The effect of the Polyakov loop on the chiral phase transition

Sensitivity of Polyakov Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (PNJL) model and Polyakov linear sigma-model (PLSM) has been utilized in studying QCD phase-diagram. From quasi-particle model (QPM) a gluonic sector is integrated into LSM. The hadron resonance gas (HRG) model is used in calculating the thermal and dense dependence of quark-antiquark condensate. We review these four models with respect to their descriptions for the chiral phase transition. We analyze the chiral order parameter, normalized net-strange condensate, and chiral phase-diagram and compare the results with recent lattice calculations. We find that PLSM chiral boundary is located in upper band of the lattice QCD calculations and agree well with the freeze-out results deduced from various high-energy experiments and thermal models. Also, we find that the chiral temperature calculated from HRG is larger than that from PLSM. This is also larger than the freeze-out temperatures calculated in lattice QCD and deduced from experiments and thermal models. The corresponding temperature and chemical potential are very similar to that of PLSM. Although the results from PNJL and QLSM keep the same behavior, their chiral temperature is higher than that of PLSM and HRG. This might be interpreted due the very heavy quark masses implemented in both models.

Download Full-text

Studies on proper time regularization and the QCD chiral phase transition

Modern Physics Letters A ◽

10.1142/s0217732319500032 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (01) ◽

pp. 1950003

Author(s):

Yu-Qiang Cui ◽

Zhong-Liang Pan

Keyword(s):

Phase Transition ◽

Small Parameter ◽

Effective Mass ◽

Finite Temperature ◽

Chemical Potential ◽

Proper Time ◽

Chiral Phase ◽

Chiral Phase Transition ◽

Njl Model ◽

The Difference

We investigate the finite-temperature and zero quark chemical potential QCD chiral phase transition of strongly interacting matter within the two-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model as well as the proper time regularization. We use two different regularization processes, as discussed in Refs. 36 and 37, separately, to discuss how the effective mass M varies with the temperature T. Based on the calculation, we find that the M of both regularization schemes decreases when T increases. However, for three different parameter sets, quite different behaviors will show up. The results obtained by the method in Ref. 36 are very close to each other, but those in Ref. 37 are getting farther and farther from each other. This means that although the method in Ref. 37 seems physically more reasonable, it loses the advantage in Ref. 36 of a small parameter dependence. In addition, we also, find that two regularization schemes provide similar results when T [Formula: see text] 100 MeV, while when T is larger than 100 MeV, the difference becomes obvious: the M calculated by the method in Ref. 36 decreases more rapidly than that in Ref. 37.

Download Full-text