Jets and QCD

  • C. H. Llewellyn Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Acta Physica Austriaca book series (FEWBODY, volume 19/1978)


We identify and sum the diagrams which dominate deep inelastic scattering in QCD (thus reproducing the results of the renormalization group/operator product analysis). The dominant diagrams are generalized ladders when the produced gluons are required to have physical (transverse) polarizations. The final states corresponding to these diagrams consist of two jets. We justify the use of QCD perturbation theory to calculate subdominant three jet contributions. The same technique applies to e+e- annihilation and suggests that it may be possible to describe pp → µ+µ-x and the production of jets of particles at large pT in hadronic collisions using QCD perturbation theory.


Gauge Theory Ward Identity Operator Product Expansion Deep Inelastic Scattering Gluon Distribution 
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.
    For reviews see W. Marciano and H. Pages,Physics Reports 36C, No. 3, at this meeting. 1978 and H. Fritzsch, lecturesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    For a review see O Nachtmann in Proc.1977 International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For recent tests of sum rules and an analysis of scaling violations see Oxford Nuclear Physics Dept. Preprint 16/78 “Analysis of Nucleon Structure Func¬tions in CERN Bubble Chamber Neutrino Experiments” (ABCLOS Collaboration P.C. Bosetti et al.).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Nambu in Preludes in Theoretical Physics, ed. A. De-Shalit, H. Fesbach and L. Van Hove, North Holland, 1966 and H.J. Lipkin, Physics Letters 45B, 267, 1973. It is well known that vector exchange is attractive (repulsive) for QQ(QQ); with an SU(3) colour group QQ ~ 3 ⊗ 3 = 3 ⊕ 6 and can behave like a Q ~ 3 and attract a third quark.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See, for example, N. Isgur and G. Karl, Toronto preprint “P Wave Baryons in the Quark Model”, Phys. Rev. D., to be published.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For an introduction see C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Oxford Preprint 2/78, to be published by Plenum Press in Proc. 1977 Cargèse Summer Institute.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Einhorn, Phys. Rev. D14, 3451, 1976.ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. For a review see J. Ellis in Proc. 1977 Zakopane School, to be published in Acta Physica Polonica.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    J.S. Bell CERN TH 2291, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    S.J. Chang and P.M. Fishbane, Phys.Rev. D2, 1084, 1970.ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov Soy. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438, 1972 and 15, 675, 1972.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    A.M. Polyakov, Soy. Phys. JETP 32, 296, 1971.ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 12.
    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D9, 697, 1974 and D9, 3391, 1974.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 13.
    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi Nucl. Phys. B126, 298, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    A.V. Efremov and A.V. Radyushkin, Dubna preprint E2–10307, 1976.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    J.C. Polkinghorne, Nucl. Phys. B128, 537, 1977.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 16.
    I. Halliday, Nucl. Phys. B103 (1976) 343.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    C.T. Sachrajda, Phys. Lett. 73B (1978) 185.ADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    H.D. Politzer, Nucl. Phys. B129 (1977) 301.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    J. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard and G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. Bll (1976) 253.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    H.D. Politzer, Phys. Lett. 70B (1977) 430.ADSGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    G. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1436.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    C.T. Sachrajada CERN TH 2459, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    K.H. Craig and C.H. Llewellyn Smith,Phys.Lett. 72B (1977) 349.ADSGoogle Scholar
  25. 24.
    A.B. Carter and C.H. Llewellyn Smith (in preparation).Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    The discussion in this section is only supposed to be heuristic. For an introduction to renormalization and the renormalization group equations see, e.g., the lectures by C.G. Callan and D.J. Gross in “Methods in Field Theory”,ed. R. Balian and J. Zinn-Justin, North Holland, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    In gauge theories it is also necessary to change the gauge if the Green functions are not to change. This introduces an extra term (g,α)∂/∂αГ in the renormalization group equations. This term is zero if Г is a gauge invariant quantity. In general it cannot be ignored but it turns out that δ = 0 in Landau gauge which is therefore commonly used.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    For a discussion of the justification of this assumption for the case of 6(e+e → hadrons) see R.G. Moorehouse, M.R. Pennington and G.G. Ross,Nucl. Phys. B124 (1977) 285 and references therein.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Equivalently we may say that we are looking for powers of log (Q2/m2) and must therefore identify all contributions which diverge as m → O (these divergences occur as t, t’ etc.→ O).Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    This procedure is correct in Feynman gauge. This re¬sult in a general covariant gauge is described later.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    This is the standard trick used to demonstrate the equivalence of Feynman and Coulomb gauges. See Bjorken and Drell, Vol. II, § 17.9. If we had chosen to sum over the polarizations of produced gluons using Σ εµεν = −gµν (as in ref.10) we could have used it to sum up leading logs from crossed ladders.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    We have changed variables to z = 1 - y in this expression to make later expressions more symmetrical between the contributions of real and virtual gluons. The exact expression is actually only infra-red divergent as y → 1 if p2 = m2. However, the spurious singularity we have introduced by making approximations gets cancelled out later (all expressions are imagined to have some regulator, to keep them i.r. finite, which can be removed at the end).Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    It might seem that the part of Gµν proportional to (1 − α) would not produce i.r. logs since Gµν is orthogonal to kµ. However, contributions from the vertex where the “parallel gluon” is emitted which vanish in the parallel configuration (and therefore do not produce logs in Feynman gauge) can give rise to logs in Landau gauge due to the extra singularity in the gluon propagator. The net result is that again the gluon brings in kν at the vertex where it lands (albeit multiplied by a different function of z than in Feynman gauge). Note that whatever gauge we use for the virtual gluons we only sum over the trans verse polarizations for real gluons (we could treat real and virtual gluons symmetrically by using Coulomb gauge but this introduces a dependence on an arbitrary time like vector; this makes, e.g., propagators depend on two Lorentz scalars which makes the use of the RGE difficult).Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Some care is needed in making this argument (which is simplest in Landau gauge but works for all α). Similar arguments work for the contributions to the singlet case in which the sides of the bare ladders can be made of gluons.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    This is true in gauges in which α < 13/3 −4Nf/9 .Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Crossed ladders now contribute \( {{\left[ \frac{1}{t}\int\limits_{{}}^{t}{\frac{d{t}'}{\sqrt{{t}'In{t}'}}} \right]}^{2}}\ \tilde{\ }\frac{1}{Int} \) where uncrossed ladders give \(_\smallint ^t\frac{{dt'}}{{t'lnt'}} \sim \ln (\ln t).\) Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Note that diagrams like are included in The evaluation of the gluon contribution C is a little more tricky since the diagrams can start with orGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    The operator productaexpansion contains covariant derivatives i∂ + gλa /2 Aµ a . The contribution of the Aµ’ s corresponds to that of gluons which give rise to the i.r. logs, which connect the “soft” and “hard” parts of the diagram before we lump them into a single effective diagram.Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    S.D. Drell and T.M. Yan, Phys.Rev.Lett. 24 (1970) 855 and Ann. of Phys. 66 (1971) 578.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    J. Kogut, Phys. Lett. 65B (1976) 377.ADSGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    I. Hinchliffe and C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Lett. 66B (1971) 281.ADSGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    J.C. Polkinghorne, Nucl. Phys. B116 (1976) 347.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    J. Frenkel, M.J. Shailer and J.C. Taylor, Oxford Preprint 25/78.Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    J.L. Cardy and G.B. Winbow, Phys.Lett. 52B (1974) 95.ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    It is very encouraging that the Drell-Yan formula works in two-dimensional QCD - a model with exact confinement. J. Kripfganz and M.G. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B125 (1977) 323.Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    For a review see L.M. Lederman, lectures delivered at the 1977 Cargése Summer School, to be published by Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  47. For more recent data see D.M.Kaplan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 435.Google Scholar
  48. 46.
    In leading order, g(s) and g(Q2) are the same but phenomenologically it makes a great difference which we use. I agree with Politzer (ref. 18) that g(Q2) is probably the right choice. In summing ladders by taking x moments at fixed Q2 (or τ = Q2/s moments in the case of Drell-Yan - see, e.g., refs. 18 or 23), we kept in the deep inelastic region for all x. At fixed s, the moments would have run down to Q2=0, where our analysis is not valid. The theory there-fore leads naturally to g(Q2).Google Scholar
  49. 47.
    A. De Rujula, J. Ellis and M.K. Gaillard, CERN TH 2455, 1978.Google Scholar
  50. 48.
    E.G. Floratos, Nuovo Cimento 43A, 241, 1977.ADSGoogle Scholar
  51. 49.
    H. Georgi and H.D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40(1978)3.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 50.
    A. Mendez, Oxford Preprint 29/78. Similar work has been done independently by J.Cleymans, Bielefeld preprint BI-TP 78/O2.Google Scholar
  53. 51.
    C.H. Llewellyn Smith and S. Wolfram (unpublished) and some of the papers in ref.53.Google Scholar
  54. 52.
    C.H. Llewellyn Smith and S. Wolfram, Oxford Preprint 6/78, Nucl. Phys. B, in press.Google Scholar
  55. 53.
    K.Kajantie and R.Raitio, Helsinki preprint HU-TFT-77–21.Google Scholar
  56. K. Kajantie, J. Lindfors and R.Raitio, Phys. Lett. 74B, 384.Google Scholar
  57. H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. 73B (1978) 80.ADSGoogle Scholar
  58. G. Altarelli, G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, CERN TH 2413, 1977 and TH 2450, 1978.Google Scholar
  59. F. Halzen and D.M. Scott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 1117ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Madison preprint COO-881–21, 1978.Google Scholar
  61. C.Michael and T. Weiler, Liverpool preprint, 1978.Google Scholar
  62. E.L. Berger, Argonne preprint ANL-HEP-PR-78–18.Google Scholar
  63. 54.
    This was first proposed by R.F. Cahalan, K.A. Geer, J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. Dll (1975) 1199.Google Scholar
  64. For more recent and optimistic analyses see R.F.Cutler and D.Sivers, Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 196Google Scholar
  65. C.G. Fox, Caltech preprint CALT-68–643 and references therein.Google Scholar
  66. 55.
    Y.P. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 (1976) 653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. L. Tyburski, Nucl. Phys. B116 (1976) 291.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 56.
    A. Mendez and A. Raychaudhuri are currently carrying out further calculations.Google Scholar
  69. 57.
    S.J. Brodsky, J.F. Gunion and R.L. Jaffe, Phys.Rev.D6 (1972) 2487.ADSGoogle Scholar
  70. 58.
    C.H. Llewellyn Smith (in preparation).Google Scholar
  71. 59.
    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B120 (1977) 189.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 60.
    This is being investigated by J. Gunion and W. Frazer (private communication).Google Scholar
  73. 61.
    G.R. Farrar and B.L. Ioffe, ITEP preprint ITEP-103, 1977.Google Scholar
  74. 62.
    G. Sterman, Stony Brook preprints ITP-77–69, ITP-77–72 and ITP-77–77;Google Scholar
  75. G. Altarelli and G. Martinelli, Rome preprint “Transverse Momentum of Jets in Electro production and QCD”, 1978.Google Scholar
  76. L. Baulieu and C. Kounnas, Ecole Normale Preprint LPT ENS 78/4. R. Meuldermans, CERN TH 2446, 1978.Google Scholar
  77. H. Georgi and H.D. Politzer, Harvard preprint HUTP 77/A071.Google Scholar
  78. H. Georgi, Harvard preprints HUTP 77/A090 and HUTP 78/A003.Google Scholar
  79. W.J. Stirling DAMPT preprint 78/11 and 78/14.Google Scholar
  80. D. Amati, R. Petronzio and G. Veneziano, CERN TH 2470, 1978.Google Scholar
  81. J. Abad and B. Humpert, Wisconsin preprints COO–881–27, COO–881–30 and COO–881–31, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. H. Llewellyn Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Theoretical PhysicsUniversity of OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations