• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Do Gauge Theories (CFTs) Have Phase Transitions as the 't Hooft Coupling is Varied?

+ 14 like - 0 dislike

With an eye toward AdS/CFT, I'm wondering if large $N$ CFTs have a (quantum) phase transition as the 't Hooft coupling is varied. To be more specific -- if I look at correlation functions of low-dimension, single trace operators as a function of $\lambda$, are they analytic, continuous, discontinuous in $\lambda$? How much do we know / any references? I'm already aware of 0811.3001.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Sep 20, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by user200 (70 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10
I can't edit, but making stuff like 0811.3001 hyperlinks would be nice.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I've made it appear.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I'm not sure the question is very well-posed, since most large-N theories aren't going to exist at multiple values of the 't Hooft coupling. (QCD is asymptotically free, for example, so it's always a "small-$\lambda$" theory in this sense.) ${\cal N}=4$ SYM is an example where the gauge coupling is an exactly marginal direction, so it really exists at all $\lambda$. That's the only setting where I think the question is really well-defined, and as far as I'm aware there is no quantum phase transition, just a smooth change as $\lambda$ varies.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@MattReece Can you give some references which analyze the phase-transitions of $\cal{N}=4$ SYM? To start-off I have seen - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0612/0612073v2.pdf, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0303/0303207v1.pdf I would be glad to see something more expository.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 9 like - 0 dislike

The example i know does not use 't Hooft's coupling, but i think it may address your question in a more straightforward way (i'll be "loose" with constants and numerical pre-factors, but will keep all the relevant info and details).

Think of a 0-dimensional scalar field (bosonic $D0$-brane) with a quartic potential à la $V(\phi) = \mu\,\phi^2 + \lambda\,\phi^4$. And, if you allow me some poetic license with polynomials, let me rewrite this potential in the following form: $V_g(\phi) = \phi^2 + g\,\phi^4$, where $g=\lambda/\mu$, and it should be clear that "large $g$" means "strong coupling", while "small $g$" means "weak coupling".

The Partition Function (Feynman Path Integral) for this function is given by,

$$ \mathcal{Z}_g[J] = \int e^{i\, S_g(\phi)}\,e^{i\,J\,\phi}\,\mathrm{d}\phi < \infty\; ; $$ where $S_g[\phi] = V_g(\phi)$ is the Action of the system (where i'm keeping the coupling constant explicit), and the requirement is that the integral converges (so the Partition Function is "well defined" in some sense).

But, there's a differential version of the above, called the Schwinger-Dyson equation, given by,

$$ \frac{\partial S_g(\phi)}{\partial\phi} = 0 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; \mu\,\phi + \lambda\,\phi^3 = 0 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; \phi\,(1 + g\,\phi^2) = 0\;; $$ remembering that $\phi\mapsto\partial_J=\partial/\partial J$, giving us the following:

$$ (\partial_J + g\,\partial_J^3)\,\mathcal{Z}(J) = J\;. $$

From this differential equation you clearly know one thing: there are 3 solutions to the above problem. This implies that each solution admits an integral representation, which is the Partition Function associated with that particular solution.

In fact, each $\mathcal{Z}_g(J)$ is defined within a certain Stokes' wedge, meaning that when you cross a Stokes' line you pick up some non-trivial constant contribution (very much à la wall-crossing phenomena).

Moreover, you can write the solutions to the above in terms of [confluent] hypergeometric functions (or, if you will, in terms of Meijer's G-function, or Fox's H-function) and distinguish its PolyLogarithm contribution, which is related to its singularity (pole) structure, and can be a big deal when talking about perturbation theory.

Anyway, this is just a "crash-core-dump" version of what i believe attacks your question; the point being that $g$ labels your "quantum phases". Note that it's possible to extend the field from scalar-valued to vector-, matrix-, tensor-, and Lie Algebra-valued: all the results mentioned go through with minor modifications (such as tracing appropriate variables, etc).

Hope this helps.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 21, 2011 by Daniel (735 points) [ no revision ]
Just to be clear: When you say "each $Z_g(J)$ is defined within a certain Stokes' wedge", do you mean in the source $J$ or in the (complexified) coupling $g$? Are the multiple solutions connected via $g$ alone, or is it also necessary to change the boundary conditions?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights