1: %&LaTeX
2: \documentclass[12pt,cite,epsf,epsfig]{article}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \title{Revisiting 5D chiral symmetry breaking and holographic QCD models}
5: \author{Namit Mahajan\thanks{E--mail : nmahajan@mri.ernet.in}\\
6: {\em Harish-Chandra Research Institute,} \\
7: {\em Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad - 211019, India.}}
8: \renewcommand{\today}{}
9: \setlength\textwidth{6.5 in}
10: \setlength\topmargin{-0.5cm}
11: \setlength\textheight{9 in}
12: \addtolength\evensidemargin{-1.cm}
13: \addtolength\oddsidemargin{-1.cm}
14: \font\tenrm=cmr10
15: \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
16: \setlength{\parskip}{6pt}
17: %\usepackage{epsfig}
18:
19: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
20: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
21: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
22: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: %\doublespacing
26: \maketitle
27: %\large
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We take a closer look at the recently discussed models of hadrons based on
31: holographic ideas and chiral symmetry breaking in five dimensions. We study the
32: two point correlator in detail and look at the field theoretic properties
33: needed to be satisfied by the correlator. It is shown that the spectral
34: density becomes negative, violating the
35: basic requirements for the Kallen-Lehmann representation. We briefly discuss
36: the implications of this violation of the
37: positivity of the spectral density and
38: also discuss possible origin of such a violation in these models.
39: Put simply this means that such models are not physical descriptions of the
40: hadron spectrum.
41: %{\bf Keywords}:
42: %{\bf PACS}:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \begin{section}*{}
46: \par The correct and complete theory describing the confinement of quarks
47: and gluons into hadrons, and explaining the hadronic properties
48: from first principles
49: was, and still is, one of the major challenges. Though there exist many
50: phenomenological models which seem to describe the low energy data reasonably
51: well,
52: a complete theoretical understanding is still lacking. The holographic
53: principle or the so called AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{adscft}
54: has opened a new window to
55: look into the problem from a completely new and different perspective. Very
56: loosely speaking, the correspondence is a conjecture of the
57: equivalence of the generating functional of
58: (large $N$ limit of) certain conformal field theory (CFT) in $d$-dimensions
59: and the $(d+1)$-dimensional
60: supergravity (string theory in a particular limit to be more
61: precise, though we will use the word supergravity throughout the note)
62: effective action evaluated at the boundary. The boundary value of the bulk
63: fields is supposed to play the role of the source in the CFT generating
64: functional. If we generically denote the $(d+1)$-dimensional fields as $\phi$,
65: then the correspondence can be schematically summarized as
66: \bea
67: Z_{AdS}[\phi_0] &=& \int_{\phi_0}~{\mathcal{D}}\phi~exp(-I[\phi]) \\ \nonumber
68: &\equiv& Z_{CFT}[J=\phi_0] = \langle exp(\int~d^dx {\mathcal{O}}\phi_0)\rangle
69: \eea
70: where $\phi_0$ is the boundary value of the field $\phi$ which acts as a
71: source corresponding to the operator ${\mathcal{O}}$
72: in the CFT generating functional. For the $(d+1)$-dimensional AdS space,
73: the line element is
74: \be
75: ds^2 = \frac{L^2}{z^2}(dx_{\mu}dx^{\mu} + dz^2)
76: \ee
77: where $x^{\mu}$ are the the $d$-dimensional coordinates and $z$ parameterizes
78: the extra direction, with $z=0$ describing the ultra-violet
79: (UV) boundary and $L$ denotes the
80: radius of curvature, which we set to unity.
81:
82: \par What it
83: means in practical terms is that a perturbative calculation on the
84: supergravity side can be translated into a non-perturbative result in the
85: gauge theory sector and vice-versa. If this be so, it simply implies
86: that the seemingly
87: impossible task of getting the genuine non-perturbative results and
88: calculating the non-perturbative quantities within a gauge theory is no more
89: impossible. Instead, one can approach the problem from the dual side - where
90: perturbative calculations, though hard, are possible. This has motivated
91: considerable interest in getting the hadron spectrum and properties.
92: Till very recently, most of the models constructed and studied can be broadly
93: thought to fall under the {\em top-down} category of models
94: i.e. the approach was to start from some string (or
95: supergravity) theory and try to obtain the low energy description by
96: demanding/imposing certain consistency conditions. For some of the earlier
97: works, see \cite{susymodels}. Encouraged by these
98: explorations, non-supersymmetric
99: holographic dual models for hadrons have recently been proposed \cite{brodsky},
100: \cite{sonetal}. Compared to previous studies, these models are
101: phenomenological and the approach adopted is {\it bottom-up}.
102: Guided by the basic ideas of the correspondence principle,
103: one identifies the corresponding conserved
104: currents which appear in the gauge theory as a dual description to the
105: fields in the supergravity theory. This thus determines the (minimal) field
106: content of the five dimensional theory of gravity, as dictated directly by the
107: low energy sector. Thus the name, bottom-up. The models are still
108: at the stage of being called {\em toy models}
109: and they employ a very small sub-set of the possible field content.
110: One can then go ahead and calculate various $n$-point Green functions
111: (or correlators) of the fields in the 5-dimensional gravity theory. The
112: correspondence relates such a calculation to the correlators of conserved
113: currents in a suitable gauge theory. Using only a minimal
114: sub-set of fields, the authors have shown that the models are quite robust and
115: predictive to within $10\%$ accuracy.
116: To capture the essentials of chiral symmetry
117: breaking, some specific boundary conditions are imposed on the fields and
118: their derivatives on the so called ``infra-red (IR) boundary''
119: ($z_{IR} >> z_{UV}$). The
120: theory is conformal only close to the UV boundary. As one moves away
121: from this UV boundary, the theory is no more conformal.
122: In a complete microscopic
123: description, this should be incorporated by appropriately modifying the
124: geometry which was AdS to start with. In the absence of a complete
125: description, this is done by putting certain artificial and ad-hoc
126: boundary conditions and one hopes to capture the essential
127: and broad features.
128:
129: \par In this Letter we take a closer look at these models and
130: explore them in more detail. Given the robustness of the predictions
131: within these models, it is tempting to investigate how far can they go in
132: describing the experimental observations. The two point functions are the
133: simplest and most straightforward to be evaluated within the 5D gravity
134: theory. Their importance is not just being the simplest objects calculable, but
135: lies in the fact that they offer a dual description to the current-current two
136: point correlator ,$\langle j_{\mu}j_{\nu}\rangle$, in the gauge theory.
137: This correlator shows up in $e^+e^-$ annihilating into
138: hadrons, $\tau$ hadronic decays, hadronic contribution to $(g-2)_{\mu}$
139: and many other places. Moreover, the
140: current-current correlator is used to extract the masses and decay constants
141: of the mesons in the large $N_c$ limit of QCD. Furthermore, it is known that
142: the masses and decay constants obey certain sum rules, namely the Weinberg
143: sum rules and generalizations \cite{sumrules}.
144: It is thus important to have a precise and
145: accurate theoretical description of the two point current correlation
146: function.
147:
148: \par Before proceeding to explore the two point function in more detail, let
149: us briefly mention the field content and other details of the {\em toy model}
150: \cite{sonetal}
151: that we will be working with. We follow \cite{sonetal} for the notation and
152: general setup of the model.
153: The field content of the 5D theory is dictated
154: by the operators in the 4D QCD. In principle, there should be an infinite
155: number of fields corresponding to an
156: infinite number of gauge invariant operators
157: in QCD. However, for the purpose of chiral symmetry breaking and its essential
158: consequences, it suffices to look at a very small number of operators and
159: therefore a small number of fields in the 5D theory. As is known, the
160: chiral dynamics is quite effectively described by an $SU(N_f)_L\times
161: SU(N_f)_R$ theory. We therefore have the following three operators that are
162: most crucial to this effect (corresponding 5D fields are written in front of
163: each of them):
164: \[
165: \bar{q}_L(x)\gamma^{\mu}T^aq_L(x) \stackrel{dual}\longrightarrow
166: A^{a\mu}_L(x,z)
167: \]
168: \be
169: \bar{q}_R(x)\gamma^{\mu}T^aq_R(x) \stackrel{dual}\longrightarrow
170: A^{a\mu}_R(x,z)
171: \ee
172: \[
173: \bar{q}_L^i(x)q_R^j(x) \stackrel{dual}\longrightarrow (2/z)X^{ij}(x,z)
174: \]
175: where $T^a$ are the group generators and $i,j$ are the flavour
176: indices. Restricting to two flavours implies that $i,j=1,2$ and the
177: $T^a$'s are the three Pauli matrices. We are thus looking at a chiral
178: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ theory. With this minimal field content and ignoring
179: any interactions for the time being, the 5D action is
180: \be
181: S_{(5)} = \int d^4x dz \sqrt{g}~Tr\left[-\frac{1}{4g_5^2}(F_L^2 + F_R^2) +
182: \vert DX\vert^2 - m^2X^2\right]
183: \ee
184: where $F^{AB}_{L,R}$ denotes the field strengths for the left and the right
185: gauge fields and $D_{A}$ denotes the covariant derivative.
