The Lagrangian one would write down naively for QCD is invariant under CP, which is in agreement with all experiments.

Nevertheless, if we add the term

\begin{equation} \theta \frac{g^2}{32 \pi^2} G_{\mu \nu}^a \tilde{G}^{a, \mu \nu}, \end{equation}

where $\tilde{G}^{a,\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} G^a_{ \rho \sigma}$ is the dual field strength tensor to the Lagrangian, QCD isn't CP invariant anymore. This is known as the strong CP problem

  • Why do we need to consider this term in QCD, and why is it never mentioned in weak- or electromagnetic interactions? (In the literature I was only able to find the nebulous statement that this is because of the topological structure of the QCD ground state)
  • This term isn't invariant under parity transformations, so why isn't there a strong P problem, too?

You are asking four questions, whose answers are routinely provided in textbooks.

  • We consider it in QCD since there is no fundamental reason to exclude it, and topological configurations such as instantons, etc.. might well generate it in an effective low energy theory: the rule of thumb is that anything that is not prohibited has to emerge out of the workings of QFT.

  • In pure EM theory, you can quickly convince yourself it integrates out to a surface term--a total divergence.

  • Electroweak theory already violates P and CP at substantial levels, by dint of chiral couplings and the CKM matrix, so no further ultraweak effects due to such a term would stick out as they do in the strong interactions which lack such. If such effects are (so far) unobservable in QCD, despite sticking out like a sore thumb, they would be resolutely unobservable in the weak interactions, a fortiori. Nevertheless, speculative work, indeed a cottage industry, cf , has entertained the question. Finally, it is not clear the effects of such a topological term cannot be rotated/hidden into the CP-phases of the CKM matrix.

  • Who says there is no P violation in it? The EDM certainly breaks both P and T (~ CP).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ About your second point. I think even in QCD it is a total divergence. @CosmasZachos $\endgroup$
    – SRS
    Jun 14 '18 at 15:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course! It is always a topological term. I offered QED to let you see the point quickly. $\endgroup$ Jun 14 '18 at 15:50

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.