text:
# Chiral Extrapolation of Hadronic Observables

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Involving as it does a finite grid of space-time points, lattice QCD  requires numerous extrapolations before one can compare with any measured hadron property. The continuum limit, $`a0`$ (with $`a`$ the lattice spacing), is typically under good control . With improved quark and gluon actions the $`𝒪(a)`$ errors can be eliminated so that the finite–$`a`$ errors are quite small, even at a modest lattice spacing – say 0.1 fm .

In contrast, the infinite volume limit is much more difficult to implement as the volume, and hence the calculation time, scales like $`N^4`$. This limit is also inextricably linked to the third extrapolation, namely the continuation to small quark masses (the “chiral extrapolation”). The reason is, of course, that chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken in QCD, with the pion being a massless Goldstone boson in the chiral limit. As the lattice volume must contain the pion cloud of whatever hadron is under study, one expects that the box size, $`L`$, should be at least $`4m_\pi ^1`$ . At the physical pion mass this is a box 5.6 fm on a side, or a $`56^4`$ lattice with $`a=0.1`$ fm. This is roughly $`2^4`$ times as big as the lattices currently in use.

Because the time for calculations with dynamical fermions (i.e. including quark-anti-quark creation and annihilation in the vacuum) scales as $`m_q^{3.6}`$ , current calculations have been limited to light quark masses 6–10 times larger than the physical ones. With the next generation of supercomputers, around 10 Teraflops, it should be possible to get as low as 2–3 times the physical quark mass, but to actually reach that goal on an acceptable volume will require at least 500 Teraflops. This is 10-20 years away.

Since a major motivation for lattice QCD must be to unambiguously compare the calculations of hadron properties with experiment, this is somewhat disappointing. The only remedy for the next decade at least is to find a way to extrapolate masses, form-factors, and so on, calculated at a range of masses considerably larger than the physical ones, to the chiral limit. In an effort to avoid theoretical bias this has usually been done through low-order polynomial fits as a function of quark mass. Unfortunately, as we discuss in sect. 2, this is incorrect and can yield quite misleading results because of the Goldstone nature of the pion.

Once chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken, as we have known for decades that it must be in QCD and as confirmed in lattice calculations, all hadron properties receive contributions involving Goldstone boson loops. These loops inevitably lead to results that depend on either logarithms or odd powers of the pion mass. The Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, however, implies that $`m_\pi `$ is proportional to the square root of $`m_q`$, so logarithms and odd powers of $`m_\pi `$ are non-analytic in the quark mass , with a branch point at $`m_q=0`$. One simply cannot make a power series expansion about a branch point.

On totally general grounds, one is therefore compelled to incorporate the non-analyticity into any extrapolation procedure. The classical approach to this problem is chiral perturbation theory, an effective field built upon the symmetries of QCD . There is considerable evidence that the scale naturally associated with chiral symmetry breaking in QCD, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$, is of order $`4\pi f_\pi `$, or about 1 GeV. Chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$pt) then leads to an expansion in powers of $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$ and $`p/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$, with $`p`$ a typical momentum scale for the process under consideration. At $`𝒪(p^4)`$, the corresponding effective Lagrangian has only a small number of unknown coefficients which can be determined from experiment. On the other hand, at $`𝒪(p^6)`$ there are more than 100 unknown parameters , far too many to determine phenomenologically.

### 1.1 Convergence of $`\chi `$pt ?

Another complication, not often discussed, is that there is yet another mass scale entering the study of nucleon (and other baryon) structure . This scale is the inverse of the size of the nucleon, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }R^1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is naturally more like a few hundred MeV, rather than a GeV, the natural expansion parameter, $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is of order unity for $`m_\pi 23m_\pi ^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ – the lowest mass scale at which lattice data exists. This is much larger than $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}0.30.4`$, which might have given one some hope for convergence. As it is, the large values of $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at which lattice data exist make any chance of a reliable expansion in traditional (dimensionally-regulated) chiral perturbation theory ($`\chi `$pt) fairly minimal . Even though one has reason to doubt the practical utility of $`\chi `$pt, the lattice data itself does give us some valuable hints as to how the dilemma might be resolved. The key is to realize that, even though the masses may be large, one is actually studying the properties of QCD, not a model. In particular, one can use the behaviour of hadron properties as a function of mass to obtain valuable new insights into hadron structure.

### 1.2 Where the Constituent Quark Picture Might Work

The first thing that stands out, once one views the data as a whole, is just how smoothly every hadron property behaves in the region of large quark mass. In fact, baryon masses behave like $`a+bm_q`$, magnetic moments like $`(c+dm_q)^1`$, charge radii squared like $`(e+fm_q)^1`$ and so on. Thus, if one defined a light “constituent quark mass” as $`MM_0+\stackrel{~}{c}m_q`$ (with $`\stackrel{~}{c}1`$), one would find baryon masses proportional to $`M`$ (times the number of u and d quarks), magnetic moments proportional to $`M^1`$ and so on - just as in the constituent quark picture. There is little or no evidence for the rapid, non-linearity associated with the branch cuts created by Goldstone boson loops. Indeed, there is little evidence for a statistically significant difference between properties calculated in quenched versus full QCD! How can this be?

The natural answer is readily found in the additional scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }R^1`$, mentioned earlier. In QCD (and quenched QCD), Goldstone bosons are emitted and absorbed by large, composite objects built of quarks and gluons. Whenever a composite object emits or absorbs a probe with finite momentum one must have a form-factor which will suppress such processes for momenta greater than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }R^1`$. Indeed, for $`m_\pi >\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we expect Goldstone boson loops to be suppressed as powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_\pi `$, not $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or $`m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\chi \mathrm{SB}}`$). Of course, this does not necessarily mean that one cannot in principle carry through the program of $`\chi `$pt. However, it does mean that there may be considerable correlations between higher order coefficients and that it may be much more efficient to adopt an approach which exploits the physical insight we just explained.

Over the past three years or so we have developed an efficient technique to extrapolate every hadron property which can be calculated on the lattice from the large mass region to the physical quark mass – while preserving the most important non-analytic behaviour of each of those observables. This task is not trivial, in that various observables need different phenomenological treatments. On the other hand, there is a unifying theme. That is, pion loops are rapidly suppressed for pion masses larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`m_\pi >0.40.5`$ GeV). In this region the constituent quark model seems to represent the lattice data extremely well. However, for $`m_\pi `$ below 0.4–0.5 GeV the Goldstone loops lead to rapid, non-analytic variation with $`m_q`$ and it is crucial to preserve the correct leading non-analytic (LNA) and sometimes the next-to-leading non-analytic (NLNA) behaviour of $`\chi `$pt.

In order to guide the construction of an effective, phenomenological extrapolation formula for each hadron property, we have found it extremely valuable to study the behaviour in a particular chiral quark model – the cloudy bag model (CBM) . Built in the early 80’s it combined a simple model for quark confinement (the MIT bag) with a perturbative treatment of the pion cloud necessary to ensure chiral symmetry. The consistency of the perturbative treatment was, not surprisingly in view of our earlier discussion, a consequence of the suppression of high momenta by the finite size of the pion source (in this case the bag). Certainly the bag model, with its sharp, static surface, has its quantitative defects. Yet the model can be solved in closed form and all hadron properties studied carefully over the full range of masses needed in lattice QCD. Provided one works to the appropriate order the CBM preserves the exact LNA and NLNA behaviour of QCD in the low mass region while naturally suppressing the Goldstone boson loops for $`m_\pi >\mathrm{\Lambda }R^1`$. Finally, it actually yields quite a good description of lattice data in the large mass region.

We now summarise the particular situation with respect to the chiral extrapolation of lattice data for some phenomenologically significant baryon properties.

## 2 HADRON MASSES

By far the most extensive and accurate data for hadron properties concerns their masses. At present the dynamical quark data is limited to quark masses a little over 5 times larger than the physical light quark masses, with most of the data at masses at least 10 times larger. One can expect to have data at 2–3 times the physical quark mass within 5 years and hence the crucial issues for chiral extrapolation are:

* a) How accurately can one extract physical hadron masses from current data?
* b) How accurately can one extract physical hadron masses from the next generation of data.
* c) How model dependent are the results?

Until the developments in Adelaide in the last few years, the usual approach to chiral extrapolation was to draw a straight line through the data. That is, taking the nucleon as the classic example:

$$m_N(m_\pi )=c_0+c_2m_\pi ^2.$$
(1)
For pion masses above 1 GeV or so this does not give such a good fit. However, this can be attributed to the fact that $`m_\pi ^2`$ is no longer proportional to $`m_q`$ in this region . We are not concerned with such large quark masses, instead we concentrate on the region $`m_\pi <1`$ GeV. Only recently has data in this region exhibited significant deviation from Eq. (1)  and this led to the more sophisticated extrapolation function:

$$m_N(m_\pi )=c_0+c_2m_\pi ^2+c_3m_\pi ^3,$$
(2)
where the presence of the $`m_\pi ^3`$ term is motivated by chiral symmetry. (In terms of $`m_q`$ this term is non-analytic, being proportional $`m_q^{3/2}`$, and is the LNA term in the formal expansion of the nucleon mass.) Indeed, it is relatively simple to see that $`c_3`$ comes from the pion pole term in the $`\pi `$N self-energy process and hence that it is model independent :

$$c_3c_{\mathrm{LNA}}=\frac{3g_A^2}{32\pi f_\pi ^2},$$
(3)
with $`g_A`$ and $`f_\pi `$ the axial charge of the nucleon and the pion decay constant, respectively, in the chiral limit.

The first empirical indication of serious problems in this approach came with the realization that a fit to lattice data gives $`c_30.76`$ GeV-2, whereas the model independent value given by $`\chi `$pt, Eq.(3), is -5.6 GeV-2 – a factor of 8 larger! This tells us immediately that either there are serious convergence problems with Eq. (2) or lattice QCD is in error. Clearly most readers would opt for the first possibility and so do we.

The formal series for $`m_N`$ about the chiral SU(2) limit is usually written as

$`m_N=m_0+c_2m_\pi ^2+c_{\mathrm{LNA}}m_\pi ^3+c_4m_\pi ^4`$
$`+c_{\mathrm{NLNA}}m_\pi ^4\mathrm{ln}m_\pi +c_5m_\pi ^5+c_6m_\pi ^6+\mathrm{}..`$ (4)
where the next-to-leading non-analytic term, $`m_\pi ^4\mathrm{ln}m_\pi `$, is dominated by the N $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ N loop. However, for any meaningful extrapolation of lattice data in the next decade this expression is essentially useless. It is derived in the limit $`m_\pi <<\mathrm{\Delta }(m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N)`$, whereas the lowest lattice data with dynamical fermions that one can expect in the next decade is perhaps 200-250 MeV – c.f. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=292`$ MeV. In fact, most lattice data will still lie above $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Mathematically the region around $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is dominated by a square root branch cut which starts at $`m_\pi =\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Using dimensional regularization this takes the form :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{6g_A^2}{25\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}}[(\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_\pi ^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }+m_\pi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_\pi ^2})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}(2\mathrm{\Delta }^23m_\pi ^2)\mathrm{ln}m_\pi ],`$ (5)
for $`m_\pi <\mathrm{\Delta }`$, while for $`m_\pi >\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the first logarithm becomes an arctangent. No serious attempt has been made to extend the formal expansion in Eq. (4) to incorporate this cut in an analysis of lattice data and, given the number of parameters to be determined if one works to order $`m_\pi ^6`$, it is not likely that it will be done in the next decade.

Even ignoring the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ cut for a short time, studies of the formal expansion of the N $``$$`\pi `$ N self-energy integral ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{N}\pi }`$, suggest that it has abysmal convergence properties. Using a sharp, ultra-violet cut-off, Wright showed  that the series diverged for $`m_\pi >0.4`$ GeV. If one instead uses a dipole cut-off, which in view of the phenomenological shape of the nucleon’s axial form-factor is much more realistic, it is worse – with the radius of convergence being around 0.25 GeV.

In summary, the lattice data itself, formal studies in the NJL model and phenomenological studies of the nucleon based on long-distance regularization all suggest that the radius of convergence of the formal chiral expansion of the nucleon mass barely touches the lowest data point that we will get from lattice QCD in the next decade. This is not a productive approach to the problem.

### 2.1 The Solution

On the other hand, there is a better way. One can directly use the form :

$$m_N=\alpha +\beta m_\pi ^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{N}\pi }(m_\pi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })+\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }(m_\pi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{B}\pi }`$ is the self-energy arising from a B $`\pi `$ loop (B = N or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are determined by fitting lattice data. For the reasons outlined, it is essential that the self-energies are evaluated using some ultra-violet regulator – a sharp cut-off or a dipole form, for example. Whatever is chosen does not effect the non-analytic structure which is guaranteed correct. The branch points at $`m_\pi `$ equals zero and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are incorporated naturally. While $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ will depend on the regulator, one can easily expand the self-energy terms to order $`m_\pi ^2`$ (or higher) to obtain the chiral coefficients at the appropriate order to compare with effective field theory – e.g. see Ref.  for a full discussion of this issue. The essential point is that studies of the nucleon, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (c.f. Fig. 4 of Leinweber et al. ) and the $`\rho `$ meson  suggest that this procedure will result in little or no model dependence in the extrapolation to the physical pion mass once there is accurate lattice data for $`m_\pi 0.3`$ GeV or less. Physically this is possible because the self-energy loops are rapidly suppressed in the region $`m_\pi >0.4`$ GeV. Thus, an extrapolation based on Eq. (6) allows one to respect all the chiral constraints, keep the number of fitting parameters low and yield essentially model independent results at the physical pion mass. No other approach can do this.

### 2.2 A Possible Connection to QQCD

The study of baryon spectroscopy in quenched lattice QCD (QQCD) has recently made great progress. We have already noted that the lattice data behaves like a constituent quark model for quark masses above 50–60 MeV because Goldstone boson loops are strongly suppressed in this region. This not only provides a very natural explanation of the similarity of quenched and full data in this region but it also suggests a much more ambitious approach to hadron spectra. It suggests that one might remove the small effects of Goldstone boson loops in QQCD (including the $`\eta ^{}`$) and then estimate the hadron masses in full QCD by introducing the Goldstone loops which yield the LNA and NLNA behaviour in full QCD.

As a first test of this idea, Young et al.  recently analysed the MILC data  for the N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, using Eq.(6) for full QCD and the appropriate generalization for QQCD – i.e. using quenched pion couplings as well as the single and double $`\eta ^{}`$ loops . The results were remarkable, with the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ for the N (or the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) obtained in QQCD agreeing within statistical errors with those obtained in full QCD. Certainly this result is somewhat dependent on the shape of the ultra-violet cut-off chosen – although the extent of that is yet to be studied in detail. Nevertheless, given that the study involved the phenomenologically favoured dipole form, it is a remarkable result and merits further investigation.

## 3 ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPERTIES OF HADRONS

Although there is only limited lattice data for hadron charge radii, recent experimental progress in the determination of hyperon charge radii , has led us to examine the extrapolation procedure for extracting charge radii from the lattice simulations. Figure 1 shows the extrapolation of the lattice data for the charge radius of the proton, including the $`\mathrm{ln}m_\pi `$ (LNA) term in a generalised Padé approximant :

$$<r^2>_{\mathrm{ch}}^p=\frac{c_1+\chi \mathrm{ln}\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2+\mu ^2}}{1+c_2m_\pi ^2}.$$
(7)
Here $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are parameters determined by fitting the lattice data in the large mass region ($`m_\pi ^2>0.4`$ GeV2), while $`\mu `$, the scale at which the effects of pion loops are suppressed, is not yet determined by the data but is simply set to 0.5 GeV. The coefficient $`\chi `$ is model independent and determined by chiral perturbation theory. Clearly the agreement with experiment is much better if, as shown, the logarithm required by chiral symmetry is correctly included – rather than simply making a linear extrapolation in the quark mass (or $`m_\pi ^2`$). Full details of the results for all the octet baryons may be found in Ref. .

The situation for baryon magnetic moments is also very interesting. The LNA contribution in this case arises from the diagram where the photon couples to the pion loop. As this involves two pion propagators the expansion of the proton and neutron moments is:

$$\mu ^{p(n)}=\mu _0^{p(n)}\alpha m_\pi +𝒪(m_\pi ^2).$$
(8)
Here $`\mu _0^{p(n)}`$ is the value in the chiral limit and the linear term in $`m_\pi `$ is proportional to $`m_q^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, a branch point at $`m_q=0`$. The coefficient of the LNA term is $`\alpha =4.4\mu _N`$GeV-1. At the physical pion mass this LNA contribution is $`0.6\mu _N`$, which is almost a third of the neutron magnetic moment .

As for the charge radii, the chiral behaviour of $`\mu ^{p(n)}`$ is vital for a correct extrapolation of lattice data. From Fig. 2 we see that one can obtain a very satisfactory fit to some rather old data (which happens to be the best available) using the simple Padé approximant :

$$\mu ^{p(n)}=\frac{\mu _0^{p(n)}}{1\pm \frac{\alpha }{\mu _0^{p(n)}}m_\pi +\beta m_\pi ^2}.$$
(9)
Existing lattice data can only determine two parameters and Eq.(9) has just two free parameters while guaranteeing the correct LNA behaviour (i.e. the correct value of $`\alpha `$) as $`m_\pi 0`$ as well as the correct behaviour of HQET at large $`m_\pi ^2`$. The extrapolated values of $`\mu ^p`$ and $`\mu ^n`$ at the physical pion mass, $`2.85\pm 0.22\mu _N`$ and $`1.90\pm 0.15\mu _N`$ are currently the best estimates from non-perturbative QCD . (Similar results, including NLNA terms in chiral perturbation theory, have been reported recently by Hemmert and Weise .) For the application of similar ideas to other members of the nucleon octet we refer to Ref. , while for the strangeness magnetic moment of the nucleon we refer to Ref. . The last example is another case where there have been tremendous improvements in the experimental capabilities. Specifically, the accurate measurement of parity violation in $`ep`$ scattering  is giving us vital information on hadron structure.

In concluding this section, we note that the observation that chiral corrections are totally suppressed for $`m_\pi `$ above about 0.4 GeV and that the lattice data looks very like a constituent quark picture there suggests a novel approach to modelling hadron structure. It seems that one might avoid many of the complications of the chiral quark models, as well as many of the obvious failures of constituent quark models by building a new constituent quark model with $`u`$ and $`d`$ masses in the region of the strange quark – where SU(3) symmetry should be exact. Comparison with data could then be made after the same sort of chiral extrapolation procedure that has been applied to the lattice data. Initial results obtained by Cloet et al. for the octet baryon magnetic moments using this approach are very promising indeed . We note also the extension to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-baryons, including the NLNA behaviour, reported for the first time in Ref. .

## 4 MOMENTS OF STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS

The moments of the parton distributions measured in lepton-nucleon deep inelastic scattering are related, through the operator product expansion, to the forward nucleon matrix elements of certain local twist-2 operators which can be accessed in lattice simulations . The more recent data, used in the present analysis, are taken from the QCDSF  and MIT  groups and shown in Fig. 3 for the $`n=1`$, 2 and 3 moments of the $`ud`$ difference at NLO in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme.

To compare the lattice results with the experimentally measured moments, one must extrapolate in quark mass from about 50 MeV to the physical value. Naively this is done by assuming that the moments depend linearly on the quark mass. However, as shown in Fig. 3 (long dashed lines), a linear extrapolation of the world lattice data for the $`ud`$ moments typically overestimates the experimental values by 50%. This suggests that important physics is still being omitted from the lattice calculations and their extrapolations.

Here, as for all other hadron properties, a linear extrapolation in $`\overline{m}m_\pi ^2`$ must fail as it omits crucial nonanalytic structure associated with chiral symmetry breaking. The leading nonanalytic (LNA) term for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ distributions in the physical nucleon arises from the single pion loop dressing of the bare nucleon and has been shown  to behave as $`m_\pi ^2\mathrm{log}m_\pi `$. Experience with the chiral behaviour of masses and magnetic moments shows that the LNA terms alone are not sufficient to describe lattice data for $`m_\pi >0.2`$ GeV. Thus, in order to fit the lattice data at larger $`m_\pi `$, while preserving the correct chiral behaviour of moments as $`m_\pi 0`$, a low order, analytic expansion in $`m_\pi ^2`$ is also included in the extrapolation and the moments of $`ud`$ are fitted with the form :

$`x^n_{ud}`$ $`=`$ $`a_n+b_nm_\pi ^2`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`a_nc_{\mathrm{LNA}}m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2+\mu ^2}}\right),`$
where the coefficient, $`c_{\mathrm{LNA}}=(3g_A^2+1)/(4\pi f_\pi )^2`$ . The parameters $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$ are determined by fitting the lattice data. The mass $`\mu `$ determines the scale above which pion loops no longer yield rapid variation and corresponds to the upper limit of the momentum integration if one applies a sharp cut-off in the pion loop integral. Consistent with our earlier discussion of this scale it is taken to be 0.55 GeV. Multi-meson loops and other contributions cannot give rise to LNA behaviour and thus, near the chiral limit, Eq. (10) is the most general form for moments of the PDFs at $`𝒪(m_\pi ^2)`$ which is consistent with chiral symmetry.

We stress that $`\mu `$ is not yet determined by the lattice data and it is indeed possible to consistently fit both the lattice data and the experimental values with $`\mu `$ ranging from 0.4 GeV to 0.7 GeV. This dependence on $`\mu `$ is illustrated in Fig. 3 by the difference between the inner and outer envelopes on the fits. Data at smaller quark masses, ideally $`m_\pi ^2`$ 0.05–0.10 GeV2, are therefore crucial to constrain this parameter in order to perform an accurate extrapolation based solely on lattice data.

Although we do not have sufficient space to explore the matter in detail, we note that once we have a parametrization of the first four moments as a function of pion mass it is possible to study the behaviour of the PDFs as a function of $`x`$ and $`m_\pi `$ . Remarkably, for $`m_\pi >0.5`$ GeV the distribution tends to peak at $`x1/3`$, resembling very much what one would expect in a constituent quark model. This further reinforces the discussion in sect. 1.2 concerning the behaviour of hadron structure within QCD as the light quark mass exceeds 50–60 MeV.

### 4.1 Spin–Dependent Moments

There has been considerable interest in spin-dependent structure functions since the discovery of the spin crisis by EMC. As a result we now have a great deal of experimental information on spin-dependent PDFs . More recently studies of the axial charge of the nucleon within lattice QCD have revealed a surprisingly strong dependence on the volume of the lattice . Of course, interest is not limited to the first moment of the usual PDFs. One can calculate higher moments on the lattice, as well as moments of the transverse structure functions and experiments are also planned to explore the latter.

The analysis of the chiral extrapolation of moments of the unpolarized PDFs in the previous subsection has recently been extended to the polarized sector by Detmold et al. . Years of phenomenological experience suggest that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance might be important for spin-dependent observables. Within the CBM the explicit appearance of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ played a vital role in the convergence of a perturbative expansion of nucleon properties, including its axial charge . Thus it is not surprising that the explicit inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the extrapolation of the spin-dependent moments has a very significant effect. Whereas the rapid variation of the unpolarized moments is unaffected, the inclusion of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ almost totally removes the non-linearity for the polarized moments. While Detmold et al. suggest a new extrapolation formula which accurately approximates the non-analytic behaviour in this case, one could fairly reliably use a linear chiral extrapolation for the spin-dependent moments. For a full discussion of the results we refer to Ref. , simply noting here that with a careful extrapolation of data taken on a relatively large lattice  the agreement between theory and experiment for $`g_A`$ is now quite reasonable: $`g_A(\mathrm{Latt})=1.12\pm 0.05`$ compared with $`g_A(\mathrm{Expt}.)=1.267`$.

## 5 CONCLUSION

At the present time we have a wonderful conjunction of opportunities. Modern accelerator facilities are providing data of unprecedented precision over a tremendous kinematic range at the same time as numerical simulations of lattice QCD are delivering results of impressive accuracy. It is therefore timely to ask how to use these advances to develop a new and deeper understanding of hadron structure and dynamics.

In combination with the very successful techniques for chiral extrapolation, which we have illustrated by just a few examples, lattice QCD will finally yield accurate data on the consequences of non-perturbative QCD. Furthermore, the physical insights obtained from the study of hadron properties as a function of quark mass will guide the development of new quark models and hence a much more realistic picture of hadron structure.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank those colleagues who have contributed to my understanding of the problems discussed here, notably Ian Cloet, Will Detmold, Derek Leinweber, Wally Melnitchouk, Stewart Wright and Ross Young. I would also like to thank Steven Bass and Ross Young for their comments and suggestions on this manuscript. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council and the University of Adelaide.


format: text

text:
# Fluctuations of Fluctuation–Induced “Casimir” Forces

## Abstract

The force experienced by objects embedded in a correlated medium undergoing thermal fluctuations—the so-called fluctuation–induced force—is actually itself a fluctuating quantity. We compute the corresponding probability distribution and show that it is a Gaussian centered on the well-known Casimir force, with a non-universal standard deviation that can be typically as large as the mean force itself. The relevance of these results to the experimental measurement of fluctuation-induced forces is discussed, as well as the influence of the finite temporal resolution of the measuring apparatus.

In 1948, Casimir predicted that two uncharged conducting plates facing each other in vacuum are subject to a long-range universal attraction Casimir . The latter is due to the modification of the quantum electromagnetic fluctuation spectrum due to the boundary conditions imposed by the conducting plates. In the last fifteen years, the concept of Casimir force has been extended to thermally excited elastic forces between objects embedded in a medium with scale-free fluctuations altered by the presence of the objects raminrmp . Soft matter examples comprise inclusions in complex fluids undergoing thermal fluctuations raminrmp , e.g. fluid membranes goulian ; pauljbf  and critical mixtures dietrich , or interfaces bounding complex fluids, e.g., liquid crystals aathese ; ziherl  and superfluids kardarli ; krech . One of the main features of these Casimir interactions is their universality. In a given geometry and at a given temperature, the fluctuation–induced forces depend only on the universality class of the fluctuating medium and on the nature of the imposed boundary conditions (the material’s elastic constants and the coupling strength of the boundaries are irrelevant).

While the development of micro- and nanoscale experiments has allowed precise direct verifications of the original vacuum’s Casimir force lamoreaux ; mohideen , experimental characterization of thermal fluctuation–induced forces in soft-matter has been scarce garcia ; law . The main difficulty with measuring these forces is usually imputed to the presence of stronger background elastic and van der Waals forces. Another important point which has been overlooked, is that the fluctuation-induced force is itself a fluctuating quantity: what is commonly referred to as the “Casimir force” is only its ensemble average. The fluctuating nature of this force should be taken into proper account before their complete characterization can be achieved. Similar consideration hold for the experimental measurement of quantum Casimir forces barton ; lamoreaux ; mohideen , but we focus here only on the classical regime.

In this Letter we fully characterize the fluctuations of these thermally excited elastic forces. Generically, we consider in a space of dimension $`d`$, a fluctuating medium described by a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with an elastic energy density proportional to $`(\stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2`$. For instance, $`\varphi `$ could represent the deviation of the director of a nematic liquid crystal deGennes  from a uniform orientation (in the one-elastic-constant approximation) aathese  or the composition of a mixture at its critical point krech .

We consider two plates of lateral extension $`L`$ separated by a distance $`H`$ (see Fig. 1) that impose $`\varphi =0`$ on their boundary. We show that the fluctuating force is characterized by a Gaussian distribution for $`d>1`$ centered on the usual Casimir force $`Fk_BTL^{d1}/H^d`$. We characterize the corresponding dispersion by the “noise-over-signal ratio,” i.e. the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ of the distribution over the mean $`F`$. By calculating $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ we show that this ratio scales as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F}{F}\left(\frac{H}{L}\right)^{\frac{d1}{2}}\left(\frac{H}{a}\right)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}.$$
(1)
In the above result $`a`$ corresponds to a microscopic length scale at which either the continuum description breaks down or the boundary conditions are not efficiently set by the plates plasma . We also consider the dynamics of the field and the role of the finite temporal resolution $`\tau `$ of a measurement apparatus. If $`\tau _a`$ is the microscopic time-scale associated with the microscopic length $`a`$, we show that the noise to signal ratio is significantly reduced if the apparatus’ resolution induces some additional averaging (i.e. $`\tau >\tau _a`$ ). More precisely, the average is still $`F`$, but the noise to signal ratio now scales as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_\tau }{F_\tau }\left(\frac{H}{L}\right)^{\frac{d1}{2}}\left(\frac{H}{a}\right)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\tau _a}{\tau }}.$$
(2)
The relevance of the above results to experimental situations is discussed at the end of the paper.

We consider an elastic Hamiltonian of the form

$$[\varphi ]=\frac{K}{2}d^d\stackrel{}{R}\left[\stackrel{}{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{R})\right]^2,$$
(3)
with $`\stackrel{}{R}=(x,𝐫)`$, and $`x`$ the coordinate in the direction normal to the plates. We assume that the plates impose Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e., $`\varphi (x=0,𝐫)=\varphi (x=H,𝐫)=0`$. The whole system is in contact with a heat bath imposing the temperature $`T`$. For this minimal model, the free energy $`(H)`$ of the system can be exactly calculated as a function of the interplate distance $`H`$ kardarli . The Casimir force $`F(H)/H`$, i.e. the ensemble average of the fluctuation-induced force, is given by the universal formula

$$F=k_\mathrm{B}TA_d\frac{L^{d1}}{H^d},$$
(4)
where the prefactor $`A_d=\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)\zeta (d)/(4\pi )^{d/2}`$ depends only on the spatial dimension $`d`$.

We shall pursue another route to calculate the Casimir interaction, which yields a clear intuitive picture of the origin of the fluctuation–induced force, and permits evaluation of its fluctuations. We use the stress tensor associated with the field landau : $`T_{ij}=\delta _{ij}(_i\varphi )[/(_j\varphi )]`$, where $`=\frac{1}{2}K(\stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2`$ is the energy density associated with Eq. (3). We first restrict our attention to the effect of the interplate medium on the plate located at $`x=H`$. For a given conformation of the field, the projection $`F^<(H)`$ on the $`x`$-axis of the elastic force exerted on the inner side of this plate is given by the integral of $`T_{xx}`$, which reduces to

$$F^<(H)=\frac{K}{2}d^{d1}𝐫\left[_x\varphi (H,𝐫)\right]^2,$$
(5)
since $`\varphi `$ vanishes all along the plate. Note that this quantity is always positive, therefore the field always pushes on the plate. Fourier transforming the field in the transverse direction: $`\varphi _𝐪(x)=d^{d1}𝐫\varphi (x,𝐫)e^{i𝐪𝐫}`$ yields $`=_𝐪E_𝐪`$ and $`F^<(H)=_𝐪f_𝐪(H)`$ with $`E_𝐪=\frac{1}{2}L^{1d}K𝑑x[\varphi _𝐪(x)(_x^2+q^2)\varphi _𝐪]`$ and $`f_𝐪(H)=\frac{1}{2}L^{1d}K|_x\varphi _𝐪(H)|^2`$. These expressions suggest an interesting picture: each $`E_𝐪`$ can be understood as the energy of a three-dimensional string parameterized by $`[x,\mathrm{Re}(\varphi _𝐪),\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _𝐪)]`$; each of these virtual strings has a line tension proportional to the rigidity $`K`$ of the medium and is confined around the $`x`$-axis by a harmonic potential of stiffness proportional to $`q^2`$. These lines are pinned at $`x=0`$ and $`x=H`$ as a consequence of the Dirichlet boundary conditions (see Fig. 2) and the force they exert on the plate located at $`x=H`$ is precisely $`f_𝐪(H)`$. The total partition function of the medium between the plates is the product $`𝒵=_{|𝐪|<1/a}𝒵_𝐪`$ of those of the independent strings

$$𝒵_𝐪=_{\varphi _𝐪(0)=0}^{\varphi _𝐪(H)=0}𝒟\varphi _𝐪(x)e^{E_𝐪[\varphi _𝐪]/k_\mathrm{B}T},$$
(6)
where $`a^1`$ is the high wavevector cutoff. The number of non-interacting strings describing our system is from simple mode counting:

$$N_a\left(\frac{L}{a}\right)^{d1}.$$
(7)
Determining the distribution of the elementary forces $`f_𝐪(H)`$ is straightforward. Since the free energy associated with the string fields $`\varphi _𝐪`$ is quadratic, the distribution of $`_x\varphi _𝐪(H)`$ is a Gaussian with zero mean and variance $`_x_yG_𝐪(H,H)`$, where $`G_𝐪(x,y)\varphi _𝐪(x)\varphi _𝐪(y)`$ is the two-point correlation function JZJ :

$$G_𝐪(x,y)=L^{d1}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{K}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left[q(Hu)\right]\mathrm{sinh}(qv)}{q\mathrm{sinh}(qH)},$$
(8)
where $`u=\mathrm{max}(x,y)`$ and $`v=\mathrm{min}(x,y)`$. Since the distribution of $`_x\varphi _𝐪`$ is Gaussian, the fluctuating elementary forces follow a $`\chi ^2`$-distribution:

$$𝒫\left[\frac{f_𝐪(H)}{f_𝐪(H)}=f\right]=\frac{\theta (f)}{\sqrt{2\pi f}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{f}{2}\right).$$
(9)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step function, and

$$f_𝐪(H)=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2}\left[\frac{2}{\pi a}q\mathrm{coth}(qH)\right],$$
(10)
The cutoff $`a^1`$ appears in Eq. (10) because of the discontinuity of the derivative of $`G_𝐪(x,y)`$ delta0 , as a manifestation of the importance of the short wavelength fluctuations. From Eq. 8 follows that the elementary forces undergo large fluctuations: their standard deviation, given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_𝐪(H)=\sqrt{2}f_𝐪(H),$$
(11)
compares with their average value.

We can now consider the whole space consisting of three independent subsystems delimited by the plates. The instantaneous force $`F(H)`$ experienced by the plate at $`x=H`$ is the difference between two independent stochastic variables $`F^<(H)F^<(\mathrm{})`$, where $`F^<(\mathrm{})`$ obviously describes the contribution of the outer medium $`x>H`$. Within the string picture $`F(H)=_𝐪[f_𝐪(H)f_𝐪(\mathrm{})]`$ thus appears as the sum of $`N_a`$ independent variables.

Mean Casimir force: From Eq. (10), the mean force $`F`$ experienced by each plate is given by (replacing the discrete sum by an integral and disregarding the cutoff as the integral converges): $`F=\frac{1}{2}k_\mathrm{B}T(L/2\pi )^{d1}d^{d1}𝐪\left[qq\mathrm{coth}(qH)\right]`$, which yields the result quoted in Eq. (4) above. We thus recover the usual expression of the Casimir force, classically obtained by differentiation of the free energy.

The cancellation of the non-universal cutoff contribution in the former sum is easily understood in terms of the strings picture: since a string with label $`𝐪`$ has a correlation length $`q^1`$, the strings with $`qH^1`$ do not feel the presence of the second plate and their average contributions on both sides of the plate cancel exactly. Conversely, the force imbalance for each string with $`q<1/H`$ scales as $`k_\mathrm{B}T/H`$, and there are $`(L/H)^{d1}`$ such strings, the product yielding the scaling form of the Casimir force in Eq. (4).

Distribution of the fluctuation-induced force: The variance of the force, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }F)^2F^2F^2`$, is the sum of the $`2N_a`$ elementary contributions $`(\mathrm{\Delta }f_𝐪)^2`$ from both sides of the plate:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }F)^2=(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2L^{d1}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^{d1}𝐪}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\left\{\left[\frac{2}{\pi a}q\mathrm{coth}\left(qH\right)\right]^2+\left(\frac{2}{\pi a}q\right)^2\right\}},`$ (12)
where the integral must be limited to $`|𝐪|<a^1`$ to be defined. When $`Ha`$, the leading behavior is given by the limit $`H\mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`(\mathrm{\Delta }F)^2(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2L^{d1}_{q<1/a}[(\pi a)^1q]^2q^{d2}𝑑q`$, which yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F\sqrt{N_a}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{a},$$
(13)
where again $`N_a`$ is the number of transverse Fourier modes defined in Eq. (7) above. Contrary to the Casimir (average) force, the variance of the fluctuation–induced force is not universal and is intrinsically related to the physics ruling the interaction between the elastic medium and the immersed plates (through the cutoff). Since the short wavelength fluctuations of the $`q`$ strings are mainly responsible for the force fluctuations, the scaling behavior of Eq. (13) is expected to hold for any macroscopic external object with smooth shape at the scale $`a`$. The force fluctuations also include a subdominant universal part $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}F`$, which can be exactly calculated as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}F=(dA_d)^{1/2}\left(\frac{L}{H}\right)^{\frac{d1}{2}}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{H},$$
(14)
This cutoff independent part of the dispersion originates from the $`N_H=(L/H)^{d1}`$ strings with $`qH^1`$, as in the case of the mean Casimir force.

The $`\sqrt{N_a}`$ factor in Eq. (13) can easily be understood from the central limit theorem applied to the extensive system of $`2N_a`$ non-interacting strings (for $`d>1`$), generating a force with mean and standard deviation of order $`k_\mathrm{B}T/a`$. The central limit theorem holds since for all the strings $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_𝐪(H)/\mathrm{\Delta }F0`$ as $`N_a\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, the distribution $`𝒫_F`$ of the force experienced by the plate at $`x=H`$ is a Gaussian:

$$𝒫_F(F=f)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }F}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(fF\right)^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }F)^2}\right],$$
(15)
with its mean and variance being given by Eqs. (4) and (Fluctuations of Fluctuation–Induced “Casimir” Forces), respectively. Only the average force felt by the macroscopic objects is universal, and the dispersion of the force is essentially controlled by the plates-medium microscopic interactions.

Estimation of the Casimir force dispersion: Assuming that the instantaneous fluctuation-induced force can be measured with a perfect precision, the noise over signal ratio is thus given by Eq. (1), obtained from Eqs. (4) and (13) using $`N_a=(L/a)^{d1}`$. Let us estimate it in a typical experimental situation, e.g., a nematic liquid crystal with a director strongly anchored normal to the plates. In this case, we have $`d=3`$ and $`a1\mathrm{nm}`$. If the typical size of the plates is $`L10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and their separation is $`H100\mathrm{nm}`$, then the amplitude of the fluctuations is a hundred times larger than the mean force $`F1\mathrm{pN}`$. In order to lower the noise over signal ratio to $`1`$, the size of the plates must reach $`1\mathrm{mm}`$!

In all the previous discussions we have implicitly assumed $`d>1`$. It is interesting to notice the singularity of the one dimensional (1D) case. The net force experienced by the plate can no longer be interpreted as the result of a large number of independent contributions. A 1D elastic medium is indeed equivalent to the sole $`q=0`$ string. Consequently the distribution of forces $`F(H)`$ and $`F(\mathrm{})`$ are directly given by Eq. (9) taking the limit $`q0`$. However, even if the distribution is no longer Gaussian, the scaling of the noise over signal ratio in Eq. (1) still holds in the limit $`d1`$.

Measurement of fluctuation–induced forces and temporal resolution: It has just been shown that the equilibrium distribution of fluctuation–induced forces may be extremely broad. Any experimental measurement will however provide a filtered signal which is averaged over the temporal resolution $`\tau `$ of the apparatus. In order to estimate to what extent the fluctuating nature of fluctuation–induced forces may be experimentally revealed, a dynamical description is required. A precise description of the motion of the plates is beyond the scope of this tentative approach. In a simple picture, the measurement apparatus provides a signal $`F_\tau (t)=_{\mathrm{}}^t\chi (tt^{})F(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$. Its response function $`\chi `$ has a typical decay time $`\tau `$ and is causal and normalized $`(_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}\chi (t^{})=1)`$. The limit $`\tau 0`$ would correspond to a perfect apparatus which provides a signal completely described by Eq. (15).

The short wavelength excitations of the strings dominate the fluctuations of the net force as it has been previously shown. When measuring the force, the apparatus averages over $`N_\tau \tau /\tau _a`$ independent processes, in which $`\tau _a`$ is the microscopic correlation time of the fluctuations associated to the modes with wavevector $`a^1`$ in the $`x`$ direction. Consequently, we expect the force dispersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ to be lowered by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{N_\tau }`$, which leads to the result reported above in Eq. (2).

In order to check this analysis, we have studied the simplest case of a local and dissipative dynamics for the $`\varphi _𝐪`$ fields described by the Langevin equations

$$\gamma _t\varphi _𝐪(x,t)=K\left[_x^2q^2\right]\varphi _𝐪(x,t)+\xi _𝐪(x,t),$$
(16)
subject to $`\varphi _𝐪(0,t)=\varphi _𝐪(H,t)=0`$. In the above equation $`\xi _𝐪`$ is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean and correlations chosen so as to insure thermal equilibrium, i.e. $`\xi _𝐪(x,t)\xi _𝐪^{}(x^{},t^{})=2\gamma k_\mathrm{B}T(2\pi )^{d1}\delta ^{d1}(𝐪+𝐪^{})\delta (xx^{})\delta (tt^{})`$. This set of $`N_a`$ equations correspond to the Rouse dynamical equations for the $`N_a`$ pinned elastic stings undergoing thermal fluctuations doiedwards . The linearity of the Langevin equations above \[Eq. (16)\] ensures that the $`\varphi _𝐪`$’s are Gaussian fields, so that it is straightforward to determine the statistical properties of the measured force.

The finite temporal resolution $`\tau `$ does not modify the mean force which remains given by Eq. (4), $`F_\tau =F`$. The dispersion of the measured forces can be expressed as the product of the ideal expressions calculated previously by an attenuation factor:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_\tau =\mathrm{\Delta }F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\tau /\tau _a),$$
(17)
where for this dynamics $`\tau _a`$ is given by $`\tau _a=\gamma a^2/K`$. The asymptotic scaling behavior of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\tau /\tau _a)`$ does not depend on the specific form of the response function $`\chi `$: we have $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(0)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(s)1/\sqrt{s}`$ in the limit $`s1`$. This simple model of a diffusive dynamics thus clearly corroborates the qualitative analysis that lead to Eq. (2) above.

Let us determine the effect of the finite temporal resolution for the experimental example quoted above ($`L=10\mu \mathrm{m}`$, $`H=100\mathrm{nm}`$, $`a=1\mathrm{nm}`$). The order of magnitude of the relaxation time $`\tau _a`$ in an experiment involving a nematic liquid crystals is around $`0.1\mu \mathrm{s}`$ at $`T=300\mathrm{K}`$. Using a measurement device characterized by $`\tau 1\mathrm{ms}`$ such as an optical tweezer tweezer , the noise over signal ratio is lowered from $`100`$ to $`1`$.

Generally, Eq. 2 quantifies to what extend a slow measurement device is best suited for experimental observation of the universal part of fluctuation–induced forces. From the above analysis it also follows that replacing the fluctuation–induced force between small objects by the simple Casimir average when studying their interactions and collective behavior may not be justified if these objects are fast movers.

One of us (RG) would like to acknowledge ESPCI for hospitality during his visit, and support through the Joliot visiting chair.