Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,852 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Mathematical proof that $\exp(-1/|g|)$ is always related with formation of bound states through scales?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
44 views

I know that this function ($g$ means coupling) is non-analytical in $g=0$, so this function is only appreciable under non-perturbative calculations, so is a non-perturbative phenomena. This function is present on many critical/cross temperatures like in Kondo problem and Superconductors. This functions happens in QCD, when we fix physical coupling equal one. Is always that: $$ E=E_0\,e^{-\frac{1}{\rho |g|}} $$ or, replacing $|g|$, $g^2$ and $\rho$ is some density of state.

When we perceive (physically) that the perturbative series don't converge (like Dyson argument), we treat our series as assymptotic. If the series diverges as $n!$, we can use Borel summation and come up with some integration over a meromorphic function in $(0,\,\infty)$. After some calculation, the poles of this meromorphic function gives contributions like $e^{-\frac{1}{\rho |g|}}$.

From this site, seems to me that only instanton made this contribution (instanton corrections). But renormalons could give the same contribution (no?). Bound states, nearly-bound states and tunneling mechanisms that connect different nearly-bound states seems to me the reason of the appearance of this terms and the divergence of perturbative calculation. But is very interesting that this corrections added in perturbative calculations are very tiny, exponentially tiny,...a far scale,... the typical scale of the bound state or the width of a tunneling barrier that holds nearly-bound state.

In the physical examples that I gave, the Kondo temperature tells us the size of the cloud around the impurity, the QCD energy gives us the size of the proton, Cooper instability gives the size of the electron-electron pair, a QM double well problem gives the distance of the wells,...so on, so on. Always a formation of bound state through scales. Short distance plus small interactions giving long distance bounded states.

I came with this by physical intuition. Can someone can give a mathematical proof of that?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Nogueira
asked Oct 27, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Nogueira (5 points) [ no revision ]
I can't give a mathematical answer, but the physical answer is completely trivial: whenever something in a model diverges badly or has very difficult convergence problems like in this case that have to be mended, then the model is simply wrong.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user CuriousOne
arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0510142

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Count Iblis

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

1) $\exp(-1/g)$ is not necessarily related to bound states. In the standard QM double well problem it is the splitting, not the binding energy, that is $O(\exp(-1/g))$. In conformal field theories instantons can give $\exp(-1/g)$ effects even though there are no bound states at all.

2) Instantons are one source of $\exp(-1/g)$ effects, but there are others. You already mentioned renormalons in gauge theories. Also, the $\exp(-1/g)$ in BCS or the Kondo problem is not in any obvious way an instanton effect.

3) There is a folklore that $\exp(-1/g)$ is always related to some semi-classical configuration (like the instanton). There is no proof of this. For example, it is not known what classical field corresponds to the renormalon, anlthough there are some recent ideas.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Thomas
answered Nov 1, 2015 by tmschaefer (705 points) [ no revision ]
In the case of double well problems, the splitting is actually resultant of some new vacuum that have large structure in space. If we don't resolve small energy we have a degenerate vacuum, but if we resolve the small energy we can see that the vacuum is actually formed by a small tunneling through the barriers. In the case of Kondo problem, is a big screening cloud around the impurity that is not resolved by high energy (short distance physics) but for exponentially small energy (Kondo temperature), long distance physics is important and the true vacuum make the appearance.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Nogueira
What I'm saying is that this term is related to small structures in energy spectra near the vacuum. Very far the vacuum this term gives small error (in terms of percentage over the value), (instanton corrections?).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Nogueira
I'm giving an up vote ;)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-05-31 07:24 (UTC), posted by SE-user Nogueira

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...