1: \documentclass{revtex4}

2: \usepackage {amssymb}

3: \usepackage {amsmath}

4: \usepackage {epsfig}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage {hyperref}

7: \def\noi{\noindent}

8: \def\be {\begin{equation}}

9: \def\ee {\end{equation}}

10: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}

12: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

14: \def\nonu{\nonumber}

15: \setlength{\parindent}{0.pt}

16: 

17: \begin{document}

18: 

19: \markboth{M. Horta\c{c}su and B.C.

20: L\"{u}tf\"{u}o\={g}lu}{Renormalization Group Analysis of a G\"

21: ursey Model Inspired Field Theory}

22: 

23: \title{Renormalization Group Analysis of a G\" ursey Model Inspired Field Theory}%

24: 

25: \author{M. Horta\c{c}su}

26: \email{hortacsu@itu.edu.tr}%

27: 

28: \author{B.C. L\"{u}tf\"{u}o\={g}lu}

29: \email{bcan@itu.edu.tr}%

30: 

31: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Istanbul Technical University,

32: Istanbul, Turkey.}%

33: 

34: %\date{\today}%

35: 

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38: We  show that when a model, which is equivalent to the G\" ursey

39: model classically, is gauged with a SU(N) field, we get

40: indications of a nontrivial field theory.

41: \end{abstract}%

42: 

43: \maketitle%

44: %\keywords {Gauged constrained models, RG equations, nontrivial models}

45: %\ccode{PACS 11.10.-z, 11.10.Hi, 12.60.Rc,}

46: 

47: 

48: \section{Introduction}

49: 

50: To write a field theoretical model  which has nonzero values for

51: the coupling constants at zeroes of the beta function of the

52: renormalization group is an endeavor which is still continuing in

53: particle physics. The  $\phi^4$ theory is a "laboratory" where

54: different methods in quantum field theory are first applied. After

55: it was shown that this model became a trivial theory when the

56: cutoff was removed, \cite{ba_ki_79,ba_ki_81},  it was clear that

57: analyzing the terms in the perturbation series was not sufficient

58: to decide whether one had a truly interacting theory. Work in this

59: field was also given by Wilson and others, \cite{wi_73,kl_06}.

60: Renormalization group methods, first introduced by Wilson for this

61: purpose \cite{wi_ko_74}, are the most commonly used technique in

62: studying whether one has a trivial theory or not.

63: 

64: \noindent Since  a nontrivial fixed point is not yet found for

65: QCD, there are attempts to study alternative models for this

66: purpose is given in \cite{gi_ja_we_04}. A very popular model is

67: the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model, hereafter NJL, \cite{na_jo_61}. This

68: model is written in terms of spinor fields only, and is used as an

69: effective theory extensively in high energy physics

70: \cite{mu_87,mi_93}. The NJL model was also shown to be trivial

71: \cite{ko_ko_94,zi_89}. Recent attempts to gauge this model to

72: obtain a nontrivial theory are given in references

73: \cite{ha_ki_ku_na_94,ao_mo_su_te_to_99,ao_mo_su_te_to_00,ku_te_99,ko_ta_ya_93}.

74: Both functional and diagram summing methods were used in these

75: papers.  Exact renormalization group methods proposed by Wilson

76: and Polchinski, \cite{wi_ko_74,po_84}, are often employed for this

77: purpose.  A very recent paper on this method is given by Sonoda

78: \cite{so_07} .

79: 

80: \noindent Another model, which uses only spinors is the G\" ursey

81: model \cite{gu_56}. We have worked on different forms of the G\"

82: ursey model \cite{ho_lu_06,ho_ta_07,ho_lu_ta_hepth_06}. Our

83: starting point was both our earlier work,

84: \cite{ak_ar_du_ho_ka_pa_82-34,ak_ar_du_ho_ka_pa_82-41,ak_ar_ho_pa_83,ar_ho_83,ar_ho_ka_85},

85: where G\" ursey model lagrangian was attempted to be written  in a

86: polynomial form, and recent work,

87: \cite{mi_93,ba_le_lo_86,le_lo_ba_86,re_00,re_hepth_99}, which

88: suggested that the gauged form of the NJL model can be interpreted

89: as a nontrivial theory. In \cite{ho_lu_06} we reinterpreted our

90: earlier work, \cite{ak_ar_du_ho_ka_pa_82-34}, and showed that

91: rather than finding a trivial theory, as claimed in

92: \cite{ar_ho_83}, we ended up in a model where composite particles

93: took part in physical processes.   The constituent fields,

94: however, did not interact with each other when perturbation theory

95: was applied to the model, as already shown in \cite{ar_ho_83}. In

96: \cite {ho_lu_ta_hepth_06}, we showed that, when this model is

97: coupled to a constituent $U(1)$ gauge field, we were mimicking a

98: gauge Higgs-Yukawa (gHY) system, which had the known problems of

99: the Landau pole, with all of its connotations of triviality.

100: 

101: \noindent The essential point of our earlier work was the fact

102: that  the propagator of the composite scalar field was equal to

103: ${{\epsilon}\over{p^2}}$.  Since $\epsilon$ goes to zero as the

104: cutoff is removed, many of the diagrams, where the scalar field

105: propagator takes part as an internal line, become convergent.  We

106: could show that there was no breaking of the chiral symmetry, thus

107: no mass generation, for the fermion fields in our model in higher

108: orders of perturbation theory.

109: 

110:  \noindent

111: Here we will study our original model \cite{ho_lu_06}, coupled to

112: a $SU(N)$ gauge field and use solely  renormalization group

113: techniques.

114: We start

115: with the description of our starting model without the gauge field

116: \cite {ho_lu_06}.  Then we derive the renormalization group equations

117:  (RGEs) in one loop, and try to

118: derive the criteria for obtaining non-trivial fixed points for the

119: coupling constants of the theory.  Here we closely follow the line

120: of discussion followed in our  reference \cite{ha_ki_ku_na_94}. In

121: our model, however, there is a composite scalar field with a

122: propagator completely different from a constituent scalar field

123: used in this reference.  This gives rise to RGE's in our case

124: which are different from those given by Harada et al.  Since our

125: starting models are different the motivation of our work  is

126: different from that of this reference. We show that the

127: renormalization group equations  point to   the non-triviality of

128: the model when it is coupled to an $SU(N)$ gauge field.  We end up

129: with a few remarks in the last section. %

130: %

131: \pagebreak

132: %

133: \section{The Original Model}

134: Our initial model is

135: given by the Lagrangian

136: 

137: \begin{equation}

138: L = {i\overline{\psi}} \partial \!\!\!/ \psi + g {\overline{\psi}}

139: \psi \phi +\xi ( g{\overline {\psi}} \psi -a\phi^{3} ).\label{cl}

140: \end{equation}

141: 

142: \noindent Here the only terms with kinetic part are the spinors.

143: $\xi$ is a Lagrange multiplier field, $\phi $ is a scalar field

144: with no kinetic part, $g$ and $a$ are coupling constants. This

145: expression contains two constraint equations, obtained from

146: writing the Euler-Lagrange equations for the $\xi$ and $\phi$

147: fields.  Hence, it should be quantized by using the Dirac

148: constraint analysis as performed in reference \cite{ho_lu_06}.

149: 

150: \noindent

151: The Lagrangian given above is just an attempt in writing the

152: original G\" ursey Lagrangian

153: 

154: \begin{equation}

155:  L={i\overline{\psi}} \partial \!\!\!/ \psi + g' ({\overline{\psi}} \psi)^{4/3}

156:  ,\label{gl}

157: \end{equation}

158: in a polynomial form.

159: 

160: \noindent We already showed how  the $\gamma^{5} $ invariance of

161: the  G\"{u}rsey  Lagrangian  , which  prevents the fermion field

162: from acquiring a finite mass in higher orders, is retained in  our

163: model,  and the fact that our model is equivalent to the original

164: G\"{u}rsey model only classically  in  \cite{ho_lu_06}.

165: 

166: \noindent

167: To quantize the latter system consistently we proceed via the path

168: integral method. This procedure is carried out in reference

169: \cite{ho_lu_06}.  At the end of these calculations we find out

170: that we can write the constrained lagrangian given in equation

171: (\ref{cl}) as

172: 

173: \begin{equation}

174: L' = {i\overline{\psi}}[\partial \!\!\!/  +ig

175: \Phi]\psi-{{a}\over{4}}(\Phi^{4}+2\Phi^{3}\Xi-2\Phi\Xi^{3}-

176: \Xi^{4})+{i\over{4}}c^*(\Phi^{2}+2\Phi\Xi+\Xi^{2}) c, \label{eff1}

177: \end{equation}

178: where the effective lagrangian  is expressed in terms of scalar

179: fields $\Phi$, and $\Xi$, ghost fields  $c $, $c^*$ and spinor

180: fields only.

181: 

182: \noindent

183: The fermion propagator is the usual Dirac propagator in lowest

184: order, as can be seen from the lagrangian.  After integrating over

185: the fermion fields in the path integral, we obtain the effective

186: action. The second derivative of the effective action with respect

187: to the $\Phi$ field gives us the induced inverse propagator for

188: the $\Phi$ field, with the infinite part given as

189: 

190: \begin{equation} \mbox{inf} \left[ {{ig^2}\over{ (2\pi)^4}} \int {{d^4

191: p}\over {p\!\!\!/(p\!\!\!/+q\!\!\!/)}}\right]=

192:  {{g^2  q^2}\over {4\pi \epsilon}}.

193: \end{equation}

194: Here dimensional regularization is used for the momentum integral

195: and $\epsilon = 4-n$.  We see that the $\Phi$ field propagates as

196: a massless field.

197: 

198: \noindent

199: When we study the propagators for the other fields, we see that no

200: linear or quadratic term in $\Xi$ exists, so the one loop

201: contribution to the $\Xi$ propagator is absent. Similarly the

202: mixed derivatives of the effective action with respect to $\Xi$

203: and $\Phi$  are zero at one loop, so no mixing between these two

204: fields occurs. We can also set the propagators of the ghost fields

205: to zero, since they give no contribution in the one loop

206: approximation.  The higher loop contributions are absent  for

207: these fields.

208: 

209: In reference \cite{ho_lu_06} we also studied the contributions to

210: the fermion propagator at higher orders and we found, by studying

211: the Dyson-Schwinger equations for the two point function, that

212: there were no new contributions.  We had at least one phase where

213: the mass of the spinor field was zero.

214: 

215: 

216: \section{Renormalization Group Equations}

217: 

218: \noindent Here we couple an $SU(N_C)$ gauge field to the model. We

219: also take spinors with different flavors,  up to $N_f$.  The new

220: lagrangian reads:

221: 

222: \begin{equation}

223: L = {\sum_{i=1}^{N_{f}}i\overline{\psi}_{i}} D \!\!\!\!/ \psi_{i}

224: + g \sum_{i=1}^{N_{f}}{\overline{\psi}_{i}} \psi_{i} \phi +\xi

225: \left(g\sum_{i=1}^{N_{f}} {\overline {\psi}_{i}} \psi_{i}

226: -a\phi^{3} \right)-\frac{1}{4} Tr [F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}].

227: \label{newlag}

228: \end{equation}

229: 

230: Upon performing constraint analysis similar to the one performed

231: in \cite{ho_lu_06}, we see that we have to satisfy

232: \begin{eqnarray}

233:  \sum_{i=1}^{N_f} \overline{\psi}_i \psi_i -a\phi^3 =0, \hspace{2cm}

234:  3 a \xi \phi^2-g \sum_{i=1}^{N_f} \overline{\psi}_i \psi_i =0.

235: \end{eqnarray}

236: %

237: After calculating the constraint matrix,  raising the result to

238: the exponential by using ghost field,  and performing the

239: transformations $\Phi = \phi + \xi $ and $ \Xi= \phi - \xi$ we get

240: similar equations as given in equation (\ref{eff1}). We see that

241: both the $\Xi$ and the ghost fields coming from the compositeness

242: constraint decouple from our model.

243: 

244: At this point we have to note that there are two kinds of ghost

245: contributions in the new model. The ghosts coming from the gauge

246: condition on the vector field do not decouple, and contribute to

247: the renormalization group equations in the usual way.  We impose

248: these constraints on equation (\ref{newlag}).

249: 

250: After these steps we start with the effective lagrangian given as

251: 

252: \begin{equation}

253: L'' = -\frac{1}{4} Tr [F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu

254: \nu}]-\frac{a}{4}\Phi^4+\sum_{i=1}^{N_{f}}\overline{\psi}_{i}

255: iD\!\!\!\!/\psi_{i}-\sum_{i=1}^{N_{f}}g\Phi\overline{\psi}_{i}\psi_{i}

256: + L_{\mbox{ghost}}+ L_{\mbox{gauge fixing}}.

257: \end{equation}

258: Here $N_f$ is the number of flavors.  The gauge field belongs to

259: the adjoint representation of the color group $SU(N_C) $ where

260: $D_{\mu}$ is the color covariant derivative. $g,a,e$ are the

261: Yukawa, quartic scalar and gauge coupling constants, respectively.

262: We take $N_{f}$ in the same order as $N_{C}$.

263: 

264: \noindent

265: In the one loop approximation, the

266: renormalization group equations read as

267: 

268: \beq 16\pi^2\frac{d}{dt}e(t) &=& -be^3(t),\label{yenimodelErge}\\

269:      16\pi^2\frac{d}{dt}g(t) &=& -cg(t)e^2(t),\label{yenimodelGrge}\\

270:      16\pi^2\frac{d}{dt}a(t) &=& -ug^4(t) ,\label{yenimodelArge}

271: \eeq%

272: 

273: where $b$,$c$ and $u$ are positive constants given as

274: 

275: \begin{equation}

276: b=\frac{11N_C-4T(R)N_f}{3}, \hspace{1cm} c=6C_2(R), \hspace{1cm}

277: u=8N_fN_C . \end{equation} Here $C_2(R)$ is a second Casimir,

278: $C_2(R)=\frac{(N_{C}^{2}-1)}{2N_{C}}$ and $R$ is the fundamental

279: representation with $T(R)=\frac{1}{2}$. We take $\mu_0$ as a

280: reference scale at low energies, $t=ln (\mu/\mu_0)$, where $\mu$

281: is the renormalization point.

282: 

283: \noindent

284:  In the RGE we see that the diagrams, where scalar

285: propagators take part, are down by powers of $\epsilon$. Hence we

286: do not have contributions proportional to $a^2(t)$, $g^3(t)$ and

287: $a(t)g^2(t)$, as one would have in the gHY system as described in

288: the work of  \cite{ha_ki_ku_na_94}. Since the diagrams, omitted in

289: \cite{ha_ki_ku_na_94} via a $\frac {1}{N_c}$ analysis, are down by

290: an order of $\epsilon $ in our analysis, we do not need  a

291: relation between $ N_C, N_f$  and the coupling constants at this

292: point.

293: \subsection{Solutions of the RGE's}

294: 

295: The solution for the first RG equation (\ref{yenimodelErge}) can

296: be obtained easily as

297: 

298: \beq e^{2}(t)=e_{0}^{2}\Bigg(1+\frac{b\alpha_0}{2\pi}t\Bigg)^{-1},

299: \label{e_nin_cozumu}\eeq%

300: %

301: where $\alpha_0=\frac{e_{0}^2}{4\pi}$. Define

302: %

303: \beq

304: \eta(t)\equiv\frac{\alpha(t)}{\alpha_{0}}\equiv\frac{e^2(t)}{e_0^2},

305: \eeq

306: %

307: where $e_0=e(t=0)$ which is the initial value at the reference

308: scale $\mu_0$. For the solution of the second RG equation

309: (\ref{yenimodelGrge}) we can define a RG invariant $H(t)$ as

310: 

311: \beq H(t)=(c-b)\eta^{-1+\frac{c}{b}}(t)\frac{e^2(t)}{g^2(t)}. \eeq

312: Since $H(t)$ is a constant, we  call it $H_0$. Then, the solution

313: of the gauge coupling constant can be written as

314: 

315: \beq g^2(t)=\frac{(c-b)e^2_0}{H_0}\eta^{\frac{c}{b}}(t).

316: \label{g_nin_cozumu}\eeq The solution of the last RG equation

317: (\ref{yenimodelArge}) can be defined by another RG invariant

318: $K(t)$,  given as

319: 

320: \beq K(t)=-u\eta^{-1+\frac{2c}{b}}(t)\Bigg[

321: 1-\frac{2(2c-b)}{u}\frac{a(t)}{g^2(t)}\frac{e^2(t)}{g^2(t)}\Bigg]

322: .\eeq We can then write

323: 

324: \beq a(t)=\frac{u}{2(2c-b)}\frac{g^2(t)}{e^2(t)}g^2(t)

325: \bigg[1+\frac{K_0}{u}\eta^{1-\frac{2c}{b}}(t)\bigg]

326: \label{a(t1)}.\eeq Here $K_0$ is the value of the RG invariant. We

327: can rewrite equation (\ref{a(t1)}) as

328: 

329: \beq a(t)=\frac{u(c-b)^2e_0^2}{2H_0^2(2c-b)}

330: \bigg[\eta^{-1+\frac{2c}{b}}(t)+\frac{K_0}{u}\bigg]

331: \label{a(t2)}.\eeq When we check the ultraviolet limit now, we

332: find

333: 

334: \beq \eta(t \rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow

335: \ %

336: \begin{array}{ll}

337:   +0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$b>0$;} \\

338:   \end{array}%

339: \eeq

340: 

341: \beq \eta^{\frac{c}{b}}(t \rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow \ %

342:  \begin{array}{ll}

343:   +0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$c,b>0$;} \\

344:   \end{array}%

345: \eeq and \beq \eta^{-1+\frac{2c}{b}}(t

346: \rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow

347: \ \left\{%

348: \begin{array}{lll}

349:  +0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$2c>b$;} \\

350:  +0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$2c>b>c$;} \\

351:  +\infty, \hspace{5mm}&  \hbox{$b>2c$.} \\

352: \end{array}%

353: \right.\eeq

354: 

355: \noindent We see that the constants $H_0$ and $K_0$ play important

356: roles on the behavior of solutions of coupling equations

357: (\ref{e_nin_cozumu}),(\ref{g_nin_cozumu}),(\ref{a(t2)}). For

358: $c>b$, $H_0$ should be positive; for $c<b$, $H_0$ should be

359: negative to have  the Yukawa coupling take a real value.  This is

360: necessary to have a unitary theory.  Also for a region $c<b<2c$,

361: with $H_0<0$, the unitarity condition is satisfied for all

362: coupling constants. $K_0\geq0$ condition is also needed for

363: stability of the vacuum.  If $K_0 <0$, we get

364: $a(t\rightarrow\infty)<0$ , which raises the problem of the vacuum

365: instability.

366: 

367: \noindent

368: Next we study the different limits our parameters can take:

369: 

370: \subsubsection{$b\rightarrow+0$ limit case for finite $t$}

371: 

372: We find

373: 

374: \beq e^2(t)&=&e^2_0, \nonu \\

375: g^2(t)&=&\frac{ce^2_0}{H_0}exp(-\frac{\alpha}{\alpha_c}t), \\

376: a(t)&=&\frac{uce^2_0}{4H^2_0}\bigg[exp(-\frac{2\alpha}

377: {\alpha_c}t)+\frac{K_0}{u}\bigg].\nonu \eeq Here

378: $\frac{c}{2\pi}=\frac{1}{\alpha_c}$ and $\alpha_0=\alpha$. This

379: means that when we set the $b$ term  to zero, the Yukawa running

380: coupling constant decreases exponentially to zero.  For this limit

381: the gauge and the quadratic coupling constants go just to a

382: constant.

383: 

384: \subsubsection{$c\rightarrow b$ limit case for finite $t$}

385: 

386: If $c$ approaches $b$, the limit depends on the value of $H_0$. If

387: $H_0$ is non zero, $g^2(t)$ goes to zero.

388: If $H_0$ goes to zero as a constant times $c-b$, i.e.

389: $H_0=\frac{c-b}{H_1}$, we find that $g^2(t)$ and $a(t)$ are both

390: proportional to $e^2(t)$ as follows

391: 

392: \beq g^2(t)=H_1 e^2(t), \hspace{3mm} H_1>0;\eeq

393: 

394: \beq a(t)=\frac{ue_0^2H_1^2}{2b}\bigg[\eta(t)+\frac{K_0}{u}\bigg].

395: \label{h1}\eeq

396: 

397: \subsubsection{$2c\rightarrow b$ limit case for finite $t$}

398: 

399: When $2c$ approaches $b$, the behavior of $a(t)$ changes. If we

400: set $ \frac{K_0}{u}=-1+\frac{2c-b}{b}K_1$, then $a(t)$ goes as $ln

401: \eta(t)$

402: 

403: \beq a(t)=\frac{ube_0^2}{8H_0^2}\bigg[K_1+ln \eta(t)\bigg].\eeq

404: This behaviour is not allowed since $a(t)$ diverges as

405: $t\rightarrow+\infty$.

406: 

407: 

408: \section{Non-triviality of the system}

409: 

410: In this section we  use the preceding results to investigate

411: the non-triviality of the system with several criteria such as:

412: 

413: \noindent

414:  All the running coupling constants:

415: 

416: \begin{itemize}

417:     \item should not diverge at finite t$>$0 (no Landau poles);

418:     \item should not vanish identically;

419:     \item should not violate the consistency of the theory such as

420:     unitarity and/or vacuum stability.

421: \end{itemize}%

422: 

423: \noindent

424: Since the composite scalar field is the novel feature of our

425: model, we will not consider the case when the scalar field is

426: completely decoupled from the theory.

427: 

428: \subsection{Fixed Point Solution}

429: 

430: We derive the expressions given below from the RGE equations.

431: 

432: \beq 8\pi^2\frac{d}{dt}\Bigg[\frac{g^2(t)}{e^2(t)}\Bigg]=(b-c)

433: \Bigg[\frac{g^2(t)}{e^2(t)}\Bigg]e^2(t), \label{c1}\eeq

434: 

435: \beq

436: 8\pi^2\frac{d}{dt}\Bigg[\frac{e^2(t)}{g^2(t)}\frac{a(t)}{g^2(t)}\Bigg]=(2c-b)

437: \Bigg[\frac{e^2(t)}{g^2(t)}\frac{a(t)}{g^2(t)}-\frac{u}{2(2c-b)}\Bigg]e^2(t)

438: \label{c2}.\eeq%

439: For the fixed point solution, $b$ equals $c$ in equation

440: (\ref{c1}). For this value, there is a single solution which

441: satisfies both equations (\ref{c1}) and (\ref{c2}). This solution

442: is given as,

443: 

444: \beq \frac{e^2(t)}{g^2(t)}=\frac{1}{H_{1}}, \eeq

445: where $H_1$ is a constant, and %

446: 

447: \beq\frac{a(t)}{g^2(t)}=\frac{uH_1}{2c}.\eeq

448: If we take $H_0=H_1(c-b)$ approaching zero as $c$ approaches to

449: $b$, while $K_0=0$ in equation (\ref{a(t2)}) , then we find

450: 

451: \beq g^2(t)=H_1e^2(t) ,\eeq \beq a(t)=\frac{uH_1}{2c}g^2(t) .\eeq

452: Since $\frac{g^2(t)}{e^2(t)}$ and $\frac{a(t)}{g^2(t)}$ are

453: constants, the behavior of the Yukawa and quartic scalar couplings

454: are completely determined by the gauge coupling. This corresponds

455: to "coupling constant reduction" in the sense of Kubo, Sibold and

456: Zimmermann \cite{ku_si_zi_89}. In the context of the RGE, it

457: corresponds to the Pendleton-Ross fixed point \cite{pe_ro_81}.

458: 

459: %

460: %\pagebreak%

461: 

462: \subsection{Yukawa Coupling}

463: As seen from the previous sections the behavior of the Yukawa

464: coupling depends on whether $c>b$ or $c<b$. The point where  $c=b$

465: needs a special care. Moreover the sign of the $H_0$ is important.

466: 

467: 

468: \subsubsection{c$>$b case}

469: 

470: In this case $H_0$ should not  equal to zero. Then we find in the

471: UV limits

472: 

473: \beq g^2(t\rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow\ \left\{%

474: \begin{array}{ll}

475:     +0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$H_0>0$;} \\

476:     -0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$H_0<0$.} \\

477: \end{array}%

478: \right.     \eeq So the Yukawa coupling is asymptotically free. As

479: it is seen, the sign of the RG invariant is important. It should

480: be chosen positive not to cause the violation of stability of the

481: vacuum.

482: 

483: \noindent

484: In Figure 1 we plot $g^2$ vs. $e^2$ for $c=8$, $b=7$.  Both

485: coupling constants approach the origin as $t$ goes to infinity.

486: Thus, our model fulfills the condition required by the asymptotic

487: freedom criterion.

488: 

489: \begin{figure}[htb!]

490: \epsfxsize=95mm \epsffile{e_kare_g_kare.ps} \\

491: \caption{Plot of $g^2(t)$ vs. $e^2(t)$ for different values of

492: $H_0$. The arrows denote the flow directions toward the UV

493: region.} \label{e_kare_g_kare} \end{figure}

494: 

495: 

496: \subsubsection{c$<$b case}

497: In this case with a non zero value of $H_0$

498: \beq g^2(t\rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow\ \left\{%

499: \begin{array}{ll}

500:     -0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$H_0>0$;} \\

501:     +0, \hspace{5mm}& \hbox{$H_0<0$.} \\

502: \end{array}%

503: \right.     \eeq For $H_0<0$, our system satisfies the asymptotic

504: freedom condition. Our system does not have a Landau pole. In this

505: respect it differs from the gHY system \cite{ha_ki_ku_na_94}. As

506: shown below, there is a restriction on the value of $b$ in this

507: case. \subsubsection{c$=$b case}

508: 

509: This is the fixed point solution analyzed above.

510: 

511:  \beq

512: g^2(t)=H_1e^2(t).\eeq%

513: 

514: 

515: %\pagebreak%

516: 

517: \subsection{Quartic Scalar Coupling}

518: $a(t)$ can be analyzed with four non trivial limits of the Yukawa

519: coupling. \begin{itemize}

520:     \item $c>b$ with $H_0>0$,

521:     \item $c<b<2c$ with $H_0<0$,

522:     \item $b>2c$ with $H_0<0$,

523:     \item $c=b$ with $H_0=0$.

524: \end{itemize}

525: 

526: \noindent

527: For $c>b$ case, we should have $H_0>0$,  whereas in the  $c<b<2c$

528: case we have $H_0<0$. In both cases $K_0$ should be greater or

529: equal to zero for the stability of the vacuum. In the third case,

530: $b>2c$ with $H_0<0$, for all the real values of $K_0$, $a(t)$

531: diverges in the UV limit. This means that there is no chance for a

532: nontrivial theory in that region. Finally the $c=b$ case with

533: $H_0=0$ have already be shown in equation (\ref{h1}). It is clear

534: that in the UV limits $K_0$ should not take negative values.

535: 

536: \noindent

537: As seen above these constraints give different relations between

538: numbers of color and flavor. Note that in all the cases studied,

539: if we take $K_0<0$, one can deduce from  equation (\ref{a(t2)})

540: that  $a(t)$ can be made equal to zero for a finite value of $t$,

541: a  situation which should not be allowed. Therefore, we can use only

542: the option  with $K_0\geq0$.  The standard model with three colors

543: and six flavors satisfies the $c>b$ case.

544: 

545: \noindent

546: For $K_0=0$ at the UV limit, the equation (\ref{a(t2)})

547: 

548: \beq a(t)=\frac{u(c-b)^2e_0^2}{2H_0^2(2c-b)}

549: \eta^{-1+\frac{2c}{b}}(t) \rightarrow +0, \eeq

550: shows that  the coupling constant is asymptotically free. Also for

551: a non zero $K_0$, we find in the UV limit

552: 

553: \beq a(t)\rightarrow \frac{(c-b)^2e_0^2K_0}{2H_0^2(2c-b)}. \eeq

554: Then the sign of the $K_0$ is crucial for the stability of the

555: vacuum.

556: 

557: \noindent Although for $K_0 > 0$ we do not violate unitarity, we

558: see that the asymptotic freedom criterion is not satisfied.  The

559: requirement of this criterion fixes $K_0$ at the value zero. In

560: Figure 2, we plot the RG flows in $(a(t),g^2(t))$ plane for

561: different values of $H_0$ higher than zero while the gauge

562: coupling $\alpha(t=0)$ is fixed to $1$. The origin is the limit

563: where $t$ goes to infinity, there both coupling constants approach

564: zero

565: when $K_0=0$. %

566: 

567: \begin{figure}[htb!]

568: \epsfxsize=95mm%

569: \epsffile{g_kare_a.ps}%

570: \caption{Plot of $a(t)$ vs. $g^2(t)$ for different values of $H_0$

571: while $K_0=0.$} \label{g_kare_a} \end{figure}

572: 

573: \section{Conclusion}

574: 

575: Here we write the $SU(N)$ gauge version of the polynomial

576: lagrangian inspired by the G\" ursey model.  In \cite{ho_lu_06} we

577: had found an interacting model, where only the composites take

578: part in scattering processes, if only perturbative calculations

579: are done. Gauging it with a constituent $U(1)$ field resulted in a

580: model which looked like the gHY system,  with all the problems

581: associated with the Landau pole \cite{ho_lu_ta_hepth_06}.  When a

582: $SU(N)$ gauge field is coupled, instead, we find that the

583: renormalization group equations for the three coupling constants

584: indicate that this model is nontrivial. All the coupling constants

585: go to zero asymptotically as the cutoff parameter goes to

586: infinity, exhibiting the behavior dictated by asymptotic freedom.

587: 

588: \noindent

589: In equations (\ref{c1}) and (\ref{c2}) we give the equations for

590: the ratios of the coupling constants and find the fixed points. We

591: see that we can have nontrivial fixed points.

592: 

593: \noindent

594: One can apply the exact renormalization group to our model and

595: obtain the additional vertices as given in our references

596: \cite{ha_ki_ku_na_94} and \cite{ao_mo_su_te_to_99}. This will be

597: pursued in the future.

598: 

599: 

600: \vspace{5mm}\textbf{Acknowledgement}: We thank Ferhat Ta\c sk\i n

601: for many discussions while preparing this manuscript.  This work

602: is supported by the  ITU BAP project no: 31595. The work of M.H.

603: is supported by TUBA, the Academy of Sciences of Turkey. This work

604: is also supported by TUBITAK, the Scientific and Technological

605: Council of Turkey.

606: 

607: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

608: 

609: \bibitem{ba_ki_79} G.A.Baker and J.M.Kincaid, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 42}, 1431 (1979).

610: 

611: \bibitem{ba_ki_81}G.A.Baker and J.M.Kincaid, {\it J.Statistical Phys.} {\bf 24}, 469 (1981).

612: 

613: \bibitem{wi_73} K.G.Wilson, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 7},  2911 (1973).

614: 

615: \bibitem {kl_06} J. R. Klauder, hep-th/0609091.

616: 

617: \bibitem{wi_ko_74} K.G. Wilson and J.B.Kogut, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf12}, 75 (1974).

618: 

619: \bibitem{gi_ja_we_04} H.Gies, J.Jaeckel and C.Wetterich, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf69}, 105008 (2004), hep-ph/0312034.

620: 

621: \bibitem{na_jo_61} Y.Nambu and G.Jona-Lasinio, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 122}, 345 (1961).

622: 

623: \bibitem{mu_87} T.Muta {\it Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics} (World Scientific publishing Co. Singapure, 1987).

624: 

625: \bibitem{mi_93} V.A. Miransky, {\it{Dynamical Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Field Theories}} (World Scientific, 1993).

626: 

627: \bibitem{ko_ko_94} A.Kocic and J.B.Kogut, {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 422}, 593 (1994).

628: 

629: \bibitem {zi_89} J.Zinn-Justin, {\it Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena} (Clarendon-Oxford, 1989).

630: 

631: \bibitem{ha_ki_ku_na_94} M.Harada, Y.Kikukawa, T.Kugo and H.Nakano, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 92}, 1161 (1994).

632: 

633: \bibitem{ao_mo_su_te_to_99} K. Aoki, K. Morikawa, Jun Sumi, H.Terao and M. Tomoyose, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 102}, 1151 (1999), hep-th/9908042.

634: 

635: \bibitem{ao_mo_su_te_to_00} K.I. Aoki, K. Morikawa, J.I. Sumi, H.Terao and M. Tomoyose, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 61} 045008 (2000), hep-th/9908043.

636: 

637: \bibitem{ku_te_99} K.Kubota and H.Terao , {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 102}, 1163 (1999), hep-th/9908062.

638: 

639: \bibitem{ko_ta_ya_93} K.Kondo, M.Tanabashi, K.Yamasaki, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 89}, 1249 (1993), hep-ph/9212208.

640: 

641: \bibitem{po_84} J. Polchinski, {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 231}, 269 (1984).

642: 

643: \bibitem{so_07} H. Sonoda, {\it J. Phys. A:Math. Theor.} {\bf 40}, 5733 (2007), hep-th/0612294.

644: 

645: \bibitem{gu_56} F.G\" ursey, {\it Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 3}, 988 (1956).

646: 

647: \bibitem{ho_lu_06} M.Horta\c{c}su and. B.C. L\"{u}tf\"{u}o\={g}lu, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 21}, 653 (2006), hep-th/0506024.

648: 

649: \bibitem{ho_ta_07} M.Horta\c{c}su and F.Ta\c{s}k\i n, {\it Int.J.Mod.Phys.A.} {\bf 22}, 83 (2007) hep-th/0605217.

650: 

651: \bibitem{ho_lu_ta_hepth_06}  M. Horta\c csu, B.C. L\"utf\"uo\=glu and F.Ta\c sk\i n, hep-th/0611116.

652: 

653: \bibitem{ak_ar_du_ho_ka_pa_82-34} K.G. Akdeniz,M.Ar\i k, M.Durgut, M.Horta\c{c}su, S. Kaptano\={g}lu, N.K.Pak, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 116}, 34 (1982).

654: 

655: \bibitem{ak_ar_du_ho_ka_pa_82-41} K.G.Akdeniz, M.Ar\i k, M.Durgut, M.Horta\c{c}su, S. Kaptano\={g}lu, N.K.Pak, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 116}, 41 (1982).

656: 

657: \bibitem{ak_ar_ho_pa_83} K.G.Akdeniz, M.Ar\i k, M.Horta\c csu, N.K.Pak, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 124}, 79 (1983).

658: 

659: \bibitem{ar_ho_83} M.Ar\i k and M.Horta\c csu, {\it J. of Phys. G} {\bf 9}, L119 (1983).

660: 

661: \bibitem{ar_ho_ka_85}   M.Ar\i k, M.Horta\c csu and J. Kalayc\i, {\it J. Phys. G} {\bf 11}, 1 (1985).

662: 

663: \bibitem{ba_le_lo_86} W.A.Bardeen, C.N. Leung and S.T.Love,  {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 56}, 1230 (1986).

664: 

665: \bibitem{le_lo_ba_86}  C.N.Leung, S.T.Love and W.A. Bardeen, {\it Nucl.  Phys. B}  {\bf273}, 649 (1986).

666: 

667: \bibitem{re_00} M.Reenders, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 62}, 025001 (2000).

668: 

669: \bibitem{re_hepth_99} M.Reenders, hep-th/9906034.

670: 

671: \bibitem{ku_si_zi_89} J.Kubo, K. Sibold and W.Zimmermann, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 220}, 191 (1989).

672: 

673: \bibitem{pe_ro_81} B.Pendleton and G. Ross, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf98}, 291 (1981).

674: 

675: \end{thebibliography}

676: 

677: \end{document}

678: