Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Commensurate scale relations in quantum chromodynamics

Stanley J. Brodsky

Hung Jung Lu

  • Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309

  • Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

Phys. Rev. D 51, 3652 – Published 1 April, 1995

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3652

Abstract

We use the BLM method to relate perturbatively calculable observables in QCD, including the annihilation ratio Re+e, the heavy quark potential, and radiative corrections to structure function sum rules. The commensurate scale relations connecting the effective charges for observables A and B have the form αA(QA)=αB(QB)(1+rA/BαB/π+...), where the coefficient rA/B is independent of the number of flavors f contributing to coupling constant renormalization. The ratio of scales QA/QB is unique at leading order and guarantees that the observables A and B pass through new quark thresholds at the same physical scale. We also show that the commensurate scales satisfy the renormalization group transitivity rule which ensures that predictions in PQCD are independent of the choice of an intermediate renormalization scheme C. In particular, scaled-fixed predictions can be made without reference to theoretically constructed renormalization schemes such as MS¯. QCD can thus be tested in a new and precise way by checking that the observables track both in their relative normalization and in their commensurate scale dependence. The generalization of the BLM procedure to higher order assigns a different renormalization scale for each order in the perturbative series. The scales are determined by a systematic resummation of running coupling constant effects.

The application of this procedure to relate known physical observables in QCD gives rather simple results. In particular, we find that up to light-by-light-type corrections all terms involving ζ3, ζ5, and π2 in the relation between the annihilation ratio Re+e and the Bjorken sum rule for polarized electroproduction are automatically absorbed into the renomalization scales. The final series has simple coefficients which are independent of color: α^g1(Q)=α^R(Q*)-α^R2(Q**) +α^R3(Q***), where α^=(3CF)/4π)α. The coefficients in the commensurate scale relation can be identified with those obtained in conformally invariant gauge theory. In the conformally invariant limit, this result agrees with a previous analysis by Broadhurst and Kataev, and coincides with Crewther’s relation, which establishes a nontrivial connection between Re+e and the Bjorken sum rule.

References (43)

  1. S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 259, 144 (1991).
  2. L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 560 (1991); ibid. 66, 2416(E) (1991).
  3. L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 309, 157 (1993).
  4. S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 194, 429 (1987); ibid. 212, 238 (1988); S. G. Gorishny, S. A. Larin, and F. V. Tkachov, INR Report No. P 0330, 1984 (unpublished); L. R. Surguladze, INR Report No. P 0643, 1989 (unpublished); S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 40, 329 (1984); L. R. Surguladze, ibid. 50, 604 (1989); S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin and L. R. Surguladze, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5, 2703 (1990); S. G. Gorishny, S. A. Larin, L. R. Surguladze and F. V. Tkachov, Comput. Phys. Comm. 55, 389 (1989). S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin and L. R. Surguladze, Phys. Lett. B 256, 81 (1991); L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, in Beyond the Standard Model 2, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on High Energy Physics, Norman, USA, 1990, edited by K. A. Milton, R. Kantowski, and M. A. Samuel (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 206; S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev, and S. A. Larin, in Standard Models and Beyond: From LEP to VNK and LHC, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Dubna, USSR, 1990, edited by S. Dubnicka, D. Ebert, and A. Sazonov (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 288.
  5. P. Nason, S. Dawson and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B303, 607 (1988); ibid. B327, 49 (1989).
  6. D. T. Barclay, C. J. Maxwell and M. T. Reader, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3480 (1994).
  7. G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. 95B, 70 (1980); ibid. 110B, 501 (1982); Phys. Rev. D 29, 2315 (1984).
  8. P. M. Stevenson, Phys. Lett. 100B, 61 (1981); Phys. Rev. D 23, 2916 (1981) Nucl. Phys. B203, 472 (1982) ibid. B231, 65 (1984).
  9. S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D 28, 228 (1983).
  10. G. Kramer and B. Lampe, Z. Phys. A 339, 189 (1991).
  11. P. N. Burrows and H. Masuda, Z. Phys. C 63, 235 (1994).
  12. S. J. Brodsky and H. J. Lu, Report No. SLAC PUB 6000, 1993 (unpublished).
  13. E. C. G. Stückelberg and A. Peterman, Helv. Phys. Acta 26, 499 (1953); A. Peterman, Phys. Rept. 53, 157 (1979).
  14. M. Gell Mann and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954).
  15. N. N. Bogoliubov and D. V. Shirkov, Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR 103, 391 (1955).
  16. A preliminary report of this work appears in S. J. Brodsky and H. J. Lu, in Quantum Field Theoretical Aspects of High Energy Physics, Proceedings of the workshop, Bad Frankenhausen, Germany, 1993, edited by B. Geyer and E. M. Ilgenfritz (Univ. ZHS, Leipzig, 1993).
  17. J. H. Field, Ann. Phys. 226, 209 (1993).
  18. A. Dhar and V. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2822 (1984).
  19. V. Gupta, D. V. Shirkov and O. V. Tarasov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6, 3381 (1991).
  20. S. J. Brodsky and H. J. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3310 (1993).
  21. G. P. Lepage and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D 48, 2250 (1993).
  22. W. Fischler, Nucl. Phys. A. BilloireB129, 157 (1977), , Phys. Lett. 92B, 343 (1980); W. Buchmuller, G. Grunberg, and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 103 (1980); ibid. 45, 587(E) (1980).
  23. W. K. Wong et al.(in preparation).
  24. G. Grunberg and A. L. Kataev, Phys. Lett. B 279, 352 (1992); G. Grunberg, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2228 (1992); A. Kataev, in QCD and High Energy Hadronic Interactions, Proceedings of the XXVIIth Recontre de Moriond, Les Arcs, France, 1992, edted by J. Tran Than Van (Editions Frontiers, Gif sur Yvette, 1992).
  25. A. L. Kataev, Phys. Lett. B 287, 209 (1992).
  26. K. G. Chetyrkin and O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B 327, 114 (1994).
  27. S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B 320, 159 (1994).
  28. S. A. Larin and J.A.M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B 259, 345 (1991).
  29. J. Ellis and M. Karliner, Phys. Lett. B 313, 131 (1993).
  30. J. Chýla and A. L. Kataev, Phys. Lett. B 297, 385 (1992).
  31. E. V. Shuryak and A. I. Vainshtein, Nucl. Phys. B199, 451 (1982).
  32. V. M. Braun and A. V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B283, 723 (1987).
  33. I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun and A. V. Kolesnichenko, Phys. Lett. B 242, 245 (1990); ibid. 318, 648 (1993).
  34. G. G. Ross and R. G. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B 322, 425 (1994).
  35. S. A. Larin, F. V. Tkachov, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 862 (1991).
  36. D. J. Broadhurst and A. L. Kataev, Phys. Lett. B 315, 179 (1993).
  37. R. J. Crewther, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1421 (1972).
  38. A. H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B 308, 355 (1993).
  39. W. Celmaster and R.J. Gonsalves, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1420 (1979).
  40. W. Celmaster and P. M. Stevenson, Phys. Lett. 125B, 493 (1983).
  41. M. Neubert, CERN Report No. CERN TH.7487/94, 1994 (unpublished), CERN TH. 7524/94, 1994 (unpublished).
  42. M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Report No. UM TH 94 37; P. Ball, M. Beneke, and V. M. Braun, Report No. CERN TH/95 26 (unpublished).
  43. H. J. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 45, 1217 (1992); Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (1992).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation