# Running Coupling in the SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory

## Abstract

Scenario according to which the SU(2)-gluodynamics is a theory with a nontrivial fixed point is analyzed from the point of view of the modern Monte-Carlo (MC) lattice data. It is found that an assumption of the first order fixed point $`g=g_f`$ of the beta function $`\beta _f(g)`$ has no contradictions with existing MC lattice data. The beta function parameters are found from the requirement of constant values for critical temperature $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ and string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ in MC lattice calculations at $`4/g^22.30`$.

The Monte–Carlo (MC) lattice simulations are one of the main sources of the non-perturbative results in the gauge field theories. For SU(N) gluodynamics on lattices of size $`N_\tau \times N_\sigma ^3`$ MC results are the dimensionless functions of a bare coupling constant $`\beta =2N/g^2`$. The transformation of these functions to physical quantities are done by multiplying them with a lattice spacing $`a`$ in the corresponding powers. The length scale $`L`$ ($`V=L^3`$ is the system volume) and the temperature $`T`$ are given by

$$L=N_\sigma a,T=(N_\tau a)^1.$$
(1)   
The lattices with $`N_\sigma >>N_\tau `$ correspond to the finite temperature models, whereas those with $`N_\sigma N_\tau `$ are identified with zero temperature limit. Requirement $`N_\tau >>1`$ is necessary to avoid lattice artifacts.

The best studied quantities in the MC simulations of pure $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories are the dimensionless string tension $`(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}`$ and the critical coupling $`\beta _c^{MC}`$ of the deconfinement phase transition. The values of $`\beta _c^{MC}`$ were found for the finite lattices and the extrapolation to spatially infinite volume (‘thermodynamic limit’) $`N_\sigma \mathrm{}`$ has been done (see Ref.  and references therein). In what follows we discuss $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics. The MC values of the critical couplings $`\beta _c^{MC}`$ for different $`N_\tau `$ and of $`(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}`$ for different $`\beta `$ are presented in Table I and Table II, respectively. The data are taken from Ref. . To define their physical values one needs a connection between the lattice spacing $`a`$ and the bare coupling constant $`g`$. Such a connection is given in terms of the beta function $`\beta _f(g)`$ through the equation:

$$\beta _f(g)=a\frac{dg}{da}.$$
(2)   
The conventional perturbation theory gives the following expansion of the beta function

$$\beta _f^{AF}(g)=b_0g^3b_1g^5+O(g^7),b_0=\frac{11N}{48\pi ^2},b_1=\frac{34}{3}\left(\frac{N}{16\pi ^2}\right)^2.$$
(3)   
$`N`$ refers to the group $`SU(N)`$. Differential equation (2) with $`\beta _f^{AF}(g)`$ (3) leads to

$$a\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2b_0g^2}\right)(b_0g^2)^{b_1/2b_0^2}R(g^2)$$
(4)   
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ is an integration constant of Eq. (2). Eq. (4) is known as the asymptotic freedom (AF) relation.

Using Eqs. (1) and (4) one can calculate

$$T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}\frac{1}{N_\tau a_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}}=\frac{1}{N_\tau R(g_c^2)}$$
(5)   
and

$$\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}\frac{(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}}{a\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}}=\frac{(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}}{R(g^2)}.$$
(6)   
The values of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ (see also Ref. ) at different $`N_\tau `$ are presented in our Table I and of $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ for different couplings $`\beta `$ in Table II. One observes a rather strong dependence of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ on $`N_\tau `$ and $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ on $`\beta `$. It means that the perturbative AF relation (4) does not work even on the largest available lattices. This fact is known as an absence of the asymptotic scaling. In contrast to the problem with an asymptotic scaling the scaling has been observed for the ratios of different physical quantities calculated from the lattice expectation values. MC data from Tables I and II give for different lattices almost a constant ratio :

$$\left(\frac{T_c}{\sqrt{\sigma }}\right)_{MC}=0.69\pm 0.02$$
(7)   
if MC values for $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ (5) and $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ (6) are calculated at equal coupling constants $`\beta `$ in the region $`\beta 2.30`$. It suggests a possibility of the universal asymptotic scaling violation: it has been proposed in Ref.  that a deviation from the asymptotic scaling can be described by a universal ‘non-perturbative’ (NP) beta function, i.e., $`\beta _f^{NP}(g)`$ is the same for all lattice observables and it does not depend on the lattice size if $`N_\sigma `$ and $`N_\tau `$ are not too small.

The following ansatz was suggested :

$$a\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}=\lambda (g^2)R(g^2),$$
(8)   
where $`R(g^2)`$ is given by Eq. (4) and $`\lambda (g^2)`$ is thought to describe a deviation from the perturbative behaviour. The equation (4) has been expected at $`g0`$ so that an additional constraint, $`\lambda (0)=1`$, has been assumed. The values of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ and $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ can be calculated then as

$$T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}=\frac{1}{N_\tau \lambda (g_c^2)R(g_c^2)},$$
(9)   
$$\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}=\frac{(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}}{\lambda (g^2)R(g^2)}.$$
(10)   
A simple formula for the function $`\lambda (g^2)`$ was suggested :

$$\lambda (g^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{c_3g^6}{2b_0^2}\right).$$
(11)   
Parameter $`c_3`$ in Eq. (11) and a new one, $`T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}=const`$, were considered as free parameters and determined from fitting the MC values of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ (9) at different $`N_\tau `$ to the constant value $`T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$. This procedure gives:

$$T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}=21.45(14),c_3=5.529(63)10^4.$$
(12)   
The numerical values of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ (9) are presented in our Table I. In comparison to $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{AF}`$ one observes much weaker $`N_\tau `$ dependence of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ (9). They become now close to the constant value $`T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ (12). Due to Eq. (7) the constancy of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ (9) guarantees an approximate constancy of the physical string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ (10) with the average value $`\sqrt{\sigma ^{}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}=31.56`$ in the region of coupling constant $`\beta =2.3÷2.8`$ (see Table II).

In spite of the evident phenomenological success of the above procedure of Ref.  the crucial question regarding the validity of the perturbative AF relation (4) at $`g0`$ is not solved and remains just a postulate. Do the existing MC data rule out any other possibility? To answer this question we reanalyze the same MC data using the same strategy as in Ref. . A principal difference of our analysis is that we do not assume the AF relation (4) between $`g`$ and $`a`$ at $`g0`$. Instead of this standard approach we check a quite different scenario with the fixed point (FP) $`g_f`$ of the beta function. Note that the so-called FP field theory models were considered a long time ago . This theoretical possibility has been also discussed in Ref. . It was demonstrated in Ref.  that the precise data on deep inelastic scattering do not eliminate the FP model and other tests would be necessary to distinguish between AF and FP QCD.

Let us assume that the beta function of the SU(2)-gluodynamics has a zero of the first order at some FP $`g_f`$. We thus have in the vicinity of this point

$$\beta _f^{FP}(g)=b(gg_f).$$
(13)   
From Eqs. (2) and (13) we find then

$$a\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}=(gg_f)^{1/b},$$
(14)   
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ being an arbitrary integration constant of differential equation (2). It follows then for the critical temperature

$$T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}=\frac{1}{N_\tau (g_cg_f)^{1/b}}$$
(15)   
and for the string tension

$$\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}=\frac{(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}}{(gg_f)^{1/b}}.$$
(16)   
Our requirement similar to that of Ref.  is to fit $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ (15) for different $`N_\tau `$ to a constant:

$$T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}C_T=const,$$
(17)   
where numerical value of $`C_T`$ is a priori unknown. This requirement leads to the following expression for the critical coupling

$$g_c=(C_TN_\tau )^b+g_f,\beta _c=\frac{4}{[(C_TN_\tau )^b+g_f]^2}.$$
(18)   
In addition we require the constancy of $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ (16) for different $`\beta `$. It introduces another unknown constant

$$\sqrt{\sigma ^{}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}C_\sigma =const$$
(19)   
and leads to the model equation for $`\sqrt{\sigma }a`$ as a function of $`\beta `$:

$$\sqrt{\sigma }a=C_\sigma (gg_f)^{1/b}C_\sigma (2/\sqrt{\beta }g_f)^{1/b}.$$
(20)   
Our fitting procedure for finding beta function parameters $`g_f`$ and $`b`$ as well as the constants $`C_T`$ (17) and $`C_\sigma `$ (19) is to minimize $`\chi ^2`$ defined as

$$\chi ^2=\underset{N_\tau }{}\frac{\left[(\beta _c\beta _c^{MC})\right]^2}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\beta _c^{MC}\right]^2}+\underset{\beta _i}{}\frac{\left[\sqrt{\sigma }a(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}\right]^2}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}\right]^2},$$
(21)   
where $`\beta _c`$ and $`\sqrt{\sigma }a`$ are given by model equations (18) and (20), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta _c^{MC}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}`$ stand for uncertainties of the corresponding MC data. We assume that deviations from the formula (14) are negligible for $`\beta 2.30`$ and use available MC data from Tables I and II satisfying this criterion: in the first sum of Eq. (21) we include MC points $`\beta _c^{MC}`$ from Table I for $`N_\tau =5,6,8,16`$ and the second sum is carried over $`\beta _i=2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.85`$ with corresponding MC values of $`(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}`$ from Table II.

The $`\chi ^2`$ reaches its minimum $`\chi _{min}^2=2.15`$ at

$$g_f=0.563,b=0.111,C_T=3.15,C_\sigma =4.59.$$
(22)   
For the set of parameters (22) the values of $`T_c/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ (15) and $`\sqrt{\sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ are presented in Tables I and II. They are constant within the errors<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>* The errors are induced solely by the uncertainties of the MC data for $`\beta _c^{MC}`$ and $`(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}`$ in each point, and do not include the variance of the fit parameters. for different lattice sizes and different $`\beta `$ values for $`\beta 2.30`$. In Figs. 1 and 2 our fits for $`\beta _c`$ (18) and $`(\sqrt{\sigma }a)`$ (20) (with the same parameter set (22) ) are compared with MC values of $`\beta _c^{MC}`$ and $`(\sqrt{\sigma }a)_{MC}`$ from Tables I and II.

The standard criterion $`\chi ^2<\chi _{min}^2+1`$  defines an confidence region of the model parameters which gives a rather large variance of $`g_f`$, $`b`$, $`C_T`$, $`C_\sigma `$, but with a very strong correlation between them. In Fig. 3 we show the projection of this confidence region to the $`(g_f,b)`$ plane. At the end point A, $`(g_f=0.288,b=0.800)`$, we find $`C_T=0.174`$ and $`C_\sigma =0.253`$. Another end point B, $`(g_f=0.717,b=0.142)`$, corresponds to $`C_T=8.90`$ and $`C_\sigma =12.98`$. Physical observables stay almost unchanged under large variance of the model parameters due to their strong correlations. We find

$$T_c/\sqrt{\sigma }C_T/C_\sigma =0.687\pm 0.005,$$
(23)   
where the error in Eq. (23) caused by the parameter variations is calculated from the variance matrix of the parameters .

From Eq. (8) one can easily reconstruct the NP beta function $`\beta _f^{NP}(g)`$

$$\beta _f^{NP}=\frac{b_0^2g^3}{b_0b_1g^2+3c_3g^8}.$$
(24)   
In Fig. 4 we compare different beta functions discussed in our paper: $`\beta _f^{AF}(g)`$ (3), $`\beta _f^{NP}(g)`$ (24) and $`\beta _f^{FP}(g)`$ (13). It is amazing that $`\beta _f^{NP}(g)`$ with NP corrections (8) of Ref. is very close to our straight line $`\beta _f^{FP}(g)`$ (13) in a rather wide region of the coupling constant. Note also that different numerical values of $`T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{NP}`$ and $`T_c^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^{FP}`$ are caused by a freedom in choosing the form of expression (14) defining the arbitrary integration constant of differential equation (2).

At the present moment there are no SU(2) MC data for the critical temperature and the string tension in the region $`\beta >2.85`$. In the framework of our FP scenario we can predict the values of $`\sqrt{\sigma }a`$ and $`\beta _c`$ for the future MC calculations. They are presented in Tables III and IV. As is seen from Figs. 1 and 2 these numbers can be hardly distinguished from those obtained with NP corrections (8)  to the AF relation. One needs very large values of $`\beta `$ to observe the difference. The principal difference is of course exist: $`\beta _c\mathrm{}`$ for $`N_\tau \mathrm{}`$ in the approach of Ref.  and $`\beta _c4/g_f^2=const`$ for $`N_\tau \mathrm{}`$ in the FP scenario.

It is clear that obtaining MC data for the critical temperature and string tension in the $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory for the region of $`\beta `$ essentially greater than 2.85 would require very large lattices and hardly possible in the nearest future. It seems that these restrictions are not so severe for the finite volume observables in the SU(2) gauge theory. In Ref.  the quantity $`\overline{g}^2(L)`$ defined as the response of the system in hypercube $`L\times L\times L\times L`$ to a constant color-electric background field was studied for $`\beta =2.6÷3.7`$. To check the consistency of our FP scenario with these results we reanalyzed some MC data obtained in Ref. . Namely we use in our analysis the sets of the bare couplings $`\beta `$ tuned to achieve constant values of $`\overline{g}^2(L_j)`$, ($`j=0,2,4,6,8`$) We enumerate $`L_j`$ with successive even numbers to retain the notations of Ref. . for different lattice sizes $`N_\sigma =N_\tau N`$.

From Eq. (14) it follows that the dependence of $`g`$ on $`N`$ at constant $`\overline{g}^2(L_j)`$ is given by

$$g_j(N)=\left(\frac{L_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{FP}}{N}\right)^b+g_f,$$
(25)   
where relation $`a=L/N`$ has been used. In contrast to our previous consideration, the cutoff dependence (lattice artifact) is not negligible in the present case. Following to Ref.  we assume that it is proportional to $`1/N`$. Therefore to fit the data from the Table V we use the following formula

$$\beta _j(N)=\frac{4}{(g_j(N))^2}\frac{C_j}{N},$$
(26)   
where $`C_j`$ is a constant.

In our fit procedure the FP beta function parameters $`g_f`$ and $`b`$ have been fixed at their values (22) found from the previous analysis, and $`L_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{FP}`$ and $`C_j`$ for each column of Table V are chosen to minimize the following expression

$$\chi _j^2=\underset{N}{}\frac{[\beta _j\beta _j^{MC}]^2}{[\mathrm{\Delta }\beta _j^{MC}]^2}.$$
(27)   
The results of the fit are shown in Table VI and in Fig. 5.

For a comparison we have made the similar fit assuming AF behavior of $`g_j(N)`$, i.e. instead of Eq. (25) the value of $`g_j(N)`$ was determined as a solution of the transcendental equation

$$\frac{L_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{AF}}{N}=R\left(g_j^2(N)\right)$$
(28)   
with function $`R`$ defined by Eq. (4). As is seen from Table VI, $`\chi _8^2/\text{dof}`$ is almost two times smaller in the FP scenario then that in AF one. This value correspond to the region $`1.17g1.25`$, where the difference between AF and FP beta-functions becomes large (See Fig. 4). For the rest of the data sets both approaches give nearly the same fit quality. Still, the FP scenario provides a better agreement of the ratios $`L_j/L_8`$ with those of Ref. shown in the last column of Table VI. Therefore, MC data of Ref.  are consistent with FP beta function behavior (13,22). In the region of $`g1`$ we do not observe the difference between AF and FP scenarios: as seen from Fig. 4 $`\beta _f^{AF}`$ and $`\beta _f^{FP}`$ are close to each other in this region of $`g`$. Hopefully additional lattice calculations in the spirit of Ref. at bare coupling $`g<1`$ would allow one to find the true zero of the beta function $`\beta _f(g)`$.

We conclude that available MC lattice data in the SU(2)-gluodynamics do not exclude the possibility of the FP scenario (14). New lattice data are necessary to prove (or disprove) the AF relation (4).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are thankful to A. Bugrij, V. Gusynin, O. Mogilevslky and B. Svetitsky for fruitful discussions.