4.7 Article

Direct determination of the strange and light quark condensates from full lattice QCD

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 87, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034503

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G00059X/1, ST/H00887X/1, ST/J000442/1, ST/K001590/1, ST/H008861/1, ST/K000403/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. STFC [ST/J000442/1, ST/K001590/1, ST/H00887X/1, ST/G00059X/1, ST/H008861/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We determine the strange quark condensate from lattice QCD for the first time and compare its value to that of the light quark and chiral condensates. The results come from a direct calculation of the expectation value of the trace of the quark propagator followed by subtraction of the appropriate perturbative contribution, derived here, to convert the non-normal-ordered m (psi) over bar psi to the (MS) over bar scheme at a fixed scale. This is then a well-defined physical nonperturbative'' condensate that can be used in the operator product expansion of current-current correlators. The perturbative subtraction is calculated through O(alpha(s)) and estimates of higher order terms are included through fitting results at multiple lattice spacing values. The gluon field configurations used are second generation'' ensembles from the MILC collaboration that include 2 + 1 + 1 flavors of sea quarks implemented with the highly improved staggered quark action and including u/d sea quarks down to physical masses. Our results are <(s) over bars >((MS) over bar)(2 GeV) = -(290(15) MeV)(3), <(l) over barl >((MS) over bar)(2 GeV) = -(283(2) MeV)(3), where l is a light quark with mass equal to the average of the u and d quarks. The strange to light quark condensate ratio is 1.08 (16). The light quark condensate is significantly larger than the chiral condensate in line with expectations from chiral analyses. We discuss the implications of these results for other calculations. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034503

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据