Semiclassical Physics and Confinement

  • John M. Cornwall
Part of the Studies in the Natural Sciences book series (SNS, volume 12)


Let us first consider the status of continuum quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as it was presented here last year.1,2 On one hand, George Tiktopoulos and I found evidence from perturbation theory for exponentiation of infrared singularities of various processes involving colored external particles.1 This exponentiation suggested the vanishing of soft-gluon-emission amplitudes in the limit of zero gluon mass, and led to the appearance of factors of g−1 (g is the coupling constant) in certain integrals related to total cross-sections.Clearly these factors could not be recovered in perturbation theory. There were no real-gluon singularities, so the virtual singularities could act to confine quarks. On the other hand, calculations of various color-blind cross-sections order by order in g showed the usual Bloch-Nordsieck cancellation between real and virtual infrared singularities.2 Both of these alternatives were examined in terms of the bare coupling constant (or a coupling constant renormalized off-shell).


Mass Term Quantum Correction Gluon Propagator Quark Propagator Infrared Singularity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    John M. Cornwall and G. Tiktopoulos, in New Pathways in High Energy Physics II edited by A. Perlmutter, Plenum Press, N.Y., 1976, p. 213.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas Appelquist, ibid., p. 199.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John M. Cornwall, UCLA Report 76/TEP/10, June 1976 (talk given at the US-Japan Seminar on Geometric Models of the Elementary Particles, Osaka).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    John M. Cornwall and G. Tiktopoulos, UCLA preprint 76/TEP/22, November 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Frenkel, R. Meuldermans, I. Mohammad, and J. C. Taylor, Phys. Lett. 64B, 211, (1976), and Oxford preprint 67/76;Google Scholar
  6. J. Frenkel, Phys. Lett. 65B, 383 (1976);Google Scholar
  7. T. Kinoshita and A. Ukawa (unpublished).Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    C. P. Korthals Altes and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. 62B, 320 (1976).Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    P. Cvitanovic, CERN preprint TH. 2231-CERN, September 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Akio Sugamoto, University of Tokyo preprint UT-721, September, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    G. ‘t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Polyakov, JETP Letters 20, 194 (1974).Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    A. Belavin, A. Polyakov, A. Schwartz, and Y. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. 59B, 85 (1975);Google Scholar
  14. G. ‘t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Letters 37, 8 (1976). Note that con fined instantons necessarily have zero topological charge. Actually, it is more reasonable that instantons oscillate, rather than decrease exponentially, because they are solutions in Euclidean space.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B61, 45 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 12.
    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, and V. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D9, 3471 (1974).Google Scholar
  17. A. Chodos, R.L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, and C.B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D10, 2599 (1974).Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Some of the non-leading logarithms can be summed up by a path-ordering process described in Ref. 4. Strictly speaking, the sum of leading Feynman graphs in (2) corresponds to approximating the path integral by substituting straight-line paths in AcQ.Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    But it is not a chimerical or impossible task, in spite of the sentiments expressed a dozen or more years ago about the inconsistency of action-at a-distance theories with canonical Poincaré invariance.Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    For a single free particle going from 0 to x, the first term on the RHS of (3) leads toGoogle Scholar
  21. 16.
    For d = 2 QCD this was done with my long-time collaborator, George Tiktopoulos.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    Later I discovered that this solution is due to A. Schild, Phys. Rev. 131, 2762 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    G. ‘t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B75, 461 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 19.
    John M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D10, 500 (1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Cornwall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations