1: \documentstyle[epsf]{article}
2:
3: %\documentstyle[epsf,preprint,aps]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[epsf,aps]{revtex}
5: %\documentstyle[epsf,twocolumn,prl,aps]{revtex}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9:
10: \title{Conformal Phase Transition, $\beta$-Function,
11: and Infrared Dynamics in QCD}
12:
13: \author{V.A.~Miransky \\
14: Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics,
15: 252143, Kiev, Ukraine\\
16: and \\
17: Department of Physics, Nagoya University,
18: Nagoya 464-8602, Japan \\}
19:
20:
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: \maketitle
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: The dynamics in QCD with different number of fermion flavors $N_f$
27: is discussed. The emphasis is on the description of the conformal
28: phase transition with respect to $N_f$ separating a phase with no
29: confinement and chiral symmetry breaking and a phase with confinement
30: and with chiral symmetry breaking.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: %\pacs{11.30.Rd, 11.30.Qc, 12.38.Aw}
34:
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37:
38: The infrared dynamics of QCD can be viewed only dimly via presently
39: available
40: tools. Because of that, there may be surprises, as it has already
41: happened with
42: our understanding of nonperturbative dynamics in $N$=1 supersymmetric
43: QCD \cite{S}.
44: In particular, those studies showed that the conventional wisdom which
45: has
46: accepted that the asymptotic freedom implies confinement is not always
47: true.
48:
49: Recently, there has been considerable interest in the existence of
50: a nontrivial conformal dynamics in 3+1 dimensional
51: non-supersymmetric vector like gauge theories, with
52: a relatively large number of fermion flavors $N_f$
53: \cite{1,2,3,4,5,6,SS}.
54: The roots of this problem go back to a work of Banks and Zaks \cite{7}
55: who were first to discuss the consequences of the existence of
56: an infrared-stable fixed point $\alpha=\alpha^{*}$ for $N_f>N_f^{*}$ in
57: vector-like gauge theories.
58: The value $N_f^{*}$ depends on the gauge group:
59: in the case of SU(3) gauge group, $N_f^{*}=8$ in the two-loop
60: approximation.
61:
62: A new insight in this problem \cite{1,2} has been, on the one hand,
63: connected
64: with using the results of the analysis of the Schwinger-Dyson (SD)
65: equations
66: describing chiral symmetry breaking in QCD (for a review, see
67: Refs.\cite{8,9})
68: and, on the other hand, with the discovery of the conformal window in
69: $N=1$
70: supersymmetric QCD \cite{S}.
71:
72: In particular, Appelquist, Terning, and Wijewardhana \cite{1}
73: suggested that,
74: in the case of the gauge group SU($N_c$),
75: the critical value $N_f^{cr}\simeq4N_c$
76: separates a phase with no confinement and chiral symmetry breaking
77: ($N_f>N_f^{cr}$) and a phase with confinement and with chiral symmetry
78: breaking ($N_f<N_f^{cr}$). The basic point for this suggestion was
79: the observation that at $N_f>N_f^{cr}$ the value of the infrared fixed
80: point $\alpha^{*}$ is smaller than a critical value
81: $\alpha_{cr}\simeq\frac{2N_c}{N_c^2-1}\frac{\pi}{3}$,
82: presumably needed to generate the chiral condensate \cite{8,9}.
83:
84: The authors of Ref.\cite{1} considered only the case when the running
85: coupling
86: constant $\alpha(\mu)$ is less than the fixed point $\alpha^{*}$.
87: In this case the dynamics is asymptotically free (at short distances)
88: both at $N_f<N_f^{cr}$ and
89: $N_f^{cr}<N_f<N_f^{**} \equiv\frac{11N_c}{2}$.
90:
91: Yamawaki and the author \cite{2} analyzed the dynamics in the whole
92: ($\alpha, N_f$) plane and suggested the ($\alpha, N_f$)-phase diagram of
93: the SU($N_c$) theory (see Fig. 1 below).\footnote{This phase diagram
94: is essentially different from the original
95: Banks-Zaks diagram \cite{7}. For details, see Sec.VII in Ref.\cite{2}}.
96: In particular, it was pointed out that one can get an interesting
97: non-asymptotically free dynamics when the bare coupling
98: constant $\alpha^{(0)}$ is {\it larger} than $\alpha^{*}$,
99: though not very large.
100:
101: The dynamics with $\alpha^{(0)}>\alpha^*$ admits a continuum
102: limit and is interesting in itself.
103: Also, its better understanding can be important for establishing
104: the conformal window in lattice computer simulations of
105: the SU($N_c$) theory with such large values of $N_f$.
106: In order to illustrate this, let us consider the following example.
107: For $N_c=3$ and $N_f=16$, the value of the infrared fixed point
108: $\alpha^*$
109: is small:
110: $\alpha^*\simeq$0.04 (see below). To reach the asymptotically free
111: phase, one needs to take the bare coupling $\alpha^{(0)}$ less than this
112: value of $\alpha^*$.
113: However, because of large finite size effects, the lattice
114: computer simulations of the SU(3) theory with such a small
115: $\alpha^{(0)}$
116: would be unreliable.
117: Therefore, in this case, it is necessary to consider the dynamics with
118: $\alpha(\mu)>\alpha^*$.
119:
120: The existence of the phase transition with respect to $N_f$ in QCD
121: raises
122: the following question: what are the infrared properties of the
123: QCD $\beta$ function for different $N_f$ and how the $\beta$ function
124: structure reflects the existence of this phase transition? I will
125: discuss
126: those issues at the end of my talk but first I will discuss the dynamics
127: in the conformal window of QCD in detail. In particular, I will consider
128: the spectrum of low energy excitations in that dynamics
129: in the presence of a bare fermion
130: mass \cite{M}. We will see that in this case, unlike the familiar
131: QCD with a small $N_f$ ($N_f$=2 or 3), glueballs are much lighter
132: than bound states composed of fermions, if the value of the
133: infrared fixed point is not too
134: large.
135: Another characteristic point is a strong (and simple) dependence of
136: the masses of all the colorless bound states on the bare fermion mass,
137: even if the latter is tiny.
138:
139: This talk is based on papers \cite{M,CEMS}.
140:
141: \section{Dynamics in the Conformal Window in QCD like Theories}
142:
143: I begin by recalling the basic facts concerning the two-loop $\beta$
144: function in an SU($N_c$) theory.
145: The $\beta$ function is
146: \begin{equation}
147: \beta = -b\alpha^2 - c\alpha^3
148: \label{beta}
149: \end{equation}
150: with \cite{11}
151: \begin{eqnarray}
152: b&=&\frac{1}{6\pi} (11N_c - 2N_f),
153: \label{b} \\
154: c&=&\frac{1}{24\pi^2} (34N_c^2 - 10N_cN_f - 3\frac{N_c^2 -
155: 1}{N_c}N_f).
156: \label{c}
157: \end{eqnarray}
158: While these two coefficients are invariant under change of
159: a renormalization scheme, the higher-order coefficients are
160: scheme dependent.
161: Actually, there is a renormalization scheme in which the two-loop
162: $\beta$ function is (perturbatively) exact \cite{12}.
163: We will use such a renormalization scheme.
164:
165: If $b>0$ ($N_f < N_f^{**} \equiv \frac{11N_c}{2}$)
166: and $c<0$, the $\beta$ function has a zero, corresponding to
167: a infrared-stable fixed point, at
168: \begin{equation}
169: \alpha = \alpha^* = - \frac{b}{c}.
170: \label{alpha^*}
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: When $N_f$ is close to $N_f^{**}$, the value of $\alpha^*$ is small.
174: For example, from Eqs.(\ref{b}), (\ref{c}), and (\ref{alpha^*}), one
175: gets $\alpha^* \simeq$ 0.04,
176: 0.14, 0.28, and 0.47 for $N_c$=3 and $N_f$=16, 15, 14, and 13,
177: respectively.
178:
179: The value of $\alpha^*$ becomes equal to
180: $\alpha_{cr} = \frac{2N_c}{N_c^2-1}\frac{\pi}{3}$
181: at $N_f$ close to $N_f\simeq4N_c$.
182: And the fixed point disappears at the value $N_f=N_f^*$,
183: when the coefficient $c$ becomes positive
184: ($N_f^*$ is $N_f^*\simeq8.05$ for $N_c$=3).
185:
186: The $\beta$ function (\ref{beta}) leads to the following solution for
187: the running coupling:
188: \begin{equation}
189: b\log\left(\frac{q}{\mu}\right) = \frac{1}{\alpha(q)}
190: - \frac{1}{\alpha(\mu)} -
191: \frac{1}{\alpha^*}\log\left(\frac{\alpha(q)(\alpha(\mu) - \alpha^*)}
192: {\alpha(\mu)(\alpha(q) - \alpha^*)}\right).
193: \label{solution}
194: \end{equation}
195: We emphasize that this solution is valid both for
196: $\alpha(\mu)<\alpha^*$ and $\alpha(\mu)>\alpha^*$.
197:
198: Let us first consider the case with $\alpha(\mu)<\alpha^*$.
199: It is convenient to introduce the parameter [1]
200: \begin{equation}
201: \Lambda\equiv\mu\exp\left[-\frac{1}{b\alpha^*}\log\left(\frac{\alpha^* -
202: \alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(\mu)}\right) - \frac{1}{b\alpha(\mu)}\right].
