4.7 Review

The quark-gluon plasma: collective dynamics and hard thermal loops

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00061-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a unified description of the high temperature phase of QCD, the so-called quark-gluon plasma, in a regime where the effective gauge coupling g is sufficiently small to allow for weak coupling calculations. The main focus is the construction of the effective theory for the collective excitations which develop at a typical scale gT, well separated from the typical energy of single particle excitations which is the temperature T. We show that the short wavelength thermal fluctuations, i.e., the plasma particles, provide a source for long wavelength oscillations of average fields which carry the quantum numbers of the plasma constituents, the quarks and the gluons. To leading order in g, the plasma particles obey simple gauge-covariant kinetic equations, whose derivation from the general Dyson-Schwinger equations is outlined. By solving these equations, we effectively integrate out the hard degrees of freedom, and are left with an effective theory for the soft collective excitations. As a by-product, the hard thermal loops emerge naturally in a physically transparent framework. We show that the collective excitations can be described in terms of classical fields, and develop for these a Hamiltonian formalism. This can be used to estimate the effect of the soft thermal fluctuations on the correlation functions. The effect of collisions among the hard particles is also studied. In particular we discuss how the collisions affect the lifetimes of quasiparticle excitations in a regime where the mean free path is comparable with the range of the relevant interactions. Collisions play also a decisive role in the construction of the effective theory for ultrasoft excitations, with momenta similar to g(2) T, a topic which is briefly addressed at the end of this paper. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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