1: \def\lambdas{{\Lambda_{S}}}
2: \def\Lambdas{{\Lambda_{S}}}
3: \def\alphas{{\alpha_{S}}}
4: \def\alphasp{{\alpha_{S'}}}
5: \def\lambdasp{{\Lambda_{S'}}}
6: \def\Lambdasp{{\Lambda_{S'}}}
7: \newcommand{\ssect}[1]{\noindent {\bf #1.}}
8:
9: %\section{Introduction}
10:
11: \ssect{1} The perturbative expansion in the coupling $\alpha_S$
12: is the most important theoretical
13: tool for analyzing strong interaction effects in
14: high energy scattering experiments. Since the coupling
15: decreases with increasing momentum transfer,
16: perturbation theory becomes accurate in the high
17: energy regime. In practical applications, in particular
18: in the determination of the running coupling itself,
19: it is tempting to apply the perturbative series already
20: where the coupling is not so small. Popular
21: examples are the determinations of $\alpha_S$ from
22: $\tau$-lepton decays and the perturbative
23: evolution of deep inelastic scattering structure
24: functions starting at a renormalization point below
25: 1~GeV.
26: %
27: In order to establish the applicability of perturbation theory,
28: it would be very desirable to study such processes systematically
29: as a function of the energy, but either they involve a fixed
30: energy ($\tau$ decays%\cite{Rtau}
31: , hadronic Z-decays%\cite{RZ}
32: )
33: or the precision is not sufficient
34: over a larger energy range (deep inelastic scattering, $e^+e^-$
35: total cross section%\cite{Ree}
36: , Adler function%\cite{Adler:Fred}
37: ).
38: Our main phenomenological
39: test of perturbation theory therefore is the overall consistency
40: of the determinations of $\alpha_S$ from different processes
41: (see \cite{alpha:bethke} and references therein).
42:
43: Complementary information may be obtained from suitable observables
44: computed as a function of Euclidean external momenta (or distance)
45: using lattice QCD.
46: Here an important
47: limitation is implied by the necessarily finite lattice spacing $a$ and
48: the corresponding momentum cutoff $\rmO(1/a)$. For QCD with dynamical
49: quarks (and in large volume), one currently
50: reaches $a^{-1}\approx 2\GeV$. This limitation may be overcome by
51: considering a finite size effect as the physical
52: observable~\cite{alpha:sigma} which defines a renormalized
53: coupling\footnote{In
54: finite volume, with no other scale involved but the
55: size of the space-time itself, one may of course
56: keep the lattice spacing small compared to this scale.}.
57: In the \SF framework, the method has been completely developed
58: and results for the running coupling are
59: available~\cite{alpha:SU2,alpha:SU3,mbar:pap1,alpha:lett}, including
60: in particular the Lambda parameter expressed in terms of the
61: low energy scale $\rnod \approx 0.5\,\fm$ \cite{pot:r0} in the theory without
62: quarks \cite{mbar:pap1} (pure Yang-Mills theory). These results
63: refer to the continuum limit, reached by a controlled
64: extrapolation from finite $a$. In this theory
65: the scale dependence
66: of the \SF coupling, $\alphaSF(\mu)$, is in remarkable
67: qualitative agreement
68: with perturbation theory
69: for $\alpha<0.3$ and for
70: $\alpha<0.2$ the 3-loop expression describes $\alphaSF(\mu)$
71: within better than 2\%.
72: It is an interesting question,
73: whether the coupling in this scheme is a special case or
74: whether this is a more ``general property of the theory''.
75:
76: If one restricts oneself to $\nf=0$, also observables in large
77: volume but still relatively small distances may be computed employing
78: very large lattices ($64^4$). We have done so for the potential between
79: static quarks in the fundamental representation, reaching
80: distances of $r \approx 0.05\fm$ with small discretization
81: errors and in fact extrapolating to the continuum for
82: $r \gtsim 0.1\fm$\cite{pot:silvia1}.
83: In perturbation theory, the potential has
84: been computed to two loops \cite{Fischler:1977yf,Billoire:1980ih,Peter:1997me,Schroder:1998vy,Melles:2000dq}, but at the same time the
85: usefulness of perturbation theory even at distances as short as
86: $0.1\fm$ has been doubted \cite{Peter:1997me,Schroder:1999sg}.
87: We shall explain below that this
88: is a question of a suitable renormalization scheme. When
89: the most natural scheme (defined in terms of the force)
90: is adopted,
91: perturbation theory is well behaved at such distances
92: and it is interesting to compare perturbation theory to
93: the non-perturbative force. This is a rather stringent test of
94: perturbation theory since besides the scale dependence of the
95: coupling, its absolute value is predicted by perturbation theory
96: (we remind the reader that the Lambda parameter is known).
97:
98: A previous exploratory investigation, concentrated on the question,
99: whether there are ``large non-perturbative'' terms in the potential
100: at short distances \cite{pot:bali99} as they had been argued to exist
101: \cite{pot:npterms}.
102: It is not easy to give a definition of
103: ``large non-perturbative term''. We assume here that roughly the
104: following is meant by this statement.
105: \begin{itemize}
106: \item[(i)] A certain quantity, here the potential $V(r)$, is considered
107: in a region where its perturbative expansion looks well behaved, i.e.
108: the $n$-loop contribution is a small correction and significantly
109: smaller than the $(n-1)$-loop contribution (unless the latter is
110: accidentally small itself).
111: \item[(ii)] The difference between the full non-perturbative observable
112: and the truncated perturbative series is much larger than the
113: last term in the series.
114: \end{itemize}
115: With such a definition, necessarily somewhat phenomenological in
116: character,
117: we shall demonstrate below that there are definitely no
118: large non-perturbative terms in the potential. To the contrary,
119: perturbation theory works remarkably well where the criterion
120: (i) is satisfied.
121:
122: In the following, we first investigate the perturbative expressions
123: and find that a stable perturbative prediction satisfying $(i)$
124: in an accessible region of $r$ is given
125: by the integration of the renormalization group equation
126: for the coupling $\alphaqq(\mu)$.
127: We then compare perturbation theory to our
128: numerical results, considering also the direct
129: relation between the \SF coupling $\alphaSF$ and $\alphaqq(r)$.
130: For completeness we also show the potential itself compared to
131: perturbation theory.
132: \vspace{0.5cm}
133:
134: %%% Local Variables:
135: %%% mode: latex
136: %%% TeX-master: "pap2"
137: %%% End:
138:
139: \ssect{2}
140: %
141: In single scale problems, such as the static potential
142: depending only on the separation $r$, the
143: best perturbative prediction is expected to be
144: the integration of the renormalization group equation.
145: This is equivalent to defining a physical renormalized
146: coupling, often denoted effective charge
147: \cite{alpha:Grunberg_lett,alpha:Grunberg_pap}. In particular
148: the coupling $\alphaqqbar(\mu)$
149: may be defined through
150: \be \label{e_alphaqqbar}
151: F(r)={\rmd V \over \rmd r}=\casim{\alphaqqbar(\mu) \over r^2}\,,\;\mu=1/r.
152: \ee
153: (It will become clear below, why we here consider the force rather than
154: the potential.)
155: The running of the coupling defines the associated $\beta$-function,
156: \be\label{e_beta}
157: \mu {\rmd \over \rmd \mu}\gbar = \beta(\gbar)\,,\;\gbar=(4\pi\alpha)^{1/2}
158: \ee
159: with a perturbative expansion
160: \bes\label{e_beta_pert}
161: \beta(\gbar) &{\raisebox{-.3ex}{$\stackrel{\gbar \rightarrow 0}{\sim}$}}
162: & -\gbar^3
163: \{ b_0 + b_1 \gbar^2 + b_2 \gbar^4 + \ldots \} \\
164: && b_0=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\left(11 - \frac{2}{3}\nf\right),
165: \, b_1=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^4}\left( 102 - \frac{38}{3} \nf\right).
166: \ees
167: The solution of \eq{e_beta},
168: \be\label{e_lambda}
169: \lambdas=\mu(b_{0}\gbar^{2})^{-b_{1}/(2b_{0}^2)}
170: \rme^{-1/(2b_{0}\gbar^{2})}\exp
171: \bigg\{-\int_{0}^{\gbar}dx
172: \left[\frac{1}{\beta(x)}+\frac{1}{b_{0}x^{3}}-
173: \frac{b_{1}}{b_{0}^{2}x}\right]\bigg\},
174: \ee
175: relates the coupling $\gbar=\gbar(\mu)$ to the Lambda-parameter.
176: This general expression turns into a
177: perturbative one by inserting the expansion \eq{e_beta_pert} for the
178: $\beta$-function.
179: Truncating in \eq{e_beta_pert} after the term
180: $b_{n-1}$ and solving \eq{e_lambda} (numerically) for $\gbar$ at given
181: $\mu$ (in units of $\Lambda$) defines the $n$-loop RG solution for the
182: coupling. In contrast to the frequently used expansion of $F(r)$
183: (or $V(r)$) in terms of $\alphaMSbar(\mu)$, one does not need to choose
184: the scale $\mu$.
185: For the \SF coupling, this perturbative prediction ($n=3$)
186: has been shown to be
187: rather accurate for $\alpha<0.3$ by comparison to non-perturbative
188: results~\cite{alpha:SU3,mbar:pap1}.
189:
190: In order to obtain $\alphaqq$ from \eq{e_lambda} we need to insert
191: the Lambda-parameter in this scheme.
192: We start from
193: \be \label{e_lamrnod}
194: \Lambda_{\MSbar}^{(0)} \rnod=0.602(48)
195: \ee
196: referring to the case $\nf=0$ and extracted at sufficiently high
197: scale $\mu$ where the perturbative error is negligible \cite{mbar:pap1}.
198: With the coefficient
199: $c_0$ (known from \cite{Fischler:1977yf,Billoire:1980ih}) in the expansion
200: \be
201: \alphaqqbar(\mu) = \alphaMSbar(\mu) + c_0 \alphaMSbar(\mu)^2 +
202: c_1 \alphaMSbar(\mu)^3 + \ldots
203: \ee
204: we then relate $\Lambda_{\qqbar}$ to $\Lambda_{\MSbar}$ via
205: \be
206: \Lambda_{\qqbar} = \Lambda_{\MSbar}\, \rme^{c_0/(8\pi b_0)}\,.
207: \ee
208: For convenience
209: the ratio of Lambda-parameters is listed in \tab{t_lambda_b2} together
210: with that ratio for
211: other schemes.
212:
213: The coupling $\alphaqqbar$ from 2- and 3-loop RG is illustrated in
214: \fig{f_alpha_pert}, using the central value
215: $\Lambda_{\MSbar} \rnod=0.602$ (the
216: 8\% overall uncertainty of this number
217: corresponds to a common small horizontal shift of all curves
218: in the figure).
219: The perturbative expansion appears
220: quite well
221: behaved up to distances $r\sim 0.25 \fm$. At $r\sim 0.2 \fm$
222: one would expect the 3-loop curve to have an accuracy of about 10\%.
223: Since the force is completely equivalent to $\alphaqqbar$
224: it is given with the same relative accuracy; the potential
225: may be obtained
226: by integration of the force.
227: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
228: \begin{figure}[ht]%\label{f_alpha_pert}
229: \begin{center}
230: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{alpha_pertlog.eps}
231: \end{center}\vspace{-0.8cm}
232: \caption{\label{f_alpha_pert} \footnotesize
233: Running couplings obtained by integration of the
234: RG with truncation of the $\beta$-functions at 2- and 3-loop
235: and with
236: $\Lambda_{\MSbar}^{(0)}=238\MeV$ \protect\cite{mbar:pap1}.}
237: \end{figure}
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239:
240:
241:
242: Alternatively one may define couplings $\alphavbar$ and $\alphav$ through the
243: potential
244: \be \label{e_alphavbar}
245: V(r) = -\casim{\alphavbar(\mu)\over r}\,,\;\,\mu=1/r
246: \ee
247: and its Fourier transform
248: \be
249: \tilde{V}(Q) = -4\pi \casim{\alphav(Q) \over Q^2}\,.