203: \label{lambda}
204: \end{equation}
205: Then, Eqs. (\ref{solution}) and (\ref{lambda}) imply that
206: \begin{equation}
207: \frac{1}{\alpha(q)} = b\log\left(\frac{q}{\Lambda}\right)
208: + \frac{1}{\alpha^*}
209: \log\left(\frac{\alpha(q)}{\alpha^* - \alpha(q)}\right).
210: \label{solution1}
211: \end{equation}
212: Taking $q=\Lambda$, we find that
213: \begin{equation}
214: \frac{\alpha^*}{1 + e^{-1}}\simeq 0. 73 \alpha^*< \alpha(\Lambda)
215: < \alpha^*.
216: \label{alpha(Lambda)}
217: \end{equation}
218: One may think that $\Lambda$ plays here the
219: same role as $\Lambda_{QCD}$
220: in the confinement phase.
221: However, as we will see, its physical meaning is somewhat different.
222:
223: Eq. (\ref{solution1}) implies that
224: \begin{equation}
225: \alpha(q)\simeq \frac{1}{b\log\frac{q}{\Lambda}}
226: \label{uv}
227: \end{equation}
228: for $q>>\Lambda$ (the usual behavior in asymptotically free
229: theories), and
230: \begin{equation}
231: \alpha(q)\simeq \frac{\alpha^*}{1 +
232: e^{-1}(\frac{q}{\Lambda})^{b\alpha^*}}
233: \label{ir}
234: \end{equation}
235: for $q<<\Lambda$, governed by the infrared fixed point $\alpha^*$.
236:
237: Let us turn to a less familiar case with $\alpha(\mu)>\alpha^*$.
238: One still can use Eq.(\ref{solution}).
239: Introduce now the parameter $\tilde{\Lambda}$ as
240: \begin{equation}
241: \tilde{\Lambda}\equiv \mu\exp\left[-\frac{1}{b\alpha^*}\log\left(
242: \frac{\alpha(\mu) - \alpha^*}{\alpha(\mu)}\right)
243: - \frac{1}{b\alpha(\mu)}\right]
244: \label{tilde}
245: \end{equation}
246: (compare with Eq.(\ref{lambda})). Then, Eqs.(\ref{solution})
247: and (\ref{tilde}) imply
248: \begin{equation}
249: \frac{1}{\alpha(q)} = b\log\frac{q}{\tilde{\Lambda}} +
250: \frac{1}{\alpha^*}\log\left(\frac{\alpha(q)}{\alpha(q) - \alpha^*}
251: \right).
252: \label{solution2}
253: \end{equation}
254: What is the meaning of $\tilde{\Lambda}$?
255: It is a Landau pole at which
256: $\alpha(q)\vert_{q=\tilde{\Lambda}}=\infty$.
257: Indeed, taking $q=\tilde{\Lambda}$ in Eq.(\ref{solution2}), one gets
258: \begin{equation}
259: \frac{1}{\alpha(\tilde{\Lambda})} =
260: \frac{1}{\alpha^*}\log{\frac{\alpha(\tilde{\Lambda})}
261: {\alpha(\tilde{\Lambda}) - \alpha^*}}.
262: \label{pole}
263: \end{equation}
264: The only solution of this equation is $\alpha(\tilde{\Lambda})=\infty$.
265:
266: The presence of the Landau pole implies that the dynamics is not
267: asymptotically free.
268: To get a more insight in this dynamics, let us introduce an ultraviolet
269: cutoff $M$ with the bare coupling constant
270: $\alpha^{(0)}\equiv\alpha(q)\vert_{q=M}$.
271: Now all momenta $q$ satisfy $q\leq M$.
272:
273: Eq.(\ref{solution2}) implies that at finite $\alpha^{(0)}=\alpha(M)$,
274: the cutoff $M$ is less than $\tilde{\Lambda}$, with
275: $\alpha(\tilde{\Lambda})=\infty$.
276: Therefore the Landau pole is unreachable in the theory with
277: cut
278: off $M$ and with $\alpha^{(0)}<\infty$.
279: Still one can of course use $\tilde{\Lambda}$ (\ref{tilde}) for
280: a convenient parametrization of the running coupling
281: $\alpha(q)$ (see Eq.(\ref{solution2})). However, one should remember
282: that
283: momenta $q$ satisfy $q\leq{M}<\tilde{\Lambda}$.
284:
285: Eq.(\ref{solution2}) implies that
286: \begin{equation}
287: \alpha^2(q)\simeq \frac{\alpha^*}{2b\log\frac{\tilde{\Lambda}}{q}}
288: \label{uv1}
289: \end{equation}
290: for $\alpha(q)>>\alpha^*$, and
291: \begin{equation}
292: \alpha(q)\simeq \frac{\alpha^*}{1
293: - e^{-1}(\frac{q}{\tilde{\Lambda}})^{b\alpha^*}}
294: \label{ir1}
295: \end{equation}
296: when $\alpha(q)$ is close to $\alpha^*$, i.e. when
297: $\alpha(q)-\alpha^*<<\alpha^*$.
298: Thus, now $\alpha(q)$ approaches the fixed point $\alpha^*$
299: from above (compare with Eq.(\ref{ir})).
300: And, in general, Eq.(11) implies that $\alpha(q)$
301: monotonically decrease with $q$, from
302: $\alpha(q)=\alpha^{(0)}$ at $q=M$ to $\alpha(q)=\alpha^*$ at $q=0$.
303:
304: Does a meaningful continuum limit exist in this case?
305: The answer is of course "yes". As it follows from
306: Eq.(\ref{solution2}), when $M$
307: (and therefore $\tilde{\Lambda}$)
308: goes to infinity, and the bare coupling $\alpha^{(0)}>\alpha^*$
309: is arbitrary but fixed, $\alpha(q)$ is equal to the fixed value,
310: $\alpha(q)=\alpha^*$, for all $q<\infty$.
311: Therefore it is a non-trivial conformal field theory.
312:
313: So far we considered the solution for $\alpha(q)$ connected
314: with the perturbative (and perturbatively exact in the 't Hooft
315: renormalization scheme \cite{12}) $\beta$ function (\ref{beta}).
316: However,
317: unlike ultraviolet stable fixed points, defining dynamics at
318: high momenta, infrared-stable fixed points (defining dynamics at
319: low momenta) are very sensitive to nonperturbative dynamics
320: leading to the generation of particle masses.
321: For example, if fermions acquire a dynamical mass, they decouple
322: from the infrared dynamics, and therefore the perturbative infrared
323: fixed point (\ref{alpha^*}) will disappear.
324:
325: The phase diagram in the ($\alpha^{(0)}, N_f$)-plane in this theory
326: was suggested in Ref.\cite{2}. It is shown in Fig. 1.
327: The left-hand portion of the curve in this figure coincides with
328: the line of the infrared-stable fixed points $\alpha^*(N_f)$
329: in Eq.(\ref{alpha^*}).
330: It separates two symmetric phases, $S_1$ and $S_2$,
331: with $\alpha^{(0)}<\alpha^*$ and $\alpha^{(0)}>\alpha~*$,
332: respectively. Its lower end is $N_f=N_f^{cr}$ (with
333: $N_f^{cr}\simeq 4N_c$ if
334: $\alpha_{cr}\simeq\frac{2N_c}{N_c^2-1}\frac{\pi}{3}$):
335: at $N_f^*<N_f<N_f^{cr}$ the infrared fixed point is washed out
336: by generating a dynamical fermion mass.
337:
338: The horizontal, $N_f=N_f^{cr}$, line describes a phase transition
339: between the symmetric phase $S_1$ and the phase with confinement
340: and chiral symmetry breaking.
341: As it was suggested in Refs.\cite{1,2}, based on a similarity of
342: this phase transition with that in quenched $QED_4$ \cite{8,9,13}
343: and in $QED_3$ \cite{14}, there is the following scaling law for
344: $m^2_{dyn}$:
345: \begin{equation}
346: m^2_{dyn}\sim \Lambda^2_{cr}\exp\left(-\frac{C}
347: {\sqrt{\frac{\alpha^*(N_f)}{\alpha_{cr}} - 1}}\right)
348: \label{mdyn}
349: \end{equation}
350: where the constant $C$ is of order one and $\Lambda_{cr}$ is a scale
351: at which the running coupling is of order $\alpha_{cr}$.
352:
353: It is a continuous phase transition with an essential singularity
354: at $N_f=N_f^{cr}$. The characteristic point of this phase
355: transition is that the critical line $N_f=N_f^{cr}$ separates
356: phases with essentially different spectra of low energy excitations
357: \cite{1,2,SS} and the different structure of the equation for the
358: divergence of
359: the dilatation current (i.e. with essentially different realizations
360: of the conformal symmetry) \cite{2}.
361: It was called the conformal phase transition in Ref.\cite{2}.
362:
363: At present it is still unclear whether the phase transition
364: on the line $N_f=N_f^{cr}$ is indeed a continuous phase transition
365: with an essential singularity or it is a first order phase transition
366: \cite{3,6}.
367: However, anyway, the two properties (the abrupt change of the spectrum
368: of excitations and the different structure of the equation for the
369: divergence of the dilatation current in those two phases) have
370: to take place.
371:
372: At last, the right-hand portion of the curve on the diagram occurs
373: because at large enough values of the bare coupling, spontaneous
374: chiral symmetry breaking takes place for any number $N_f$ of
375: fermion flavors. This portion describes a phase transition called
376: a bulk phase transition in the literature, and it is presumably
377: a first order phase transition.
378: \footnote{The fact that spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking takes
379: place for any number of fermion flavors, if $\alpha^{(0)}$
380: is large enough, is valid at least for lattice theories
381: with Kogut-Susskind fermions.
382: Notice however that since the bulk phase transition is a
383: lattice artifact, the form of this portion of the curve
384: can depend on the type of fermions used in simulations
385: (for details, see Ref.\cite{2}).}
386: The vertical line ends above $N_f$=0 since in pure gluodynamics
387: there is apparently no phase transition between weak-coupling and
388: strong-coupling phases.
389:
390: Up to now we have considered the case of a chiral invariant action.
391: But how will the dynamics change if a bare fermion mass term is
392: added in the action?
393: This question is in particular relevant for lattice computer
394: simulations: for studying a chiral phase transition on a finite
395: lattice, it is necessary to introduce a bare fermion mass.
396: We will show that adding even an arbitrary small bare fermion
397: mass results in a dramatic changing the dynamics both in the
398: $S_1$ and $S_2$ phases.
399:
400: Recall that in the case of confinement SU($N_c$) theories,
401: with a small, $N_f<N_f^{cr}$, number of fermion flavors,
402: the role of a bare fermion mass $m^{(0)}$ is minor if
403: $m^{(0)}<<\Lambda_{QCD}$ (where $\Lambda_{QCD}$ is a confinement
404: scale). The only relevant consequence is that massless
405: Nambu-Goldstone pseudoscalars get a small mass (the PCAC dynamics).
406:
407: The reason for that is the fact that the scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$,
408: connected with a scale anomaly, describes the breakdown of the
409: conformal symmetry connected {\it both} with perturbative
410: and nonperturbative dynamics: the running coupling and the
411: formation of bound state.
412: Certainly, a small bare mass $m^{(0)}<<\Lambda_{QCD}$ is
413: irrelevant for the dynamics of those bound states.
414:
415: Now let us turn to the phase $S_1$ and $S_2$, with $N_f>N_f^{cr}$.
416: At finite $\Lambda$ in $S_1$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$ in $S_2$, there
417: is still conformal anomaly: because of the running of
418: the effective coupling constant, the conformal symmetry is broken.
419: It is restored only if $\Lambda\rightarrow{0}$ in $S_1$ and
420: $\tilde{\Lambda}>M\rightarrow\infty$ in $S_2$.
421: However, the essential difference with respect to confinement
422: theories is that both $\Lambda$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$
423: have nothing with the dynamics forming bound states:
424: since at $N_f>N_f^{cr}$ the effective coupling is relatively weak,
425: it is impossible to form bound states from $\it{massless}$
426: fermions and gluons (recall that the $S_1$ and $S_2$ phases are chiral
427: invariant).
428:
429: Therefore the absence of a mass for fermions and gluons is a key
430: point for {\it not} creating bound states in those phases.
431: The situation changes dramatically if a bare fermion mass is
432: introduced: indeed, even weak gauge, Coulomb-like, interactions
433: can easily produce bound states composed of massive constituents,
434: as it happens, for example, in QED, where electron-positron
435: (positronium) bound states are present.
436:
437: To be concrete, let us first consider the case when all fermions
438: have the same bare mass $m^{(0)}$.
439: It leads to a mass function $m(q^2)\equiv{B(q^2)/A(q^2)}$ in the fermion
440: propagator $G(q)=(\hat{q}A(q^2)-B(q^2))^{-1}$.
441: The current fermion mass $m$ is given by the relation
442: \begin{equation}
443: m(q^2)\vert_{q^2=m^2}=m.
444: \label{m}
445: \end{equation}
446:
447: For the clearest exposition, let us consider a particular theory
448: with a finite cutoff $M$ and the bare coupling constant
449: $\alpha^{(0)}=\alpha(q)\vert_{q=M}$
450: being not far away from the fixed point $\alpha^*$.
451: Then, the mass function is changing in the "walking" regime \cite{15}
452: with
453: $\alpha(q^2)\simeq\alpha^*$. It is
454: \begin{equation}
455: m(q^2)\simeq m^{(0)}\left(\frac{M}{q}\right)^{\gamma_m}
456: \label{m(q)}
457: \end{equation}
458: where the anomalous dimension
459: $\gamma_m\simeq1-(1-\frac{\alpha^*}{\alpha_{cr}})^{1/2}$ \cite{8,9}.
460: Eqs.(\ref{m}) and (\ref{m(q)}) imply that
461: \begin{equation}
462: m\simeq m^{(0)}\left(\frac{M}{m^{(0)}}\right)^{\frac{\gamma_m}
463: {1 + \gamma_m}}.
464: \label{m1}
465: \end{equation}
466:
467: There are two main consequences of the presence of the bare mass:
468:
469: (a) bound states, composed of fermions, occur in the spectrum
470: of the theory. The mass of a n-body bound state is
471: $M^{(n)}\simeq{nm}$;
472:
473: (b) At momenta $q< m$, fermions and their bound states decouple.
474: There is a pure SU($N_c$) Yang-Mills theory with confinement.
475: Its spectrum contains glueballs.
476:
477: To estimate glueball masses, notice that at momenta $q< m$, the
478: running of the coupling is defined by the parameter $\bar{b}$
479: of the Yang-Mills theory,
480: \begin{equation}
481: \bar{b}= \frac{11}{6\pi}N_c.
482: \label{barb}
483: \end{equation}
484: Therefore the glueball masses $M_{gl}$ are of order
485: \begin{equation}
486: \Lambda_{YM}\simeq m\exp(-\frac{1}{\bar{b}\alpha^*}).
487: \label{YM}
488: \end{equation}
489:
490: For $N_c=3$, we find from Eqs.(\ref{b}), (\ref{c}), and
491: (\ref{barb}) that
492: $\exp(-\frac{1}{\bar{b}\alpha^*})$
493: is $6\times{10^{-7}}$, $2\times{10^{-2}}$, $10^{-1}$,
494: and $3\times{10^{-1}}$ for
495: $N_f$=16, 15, 14, and 13, respectively.
496: Therefore at $N_f$=16, 15 and 14, the glueball masses are
497: essentially lighter than the masses of the bound states composed of
498: fermions.
499: The situation is similar to that in confinement QCD with heavy quarks,
500: $m>>\Lambda_{QCD}$.
501: However, there is now a new important point:
502: in the conformal window,
503: {\it any} value of $m^{(0)}$ (and therefore $m$) is "heavy":
504: the fermion mass $m$ sets a new scale in the theory, and the
505: confinement scale $\Lambda_{YM}$ (\ref{YM}) is less, and rather often
506: much less, than this scale $m$.
507:
508: This leads to a spectacular "experimental" signature of the
509: conformal window in lattice computer simulations:
510: glueball masses rapidly, as
511: $(m^{(0)})^{\frac{1}{1+\gamma_m}}$,
512: decrease with the bare fermion mass $m^{(0)}$ for {\it all}
513: values of $m^{(0)}$ less than cutoff $M$.
514:
515: Few comments are in order:
516:
517: (1) The phases $S_1$ and $S_2$ have essentially the same
518: long distance dynamics.
519: They are distinguished only by their dynamics at short distances:
520: while the dynamics of the phase $S_1$ is asymptotically free,
521: that of the phase $S_2$ is not.
522: In particular, when all fermions are massive (with the current mass
523: $m$),
524: the continuum limit $M\rightarrow\infty$ of the $S_2$-theory is a
525: non-asymptotically free confinement theory.
526: Its spectrum includes colorless bound states composed of fermions
527: and gluons.
528: For $q<m$ the running coupling $\alpha(q)$ is the same as in pure
529: SU($N_c$) Yang-Mills theory, and for all $q> m$
530: $\alpha(q)$ is very close to
531: $\alpha^*$ ("walking", actually, "standing" dynamics).
532: For those values $N_f$ for which $\alpha^*$ is small
533: (as $N_f$=16, 15 and 14 at $N_c$=3), glueballs are much lighter than
534: the bound states composed of fermions.
535: Notice that, unlike the case with $m=0$, there exists an S-matrix
536: in this theory.
537:
538: (2) In order to get the clearest exposition, we assumed such estimates
539: as
540: $N_f^{cr}\simeq 4N_c$ for $N_f^{cr}$ and
541: $\gamma_m=1-{\sqrt{1-\frac{\alpha^*}{\alpha_{cr}}}}$
542: for the anomalous dimension $\gamma_m$. While the latter
543: should be reasonable for $\alpha^*<\alpha_{cr}$ (and especially for
544: $\alpha^*<<\alpha_{cr}$) \cite{8,9}, the former is based on the
545: assumption that $\alpha_{cr}\simeq\frac{2N_c}{N_c^2 - 1}\frac{\pi}{3}$
546: which, though seems reasonable, might be crude for some values
547: of $N_c$. It is clear however that the dynamical picture presented
548: in this paper is essentially independent of those assumptions.
549:
550: (3) So far we have considered the case when all fermions
551: have the same bare
552: mass $m^{(0)}$.
553: The generalization to the case when different
554: fermions may have different bare masses is evident.
555:
556: (4) Lattice computer simulations of the SU(3) theory with
557: a relatively large number of $N_f$ \cite{16,17} indeed indicate
558: on the existence of a symmetric phase.
559:
560: However, the value of the critical number $N_f^{cr}$ is
561: different in different simulations:
562: it varies from $N_f^{cr}=6$ \cite{17} through $N_f^{cr}=12$ \cite{16}.
563:
564: I hope that the signature of the conformal window considered
565: in this talk can be useful to settle this important issue.
566:
567: \section{Pad\'{e}-Summation Approach to QCD $\beta$-function Infrared
568: Properties}
569:
570: How does the structure of the QCD $\beta$ function reflect the existence
571: of the phase transition with respect to $N_f$? This problem has been
572: addressed in the work \cite{CEMS}.
573:
574: The impetus for that work was the structure of the $\beta$ function of
575: the $SU(N_{c})$ SUSY gluodynamics which is known exactly if no matter
576: fields
577: are present \cite{NSVZ}:
578: \begin{equation}
579: \beta(x) = -\frac{3N_{c}x^2}{4}\left[\frac{1}
580: {1 - N_{c}x/2}\right]; \;\;x\equiv\frac{\alpha}{\pi}.
581: \label{NSVZ}
582: \end{equation}
583:
584: This structure shows the following two noticeable features:
585:
586: a) Eq.(\ref{NSVZ}) implies that, besides the conventional asymptotically
587: free phase with $x<2/N_{c}$, there exists a strong ultraviolet phase in
588: which
589: the coupling $x$ is greater than the $\beta$-function pole at
590: $x=2/N_{c}$
591: \cite{KS}. In that phase, the value $x=\infty$ is an ultraviolet fixed
592: point. As in the case of the infrared fixed point considered in the
593: previous section, these two phases share common infrared properties.
594: Because of that, the $\beta$-function pole is called an infrared
595: attractor. Unlike theories with an infrared fixed point, theories
596: with an infrared attractor correspond to the confinement phase.
597:
598: In Ref. \cite{CEMS}, we addressed whether Pad\'{e}-summations of the
599: $\overline{MS}$ QCD $\beta$ function for a given number of flavors
600: exhibit an infrared fixed point, or alternatively, an infrared
601: attractor. The main results are the following. Below an
602: approximant-dependent flavor threshold $(6 \leq N_f \leq 8)$, the
603: Pad\'{e}-summation $\beta$ functions incorporating
604: $[2|1], [1|2], [2|2], [1|3]$, and $[3|1]$ approximants whose Maclaurin
605: expansions match known higher-than-one-loop contributions to the
606: $\beta$-function series always exhibit a positive pole prior to the
607: occurrence of their first positive zero, precluding any identification
608: of this first positive zero as an infrared fixed point. This result
609: is shown to be true regardless of the magnitude of the
610: presently-unknown five-loop $\beta$-function contribution explicitly
611: appearing within Pad\'{e}-summation $\beta$ functions incorporating
612: $[2|2], [1|3]$, and $[3|1]$ approximants. Like in the case of
613: supersymmetric gluodynamics, the pole in question suggests the occurrence
614: of dynamics in which both a strong and an asymptotically free phase
615: share a common infrared attractor.
616: As $N_f$ increases above
617: an approximant-dependent flavor threshold, Pad\'{e}-summation
618: $\beta$ functions exhibit dynamics controlled by an infrared
619: fixed point. This fixed point decreases in magnitude with increasing
620: flavor number.
621:
622: Thus utilizing Pad\'e-summation QCD $\beta$ functions, we obtain a
623: good degree of agreement with infrared properties predicted
624: \cite{1,2,5} via the 't Hooft renormalization scheme \cite{12}
625: in which the $\beta$ function is truncated subsequent to two-loop
626: order. It is noticeable that the infrared structure of the
627: $\beta$ function we obtained in QCD with a small number of
628: flavors is similar to that of the $\beta$ function in SUSY
629: gluodynamics: there are strong arguments in the literature
630: in the support of essentially the same mechanism of confinement
631: in those theories.
632:
633: \section{Acknowledgments}
634:
635: I am grateful to the organizers of the TMU-Yale Symposium,
636: in particular, Hisakazu Minakata and Noriaki Kitazawa,
637: for their warm hospitality.
638: My special thanks to Koichi Yamawaki for his hospitality
639: during my stay at Nagoya University.
640: This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid of Japan Society for
641: the Promotion of Science No. 11695030.
642:
643: %\end{acknowledgments}
644:
645: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
646:
647: \bibitem{S} N. Seiberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 6857 (1994);
648: K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc. Suppl.)
649: {\bf 45 B and C}, 1 (1996).
650:
651: \bibitem{1} T.~Appelquist, J.~Terning, and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,
652: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77}, 1214 (1996);
653: T.~Appelquist, A.~Ratnaweera, J.~Terning, and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,
654: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58}, 105017 (1998).
655:
656: \bibitem{2} V.~A.~Miransky and K.~Yamawaki,
657: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55}, 5051 (1997);
658: Erratum, ibid.\ {\bf D56}, 3768 (1997).
659:
660: \bibitem{3} R.~S.~Chivukula,
661: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55}, 5238 (1997).
662:
663: \bibitem{4} M.~Velkovsky and E.~Shuryak,
664: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B437}, 398 (1998).
665:
666: \bibitem{5} E.~Gardi and M.~Karliner,
667: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B529}, 383 (1998);
668: E.~Gardi, G.~Grunberg, and M.~Karliner,
669: JHEP {\bf 07}, 007 (1998).
670:
671: \bibitem{6} E.~Gardi and G.~Grunberg,
672: JHEP {\bf 9903}, 024 (1999).
673:
674: \bibitem{SS} F. Sannino and J. Schechter,
675: Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 056004 (1999).
676:
677: \bibitem{7} T.~Banks and A.~Zaks,
678: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B196}, 189 (1982).
679:
680: \bibitem{8} P.~I.~Fomin, V.~P.~Gusynin,
681: V.~A.~Miransky, and Yu.~A.~Sitenko,
682: Riv. Nuovo Cimento {\bf 6}, 1 (1983);S
683: C.~D.~Roberts and A.~G.~ Williams,
684: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 33}, 477 (1994).
685:
686: \bibitem{9} V.~A.~Miransky,
687: {\sl Dynamical Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Field Theories}
688: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).
689:
690: \bibitem{M} V. A. Miransky, Phys.\ Rev.\, {\bf D59}, 105003
691: (1999).
692:
693: \bibitem{CEMS} F. A. Chishtie, V. Elias, V. A. Miransky, and
694: T. G. Steele, hep-ph/9905291.
695:
696: \bibitem{11} D.~R.~T.~Jones,
697: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B75}, 531 (1974);
698: W.~E.~Caswell,
699: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 33}, 244 (1974).
700:
701: \bibitem{12} G.~'t Hooft, "Can we make sense out of Quantum
702: Chromodynamics?", in {\sl The Whys of Subnuclear Physics};
703: Erice 1977, A. Zichichi, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1979).
704:
705: \bibitem{13} P. I. Fomin, V. P. Gusynin, and V. A. Miransky,
706: Phys. Lett. {\bf 78B}, 136 (1978);
707: V.~A.~Miransky,
708: Nuovo Cimento {\bf A90}, 149 (1985);
709: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A8}, 135 (1993).
710:
711: \bibitem{14} T.~Appelquist, D.~Nash, and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,
712: Phys. Rev. Lett.{\bf 60}, 2575 (1988);
713: D.~Nash, ibid. {\bf 62}, 3024 (1989);
714: T.~Appelquist, J.~Terning, and L.~C.~R.~Wijewardhana,
715: ibid. {\bf 75}, 2081 (1995).
716:
717: \bibitem{15} B.~Holdom,
718: Phys. Rev. {\bf D24}, 1441 (1981);
719: Phys. Lett. {\bf 150B}, 301 (1985);
720: K.~ Yamawaki, M.~Bando, and K.~Matumoto,
721: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 1335 (1986); T. Akiba and
722: T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf 169B}, 308 (1986);
723: T. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana,
724: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 957 (1986).
725:
726: \bibitem{16} J. B. Kogut and D. R. Sinclair, Nucl. Phys.
727: {\bf B295}, 465 (1998); F. Brown et al., Phys. Rev.
728: {\bf D46}, 5655 (1992).
729:
730: \bibitem{17} Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya, S. Kaya, S. Sakai, and
731: T. Yoshie, Nucl Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 53}, 449 (1997);
732: D. Chen and R. D. Mawhinney, ibid. {\bf 53}, 216 (1997);
733: R. D. Mawhinney, hep-lat/9705030.
734:
735: \bibitem{NSVZ} V. Novikov, M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and
736: V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B229}, 381 (1983); D. R. T. Jones,
737: Phys. Lett. {\bf B123}, 45 (1983).
738:
739: \bibitem{KS} I. I. Kogan and M. Shifman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75},
740: 2085 (1995).
741:
742: \end{thebibliography}
743:
744: \newpage
745:
746: \begin{figure}[htbp]
747: \begin{center}
748: \epsfxsize=8cm
749: \ \epsfbox{fig1.eps}
750: \end{center}
751: \caption[]{The phase diagram in an SU($N_c$) gauge model. The
752: coupling constant $g^{(0)}=\sqrt{4\pi\alpha^{(0)}}$ and $S$ and
753: $A$ denote symmetric and asymmetric phases, respectively.}
754: \end{figure}
755:
756:
757:
758: \end{document}
759: