1: %% This is an example file for the Hirschegg Proceedings in Latex %%
2: %% with the standard style-file article.class; %%
3: %% Please use the here defined textwidth and height and also the %%
4: %% command redefinitions for \section and \subsection; %%
5: %% format the title page as given here; all other Latex commands %%
6: %% are available as usual %%
7: %% PLEASE note that your contribution will be collected as a %%
8: %% postscript file via the web-from: %%
9: %% http://theory.gsi.de/hirschegg/Contribution.html %%
10:
11:
12: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14:
15:
16: \pagestyle{empty} %%
17: \textwidth=14cm \textheight=20cm \topmargin=0cm \oddsidemargin=1cm %%
18: \let\section=\subsection \let\subsection=\subsubsection %%
19: \renewcommand\thesubsection{\arabic{subsection}} %%
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Start here your own paper %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: \usepackage{graphicx}
23: %
24: \usepackage{amsmath}
25: %\usepackage{rotating}
26: \usepackage{epsfig}
27:
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: \begin{center}
31: {\large \bf INSTANTONS AND GLUEBALLS}\\[5mm]
32: H. FORKEL \\[5mm]
33: {\small \it Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"{a}t
34: Heidelberg,\\ Philosophenweg 19, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany \\[8mm] }
35: \end{center}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}\noindent
38: We investigate the impact of instantons on scalar glueball properties in a
39: largely model-independent analytical approach based on the instanton-improved
40: operator product expansion (IOPE) of the $0^{++}$ glueball correlator. The
41: instanton contributions turn out to be dominant, to substantially improve the
42: consistency of the correponding QCD sum rules, and to increase the
43: glueball residue about fivefold. \end{abstract}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: As the hadrons with the largest gluon content (despite probably
48: sizeable quarkonium admixtures), glueballs provide a privileged
49: source of information on how glue manifests itself in hadronic
50: bound states (in their rest frame). Progress in understanding
51: glueball structure may therefore even help to unravel the elusive
52: gluonic component of the classical hadrons.
53:
54: The intricacies of hadronic glue are exemplified by the problems encountered
55: when implementing various effective, gluonic degrees of freedom, such as
56: constituent gluons, strings, or flux tubes, into hadron models. The
57: resulting effects are generally less prominent and more ambiguous than
58: those of the quark substructure, for which phenomenologically rather
59: successful effective degrees of freedom are provided, e.g., by constituent
60: quarks. The problems in modeling the gluon sector are partially
61: related to the fact that gluons, unlike quarks, do not carry internal, global
62: quantum numbers (like flavor or charge) to which external probes can couple.
63: Unambiguous and transparent gluonic effects in hadrons are therefore much
64: harder to identify.
65:
66: Model-independent and more directly QCD-based approaches are thus called
67: upon to clarify the structure of hadronic glue and to identify potentially
68: dominant gluon field configurations. Promising candidates for the latter,
69: especially in the $0^{++}$ glueball channel, are instantons \cite{sch98} (i.e.
70: the strong, coherent gluon fields which, by mediating tunneling processes,
71: give rise to the $\theta $-angle of the QCD vacuum), as qualitative arguments
72: \cite {nov280,shu82,for00} and instanton-liquid model results \cite{sch95}
73: suggest. In the following, we will give a brief summary of work in an
74: analytical approach to the scalar glueball correlator at short distances
75: \cite{for00,for01}, based on an instanton-improved operator product expansion
76: (IOPE) and QCD sum-rule techniques, in which these issues can be
77: addressed, and glueball properties calculated, in a largely model-independent
78: fashion.
79:
80: \section{IOPE sum rules}
81:
82: Consider the correlation function
83: \begin{equation}
84: \Pi \left( -q^{2}\right) =i\int d^{4}xe^{iqx}\left\langle 0|T\,O_{S}\left(
85: x\right) O_{S}\left( 0\right) |0\right\rangle \label{corr}
86: \end{equation}
87: where the interpolating field
88: \begin{equation}
89: O_{S}=\alpha _{s}G_{\mu \nu }^{a}G^{a,\mu \nu } \label{intpol}
90: \end{equation}
91: carries the quantum numbers of the scalar ($0^{++}$) glueball. The standard
92: OPE separates this correlator into contributions from hard field modes (with
93: typical momenta $k\geq \mu \sim 1/2$ GeV), contained in perturbative Wilson
94: coefficients, and from soft ($k<\mu $) modes contained in the vacuum
95: expectation values of composite QCD operators, the so-called condensates.
96: The perturbative Wilson coefficients of the low-dimensional operators can be
97: found to $O\left( \alpha _{s}\right) $ in \cite{bag90,nar98}.
98:
99: Remarkably, the nonperturbative power (i.e. condensates) corrections
100: to this conventional OPE turn out to be small and are, except for the
101: lowest-dimensional gluon condensate contribution, negligible. The bulk of
102: the nonperturbative physics reponsible for the strong binding in the scalar
103: glueball channel should therefore manifest itself in the Wilson
104: coefficients, i.e. predominantly via direct instantons \cite{nov280,shu82}
105: which are neglected in the standard analyses \cite{bag90,nar98}. This
106: expectation is strengthened by the fact that instantons couple
107: particularly strongly to the gluonic $0^{++}$ interpolators.
108:
109: In Ref. \cite{for00,for01}, we have evaluated the direct-instanton
110: contributions and implemented them into the corresponding IOPE sum rules,
111: which are based on the Borel-transformed moments
112: \begin{equation}
113: \mathcal{R}_{k}\left( \tau \right) =\hat{B}\left[ \left( -Q^{2}\right)
114: ^{k}\Pi \left( Q^{2}\right) \right] \label{momdef}
115: \end{equation}
116: (for the explicit form of the Borel operator $\hat{B}$ see,
117: e.g.
118: \cite{bag90}) with $k \in \left\{ -1,0,1,2 \right\}$.
119: Besides the standard OPE
120: contributions $\mathcal{R}_{k}^{\left( OPE\right) }$ of
121: Ref. \cite{bag90},
122: the IOPE includes the instanton contributions \cite{for00}
123: \begin{eqnarray}
124: \mathcal{R}_{k}^{\left( I+\bar{I}\right) }\left( \tau \right)
125: &=&-2^{6}\pi^{2}\bar{n}\left( \frac{-\partial }{\partial \tau }
126: \right)^{k+1} \nonumber \\ &&\times \left\{ \xi^{2}e^{-\xi}
127: \left[ \left(1+\xi\right) K_{0}\left( \xi\right) +\left(2+
128: \xi+\frac{2}{\xi}\right) K_{1} \left( \xi\right) \right] -2\right\},
129: \label{ri} \end{eqnarray}
130: ($k\geq -1$, $\xi\equiv \bar{\rho}^{2}/\left( 2\tau \right) $). The
131: semiclassical result (\ref{ri}) neglects $O\left( \hbar \right) $
132: corrections (which are suppressed by the large instanton action $S_{I}\left(
133: \bar{\rho}\right) \sim 10\hbar $) and multi-instanton correlations (since
134: $\left| x\right| \sim \left| Q^{-1}\right| \leq 0.2$ fm is small compared
135: with the average instanton separation $\bar{R}\sim 1$ fm). We have also
136: removed the soft subtraction term $-\Pi ^{\left( I+\bar{I}\right) }\left(
137: 0\right) =-2^{7}\pi ^{2}\bar{n}$ \ to avoid double-counting with the
138: condensates. Below, the average instanton size $\bar{\rho}\simeq (1/3)$ fm
139: and density $\bar{n}\simeq (1/2)$ fm$^{-4}$ will be fixed at the values
140: obtained (approximately) from instanton vacuum model \cite{sch98} and
141: lattice \cite{instlat} simulations.
142:
143: To obtain sum rules, the IOPE expressions are matched to their
144: ``phenomenological'' counterparts, which are derived from the borelized
145: dispersive representation
146: \begin{equation}
147: \mathcal{R}_{k}^{\left( ph\right) }\left( \tau \right) =\frac{1}{\pi }
148: \int_{0}^{\infty }dss^{k} {\rm Im}\Pi ^{\left( ph\right) }\left( s\right)
149: e^{-s\tau }+\delta _{k,-1}\Pi ^{\left( ph\right) }\left( 0\right)
150: \end{equation}
151: where the spectral function ${\rm Im}\Pi ^{\left( ph\right) }\left(
152: s\right) $ contains a glueball pole contribution and an effective continuum
153: from the dispersive cut of the IOPE, starting at an effective threshold
154: $s_{0}$. This corresponds to
155: \begin{equation}
156: {\rm Im}\Pi ^{\left( ph\right) }\left( s\right) =\pi
157: f_{G}^{2}m_{G}^{4}\delta \left( s-m_{G}^{2}\right) +{\rm Im}\left[ \Pi
158: ^{\left( OPE\right) }+\Pi ^{\left( I+\bar{I}\right) }\right] \left( s\right)
159: \theta \left( s-s_{0}\right) . \label{specdens}
160: \end{equation}
161: The instanton continuum contributions
162: \begin{equation}
163: {\rm Im}\Pi ^{\left( I+\bar{I}\right) }\left( s\right) =-2^{4}\pi ^{4}\bar{n%
164: }\bar{\rho}^{4}s^{2}J_{2}\left( \sqrt{s}\bar{\rho}\right) Y_{2}\left( \sqrt{s%
165: }\bar{\rho}\right) \label{icont}
166: \end{equation}
167: ($J_{2}$ ($Y_{2}$) are Bessel (Neumann) functions), introduced in \cite
168: {for00}, will play an essential role in the subsequent analysis. The IOPE
169: sum rules can then be written as
170: \begin{equation}
171: \mathcal{R}_{k}^{\left( IOPE\right) }\left( \tau \right) \equiv \mathcal{R}%
172: _{k}^{\left( I+\bar{I}\right) }\left( \tau \right) +\mathcal{R}_{k}^{\left(
173: OPE\right) }\left( \tau \right) =\mathcal{R}_{k}^{\left( ph\right) }\left(
174: \tau ,s_{0}\right) . \label{iopesrs}
175: \end{equation}
176:
177: The subtraction constant $\Pi ^{\left( ph\right) }\left( 0\right) $ in\ the
178: $\mathcal{R}_{-1}$ sum rule (regularized by removing the high-momentum
179: contributions) is related to the gluon condensate by the low-energy theorem
180: \cite{nov280}
181: \begin{equation}
182: \Pi \left( 0\right) =\frac{32\pi }{b_{0}}\left\langle \alpha
183: G^{2}\right\rangle . \label{let}
184: \end{equation}
185: This relation provides an important consistency check for the sum-rule
186: analysis, as discussed below.
187:
188: \section{Results and conclusions}
189:
190: The quantitative analysis of the sum rules (\ref{iopesrs}) amounts to
191: determining those values of the glueball parameters and $s_0$ in Eq.
192: (\ref{specdens}) for which both sides optimally match in the fiducial $\tau $
193: domain (determined such that the approximations on both sides of the sum
194: rules are expected to be reliable \cite{for00}). The previously neglected
195: instanton contributions turn out to be dominant and render (\ref{iopesrs})
196: the first overall consistent set of QCD sum rules in the scalar glueball
197: channel.
198:
199: In particular, the IOPE resolves two long-standing flaws of the
200: earlier sum rules \cite{nov280,bag90,nar98}: the mutual inconsistency between
201: different Borel moments and the inconsistency with the low-energy theorem
202: (\ref{let}). Even the previously deficient and usually discarded
203: lowest-moment ($\mathcal{R}_{-1}$) sum rule is rendered consistent both
204: with the higher-moment sum rules and the low-energy theorem. (A subsequent
205: analysis of the related gaussian variant of these sum rules can be found in
206: Ref. \cite{har00}.) No evidence for a low-lying ($m\ll 1$ GeV) gluonium state
207: (or any state strongly coupled to gluonic interpolators), which had been
208: argued for on the basis of this sum rule \cite{nov280}, remains.
209:
210: All four IOPE sum rules show an unprecedented degree of consistency and
211: allow for a simultaneous 3-parameter fit to the glueball mass, its coupling,
212: and the continuum threshold $s_{0}$. In Fig. 1 the glueball pole
213: contribution (solid line) to the optimized $\mathcal{R}_{0}$ sum rule is
214: compared with the remaining components (OPE with subtracted OPE-continuum
215: (dash-double-dotted), instanton contribution (dashed), instanton continuum
216: (dash-dotted), and their sum (dotted)). Both parts match almost perfectly over
217: the whole fiducial region, mostly due to the dominant instanton
218: contributions. The remaining sum rules (including the $\mathcal{R}_{-1}$ sum
219: rule) show a similarly high degree of stability. Together with the mutual
220: agreement of all four IOPE sum rules (in the typical range of uncertainty)
221: and their consistency with the low-energy theorem, this indicates that the
222: IOPE provides a sufficiently complete description of the short-distance
223: glueball correlator. The most dramatic quantitative effect of the direct
224: instantons is to increase the residuum of the glueball pole, $f_{G}^{2}$, by
225: about a factor of five. From the $\mathcal{R}_{2}$ sum rule (likely to be the
226: most reliable one since it receives the strongest relative pole contribution)
227: we obtain $m_{G}=1.53\pm 0.2$ GeV and $f_{G}=1.01\pm 0.25$ GeV.
228:
229:
230: \begin{figure}[htb]
231: \begin{center}
232: \vskip -7mm
233: \rotatebox{270}{\scalebox{0.31}{\includegraphics{r04.eps}}}
234: \caption{Contributions to the $\mathcal{R}_{0}$ sum rule, as explained in the text.}
235: \label{fig1}
236: \end{center}
237: \end{figure}
238: %\vskip-20mm
239: The instanton continuum contributions, Eq. (\ref{icont}), are
240: indispensable for the overall consistency and stability of the sum rules and
241: shed new light on the spectral content of the glueball correlator. For once,
242: they compensate, together with the perturbative terms, the pole contribution
243: and thereby lead to an improved description of the correlator towards low
244: momenta. This reconciles the sum rules with the low-energy theorem in the
245: $Q\rightarrow 0$ limit. In the opposite limit, i.e. for $\tau \rightarrow 0$,
246: the instanton part of the continuum remains effective despite the suppression
247: incurred by funnelling a sizeable momentum through a coherent
248: field. This indicates that small-instanton physics accounts for part of
249: the higher-lying strength in (\ref{corr}) and may play a rather prominent
250: role in excited glueball states.
251:
252: In contrast to previously studied IOPE sum rules \cite{shu83}, built on
253: quark-based correlators, those for the scalar glueball are the first
254: where i) the instanton contributions do not enter via topological quark
255: zero-modes and where ii) the sum rules reach a satisfactory (though not
256: excellent) level of consistency even without any perturbative and soft
257: contributions, i.e. with the instanton terms alone. The latter result
258: explains why instanton models find scalar glueball properties similar to
259: those obtained above \cite{sch95}. It also illustrates that the
260: quantitative impact of the instanton contributions can be judged only if all
261: contributions are consistently taken into account. At present, the IOPE seems
262: to be the only controlled and analytical framework in which this is possible.
263:
264: The predominance and approximate self-sufficiency of the instanton
265: contributions indicates that instantons may generate the bulk of the forces
266: which bind the scalar glueball. A further, striking consequence of the
267: exceptionally strong instanton contributions is that the scales of the
268: predicted $0^{++}$ glueball properties are approximately set by the bulk
269: features of the instanton size distribution. More specifically, neglecting
270: the standard OPE contributions, one finds
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: m_{G} &\sim &\bar{\rho}^{-1}, \\
273: f_{G}^{2} &\sim &\bar{n}\bar{\rho}^{2}.
274: \end{eqnarray}
275: Conceptually, the main virtue of these scaling relations lies in
276: establishing an explicit link between fundamental vacuum and hadron
277: properties. They could also be of practical use, e.g. for the test of
278: instanton vacuum models, to provide constraints for glueball model building,
279: or generalized to finite temperature and baryon density, where the instanton
280: distribution changes. If the glueball size $r_{G}$ scales like its Compton
281: wavelength, one furthermore has $r_{G}\sim \bar{\rho}$, in agreement with the
282: lattice calculations \cite{def92} which find $r_{G} \sim 0.2$~fm.
283:
284: It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for this interesting workshop and
285: the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support under Habilitation
286: Grant Fo 156/2-1.
287:
288: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
289: \itemsep=0cm
290:
291: \bibitem{sch98} T. Schaefer and E.V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{70},
292: 323 (1998). For an elementary introduction, see H. Forkel, hep-ph/0009136.
293:
294: \bibitem{nov280} V.A. Novikov, M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainsthein, and V.I.
295: Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B165}, 67 (1980); Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B191},
296: 301 (1981).
297:
298: \bibitem{shu82} E.V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B203}, 116 (1982).
299:
300: \bibitem{for00} H. Forkel, hep-ph/0005004.
301:
302: \bibitem{sch95} T. Schaefer and E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{75},
303: 1707 (1995).
304:
305: \bibitem{for01} H. Forkel, to be published.
306:
307: \bibitem{bag90} E. Bagan and T.G. Steele, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{243}, 413
308: (1990).
309:
310: \bibitem{nar98} S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B509}, 312 (1998) and
311: references therein.
312:
313: \bibitem{instlat} See, for example, P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.
314: \textbf{63}, 126 (1998); M. Teper, OUTP-9945P, hep-lat/9909124, and
315: references therein.
316:
317: \bibitem{har00} D. Harnett and T.G. Steele, hep-ph/0011044.
318:
319: \bibitem{shu83} H. Forkel and M.K. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{71,}
320: 484 (1993); E.V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B214}, 237 (1983); H. Forkel
321: and M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{345,} 55 (1995); Phys. Rev. D \textbf{%
322: 55,} 1471 (1997); M. Aw, M.K. Banerjee and H. Forkel, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{%
323: 454,} 147 (1999).
324:
325: \bibitem{def92} P. de Forcrand and K.-F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{69},
326: 245 (1992); R. Gupta et al., Phys. Rev. D \textbf{43}, 2301 (1991).
327:
328: \end{thebibliography}
329:
330: \end{document}
331: