2
$\begingroup$

I am studying these lectures on effective field theories and I am having some problems to understand how the Non-Relativistic QCD (NRQCD) Lagrangian is constructed.

This theory is often used to describe $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$ mesons. The idea is to decompose the heavy quark spinor $Q$ in a large and small component:

$$Q=e^{-i m_Q t}(\psi+\chi)$$ where $$\psi=e^{i m_Q t}\frac{1+\gamma_0}{2}Q \qquad \rm{and}\qquad \chi=e^{i m_Q t}\frac{1-\gamma_0}{2}Q.$$

Making this substitution, I can show that the QCD Lagrangian is given by

$$\mathcal{L}_{\rm QCD} \ni \bar{Q}(i\gamma_\mu D^\mu-m_Q) Q=\psi^\dagger\left(i{D_0}+\frac{\mathbf{D}}{2 m_Q}\right)\psi + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{m_Q^2}\right),$$ where I have neglected terms of order $1/{m_Q^2}$ and I have used the equation of motion to eliminate the small component $\chi$.

Now, my question:

After these manipulations, the author of arXiv:0308266 adds a second term with exactly the same form, but with a spinor $\zeta$ in the place of $\psi$. In his words, "$\zeta$ is the large component of the anti-quark field" (cf. eq. 75). The same anti-quark field appears later in other interaction terms (cf. eq. 77).

In my opinion, the insertion of an anti-quark field has no sense at all, because quark and anti-quarks are just different excitation of the same field. So, I think we should only keep the term with $\psi$. Where do I get wrong?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is not how anti-particles are treated in quantum field theories in general. Even electrons and positrons are treated as separate. This becomes more apparent in electro-weak theory where the components have manifest asymetries. In general any particle or anti-particle (represented usually as the complex conjugate field) is treated as separate and independent. In the degenerate case of charge-less particles (with any meaning for charge), it means a particle of exactly-same type. $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Jun 1 '14 at 4:41
  • $\begingroup$ Do you agree that we have only one term like $\bar{Q}(i\gamma_\mu D^\mu-m_Q) Q$ in the QCD lagrangian? This term will give the effective lagrangian that I have written. My question is where this new term with $\chi$ comes from? Do we need to put it by hand? Why? $\endgroup$ – Melquíades Jun 1 '14 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ That is what i am saying, that anti-fields are treated as independant. So you add the "small component" $\chi$ by hand also. This is exactly like the original Dirac equation. $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Jun 1 '14 at 12:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NikosM.: While the conjugate fields, say $\bar{\psi}$, are suggestive of antiparticles they are not quite antiparticles, but instead each of $\psi$ and $\bar{\psi}$ contain both an antiparticle and particle piece in them? $\endgroup$ – JeffDror Jun 2 '14 at 19:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ yes true, my comment was off. was thinking the non-relativistic treatment of the Dirac equation for the electron (where both the "large" and "small" components are entered manifestly). you are both right $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Jun 4 '14 at 0:37
4
$\begingroup$

In a relativistic theory quarks and anti-quarks are described by the same four-component spinor field. Once we pass to a non-relativistic EFT these two physical excitations are described by two separate two-component Schroedinger fields. One is obtained by expanding $Q=e^{-im_Qt}(\psi+\chi)$, the other by expanding $Q=e^{im_Qt}(\zeta+\phi)$. Charge conjugation invariance of the original relativistic theory leads to some obvious relations between the couplings of $\psi$ and $\zeta$ (they have opposite charge). The possibility of annihilation implies that there must be higher order terms like $\psi^\dagger\zeta\zeta^\dagger\psi$.

Physically it is pretty clear what we are doing here: Consider a heavy $Q\bar{Q}$ bound state. If the life-time is sufficiently long we can view both the $Q$ and the $\bar{Q}$ as non-relativistic particles. Obviously, the $\bar{Q}$ is not some kind far-off-shell $Q$, but a separate field, just like the $Q$ but with the opposite charge.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Interesting. Is there a way to manifestly write the particle and antiparticle fields as independent degrees of freedom in a Lagrangian? $\endgroup$ – JeffDror Jun 2 '14 at 19:06
  • $\begingroup$ as mentioned in the top cpmments, this is how the Dirac equation (for the electron) is treated in a non-relativistic limit, it uses manifestly both the "large" and "small" component of the spinor $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Jun 3 '14 at 6:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.