1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{axodraw}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \hoffset=-1.5cm
5: \voffset=-0.6cm
6: \textwidth=15.5cm
7: \textheight=21cm
8: \parindent=1em
9: \baselineskip.4cm
10: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
11:
12: \input pix.sty
13:
14: %%
15: %% YS
16: %%
17:
18: \def\a{\alpha}
19: \newcommand{\AV}{$_{AV}$}
20: \def\ar{\mbox{\small [AR]}}
21: % abbrev for lower order basic ints
22: \def\one{\(\!\fr1m\TopoVR(\Asc)\!\!\)}
23: \def\boz{\(\!\fr1m\ToprVB(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Asc)\!\!\)}
24: \def\biiz{\(\!\fr1m\ToprVB(\Asc,\Asc,\Ahh,\Ahh)\!\!\)}
25: % 4loop cases
26: \def\caseXVII{\one^4}
27: \def\caseXVI{\one\boz}
28: \def\caseXV{\one\biiz}
29: \def\caseXIV{\fr1{m^2}\TopfVBB(\Asc,\Ahh,\Asc,\Ahh,\Lhh)}
30: \def\caseXIII{\fr1{m^2}\TopfVBB(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh)}
31: \def\caseX{\TopfVT(\Ahh,\Ahh,\Ahh,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
32: \def\caseIX{\TopfVT(\Ahh,\Asc,\Ahh,\Lhh,\Lhh,\Lsc)}
33: \def\caseVIII{\TopfVT(\Ahh,\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
34: \def\caseVII{\TopfVT(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
35: \def\caseIV{m^2\TopfVB(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Ahh,\Ahh,\Asc,\Lsc)}
36: \def\caseIII{m^2\TopfVB(\Ahh,\Asc,\Asc,\Ahh,\Asc,\Ahh,\Lsc)}
37: \def\caseII{\TopfVW(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh,\Lhh,\Lhh,\Lhh)}
38: % 4loop non-basic
39: \def\caseI{\TopfVH(\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh,\Lhh,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lhh)}
40: \def\viz{\(m\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh,\Lsc,\Lsc)\)}
41: \def\viiz{\(m\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lhh,\Lhh)\)}
42: \def\oI{{\cal O}(1)}
43:
44: %%
45: %% ML-new-11/2002
46: %%
47: \newcommand{\Vppo}{\TopoVR(\Asc)}
48: \newcommand{\VppoII}{\(\!\!\TopoVR(\Asc)\!\!\)^2}
49: \newcommand{\VppoIII}{\(\!\!\TopoVR(\Asc)\!\!\)^3}
50: \newcommand{\VppoIV}{\(\!\!\TopoVR(\Asc)\!\!\)^4}
51: \newcommand{\VpptII}{\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lhh,\Lhh)}
52: \newcommand{\VpptIII}{\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
53: \newcommand{\VppfIV}{\caseVII}
54: \newcommand{\VppfV}{\TopfVBB(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Lhh)} %% {\caseXIII}
55: \newcommand{\VppfVI}{\caseVIII}
56: \newcommand{\VppfVII}{\TopfVB(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Ahh,\Ahh,\Asc,\Lsc)} %% {\caseIV}
57: \newcommand{\VppfVIII}{\TopfVBB(\Asc,\Ahh,\Asc,\Ahh,\Lhh)} %% {\caseXIV}
58: \newcommand{\VppfIX}{\caseX}
59: \newcommand{\VppfX}{\caseIX}
60: \newcommand{\VppfXI}{\TopfVB(\Ahh,\Asc,\Asc,\Ahh,\Asc,\Ahh,\Lsc)} %% {\caseIII}
61: \newcommand{\XXXX}[1]{\gamma_{#1}}
62: \newcommand{\us}[1]{\frac{1}{d-x}}
63: \newcommand{\lambdaBar}{\bar\lambda}
64: \newcommand{\idAt}{\frac{1}{d_A + 2}}
65: \newcommand{\mm}{m^2}
66: \newcommand{\tinymsbar}{{\overline{\mbox{\tiny\rm{MS}}}}}
67: %
68: %\renewcommand{\loop}{\ell}
69: % This kills epsfig or what not!
70: %
71: \newcommand{\mum}{\frac{\bar\mu}{2m(\bmu)}}
72: \def\oe{{\cal O}(\epsilon)}
73:
74: %%
75: %% YS-new-03/2003
76: %%
77: %% dashed lines
78: \def\Ada(#1,#2)(#3,#4,#5){\DashCArc(#1,#2)(#3,#4,#5){3}}
79: \def\Lda(#1,#2)(#3,#4){\DashLine(#1,#2)(#3,#4){3}}
80: %% 2-mass integrals. 2- and 3loop
81: %%
82: %% AH
83: \def\intAHa{\TopoVR(\Asc)}
84: \def\intAHb{\ToptVS(\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc)}
85: \def\intAHc{\ToprVB(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Asc)}
86: \def\intAHd{\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
87: \def\intAHe{\ToprVM(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
88: %%
89: %% YM
90: \def\intYMa{\TopoVR(\Ada)}
91: \def\intYMb{\ToptVS(\Ada,\Ada,\Lda)}
92: \def\intYMc{\ToprVB(\Ada,\Ada,\Ada,\Ada)}
93: \def\intYMd{\ToprVV(\Ada,\Ada,\Lda,\Lda,\Lda)}
94: \def\intYMe{\ToprVM(\Ada,\Ada,\Ada,\Lda,\Lda,\Lda)}
95: %%
96: %% mixed
97: \def\inta{\ToptVS(\Asc,\Asc,\Lda)}
98: \def\intb{\ToprVB(\Asc,\Asc,\Ada,\Ada)}
99: \def\ToprVBblob(#1,#2,#3,#4){\picb{#1(30,15)(15,-120,120)%
100: #2(30,15)(15,120,240) #3(15,15)(15,60,300) #4(15,15)(15,-60,60)%
101: \GCirc(45,15){2}{0}}}
102: \def\intbb{\ToprVBblob(\Asc,\Asc,\Ada,\Ada)}
103: \def\intc{\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lda,\Lda)}
104: \def\intd{\ToprVV(\Asc,\Ada,\Lda,\Lsc,\Lda)}
105: \def\inte{\ToprVV(\Asc,\Asc,\Lda,\Lsc,\Lsc)}
106: \def\intf{\ToprVM(\Asc,\Asc,\Asc,\Lda,\Lda,\Lda)}
107: \def\intg{\ToprVM(\Asc,\Ada,\Asc,\Lsc,\Lsc,\Lda)}
108: %%
109: %% 3loop masters \(\!\! \Vppo \!\!\) \times \(\!\! \VpptII \!\!\)
110: \def\intA{\fr1{m^2} \(\!\! \intAHa \!\!\)^3}
111: \def\intB{\fr1{m^2} \(\!\! \intAHa \!\!\)^2 \times \(\!\! \intYMa \!\!\)}
112: \def\intC{\fr1{m^2} \(\!\! \intAHa \!\!\) \times \(\!\! \intYMa \!\!\)^2}
113: \def\intD{\(\!\! \intAHa \!\!\) \times \(\!\! \intYMb \!\!\)}
114: \def\intE{ \intAHc}
115: \def\intF{\(\!\! \inta \!\!\) \times \(\!\! \intAHa \!\!\)}
116: \def\intG{\(\!\! \inta \!\!\) \times \(\!\! \intYMa \!\!\)}
117: \def\intH{ \intb}
118: \def\intI{m^2 \intbb}
119: \def\intJ{m^2 \intc}
120: \def\intK{m^2 \intd}
121: \def\intL{m^4 \inte}
122: \def\intM{m^4 \intf}
123: \def\Mvariable{}
124:
125: %%
126: %% ML-new-06/2004
127: %%
128: \newcommand{\Lambdamsbar}{{\Lambda_\tinymsbar}}
129: \newcommand{\Nf}{N_{\rm f}}
130: \newcommand{\Nc}{N_{\rm c}}
131: \newcommand{\Tc}{T_{\rm c}}
132: \newcommand{\rmO}{{\mathcal{O}}}
133: \newcommand{\g}{D}
134: \newcommand{\bmu}{\bar\mu}
135: \newcommand{\CA}{\Nc}
136: \newcommand{\aM}{\alpha_\rmi{M}}
137: \newcommand{\aG}{\alpha_\rmi{G}}
138: \newcommand{\bM}{\beta_\rmi{M}}
139: \renewcommand{\bG}{\beta_\rmi{G}}
140: \newcommand{\aE}[1]{\alpha_\rmi{E#1}}
141: \newcommand{\bE}[1]{\beta_\rmi{E#1}}
142: \newcommand{\logT}{\ln\frac{\bmu}{4 \pi T}}
143: \newcommand{\logz}[1]{\frac{\zeta'(-#1)}{\zeta(-#1)}}
144: \def\lsi{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
145: \def\gsi{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
146: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathop{\lsi}}
147: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathop{\gsi}}
148: \newcommand{\lna}{\ln\frac{6}{a\bmu}}
149: \newcommand{\bfx}{{\bf x}}
150: \newcommand{\Dfymsbar}{\frac{\partial {\cal F}_\tinymsbar}{\partial y}}
151: \newcommand{\Dfxmsbar}{\frac{\partial {\cal F}_\tinymsbar}{\partial x}}
152:
153: %%
154: %% ML-new-01/2005
155: %%
156: \newcommand{\Tint}[1]{{\hbox{$\sum$}\!\!\!\!\!\!\int}_{\!\!\!\!#1}}
157: \newcommand{\rmii}[1]{{\mbox{\tiny\rm{#1}}}}
158: \def\Lwidth{1}
159: \special{! /Ldensity {0.25} def}
160: \def\Aegl(#1,#2)(#3,#4,#5){\PhotonArc(#1,#2)(#3,#4,#5){\Lwidth}
161: {6.283 #3 mul 360 div #4 #5 sub #4 #5 sub mul sqrt mul Ldensity mul}}
162: \def\Legl(#1,#2)(#3,#4){\Photon(#1,#2)(#3,#4){\Lwidth}
163: {#1 #3 sub #1 #3 sub mul #2 #4 sub #2 #4 sub mul add sqrt Ldensity mul}}
164: %%
165: \def\ToprSBB(#1,#2,#3,#4,#5){\picb{#1(0,15)(7.5,15) #1(37.5,15)(45,15)%
166: #2(22.5,15)(15,0,70) #2(22.5,15)(15,110,180) #3(22.5,15)(15,180,360)%
167: #4(22.5,30)(5,-10,190) #5(22.5,30)(5,190,350)}}
168: \def\ToprSBT(#1,#2,#3,#4){\picb{#1(0,15)(7.5,15) #1(37.5,15)(45,15)%
169: #2(22.5,15)(15,0,90) #2(22.5,15)(15,90,180) #3(22.5,15)(15,180,360)%
170: #4(22.5,35)(5,-90,270)}}
171: \def\ToprSTB(#1,#2,#3,#4){\picb{#1(0,0)(22.5,0) #1(22.5,0)(45,0)%
172: #2(22.5,15)(15,-90,70) #2(22.5,15)(15,110,270)%
173: #3(22.5,30)(5,-10,190) #4(22.5,30)(5,190,350)}}
174: \def\ToprSTT(#1,#2,#3){\picb{#1(0,0)(22.5,0) #1(22.5,0)(45,0)%
175: #2(22.5,15)(15,-90,90) #2(22.5,15)(15,90,270)%
176: #3(22.5,35)(5,-90,270)}}
177:
178:
179: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
180: % The lines below are necessary in order to enumerate the equations
181: % according to the sections where they are.
182: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother
183: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
184: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
185: \makeatletter
186: \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
187: {-5.5ex \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}% bfr-skip
188: {2.3ex \@plus.2ex}%
189: {\normalfont\large\bfseries}}
190: \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
191: {-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}%
192: {1.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
193: {\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}
194: \renewcommand\thesection {\@arabic\c@section}
195: \renewcommand\thesubsection {\thesection.\@arabic\c@subsection}
196: \renewcommand{\@seccntformat}[1]{%
197: \csname the#1\endcsname.\hspace{1.0em}}
198: \makeatother
199: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TEXT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201:
202: \begin{document}
203:
204:
205: \begin{titlepage}
206: \begin{flushright}
207: BI-TP 2005/07\\
208: hep-ph/0503061\\
209: \end{flushright}
210: \begin{centering}
211: \vfill
212:
213: {\Large{\bf Two-loop QCD gauge coupling at high temperatures}}
214:
215: \vspace{0.8cm}
216:
217: M.~Laine, %%\footnote{laine@physik.uni-bielefeld.de},
218: Y. Schr\"oder %%\footnote{yorks@physik.uni-bielefeld.de}
219:
220: \vspace{0.8cm}
221:
222: {\em
223: Faculty of Physics, University of Bielefeld,
224: D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany\\}
225:
226: \vspace*{0.8cm}
227:
228: \mbox{\bf Abstract}
229:
230: \end{centering}
231:
232: \vspace*{0.3cm}
233:
234: \noindent
235: %
236: We determine the 2-loop effective gauge coupling of QCD at high
237: temperatures, defined as a matching coefficient appearing in the
238: dimensionally reduced effective field theory. The result allows to
239: improve on one of the classic non-perturbative probes for the convergence
240: of the weak-coupling expansion at high temperatures, the comparison of full
241: and effective theory determinations of an observable called the spatial
242: string tension. We find surprisingly good agreement almost down to the
243: critical temperature of the deconfinement phase transition. We also
244: determine one new contribution of order $\mathcal{O}(g^6T^4)$
245: to the pressure of hot QCD.
246: %
247: \vfill
248: \noindent
249:
250: %\noindent
251: %PACS numbers:
252: %11.10.Wx, % Finite temperature field theory
253: %11.15.Bt, % General properties of perturbation theory
254: %11.15.Ha, % Lattice gauge theory
255: %12.38.Bx, % Perturbative calculations in QCD
256: %\\
257: %Keywords:
258:
259: \vspace*{1cm}
260:
261: \noindent
262: March 2005
263:
264: \vfill
265:
266: \end{titlepage}
267:
268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
269: %
270: \section{Introduction}
271:
272: Indirect signs for rapid thermalisation after heavy ion collisions
273: at RHIC energies, derived for instance from the fact that hydrodynamic
274: models assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium
275: appear to work very well~\cite{uh}, have
276: underlined the need to understand the physics of thermal QCD
277: at temperatures above a few hundred MeV.
278:
279: Given asymptotic freedom, a natural tool for these studies is the
280: weak-coupling expansion~\cite{es}. Alas, it has been known since a long time
281: that the weak-coupling expansion converges very slowly at all realistic
282: temperatures~\cite{az,zk}. It also has theoretically a non-trivial structure,
283: with odd powers of the gauge coupling~\cite{jk} and even coefficients that
284: can only be determined non-perturbatively~\cite{linde,gpy}.
285:
286: On the other hand, the degrees of freedom responsible for the slow convergence
287: can be identified~\cite{bn,adjoint,gsixg}:
288: they are the ``soft'' static
289: colour-electric modes, parametrically $p \sim gT$ (leading to the
290: odd powers in the gauge coupling), as well as the ``ultrasoft'' static
291: colour-magnetic modes, parametrically $p \sim g^2T$
292: (leading to the non-perturbative coefficients
293: in the weak-coupling expansion). Here $p$ denotes the characteristic
294: momentum scale, $g$ the gauge coupling
295: and $T$ the temperature. The belief has been
296: that perturbation theory restricted to
297: parametrically hard scales $p \sim 2\pi T$ alone should
298: converge well, while the soft and the ultrasoft scales need to be
299: treated either with ``improved'' analytic schemes, or then
300: non-perturbatively. As a starting point for these demanding
301: tasks one may take, however, either the dimensionally reduced
302: effective field theory~\cite{dr,generic} or
303: the hard thermal loop effective theory~\cite{bp}, which have been
304: obtained by integrating out the parametrically hard scales.
305:
306: Quantitative evidence for this picture can be obtained by choosing
307: simple observables which can be determined reliably both
308: with four-dimensional (4d) lattice
309: simulations and with the soft/ultrasoft effective theory. This
310: forces us to restrict to static observables
311: and, for the moment, mostly pure gauge theory. Various comparisons of this
312: kind are summarised in Refs.~\cite{own,owe,chris}.
313: The most precise results are related to static correlation lengths
314: in various quantum number channels~\cite{mu}, where good agreement
315: has generally been found down to $T \sim 2 \Tc$,
316: where $\Tc$ is the critical temperature of the deconfinement phase
317: transition. The thermodynamic pressure of QCD is also
318: consistent with this picture~\cite{gsixg}, even though that comparison
319: is not unambiguous yet, due to the fact that the effective theory
320: approach does not directly produce the physical number, but
321: requires not-yet-determined ultraviolet matching
322: coefficients for its interpretation~\cite{plaq}.\footnote{%
323: For the status regarding a few other observables, see Refs.~\cite{mv,ag,bmp}.
324: }
325:
326: The purpose of this paper is to study another observable for which
327: an unambiguous comparison is possible. The observable is the
328: ``spatial string tension'', $\sigma_s$. 4d lattice
329: determinations of $\sigma_s$ in pure SU(3) gauge theory exist
330: since a while already~\cite{boyd} but, as has most recently
331: been stressed in Ref.~\cite{pg2}, the comparison
332: with effective theory results shows a clear discrepancy.
333: In order to improve on the
334: resolution on the effective theory side, we compute here
335: the gauge coupling of the dimensionally reduced
336: theory up to 2-loop order. Combining with other ingredients~\cite{mt,pg},
337: to be specified below, allows then for a precise comparison. We find
338: that once the 2-loop corrections are included, the match to 4d lattice data
339: improves quite significantly and supports the picture outlined above.
340:
341: The plan of this paper is the following.
342: In \se\ref{se:gE2} we present the 2-loop computation of the
343: effective gauge coupling of the dimensionally reduced theory.
344: In \se\ref{se:num} we discuss the numerical evaluation of this result.
345: In \se\ref{se:string} we use the outcome for estimating the spatial
346: string tension, and compare with 4d lattice data.
347: We conclude in \se\ref{se:concl}.
348:
349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
350: %
351: \section{Effective gauge coupling}
352: \la{se:gE2}
353:
354: We consider finite temperature QCD with the gauge group
355: SU($\Nc$), and $\Nf$ flavours of massless quarks. In dimensional
356: regularisation the bare Euclidean
357: Lagrangian reads, before gauge fixing,
358: \ba
359: S_\rmi{QCD} & = & \int_0^{\beta} \! {\rm d}\tau \int \! {\rm d}^d x\,
360: {\cal L}_\rmi{QCD}, \\
361: {\cal L}_\rmi{QCD} & = &
362: \fr14 F_{\mu\nu}^a F_{\mu\nu}^a+
363: \bar\psi \gamma_\mu D_\mu \psi
364: \;, \la{SQCD}
365: \ea
366: where $\beta = T^{-1}$, $d=3-2\epsilon$, $\mu,\nu=0,...,d$,
367: $F_{\mu\nu}^a = \partial_\mu A_\nu^a - \partial_\nu A_\mu^a +
368: g_B f^{abc} A_\mu^b A_\nu^c$,
369: $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i g_B A_\mu$,
370: $A_\mu = A_\mu^a T^a$,
371: $T^a$
372: are Hermitean generators of SU($\Nc$) normalised such that
373: $\tr [ T^a T^b ] = \delta^{ab}/2$,
374: $\gamma_\mu^\dagger = \gamma_\mu$,
375: $\{\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu\} = 2 \delta_{\mu\nu}$,
376: $g_B$ is the bare gauge coupling,
377: and $\psi$ carries Dirac, colour, and flavour indices.
378: We use the standard symbols
379: $C_A = \Nc, C_F = (\Nc^2 - 1)/(2 \Nc), T_F = \Nf/2$
380: for the various group theory factors emerging.
381:
382: At high enough temperatures, the dynamics of \eq\nr{SQCD}
383: is contained in a simpler, dimensionally reduced effective
384: field theory~\cite{dr,generic,bn}:
385: \ba
386: S_\rmi{EQCD} & = & \int \! {\rm d}^d x\, {\cal L}_\rmi{EQCD}, \\
387: {\cal L}_\rmi{EQCD} & = &
388: \fr14 F_{ij}^a F_{ij}^a +
389: \tr [D_i,B_0]^2 +
390: m_\rmi{E}^2\tr [ B_0^2 ] +\lambda_\rmi{E}^{(1)} (\tr [B_0^2])^2
391: +\lambda_\rmi{E}^{(2)} \tr [B_0^4] + ...\; .
392: \hspace*{0.5cm} \la{EQCD}
393: \ea
394: Here $i=1,...,d$, $F_{ij} = \partial_i B_j^a - \partial_j B_i^a +
395: g_\rmi{E} f^{abc} B_i^b B_j^c$, and
396: $D_i = \partial_i - i g_\rmi{E} B_i$.
397: The fields $B^a_\mu$ have the dimension $[\mbox{GeV}]^{1/2-\epsilon}$,
398: due to a trivial rescaling with $T^{1/2}$.
399: Note also that the
400: quartic couplings $\lambda_\rmi{E}^{(1)}$, $\lambda_\rmi{E}^{(2)}$
401: are linearly dependent for $N_c \le 3$, since then
402: $\tr [B_0^4] = \fr12 (\tr[B_0^2])^2$.
403:
404: The theory in \eq\nr{EQCD}
405: has been truncated to be super-renormalisable;
406: that is, higher order operators~\cite{sc} (see also Refs.~\cite{mrs,do}
407: and references therein)
408: have been dropped. The relative error thus induced has been
409: discussed for generic Green's functions in Ref.~\cite{parity}, and
410: for the particular case of the pressure of hot QCD in Ref.~\cite{gsixg}.
411: In the following we concentrate on an observable
412: dynamically determined by the
413: colour-magnetic scale $p\sim g^2 T$,
414: and it is easy to see that in this case the higher
415: order operators do not play any role at the order we are working.
416:
417: The effective parameters in \eq\nr{EQCD} can be determined by
418: matching, that is, by requiring that QCD and EQCD
419: produce the same results, within the domain of validity of the latter theory.
420: It is essential that infrared (IR) physics is treated in the same
421: way in both theories at the matching stage and, as outlined in
422: Ref.~\cite{bn}, the most convenient implementation of this requirement is
423: to perform computations on both sides using ``unresummed'' propagators.
424: We follow this procedure here.
425:
426: The matching simplifies further by using the background field
427: gauge (Ref.~\cite{lfa} and references therein). As this is
428: essential for what follows, we start by briefly recalling
429: the basic advantage of this approach. For a concise yet
430: rigorous overview of the technique, see Ref.~\cite{lw}.
431:
432: We denote the background gauge potential with $B^a_\mu$,
433: and the gauge-invariant combination following from
434: $F_{\mu\nu}^a(B) F_{\mu\nu}^a(B)$ symbolically as $B^2 + g B^3 + g^2 B^4$.
435: Now, the computation of the effective Lagrangian by integrating
436: out the hard scales $p\sim 2\pi T$ produces, in general,
437: an expression of the type
438: \be
439: \mathcal{L}_\rmi{eff} \sim c_2\, B^2 + c_3\, g B^3 + c_4\, g^2 B^4 + ...
440: \;, \la{Leff1}
441: \ee
442: where $c_i$ are coefficients of the form $c_i = 1 + \mathcal{O}(g^2)$.
443: As the next step we are free to define
444: a canonically normalised effective field $B_\rmi{eff}$
445: as $B_\rmi{eff}^2 \equiv c_2 B^2$. Then the effective Lagrangian obtains
446: the form
447: \be
448: \mathcal{L}_\rmi{eff} \sim
449: B_\rmi{eff}^2 + {c_3} { c_2^{-3/2} } \, g B_\rmi{eff}^3 +
450: c_4 c_2^{-2} \, g^2 B_\rmi{eff}^4 + ...
451: \;. \la{Beff}
452: \ee
453: We can now read off the effective gauge coupling from the gauge-invariant
454: structure:
455: \be
456: g_\rmi{eff} = c_3 c_2^{-3/2} \, g = c_4^{1/2} c_2^{-1} \, g
457: \;. \la{geff0}
458: \ee
459: We observe that two independent computations are needed
460: for the determination of $g_\rmi{eff}$, but we can
461: choose whether to go through the 3-point or the 4-point
462: function, in addition to the 2-point function
463: (that is, using $c_3$ or $c_4$, in addition to $c_2$).
464:
465: The background field gauge economises this setup. Indeed,
466: the effective action is then gauge-invariant not only in terms of
467: $B_\rmi{eff}$, but also in terms of the original field $B$~\cite{lfa}.
468: Writing \eq\nr{Leff1} as
469: \be
470: \mathcal{L}_\rmi{eff} \sim c_2
471: \Bigl[
472: B^2 + c_3 c_2^{-1} \, g B^3 + c_4 c_2^{-1} \, g^2 B^4
473: \Bigr] + ...
474: \;,
475: \ee
476: gauge invariance in terms of $B$ now tells us that
477: $
478: c_3 = c_2
479: $ and
480: $
481: c_4 = c_2.
482: $
483: Combining with \eq\nr{geff0}, we obtain
484: \be
485: g_\rmi{eff} = c_2^{-1/2} \; g
486: \;, \la{geff}
487: \ee
488: so that it is enough to carry out one single 2-point computation,
489: in order to obtain $g_\rmi{eff}$. In our case, the role of
490: $g_\rmi{eff}$ is played by $g_\rmi{E}$ (cf.\ \eq\nr{EQCD}).
491:
492:
493: The class of background field gauges still allows for a general (bare)
494: gauge parameter, $\xi$. As a cross-check we have carried out all
495: computations with a general $\xi$, and verified that it cancels at the end.
496: To be definite, we denote $(\xi)_\rmi{here} = 1 - (\xi)_\rmi{standard}$,
497: so that the gauge field propagator reads
498: \be
499: \Bigl\langle A^a_\mu(q) A^b_\nu(-q)
500: \Bigr\rangle
501: = \delta^{ab}
502: \biggl[
503: \frac{\delta_{\mu\nu}}{q^2} - \xi \frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{(q^2)^2}
504: \biggr]
505: \;.
506: \ee
507:
508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
509: \begin{figure}[t]
510:
511: \begin{eqnarray*}
512: %
513: % 1loop
514: %
515: \TopoS(\Lgl) & \equiv &
516: \sy{}12 \TopoSB(\Lgl,\Agl,\Agl)
517: \sm{-1} \TopoSB(\Lgl,\Agh,\Agh)
518: \sm{-1} \TopoSB(\Lgl,\Aqu,\Aqu)
519: \sy+12 \TopoST(\Lgl,\Agl)
520: \sm{-1} \TopoST(\Lgl,\Agh) \;,
521: \\[0ex]
522: && \nn[0ex]
523: %
524: % 2loop irr
525: %
526: \ToptSi(\Lgl) & \equiv &
527: \sy{}12 \ToptSM(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl,\Lgl)
528: \sm{-1} \ToptSM(\Legl,\Agh,\Agl,\Agl,\Agh,\Lgh)
529: \sm{-1} \ToptSM(\Legl,\Agl,\Agh,\Agh,\Agl,\Lagh)
530: \sm{-1} \ToptSM(\Legl,\Agh,\Agh,\Agh,\Agh,\Lgl)
531: \sm{-1} \ToptSM(\Legl,\Aqu,\Agl,\Agl,\Aqu,\Lqu)
532: \sm{-1} \ToptSM(\Legl,\Agl,\Aqu,\Aqu,\Agl,\Laqu)
533: \sm{-1} \ToptSM(\Legl,\Aqu,\Aqu,\Aqu,\Aqu,\Lgl) \nn[0ex]&&{} \hspace*{-0.3cm}
534: \sy+12 \ToptSAl(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl)
535: \sy+12 \ToptSAr(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl)
536: \sm{-1} \ToptSAl(\Legl,\Agl,\Agh,\Agl,\Agh)
537: \sm{-1} \ToptSAr(\Legl,\Agh,\Agl,\Agl,\Agh)
538: \sm{-2} \ToptSAl(\Legl,\Agh,\Agh,\Agh,\Agl)
539: \sm{-2} \ToptSAr(\Legl,\Agh,\Agh,\Agh,\Agl) \nn[0ex]&&{} \hspace*{-0.3cm}
540: \sy+14 \ToptSE(\Lgl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl)
541: \sy+16 \ToptSS(\Lgl,\Agl,\Agl,\Lgl)
542: \sm{-1} \ToptSS(\Lgl,\Agh,\Agh,\Lgl) \;,
543: \\[0ex]
544: && \nn[0ex]
545: %
546: % 2loop red
547: %
548: \ToptSr(\Lgl ) & \equiv &
549: \sy{}12 \ToprSBB(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl)
550: \sm{-1} \ToprSBB(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agh,\Agh)
551: \sm{-2} \ToprSBB(\Legl,\Agh,\Agh,\Agl,\Aagh)
552: \sm{-1} \ToprSBB(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Aqu,\Aqu)
553: \sm{-2} \ToprSBB(\Legl,\Aqu,\Aqu,\Agl,\Aaqu)
554: \sy+12 \ToprSBT(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl) \nn[1ex]&&{} \hspace*{-0.3cm}
555: \sy+14 \ToprSTB(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl,\Agl)
556: \sy-12 \ToprSTB(\Legl,\Agl,\Agh,\Agh)
557: \sm{-1}\ToprSTB(\Legl,\Agh,\Agl,\Aagh)
558: \sy-12 \ToprSTB(\Legl,\Agl,\Aqu,\Aqu)
559: \sy+14 \ToprSTT(\Legl,\Agl,\Agl) \;.
560: \end{eqnarray*}
561:
562: \caption[a]{\it The 1-loop and 2-loop self-energy diagrams
563: in the background field gauge. Wavy lines represent
564: gauge fields, dotted lines ghosts, and solid lines fermions.
565: The 2-loop graphs have been divided into two-particle-irreducible
566: and two-particle-reducible contributions.}
567: \label{fig:2pt}
568:
569: \end{figure}
570: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
571:
572:
573: In order to match the effective gauge coupling, we need to compute
574: the 2-loop gluon self-energy, $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$, for the background gauge
575: potential $B^a_\mu$. The graphs entering are shown in \fig\ref{fig:2pt}.
576: The external momentum $p$ is taken purely spatial,
577: $p = (0,\vec{p})$, while the heat bath is timelike, with
578: Euclidean four-velocity $u = (1,0)$, so that $u\cdot u = 1, u \cdot p = 0$.
579: In this case $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$
580: has three independent components ($\Pi_{0i}$, $\Pi_{i0}$ vanish identically),
581: \be
582: \Pi_{00}(\vec{p}) \equiv \Pi_\rmi{E}(\vec{p}^2)
583: \;, \quad
584: \Pi_{ij}(\vec{p}) \equiv
585: \biggl(
586: \delta_{ij} - \frac{p_i p_j}{\vec{p}^2}
587: \biggr) \Pi_\rmi{T}(\vec{p}^2)
588: + \frac{p_i p_j}{\vec{p}^2} \Pi_\rmi{L}(\vec{p}^2)
589: \;, \la{Pidef}
590: \ee
591: where $i,j = 1,...,d$. In fact loop corrections to
592: the spatially longitudinal part $\Pi_\rmi{L}$ also vanish,
593: so that only two non-trivial functions, $\Pi_\rmi{E}, \Pi_\rmi{T}$, remain.
594:
595: Since we are carrying out a matching computation, any possible IR divergences
596: cancel as we subtract the contribution of EQCD. Therefore we may Taylor-expand
597: $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$ to second order in $\vec{p}^2$. This leads to the nice
598: simplification that the results on the EQCD side vanish
599: identically in dimensional
600: regularization, due to the absence of any mass scales in the propagators.
601: Thus we only need to compute unresummed integrals on the QCD side.
602:
603: After the Taylor-expansion,
604: the 2-loop QCD integrals can all be cast in the form
605: \be
606: I(i_1,i_2;j_1,j_2,j_3;k_1,k_2,k_3) \equiv
607: \Tint{q,r} \frac{q_0^{i_1} r_0^{i_2}
608: (\vec{q}\cdot\vec{p})^{j_1}
609: (\vec{r}\cdot\vec{p})^{j_2}
610: (\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r})^{j_3}
611: }{[q_0^2 + \vec{q}^2]^{k_1}[r_0^2 + \vec{r}^2]^{k_2}
612: [(q_0+r_0)^2 + (\vec{q}+\vec{r})^2]^{k_3}}
613: \;. \la{int}
614: \ee
615: The indices here are non-negative integers, and the measure
616: is the standard Matsubara sum-integral (bosonic or fermionic),
617: with the spatial part
618: $\int\! {\rm d}^d \vec{q}/(2\pi)^d \int\! {\rm d}^d \vec{r}/(2\pi)^d$.
619:
620: To reduce integrals of the type in~\eq\nr{int} to a small
621: set of ``master integrals'', we employ symmetries following from
622: exchanges of integration variables, as well as general partial
623: integration identities for the spatial parts of the momentum
624: integrations. The implementation of these identities follows
625: the procedure outlined by Laporta~\cite{laporta},
626: in analogy with Ref.~\cite{ysproc}. We are lead both to very
627: simple 1-loop recursion relations, such as
628: \be
629: I(2 i_1,0;0,0,0;k_1,1,0) =
630: \frac{2k_1 - 2 - d}{2k_1 - 2}
631: I(2 i_1-2,0;0,0,0;k_1-1,1,0)
632: \;,
633: \ee
634: as well as well-known but less obvious 2-loop ones~\cite{ae}, like
635: \be
636: I(0,0;0,0,0;1_\rmi{b},1_\rmi{b},1_\rmi{b}) = 0
637: \;,
638: \ee
639: where the subscripts refer to bosonic four-momenta.
640:
641: After this reduction, only six master integrals remain:
642: \be
643: I_\rmi{b}(n) = \Tint{q_\rmi{b}} \frac{1}{(q^2)^n}
644: \;, \quad
645: I_\rmi{f}(n) = \Tint{q_\rmi{f}} \frac{1}{(q^2)^n}
646: \;,
647: \ee
648: where $q_\rmi{b},q_\rmi{f}$ refer to bosonic and fermionic Matsubara
649: momenta, respectively, and $n=1,2,3$. For a vanishing quark chemical
650: potential, as we assume to be the case here,
651: the fermionic integrals reduce further to the bosonic ones,
652: \be
653: I_\rmi{f}(n) =
654: \Bigl(
655: 2^{2n - d} - 1
656: \Bigr) I_\rmi{b}(n)
657: \;,
658: \ee
659: leaving only three master integrals. They are known explicitly,
660: \be
661: I_\rmi{b}(n) = \frac{2 \pi^{d/2} T^{1+d}}{(2 \pi T)^{2 n}}
662: \frac{\Gamma(n-d/2)}{\Gamma(n)} \zeta(2n - d)
663: \;. \la{Imaster}
664: \ee
665: This expression is easily expanded in $\epsilon$ and, in the following,
666: we need terms up to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$. For completeness, the
667: relevant expansions are shown in Appendix A.
668:
669: Writing now the
670: Taylor-expanded bare 2-point function $\Pi_\rmi{T}$
671: of \eq\nr{Pidef} as
672: \ba
673: \Pi_\rmi{T}(\vec{p}^2) & \equiv &
674: \Pi_\rmi{T}(0) + \vec{p}^2
675: \Pi_\rmi{T}'(0) + ... \nn
676: & \equiv &
677: \sum_{n=1}^\infty \Pi_\rmi{Tn}(0)(g_B^2)^n +
678: \vec{p}^2
679: \sum_{n=1}^\infty \Pi_\rmi{Tn}'(0)(g_B^2)^n +
680: ...
681: \;,
682: \ea
683: where $g_B$ is the bare gauge coupling,
684: and correspondingly for $\Pi_\rmi{E}$, our results read
685: \ba
686: \Pi_\rmi{T1}(0) & = & 0
687: \;, \\
688: \Pi_\rmi{T1}'(0) & = & % g_B^2
689: %\biggl[
690: \frac{d-25}{6} C_A I_\rmi{b}(2) + \fr43 T_F I_\rmi{f}(2)
691: %\biggr]
692: \;, \la{PiT1p} \\
693: \Pi_\rmi{T2}(0) & = & 0
694: \;, \\
695: \Pi_\rmi{T2}'(0) & = & % g_B^4
696: \frac{(d-3)(d-4)}{d(d-2)(d-5)(d-7)}
697: \biggl\{
698: 2 (4d^2 - 21 d - 7) C_A^2 I_\rmi{b}^2(2) -
699: \nn & &
700: \hphantom{ \frac{(d-3)(d-4)}{d(d-2)(d-5)(d-7)}
701: \biggl\{ }
702: -
703: 8 \Bigl[ 4 C_F + (d^2 - 6d + 1) C_A
704: \Bigr] T_F I_\rmi{b}(2) I_\rmi{f}(2) -
705: \nn & &
706: \hphantom{ \frac{(d-3)(d-4)}{d(d-2)(d-5)(d-7)}
707: \biggl\{ }
708: -
709: \Bigl[
710: (d^3 - 12 d^2 + 39 d - 12) C_A -
711: \nn & &
712: \hphantom{ \frac{(d-3)(d-4)}{d(d-2)(d-5)(d-7)}
713: \biggl\{ - \Bigl[ }
714: - 2 (d^3 - 12 d^2 +41 d - 14) C_F
715: \Bigr] T_F I_\rmi{f}^2(2)
716: \biggr\} +
717: \nn & & +
718: \frac{(d-1)}{3 d(d-7)}
719: \biggl\{
720: (d^2-31 d + 144)
721: \Bigl[
722: 4 T_F I_\rmi{f}(1) - (d-1) C_A I_\rmi{b}(1)
723: \Bigr] C_A I_\rmi{b}(3) -
724: \nn & &
725: \hphantom{ \frac{(d-1)}{3 d(d-7)}
726: \biggl\{ }
727: - 8 (d-1)(d-6) C_F T_F
728: \Bigl[ I_\rmi{b}(1) - I_\rmi{f}(1)
729: \Bigr] I_\rmi{f}(3)
730: \biggr\}
731: \;, \la{PiT2p} \\
732: \Pi_\rmi{E1}(0) & = & % g_B^2
733: % \biggl[
734: -(d-1) \Bigl[
735: 4 T_F I_\rmi{f}(1) -
736: (d-1) C_A I_\rmi{b}(1) \Bigr]
737: % \biggr]
738: \;, \la{PiE1} \\
739: \Pi_\rmi{E1}'(0) & = & % g_B^2
740: % \biggl\{
741: - \biggl[ \frac{d^2 - 5 d +28 }{6} + (d -3) \xi \biggr] C_A I_\rmi{b}(2)
742: + \frac{2(d-1)}{3} T_F I_\rmi{f}(2)
743: % \biggr\}
744: \;, \la{PiE1p} \\
745: \Pi_\rmi{E2}(0) & = & % g_B^4
746: (d-1)(d-3)
747: \biggl\{
748: (1+\xi) \Bigl[
749: 4 T_F I_\rmi{f}(1) - (d-1) C_A I_\rmi{b}(1)
750: \Bigr] C_A I_\rmi{b}(2) +
751: \nn & & \hphantom{ (d-1)(d-3)
752: \biggl\{ }
753: + 4 C_F T_F \Bigl[
754: I_\rmi{b}(1) - I_\rmi{f}(1)
755: \Bigr] I_\rmi{f}(2)
756: \biggr\}
757: \;. \la{PiE2}
758: \ea
759: We leave out the lengthy expression for $\Pi_\rmi{E2}'(0)$,
760: as it is not needed in the following.
761:
762: The bare results
763: need still to be renormalised. The bare gauge coupling is written
764: as $g_B^2 = g^2(\bmu) Z_g$, where $g^2(\bmu)$ is the renormalised
765: gauge coupling,
766: $\bmu$ is an $\msbar$ scheme scale parameter introduced
767: through $\mu^2 \equiv \bmu^2 e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}/4\pi$,
768: and the combination $\mu^{-2\epsilon} g^2(\bmu)$
769: is dimensionless. Denoting
770: \ba
771: \beta_0 & \equiv &
772: \frac{-22 C_A + 8 T_F}{3}
773: \;, \\
774: \beta_1 & \equiv &
775: \frac{-68 C_A^2 + 40 C_A T_F + 24 C_F T_F}{3}
776: \;,
777: \ea
778: the factor $Z_g$ reads
779: \be
780: Z_g = 1 +
781: \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} \frac{\beta_0}{2\epsilon}
782: \mu^{-2\epsilon}g^2(\bmu) +
783: \frac{1}{(4\pi)^4}
784: \biggl[
785: \frac{\beta_1}{4\epsilon} + \frac{\beta_0^2}{4 \epsilon^2}
786: \biggr]
787: \mu^{-4\epsilon}g^4(\bmu) +
788: \mathcal{O}(g^6)
789: \;, \la{Zg}
790: \ee
791: and the renormalised gauge coupling satisfies,
792: in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$,
793: \be
794: \bmu \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}\bmu} g^2(\bmu) =
795: \frac{\beta_0}{(4\pi)^2} g^4(\bmu) +
796: \frac{\beta_1}{(4\pi)^4} g^6(\bmu) +
797: \mathcal{O}(g^8)
798: \;. \la{rge}
799: \ee
800:
801: To proceed, we first cross-check
802: our results for $\Pi_\rmi{E}$ against known expressions.
803: After the fields $B_0^a$ of EQCD are normalised to their
804: canonical form (cf.\ \eq\nr{Beff}),
805: $(B_0^a B_0^a)_\rmi{E} %\;\vec{p}^2
806: \equiv
807: (B_0^a B_0^a)_\rmi{4d} %\; \vec{p}^2
808: [1 + \Pi_\rmi{E1}'(0)] / T$, we
809: obtain for the matching coefficient $m_\rmi{E}^2$,
810: \be
811: m_\rmi{E}^2 = g_B^2 \, \Pi_\rmi{E1}(0) +
812: g_B^4 \, \Bigl[
813: \Pi_\rmi{E2}(0) - \Pi_\rmi{E1}'(0) \Pi_\rmi{E1}(0)
814: \Bigr]
815: + \mathcal{O}(g_B^6)
816: \;.
817: \ee
818: Inserting \eqs\nr{PiE1}--\nr{PiE2},
819: the $\xi$-dependence duly cancels. Re-expanding also $g_B^2$ in
820: terms of the renormalised gauge coupling,
821: and writing then~\cite{gsixg}
822: \be
823: m_\rmi{E}^2 \equiv T^2
824: \biggl\{
825: g^2(\bmu) \Bigl[
826: \alpha_\rmi{E4} + \alpha_\rmi{E5} \epsilon
827: \Bigr] +
828: \frac{g^4(\bmu)}{(4\pi)^2}
829: \Bigl[
830: \alpha_\rmi{E6} + \beta_\rmi{E2} \epsilon
831: \Bigr] + \mathcal{O}(g^6,\epsilon^2)
832: \biggr\}
833: \;,
834: \ee
835: we recover the known values of $\alpha_\rmi{E4}$,
836: $\alpha_\rmi{E5}$ and $\alpha_\rmi{E6}$~\cite{gsixg}
837: (for original derivations, see Ref.~\cite{bn}
838: and references therein). We also obtain
839: \ba
840: \beta_\rmi{E2} & = &
841: \frac{1}{36} C_A^2
842: \biggl\{
843: 264 \ln^2\biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr) +
844: \biggl[
845: 80 - 176 \gamma_\rmi{E} + 176 \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
846: \biggr] \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr) +
847: \nn & & \hspace*{1cm}
848: + 8 + 11\pi^2 - 88 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 - 40 \gamma_\rmi{E} - 176 \gamma_1 +
849: 40 \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
850: \biggr\} +
851: \nn & + &
852: C_F T_F
853: \biggl\{
854: -8 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
855: - 2 - \frac{20}{3} \ln 2+ 4 \gamma_\rmi{E} - 4 \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
856: \biggr\} +
857: \nn & + &
858: \frac{1}{36} C_A T_F
859: \biggl\{
860: 168 \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
861: + \biggl[
862: 232 - 432 \ln 2-112 \gamma_\rmi{E} + 112
863: \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
864: \biggr]
865: \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr) +
866: \nn & & \hspace*{1cm}
867: + 28 + 7 \pi^2
868: + 24 \ln 2 - 64 \ln^2 2
869: - 56 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 - 72 \gamma_\rmi{E}
870: + 128 \gamma_\rmi{E} \ln 2
871: - 112 \gamma_1 +
872: \nn & & \hspace*{1cm}
873: + 72
874: \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
875: -128 \ln 2
876: \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
877: \biggr\} +
878: \nn & + & \fr19 T_F^2
879: \biggl\{
880: -24 \ln^2
881: \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
882: + \biggl[
883: 8 - 48 \ln 2+ 16 \gamma_\rmi{E} - 16
884: \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
885: \biggr]
886: \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr) +
887: \nn & & \hspace*{1cm}
888: + 4 - \pi^2 - 8 \ln 2+16\ln^2 2
889: + 8 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 -8 \gamma_\rmi{E}
890: + 32 \gamma_\rmi{E} \ln 2 + 16 \gamma_1 +
891: \nn & & \hspace*{1cm}
892: + 8
893: \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
894: -32 \ln 2
895: \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
896: \biggr\}
897: \;. \la{bE2}
898: \ea
899: Here $\gamma_1$ is a Stieltjes constant, defined through
900: the series $\zeta(s) = 1/(s-1) +
901: \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \gamma_n (-1)^n (s - 1)^n/n!$.
902: (Note that the Euler gamma-constant is $\gamma_\rmi{E} \equiv \gamma_0$.)
903: The result in \eq\nr{bE2}, first obtained in Ref.~\cite{ysproc2}
904: by employing the results of Ref.~\cite{bn},
905: contributes to the pressure of hot QCD at $\mathcal{O}(g^6T^4)$~\cite{gsixg}.
906: We rewrite the expression here, since Ref.~\cite{ysproc2} employed
907: an extremely compactified notation.
908:
909: We then move to consider the transverse spatial part, $\Pi_\rmi{T}(\vec{p}^2)$.
910: According to~\eq\nr{geff},
911: this directly determines the effective gauge coupling:
912: \be
913: g_\rmi{E}^2 = T \Bigl\{ g_B^2 - g_B^4 \, \Pi_{T1}'(0) +
914: g_B^6 \, \Bigl[
915: \Bigl( \Pi_{T1}'(0) \Bigr)^2 - \Pi_{T2}'(0)
916: \Bigr] + \mathcal{O}(g_B^8) \Bigr\}
917: \;.
918: \ee
919: Re-expanding again in terms of $g^2(\bmu)$,
920: we parameterise the result (following Ref.~\cite{gsixg}) as
921: \ba
922: g_\rmi{E}^2 & \equiv &
923: T \biggl\{
924: g^2(\bmu) +
925: \frac{g^4(\bmu)}{(4\pi)^2}
926: \Bigl[
927: \alpha_\rmi{E7} + \beta_\rmi{E3} \epsilon + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
928: \Bigr] +
929: \frac{g^6(\bmu)}{(4\pi)^4}
930: \Bigl[
931: \gamma_\rmi{E1} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon)
932: \Bigr] + \mathcal{O}(g^8) \biggr\}
933: \;. \hspace*{0.7cm} \la{gE1}
934: \ea
935: We recover the known expression~\cite{hl,generic} for $\alpha_\rmi{E7}$,
936: \be
937: \alpha_\rmi{E7} =
938: -\beta_0 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
939: + \fr13 C_A - \frac{16}{3} T_F \ln 2
940: \;, \la{gE2}
941: \ee
942: and obtain the new contributions
943: \ba
944: \beta_\rmi{E3} & = &
945: \frac{1}{12} C_A
946: \biggl[
947: 88 \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
948: + 8 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
949: + 11 \pi^2 - 88 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 - 176 \gamma_1
950: \biggr] -
951: \nn & - &
952: \fr13 T_F
953: \biggl[
954: 8 \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr) +
955: 32 \ln 2 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
956: % -
957: % \nn & & \hspace*{1cm}
958: + \pi^2 + 16 \ln^2 2 - 8 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 - 16 \gamma_1
959: \biggr]
960: \;, \la{bE3} \\
961: \gamma_\rmi{E1} & = &
962: -\beta_1 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
963: + \biggl[
964: \beta_0 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
965: - \fr13 C_A + \frac{16}{3} T_F \ln 2
966: \biggr]^2 -
967: \nn & - &
968: \frac{1}{18} \biggl\{
969: C_A^2 \Bigl[ -341 + 20 \zeta(3) \Bigr] +
970: 4 C_A T_F \Bigl[
971: 43 + 24 \ln 2 + 5 \zeta(3)
972: \Bigr] +
973: \nn & & \hspace*{0.5cm}
974: + 6 C_F T_F \Bigl[
975: 23 + 80 \ln 2 - 14 \zeta(3)
976: \Bigr] \biggr\}
977: \;. \la{gE3}
978: \ea
979: The first one, $\beta_\rmi{E3}$, constitutes again an
980: $\mathcal{O}(g^6T^4)$ contribution to the pressure of hot QCD~\cite{gsixg},
981: while the latter one is the desired finite 2-loop correction to the
982: effective gauge coupling.
983:
984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
985: %
986: \section{Numerical evaluation}
987: \la{se:num}
988:
989: We wish to compare numerically the 1-loop and 2-loop expressions
990: for $g_\rmi{E}^2$, in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$.
991: When carrying out such a comparison, it is important
992: to specify the definitions of the $\Lambdamsbar$-parameters.
993: Following standard procedures, we solve \eq\nr{rge} exactly at 2-loop level,
994: and define
995: \be
996: \Lambdamsbar \equiv \lim_{\bmu\to\infty}
997: \bmu \Bigl[ b_0 g^2(\bmu) \Bigr] ^{-b_1/2 b_0^2}
998: \exp \Bigl[ -\frac{1}{2 b_0 g^2(\bmu)}\Bigr]
999: \;, \la{Lamdef}
1000: \ee
1001: where $b_0 \equiv - \beta_0/2 (4\pi)^2$,
1002: $b_1 \equiv -\beta_1/2 (4\pi)^4$.
1003: For large $\bmu$ this leads to the usual behaviour
1004: \be
1005: \frac{1}{g^2(\bmu)} \approx
1006: 2 b_0 \ln\frac{\bmu}{\Lambdamsbar}
1007: + \frac{b_1}{b_0} \ln\biggl(
1008: 2 \ln\frac{\bmu}{\Lambdamsbar}
1009: \biggr)
1010: \;. \la{Lambdamsbar}
1011: \ee
1012: In the 1-loop case, we set $b_1 \equiv 0$
1013: in \eqs\nr{Lamdef}, \nr{Lambdamsbar}.
1014:
1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1016: \begin{figure}[t]
1017:
1018: %\vspace*{-3cm}
1019:
1020: \centerline{%
1021: \epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{1vs2nf0.eps}%
1022: ~~\epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{1vs2nf2.eps}%
1023: ~~\epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{1vs2nf3.eps}%
1024: }
1025:
1026: \caption[a]{\it A comparison of 1-loop
1027: and 2-loop values for $g_\rmi{E}^2/T$,
1028: as a function of $\bmu/T$,
1029: for a fixed $T/\Lambdamsbar =2.0$ and $\Nf = 0,2,3$. }
1030: \la{fig:mudep}
1031:
1032: \end{figure}
1033: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1034:
1035: Through \eqs\nr{gE1}, \nr{gE2}, \nr{gE3} and \nr{Lambdamsbar},
1036: $g_\rmi{E}^2$ is a function $\bmu/T$ and $\bmu/\Lambdamsbar$. The dependence
1037: on $\bmu$ is formally of higher order than the computation. Numerically,
1038: of course, there is non-vanishing dependence,
1039: as illustrated in~\fig\ref{fig:mudep}.
1040:
1041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1042: \begin{figure}[t]
1043:
1044: \centerline{%
1045: \epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{gTnf0.eps}%
1046: ~~\epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{gTnf2.eps}%
1047: ~~\epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{gTnf3.eps}%
1048: }
1049:
1050: \caption[a]{\it The 1-loop and 2-loop values for $g_\rmi{E}^2/T$,
1051: as a function
1052: of $T/\Lambdamsbar$ (solid lines).
1053: For each $T$ the scale $\bmu$ has been fixed to the
1054: ``principal of minimal sensitivity'' point $\bmu_\rmi{opt}$
1055: following from the 1-loop expression, and varied then in the
1056: range $\bmu = (0.5 ... 2.0) \times \bmu_\rmi{opt}$ (the grey bands).}
1057: \la{fig:opt}
1058:
1059: \end{figure}
1060: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1061:
1062: As usual, one may choose some ``optimisation'' criterion which should
1063: lead to a reduced $\bmu$-dependence and thus reasonable convergence.
1064: We fix $\bmu_\rmi{opt}$ to be the point where
1065: the 1-loop coupling
1066: $g_\rmi{E}^2$ has vanishing slope (``principal of minimal
1067: sensitivity''), cf.\ \fig\ref{fig:mudep}, and vary then the scale in the range
1068: $\bmu = (0.5 ... 2.0) \times \bmu_\rmi{opt}$ around this point. Results
1069: are shown in \fig\ref{fig:opt}. The $\bmu$-dependence indeed decreases
1070: significantly as we go to the 2-loop level. The numerical 2-loop value
1071: is some 20\% smaller than the 1-loop value.
1072: It is comforting that the 2-loop value is on the side
1073: to which the ``error band'' of the 1-loop result points, even though it does
1074: not in general lie within that band.
1075:
1076: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1077: %
1078: \section{Spatial string tension}
1079: \la{se:string}
1080:
1081: The computations in the previous sections
1082: can be given a ``phenomenological''
1083: application, by considering lattice measurements
1084: of the so-called spatial string
1085: tension.
1086: The spatial string tension is obtained from a rectangular
1087: Wilson loop $W_s(R_1,R_2)$ in the ($x_1,x_2$)-plane, of
1088: size $R_1 \times R_2$. The potential $V_s(R_1)$ is defined
1089: through
1090: \be
1091: V_s(R_1) = - \lim_{R_2 \to \infty}
1092: \frac{1}{R_2} \ln W_s(R_1,R_2)
1093: \;, \la{FWilson}
1094: \ee
1095: and the spatial string tension $\sigma_s$ from the asymptotic behaviour
1096: of the potential,
1097: \be
1098: \sigma_s \equiv \lim_{R_1 \to \infty} \frac{V_s(R_1)}{R_1}
1099: \;.
1100: \ee
1101: Since $\sigma_s$ has the dimensionality GeV$^2$, it is often
1102: expressed~\cite{boyd} as the combination
1103: \be
1104: \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_s}}{T}
1105: % \frac{\sigma_s^{1/2}}{T}
1106: = \phi \Bigl( \frac{T}{\Tc} \Bigr)
1107: \;, \la{sigma_4d}
1108: \ee
1109: where $\phi$ is a (decreasing) dimensionless function, and $\Tc$
1110: is the critical temperature of the deconfinement phase transition.
1111:
1112: We now turn to
1113: how the result for $g_\rmi{E}^2$ that we have obtained in this paper,
1114: combined with other ingredients, allow us to
1115: obtain an independent prediction for the spatial string tension.
1116:
1117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SUBSECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1118: %
1119: \subsection{Three-dimensional prediction}
1120: \la{ss1}
1121:
1122: The very same observable as in \eq\nr{FWilson},
1123: exists also in 3d SU(3) gauge theory,
1124: or ``Magnetostatic QCD''
1125: (MQCD). Since the gauge coupling $g_\rmi{M}^2$ of MQCD is
1126: dimensionful, $\sigma_s$
1127: must have the form $\sigma_s = c \times g_\rmi{M}^4$, where $c$
1128: is a numerical proportionality constant. It has been determined with
1129: lattice Monte Carlo methods most recently
1130: in Ref.~\cite{mt} where, after the continuum
1131: extrapolation, it was expressed as
1132: \be
1133: \frac{\sqrt{\sigma_s}}{g_\rmi{M}^2} = 0.553(1) \;.
1134: \la{sigma_3d}
1135: \ee
1136:
1137: In order to compare \eqs\nr{sigma_4d}, \nr{sigma_3d}, we need a relation
1138: between $T$ and $g_\rmi{M}^2$. In the previous section, we obtained
1139: a relation between $T$ and $g_\rmi{E}^2$. The relation between
1140: $g_\rmi{E}^2$ and $g_\rmi{M}^2$ is also known,
1141: up to 2-loop order~\cite{pg}:\footnote{%
1142: The 2-loop correction
1143: $\delta g_\rmii{M}^2 /g_\rmii{E}^2 =
1144: - {g_\rmii{E}^2 C_A
1145: [2 (C_A C_F + 1) \lambda_\rmii{E}^\rmii{(1)} +
1146: (6 C_F - C_A)\lambda_\rmii{E}^\rmii{(2)} ]} /
1147: {384 (\pi m_\rmii{E})^2}$
1148: was ignored in Ref.~\cite{pg}, as it is of higher
1149: order according to 4d power counting
1150: and numerically insignificant.
1151: }
1152: \be
1153: g_\rmi{M}^2 = g_\rmi{E}^2
1154: \; \biggl[
1155: 1 - \frac{1}{48} \frac{g_\rmi{E}^2 C_A}{\pi m_\rmi{E}}
1156: - \frac{17}{4608}
1157: \biggl( \frac{g_\rmi{E}^2 C_A}{\pi m_\rmi{E}} \biggr)^2
1158: \biggr]
1159: \;, \la{gMgE}
1160: \ee
1161: where the 1-loop part was determined already in Ref.~\cite{fkrs}.
1162:
1163: It is worth stressing that the corrections
1164: in \eq\nr{gMgE} are in practice extremely small, even for
1165: values of $m_\rmi{E}/g_\rmi{E}^2$ corresponding to temperatures
1166: very close to the critical one.
1167: (For $\Nc = 3$ and $\Nf = 0$,
1168: $(m_\rmi{E}/g_\rmi{E}^2)^2 \approx 0.32\, \log_{10}(T/\Lambdamsbar) + 0.29$.)
1169: This seems by
1170: no means obvious {\it a priori}, given the observed slow
1171: convergence in the case of the vacuum
1172: energy density of EQCD~\cite{gsixg}. In view of this fact, however,
1173: we can safely ignore all higher loop corrections in~\eq\nr{gMgE}.
1174:
1175: Another source of errors in going from EQCD to MQCD are the
1176: higher order operators that have been truncated from the action of MQCD.
1177: As discussed in Ref.~\cite{gsixg}, they are expected to contribute at the
1178: relative order $\mathcal{O}(g_\rmi{E}^6/m_\rmi{E}^3)$, i.e.\ at the same
1179: order that 3-loop corrections enter~\eq\nr{gMgE}. From this
1180: consideration, one might expect them to again be numerically
1181: negligible. In principle one could avoid this assumption, however:
1182: the ratio $\sqrt{\sigma_s}/g_\rmi{E}^2$ has been estimated
1183: in Ref.~\cite{mu} through direct numerical simulations in EQCD.
1184: Unfortunately the statistical and
1185: particularly the systematic errors appear to be non-vanishing (no continuum
1186: extrapolation was carried out for this quantity), so that
1187: we prefer to follow the line starting from
1188: \eq\nr{sigma_3d} in the following. Nevertheless it would be interesting
1189: to learn more about the importance of the higher order operators.
1190:
1191:
1192: Now, as we know $g_\rmi{E}^2/T$ as a function of $T/\Lambdamsbar$
1193: from \fig\ref{fig:opt}, \eqs\nr{sigma_3d} and
1194: \nr{gMgE} allow us to obtain $\sqrt{\sigma_s}/T$ as a function of
1195: the same variable. In order to compare
1196: with \eq\nr{sigma_4d}, however,
1197: we still need to relate $\Lambdamsbar$ to $\Tc$.
1198: This problem has also been addressed with 4d lattice simulations,
1199: as we review in \se\ref{se:Tc}.
1200:
1201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SUBSECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1202: %
1203: \subsection{Critical temperature in ``perturbative units''}
1204: \la{se:Tc}
1205:
1206: The determination of $\Tc / \Lambdamsbar$ is a classic
1207: problem in lattice QCD. Two main lines have been
1208: followed, one
1209: going via the zero temperature string tension $\sqrt{\sigma}$,
1210: the other via the Sommer scale $r_0$~\cite{rs}.
1211:
1212: Values obtained for $\Tc/\sqrt{\sigma}$ by various
1213: lattice collaborations are summarised
1214: in Ref.~\cite{hn}, Table 7. Traditionally the values were around
1215: $\Tc/\sqrt{\sigma} = 0.630(5)$~\cite{bb}, but Ref.~\cite{hn} argues
1216: in favour of a slightly larger number in the continuum limit. Indeed
1217: the most precise estimate appears to come from
1218: Ref.~\cite{ltw}, where $\Tc/\sqrt{\sigma} = 0.646(3)$ is cited.
1219: Combining with $\Lambdamsbar / \sqrt{\sigma} = 0.555(19)$ from
1220: Ref.~\cite{bs}, we are lead to
1221: \be
1222: \frac{\Tc}{\Lambdamsbar} = 1.16(4) \;. \la{Tc_sigma}
1223: \ee
1224: The error is dominated by the one in $\Lambdamsbar / \sqrt{\sigma}$.
1225:
1226: A value for $r_0 \Tc$, on the other hand, has been obtained
1227: in Ref.~\cite{sn}: $r_0 \Tc = 0.7498(50)$. Combining with
1228: $r_0 \Lambdamsbar = 0.602(48)$ from Ref.~\cite{al}
1229: (the value $r_0 \Lambdamsbar = 0.586(48)$ from a few lines below Eq.~(4.11)
1230: in Ref.~\cite{ns} is well within error bars), one obtains
1231: \be
1232: \frac{\Tc}{\Lambdamsbar} = 1.25(10) \;. \la{Tc_r0}
1233: \ee
1234: This is consistent, within statistical errors, with \eq\nr{Tc_sigma},
1235: if favouring a slightly larger central value. Again the error is
1236: dominated by the zero-temperature part, $r_0 \Lambdamsbar$ in
1237: this case. In general it might be expected, though, that
1238: systematic uncertainties are better under control
1239: in the extraction of $r_0$ than of $\sqrt{\sigma}$, since the static
1240: potential needs to be computed only up to intermediate distances.
1241:
1242: Apart from going through $\sqrt{\sigma}$ and $r_0$, there is also
1243: a third possibility~\cite{gupta}. It is based on directly determining
1244: a (lattice) $\Lambda$-parameter from the scaling of a suitably defined
1245: renormalised gauge coupling at the critical point, and converting at the
1246: end to the $\msbar$ scheme. The value obtained is
1247: \be
1248: \frac{\Tc}{\Lambdamsbar} = 1.15(5) \;, \la{Tc_gupta}
1249: \ee
1250: consistent with \eqs\nr{Tc_sigma} and \nr{Tc_r0}.
1251:
1252: To be conservative, we will consider the interval
1253: $\Tc/\Lambdamsbar = 1.10...1.35$ in the following,
1254: encompassing the central values as well as the error
1255: bars of \eqs\nr{Tc_sigma}--\nr{Tc_gupta}.
1256:
1257:
1258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SUBSECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1259: %
1260: \subsection{Four-dimensional measurement}
1261:
1262:
1263: The spatial string tension of 4d pure SU(3) gauge theory
1264: at temperatures above the critical one, as a function of $T/\Tc$,
1265: has been measured at $N_\tau = 8$ in Ref.~\cite{boyd} (cf.\ Fig.~11).
1266: There are, of course, systematic uncertainties, both from the lack
1267: of a continuum
1268: extrapolation as well as from how the string tension is extracted by
1269: fitting to the large-distance behaviour of the static potential.
1270: Nevertheless, we expect that
1271: the results are in the right ballpark.
1272:
1273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1274: \begin{figure}[t]
1275:
1276:
1277: \centerline{%
1278: \epsfysize=8.0cm\epsfbox{sigma_4dlattice.eps}%
1279: % ~~\epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{}%
1280: % ~~\epsfysize=5.0cm\epsfbox{}%
1281: }
1282:
1283: \caption[a]{\it We compare 4d lattice data for the spatial string tension,
1284: taken from Ref.~\cite{boyd}, with expressions obtained by combining 1-loop
1285: and 2-loop results for $g_\rmi{E}^2$ together with \eq\nr{gMgE} and
1286: the non-perturbative
1287: value of the string tension of 3d SU(3) gauge theory, \eq\nr{sigma_3d}.
1288: The upper edges of the bands correspond to $\Tc/\Lambdamsbar = 1.35$,
1289: the lower edges to $\Tc/\Lambdamsbar = 1.10$.}
1290:
1291: \la{fig:compare}
1292: \end{figure}
1293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1294:
1295: Given the considerations in Secs.~\ref{ss1}, \ref{se:Tc}, we can thus
1296: compare the 3d and the 4d determinations of $\sqrt{\sigma_s}/T$.
1297: The result is shown in \fig\ref{fig:compare},
1298: where $T/\sqrt{\sigma_s}$ is plotted.
1299: We observe a significant discrepancy at 1-loop level (as most
1300: recently pointed out in Ref.~\cite{pg2}), but a remarkable
1301: agreement once we go to 2-loop level. It is also noteworthy
1302: that the functional form of the 2-loop curve appears to
1303: match the behaviour of the lattice data down to low temperatures.
1304:
1305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1306: %
1307: \section{Conclusions}
1308: \la{se:concl}
1309:
1310: The main purpose of this paper has been the analytic computation
1311: of the 2-loop effective gauge coupling of QCD at finite temperatures,
1312: defined as a matching coefficient appearing in the dimensionally reduced
1313: effective theory, EQCD.\footnote{%
1314: Other ``effective gauge couplings'' can of course also be defined;
1315: for a recent review, see Ref.~\cite{kz}. The difference is that in
1316: these cases all momentum scales influence the effective gauge coupling,
1317: so that perturbation theory cannot be reliably applied
1318: for its computation.
1319: }
1320: The result is given in \eqs\nr{gE1}--\nr{gE3}.
1321: We have also determined a new contribution of order $\mathcal{O}(g^6T^4)$
1322: to the pressure of hot QCD; the information is contained
1323: in \eq\nr{bE3}, and how it
1324: enters the pressure is explained in Ref.~\cite{gsixg}.
1325:
1326: The 2-loop correction we find is numerically substantial,
1327: some 20\% of the 1-loop expression.
1328: This indicates that while perturbation theory
1329: is in principle still under control,
1330: if restricted to the parametrically hard modes $p\sim 2\pi T$ only,
1331: it is important to push it to
1332: a sufficiently high order, in order to obtain precise results.
1333:
1334: Our expression for the effective gauge coupling
1335: has a direct ``phenomenological'' application,
1336: in that it allows for a parameter-free comparison of 3d MQCD
1337: and 4d full theory
1338: results for an observable called the spatial string tension. We find
1339: that the 2-loop correction computed here improves the match
1340: between the two results quite significantly,
1341: down to temperatures very close to the critical one.
1342: A small discrepancy still remains but, given
1343: that no continuum extrapolation was taken in 4d lattice simulations,
1344: that the extraction of the spatial
1345: string tension may involve systematic uncertainties
1346: due to large subleading terms in the $r$-dependence
1347: of the spatial static potential $V_s(r)$~\cite{lw2}, and that
1348: there also has to be some room for residual 3-loop corrections, as well as
1349: improvements in the matching between EQCD and MQCD,
1350: we do not consider this discrepancy to be worrying. We do believe
1351: that the discrepancy can be decreased by improving systematically
1352: on the various ingredients that enter the comparison.
1353:
1354: These conclusions support a picture of thermal QCD according to which
1355: the {\em parametrically} ``hard'' scales, $p\sim 2\pi T$, can be treated
1356: perturbatively, almost as soon as we are in the deconfined phase, will the
1357: {\em parametrically} ``soft'' scales, $p\sim gT,g^2T$, require in general
1358: a non-perturbative analysis within one of the effective theories
1359: describing their dynamics. For the observable we considered here,
1360: in fact, even the colour-electric scale $p \sim gT$ could be integrated
1361: out perturbatively, but it is known that this is
1362: in general not the case. We should like to stress that this conclusion
1363: is rather non-trivial, as there {\em numerically} is little hierarchy
1364: between the scales $2\pi T, gT, g^2 T$
1365: at the realistic temperatures that we have been considering.
1366:
1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1368: %
1369: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1370:
1371: We acknowledge useful discussions with P.~Giovannangeli
1372: and C.P.~Korthals Altes, and thank E.~Laermann for providing the
1373: lattice data for the spatial string tension from Ref.~\cite{boyd}.
1374:
1375: % \newpage
1376:
1377: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
1378:
1379: \appendix
1380: \renewcommand{\thesection}{Appendix~\Alph{section}}
1381: \renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{subsection}}
1382: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
1383:
1384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1385:
1386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1387: %
1388: \section{Expansions for master integrals}
1389:
1390: Using the notation introduced in the text, the master integrals
1391: of \eq\nr{Imaster} read, up to $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$:
1392: \ba
1393: I_\rmi{b}(1) \!\! & = & \!\!
1394: \mu^{-2\epsilon} \frac{T^2}{12}
1395: \biggl\{
1396: 1 + \epsilon \biggl[
1397: 2 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
1398: + 2 - 2 \gamma_\rmi{E} +
1399: 2 \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
1400: \biggr]
1401: % + ... % \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
1402: \biggr\}
1403: \;, \\
1404: I_\rmi{b}(2) \!\! & = & \!\!
1405: \mu^{-2 \epsilon} \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}
1406: \biggl\{
1407: \frac{1}{\epsilon} + 2 \ln \biggl(\frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T}
1408: \biggr)
1409: + \epsilon \biggl[
1410: 2 \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
1411: + \frac{\pi^2}{4} - 2 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 - 4 \gamma_1
1412: \biggr]
1413: % + ... %\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
1414: \biggr\}
1415: \;, \\
1416: I_\rmi{b}(3) \!\! & = & \!\!
1417: \mu^{-2\epsilon} \frac{\zeta(3)}{128 \pi^4 T^2}
1418: \biggl\{
1419: 1 + \epsilon \biggl[
1420: 2 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{4\pi T} \biggr)
1421: + 2 - 2 \gamma_\rmi{E} +
1422: 2 \frac{\zeta'(3)}{\zeta(3)}
1423: \biggr]
1424: % + ... % \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
1425: \biggr\}
1426: \;, \\
1427: I_\rmi{f}(1) \!\! & = & \!\!
1428: \mu^{-2\epsilon} \biggl( - \frac{T^2}{24} \biggr)
1429: \biggl\{
1430: 1 + \epsilon \biggl[
1431: 2 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{\pi T} \biggr)
1432: + 2 - 6 \ln 2 - 2 \gamma_\rmi{E}
1433: +
1434: 2 \frac{\zeta'(-1)}{\zeta(-1)}
1435: \biggr]
1436: % + ... % \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
1437: \biggr\}
1438: \;, \\
1439: I_\rmi{f}(2) \!\! & = & \!\!
1440: \mu^{-2 \epsilon} \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}
1441: \biggl\{
1442: \frac{1}{\epsilon} + 2 \ln \biggl(\frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{\pi T}
1443: \biggr)
1444: % + \nn & & \hspace*{2cm}
1445: + \epsilon \biggl[
1446: 2 \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{\pi T} \biggr)
1447: + \frac{\pi^2}{4} -4 \ln^2 2 - 2 \gamma_\rmi{E}^2 - 4 \gamma_1
1448: \biggr]
1449: % + ... % \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
1450: \biggr\}, \hspace*{1.0cm} \\
1451: I_\rmi{f}(3) \!\! & = & \!\!
1452: \mu^{-2\epsilon} \frac{7 \zeta(3)}{128 \pi^4 T^2}
1453: \biggl\{
1454: 1 + \epsilon \biggl[
1455: 2 \ln \biggl( \frac{\bmu e^{\gamma_\rmi{E}}}{\pi T} \biggr)
1456: + 2
1457: - \frac{12}{7} \ln 2 - 2 \gamma_\rmi{E} +
1458: 2 \frac{\zeta'(3)}{\zeta(3)}
1459: \biggr]
1460: % + ... % \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
1461: \biggr\}
1462: \;.
1463: \ea
1464:
1465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1466: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1467:
1468: \bibitem{uh}
1469: U.W.~Heinz,
1470: %``Thermalization at RHIC,''
1471: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {739} (2005) 163
1472: [nucl-th/0407067].
1473: %%CITATION = NUCL-TH 0407067;%%
1474:
1475: \bibitem{es}
1476: %% 1st paper but wrong answer:
1477: %%
1478: E.V.~Shuryak,
1479: % {\it Theory of hadronic plasma,}
1480: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {47} (1978) 212
1481: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {74} (1978) 408];
1482: %%CITATION = SPHJA,47,212;%%
1483: %%
1484: S.A.~Chin,
1485: % {\it Transition to hot quark matter in relativistic heavy ion collision,}
1486: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {78} (1978) 552.
1487: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B78,552;%%
1488:
1489: \bibitem{az}
1490: P.~Arnold and C.~Zhai,
1491: % {\it The three loop free energy for pure gauge QCD,}
1492: Phys.\ Rev.\ {D 50} (1994) 7603
1493: [hep-ph/9408276];
1494: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408276;%%
1495: %
1496: % {\it The three loop free energy for high temperature QED
1497: % and QCD with fermions,}
1498: {\it ibid.}\ {51} (1995) 1906
1499: [hep-ph/9410360].
1500: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410360;%%
1501:
1502: \bibitem{zk}
1503: C.~Zhai and B.~Kastening,
1504: % {\it The free energy of hot gauge theories with fermions through $g^5$,}
1505: Phys.\ Rev.\ {D 52} (1995) 7232 [hep-ph/9507380].
1506: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507380;%%
1507:
1508: \bibitem{jk}
1509: J.I.~Kapusta,
1510: % {\it Quantum Chromodynamics at high temperature,}
1511: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {148} (1979) 461.
1512: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B148,461;%%
1513:
1514: \bibitem{linde}
1515: A.D.~Linde,
1516: % {\it Infrared problem in thermodynamics of the Yang-Mills gas,}
1517: Phys.\ Lett.\ {B 96} (1980) 289.
1518: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B96,289;%%
1519:
1520: \bibitem{gpy}
1521: D.J.~Gross, R.D.~Pisarski and L.G.~Yaffe,
1522: % {\it QCD and instantons at finite temperature,}
1523: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {53} (1981) 43.
1524: %%CITATION = RMPHA,53,43;%%
1525:
1526: \bibitem{bn}
1527: E. Braaten and A. Nieto,
1528: % {\it Free energy of QCD at high temperature,}
1529: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 53 (1996) 3421 [hep-ph/9510408].
1530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510408;%%
1531:
1532: \bibitem{adjoint}
1533: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,
1534: % {\it 3d SU(N) + adjoint Higgs theory and finite-temperature QCD,}
1535: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {503} (1997) 357
1536: [hep-ph/9704416].
1537: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704416;%%
1538:
1539: \bibitem{gsixg}
1540: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and Y.~Schr\"oder,
1541: % {\it The pressure of hot QCD up to $g^6 \ln (1/g)$},
1542: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 67 (2003) 105008
1543: [hep-ph/0211321].
1544: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211321;%%
1545:
1546: \bibitem{dr}
1547: P. Ginsparg,
1548: % {\it First and second order phase transitions
1549: % in gauge theories at finite temperature,}
1550: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 170 (1980) 388;
1551: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B170,388;%%
1552: %
1553: T. Appelquist and R.D. Pisarski,
1554: % {\it High-temperature Yang-Mills theories and three-dimensional
1555: % Quantum Chromodynamics,}
1556: Phys.\ Rev.\ D 23 (1981) 2305.
1557: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,2305;%%
1558:
1559: \bibitem{generic}
1560: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.~Shaposhnikov,
1561: % {\it Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction
1562: % and their application to the Standard Model,}
1563: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {B 458} (1996) 90 [hep-ph/9508379].
1564: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B458,90;%%
1565:
1566: \bibitem{bp}
1567: R.D.~Pisarski,
1568: %``Scattering Amplitudes In Hot Gauge Theories,''
1569: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {63} (1989) 1129;
1570: %%CITATION = PRLTA,63,1129;%%
1571: %
1572: E.~Braaten and R.D.~Pisarski,
1573: %``Simple effective Lagrangian for hard thermal loops,''
1574: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {45} (1992) 1827.
1575: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,1827;%%
1576:
1577: \bibitem{own}
1578: M.~Laine,
1579: % {\it What is the simplest effective approach to hot QCD thermodynamics?,}
1580: hep-ph/0301011.
1581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301011;%%
1582:
1583: \bibitem{owe}
1584: E.~Laermann and O.~Philipsen,
1585: %``Status of lattice QCD at finite temperature,''
1586: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {53} (2003) 163
1587: [hep-ph/0303042].
1588: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303042;%%
1589:
1590: \bibitem{chris}
1591: C.P.~Korthals Altes,
1592: %``Symmetries and quasi-particles in hot QCD,''
1593: hep-ph/0308229.
1594: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308229;%%
1595:
1596: \bibitem{mu}
1597: M.~Laine and O.~Philipsen,
1598: % {\it The non-perturbative QCD Debye mass from a Wilson line operator,}
1599: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {459} (1999) 259
1600: [hep-lat/9905004];
1601: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9905004;%%
1602: %
1603: A.~Hart and O.~Philipsen,
1604: % {\it The spectrum of the three-dimensional adjoint Higgs model and hot SU(2)
1605: % gauge theory,}
1606: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {572} (2000) 243
1607: [hep-lat/9908041];
1608: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9908041;%%
1609: %
1610: A.~Hart, M.~Laine and O.~Philipsen,
1611: % {\it Static correlation lengths in QCD at high temperatures and finite
1612: % densities,}
1613: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {586} (2000) 443
1614: [hep-ph/0004060].
1615: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004060;%%
1616:
1617:
1618: \bibitem{plaq}
1619: A.~Hietanen, K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and Y.~Schr\"oder,
1620: %``Plaquette expectation value and gluon condensate in three dimensions,''
1621: JHEP 01 (2005) 013
1622: [hep-lat/0412008].
1623: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0412008;%%
1624:
1625: \bibitem{mv}
1626: M.~Laine and M.~Veps\"al\"ainen,
1627: % {\it Mesonic correlation lengths in high-temperature QCD,}
1628: JHEP {02} (2004) 004
1629: [hep-ph/0311268].
1630: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311268;%%
1631:
1632: \bibitem{ag}
1633: P.~Giovannangeli and C.P.~Korthals Altes,
1634: %``Spatial 't Hooft loop to cubic order in hot QCD,''
1635: hep-ph/0212298;
1636: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212298;%%
1637: %
1638: %``Spatial 't Hooft loop to cubic order in hot QCD. II,''
1639: hep-ph/0412322.
1640: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412322;%%
1641:
1642: \bibitem{bmp}
1643: P.~Bialas, A.~Morel, B.~Petersson, K.~Petrov and T.~Reisz,
1644: %``High temperature 3D QCD: Dimensional reduction at work,''
1645: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {581} (2000) 477
1646: [hep-lat/0003004];
1647: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0003004;%%
1648: %
1649: % P.~Bialas, A.~Morel, B.~Petersson, K.~Petrov and T.~Reisz,
1650: %``QCD with adjoint scalars in 2D: Properties in the colourless scalar
1651: %sector,''
1652: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {603} (2001) 369
1653: [hep-lat/0012019].
1654: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0012019;%%
1655:
1656: \bibitem{boyd}
1657: G.~Boyd, J.~Engels, F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann, C.~Legeland,
1658: M.~L\"utgemeier and B.~Petersson,
1659: %``Thermodynamics of SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory,''
1660: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {469} (1996) 419
1661: [hep-lat/9602007].
1662: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9602007;%%
1663:
1664: \bibitem{pg2}
1665: P.~Giovannangeli,
1666: %``Two loop renormalisation of the magnetic coupling in hot QCD and spatial
1667: %Wilson loop,''
1668: hep-ph/0410346.
1669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410346;%%
1670:
1671: \bibitem{mt}
1672: M.J.~Teper,
1673: %``SU(N) gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions,''
1674: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {59} (1999) 014512
1675: [hep-lat/9804008];
1676: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9804008;%%
1677: %
1678: B.~Lucini and M.~Teper,
1679: %``SU(N) gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions: Further results,''
1680: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {66} (2002) 097502
1681: [hep-lat/0206027].
1682: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0206027;%%
1683:
1684: \bibitem{pg}
1685: P.~Giovannangeli,
1686: %``Two loop renormalization of the magnetic coupling in hot QCD,''
1687: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {585} (2004) 144
1688: [hep-ph/0312307].
1689: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312307;%%
1690:
1691: \bibitem{fkrs}
1692: K.~Farakos, K.~Kajantie, K.~Rummukainen and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,
1693: %``3-D physics and the electroweak phase transition: Perturbation theory,''
1694: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {425} (1994) 67
1695: [hep-ph/9404201].
1696: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404201;%%
1697:
1698: \bibitem{sc}
1699: S.~Chapman,
1700: %``A New Dimensionally Reduced Effective Action For QCD At High Temperature,''
1701: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {50} (1994) 5308
1702: [hep-ph/9407313].
1703: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407313;%%
1704:
1705: \bibitem{mrs}
1706: E.~Meg\'{\i}as, E.~Ruiz Arriola and L.L.~Salcedo,
1707: %``The thermal heat kernel expansion and the one-loop effective action of QCD
1708: %at finite temperature,''
1709: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {69} (2004) 116003
1710: [hep-ph/0312133].
1711: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312133;%%
1712:
1713: \bibitem{do}
1714: D.~Diakonov and M.~Oswald,
1715: %``Gauge invariant effective action for the Polyakov line in the SU(N)
1716: %Yang-Mills theory at high temperatures,''
1717: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {70} (2004) 105016
1718: [hep-ph/0403108].
1719: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403108;%%
1720:
1721: \bibitem{parity}
1722: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,
1723: %``High temperature dimensional reduction and parity violation,''
1724: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {423} (1998) 137
1725: [hep-ph/9710538].
1726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710538;%%
1727:
1728: \bibitem{lfa}
1729: L.F.~Abbott,
1730: %``The Background Field Method Beyond One Loop,''
1731: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {185} (1981) 189.
1732: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B185,189;%%
1733:
1734: \bibitem{lw}
1735: M.~L\"uscher and P.~Weisz,
1736: %``Background field technique and renormalization in lattice gauge theory,''
1737: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {452} (1995) 213
1738: [hep-lat/9504006].
1739: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9504006;%%
1740:
1741: \bibitem{laporta}
1742: S.~Laporta,
1743: %{\it High-precision calculation of multi-loop
1744: %Feynman integrals by difference equations,}
1745: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {15} (2000) 5087
1746: [hep-ph/0102033].
1747: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102033;%%
1748:
1749: \bibitem{ysproc}
1750: Y.~Schr\"oder,
1751: %{\it Automatic reduction of four-loop bubbles,}
1752: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.)\ 116 (2003) 402
1753: %% to appear in the Proceedings of Radcor 2002
1754: [hep-ph/0211288].
1755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211288;%%
1756:
1757: \bibitem{ae}
1758: P.~Arnold and O.~Espinosa,
1759: %``The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond
1760: %leading-order,''
1761: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {47} (1993) 3546
1762: [hep-ph/9212235];
1763: {\it ibid.}\ D {50} (1994) 6662 (Erratum).
1764: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9212235;%%
1765:
1766: \bibitem{hl}
1767: S.~Huang and M.~Lissia,
1768: % {\it The relevant scale parameter in the high temperature phase of QCD,}
1769: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {438} (1995) 54
1770: [hep-ph/9411293].
1771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411293;%%
1772:
1773: \bibitem{ysproc2}
1774: Y.~Schr\"oder,
1775: %``Evading the infrared problem of thermal QCD,''
1776: hep-ph/0410130.
1777: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410130;%%
1778:
1779: \bibitem{rs}
1780: R.~Sommer,
1781: %``A New way to set the energy scale in lattice gauge theories and its
1782: %applications to the static force and alpha-s in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory,''
1783: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {411} (1994) 839
1784: [hep-lat/9310022].
1785: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9310022;%%
1786:
1787: \bibitem{hn}
1788: M.~Hasenbusch and S.~Necco,
1789: %``SU(3) lattice gauge theory with a mixed fundamental and adjoint plaquette
1790: %action: Lattice artefacts,''
1791: JHEP {08} (2004) 005
1792: [hep-lat/0405012].
1793: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0405012;%%
1794:
1795: \bibitem{bb}
1796: B.~Beinlich, F.~Karsch, E.~Laermann and A.~Peikert,
1797: %``String tension and thermodynamics with tree level and tadpole improved
1798: %actions,''
1799: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {6} (1999) 133
1800: [hep-lat/9707023].
1801: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9707023;%%
1802:
1803: \bibitem{ltw}
1804: B.~Lucini, M.~Teper and U.~Wenger,
1805: %``The high temperature phase transition in SU(N) gauge theories,''
1806: JHEP {01} (2004) 061
1807: [hep-lat/0307017].
1808: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0307017;%%
1809:
1810: \bibitem{bs}
1811: G.S.~Bali and K.~Schilling,
1812: %``Running coupling and the Lambda parameter from SU(3) lattice simulations,''
1813: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {47} (1993) 661
1814: [hep-lat/9208028].
1815: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9208028;%%
1816:
1817: \bibitem{sn}
1818: S.~Necco,
1819: %``Universality and scaling behavior of RG gauge actions,''
1820: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {683} (2004) 137
1821: [hep-lat/0309017].
1822: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0309017;%%
1823:
1824: \bibitem{al}
1825: S.~Capitani, M.~L\"uscher, R.~Sommer and H.~Wittig [ALPHA Collaboration],
1826: %``Non-perturbative quark mass renormalization in quenched lattice QCD,''
1827: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {544} (1999) 669
1828: [hep-lat/9810063].
1829: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9810063;%%
1830:
1831: \bibitem{ns}
1832: S.~Necco and R.~Sommer,
1833: %``The N(f) = 0 heavy quark potential from short to intermediate distances,''
1834: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {622} (2002) 328
1835: [hep-lat/0108008].
1836: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0108008;%%
1837:
1838: \bibitem{gupta}
1839: S.~Gupta,
1840: %``A precise determination of T(c) in QCD from scaling,''
1841: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {64} (2001) 034507
1842: [hep-lat/0010011].
1843: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0010011;%%
1844:
1845: \bibitem{kz}
1846: O.~Kaczmarek and F.~Zantow,
1847: %``Running coupling of 2-flavor QCD at zero and finite temperature,''
1848: hep-lat/0502012.
1849: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0502012;%%
1850:
1851: \bibitem{lw2}
1852: M.~L\"uscher and P.~Weisz,
1853: %``Quark confinement and the bosonic string,''
1854: JHEP {07} (2002) 049
1855: [hep-lat/0207003].
1856: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0207003;%%
1857:
1858:
1859: \end{thebibliography}
1860:
1861: \end{document}
1862: