text:
# The Running Coulomb Potential and Lamb Shift in QCD

## I Introduction

In this paper, we construct the three-loop anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential in non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) . The formalism we use was developed in Refs.  and will be referred to as vNRQCD, an effective theory for heavy non-relativistic quark-antiquark pairs. Part of our computation is related to the running of the static potential , however effects associated with motion of the quarks do play an important role. Our final result for the Coulomb potential differs from the static potential at terms beyond those with a single logarithm (i.e. starting at four loops). Combining our Coulomb potential running with previous results for the running of the $`1/m`$ and $`1/m^2`$ potentials  allows us to compute the next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) corrections in the perturbative energy of a heavy $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound state, which includes the sum of terms $`m\alpha _s^4(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)^k`$, $`k0`$, where $`m`$ is the heavy quark pole mass. This contribution is the QCD analog of the QED $`\alpha ^5\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ Lamb shift computed by Bethe. In QED, the series $`m\alpha ^4(\alpha \mathrm{ln}\alpha )^k`$ terminates after the $`k=1`$ term . In QCD, there is an infinite series due to the running QCD coupling as well as the presence of non-trivial anomalous dimensions for other QCD operators. The results presented here also contribute to the NNLL prediction for the cross section for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ near threshold . Implications for $`b\overline{b}`$ sum rules will be addressed in a future publication.

The expansion parameter of the effective theory is the quark velocity $`v`$. A quark has a momentum of order $`mv`$ and an energy of order $`mv^2`$. We assume that $`m`$ is large enough that $`mv^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and a perturbative description of the bound state as a Coulombic system is valid. For a Coulombic bound state, $`\alpha _s`$ is of order $`v`$ and contributions suppressed by both $`v`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ are of the same order. It is useful to distinguish between powers of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`v`$ when carrying out the matching and when evolving couplings and operators in the effective theory, and to only take $`v\alpha _s`$ for the power counting of bound state matrix elements. In the effective theory, the quark-antiquark potentials appear as four-quark operators . A potential of the form $`\alpha _s^r/|𝐤|^s`$ is of order $`\alpha _s^rv^{1s}`$, where $`𝐤`$ is the fermion momentum transfer. With this power counting the time-ordered product of a $`v^a`$ and $`v^b`$ potential is of order $`v^{a+b}`$. Up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) the heavy quark potential has contributions

$`V`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{v}}\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{v}}\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^3}{v}}+\alpha _s^2v^0+\alpha _sv\right]+\mathrm{}.`$ (1)
The order $`\alpha _s/v1`$ term in Eq. (1) is the Coulomb potential generated at tree-level. The next-to-leading order (NLO) term is the one-loop correction to the Coulomb potential. The NNLO terms are the two-loop correction to the Coulomb potential, the one-loop value for the $`1/(m|𝐤|)`$ potential, and the tree-level contribution to the order $`|𝐤|^0/m^2`$ potential. Writing the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ energy as $`E=2m+\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the terms in Eq. (1) generate contributions of the following order in the binding energy:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $``$ $`\left[m\alpha _s^2\right]+\left[m\alpha _s^3\right]+\left[m\alpha _s^4\right]+\mathrm{}.`$ (2)
In Eqs. (1) and (2) the expansion has been performed at the scale $`\mu =m`$ so the coupling constants are $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(m)`$. A typical perturbative expansion contains logarithms of $`\mu `$ divided by the various physical scales in the bound state. If the logarithms are large, fixed order perturbation theory breaks down, and one finds a large residual $`\mu `$ dependence. One can minimize the logarithms by setting $`\mu `$ to a value appropriate to the dynamics of the non-relativistic system. This is accomplished by summing large logarithms using the renormalization group, and using renormalization group improved perturbation theory. For $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound states, the large logarithms are logarithms of $`v\alpha _s`$, and can be summed using the velocity renormalization group (VRG) . For the binding energy this gives the expansion

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{LL}+\mathrm{\Delta }E^{NLL}+\mathrm{\Delta }E^{NNLL}+\mathrm{},`$ (3)
$``$ $`\left[m{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _s^{k+2}(\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)^k\right]+\left[m{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _s^{k+3}(\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)^k\right]+\left[m{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _s^{k+4}(\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)^k\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (4)
where the terms are the leading log (LL), next-to-leading log (NLL), and next-to-next-to-leading log (NNLL) results respectively.

In the VRG, one uses a subtraction velocity $`\nu `$ that is evolved from $`1`$ to $`v`$. This simultaneously lowers the momentum cutoff scale $`\mu _S=m\nu `$ from $`m`$ to $`mv`$ and the energy cutoff scale $`\mu _U=m\nu ^2`$ from $`m`$ to $`mv^2`$. The VRG properly accounts for the coupling between energy and momentum caused by the equations of motion for the non-relativistic quarks. QED provides a highly non-trivial check of the VRG method. In Ref.  it was used to correctly reproduce terms in the subleading series of logarithms, including the $`\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ corrections to the ortho and para-positronium decay rates, the $`\alpha ^7\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ hyperfine splittings for Hydrogen and positronium, and the $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ Lamb shift for Hydrogen. The difference between the VRG, which involves the evolution of the momentum and the energy scale in a single step, and a conventional two stage renormalization group treatment, $`mmvmv^2`$, was examined in Ref. .

In section II we review the definition of potentials for non-static heavy quarks in the effective theory. In section III we compare these potentials with the Wilson loop definition which is appropriate for static quarks. In section IV we rederive the leading-logarithmic (LL) and next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) results for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ binding energy using the effective theory and discuss the two-loop matching for the Coulomb potential using the results in Refs. . We also discuss some subtleties in the correspondence between diagrams in the static theory and soft diagrams in the effective theory. In section V we compute the three-loop anomalous dimension for the Wilson coefficient of the Coulomb potential. Results for the NNLL energy are given in section VI, followed by conclusions in section VII. In Appendix A we give some technical details on the structure of divergences in the effective theory, and in Appendix B we list some functions that appear in the energy at NNLL order.

## II The vNRQCD Potentials

The effective theory vNRQCD has soft gluons with coupling constant $`\alpha _S(\nu )`$, ultrasoft gluons with coupling constant $`\alpha _U(\nu )`$, as well as quark-antiquark potentials. The potential is the momentum dependent coefficient of a four-fermion operator:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩,p^{}}{}}V(𝐩,𝐩^{})\left[\psi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi _𝐩\chi _{𝐩^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\chi _𝐩\right],`$ (5)
where spin and color indices are suppressed. The coefficient $`V(𝐩,𝐩^{})`$ has an expansion in powers of $`v`$, $`V=V_{(1)}+V_{(0)}+V_{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$, where $`V_{(1)}=V_c`$ is the Coulomb potential. For equal mass fermions

$`V_c`$ $`=`$ $`(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{𝐤^2}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{𝐤^2}},`$ (6)
$`V_{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`(T^A\overline{T}^A){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{k}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{m|𝐤|}}+(11){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{k}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{m|𝐤|}},`$ (7)
$`V_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}𝐒^2}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{r}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}(𝐩^2+p^2)}{2m^2𝐤^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}𝐒(𝐩^{}\times 𝐩)}{m^2𝐤^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{t}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}T(𝐤)}{m^2}}\right]`$ (9)
$`+(11)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{1}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}{m^2}}𝐒^2\right],`$
where $`𝐤=𝐩^{}𝐩`$, $`𝐒=(𝝈_1+𝝈_2)/2`$, $`T(𝐤)=(\delta ^{ij}3𝐤^i𝐤^j/𝐤^2)𝝈_1^i𝝈_2^j`$. The Wilson coefficients, $`𝒱^{(T,1)}`$ depend on the subtraction velocity $`\nu `$. In Eq. (6) the color decomposition $`V=(T^A\overline{T}^A)V^{(T)}+(11)V^{(1)}`$ has been used and the potential in the color singlet channel is $`V^{(s)}=V^{(1)}C_FV^{(T)}`$. (The Casimirs of the adjoint and fundamental representations are denoted by $`C_A`$ and $`C_F`$, respectively.) At LL order the running of the coefficients $`𝒱_{2,s,r}^{(1,T)}`$ was computed in Ref.  and $`𝒱_{\mathrm{\Lambda },t}^{(1,T)}`$ in Ref. , while the NLL order running of $`𝒱_k^{(1,T)}`$ was computed in Ref. . In this work we compute the running of $`𝒱_c^{(s)}`$ at NNLL order. This allows the computation of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ energy spectrum at NNLL order.

In vNRQCD additional potential-like effects are generated by loops with soft gluons, for which the Feynman rules can be found in Refs. . Matrix elements of soft gluon diagrams contribute to the energy beginning at NLO. In contrast, matrix elements with ultrasoft gluons start at $`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$. The renormalization group improved energies are obtained by computing the anomalous dimensions for these soft interactions and the four fermion operators in Eq. (6).

## III The static potential versus the Coulomb potential

Parts of our analysis are related to the study of the static limit of QCD which describes heavy quarks in the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit. We therefore briefly review the pertinent results which have been derived in this framework.

In position space the static QCD potential is defined as the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator,

$`V_{\mathrm{stat}}(r)=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}ig{\displaystyle _C}A_\mu 𝑑x^\mu ,`$ (10)
where $`C`$ is a rectangle of width $`T`$ and fixed height $`r`$. This potential is independent of the mass $`m`$ of the quarks and depends only on $`r`$. In QCD perturbation theory the static potential is known at two-loop order  . These calculations use static fermion sources with propagators which are identical to those in Heavy Quark Effective Theory . The exponentiation of the static potential  guarantees that one can avoid dealing with graphs which have pinch singularities in momentum space. The analysis of Refs.  also gives a prescription for the color weight factors for different graphs based on the c-web theorem.

In Ref. , Appelquist, Dine and Muzinich (ADM) pointed out that at three loops the static potential in Eq. (10) has infrared (IR) divergences from graphs of the form in Fig. 1a,b.

In the color singlet channel Fig. 1a has color factor $`C_FC_A^2(C_A2C_F)`$ while Fig. 1b is proportional to $`C_F^2C_A^2`$. Taking into account the exponentiation of $`V_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ using the c-web theorem, the color singlet contribution to $`V_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ from Fig. 1(a,b) is simply Fig. 1a with the color factor replaced by $`C_A^3C_F`$, and is IR divergent. ADM showed that this IR divergence could be avoided by summing a class of diagrams—those of Fig. 1 with the addition of an arbitrary number of gluon rungs. Summing over these diagrams regulates the IR divergence by building up Coulombic states for the static quark sources. The summation gives a factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left([V^{(s)}(r)V^{(o)}(r)]T\right)`$ for the propagation of the intermediate color-octet $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair, where $`V^{(s)}(r)`$ and $`V^{(o)}(r)`$ are the color-singlet and color-octet potentials. The exponential factor suppresses long-time propagation of the intermediate color-octet state, and regulates the IR divergence by introducing an IR cutoff scale of order $`[V^{(s)}(r)V^{(o)}(r)]\alpha _s/r`$.

In Ref.  the ADM divergence in the static potential was studied by Brambilla et al. using the effective theory pNRQCD . They made the important observation that along with potential contributions, the definition in Eq. (10) contains contributions from ultrasoft gluons, and the latter are responsible for the ADM IR divergence. They showed that the ADM IR divergence in QCD matches with an IR divergence of a pNRQCD graph that describes the selfenergy of a quark-antiquark system due to an ultrasoft gluon with momenta $`q^\mu \alpha _s/r`$. Therefore, the static potential in pNRQCD can be defined as a matching coefficient of a four fermion operator, as in Eq. (5), in an infrared safe manner. We will refer to this potential as the soft-static potential. The ultrasoft pNRQCD graph also has an ultraviolet divergence. Brambilla et al. computed the coefficient of this divergence and extracted a new $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu )`$ contribution to the soft-static potential. In Ref.  the three-loop anomalous dimension was computed for the soft-static potential in this framework. In the color singlet channel for scales $`\mu \alpha _s(r)/r`$ their solution reads

$`V_{\mathrm{stat}}(\mu ,r)=V_{\mathrm{stat}}^{(2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{s})}(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi r}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi C_FC_A^3}{3\beta _0}}\alpha _s^3(r)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(r)}{\alpha _s(\mu )}}\right)\right],`$ (11)
where the first term is the two loop static potential derived in Refs. .

For large but finite $`m`$ the effective theory for $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound states has an expansion in $`v`$. The quark potential in this case differs from that in the static case, and in general one cannot obtain the static theory by taking the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit. To illustrate this consider as an example the loop graph involving the iteration of a $`1/(m|𝐤|)`$ and a Coulomb potential as shown in Fig. 2.

In the effective theory for non-static fermions, the fermion propagators give a factor proportional to $`m`$. The final result for the graph is independent of $`m`$ and is the same order in $`v`$ as the Coulomb potential. On the other hand, if we first take the static limit $`m\mathrm{}`$, then $`1/(m|𝐤|)0`$, and there is no such graph. This example illustrates the general result that the static theory is not obtained as the $`m\mathrm{}`$ (or $`v0`$) limit of the non-static effective theory. Loop integrals can produce factors of $`m`$ or $`1/v`$, and thereby cause mixing between operators which are of different orders***However, we stress that if powers of $`\alpha _s`$ are also counted as powers of $`v`$, then operators which are higher order in $`v`$ never mix into lower order operators. in $`v`$. Furthermore, the energy and the momentum transfer in Coulombic states are coupled by the quark equations of motion. We will see that for this reason the anomalous dimension of the static and Coulomb potentials differ at three loops. The three-loop matching for the static and Coulomb potentials can also differ.

## IV The Coulomb potential at one and two loops

In this work dimensional regularization and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme will be used. The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ QCD running coupling constant will be denoted by $`\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(\mu )`$, and is determined by the solution of the renormalization group equation

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(\mu )}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\beta }\left(\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(\mu )\right)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2\beta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(\mu )}{4\pi }}2\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(\mu )}{(4\pi )^2}}2\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}(\mu )}{(4\pi )^3}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (13)
In a mass-independent subtraction scheme $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are scheme-independent. The notation $`\overline{\alpha }_s^{[n]}\left(\mu \right)`$ will be used to indicate the solution of Eq. (12) with coefficients up to $`\beta _{n1}`$ (i.e. $`n`$ loop order) kept in the $`\beta `$-function.

In the VRG, the soft and ultrasoft subtraction scales $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _U`$ are given by $`\mu _S=m\nu `$ and $`\mu _U=m\nu ^2`$. We define the soft and ultrasoft anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _S`$ and $`\gamma _U`$ as the derivatives with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\mu _S`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\mu _U`$, respectively. The derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ gives the total anomalous dimension, $`\gamma =\gamma _S+2\gamma _U`$. vNRQCD has three independent but related coupling constants that are relevant for our calculation: the soft gluon coupling $`\alpha _S(\nu )`$, the ultrasoft gluon coupling $`\alpha _U(\nu )`$, and the coefficient of the Coulomb potential $`𝒱_c(\nu )`$. The tree-level matching conditions at ($`\mu =m\nu =1`$) are

$`\alpha _S(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _U(1)=\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m),𝒱_c^{(T)}(1)=4\pi \overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m),𝒱_c^{(1)}(1)=0,`$ (14)
and the solutions of the one-loop renormalization group equations for the coupling constants in the effective theory are

$`\alpha _S\left(\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(m\nu ),\alpha _U\left(\nu \right)=\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(m\nu ^2),`$ (15)
$`𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(m\nu ),𝒱_c^{(1)}(\nu )=0.`$ (16)
In deriving the above equations, it has been assumed that any light fermions have masses much smaller than $`mv^2`$, so that there are no mass thresholds in the renormalization group evolution. If there is a mass threshold larger than $`mv^2`$ and widely separated from $`mv`$ and $`m`$, then it is possible to also include such effects in the effective theory, see Ref. .

At leading order the Hamiltonian for the color singlet $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system is

$`H_0={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^\mathrm{𝟐}}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}.`$ (17)
To minimize large logarithms in higher order matrix elements we run $`\nu `$ to the bound state velocity $`v_b`$, which we define as the solution of the equation

$`v_b={\displaystyle \frac{a_c(\nu =v_b)}{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_F\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(mv_b)}{n}},`$ (18)
where for convenience we have defined

$`a_c(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )}{4\pi }},`$ (19)
and $`n`$ is the principal quantum number. The LL binding energy is then simply the eigenvalue of the Schrödinger equation, $`H_0|\psi _{n,l}=\mathrm{\Delta }E|\psi _{n,l}`$ with the LL solution for the Coulomb potential, $`𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )=C_F𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )`$ from Eq. (15). Thus,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^2}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^2`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^2}}C_F^2\left[\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(mv_b)\right]^2={\displaystyle \frac{mv_b^2}{4}},`$ (22)
where in the second line we have evaluated the energy at the low scale $`\nu =v_b`$. Higher order corrections to the energy are all evaluated as perturbative matrix elements with the leading order wavefunctions, $`|\psi _{n,l}`$.

Consider how the results in Eq. (15) are extended to higher orders. The graphs for the renormalization of the ultrasoft gluon self coupling have the same rules as for QCD, and those for the renormalization of the lowest order soft gluon vertex have the same rules as for HQET. Since the momenta of soft and ultrasoft gluons are cleanly separated there is no mixing of scales, so the anomalous dimension for $`\alpha _S`$ is independent of $`\alpha _U`$ and vica-versa. Thus, one expects that in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme $`\alpha _S\left(\nu \right)=\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m\nu )`$ and $`\alpha _U\left(\nu \right)=\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m\nu ^2)`$ to all orders.

However, the coefficient of the Coulomb potential can differ from $`4\pi \overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m\nu )`$ at higher orders. At one-loop, the only order $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ graph in the effective theory is the soft diagram Note that the soft loop includes soft gluons, soft light quarks, as well as soft ghosts.

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mu _S^{2ϵ}\alpha _S^2(\nu )}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}(T^A\overline{T}^A)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{ϵ}}+\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+a_1\right],`$ (23)
where $`\beta _0=11/3C_A4T_Fn_{\mathrm{}}/3`$ and $`a_1=31C_A/920T_Fn_{\mathrm{}}/9`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, and $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the number of light soft quarks. The divergence in Eq. (23) is canceled by a counterterm for $`𝒱_c^{(T)}`$, causing it to run with anomalous dimension $`2\beta _0\alpha _S^2(\nu )`$. The remaining terms in the soft graph are identical to the one-loop soft-static potential calculation and also reproduce the set of $`\alpha _s^2/𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms in full QCD with dimensional regularization parameter $`\mu `$. The one-loop matching correction to $`𝒱_c^{(T,1)}(1)`$ is the difference between the full and effective theory diagrams and therefore vanishes at the matching scale $`\mu =\mu _S=m`$.

A correspondence between the soft-static potential calculation and soft order $`1/v`$ diagrams is expected to persist at higher orders in $`\alpha _s`$ as well. The Feynman rules for the soft vertices are almost identical to the HQET rules used for soft-static potential calculations. There are a few notable differences. In the effective theory it is not necessary to use the exponentiation theorem  to eliminate diagrams with pinch singularities of the form

$`{\displaystyle dq^0\frac{1}{(q0+iϵ)(q0+iϵ)}}.`$ (25)
These are automatically removed in the construction of the tree level soft vertices because the $`1/q_0`$ factors in the soft Feynman rules do not contain $`iϵ`$’s, and in evaluating diagrams these poles are ignored. For example , from matching the full theory Compton scattering graphs in Fig. 3

one obtains the soft vertex in Fig. 4a which is proportional to

$`[T^A,T^B]/q_0`$, where terms proportional to $`\{T^A,T^B\}`$ have canceled. In the soft-static calculations this cancellation instead takes place at the level of the box and crossed box graphs, and is guaranteed by exponentiation. For the soft-static potential it is known that at higher orders there are contributions from the $`i\pi \delta (q_0)`$ terms that originate from the $`iϵ`$’s. It was exactly this type of contribution that was missed in the two-loop calculation by Peter , and was correctly identified by Schröder . In the effective theory these delta function contributions belong to the potential regime , and soft-static graphs with this type of contribution are reproduced by operators such as the one shown in Fig. 4b, where a soft gluon scatters from a potential. Matching induces these operators to account for the difference between the full and effective theory graphs for Compton scattering off two quarks. Thus, the treatment of $`iϵ`$’s does affect the correspondence between soft-static and soft graphs. The total contribution of the graphs in the static theory with $`k^\mu mv`$ gluons is reproduced in the effective theory by graphs with soft gluons.

A real difference between the soft-static and effective theory calculations is the way in which counterterms are implemented. The soft-static potential is defined by local HQET-like Feynman rules and all UV divergent contributions from soft gluons are absorbed into vertex, field, and coupling renormalization. The renormalization of the four point function is taken care of by the renormalization of the two and three point functions. Renormalization of the vNRQCD diagrams is quite different because potential gluons are not treated as degrees of freedom. The effective theory has graphs with soft gluons and in addition the four-quark Coulomb potential operator. The overall divergence in soft graphs, such as the one in Eq. (23), are absorbed by $`𝒱_c`$, while subdivergences are taken care of by counterterms for the soft vertices and lower order $`𝒱_c`$ counterterms. The sum of unrenormalized soft-static and purely soft diagrams in the effective theory agree. So if these were the only considerations, then the description of these effects would be basically a matter of convenience. However, divergences associated with ultrasoft gluons can only be absorbed into $`𝒱_c`$, so at the level that these gluons contribute in the effective theory it is necessary to adopt the four quark operator description from the start (i.e. just below the scale $`m`$).

To calculate the NLL energy we also need the two-loop anomalous dimension for $`𝒱_c`$, which is obtained from the renormalization of order $`\alpha _s^3/v`$ diagrams. At this order there are effective theory graphs with iterations of potentials, shown in Fig. 5, and soft effective theory diagrams, as in Fig. 6. Graphs with ultrasoft gluons do not contribute at this order.

The potential diagrams are finite in the ultraviolet and reproduce the Coulombic singularities in perturbative QCD. The contributions from the soft diagrams can be determined from the soft-static potential calculations. For the color singlet channel, the UV divergences in the soft-static two-loop diagrams were calculated in Ref.  and the constant terms in Refs. . The sum of unrenormalized soft diagrams has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _S^3(\nu )}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0^2}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1+2\beta _0a_1}{ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0^2}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+\beta _0^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+(\beta _1+2\beta _0a_1)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+a_2^{(a)}\right].`$ (26)
The effective theory counterterm graphs give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _S^3(\nu )}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0^2}{ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0^2}{ϵ}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2a_1\beta _0}{ϵ}}+a_2^{(b)}\right].`$ (27)
Taking the sum of Eqs. (26) and (27) we find that up to two-loops the counterterm for the color singlet Coulomb potential has the form

$`Z_c=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S(\nu )\beta _0}{4\pi ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S^2(\nu )}{(4\pi )^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0^2}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{ϵ}}\right],`$ (28)
where $`\beta _1=34C_A^2/34C_FT_Fn_{\mathrm{}}20C_AT_Fn_{\mathrm{}}/3`$. The $`\alpha _s^2/ϵ`$ divergence is proportional to $`\beta _1`$, so the two-loop anomalous dimension for $`𝒱_c^{(s)}`$ is determined by the two-loop $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ $`\beta `$-function, and the NLL coefficient of the singlet Coulomb potential is $`𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )=4\pi \overline{\alpha }_s^{[2]}(m\nu )`$.

The energy at NLL order involves including the NLL coefficient for the Coulomb potential, $`𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )`$ in Eq. (21), and calculating the matrix element of the one-loop order $`1/v`$ soft diagram between Coulombic states \[$`a_c(\nu )𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )/4\pi `$\]

$`i\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F\alpha _S^2(\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\left[a_1+\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)\right]`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mC_F\alpha _S^2(\nu )\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}{8\pi n^2}}\left\{a_1+2\beta _0\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)+\psi (n+l+1)+\gamma _E\right]\right\}.`$ (30)
As expected, at the low scale $`\nu v_b`$, there are no large logarithms in the matrix element. Combining Eq. (29) with Eq. (21) gives the energy valid at NLL order,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{LL}+\mathrm{\Delta }E^{NLL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^2}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{mC_F\alpha _S^2(v_b)\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}{8\pi n^2}}\left\{2\beta _0\left[\psi (n+l+1)+\gamma _E\right]+a_1\right\}.`$ (31)
In the next section, the three-loop running of the Coulomb potential will be derived. We therefore need the two loop matching condition, and so consider the finite parts for the two loop graphs. The sum of renormalized soft diagrams in Fig. 6 is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha _S^3(\nu )}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{4\pi }}\left[\beta _0^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+(\beta _1+2\beta _0a_1)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+a_2\right],`$ (33)
where from Ref.  the sum of constants in Eqs. (26) and (27) is $`a_2=a_2^{(a)}+a_2^{(b)}=456.7566.354n_{\mathrm{}}+1.235n_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ for $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ light flavors. The matching coefficient for $`𝒱_c`$ at the scale $`m`$ is given by the difference between the $`1/𝐤^2`$ terms in the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ scattering amplitude in the full and effective theories. It is convenient to analyze the two loop result in the full theory by using regions in the threshold expansion . The soft region exactly reproduces the result from the soft graphs. Furthermore, the potential region exactly reproduces the results for the potential graphs in Fig. 5. Thus, the matching correction for $`𝒱_c(1)`$ is also zero at two-loops. In general, a non-zero matching correction appears when there is a full theory contribution from an off-shell region such as the hard regime or when UV divergences appear in the effective theory graphs.An example where UV divergences in the effective theory affect the matching is the two-loop coefficient for the production current. In the full theory at two loops there are no contributions proportional to $`1/𝐤^2`$ from off-shell regions. The soft effective theory graphs are UV divergent, however these divergences are in one-to-one correspondence with UV divergences in the full or static theory. Finally, the graphs with iterations of potentials are UV finite.

## V Three-loop running of $`𝒱_c`$

To compute the three-loop anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential we need to evaluate the UV divergent graphs in the effective theory that are order $`\alpha _s^4/v`$. We begin by considering diagrams with an ultrasoft gluon. In Coulomb gauge we have graphs with $`𝐩𝐀/m`$ vertices as well as the coupling of ultrasoft gluons to the Coulomb potential from the operator

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{T}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}f^{ABC}}{𝐤^4}}\mu _S^{2ϵ}\mu _U^ϵ𝐤(g𝐀^C)\psi _𝐩^{}^{}T^A\psi _𝐩\chi _𝐩^{}^{}\overline{T}^B\chi _𝐩.`$ (34)
All graphs with two $`𝐩𝐀`$ vertices are UV finite or are canceled by two loop graphs with insertions of the one-loop counterterms for $`𝒱_2`$ and $`𝒱_r`$ computed in Ref. . The remaining diagrams are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Graphs 7a through 7e have UV subdivergences which are exactly canceled by the diagram with $`𝒱_k`$ counterterms shown in Fig. 7f. These graphs contain subdivergences that were responsible for the running of the $`1/(m|𝐤|)`$ potential at two-loops . Graph 7g is UV finite.

The divergent diagrams with an ultrasoft gluon which are not completely canceled by a counterterm diagram are shown in Fig. 8.

Consider the three-loop graph in Fig. 8a with momenta $`l`$ for the loop with the ultrasoft gluon and $`k`$ and $`q`$ for the remaining loops. After performing the $`k^0`$ and $`q^0`$ integrals by contours, the loop integration involving $`l`$ is

$`{\displaystyle d^dl\frac{\delta ^{ij}𝐥^il^j/l^2}{l^2(l^0+E𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}/m)(l^0+E𝐪^\mathrm{𝟐}/m)}}.`$ (35)
From this expression we see that the ultrasoft momentum $`l`$ and potential momentum, $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐪`$, are not completely separable since they appear in the same propagator. The $`l`$ integration produces an UV divergence while the remaining integrations are UV and IR finite§§§For static quarks this three-loop graph also has an IR divergence , but in the non-static case we find that this divergence is regulated by the quark kinetic energy.. Evaluating the remaining integrals gives

$`\mathrm{Fig}.\text{8}\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{3}}(𝒞_{\text{8}a}){\displaystyle \frac{\left[𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )\right]^3\alpha _U(\nu )\mu _S^{2ϵ}}{(4\pi )^3𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _U^2}{E^2}}\right)+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (36)
where the color factor is

$`(𝒞_{\text{8}a})`$ $`=`$ $`C_AC_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(C_A+C_d)}{8}}11+T\overline{T}\right],`$ (37)
and for gauge group SU($`N_c`$), $`C_d=N_c4/N_c`$ and $`C_1=(N_c^21)/(4N_c^2)`$. The graph in Fig. 8c involves the iteration of a $`1/𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ potential and a $`𝒱_k`$ counterterm and also has a Coulombic infrared divergence. This graph cancels the corresponding product of IR and UV divergences arising in Fig. 8b. The sum of graphs in Fig. 8b,c still has an UV divergence, and we find

$`\mathrm{Fig}.\text{8}\mathrm{b}+\text{8}\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{3}}(𝒞_{\text{8}bc}){\displaystyle \frac{\left[𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )\right]^3\alpha _U(\nu )\mu _S^{2ϵ}}{(4\pi )^3𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _U^2}{E^2}}\right)+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _S^2}{𝐤^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (38)
where the color factor is

$`(𝒞_{\text{8}bc})`$ $`=`$ $`C_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(C_A+C_d)}{8}}11\left(C_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(C_A+C_d)^2}{32}}\right)T\overline{T}\right].`$ (39)
The sum of divergences in Eqs. (36) and (38) are canceled by a three-loop counterterm for $`𝒱_c`$. Differentiating with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}\mu _S`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\mu _U`$ gives the anomalous dimensions

$`\gamma _U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\left[2C_AC_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\left[𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )\right]^3}{(4\pi )^3}}\alpha _U(\nu )\left(T\overline{T}\right),`$ (40)
$`\gamma _S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\left[2C_AC_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\left[𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )\right]^3}{(4\pi )^3}}\alpha _U(\nu )\left(T\overline{T}\right).`$ (41)
The total anomalous dimension from the ultrasoft diagrams is $`\gamma =2\gamma _U+\gamma _S`$, so

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\left[2C_AC_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\left[𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )\right]^3}{(4\pi )^3}}\alpha _U(\nu )\left(T\overline{T}\right).`$ (42)
The presence of an ultraviolet divergence in the ultrasoft graphs induces an additional ultraviolet divergence in the soft graphs (as discussed further in Appendix A). This divergence induces an additional contribution to the soft anomalous dimension:

$`\gamma _S`$ $`=`$ $`8\left[2C_AC_1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A(C_A+C_d)^2}{32}}\right]\alpha _S^4(\nu )\left(T\overline{T}\right).`$ (43)
For the Coulomb potential the remaining UV divergences in the soft graphs correspond to divergences which are canceled in the static calculation by field, vertex, and coupling renormalization. As discussed before, these divergences give a contribution proportional to the three-loop $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ $`\beta `$-function, so for the color singlet channel we have the additional contribution

$`\gamma _S^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S^4(\nu )}{(4\pi )^2}}.`$ (44)
For QCD, $`\beta _2=2857/25033n_{\mathrm{}}/18+325n_{\mathrm{}}^2/54`$ for $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ light flavors.

Combining Eqs. (42)–(44) in the color singlet channel and using the LL relation $`𝒱_c^{(T)}(\nu )=4\pi \alpha _S(\nu )`$ gives the total anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential to three-loop order

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{total}}^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F\left[\beta _0\alpha _S^2(\nu )+\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S^3(\nu )}{4\pi }}+\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S^4(\nu )}{(4\pi )^2}}\right]`$ (46)
$`C_A^3C_F\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _S^3(\nu )\alpha _U(\nu )\alpha _S^4(\nu )\right].`$
Solving this equation with the two-loop boundary condition $`𝒱_c^{(s)}(1)=4\pi C_F\alpha _s(m)`$, the NNLL result for the running Coulomb potential is

$`𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi C_F\overline{\alpha }_s^{[3]}(m\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi C_FC_A^3}{3\beta _0}}\alpha _s^3(m)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}2z{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^3}{4}}+4\mathrm{ln}(w)\right],`$ (47)
where

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(m\nu )}{\alpha _s(m)}},w={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(m\nu ^2)}{\overline{\alpha }_s^{[1]}(m\nu )}}.`$ (48)
To compare to the static potential result from Ref.  we can expand the running couplings in $`\alpha _s(m)`$. Ignoring the $`\overline{\alpha }_s^{[3]}(m\nu )`$ term, the remaining logarithms in the $`𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )`$ coefficient are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_FC_A^3\alpha _s^4(m)\mathrm{ln}(\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _0}{3\pi }}C_FC_A^3\alpha _s^5(m)\mathrm{ln}^2(\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{17\beta _0^2}{18\pi ^2}}C_FC_A^3\alpha _s^6(m)\mathrm{ln}^3(\nu )+\mathrm{}.`$ (49)
Expanding the analogous contribution to the static result in Eq. (11) from Ref. , taking $`\mu =m\nu ^2`$ and $`r=1/m\nu `$, gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_FC_A^3\alpha _s^4(m)\mathrm{ln}(\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{3\beta _0}{4\pi }}C_FC_A^3\alpha _s^5(m)\mathrm{ln}^2(\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{77\beta _0^2}{72\pi ^2}}C_FC_A^3\alpha _s^6(m)\mathrm{ln}^3(\nu )+\mathrm{}.`$ (50)
From Eqs. (49) and (50) we see that the single $`\mathrm{ln}(\nu )`$ terms agree, but the higher order logarithms differ.

The origin of the difference between the running of the Coulomb and static potentials is the relation between scales for the case of moving versus fixed quarks. For the Coulomb potential the non-relativistic quarks obey the dispersion relation $`E=𝐩^2/(2m)`$, which relates the energy and momentum scales, and logarithms of $`E`$, $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐤`$ cannot be treated independently. The anomalous dimension in Eq. (46) generates $`\mathrm{ln}^2(\nu )`$ terms that reproduce the double logarithms that appear when diagrams such as the ones in Fig. 9 are evaluated at the hard scale $`m`$. The graph in Fig. 9a includes a vacuum polarization loop for the ultrasoft gluon which only sees the scale $`mv^2`$, while the soft loop in Fig. 9b sees only the scale $`mv`$. Even though each of the two logarithms in Fig. 9b comes from a different ratio of low energy scales, the modes in the graph must be included at the same time since in the effective theory the division between soft and ultrasoft modes (and the multipole expansion) occur right at the scale $`m`$. Furthermore, for all scales below $`m`$ the couplings for soft and ultrasoft gluons run at different rates.

As mentioned in the introduction, this correlation of $`E`$, $`𝐩`$ and the momentum transfer $`𝐤`$ has been tested successfully for bound states in QED .

In contrast, consider the situation with two static quarks where the distance between them, $`r1/|𝐤|`$, is held fixed externally, and the energy fluctuations are about $`E=0`$. In this case the scales $`r`$ and $`E`$ are not correlated. Furthermore, operators with powers of $`1/m`$ play no role in the calculation of the anomalous dimension, unlike the Coulombic case with an expansion in the velocity. The difference between the static and non-static calculations occurs essentially because neither the $`m\mathrm{}`$ nor the $`v0`$ limit of the effective theory is the same as the static theory.

## VI The NNLL energy for a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound state

The energy at NNLL has contributions from matrix elements of operators of order

$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^4}{v^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^3}{v}},\alpha _s^2v^0,\alpha _sv,v^2\}.`$ (51)
There are contributions from tree level matrix elements, which include the $`𝐩^\mathrm{𝟒}/m^3`$ operator ($`v^2`$), the order $`v`$ potentials with LL coefficients ($`\alpha _sv`$), the order $`v^0`$ potentials with NLL coefficients ($`\alpha _s^2v^0`$), and the correction to the energy from the Coulomb potential with the NNLL coefficient ($`\alpha _s^3/v`$). We also have the matrix element of the order $`\alpha _s^3/v`$ one loop and two loop soft diagrams in Fig. 6. Finally, there are the double insertions of two $`\alpha _s^2/v`$ soft diagrams ($`\alpha _s^4/v^2`$). For simplicity all $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ light quarks are taken to be massless.

The contributions from tree level matrix elements are \[$`a_c(\nu )=𝒱_c^{(s)}(\nu )/4\pi `$\]

$`V^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^3(2l+1)}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^2\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{k}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)},`$ (52)
$`V^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^3}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^3\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{l0}}{2\pi }}[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}+s(s+1)\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}]{\displaystyle \frac{(2l+14n)}{8\pi n(2l+1)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{r}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}`$ (53)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X_{ljs}\delta _{s1}(1\delta _{l0})}{4\pi l(l+1)(2l+1)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}+{\displaystyle \frac{3S_{12}_{ljs}\delta _{s1}(1\delta _{l0})}{4\pi l(l+1)(2l+1)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{t}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\},`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^\mathrm{𝟒}}{4m^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{16n^3}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2l+1}}\right],`$ (55)
where the Wilson coefficients $`𝒱_{c,k,2,s,r,\mathrm{\Lambda },t}^{(s)}`$ are defined in section II. The matrix elements of the soft loops are

$`i\text{}+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{mC_F\alpha _S^3(\nu )\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}{8\pi ^2n^2}}\{({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}+\beta _0a_1)(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)+\gamma _E)`$ (56)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{4}}+\beta _0^2(\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)+\gamma _E]+N_2(n,l))\},`$ (57)
$`T\{i\text{},i\text{}\}={\displaystyle \frac{mC_F^2\alpha _S^4(\nu )}{16\pi ^2n^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{4}}+\beta _0a_1(\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)+2N_1(n,l)+\gamma _E)`$ (58)
$`+\beta _0^2(\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)+4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\nu }{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\nu }\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}}\right)[N_1(n,l)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _E}{2}}]+4N_0(n,l)+4\gamma _EN_1(n,l)+\gamma _E^2)\},`$ (59)
where the functions $`N_{0,1,2}(n,l)`$, $`S_{12}_{ljs}`$ and $`X_{ljs}`$ are obtained from Refs.  and are summarized in Appendix B. The only additional contribution is the result for the NLL energy in Eq. (31) with the Wilson coefficients evaluated at one higher order.

Again, at the scale $`\nu =v_b`$ there are no large logarithms in the matrix elements; the large logarithms are summed up into the Wilson coefficients. For $`\nu =v_b`$ the energy at NNLL order in terms of the pole mass $`m`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{LL}+\mathrm{\Delta }E^{NLL}+\mathrm{\Delta }E^{NNLL}`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^2}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{mC_F\alpha _S^2(v_b)\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}{(8\pi n^2)}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta _0\left(\psi (n+l+1)+\gamma _E\right)+a_1\right]`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^3(2l+1)}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^2\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{k}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{16n^3}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2l+1}}\right]`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4n^3}}\left[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\right]^3\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{l0}}{2\pi }}[\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{2}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}+s(s+1)\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}]{\displaystyle \frac{(2l+14n)}{8\pi n(2l+1)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{r}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}`$ (64)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{X_{ljs}\delta _{s1}(1\delta _{l0})}{4\pi l(l+1)(2l+1)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}+{\displaystyle \frac{3S_{12}_{ljs}\delta _{s1}(1\delta _{l0})}{4\pi l(l+1)(2l+1)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{𝒱}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{t}^{\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{s}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mC_F\alpha _S^3(v_b)\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{a}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{c}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{(}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{v}_\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{b}\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,1}{)}}{8\pi ^2n^2}}\left\{\beta _0^2N_2(n,l)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2}}+\beta _0a_1\right)\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)+\gamma _E\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{4}}\right\}`$ (65)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mC_F^2\alpha _S^4(v_b)}{16\pi ^2n^2}}\left\{\beta _0^2\left[4N_0(n,l)+4\gamma _EN_1(n,l)+\gamma _E^2\right]+\beta _0a_1\left[2N_1(n,l)+\gamma _E\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{4}}\right\}.`$ (66)
When this expression is expanded in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ at a given renormalization scale the LL, NLL, and NNLL predictions for the energy become series in $`(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)`$ as in Eq. (3). The terms beyond NNLO that are determined unambiguously are those up to $`m\alpha _s^4(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)^k`$, $`k1`$. From Eq. (60) we see that up to NLL the series are determined by the running of $`\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(\mu )`$ since up to NLL order we have $`a_c(\nu )/C_F=\alpha _S(\nu )=\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m\nu )`$. At NNLL order the series is no longer just determined by the QCD $`\beta `$-function since operators besides the strong coupling have non-trivial anomalous dimensions.

It is well known that the convergence of predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in terms of the pole mass are plagued by the presence of infrared renormalons. If predictions are made in terms of a short distance mass such as the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass the leading renormalon in the pole mass and $`1/𝐤^2`$ potentials cancel  and the convergence of the perturbation series is improved. A phenomenological analysis, which includes the issue of renormalon cancellation in the presence of resummed logarithms, will be carried out elsewhere.

Past finite order predictions for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ energies have typically been made using the strong coupling evaluated at the soft scale $`mv`$. At LO and NLO this is the natural choice since all logarithms $`\alpha _s^2(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\mu )^k`$ and $`\alpha _s^3(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\mu )^k`$ in higher order matrix elements are minimized at $`\mu =|𝐤|`$. Effectively this choice turns the LO and NLO results into the LL and NLL predictions. However, at NNLO this choice of $`\mu `$ may not be optimal since matrix elements begin to involve factors of $`\alpha _s^4[\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(\mu /E)]`$. The NNLL prediction is not generated by a simple replacement rule and instead involves the non-trivial Wilson coefficients $`𝒱_{c,k,2,s,r,\mathrm{\Lambda },t}(\nu )`$.

In Fig. 10 we compare the NNLL energy predictions at subtraction velocity $`\nu `$ (thick black lines) with the NNLO predictions with coupling $`\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(m\nu )`$ (thin green lines), to illustrate the impact of summing the logarithms.

The displayed states include $`n{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}=1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ (solid lines), $`1{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ (dashed lines), $`2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ (dash-dotted lines), and $`2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ (dotted lines). As input we have chosen $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV for the bottom quark pole mass, $`\alpha _s^{(n_{\mathrm{}}=4)}(m_b)=0.22`$, and have included three-loop running for the evolution of the strong coupling to lower scales. The NNLO and the NNLL energies are equal for $`\nu =1`$, because no logarithms are summed into the Wilson coefficients. The summation has the largest impact on the $`n=1`$ S-wave states, and in all cases reduces the size of the binding energy. In Table I we summarize for $`\nu `$ of order a typical quark velocity, $`\nu =(0.35,0.4)`$, values for the NNLO result and the renormalization group improved NNLL calculation. Relative to the NNLO results the scale uncertainty in the NNLL predictions is somewhat reduced.

The summation of NNLL logarithms also reduces the size of the ground state hyperfine splitting, but increases the size of the analog of the QED Lamb shift, (the $`2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ splitting). For $`\nu =(0.35,0.4)`$ and at NNLO the hyperfine splitting and the $`2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ splitting are

$`E(1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})E(1{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=(68,52)\mathrm{MeV},E(2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})E(2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{})=(39,35)\mathrm{MeV},`$ (67)
while at NNLL order we find

$`E(1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})E(1{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=(27,27)\mathrm{MeV},E(2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})E(2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{})=(64,47)\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (68)
Summing the logarithms reduces the perturbative contribution to the hyperfine splitting by a factor of two. The $`2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}`$ splitting is fairly sensitive to the value of $`\nu `$.

In order to examine the size of the logarithmic terms that are summed at NNLL order we can expand Eq. (60) in powers of $`\alpha _s`$. To suppress logarithms proportional to the QCD $`\beta `$-function in the energy at NNLO is it convenient to expand in the coupling $`a_s\overline{\alpha }_s^{}(mv_b)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E=`$ $``$ $`ma_s^2\left[\mathrm{}\right]ma_s^3\left[\mathrm{}\right]ma_s^4\left[\mathrm{}\right]`$ (69)
$``$ $`ma_s^5\mathrm{ln}a_s{\displaystyle \frac{C_F^2}{4\pi n^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{C_A^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4C_AC_F}{n(2l+1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F^2}{n}}({\displaystyle \frac{8}{2l+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}})]`$ (71)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\delta _{l0}C_F^2}{2n}}(C_A+2C_F){\displaystyle \frac{7C_AC_F^2\delta _{l0}\delta _{s1}}{3n}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F^2(1\delta _{l0})\delta _{s1}}{4nl(l+1)(2l+1)}}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}X_{ljs}+S_{12}_{ljs})\}`$
$``$ $`ma_s^6\mathrm{ln}^2a_s{\displaystyle \frac{C_F^2}{4\pi ^2n^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{l0}C_F^2}{6n}}[\beta _0({\displaystyle \frac{13C_A}{2}}C_F)+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}(25C_A+22C_F)]`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F^2\delta _{l0}\delta _{s1}}{6n}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\beta _0+7C_A\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F^2(1\delta _{l0})\delta _{s1}}{8nl(l+1)(2l+1)}}[\beta _0(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}X_{ljs}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_{12}_{ljs})+C_A(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}X_{ljs}+S_{12}_{ljs})]\}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ (75)
The $`a_s^2`$, $`a_s^3`$, $`a_s^4`$ terms are not displayed, but agree with the result in Ref. . The terms proportional to $`m\alpha _s^5\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s`$ agree with Ref. . The $`m\alpha _s^6\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha _s`$ result is new, as are higher terms in the series. Numerically we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E(1{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.444a_s^21.595a_s^39.73a_s^48.56a_s^5\mathrm{ln}a_s3.41a_s^6\mathrm{ln}^2a_s15.5a_s^7\mathrm{ln}^3a_s`$ (77)
$`+\mathrm{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E(1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.444a_s^21.595a_s^38.68a_s^46.80a_s^5\mathrm{ln}a_s0.904a_s^6\mathrm{ln}^2a_s12.1a_s^7\mathrm{ln}^3a_s`$ (79)
$`+\mathrm{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E(2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.111a_s^20.546a_s^33.07a_s^40.961a_s^5\mathrm{ln}a_s0.113a_s^6\mathrm{ln}^2a_s1.73a_s^7\mathrm{ln}^3a_s`$ (81)
$`+\mathrm{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E(2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{})}{m}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.111a_s^20.644a_s^33.22a_s^40.398a_s^5\mathrm{ln}a_s0.005a_s^6\mathrm{ln}^2a_s0.752a_s^7\mathrm{ln}^3a_s`$ (83)
$`+\mathrm{}.`$
We note that for $`(1{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{},1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},2{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{},2{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{})`$ using $`a_s=0.35`$, the $`a_s^5\mathrm{ln}a_s`$ terms in Eq. (77) give $`(93\%,85\%,84\%,80\%)`$ of the complete sum of logarithmic terms.

## VII Conclusion

The three-loop anomalous dimension for the Coulomb potential was computed in the presence of non-static quarks. In terms of the subtraction velocity $`\nu `$ the anomalous dimension depends on both $`\alpha _s(m\nu )`$ and $`\alpha _s(m\nu ^2)`$. Our result differs from the three-loop anomalous dimension for the potential for static quarks. This is due to the fact that the energy and momentum scales are coupled for non-static quarks.

The perturbative energies for $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound states were computed at NNLL order, including all terms of order $`m\alpha _s^4(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\alpha _s)^k`$, $`k0`$. The main effect of summing the logarithms is to reduce the binding energy for the $`1{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`1{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ states by an amount of order a few hundred $`\mathrm{MeV}`$. The effect on states with $`n2`$ is substantially smaller.

## Acknowledgment

We would like to thank A. Pineda and J. Soto for discussions, and C. Bauer for comments on the manuscript. AM and IS are supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DOE-FG03-97ER40546, and IS is also supported in part by NSERC of Canada.

## A Ultraviolet and Infrared Divergences

In this appendix we discuss the structure of UV and IR divergences in the effective theory and their relation to the renormalization group running. In particular we explain why it is correct to treat all $`1/ϵ`$ poles in soft gluon loops as UV divergences. This result follows from the fact that we have taken the full propagating gluon field and split it into two parts (soft and ultrasoft) which fluctuate on different length scales ($`mv`$ and $`mv^2`$) and have different Feynman rules. The information that the two gluons came from a single field is reflected by a relation between the IR divergences in soft gluon diagrams and the UV divergences in the ultrasoft diagrams. Here we address how this correlation is accounted for in the presence of the relation $`\mu _U=\mu _S^2/m`$ between ultrasoft and soft subtraction scales.

For simplicity only diagrams with single $`1/ϵ`$ poles and either purely soft or ultrasoft gluons will be discussed. Also, real Coulombic IR divergences will be dropped. A general diagram with a divergent soft gluon loop then gives a soft amplitude with the divergence structure:

$`i𝒜^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{ϵ_{UV}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{ϵ_{IR}}}+C\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{UV}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{IR}}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{A+B}{ϵ_{UV}}}+(CB)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{UV}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{IR}}}\right).`$ (A1)
Strictly speaking pure dimensional regularization does not distinguish between UV and IR divergences; however a distinction can always be made either by examining the analytic structure before expanding about $`ϵ=0`$ or by also performing the calculation with a different IR regulator. The notation in Eq. (A1) is slightly redundant so that $`C`$ represents diagrams involving scaleless integrals (such as tadpole graphs), and $`A`$ and $`B`$ represent all other graphs. For example, for the Lamb shift in QED for Hydrogen only $`C`$ is non-zero, while positronium also has non-zero $`A`$ and $`B`$. At the same order in the power counting as Eq. (A1) there is an amplitude with a divergent ultrasoft gluon loop which has the form:

$`i𝒜^U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(CB)}{ϵ_{UV}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ϵ_{IR}}}.`$ (A2)
The nontrivial information is that the $`(CB)`$ term in Eq. (A2) is determined by the IR divergence in the soft amplitude in Eq. (A1). In general $`D`$ is independent of $`CB`$ since ultrasoft graphs are not always proportional to $`1/ϵ_{UV}1/ϵ_{IR}`$. The infrared divergence in Eq. (A2) will match with an infrared divergence in full QCD.

The renormalization group running is determined by the UV divergences. Naively, in Eq. (A1) the $`ϵ_{UV}`$’s correspond to the scale $`m`$ and the $`ϵ_{IR}`$’s correspond to the scale $`mv`$, while in Eq. (A2) the $`ϵ_{UV}`$’s correspond to the scale $`mv`$ and the $`ϵ_{IR}`$’s correspond to scales of order $`mv^2`$. However, examining $`i𝒜^S+i𝒜^U`$ we see that the $`(CB)`$ term in the soft amplitude simply pulls up or transports the $`1/ϵ_{UV}`$ in the ultrasoft graph to the hard scale This addition might seem strange since it involves canceling an UV and IR pole. However, for a multiscale problem what is ultraviolet and what is infrared is always relative; if we label the $`ϵ`$’s by the corresponding scale then the cancellation is just $`1/ϵ(mv)1/ϵ(mv)=0`$.. The scale dependence of the coefficient $`CB`$ in Eq. (A2) does not affect this argument since the scale dependence of $`CB`$ in Eq. (A1) can be chosen arbitrary. Note that the $`1/ϵ_{IR}`$ divergences in soft diagrams do not always correspond to IR divergences in QCD, which is further evidence of their unphysical nature. This is the case if $`DBC`$ such as for the two loop graphs contributing to the running of $`𝒱_k(\nu )`$ . Finally, we see that setting $`ϵ_{IR}=ϵ_{UV}`$ in the soft amplitude in Eq. (A1) and running the ultrasoft modes from $`m`$ to $`mv^2`$ with an anomalous dimension proportional to $`CB`$ and running the soft modes from $`m`$ to $`mv`$ with an anomalous dimension proportional to $`A+B`$ correctly performs the running between the scales. This is the method used here and in Refs. .

The correspondence in Eqs. (A1) and (A2) also provides a useful calculational tool: if the UV divergences $`A+C`$ in the soft diagrams are known, and the combination $`BC`$ is determined from the UV divergences in the ultrasoft calculation, one arrives at $`(A+C)+(BC)=A+B`$ which is the combination needed to determine the soft anomalous dimension from $`𝒜^S`$.

## B Functions that appear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{\mathrm{NNLL}}`$

The following functions of the principal and orbital quantum numbers ($`n,l,j`$) were derived in Refs.  and appear in our result in Eq. (60):

$`N_0(n,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)}{4}}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{n\mathrm{\Gamma }(nl)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+l+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{nl2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2l+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)(j+l+1n)^3}}`$ (B2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+l+1)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(nl)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=nl}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2l+2)(j+l+1n)^3}},`$
$`N_1(n,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (B3)
$`N_2(n,l)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(n+l+1)+\gamma _E\right]^2+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(n+l+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}`$ (B5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(nl)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+l+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{nl2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2l+2+j)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)(j+l+1n)^2}},`$
$`S_{12}_{ljs}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle \frac{2(l+1)}{12l}}:& j=l1\hfill \\ \hfill 2:& j=l\hfill \\ \hfill {\displaystyle \frac{2l}{2l+3}}:& j=l+1\hfill \end{array},`$ (B9)
$`X_{ljs}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(j(j+1)l(l+1)s(s+1)\right).`$ (B10)


format: text

text:
# DAMTP-2001-13, DSF-5-2001, astro-ph/0102144 Early-universe constraints on a time-varying fine structure constant

## I Introduction

In the last few years it has been pointed out that the fundamental energy scale of gravity does not need to be the Planck scale, but rather it could be a lower scale maybe not far from the electroweak one . In this framework, where the hierarchy problem is definitely solved, the Newton constant turns out to be so small because the gravitational force spreads into some higher-dimensional space which may be compact or have an infinite volume. One remarkable feature of higher-dimensional particle physics theories is that, in this framework, the coupling constants in the four-dimensional subspace are merely effective quantities. Furthermore, from what is known about the dynamics of these extra dimensions, one expects these effective constants to be time and/or space varying quantities on cosmological timescales, and this represents an interesting signature of these models which would be worth to test. The best example of such a quantity is the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$, which is expected to be time-varying in a wide class of theories.

There is quite a large number of experimental constraints on the value of $`\alpha `$. These measurements cover a wide range of timescales (see  for a review of this subject), starting from present-day laboratories ($`z0`$), geophysical tests ($`z<<1`$), and quasars ($`z1÷3`$), till CMB ($`z10^3`$) and BBN ($`z10^{10}`$) bounds.

We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha \alpha (z)/\alpha 1`$, whit $`\alpha `$ the present value for the fine structure constant. By using atomic clocks one gets a strong limit on the time variation of the fine structure constant, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha |10^{14}`$ over a period of 140 days . The best geophysical constraint comes from measurements of isotope ratios in the Oklo natural reactor, which give $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha |10^7`$ over a period of 1.8 billion years , corresponding to $`z0.1`$.

The fine splitting of quasar doublet absorption lines probes higher redshifts. This is the method of Ref.  which finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$=$`(4.6\pm 4.3`$ $`(\mathrm{statistical})`$ $`\pm 1.4(\mathrm{systematic}))10^5`$ for redshifts $`z2÷4`$, but is subject to uncertainties associated with laboratory wavelength determinations and other systematic effects.

On the other hand the analysis of Ref.  gives a $`4\sigma `$ evidence for a time variation of $`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(0.72\pm 0.18)10^5`$, for the redshift range $`z0.5÷3.5`$. This positive result was obtained using a many-multiplet method, which is claimed to achieve an order of magnitude greater precision than the alkali doublet one. Some of the initial ambiguities of the method have been tackled by the authors with an improved technique, in which a range of ions is considered, with varying dependence on $`\alpha `$, which helps reduce possible problems such as varying isotope ratios, calibration errors and possible Doppler shifts between different populations of ions .

A deeper knowledge of the primordial universe at the time of photon decoupling is emerging from recent results on Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature anisotropies , and on this ground, a new bound on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha |`$ at $`z10^3`$ has been obtained  by using the first release of data by BOOMERanG and MAXIMA . As observed by many authors, the analysis of cosmological implications of this first bunch of data seemed to prefer values for the baryon fraction sensibly larger than the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) requirement . This preliminary analysis thus suggested that likely new physics was active in the early universe, and in this direction many different mechanisms have been proposed in the literature .

In this paper we update the constraints on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha |`$ from CMB by using the latest available observational data  which now single out a value for the baryon fraction in perfect agreement with the BBN one .

At higher redshift, $`z10^{10}`$, BBN can provide strong bounds on a possible deviation of the value of fine structure constant from the present-day one. In this paper we obtain new constraints on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha |`$ at the time of BBN, based on the new data on primordial chemical abundances and on a new and more precise BBN code recently developed . This represents an update of the analysis of Ref. .

## II BBN data analysis

The high level of predictivity of Standard nucleosynthesis (SBBN), which yields abundances for $`D`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ as function of the baryon fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ only***We assume here the standard scenario with only the three active neutrinos, and photons, contributing to the relativistic energy density., makes the comparison of the theoretical BBN predictions with experimental data a crucial test for Hot Big Bang models.

The measurements of the deuterium Ly-$`\alpha `$ features in several Quasar Absorption Systems at high red-shift ($`z>2`$) give a relative deuterium abundance $`D/H=(3.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$ . Deuterium has a relevant role in BBN since it mainly fixes the baryon fraction. For the $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ mass fraction, $`Y_P`$, the key results come from the study of HII regions in Blue Compact Galaxies. This has been performed in two different analyses, which give rather different values for $`Y_P`$. The value found in ref. is $`Y_P=0.234\pm 0.002`$ and it is quite smaller than $`Y_P=0.244\pm 0.002`$ obtained in Ref.. However, even though both analyses use large samples of objects, the analysis of Ref. is based on a more homogeneous set of measurements. Moreover, some of the most metal-poor objects used in  seem to suffer from stellar absorption. For these reasons we use the value $`Y_P=0.244\pm 0.002`$.

Inferring the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ primordial abundance is a rather difficult task, since it is strongly affected by stellar processes. The value reported in Ref. , $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li/H=1.23_{0.32}^{+0.68}\times 10^{10}`$, is based on the measurement of $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ in the halos of old stars. It should represent well its primordial abundance since in Ref.  it is also taken into account production and depletion mechanisms due to cosmic rays and stellar dynamics, respectively. This result, which is compatible with other similar analysis  is unfortunately smaller by a factor 2 to 3 than what is typically predicted by BBN. Moreover, stellar models where strong $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ depletion mechanisms are present have been extensively discussed in the literature and are also supported by the observation of old stars where no $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ at all is present in the halo. For this reason, at the moment the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ primordial abundance cannot be safely used in a BBN analysis in order to impose bounds on the baryon fraction or other parameters.

The predictions of SBBN , for three standard light neutrinos, $`N_\nu =3`$, once compared with the above experimental observations through a likelihood analysis, yield a baryon fraction which is in the range $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019_{0.002}^{+0.004}`$ (at $`95\%`$ C.L.), in fair agreement with the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ (at $`95\%`$ C.L.) of Ref. Note that our wider range for the baryon fraction is basically due to the larger uncertainty on the deuterium abundance we use in our analysis (see Ref.) with respect to the experimental data used in .. SBBN for the central value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019`$ gives $`D/H=3.26\times 10^5`$, $`Y_P=0.2467`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li/H=3.31\times 10^{10}`$, which corresponds to $`\chi ^2=2.1`$.

A variation of the value of the fine structure function $`\alpha `$ does not have negligible effects on SBBN abundance predictions. This issue has been already investigated in the literature  in order to fix bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ at $`z10^{10}`$. The effect on BBN of a varying $`\alpha `$ is essentially twofold, affecting both the neutron-proton mass difference and the Coulomb barrier in nuclear reactions. The mass difference between neutron and proton, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, since it fixes the neutron to proton ratio at decoupling, provides the initial condition at the onset of BBN. The $`\alpha `$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ can be derived phenomenologically, as done in Ref. , $`\mathrm{\Delta }m2.050.76(1+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha )`$ MeV, whereas the dependence on $`\alpha `$ of the most important nuclear reactions involved in BBN has been carefully evaluated and reported in Table 1 of Ref. . Both effects have been implemented in a high accuracy BBN code , to produce the light element abundances as functions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$.

It is important to mention that, in general, if we consider models where the electromagnetic coupling is a time dependent parameter, it is reasonable to expect that $`all`$ fundamental parameters, the Yukawa couplings, the strong coupling constant and Weinberg angle, and the vacuum expectation value (vev) for the Higgs field, $`v`$, may be functions of time as well. In particular, a different value for the Fermi constant, $`G_Fv^2`$Notice that $`G_F`$ does not depend on the electroweak couplings., would change all rates of weak processes and result in different BBN predictions. Nevertheless we have chosen to keep constant the values for all these parameters. This represents the simplest scenario which may account for Quasar measurements and provides the most restrictive bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$. On the other hand, since, in the general case, the time dependence of fundamental parameters is model dependent, a completely general analysis clearly loses any predictivity.

By using the BBN results on D and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ abundances we have performed a likelihood analysis in the plane $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$. The 68% and 95$`\%`$ C.L. contours are reported in Figure 1. By marginalizing with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ one gets the allowed intervals at 95$`\%`$ C.L., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020_{0.003}^{+0.005}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(7\pm 9)\times 10^3`$, respectively. This result, which is compatible with the bound found in , shows that BBN does not clearly favour a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha 0`$ at more than $`1\sigma `$ level. For the maximum of the likelihood we find $`D/H=2.98\times 10^5`$, $`Y_P=0.2440`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li/H=3.86\times 10^{10}`$, with a $`\chi ^2=1.3\times 10^3`$. The agreement with experimental observation is much improved, due to the additional free parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$.

## III CMB data analysis

We have performed a similar likelihood analysis for the recently released BOOMERanG  and DASI  data, as well as the COBE data, with the additional free parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$. Our analysis method follows the procedure described in  taking into account the effects of the beam and calibration uncertainties for the Boomerang data. For the DASI data we consider the public available correlation matrices and window functions.

The calibration uncertainty is taken into account by adding a gaussian term $`\chi _{cal}^2=(1A_{cal})^2/\sigma _{cal}^2`$ to the computed $`\chi ^2`$ for each theoretical spectrum. $`A_{cal}`$ is a calibration parameter and $`\sigma _cal=0.23`$, $`0.08`$ for Boomerang and DASI respectively.

The calculation of the angular power spectrum $`C_l`$ follows  and was obtained using a modified CMBFAST algorithm which allows a varying $`\alpha `$ parameter. The space of model parameters spans $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=(0.11.0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=(0.009÷0.036)`$, $`h=(0.4÷0.9)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =(0.2÷0.1)`$, $`n_s=(0.7÷1.3)`$. The basic grid of models was obtained considering parameter step sizes of 0.1 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$; 0.003 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$; 0.05 for $`h`$; 0.01 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ and finally 0.05 for the tilt $`n_s`$. When necessary the grid resolution is increased by using interpolation procedures. All our models have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}=1`$. We assume the presence of a classical cosmological constant when necessary to achieve such result. We also assume an age of the universe prior $`t_0>10Gyr`$.

Performing the marginalization over one of the two parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ gives respectively $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020_{0.004}^{+0.004}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =0.05_{0.04}^{+0.07}`$ at $`68\%`$ C.L.. The CMB results on $`\alpha `$ can be further constrained by the inclusion of external priors on cosmological parameters. Assuming $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ , for example, yields $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =0.02_{0.04}^{+0.03}`$, while assuming $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.019_{0.002}^{+0.004}`$ gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =0.03\pm 0.05`$. To compare CMB results with BBN constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ we use this latter BBN prior result. This is perfectly justified in view of the excellent agreement between the two determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ from CMB and BBN. The $`68\%`$ and $`95\%`$ C.L. regions in the plane $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ are shown in Fig. 1.

## IV Conclusions

The analysis of the $`\alpha `$-dependence of two relevant cosmological observables like the anisotropy of CMB and the light element primordial abundances does not support evidence for variations of the fine structure constant at more than the one-sigma level at either epoch. This is the first time a joint analysis for the two epochs has been done, and as such it is quite a robust result.

A few comments are nevertheless in order. The most noticeable aspect of our results is the apparent disagreement with earlier work of some of the present authors . However, the discrepancy is trivially explained by the use of different CMB datasets. Indeed, the earlier release of BOOMERanG and MAXIMA  data which was used by  singled out a quite large value for the baryonic fraction with respect to the BBN prediction. Thus, in that scenario a smaller value of $`\alpha `$ with respect to the present-day one, was a possible way to lower the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, making it compatible with BBN.

In the new release of data from BOOMERanG and DASI, this baryon discrepancy has been eliminated, at the price of a sligtly lower spectral index ($`n_s0.9`$ as opposed to the previously preferred $`n_s1.00`$). In this context, and given the intrinsic degeneracies in the problem, a slightly negative $`\alpha `$ while still able to marginally improve the fits is no longer a significant advantage. As was emphasized in , more data and an independent knowledge of other cosmological parameters will be needed in order to obtain a more precise ’measurement’ of $`\alpha `$ from the CMB. We point out, however, that a recent re-analysis of the old Maxima-I dataset with an increased pixel resolution produced results still in better agreement with an high baryon fraction .

Hence, from the observational viewpoint, the only current strong evidence for a varying $`\alpha `$ seems to be the four-sigma detection using quasar data at redshifts $`z13`$. It should be said that even imposing fairly strong constraints at redshift $`z10^{10}`$ and $`z10^3`$, our results cannot strictly be extrapolated for the whole cosmological period in between these epochs. Indeed, two-metric models exist where $`\alpha `$ and other constants suffer ‘temporary’ variations for fairly limited time periods, the case in point being the epoch of equal matter and radiation densities.

What our results, together with the quasar data, do strongly rule out is any cosmological model where $`\alpha `$ behaves as a simple and smooth power law function of say the scale factor or cosmic time. If there were indeed any variations of $`\alpha `$ in the past, then they are likely to have been fairly ‘sharp’, most likely as a side-effect of phase transitions or other dramatic events in the history of the universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Barrow, R. Caldwell, B. Carter, G. Esposito-Farese, D. Langlois and S. Sarkar for useful comments. C. M. is funded by FCT (Portugal) under “Programa PRAXIS XXI” (grant no. FMRH/BPD/1600/2000). We thank Centro de Astrofísica da Universidade do Porto (CAUP) for the facilities provided. G. R. also thanks the Dept. of Physics of the University of Oxford for support and hospitality during the progression of this work. G.R. and C.M. are funded by FCT (Portugal).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Holographic Principle  states that the total number of degrees of freedom in a theory of quantum gravity scales like the surface area. This is radically different from the behavior of quantum field theory, in which the number of states at high energy scales like the volume. This suggests that the usual field theory calculation of divergent radiative corrections to scalar masses is modified by quantum gravity.

Moreover, holographic theories have a UV/IR connection , which relates high energies to long distances. In particular the spectrum of high energy states in a holographic theory may well be determined by the large scale structure of the universe. Putting these ideas together, it seems plausible that in a holographic theory, scalar masses are related to cosmology.

Banks has put forward a very concrete proposal for such a relation . He considers M-theory in a de Sitter background, with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ corresponding to a vacuum energy density

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}=m_{\mathrm{vac}}^4=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}.$$

The de Sitter geometry breaks supersymmetry. Banks proposes that the supersymmetry breaking scale is not given by the naive guess $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}m_{\mathrm{vac}}`$. Rather, he suggests that UV/IR effects could enhance this to

$$m_{\mathrm{susy}}\left(m_{\mathrm{planck}}m_{\mathrm{vac}}\right)^{1/2}.$$

With a Planck mass of $`10^{19}GeV`$ and a vacuum energy of $`10^3eV`$, this leads to a phenomenologically acceptable breaking of SUSY at the few $`TeV`$ scale.

In this paper we generalize Banks’ proposal to a general flat FRW cosmology (section 2). The natural generalization relates the SUSY breaking scale to the Hubble parameter. Via the renormalization group a change in the SUSY breaking scale affects low energy coupling constants, so coupling constants will change as the universe evolves. We consider the experimental bounds on variation of the fine structure constant in section 3, and show that the simplest extension of Banks’ proposal is experimentally disfavored. Section 4 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Cosmological supersymmetry breaking in an FRW universe

Banks has proposed that in a de Sitter background the scale of supersymmetry breaking is set by

$$m_{\mathrm{susy}}m_{\mathrm{planck}}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}\right)^{1/8}.$$

This formula is supposed to be a consequence of the finite number of states which are available in a de Sitter background. This motivates us to begin our search for an appropriate generalization of Banks’ formula by rewriting $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ in terms of the entropy of de Sitter space $`S=3\pi /G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

$$m_{\mathrm{susy}}m_{\mathrm{planck}}^{1/2}\left(\frac{3}{8G^2S}\right)^{1/8}$$
(1)
This relation has a natural extension to a general spacetime: the supersymmetry breaking scale is given by (1), with $`S`$ interpreted as the holographic bound on the cosmological entropy.

For the remainder of this paper, we specialize to flat ($`k=0`$) FRW universes, with metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+R^2(t)\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)$$

and Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{R}/R`$. Following  we take the cosmological entropy to be bounded by the area of the apparent horizon. The apparent horizon is a sphere of radius $`r_{AH}=1/HR`$ and area $`A_{AH}=4\pi /H^2`$, corresponding to an entropy

$$S=\frac{A_{AH}}{4G}=\frac{\pi }{GH^2}.$$
(2)
Thus the SUSY breaking scale is related to the Hubble parameter by

$$m_{\mathrm{susy}}m_{\mathrm{planck}}^{1/2}\left(\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}\right)^{1/8}.$$
(3)
Curiously, the quantity in parenthesis is the critical density. For our purposes, it is more convenient to rewrite this as a ratio, with a subscript $`0`$ denoting the present.

$$\frac{m_{\mathrm{susy}}(t)}{m_{\mathrm{susy}}(t_0)}=\left(\frac{H(t)}{H_0}\right)^{1/4}$$
(4)
This implies that the supersymmetry breaking scale changes with time as the universe evolves.

Although the scale of supersymmetry breaking has not been directly observed, we can put limits on any possible changes in $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ because the scale of supersymmetry breaking affects the values of the low-energy coupling constants. This dependence on $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ arises from the renormalization group, which states that at one loop gauge couplings $`\alpha g^2/4\pi `$ evolve with scale according to

$$\frac{1}{\alpha (\mu ^2)}\frac{1}{\alpha (M^2)}=\frac{b_0}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu }{M}.$$

The $`\beta `$-functions generally change at the scale where supersymmetry is broken, and this makes the low-energy couplings sensitive to the value of $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}`$.

The precise dependence on $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ is easily obtained. The Hubble parameter has been decreasing as the universe evolves, so the supersymmetry breaking scale (3) has been decreasing with time. Suppose that in the course of this evolution the supersymmetry breaking scale drops from an initial value $`m_1`$ at time $`t_1`$, to a new value $`m_2`$ at time $`t_2`$. Above the scale $`m_1`$ we assume that couplings are not affected by cosmology, so the couplings are identical at the two different times:

$$\alpha (m^2)|_{t_1}=\alpha (m^2)|_{t_2}\text{for }m>m_1.$$

We also assume that below the scale $`m_2`$ the runnings are the same:

$$b_0|_{t_1}=b_0|_{t_2}\text{below the scale }m_2.$$

However in the intermediate range $`m_2<m<m_1`$ the $`\beta `$-functions are different at the two different times. This leads to a change in the value of the observed couplings at low energy, which is given by the difference in the two $`\beta `$-functions.

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }|_{t_2}\frac{1}{\alpha }|_{t_1}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(b_0^{SM}b_0^{MSSM}\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{m_1}{m_2}$$
(5)
We now specialize to the evolution of the fine structure constant. In the standard model the photon is a mixture of the $`U(1)_Y`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge fields, with coupling

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }=\frac{1}{\alpha _Y}+\frac{1}{\alpha _{SU(2)}}.$$

The appropriate one-loop beta functions in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension are therefore given by

$$b_0=b_0^Y+b_0^{SU(2)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}10/3& \text{standard model}\hfill \\ 12& \text{MSSM}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
This implies that the fine structure constant depends on time according to

$$\frac{1}{\alpha (t_0)}\frac{1}{\alpha (t)}=\frac{13}{3\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\mathrm{susy}}(t)}{m_{\mathrm{susy}}(t_0)}.$$

Given the proposed relationship (4) between $`m_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ and the Hubble parameter, this implies that

$$\frac{1}{\alpha (t_0)}\frac{1}{\alpha (t)}=\frac{13}{12\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{H}{H_0}.$$
(7)
Since $`H`$ was larger in the past, our proposal implies that $`\alpha `$ was larger in the past.

The evolution of the Hubble parameter is determined by the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\underset{i}{}\rho _i$$

where $`\rho _i`$ are the various components of the energy density. We will model the universe as dominated by matter plus vacuum energy. This leads to an equation for the evolution of the normalized scale factor $`a(t)=R(t)/R_0`$,

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=H_0^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_Ma^3\right)$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ are the present-day fractions of the critical density. Thus the Hubble parameter is given by

$$\frac{H}{H_0}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{a^3}}.$$
(9)
We also have a relation between the scale factor and the age of the universe,

$$t=\frac{1}{H_0}f(a)$$
(10)
where

$$f(a)=\frac{2}{3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{log}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{1/2}+\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}}\right].$$

## 3 Experimental bounds

Experimental constraints on the time variation of $`\alpha `$ come from a variety of sources. Direct lab measurements were performed by  using clocks based on ultra-stable atomic oscillators. By comparing rates from different clocks, the authors obtained a bound

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |3.7\times 10^{14}yr{}_{}{}^{1}.$$
(11)
Equations (7) and (9) predict that at the present time

$`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{8\pi }}\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_MH_0`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`(8.7\pm 1.8)\times 10^{14}yr^1`$
where we have used the values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`H_0=h/(9.78\times 10^9yr)`$ and the uncertainty corresponds to varying $`h`$ from 0.6 to 0.9 . This is about a factor of two larger than the experimental bound (11).

A much more stringent bound comes from the Oklo reactor, a natural nuclear reactor which was triggered about 1.8 billion years ago. From an analysis of this phenomenon, the authors of  obtained a bound

$$0.9\times 10^7<\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }<1.2\times 10^7.$$
(13)
Equations (7), (9), (10) predict an effect which is three orders of magnitude larger:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }\frac{\alpha (t)\alpha _0}{\alpha _0}=(1.9\pm 0.4)\times 10^4.$$

Again the quoted uncertainty corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`h`$ ranging from 0.6 to 0.9. This seems like a disaster for our proposal (4), but as we discuss in the conclusions, this result should be qualified.

Another bound comes from observation of quasar absorption lines. One group has obtained the bound

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=(4.6\pm 4.3\pm 1.4)\times 10^5$$
(14)
at redshifts $`z`$ 2 – 3, while other groups have reported stronger results . Equations (7) and (9) give

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=2.1\times 10^3$$

at $`z=1.5`$ (recall $`a=1/(1+z)`$). Even compared to the conservative bound (14), this is about two orders of magnitude too large.

Finally, we consider the bound from big bang nucleosynthesis. A recent bound was obtained by , who found a limit

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=(7\pm 9)\times 10^3.$$

At the time of nucleosynthesis the universe was radiation-dominated, with $`H(t)=1/2t`$. Equation (7) predicts that at the end of nucleosynthesis

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=(9.7\pm 0.1)\times 10^2$$
(15)
where we have set $`t_{BBN}=100\mathrm{sec}`$. This is about an order of magnitude larger than the experimental bound.

One might wonder whether we are allowed to apply our formulas to the early universe, since the relation (1) is only expected to be valid for very large values of the de Sitter entropy . In a radiation dominated universe the entropy follows from (2), $`S=4\pi t^2/t_{\mathrm{planck}}^2`$. Thus $`S10^{90}`$ at the end of nucleosynthesis; presumably this is large enough for our generalization of (1) to hold.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have presented an extension of Banks’ cosmological supersymmetry breaking proposal to a flat FRW universe. As we have seen, bounds on variation of the fine structure constant provide a stringent test of this extended proposal: it seems to be ruled out, especially by the Oklo reactor data.

We reached this conclusion by studying the behavior of the fine structure constant, while neglecting the cosmological evolution of all other parameters in the standard model. In a sense this makes our analysis very conservative, since one generally expects that relevant couplings in the standard model should have a power-law dependence on $`m_{SUSY}`$. Given the proposal (4), this would give the relevant couplings a power-law dependence on the Hubble parameter, in gross contradiction with experiment. However, the behavior of relevant couplings may depend on the details of the way in which supersymmetry breaking is communicated to the standard model.

We seem to have found that the proposal (4) can be ruled out just by considering marginal operators. However, this conclusion should be qualified, because there are some potentially important effects at the level of marginal operators that we have ignored. For example, we have neglected the fact that according to our proposal cosmological evolution should also affect the QCD scale. On the one hand, changes in the QCD scale should be tightly constrained by big bang nucleosynthesis. But on the other hand changing the QCD scale may well modify the analysis  of the Oklo reactor data, which implicitly assumed that the QCD scale was constant.

To address this concern, let us note that ref.  carried out a global fit to numerous observations (including a much more conservative analysis of the Oklo data than ). They allowed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, $`G_F`$, $`\alpha `$, $`G_N`$ and $`m_e`$ to vary independently, and found an upper bound

$$|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |<1.4\times 10^{15}yr{}_{}{}^{1}\text{(95\% confidence level)\hspace{0.17em}.}$$

This limit is almost two orders of magnitude smaller that our present-day prediction (12).

It is possible that the supersymmetry breaking scale is determined by cosmology, but not in the way that we have suggested. We took the entropy that appears in (1) to be given by the area of the apparent horizon. This seems quite natural, following , but other choices could be contemplated, such as the area of the event horizon. It could also be that the entropy is determined by the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, even if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ never plays an important role in the evolution of the universe. Ref.  provides some support for this possibility.

Of course, it could be that supersymmetry breaking and cosmology are unrelated, or that such a relation exists but is far more subtle than anything we have discussed here.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Bobby Acharya, Tom Banks, Michael Graesser, Lam Hui, Norihiro Iizuka and Scott Thomas for valuable discussions. DK wishes to thank Rutgers University for hospitality during the course of this work. DK is supported by the DOE under contract DE-FG02-92ER40699. AR is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40559.