AG-2024.09-1028·hep-ph·cross-listed: nucl-th
Bound state basics
Authors
- Paul Hoyer
Abstract
Perturbative expansions for atoms in QED are developed around interacting states, typically defined by the Schrödinger equation. Calculations are nevertheless done using the standard Feynman diagram expansion around free states. The classical $-α/r$ potential is then obtained through an infinite sum of ladder diagrams. The complexity of this approach may have contributed to bound states being omitted from QFT textbooks, restricting the field to select experts. The confinement scale 1 fm of QCD must be introduced without changing the Lagrangian. This can be done via a boundary condition on the gauge field, which affects the bound state potential. The absence of confinement in Feynman diagrams may be due to the free field boundary condition. Poincaré invariance is realized dynamically for bound states, i.e., the interactions are frame dependent. Gauge theories have instantaneous interactions, due to gauge fixing at all points of space at the same time. In bound state perturbation theory each order must have exact Poincaré invariance. This is non-trivial even for atoms at lowest order. I summarize a perturbative approach to equal time bound states in QED and QCD, using a Fock expansion in temporal ($A^0=0$) gauge. The longitudinal electric field $E_L$ is instantaneous and need not vanish at spatial infinity for the constituents of color singlet states in QCD. Poincaré covariance determines the boundary condition for $E_L$ up to a universal scale, characterised by the gluon field energy density of the vacuum. A non-vanishing density contributes a linear term to the $q\bar{q}$ potential, while $qqq,\ q\bar{q}g$ and $gg$ color singlet states get analogous confining potentials.
Submitted
9 September 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2409.05660
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.