250: \ee
251: We note, however, that the 3-loop coefficients $b_2$
252: are larger
253: in these cases (see \tab{t_lambda_b2}), in particular
254: in the $\overline{V}$ scheme. As a consequence, the
255: difference between the 2-loop and the
256: 3-loop running coupling in this scheme
257: is only small at very short distances and this
258: perturbative expansion appears to be applicable only up to
259: $\alpha \sim 0.15$. This is also illustrated in \fig{f_alpha_pert}.
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261: \begin{table}[ht]
262: \begin{center}
263: \begin{tabular}{ c | c c c c c }
264: \hline\\[-1ex]
265: & $S\,=\,$ & $\qqbar$ & $V$ & $\overline{V}$ & $\rm SF$ \\[1ex]
266: \hline\\[-1ex]
267: $\Lambda_{S}/\Lambda_{\MSbar}$ & & $\exp(\gamma-35/66)$ & $\exp(31/66)$ &
268: $\exp(31/66+\gamma)$ &$0.48811(1)$\\
269: $b_{2}^{S}\times(4\pi)^3$ & & $1.6524$ & $2.1287$ & $4.3353$ & $0.483(9)$\\[1ex]
270: \hline
271: \end{tabular}
272: \end{center}
273: \caption{\label{t_lambda_b2} \footnotesize Ratio of $\Lambda$-parameters and 3-loop coefficient
274: of the $\beta$-function for various schemes for $\nf=0$. These results follow from
275: \protect\cite{Fischler:1977yf,Billoire:1980ih,MS:3loop1,MS:3loop3,Peter:1997me,Schroder:1998vy,Melles:2000dq,pert:2loop_nf0}.}
276: \end{table}
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278:
279: Note that the couplings in the
280: two schemes which are defined in terms of
281: the potential are restricted to perturbation theory.
282: Non-perturbatively it is not clear how to subtract the
283: self energy term in the potential and, in addition, performing
284: the Fourier transformation of numerical data known in
285: a finite range of $r$ is possible only in a model dependent way.
286: Also for this reason, $\alphaqqbar$ is the natural observable
287: for the comparison between perturbation theory and
288: non-perturbative QCD.
289: \vspace{0.5cm}
290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: \begin{table}[ht]%\label{t_coeff}
292: \begin{center}
293: \begin{tabular}{ c| c c c c c}
294: \hline\\[-1ex]
295: %$f_{2}^{\rm {SS'}}(s_{0})$
296: $S'$ & $S\,=\,$ & $\MSbar$ & $\qqbar$ & $\V$ & $\Vbar$ \\[1ex]
297: \hline\\[-1ex]
298: $\qqbar$ & & $1.0653$ & & & \\
299: $\V$ & & $1.6095$ & $0.5441$ & & \\
300: $\Vbar$ & & $4.1303$ & $3.0650$ & $2.5208$ & \\
301: SF & & $-0.271(10)$ & $-1.336(10)$ & $-1.880(10)$ & $-4.401(10)$ \\[1ex]
302: \hline
303: \end{tabular}
304: \end{center}
305: \caption{\label{t_coeff} Coefficients $f_{2}^{ {S'S}}(s_{0})$ for $s_0=\Lambdasp/\Lambdas$ and $\nf=0$.}
306: \end{table}
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308:
309: \ssect{3}
310: When two different couplings are known non-perturbatively,
311: it is further of interest to study how well perturbation theory
312: predicts their direct relation. This means matching the two
313: couplings at finite $\mu$ instead of through the
314: Lambda-parameter, which corresponds to matching for
315: $\mu \to \infty$.
316: The
317: perturbative relation
318: \be \label{e_match}
319: \alphasp(s\mu) = \alphas(\mu) + f_1^{S'S}(s) \alphas(\mu)^2 +
320: f_2^{S'S}(s) \alphas(\mu)^3 + \ldots
321: \ee
322: contains a freedom of relative scale, $s$.
323: Indeed, the choice of $s$ is in general very important for the
324: quality of the perturbative prediction \cite{Peter:1997me,alpha:SU2impr}.
325: The only viable criterion for fixing $s$ appears to be to demand
326: that the coefficients $f_i(s)$ are small (``fastest apparent convergence'').
327: The choice $s=s_0=\Lambdasp/\Lambdas$ yields $f_1(s_0)=0$,
328: and in addition the values of $|f_2(s_0)|$ are close to the minimum
329: of $|f_2(s)|$.
330: The coefficients $f_2(s_0)$ connecting selected schemes
331: are listed in \tab{t_coeff}. One observes that the SF-scheme is very close to
332: the $\MSbar$-scheme, the $\qqbar$ scheme is not very far, but the other
333: schemes have quite large values of $f_2(s_0)$ in their relation to the
334: $\MSbar$-scheme. In particular, the large coefficient between the $\MSbar$
335: scheme and
336: the $\Vbar$ scheme means that the direct expansion
337: of the coordinate space potential in terms of $\alphaMSbar$ (or $\alphaSF$)
338: is badly behaved,
339: as it has been pointed out in \cite{Peter:1997me,Schroder:1999sg,Melles:2000dq}.
340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
341: \begin{figure}[ht]%\label{f_alpha_qq}
342: \begin{center}
343: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{alpha_qq.eps}
344: \end{center}\vspace{-0.9cm}
345: \caption{\label{f_alpha_qq} \footnotesize
346: Running coupling in the $\qqbar$ scheme. Results for the continuum
347: limit as well as additional points at finite $\beta$, corresponding to finite
348: lattice spacing are shown. In the latter case the discretization errors were
349: estimated to be smaller than the size of the symbols.
350: The perturbative curves use $\Lambda_{\MSbar} \rnod$ from \protect\cite{mbar:pap1}
351: with the dotted lines corresponding to the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties of
352: this combination.}
353: \end{figure}
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355:
356:
357: We emphasize the following point. Although
358: the three different schemes $\qqbar$, $V$, $\Vbar$ differ only by kinematics
359: (differentiation, the Fourier transformation) it makes a big difference
360: for the applicability of perturbation theory which one is chosen to represent the
361: potential. The analysis of the perturbative series themselves suggests
362: that potential and force should be reconstructed from $\alphaqqbar$.
363: \vspace{0.5cm}
364:
365: \ssect{4}
366: In \fig{f_alpha_qq} we compare the non-perturbative results of
367: \cite{pot:silvia1} to perturbation theory. The 3-loop RG expression with
368: $\Lambda_{\MSbar}$
369: at the upper end of the error bar of \eq{e_lamrnod}
370: is in very close agreement with the
371: non-perturbative coupling. In fact the agreement extends up to values
372: of $\alphaqqbar$ where perturbation theory is not
373: to be trusted a priory.
374: For $\alphaqqbar \lesssim 0.3$ our criterion (i) above
375: is satisfied but there is no evidence for
376: non-perturbative terms in this region.
377:
378: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
379: \begin{figure}[ht]
380: \begin{center}
381: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{alphaqqsf.eps}
382: \end{center}\vspace{-0.9cm}
383: \caption{\label{f_alphaqqsf} \footnotesize
384: Test of \eq{e_alphaqqbar_pert}. The uncertainty in the combination $\mu \rnod$
385: has been
386: translated into
387: an uncertainty for $h(\alphaSF(\mu/s_0))$ and $\alphaqqbar(\mu)$.
388: The non-perturbative values for
389: $\alphaSF(\mu)$ are constructed from the data of \protect\cite{mbar:pap1}.
390: Errors are smaller than the sizes of the symbols.
391: }
392: \end{figure}
393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
394:
395: The same conclusion is reached when we consider the relation
396: between $\alphaSF(\mu)$ and $\alphaqqbar(\mu)$ at finite $\mu$:
397: We define the 3-loop expression
398: \bes
399: h(\alphaSF(\mu)) &=& \alphaSF(\mu)+ 1.336 \,[\alphaSF(\mu)]^3\,
400: \ees
401: such that
402: \bes
403: \alphaqqbar(\mu) &=& h(\alphaSF(\mu/s_0)) + \rmO([\alphaSF(\mu/s_0)]^4)
404: \label{e_alphaqqbar_pert}
405: \ees
406: as explained above. Then the non-perturbative values of $\alphaqqbar(\mu)$
407: and of $h(\alphaSF(\mu/s_0))$ are compared
408: in \fig{f_alphaqqsf}. If the higher order terms in
409: \eq{e_alphaqqbar_pert} are negligible, the two different quantities should
410: agree.
411: At $\alphaqqbar(\mu)\approx 0.3$ a difference is visible
412: but this is only about $3\times \alpha^4$, not far from
413: the expected size of the next order term in the series.\footnote{
414: Note that the next order correction is formally enhanced by a
415: logarithm of $\alpha$, which originates from a resummation
416: of IR divergent terms. It reads
417: $(A\log(\alpha)+B)\alpha^4$ \cite{pot:logterms_1,pot:logterms_2,Schroder:1999sg}.
418: While $A=9/(4\pi)$ has recently been calculated
419: \cite{pot:logterms_3,pot:logterms_4}, $B$ is not known.
420: The $A \alpha^4\log(\alpha)$ term by itself constitutes
421: a small correction in the figure, which would slightly enlarge
422: the difference between $h(\alphaSF(\mu/s_0))$ and $\alphaqqbar(\mu)$.}
423: At $\alphaqqbar(\mu) \approx 0.2$, the difference
424: $\alphaqqbar(\mu) - h(\alphaSF(\mu/s_0))$ is not significant
425: at all. We conclude that also in \eq{e_alphaqqbar_pert}
426: a large non-perturbative term at short distances
427: is excluded.
428:
429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
430: \begin{figure}[ht]
431: \begin{center}
432: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{pot_cont.eps}
433: \end{center}\vspace{-0.9cm}
434: \caption{\label{f_pot}
435: The potential compared to different
436: perturbative expressions. Here, $r_{\rm c}=0.54\rnod$ \protect\cite{pot:silvia1}.
437: }
438: \end{figure}
439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
440:
441:
442: Finally we show in \fig{f_pot} the static potential itself \cite{pot:silvia1}
443: compared to different perturbative approximations. Full line and short dashes
444: are given by
445: \bes\label{e_vint}
446: V(r) = V(0.15\rnod)+\int_{0.15\rnod}^r \rmd y F(y)\,,\;F(r)=\Cf r^2 \alphaqqbar(1/r)
447: \ees
448: with the 3-loop and 2-loop RG-solution for $\alphaqqbar$. Since we
449: know that the 3-loop RG-solution for $\alphaqqbar$ is accurate,
450: this also hold for $V(r)$ computed
451: through \eq{e_vint}. Again, the full line moves very close
452: to the data points ($r<0.5\rnod$), when $\Lambda \rnod$ at the upper end of the
453: error bar of \eq{e_lamrnod} is inserted. The long dashes represent \eq{e_alphavbar}
454: with the 3-loop RG-solution for $\alphavbar$. As it was to
455: be expected due to the missing
456: stability of this perturbative expression, it fails in describing the
457: potential. A similarly bad perturbative
458: expression (not shown here)
459: is the direct expansion of the potential in terms of $\alphaMSbar$.
460:
461: \vspace{0.5cm}
462:
463: \ssect{5} In summary, care has to be taken which perturbative prediction (scheme)
464: is adopted to describe the potential. However, perturbation theory
465: does its best in the following sense. As usual in an asymptotic expansion,
466: one should first investigate the apparent ``convergence'' by comparing
467: subsequent orders and checking that they decrease significantly.
468: If this is not the case, one is obviously outside the domain of
469: applicability of perturbation theory or has chosen a bad truncation (scheme).
470: According to this criterion the $\beta$-function in the
471: $\qqbar$-scheme may be trusted up
472: to $\alphaqqbar\approx 0.3$. Other
473: truncations of perturbation theory for the potential
474: that we investigated are
475: applicable for much smaller values of the coupling only.
476: Therefore perturbation theory suggests that the $\qqbar$ scheme
477: should be used
478: in order to obtain a reliable perturbative expression.\footnote{Of course,
479: other similarly well behaved truncations of perturbation theory
480: might be found. The important point is that a scheme with a large
481: 3-loop coefficient such as $\Vbar$ is of no use in the region
482: $\alpha > 0.15$.}
483:
484:
485: Our comparison
486: with non-perturbative results, obtained in the continuum
487: limit of lattice simulations
488: ($\nf=0$), does confirm that such a perturbative analysis is a good
489: guideline -- at least in the case at hand. Of course one should not
490: expect miracles when one goes up to $\alpha\approx 0.3$.
491: At such values of the coupling we only confirm that the
492: 3-loop perturbative
493: prediction is good to within about 10\% and indeed in \fig{f_alphaqqsf}
494: one sees explicitly that the truncated
495: perturbative series has {\em errors} of this order. Similar
496: results have been found for the $\nf=2$ coupling in the SF-scheme
497: (see Fig. 5 in \cite{alpha:lett}).
498:
499: Which lessons can we learn for QCD with quarks? Compared to $\nf=0$,
500: the relevant perturbative coefficients, $b_2$ and $f_2(s_0)$, which
501: are listed in
502: the appendix, are roughly a factor two smaller in magnitude
503: for $\nf=3$. This suggests that with quarks
504: the perturbative prediction
505: for the potential computed through $\alphaqqbar$ is also applicable
506: up to $\alpha\approx 0.3$
507: and furthermore in full QCD the issue of the appropriate scheme
508: is somewhat less important.
509: A direct lattice QCD check of these expectations
510: is unfortunately not possible at present and here we
511: had to boldly
512: generalize from the $\nf=0$ case. In addition,
513: these remarks apply to the massless theory
514: (we have not investigated mass effects).
515: Current phenomenological research concentrates on the application
516: of a velocity dependent potential beyond the static limit
517: for phenomenological applications to top-quark physics\cite{pot:Hoang:2000yr}.
518: On the one hand,
519: in this application the potential is needed for quite short distances,
520: where perturbation theory is intrinsically more precise \cite{topphys:kuehn},
521: on the other hand, with the velocity entering as a new scale,
522: this represents a more difficult multi-scale problem. Indeed the renormalization
523: group has already been applied to deal with this complication
524: \cite{pot:Hoang:2001rr}.
525: Nevertheless, the lessons learnt in our investigation
526: may be useful in this context as well; the type of renormalization
527: group improvement which we found to increase the reliability
528: of perturbation theory (see \fig{f_pot}) has not been applied in
529: \cite{pot:Hoang:2000yr} so far.
530:
531: \vspace{0.5cm}
532: \ssect{Acknowledgements} We thank
533: F. Jegerlehner,
534: O. Tarasov and U. Wolff for useful discussions and N. Brambilla
535: for correspondence.
536: This work is supported by the European Community's Human potential
537: programme under HPRN-CT-2000-00145 Hadrons/LatticeQCD.
538:
539:
540: \vspace{0.5cm}
541: \ssect{Appendix}
542: In order to ease the comparison of different schemes,
543: we here list some perturbative coefficients
544: for general $\nf$ whose numerical values for $\nf=0$ were quoted
545: in the tables above. Some of them could be taken directly
546: from the literature
547: \cite{Fischler:1977yf,Billoire:1980ih,MS:3loop1,MS:3loop3,Peter:1997me,Schroder:1998vy,Melles:2000dq,pert:2loop_fin},
548: others such as $b_2^{\qqbar}$ had to be
549: computed by straight forward algebra.
550:
551: %%% Local Variables:
552: %%% mode: latex
553: %%% TeX-master: "pap2"
554: %%% End:
555: