# References

April 1999

Some Speculations on the Gauge Coupling   
in the AdS/CFT Approach 

P. Olesen

The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17,

DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

e-mail: polesen@nbi.dk

Abstract

We propose the principle that the scale of the glueball masses in the AdS/CFT approach to QCD should be set by the square root of the string tension. It then turns out that the strong bare coupling runs logarithmically with the ultraviolet cutoff $`T`$ if first order world sheet fluctuations are included. We also point out that in the end, when all corrections are included, one should obtain an equation for the coupling running with $`T`$ which has some similarity with the equation for the strong bare coupling.

The remarkable duality between supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory and type IIB string theory in anti de-Sitter space times a compact space  and its finite temperature generalization to non-supersymmetric gauge theories  have been much discussed. It was pointed out by Gross and Ooguri  that the four dimensional non-supersymmetric theory constructed this way corresponds to four dimensional large $`N`$ QCD only in a limit where the temperature $`T`$ approaches infinity and at the same time the coupling $`\lambda =g_{YM}^2N`$ goes to zero. More precisely, the limits to be taken are 

$$T\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}\lambda \frac{b}{\mathrm{ln}(T/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})}.$$
(1)   
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is a renormalization group invariant, so it should not change by simultaneous changes of $`T`$ and $`\lambda `$. To actually take these limits is not feasible at the moment, since the supergravity approximation breaks down for $`\lambda 0`$.

In the supergravity approximation to the AdS/CFT approach the temperature $`T`$ plays the role of an ultraviolet cutoff, and the coupling $`\lambda _T=g_{YM}^2N\mathrm{}`$ is the bare coupling at the scale $`T`$. The string tension in the saddle point approximation is then proportional to $`\lambda _TT^2`$ . Here the coupling is, however, an arbitrary parameter (as long as it is large), and does not seem run with the scale $`T`$.

This causes a problem  concerning the comparison of the string tension and the glueball masses in the strong coupling limit . In an underlying string picture the glueball masses are expected to be proportional to the square root of the string tension, like in lattice gauge theory even away from the continuum limit, but this is not true here where the glueball masses are proportional to the temperature $`T`$ without any $`\sqrt{\lambda _T}`$ factor. Therefore, in the strong coupling limit the glueball spectrum does not appear to be consistent with an underlying string picture, where the glueballs would come from closed strings, and hence should have masses proportional to the square root of the string tension . Although this situation could certainly be improved as one goes from $`g^2N\mathrm{}`$ to $`g^2N0`$, it is strange that the AdS/CFT approach does not involve a string picture behind the glueballs even in the strong coupling limit.

This problem indicates that the definition of the bare coupling should be reconsidered. In the following we therefore propose the (“renormalization”) principle that the scale of the glueball masses ,

$$\mathrm{glueball}\mathrm{masses}=\mathrm{const}.T(1+O(1/\lambda _T)),$$
(2)   
should be the right string scale, so $`T`$ should be proportional to the square root of the string tension. For consistency of the supergravity calculation around the saddle point, the coupling $`\lambda _T`$ should still go to infinity as $`T\mathrm{}`$. To invoke this “renormalization” condition is clearly not possible in the leading order, since it would require $`\lambda _T`$ to be of order one. However, when fluctuations of the string are included, the string tension acquires logarithmic corrections . The reason for this somewhat unexpected behavior is that two of the transverse bosonic world sheet fields become massive, whereas the remaining six transverse fields remain massless. The massive fields then contribute a logarithmic term to the string tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$,

$$\mathrm{string}\mathrm{tension}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{8\pi }{27}\lambda _TT^24\pi T^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{T^2}{\mu ^2}\left(1+O(1/\lambda _T)\right).$$
(3)   
Here $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary scale introduced to regulate the sum over the modes of the world sheet fluctuations through the heat kernel for a Laplace-type operator $`𝒪`$

$$\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}𝒪=(4\pi ^2\mu ^2/e)^s\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t^{1s}}\mathrm{tr}e^{t𝒪},$$
(4)   
where $`s0`$. The factors multiplying $`\mu `$ have been selected in order to simplify the string tension (3). The tr ln is thus evaluated using analytic regularization, and the scale $`\mu `$ is somewhat similar to the arbitrary scale introduced in dimensional regularization. The two scales $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ are a priori of different origin, since $`T`$ is the scale at which supersymmetry is broken by the boundary conditions, whereas $`\mu `$ is a scale needed to treat the logarithmic behavior of the massive string modes.

The equation for the string tension (3) can be considered as expressing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of $`T`$ and $`\lambda _T`$, but if we have additional information on the string tension, one can equally well consider the equation as giving $`\lambda _T`$ in terms of $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Now, in accordance with the “renormalization” principle stated above, we impose as a boundary condition that the square root of the string tension is proportional to the scale $`T`$ of the glueball masses. Therefore to leading order in the inverse coupling we require

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{string}\mathrm{tension}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }=cT,$$
(5)   
where $`c`$ is some number which in principle can be fixed if one knows enough about the glueball masses for higher spins by fitting the Regge trajectory to these high spins. Hence we get

$$\lambda _T=\frac{27c^2}{8\pi }+27\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\mu }27\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\mu }\mathrm{}\mathrm{for}T\mathrm{}.$$
(6)   
Therefore the coupling does run with the scale, and the bare coupling goes logarithmically to infinity (for $`T\mu `$) when $`T\mathrm{}`$. The scale dependent behavior (6) is thus needed in order that the glueball masses are proportional to the square root of the string tension. This is the main result of this note.

One could ask what should happen in the end, when all calculations are done some time in the future (taking into account that the supergravity approximation must break down for small $`\lambda `$, so corrections to the metric should be included) so that it makes sense to consider also the small coupling. We would then expect that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, being the square root of the string tension, becomes the QCD scale, and hence

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{T^2}e^{2b/\lambda _{YM}(T)},$$
(7)   
where $`\lambda _{YM}(T)b/\mathrm{ln}(T/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the QCD coupling at scale $`T`$. Thus, the right physics is obtained by performing the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$. Then eq. (3) would be replaced by

$$\frac{8\pi }{27}\lambda _T4\pi \mathrm{ln}\frac{T^2}{\mu ^2}+(\frac{1}{\lambda _T},\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\mu })=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{T^2}0\mathrm{for}T\mathrm{}$$
(8)   
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fixed. Here $``$ represents the additional $`1/\lambda _T`$ corrections to the string tension divided by $`T^2`$, coming from higher order expansions of the string action (including the fermions as well corrections to the supergravity approximation) used to compute the fluctuations in the Wilson loop around the saddle point. These corrections depend on powers of the inverse coupling and could also in general depend on the cutoff. In the interpretation of eq. (8) it is important that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is renormalization group invariant, which defines $`\lambda _T`$ as a function of $`T`$ through eq. (8).

In an expansion of the action in orders of fluctuations of the world sheet, in general the higher order terms do not contribute to the linear term (string tension)$`\times L`$, but rather produce terms of order $`1/L`$ or smaller. Thus, in general it is not so easy to get contributions to the function $``$ from the higher order terms. However, if for example the higher order fluctuations produce new mass terms, these can still contribute to the string tension. Such terms should involve masses of order $`1/\lambda _T`$ or lower. Also, corrections to the metric may contribute to the string tension.

Using (8) we then get

$$\lambda _T27\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\mu }\frac{27}{8\pi }(\frac{1}{\lambda _T},\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\mu })\mathrm{for}T\mathrm{}.$$
(9)   
This is an implicit equation for $`\lambda _T`$. Computing more and more terms in $``$ change the functional dependence of $`\lambda _T`$ on $`\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )`$. Then, if everything goes well, eq. (9) should have a solution 

$$\lambda _Tb/\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )\mathrm{for}T\mathrm{},$$
(10)   
approaching zero in this limit.

It should be emphasized that a solution of the type (10) cannot in general be the only solution of (8). For example, if $``$ only contains a finite number of significant terms and does not depend on $`\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )`$, then e.g. a strong, logarithmically divergent coupling is always a solution, because for this particular case $``$ can be ignored for the strong coupling in eq. (8), since for $`\lambda _T\mathrm{}`$ the $`1/\lambda _T`$ dependence of $``$ is insignificant relative to the leading terms on the left hand side of eq. (8). This is valid more generally if $``$ is analytic in $`1/\lambda _T`$, which presumably is equivalent to having no phase transition  in going from strong to weak coupling. In this case eq. (3) is a rudimentary version of eq. (8). Also, if $``$ only has a finite number $`q`$ of significant terms, eq. (8) is a polynomial equation of order $`q`$, and hence can have $`q`$ solutions, some of which may be invalid because they are complex. If there are an infinite number of terms in $``$ the situation is of course quite different. A phase transition may occur so that $``$ is not analytic in $`1/\lambda _T`$.

Actually $``$ does not have to be terribly complicated to produce an answer which looks much like the right one, as the following $`hypothetical`$ example shows. Suppose we obtain

$$=\frac{k}{\lambda _T}$$
(11)   
in a calculation where corrections to the metric are included, so that it makes sense to consider small values of $`\lambda _T`$. Here $`k`$ is a positive constant, and it is assumed further that higher order terms are absent or have very small coefficients and can be ignored. Then from (8) we find that $`\lambda _T`$ satisfies

$$\lambda _T^227\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )\lambda _T+27k/8\pi =O(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/T^2)0,$$
(12)   
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is fixed, so that the right hand side of this equation is sub-logarithmic, of order $`1/T^2`$. Thus we have the two solutions

$$\lambda _T27\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )+O(1/\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu ))\mathrm{and}k/[8\pi \mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )]+O(1/\mathrm{ln}^3(T/\mu )),$$
(13)   
corresponding to a strong coupling<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This is not the same as the bare strong coupling in eq. (6), which was derived in the strong coupling regime where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=cT`$, in contrast to the fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ behavior relevant when all corrections are included. However, the logarithmic divergence of the strong coupling is exactly the same in the two cases. and to the right logarithmically decreasing behavior of the asymptotically free QCD coupling, respectively, provided we identify the so far arbitrary scale $`\mu `$ with the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If $`k=8\pi b`$ we would then get the right answer for the weak coupling. Since there are two solutions for the coupling, we have the option of taking the weak coupling $`\lambda _T`$ as the right solution. Of course, this assumes that the formula (11) really includes corrections such that the metric makes sense even for small $`\lambda _T`$.

This is certainly a fictitious example, and higher order terms in $`1/\lambda _T`$ could play an important role. However, the example shows that the strong$``$ weak coupling transition could happen in a relatively simple way, and it would anyhow be of interest to compute the next $`1/\lambda _T`$ order, since it could give the right functional dependence of the coupling on the logarithm. It would then be interesting to see how far the coefficient of the inverse logarithm is from the right value $`b`$. We do not expect to get the right value of $`b`$, of course, before the problems connected with the break down of the supergravity approximation at small $`\lambda _T`$ have been settled. This would presumably imply that the coefficient $`k`$ does not have the right value $`8\pi b`$, or that there is no $`1/\lambda _T`$ correction ($`k=0`$). Further, it could be that $`k`$ is not really a constant, but depends on the cutoff $`T`$. For example, if $`k=K\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )`$, where $`K`$ is a positive constant, corresponding to $`=K\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )/\lambda _T`$, we would again get the strong coupling limit as in (13) but the other solution would be a constant $`K/8\pi `$. In conclusion, the main points of this paper are:

* Proportionality between the glueball masses and the square root of the string tension requires the bare strong coupling to run with $`T`$. If, in contrast, the coupling is considered as an arbitrary parameter, there is no underlying string picture of the glueballs in the strong coupling limit.
* In the end, when all corrections are included, we get an equation for the coupling which has a number of solutions (if there is no phase transition between weak and strong coupling). One of these solutions is hopefully the right one exhibited in eq. (1), but another one is presumably the running bare strong coupling (6). If there is a phase transition, these two solutions would be on “different branches”.
* There exists a very simple case which exhibits the strong and weak coupling, namely the behavior (11).
* There exists a curious relation between the bare strong coupling and the asymptotically free one, namely

$$\lambda _T27b/\lambda _{YM}+27c^2/8\pi 27b/\lambda _{YM}\mathrm{for}T\mathrm{},$$
(14)   
provided $`\mu `$ is identified with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. This might indicate that the regulator theory (with $`\lambda _T\mathrm{}`$) has a dual relation to QCD, so that the former is a strong coupling version of the latter, and vica versa. Of course, it could also be that this relation is purely accidental.

We end by the remark that the running coupling $`\lambda _T\mathrm{ln}(T/\mu )`$ discussed in this note can be understood as a renormalization needed in strings with extrinsic curvature . It was pointed out in ref.  that when world sheet fluctuations are included, the string in the AdS/CFT approach becomes rigid, and hence it is well known that there are renormalizations . The physical situation in the present case is, however, different from the one discussed in the literature on strings with extrinsic curvature.