186:
187: \par At the IR boundary, some boundary conditions are imposed on the
188: fields. Moreover, the reason behind introducing the IR boundary in the theory
189: is to parameterize the effect of chiral symmetry breaking in an effective
190: fashion. Else, one would be forced to examine how the
191: geometry of the bulk changes
192: away from the UV boundary and what should be the metric far away that will
193: suitably describe chiral symmetry breaking in the 4D gauge theory. The
194: introduction of the IR boundary and suitable boundary terms in a
195: phenomenological way
196: takes care of this aspect. For the gauge fields, we impose the boundary
197: conditions: $F_{L,R}^{\mu z}=0$ and choose to work in the gauge $A_z=0$. For
198: the field $X$, the expectation value at the UV boundary is the quark mass
199: matrix and the quark condensate will effectively fix the other constant
200: (at the IR boundary) in
201: the solution to the equation of motion for field $X$. In principle, the UV
202: boundary corresponds to $z=0$. However, in practice, the boundary conditions
203: are specified at $z=z_{UV}$ and finally the limit $z_{UV}\to 0$ is taken.
204:
205: \par Define the vector and axial-vector gauge fields as
206: appropriate linear combinations of $A_L$ and $A_R$. Let us focus on the vector
207: gauge field $V_A = \frac{1}{2}((A_L)_A + (A_R)_A)$ and let $\tilde{V}_A(q,z)$
208: denote the Fourier transform of the vector field with respect to the 4D
209: coordinates. We have suppressed the group index for convenience.
210: In the $V_z=0$ gauge, the
211: linearized equation of motion for the transverse part reads
212: \be
213: \partial_z\left(\frac{1}{z}\partial_z\tilde{V}_{\mu}(q,z)\right) +
214: \frac{q^2}{z}\tilde{V}_{\mu}(q,z) = 0
215: \ee
216: The solution is a linear combination of the Bessel functions and can be
217: written as
218: \be
219: \tilde{V}_{\mu}(q,z) = C_{\mu}(q) qz[b{\mathcal{J}}_1(qz) +
220: {\mathcal{Y}}_1(qz)]
221: \ee
222: The boundary condition at the IR boundary, namely
223: $\partial_zV_{\mu}\vert_{z=z_{IR}}=0$, fixes
224: the relative constant between the two terms to be
225: \be
226: b \approx -\frac{{\mathcal{Y}}_0(qz_{IR})}{{\mathcal{J}}_0(qz_{IR})}
227: \label{const}
228: \ee
229:
230: \par We can now use the correspondence principle to interpret the above
231: solution at $z=z_{UV}$ as the source for a current. For the two point function
232: we get \cite{nima},
233: \be
234: \langle j_{\mu}(0)j_{\nu}(q)\rangle = \left(\eta_{\mu\nu} -
235: \frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}\right)\Pi(q)
236: \ee
237: where
238: \be
239: \Pi(q)\vert_{z=z_{UV}} =
240: \left(\frac{1}{g_5^2}\right)\frac{q}{z_{UV}}
241: \left[\frac{{\mathcal{Y}}_0(qz_{UV}) + b {\mathcal{J}}_0(qz_{UV})}
242: {{\mathcal{Y}}_1(qz_{UV}) + b {\mathcal{J}}_1(qz_{UV})}\right] \label{cor1}
243: \ee
244: This expression can be expanded about $z_{UV}=0$ and we retain the leading
245: terms, which leads to
246: \be
247: \Pi(q)\vert_{z=z_{UV}} \approx \left(\frac{1}{g_5^2}\right)
248: q^2\left[\log(qz_{UV}/2) + \gamma_E + \frac{\pi}{2}b\right] \label{cor2}
249: \ee
250: The logarithmic term may be identified as the contribution to the
251: current-current correlator arising from the lowest order quark bubble
252: diagram. Comparing this expression with the one obtained within
253: QCD with $N_c$ colours fixes the 5D gauge coupling, $g_5$, in terms of $N_c$.
254:
255: \par The next task is to estimate the hadron masses and decay constants. This
256: is easily done by comparing the two point function obtained above with the
257: corresponding expression that one obtains in the large $N_c$ chiral
258: theories.
259: In such a theory, the two point function is expressed as a sum over
260: narrow resonances. The poles of the two point function yield hadron masses and
261: the residues at each pole are the decay constants. The correlator thus has the
262: following form (the $i\epsilon$ is implicit)
263: \be
264: \Pi(q^2) = q^2\sum_n \frac{F_n^2}{q^2 - M_n^2}
265: \ee
266: In particular, the above form and the fact that we have approximated the
267: correlator as a sum over narrow resonances imply that the spectral density is
268: a {\em comb of delta functions} peaking at the hadron masses. The spectral
269: density is nothing but the imaginary part of $\Pi(q^2)$.
270: Also, let us recall that the Kallen-Lehmann representation for the two point
271: function in a generic field theory implies that the
272: spectral density is a positive quantity
273: \cite{itzykson}. This is
274: an important property that it must satisfy and we'll see that this property
275: plays an important role in our analysis.
276:
277: \par To estimate the hadron masses, we look for the poles of the
278: two point function. We can use either Eq(\ref{cor1}) or Eq(\ref{cor2}) for
279: this purpose. The poles are given by the zeros of
280: ${\mathcal{J}}_0(qz_{IR})$. Then using the experimental value for
281: $m_{\rho}$ as an input fixes $z_{IR}$. The
282: decay constants are the residues at these poles.
283:
284: \par The estimated numbers for the
285: masses and decay constants \cite{sonetal}
286: compare well with the experimental values and we
287: get the impression that the model is very robust and quite close to
288: reality. However, as we'll see below, this is not the real and complete
289: picture. We take a
290: closer look at the two point function. In particular, we are interested in the
291: corresponding spectral density, $\rho(q^2)$. Both the vector and axial-vector
292: spectral densities are measured to very good accuracy, for example,
293: in the hadronic $\tau$
294: decays and are directly related to the decay width by optical theorem
295: \cite{expt}. The data clearly shows the $\rho$ and $a_1$ resonance peaks
296: and supports the theoretical expectation of the spectral
297: densities to be positive functions. We use Eq(\ref{cor2}) (or equivalently
298: Eq(\ref{cor1})) to extract the imaginary part, and therefore the spectral
299: density. Using the usual $i\epsilon$ prescription, it is easy to obtain the
300: imaginary part which is nothing but the following
301: \be
302: \rho(q) = {\it Im}\left[
303: \frac{{\mathcal{Y}}_0(qz_{IR})}{{\mathcal{J}}_0((q+i\epsilon)z_{IR})}\right]
304: \ee
305:
306: \par We would like to study the above spectral density in more detail
307: and convince ourselves that it satisfies all the field theoretic properties,
308: like the positivity condition, before we can proceed further and calculate
309: masses and decay constants from the two point correlation function. To this
310: end, we consider the following function
311: \be
312: f(x) = \frac{{\mathcal{Y}}_0(x)}
313: {{\mathcal{J}}_0(x+i\epsilon)} = {\it Re}[f(x)] + i {\it Im}[f(x)]
314: \ee
315: Clearly, the imaginary part of the function is nothing but the spectral
316: density itself rewritten in terms of a different variable. In Figure 1, we have
317: plotted the imaginary part of the function, ${\it Im}[f(x)]$.\footnote{
318: A quick way to see that the imaginary part will have a profile very similar to
319: a sum of delta functions is to look at the series expansion,
320: ${\mathcal{J}}_0(x)
321: = 1 - \frac{x^2}{4} + \frac{x^4}{64} - \frac{x^6}{2304} + ....$.
322: The $i\epsilon$ prescription can now be used to obtain the imaginary
323: part. For plotting the graph, we have chosen
324: $\epsilon = 10^{-7}$ and rescaled
325: the y-axis. It should be borne in mind that any other small value of
326: $\epsilon$ is equally good and rescaling simply helps in having an enlarged
327: picture and does not change the shape and nature of the curve.}
328: A quick look at
329: the plot gives the impression that the spectral density is indeed a comb of
330: delta functions, as expected and desired. The zeros of the Bessel function
331: ${\mathcal{J}}_0(x)$ are the positions of the resonance masses
332: and the residues at
333: these values will correspond to the decay constants of the mesons.
334: Let us now take a more closer look at the function itself.
335: The function under investigation is a ratio of two Bessel functions. Further,
336: the Bessel functions are known to have an oscillatory behaviour, with
337: ${\mathcal{J}}_0(x)$ and ${\mathcal{Y}}_0(x)$ having opposite behaviour with
338: respect to each other. Figure 2 is a plot of the two Bessel functions, clearly
339: showing these features.
340:
341: \par The relevant quantity (the imaginary part of the function $f(x)$ which is
342: the spectral density) is a ratio of these two
343: different Bessel functions and because of the features mentioned above,
344: ${\mathcal{Y}}_0(x)$ can cross the real axis between two zeros of
345: ${\mathcal{J}}_0(x)$, thereby yielding negative values for the imaginary part
346: of the function, and therefore the spectral density. To further substantiate
347: our claim, we look at the behaviour of the imaginary part of the function
348: $f(x)$ more closely. In Figure 3, we plot $Im[f(x)]$ for various
349: smaller intervals of $x$ and show that it indeed acquires negative values. The
350: reason that this feature is not evident in Figure 1 is due to the very large
351: values that the function acquires close to the resonances. However, when we
352: look at the behaviour in regions slightly away from the resonances, the
353: negative values show up, as shown in Figure 3.
354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
355: \vskip 1.0cm
356: \begin{figure}[ht]
357: \vspace*{-1cm}
358: %\hspace*{-0.5cm}
359: \centerline{
360: %\centerline{
361: \epsfxsize=9.0cm\epsfysize=5cm
362: \epsfbox{fullspectral.eps}}
363: \caption{{\it Coarse-grain} view of ${\it Im}[f(x)]$ as a
364: function of the argument, $x$}
365: \end{figure}
366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
367: %\vskip 3.0cm
368: \begin{figure}[ht]
369: %\vspace*{-1cm}
370: %\hspace*{-0.5cm}
371: \centerline{
372: %\centerline{
373: \epsfxsize=5.0cm\epsfysize=4cm
374: \epsfbox{j0.eps}
375: \hskip 1cm
376: \epsfxsize=5.0cm\epsfysize=4cm
377: \epsfbox{y0.eps}}
378: \caption{The two Bessel functions: ${\mathcal{J}}_0(x)$ (left)
379: and ${\mathcal{Y}}_0(x)$ (right)}
380: \end{figure}
381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
382: %\vskip 3.0cm
383: \begin{figure}[ht]
384: %\vspace*{-1cm}
385: %\hspace*{-0.5cm}
386: \centerline{
387: %\centerline{
388: \epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfysize=4cm
389: \epsfbox{spectralzoom1.eps}
390: \hskip 0.5cm
391: \epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfysize=4cm
392: \epsfbox{spectralzoom2.eps}
393: \hskip 0.5cm
394: \epsfxsize=3.5cm\epsfysize=4cm
395: \epsfbox{spectralzoom3.eps}}
396: \caption{${\it Im}[f(x)]$ plotted in different intervals}
397: \end{figure}
398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
399: \par Let us put all the individual pieces of information together to get a
400: final and complete picture. We have seen above that a cursory look at the
401: imaginary part gives the impression that it is a comb or sum of delta
402: functions - the position of the peaks will give the masses of the mesons and
403: the residues at these values will be the respective decay constants. It is
404: quite clear from the Figure 1 that the residues at the peak positions of
405: the imaginary part are indeed positive. It is this {\it coarse-grain} picture
406: that leads us to believe that all is well with the model and the predicted
407: numerical values for the meson masses and decay constants are in
408: agreement with the experimental values to within $10-20\%$.
409: However, as is clear from Figure 3, the imaginary part of
410: the function (the spectral density) acquires negative values.
411: Also, it is clear from the figure that
412: we encounter negative values in a somewhat periodic manner and that
413: the magnitude of the negative values attained diminishes as we go to larger
414: values of the argument. This feature is also not hard to expect and
415: understand. The ``somewhat periodic'' appearance of the
416: negative values is due to
417: the oscillatory behaviour of Bessel functions (or their combination) while
418: from the behaviour of the Bessel functions, it is very evident that
419: the amplitude keeps on decreasing for larger and larger values of the argument.
420:
421: \par It is now straightforward to convince ourselves that the spectral density
422: obtained within these models is not positive semi-definite.
423: However, as we have discussed earlier, the spectral density
424: is a positive quantity and has been very well measured in experiments, in full
425: conformity with our theoretical expectations. This is the most
426: important observation and result of this study. It may be worthwhile to
427: briefly comment on the results/findings of the models
428: \cite{brodsky,sonetal} in the light of this observation. As has been mentioned
429: above, if we just content ourselves with the positions of the resonances
430: (meson masses) and evaluate the residues at these positions (decay constants),
431: we'll obtain positive values for them. This is essentially what is done in
432: \cite{brodsky,sonetal}. It is only when we take a closer look at the function
433: under consideration that we are led to the observation that the imaginary part
434: of the function, which is supposed to be positive always, acquires negative
435: values.
436:
437: \par The above observation regarding the spectral density becoming negative is
438: a serious issue of concern. As was mentioned, the spectral density is directly
439: related to the hadronic $\tau$ decay width by the optical theorem.
440: A negative spectral density will simply mean that the decay width is
441: becoming negative - something that is clearly unphysical and of course
442: unobserved. Translated back, this observation has to say something very
443: important about the model itself. In this form, the model does not lead to
444: physical predictions and therefore can not be trusted. Similar conclusions can
445: be reached at from the data on $e^+e^-$ annihilating into hadrons or the
446: hadronic contributions to $(g-2)_{\mu}$. In each case the spectral density is
447: related to a positive physical observable like cross-section or decay rate.
448:
449: \par We make a brief attempt to discuss the possible origin of such a problem
450: in these models.
451: Recall that to capture the essential features of chiral symmetry
452: breaking, an ad-hoc and artificial infra-red boundary was introduced in the
453: theory and certain specific boundary conditions specified on it. This approach
454: is completely phenomenological and though, intuitively may seem well motivated
455: and correct, by itself, does not guarantee that the results will be unitary
456: and physical. As was pointed out initially, in a complete microscopic
457: description, the geometry of the space-time should be appropriately modified
458: and this should be consistently done so that away from the AdS boundary
459: ($z=0$),
460: the model incorporates the correct pattern for chiral dynamics.
461: However, in the case at hand, this
462: was avoided by invoking the artificial IR boundary. In our opinion, this
463: itself is the root cause of the problem. The reason is as follows. Both the
464: masses and the decay constants are obtained by essentially looking at the
465: constant $''b''$ that appears in the solution to the equation of motion for the
466: gauge field. This constant is fixed in the present scenario by requiring the
467: derivative of the solution to vanish at the artificial IR boundary, thus
468: yielding a ratio of two Bessel functions. It is this combination of Bessel
469: functions that leads to the trouble. We may be led to speculate that
470: if, instead of the approximate form for
471: the relative constant $b$ in Eq(\ref{const}), we had used the full expression,
472: we would have bypassed the problem. It is again easy and straightforward to
473: convince ourselves that this is not the case as the new form is also a
474: combination of some other Bessel functions.
475: If however, we can model the chiral
476: symmetry breaking pattern by continuously changing the geometry in the bulk,
477: this problem can possibly be avoided.
478: We would like to point out that this is a common problem in all the
479: models that invoke an IR boundary condition to model the chiral symmetry
480: breaking. We restricted ourselves to the vector sector of the theory but the
481: same arguments and conclusions apply to the axial vector sector as well.
482: One can also
483: check that the Weinberg sum rules are not satisfied in these models and there
484: is no explanation of the (approximate) $\rho$ meson dominance that is observed
485: in nature.
486:
487: \par We conclude by summarizing our main observation and some of its
488: consequences. We have investigated the profile of the spectral density in the
489: recently proposed holographic models of QCD or chiral symmetry breaking in
490: five dimensions \cite{brodsky,sonetal}.
491: The models seem to be quite robust and naively taken, seem to
492: be predictive to within $10\%$ accuracy. However, a closer look reveals that
493: the spectral density, extracted from the two point correlation function, keeps
494: acquiring negative values. This is in contrast to
495: the positive behaviour of the spectral density expected from very general field
496: theory arguments. Moreover, the vector and the axial-vector spectral densities
497: are directly measured, for example,
498: in the corresponding hadronic $\tau$ decay modes. A
499: negative spectral density implies a negative decay rate, in clear violation
500: with unitarity and optical theorem and also with the observed data. This
501: simply implies that the proposed models, though seem remarkably predictive,
502: do not satisfy some of the basic field theoretic requirements and therefore
503: can not be trusted. Also, in this form they can not be seriously taken to be
504: models describing the physical hadron spectrum. Similar arguments will hold
505: for any other model that violates the positivity condition for the spectral
506: density and/or is in conflict with generic field theoretic expectations.
507: As pointed out, the root cause in the present case
508: is the way chiral symmetry breaking has been modeled by introducing an
509: ad-hoc IR boundary.\footnote{This feature is expected to be present in any
510: model that invokes an artificial IR boundary condition to mimic chiral
511: symmetry breaking. We would also like to mention that the observations of
512: the present study need not apply to the works listed in \cite{susymodels}.}
513: If on the other hand, this is done in a more consistent
514: manner by suitably modifying the bulk geometry in a continuous fashion, there
515: is hope to get a dual model of hadrons which avoids the above mentioned
516: problem.
517:
518: \vskip 1cm
519: {\bf Acknowledgements} I would like to thank for Somdatta Bhattacharya,
520: Kazuyuki Furuuchi, Rajesh Gopakumar, Sukanta Panda, Ashoke Sen
521: and K.~P.~Yogendran for discussions. I wish to thank
522: Rajesh Gopakumar for a careful reading of the manuscript.
523:
524: \end{section}
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: %\pagebreak
527: \begin{thebibliography}{}
528:
529: \bibitem{adscft}J.~M.~Maldecena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 2}, 231 (1998);
530: S.~Gubser, I.~Klebanov and A.~Polyakov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B428}, 105 (1998);
531: E.~Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 2}, 253 (1998).
532:
533: \bibitem{susymodels}A.~Karch and E.~Katz, JHEP {\bf 0206}, 043 (2002);
534: M.~Kruczenski, D.~Mateos, R.~C.~Myers and D.~J.~Winters, JHEP {\bf 0307},
535: 049 (2003); J.~Babington, J.~Erdmenger, N.~J.~Evans, Z.~Guralnik and
536: I.~Kirsch, Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 066007 (2004); N.~J.~Evans and J.~P.~Shock,
537: Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 046002 (2004); J.~L.~F.~Barbon, C.~Hoyos, D.~Mateos
538: and R.~C.~Myers, JHEP {\bf 0410}, 029 (2004).
539:
540: \bibitem{brodsky}G.~F.~de Teramond and S.J.~~Brodsky, {\bf hep-th/0501022}.
541:
542: \bibitem{sonetal}J.~Erlich, E.~Katz, D.~T.~Son and M.~Stephanov,
543: {\bf hep-ph/0501128}; L.~D.~Rold and A.~Pomarol, {\bf hep-ph/0501218}.
544:
545: \bibitem{sumrules}S.~Weinberg, Phs. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18}, 507 (1967); T.~Das,
546: V.~S.~Mathur and S.~Okubo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18}, 761 (1967);
547: J.~F.~Donoghue and E.~Golowich, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49}, 1513 (1994); M.~Knecht
548: and E.~de Rafael, Phys. Lett. {\bf B424}, 335 (1998); R.~H.~Lemmer and
549: R.~Tegen, Phys. Rev. {\bf C66}, 065202 (2002).
550:
551: \bibitem{nima} N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall, JHEP {\bf 0108},
552: 017 (2001); L.~Randall and M.~D.~Schwartz, JHEP {\bf 0111}, 003 (2001).
553:
554: \bibitem{itzykson}See for example C.~Itzykson and J.-B.~Zuber,
555: {\em ``Quantum Field Theory''} (McGraw Hill, 1980).
556:
557: \bibitem{expt}R.~Barate {\em et al.}, ALEPH Collab., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C4},
558: 409 (1998); K.~Ackerstaff {\em et al.}, OPAL Collab., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf
559: C7}, 571 (1999).
560:
561: \end{thebibliography}
562:
563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
564: \end{document}
565: