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
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Theta-vacuum in the gauge field theory

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
142 views

Consider Yang-Mills theory (with possible including of fermions). It has a set $\{|n\rangle\}$ of vavua labeled by integer winding number $n$, defined as the Maurer-Cartan topological invariant: For the gauge element $g_{(n)}$ and corresponding unitary large gauge transformation $U(g_{(n)})$ we have
$$
|n\rangle = U(g_{(n)})|0\rangle, \quad n = \frac{i}{24\pi^{2}}\int \limits_{S^{3}} d^{3}\theta \epsilon^{ijk}\text{tr}\big[ g_{(n)}\partial_{i}g_{(n)}^{-1}g_{(n)}\partial_{k}g_{(n)}^{-1}g\partial_{k}g_{(n)}^{-1}\big]
$$
What is the most theory-independent argument that shows that the vacuum structure of the non-abelian gauge theory must correspond to the $\theta$-vacuum state
$$
|\theta\rangle = \sum_{n = -\infty}^{\infty}e^{in\theta}|n\rangle?
$$

Examples of arguments which are not complete as for me

Argument 1

Consider pure YM theory (without fermions). In order to argue why we have to use the $\theta$-vacuum as the ground state, people derive that the Hamiltonian $H$ is non-diagonal in the basis $\{|n\rangle\}$:
$$
\langle n|H|m\rangle \simeq e^{-\frac{8\pi^{2}}{g^{2}}|n - m|}
$$
alternatively, it is shown that vacuum **tunneling** is possible. This requires us to diagonalize the hamiltonian, and the $\theta$-vacuum basis is the diagonal basis.

Argument 2

The first argument, however, is valid only for pure Yang-Mills theory and breaks down when massless fermions are included, since massless fermions suppress the tunneling. People then use an argument based on the **cluster decomposition principle** (or CDP). A  detailed argument is shown here. People introduce the conserved operator
$$
\tilde{Q}_{5} =\int d^{3}\mathbf r (J_{0,5} - 2K_{0}) ,
$$
where $K_{0}$ is defined as
$$
G_{\mu\nu,a}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}_{a} = 2\partial_{\mu}K^{\mu}.
$$
By using this charge, one shows that the VEV of non-zero 2c chirality operator $B(\mathbf x)$ (i.e., $[\tilde{Q}_{5}, \mathbf B(\mathbf x)] = 2c \mathbf B(\mathbf x)$) show that the VEV
$$
\langle n| B(\mathbf x)B^{\dagger}(0)|n\rangle
$$
doesn't satisfy the CDP
$$
\lim_{|\mathbf x| \to \infty}\langle n| B(\mathbf x)B^{\dagger}(0)|n\rangle = \lim_{|\mathbf x| \to \infty}\langle n|B(\mathbf x)|n\rangle \langle n|B(0)|n\rangle
$$
The $\theta$-vacuum is the solution of this problem.

But  the details of this argument depend on the presence of fermions. More specifically, we introduce chirality and operates with the chirality operator $\tilde{Q}_{5}$.

What do I want?

I want some argument (possibly purely mathematical) which shows that we must choose the $\theta$-vacuum as the ground state of the YM theory (if it exists) independently of the precise content of the theory's fields (independent on the fact whether massless fermions are present).

Could You help?

asked Jan 22 in Theoretical Physics by NAME_XXX (1,010 points) [ revision history ]

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:
$\varnothing\hbar$ysicsOverflow
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
...