- Access by Xinjiang University
Gell-Mann–Low equation: Relation between the vacuum polarization coefficients up to the eighth order
Phys. Rev. D 60, 025006 – Published 23 June, 1999
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.60.025006
Abstract
Gorishny, Kataev, Larin, and Surguladze have obtained the fourth-order Gell-Mann–Low function and the Callan-Symanzik function In earlier papers, we used their result to establish relationships between the fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-order vacuum polarization coefficients and and the fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-order Gell-Mann–Low functions and In this paper, we summarize the results of the previous papers and extend the calculations to include the relationship between the eighth-order and using the Gell-Mann–Low equation and other relations for the Gell-Mann–Low function.
References (14)
- S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin, and L. R. Surguladze, in Quark 90, Proceedings of the International Seminar, Telavi, Georgia, U.S.S.R., edited by V. A. Matveev, V. A. Rubakov, A. N. Tavkhelidze, and P. G. Tinyakov (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), pp. 194–206; Phys. Lett. B 256, 81 (1991).
- L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 560 (1991); M. A. Samuel and L. R. Surguladze, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1602 (1991).
- B. P. Nigam and R. Acharya, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1726 (1993).
- M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954).
- D. J. Broadhurst, A. L. Kataev, and V. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B 298, 445 (1993).
- B. P. Nigam, Phys. Rev. D 50, 5446 (1994); J. Phys. G 20, L95 (1994).
- B. P. Nigam and R. Acharya, J. Phys. G 19, L95 (1993).
- R. Acharya and B. P. Nigam, J. Phys. G 18, L135 (1992).
- B. P. Nigam, Nuovo Cimento A 109, 479 (1996); Phys. Rev. D 54, 5377 (1996).
- B. P. Nigam, Phys. Rev. D 56, 8115 (1997).
- C. Callan, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1541 (1970); K. Symanzik, Commun. Math. Phys. 18, 227 (1970); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 118, 838 (1960).
- E. DeRafael and J. Rosner, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 82, 369 (1974); ibid.J. Rosner, 44, 11 (1967).
- B. P. Nigam, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4698 (1996). In Ref. [6], is incorrectly printed with the opposite sign, and in the first term is incorrectly printed with the opposite sign.
- S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D 5, 302 (1972).