces the scaling of the beta function in the Callan-Symanzik equation. Any serious attempt to understand Yang-Mills theory in the low-energy limit should provide this connection. Otherwise it is not mathematics but just heuristic with a lot of parameters to be fixed.

The final consideration after this discussion is that conventional wisdom in science should be always challenged when no sound foundations are given for it to hold. In a review process, as an editorial practice, referees should be asked to check this before to kill good works on shaky grounds.

I. L. Bogolubsky, E. -M. Ilgenfritz, M. Müller-Preussker, & A. Sternbeck (2009). Lattice gluodynamics computation of Landau-gauge Green’s functions in the deep infrared Phys.Lett.B676:69-73,2009 arXiv: 0901.0736v3

Ph. Boucaud, F. De Soto, A. Le Yaouanc, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli, H. Moutarde, O. Pène, & J. Rodríguez-Quintero (2002). The strong coupling constant at small momentum as an instanton detector JHEP 0304:005,2003 arXiv: hep-ph/0212192v1

Marco Frasca (2010). Mapping theorem and Green functions in Yang-Mills theory PoS FacesQCD:039,2010 arXiv: 1011.3643v3


Millenium prize on Yang-Mills theory: The situation in physics

05/06/2012

ResearchBlogging.org

Yang-Mills theory with the related question of the mass gap appears today an unsolved problem and, from a mathematical standpoint, the community did not recognized anybody to claim the prize so far. But in physics the answer to this question has made enormous progress mostly by the use of lattice computations and, quite recently, with the support of theoretical analysis. Contrarily to common wisdom, the most fruitful attack to this problem is using Green functions. The reason why this was not a greatly appreciated approach relies on the fact that Green functions are gauge dependent. Anyhow, they contain physical information that is gauge independent and this is exactly what we are looking for: The mass gap.

In order to arrive to such a conclusion a lot of work has been needed since ’80 and the main reason was that at the very start of these studies computational resources were not enough to arrive to a deep infrared region. So, initially, the scenario people supported was not the right one and some conviction arose that the gluon propagator could not say too much about the question of the mass gap. There was no Källen-Lehman representation to help and rather, the propagator seemed to not behave as a massive one but theoretical analysis pointed to a gluon propagator going to zero lowering momenta. This is the now dubbed scaling solution.

Running coupling from the lattice

In the first years of this decade things changed dramatically both due to increase of computational power and by a better theoretical understanding. As pointed out by Axel Weber (see here and here), three papers unveiled what is now called the decoupling solution (see here, here and here). The first two papers were solving Dyson-Schwinger equations by numerical methods while the latter is a theoretical paper solving Yang-Mills equations. Decoupling solution is in agreement with lattice results that in those years started to come out with more powerful computational resources. At larger lattices the gluon propagator reaches a finite non-zero value, the ghost propagator is the one of a free massless particle and the running coupling bends toward zero aiming to a trivial infrared fixed point (see here, here and here). Axel Weber, in his work, shows that the decoupling solution is the only stable one with respect a renormalization group flow.

Gluon propagators for SU(2) from the lattice

These are accepted facts in the physical community so that several papers are now coming out using them. The one I have seen today is from Kenji Fukushima and Kouji Kashiwa (see here). In this case, given the fact that the decoupling solution is the right one, these authors study the data for non-zero temperature and discuss the Polyakov loop for this case. Fukushima is very well-known for his works in QCD at finite temprature.

We can claim, without any possible confutation, that in physics the behavior of a pure Yang-Mills theory is very clear now. Of course, we can miss much of the rigor that is needed in mathematics and this is the reason why no proclamation is heard yet.

Axel Weber (2011). Epsilon expansion for infrared Yang-Mills theory in Landau gauge arXiv arXiv: 1112.1157v2

A. C. Aguilar, & A. A. Natale (2004). A dynamical gluon mass solution in a coupled system of the
Schwinger-Dyson equations JHEP0408:057,2004 arXiv: hep-ph/0408254v2

Ph. Boucaud, Th. Brüntjen, J. P. Leroy, A. Le Yaouanc, A. Y. Lokhov, J. Micheli, O. Pène, & J. Rodríguez-Quintero (2006). Is the QCD ghost dressing function finite at zero momentum ? JHEP 0606:001,2006 arXiv: hep-ph/0604056v1

Marco Frasca (2007). Infrared Gluon and Ghost Propagators Phys.Lett.B670:73-77,2008 arXiv: 0709.2042v6

Attilio Cucchieri, & Tereza Mendes (2007). What’s up with IR gluon and ghost propagators in Landau gauge? A
puzzling answer from huge lattices PoS LAT2007:297,2007 arXiv: 0710.0412v1

I. L. Bogolubsky, E. -M. Ilgenfritz, M. Müller-Preussker, & A. Sternbeck (2007). The Landau gauge gluon and ghost propagators in 4D SU(3) gluodynamics in large lattice volumes PoSLAT2007:290,2007 arXiv: 0710.1968v2

O. Oliveira, P. J. Silva, E. -M. Ilgenfritz, & A. Sternbeck (2007). The gluon propagator from large asymmetric lattices PoSLAT2007:323,2007 arXiv: 0710.1424v1

Kenji Fukushima, & Kouji Kashiwa (2012). Polyakov loop and QCD thermodynamics from the gluon and ghost propagators arXiv arXiv: 1206.0685v1


Igor Suslov and the beta function of the scalar field

21/02/2011

ResearchBlogging.org

I think that blogs are a very good vehicle for a scientist to let his/her work widely known and can be really helpful also for colleagues doing research in the same field. This is the case of Igor Suslov at Kapitza Institute in Moscow. Igor is doing groundbreaking research in quantum field theory and, particularly, his main aim is to obtain the beta function of the scalar field in the limit of a very large coupling. This means that the field of research of Igor largely overlaps mine. Indeed, I have had some e-mail exchange with him and we cited our works each other. Our conclusions agree perfectly and he was able to obtain the general result that, for very large bare coupling \lambda one has

\beta(\lambda)=d\lambda

where d is the number of dimensions. This means that for d=4 Igor recovers my result. More important is the fact that from this result one can draw the conclusion that the scalar theory is indeed trivial in four dimensions, a long sought result. This should give an idea of the great quality of the work of this author.

On the same track, today  on arxiv Igor posted another important paper (see here). The aim of this paper is to get higher order corrections to the aforementioned result. So, he gives a sound initial explanation on why one could meaningfully take the bare coupling running from 0 to infinity and then, using a lattice formulation of the n components scalar field theory, he performs a high temperature expansion.  He is able to reach the thirteenth order correction! This is an expansion of \beta(\lambda)/\lambda in powers of \lambda^{-\frac{2}{d}} and so, for d=4, one gets an expansion in 1/\sqrt{\lambda}. Again, this Igor’s result is in agreement with mine in a very beautiful manner. As my readers could know, I have been able to go to higher orders with my expansion technique in the large coupling limit (see here and here). This means that my findings and this result of Igor must agree. This is exactly what happens! I was able to get the next to leading order correction for the two-point function and, from this, with the Callan-Symanzik equation, I can derive the next to leading order correction for \beta(\lambda)/\lambda that goes like 1/\sqrt{\lambda} with an opposite sign with respect to the previous one. This is Igor’s table with the coefficients of the expansion:

So, from my point of view, Igor’s computations are fundamental for all the understanding of infrared physics that I have developed so far. It would be interesting if he could verify the mapping with Yang-Mills theory obtaining the beta function also for this case. He did some previous attempt on this direction but now, with such important conclusions reached, it would be absolutely interesting to see some deepening. Thank you for this wonderful work, Igor!

I. M. Suslov (2011). Renormalization Group Functions of \phi^4 Theory from High-Temperature
Expansions J.Exp.Theor.Phys., v.112, p.274 (2011); Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz., v.139, p.319 (2011) arXiv: 1102.3906v1

Marco Frasca (2008). Infrared behavior of the running coupling in scalar field theory arxiv arXiv: 0802.1183v4

Marco Frasca (2010). Mapping theorem and Green functions in Yang-Mills theory arxiv arXiv: 1011.3643v2


Sannino and the mass gap in Yang-Mills theory

03/09/2010

August is vacation month in Italy and I am not an exception. This is the reason for my silence so far. But, of course, I cannot turn off my brain and physics has always been there. So, reading the daily from arxiv today , I have seen another beautiful paper by Francesco Sannino (you can find his page here) in collaboration with Joseph Schechter that has been his PhD thesis advisor. As you know, Sannino and Ryttov postulated an exact beta function for QCD starting from the exact result in the supersymmetric version of this theory (see here).  The beta function Sannino and Schechter get has a pole. The form is

\beta(g)=-g^3\frac{a}{1-bg^2}

and, taken as is, this has no fixed point than the trivial one g=0. We know that this seems in agreement with recent lattice computations even if, discussing with Valentin Zakharov at QCD10 (see here), he expressed some skepticism about them.  They point out that the knowledge of this function permits a lot of interesting computations and what they do here is to get the mass gap of the Yang-Mills theory. They also point out as, for all the observables obtainable from such a beta function, the pole is harmless and the results appear really meaningful. Indeed, they get a consistent scenario from that guess.

So, let me point out the main results obtained so far by these people using this approach:

  • The beta function for Yang-Mills theory goes to zero with the coupling without displaying non-trivial fixed point but QCD has a non-trivial fixed point (see my paper here).
  • Yang-Mills theory has a mass gap.

Numerically their result for the mass gap seems to agree quite well with lattice computations. This should be also the mass for a possible observation of the lightest glueball. My view about is that the lightest glueball is the \sigma resonance and recent findings at KLOE-2 seems to point out in this direction. But the exact value of the mass gap is not so relevant. What is relevant is that these researchers have found a quite interesting exact form of the beta function for QCD that describes quite well the current understanding of this theory at lower energies that is slowly emerging.


And you are calling it a gluon yet…

02/06/2010

One of the more questionable points I have discussed so far is: What are QCD asymptotic states at very low  momenta? This question is not trivial at all. If you will speak with experts in this matter, a common point they will share is that gluons carry color charge and so must form bound states. A claim like this has a strong implication indeed. The implication is that Yang-Mills Hamiltonian must display the same asymptotic states at both ends of the energy range. But the problem is exactly in the self-interaction of the theory that, at very low momenta, becomes increasingly large and gluons, asymptotic states of Yang-Mills theory in the asymptotic freedom regime, are no more good to describe physics. So, what are good states at low energies? I have already answered to this question a lot of times (recently here) and more and more confirmations are around. I would like just to cite a very nice paper I have seen recently on arxiv (see here) by Stanley Brodsky, Guy de Teramond and Alexandre Deur. These authors have nicely exploited AdS/CFT symmetry obatining striking results in the understanding of low-energy QCD. I would like to cite again the work of these authors as their soft-wall model is indeed a strong support to my view. It would be really interesting to get them working out a pure Yang-Mills model obtaining beta function and all that.

What one has at low end of momenta is a new set of states, glue states or glueballs if you prefer, that permits strong interactions. These states have already been seen in most laboratories around the World and belong to the open question of the understanding of the lower part of the hadronic spectrum.


Triviality

16/05/2010

One of the questions that is not that easy to answer is: When is a quantum field theory exactly solved? Of course, we have the example of a free theory. When one is able to put the generating functional into a Gaussian form, the spectrum of the theory is that of a harmonic oscillator and when the coupling is zero, one is left with a possibly solved theory. But this case is trivial and does not say anything about the case of an exactly solved but interacting quantum field theory. An immediate answer to this question is: When one is able to get all the n-point functions. This implies that, if you are able to solve all the hierarchy of Dyson-Schwinger equations, you are done. Solving this set of equations is practically impossible in almost all the interesting case. But there is an exception and a notable one. So, consider the case of a massless quartic scalar field theory. Lattice computations in d=3+1 strongly hint toward triviality in the low-energy limit. Better, for d>3+1 there is a beautiful proof by Michael Aizenman that went published here. In this case the hierarchy is exactly solved (see here) and this is true also for d=3+1. So far, triviality and exact solution indeed are the same thing. But why does an interacting theory become trivial? The reason is in the behavior of the running coupling as the energy varies. We have learned from quantum field theory that couplings have not always the same value. Rather, their value is varying depending on the energy scale they are measured. In a trivial theory, couplings happen to go to zero in the given limit and an interacting theory becomes free!

For the scalar theory in the low-energy limit (infrared) in d=3+1, evidence is becoming wider that the beta function, the function that determines the behavior of the running coupling, goes like

\beta(\lambda)=d\lambda

being \lambda the coupling and d space-time dimension. I have proved this firstly here for d=3+1 but other authors arrived to an identical conclusion by different means (see here and here). But there is a surprise here: Some authors, a few years ago, proved an identical result for Yang-Mills theory (see here) with lattice computations. So, this is again a striking proof of the correctness of my mapping theorem but an indirect one. Then, we can conclude this post by stating a shocking result: Yang-Mills theory is trivial in the infrared even if QCD is not. But this result is enough to make QCD manageable at very low-energies.


Running coupling in QCD

30/10/2009

For a quantum field theory it is essential to know the form of the beta function. The reason for this is that this function gives us immediately an understanding on how the theory will behave in different regimes of the energy range. Currently, there is a lot of activity to obtain the full beta function of QCD, the theory of quarks and gluons. The reason for this is that we want to understand the behavior of this theory when the energy becomes lower while we know that at higher energy asymptotic freedom sets in moving the coupling toward zero so that perturbation theory applies. QCD appears as the perfect theory. Indeed, in this case we have no Landau pole or, possibly, no triviality at lower energies and so this appears as the only example in physics of a theory that holds on the full range of energy. I have read three papers about this matter recently (see here, here and here) and all of them give a clear insight about the question of the beta function for Yang-Mills theory and QCD. As my readers know, lattice computations for a pure Yang-Mills theory show clearly that the running coupling goes to zero at lower energies so one may ask if the same can happen when quarks are involved.

rc_1

Running coupling from lattice computations

From supersymmetric QCD it has been shown that the beta function should have the form

\beta(g)=-\frac{g^3}{16\pi^2}\frac{\beta_0+N_f\gamma(g^2)}{1-\frac{Cg^2}{8\pi^2}}

where, apart for some costants here and there, N_f is the number of quark flavors. So, we immediately realize that supersymmetric QCD can develop a fixed point in the infrared limit even if supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory has none! Sannino and Ryttov have been inspired by this beautiful result and proposed a similar beta function for ordinary QCD and the conclusion is the same: Even if Yang-Mills theory has no fixed point in the infrared, QCD has one due to the presence of quarks. So far, lattice computations for fully QCD confirm this scenario and we can be confident that this theory is the most beautiful one being meaningful for all the energy range.

I would like to add a final comment by noting that Ryttov and Sannino give for Yang-Mills theory in the infrared the same functional form I have got in my latest paper (see here)  and that agrees with lattice results. The picture of low-energy QCD is slowly emerging providing to us quite unexpected results and a deeper comprehension of the world as we perceive it.


A beautiful paper on arxiv

15/05/2009

Keeping on their way of producing sound work, Bogolubsky, Ilgenfritz, Mueller-Preussker and Sternbeck have got their paper (see here) published on Physics Letters B. This is a collaboration between people working in Russia, Germany and Australia. The main aim of this work is the computation on a lattice of the two-point functions and the running coupling of a pure Yang-Mills theory. They carry on lattice computations from (64)^4 to (96)^4 points entering into a deep enough infrared limit to get a meaningful behavior of the lattice theory in this case. I give below their main results

Gluon propagator

Gluon propagator

Dressing function of the ghost propagator

Dressing function of the ghost propagator

Running coupling

Running coupling

These results confirm completely the decoupling solution. The definition of the running coupling is the one proposed by Alkofer and von Smekal and it is my personal conviction that it conveys the right physical behavior of the theory. This is exactly the scenario I have derived in my paper (see here) that has been published on Physics Letters B too and has arisen a lot of rumors around. You will not find this paper cited in this work as these authors have concerns about gauge invariance in my computations. As you may know from my dispute with Terry Tao, gauge invariance is not a problem here. One could ask why a mathematical technique, like a gradient expansion is, should not work for Yang-Mills equations but it does for all other equations of mathematical physics. Anyhow, I am here ready to listen to whoever is able to prove this. With this proof in hand one should also warn all general relativists that use this technique and put it in their handbooks.

The authors conclude their paper by pointing out weaknesses in lattice computations that may bring in discussion their results. Finally, they ask if the other solution, the one with a scaling behavior, can emerge from lattice computations. The understanding of this question is surely of relevant interest. We stay tuned to hear news about.


The question of the running coupling

14/04/2009

Running coupling is an important quantity in quantum field theory. It identifies the behavior of an interacting theory in the given limit. Indeed, its importance emerged in a full glory after Gross, Wilczek and Politzer showed that QCD becomes a free theory at high energies (asymptotic freedom). For this reason, they were awarded a well deserved Nobel prize in 2004 (see here). Their result implies that the strong interaction coupling goes to zero as the energy involved in the particle interactions becomes larger. Significant experimental confirmations emerged in the course of time but this result already explained the success of Bjorken scaling. The work of Gross, Wilczek and Politzer served also to convince the community that QCD was the right theory to explain strong interactions. This was a long sought result. This matter is so well-acquired today that people is able to work out higher order corrections to this result and found it in close agreement with experimental evidence. So, you can see that this is the story of a great success in physics.

Then, one may ask what happens in the low energy limit. Here we are in troubles as there are no acquired techniques to manage QCD than working with a computer on a lattice. But the situation is not yet at our hands also using computers. The reason relies on the fact that no generally accepted definition of a running coupling constant exists for the low energy limit. But a lot of prejudices exist about. A firm conviction of a large part of the community is that a meaningful running coupling for strong interactions should reach a fixed point as the energy becomes smaller. The reason for this is that, being these interactions so strong, a coupling cannot be zero. Of course, this is wishful thinking and we have no proof whatsoever that things stay that way. So, people work the other way round looking for a definition that grants the existence of a fixed point. An example of this can be found in this paper.

When I read something like this “I reach for my gun” as Hawking would say. The reason is that, in the course of time, we have gathered a lot of expectations and would-be about Yang-Mills theory and QCD in the infrared that we are no more able to distinguish between what is proved and what is not and, mostly, when we are just trying to give a chance to our wishful thinking to be reality. Till now, nobody was able to let us know what are the right excitations of the theory in the low energy limit and so, there is no reason on Earth to believe that the running coupling do not reach zero value lowering the energy. So, your theory could admit bound states with zero charge but surely you do not need a fixed point running coupling here.

But if you look back to all that people believing that glueballs are just bound states of gluons, they are in strong need for an infrared fixed point of the theory. Clearly, they hope that describing the theory with two wrong concepts may turn it into a rigth one. Things do not stay that way and evidence is coming out that such bound states that diagonalize the theory are indeed with zero charge. Bound states anyway.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: