Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Equivalence of the four-point interaction and the Yukawa interaction. II. A fermion model

Xerxes Tata, E. C. G. Sudarshan, C. B. Chiu, and C. C. Chiang*

  • Center for Particle Theory, Department of Physics, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712

  • *On leave from the Institute of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Phys. Rev. D 26, 2114 – Published 15 October, 1982

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.26.2114

Abstract

It is explicitly demonstrated that, just as in the case of the four-point bosonic interaction, the compositeness conditions by themselves do not ensure a complete equivalence of the Yukawa interaction with the corresponding four-fermion interaction. We study the corresponding situation in the context of the Lee model versus the separable-potential model, with the N and θ fields quantized as fermions and V as a boson. We find that the spectrum of the Lee model consists of that of the separable potential together with some other contributions. It is shown that in the limit in which the bare coupling constant of the Yukawa theory becomes infinite, these additional contributions move to infinity. It is further shown that the finite-energy wave functions calculated from the two theories coincide in the strong-coupling limit (this limit ensures the compositeness condition). It is demonstrated, in the same manner as for the bosonic case, that in order to make the two theories essentially identical, in addition to taking the strong-coupling limit, all the spectral contributions at infinity in the Yukawa theory have to be removed. It is, thus, suggested that the proofs of equivalence of the four-fermion interaction and the Yukawatype interaction may need to be reexamined.

See Also

Equivalence of the four-point interaction and the Yukawa interaction. I. A boson model

C. C. Chiang, C. B. Chiu, E. C. G. Sudarshan, and Xerxes Tata
Phys. Rev. D 26, 2092 (1982)

References (11)

  1. J. C. Houard and B. Jouvet, Nuovo Cimento 18, 466 (1960) Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)
  2. J. D. Bjorken, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 174 (1963) G. S. Guralnik, Phys. Rev. 136, B1414 (1964) I. Białynicki-Birula, ibid. 130, 465 (1963)
  3. K. Kikkawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 56, 947 (1976) T. Eguchi, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2755 (1976) ibid.17, 611 (1978) H. Terazawa et al., ibid. 15, 480 (1977) T. Saito and K. Shigemoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 57, 242 (1977) ibid.57, 643 (1977) G. Gajasekaran and V. Srinivasan, Pramāna 10, 33 (1978) F. Cooper et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1620 (1978) G. Konisi and W. Takahasi, Phys. Rev. D 23, 380 (1981) H. P. Dürr and H. Saller, ibid. 22, 1176 (1980) K. Shizuya, ibid. 21, 2327 (1981) J. Lemmon and K. T. Mahanthappa, ibid. 13, 2907 (1976)
  4. D. Lurié and A. J. Macfarlane, Phys. Rev. 136, B816 (1964)
  5. (a) C. C. Chiang, C. B. Chiu, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Lett. 103B, 371 (1981) (b) C. C. Chiang, C. B. Chiu, E. C. G. Sudarshan, and X. Tata, preceding paper, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2092 (1982)
  6. T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. 95, 1329 (1954) K. D. Friedrichs, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1, 361 (1948) G. Källén and W. Pauli, Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. 30, No. 7 (1955)
  7. Omitted endnote

  8. M. Bolsterli, Phys. Rev. 166, 1760 (1968) C. A. Nelson, J. Math. Phys. 13, 1051 (1972)
  9. [5]
  10. Omitted endnote

  11. T. Eguchi, [3]

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation