Chiral phase transitions in QCD for finite temperature and density

1990 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 1610-1619 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Barducci ◽  
R. Casalbuoni ◽  
S. De Curtis ◽  
R. Gatto ◽  
G. Pettini
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (36) ◽  
pp. 1650198
Author(s):  
Pei-Lin Yin ◽  
Hai-Xiao Xiao ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Hong-Tao Feng ◽  
Hong-Shi Zong

In the framework of Dyson–Schwinger equations, we employ two kinds of criteria (one kind is the chiral condensate, the other kind is thermodynamic quantities, such as the pressure, the entropy, and the specific heat) to investigate the nature of chiral phase transitions in QED3 for different fermion flavors. It is found that the chiral phase transitions in QED3 for different fermion flavors are all typical second-order phase transitions; the critical temperature and order of the chiral phase transition obtained from the chiral condensate and susceptibility are the same with that obtained by the thermodynamic quantities, which means that they are equivalent in describing the chiral phase transition; the critical temperature decreases as the number of fermion flavors increases and there is a boundary that separates the [Formula: see text] plane into chiral symmetry breaking and restoration regions.


2001 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 979-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Fukazawa ◽  
T. Inagaki ◽  
S. Mukaigawa ◽  
T. Muta

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (01) ◽  
pp. 1950003
Author(s):  
Yu-Qiang Cui ◽  
Zhong-Liang Pan

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document