1:  

2: 

3: \documentstyle[aps,eqsecnum,epsf,epsfig]{revtex}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \baselineskip=16pt

8: %\baselineskip=20pt

9: %\draft

10: 

11: \title{Scenario for Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions: \\

12:   IV.~ Effective quark mass at the early stage. } 

13: \author{ A.  Makhlin and  E. Surdutovich}

14: \address{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, 

15: Detroit, MI 48202}

16: \date{July 26, 2000}

17: \maketitle

18: 

19: \begin{abstract}

20: 

21: Using the framework of wedge dynamics, we compute the effective transverse

22: mass of a soft quark mode propagating in the expanding background of hard

23: quarks and gluons created at the earliest time of the collision.  We

24: discover that the wedge dynamics  does not require any external infrared

25: or collinear cut-off. The effective mass is produced mainly due to the

26: forward quark-quark scattering mediated by the longitudinal (in sense of

27: Gauss' law) magnetic fields. Contribution of the radiation field is

28: parametrically suppressed.

29: 

30: \end{abstract}

31: 

32: \section{Introduction }

33: \label{sec:S1}

34: 

35: In the first paper of this cycle \cite{tev} ( further quoted as paper

36: [I]), we formulated a program that might result in a theory of

37: ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions which is free from collinear problems

38: and naturally establishes the infrared boundary for the space of ``final''

39: states  at the very early stage of the collision ($\leq 1fm$).  We have

40: demonstrated that even at very early times (much less than is required for

41: any kinetic process to develop), the collective interactions in a dense

42: system provide the final states of the QCD evolution with finite

43: dynamically generated masses that  shield mass singularities in the

44: evolution equations.\footnote{ The idea that screening effects should be

45: taken into account at the early kinetic stage of a collision  has been

46: articulated earlier and with different motivations by Shuryak and Xiong

47: \cite{Xiong} and by Eskola, Muller and X.-N. Wang \cite{Eskola}}. It was

48: shown also that the null-plane dynamics are incapable of describing  local

49: screening effects, because any type of kinetics is frozen on the light

50: cone. It was suggested, that a more adequate approach requires the change

51: of the global Hamiltonian dynamics which is used for the field-theory 

52: description of  nuclear collisions.  We proposed the so-called {\em wedge

53: dynamics} which employs the proper time $\tau$ measured from the first

54: touch of the Lorenz-contracted nuclei as the Hamiltonian time. Our initial

55: estimates in paper [I] were very qualitative. In two consecutive papers

56: \cite{gqm,wdg}  (further quoted as papers [II] and [III]), we have

57: studied, in detail, the space of states of wedge dynamics. In paper [II],

58: we extended the qualitative analysis of scalar fields initiated in [I],

59: and found that for the charged fields, the early-time evolution of the

60: wave function is accompanied by a gradual rearrangement of the charge

61: distribution, starting from its almost uniform spread along the light cone

62: at $\tau\to 0$, and up to a narrow wave packet with a well defined

63: rapidity at later times. We have shown that this re-distribution of the

64: charge leads to currents in the rapidity direction and that these currents

65: are the largest at the earliest $\tau$. The magnetic fields generated by

66: these currents can be  responsible for the interactions between the

67: currents at the earliest moments of the QCD evolution. In paper [II], we

68: studied the states of fermions in wedge dynamics and found the fermion

69: field correlators that are used below for the calculation of the quark

70: self-energy in the expanding system. In paper [III], we addressed the

71: issue of gauge fields in wedge dynamics. Several important problems were

72: solved there. The natural gauge condition of wedge dynamics, $A^\tau =0$,

73: was proved to be completely fixed (at the level of perturbation theory).

74: The second (technically nearly most difficult) problem solved in paper

75: [III], was the separation of the longitudinal (i.e., governed by Gauss'

76: law) field and the field of radiation. In that paper, we also quantized

77: the gauge field in the scope of wedge dynamics and explicitly found the

78: Wightman functions and retarded propagator of the gluon field which are

79: used in this paper for the practical calculation of the fermion

80: self-energy.

81: 

82: Our decision to begin the exploration of potentialities of the wedge

83: dynamics with the  computation of quark self-energy is motivated only by

84: technical reasons. The gluon propagator of wedge dynamics is a very

85: complicated function, and we preferred to start with the computation of

86: the fermion loop which has only one gluon correlator in it. We hope that

87: the possibility of a technical simplification (compared to what we had to

88: start with) discovered in this paper, will allow us to address a more

89: important problem of the gluon self-energy in a reasonably economic way.

90: 

91: In the course of this study, we employ a single  heuristic assumption

92: (supported by the analysis of paper [II]) that the field states with large

93: transverse momentum, even at very early times, may be associated with the

94: localized particles and thus can be described by the distribution with

95: respect to the rapidity and transverse momentum.  Our strategy of looking

96: for the leading contributions, as well as all our approximations, in the

97: calculation of the material part of the quark self-energy are based on

98: this assumption. If it appears incorrect, then  it is most likely that the

99: quark-gluon matter created in the collision of  two nuclei never and in no

100: approximation can be considered as a system of nearly free and weakly

101: interacting field states. 

102: 

103: 

104: \section{Fermion retarded self-energy }

105: \label{sec:S3}

106: 

107: In order to find the normal modes of the  quark field in the expanding

108: quark-gluon system , we are going to solve the Dirac equation with the

109: radiative corrections, which can be derived as a projection of the

110: Schwinger-Dyson equation for the retarded quark propagator onto the

111: one-particle initial state. For the quark field without Lagrangian mass,

112: this equation reads

113: \begin{eqnarray}  

114: i \gamma^\mu (x_1) \nabla_\mu (x_1) \psi(x_1)= 

115: \int d^4 x_2 \Sigma_{[ret]}(x_1,x_2) \psi(x_2)~.

116: \label{eq:E3.0a}\end{eqnarray}    

117: The covariant derivative $\nabla_\mu (x)$ of the spinor field in the

118: curvilinear coordinates of the wedge dynamics includes the spin connection

119: and it was  found explicitly in paper [II]. For all calculations below, we

120: employ the mixed representation which is the most profitable in heavy-ion

121: problems. We are looking for the radiative corrections to the wave

122: function with a given transverse momentum $\vec{p_t}$ and rapidity

123: $\theta$ with the expectation that within the rapidity plateau nothing

124: will depend on $\theta$. However, we cannot totally eliminate the

125: coordinate $\eta$ from the theory. We have to keep it explicitly, since 

126: the problem of the expanding field system cannot be reduced to (2+1)

127: dimensions. In its expanded form, Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.0a})  reads,

128: \begin{eqnarray}

129: \bigg[i\gamma^0\big({\partial\over\partial\tau_1}+{1\over 2\tau_1}\big) 

130: +{i\gamma^3\over\tau_1}{\partial\over\partial\eta_1} -p_r\gamma^r\bigg]

131: \psi (p_t;\tau_1,\eta_1)=

132: \int_{0}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\tau_2 d\eta_2

133: \Sigma_{[ret]}(p_t;\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta_1-\eta_2)\psi (p_t;\tau_2,\eta_2)~.

134: \label{eq:E3.0b}

135: \end{eqnarray}

136: The retarded self-energy is an object that naturally emerges in the

137: Schwinger-Dyson equation for the retarded propagator in Keldysh-Schwinger

138: formalism \cite{Keld}.  Below,  we employ its modified form developed

139: earlier  with the view of application to the inclusive and transient

140: processes. We employ the notation used in 

141: Refs.~\cite{QFK,QGD,tev}.\footnote{The indices  of the field correlators

142: with the Keldysh contour ordering of the field operators (like $G_{[AB]}$)

143: as well as the labels of their linear combinations (like $G_{[ret]}$) are

144: placed in square brackets.} In this notation, the one-loop retarded

145: fermion self-energy  in coordinate form is

146: \begin{eqnarray}

147:   \Sigma_{[ret]}(x_1,x_2)={ig^{2}\over 2}

148:   [t^{a} \gamma^{\mu} G_{[ret]}(x_1,x_2)t^{b}\gamma^{\lambda}

149:   D^{ba}_{[1]\lambda\mu}(x_2,x_1)+t^{a} \gamma^{\mu} G_{[1]}(x_1,x_2)

150:    t^{b}\gamma^{\lambda} D^{ba}_{[adv]\lambda\mu}(x_2,x_1)]~.  

151: \label{eq:E3.1}

152: \end{eqnarray}

153: The two subprocesses that contribute this self-energy are depicted below.

154: \begin{figure}[htb]

155: \begin{center}

156: \mbox{ 

157: \psfig{file=./gret.ps,height=2.in,bb=130 460 440 675}

158: \hspace{2.cm}

159: \psfig{file=./gadv.ps,height=2.in,bb=140 460 430 670}

160: }

161: \end{center}

162: \caption{The retarded forward scattering amplitude is contributed by two

163: subprocesses, $qg\to qg$ and $qq\to qq$.}

164: \label{fig:fig4}

165: \end{figure}

166: 

167: The retarded and advanced quark and gluon propagators $G_{[ret]}$ and

168: $D^{lm}_{[adv]}$ were found in papers [II] and [III] of this cycle

169: and are connected with the commutators  $G_{[0]}$ and $D_{[0]}$,

170: \begin{eqnarray}

171: G_{[ret]}(x_1,x_2)=\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)G_{[0]}(x_1,x_2),~~

172: D^{lm}_{[adv]}(x_2,x_1)=-\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)D^{lm}_{[0]}(x_2,x_1)

173: +D^{lm}_{L}(x_2,x_1)~,

174: \label{eq:E3.2}

175: \end{eqnarray}

176: where $D^{lm}_{L}(x_2,x_1)$ is the longitudinal part of the gluon

177: propagator (governed by Gauss' law), and it enters in Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.2})

178: in such a way that the condition $D_{[ret]}-D_{[adv]}=D_{[0]}$ is

179: satisfied and the non-causal longitudinal part of the propagator does not

180: violate the causal properties of the commutator  $D_{[0]}$. The

181: correlators $G_{[1]}$ and $D_{[1]}$  include densities of vacuum states as

182: well as the  information about the occupation numbers (phase-space

183: population). Eventually, we shall prove that an approximation of the

184: boost-invariance (infinite rapidity plateau) is not corrupted by any kind

185: of cut-offs (the vacuum part never is). Therefore, all correlators ($G$,

186: $D$, and $\Sigma$) will depend on two times $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$

187: separately, the difference of rapidities $\eta=\eta_1-\eta_2$, and the

188: difference  ${\vec r} ={\vec r_1}-{\vec r_2}$ of distances in $xy$ plane.

189: The latter is Fourier transformed to the  transverse momentum dependence.

190: In this mixed representation,

191: \begin{eqnarray}

192:   \Sigma_{[ret]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{p_t})={ig^{2}\over 2 (2\pi)^2}

193:   \int d^2 \vec{k_t} [t^{a} \gamma^m(\tau_1) 

194:   G_{[ret]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{p_t}+\vec{k_t})

195:    t^{b}\gamma^l(\tau_2)

196:   D^{ba}_{[1]lm}(\tau_2,\tau_1;-\eta,\vec{k_t}) \nonumber \\

197:  +t^{a} \gamma^m(\tau_1) 

198:   G_{[1]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{p_t}+\vec{k_t})

199:    t^{b}\gamma^l(\tau_2)

200:  D^{ba}_{[adv]lm}(\tau_2,\tau_1;-\eta,\vec{k_t})]~,  

201: \label{eq:E3.4}

202: \end{eqnarray}

203: where $\gamma^{\eta}(\tau)=\gamma^3/\tau$.

204: As it has been shown in [I], all fermion correlators $G_{[\alpha]}$ can be

205: decomposed as

206: \begin{eqnarray}

207: G_{[\alpha]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{q_t})=

208: q_t \big[g^{0}_{[\alpha]}\gamma^0 +g^{3}_{[\alpha]}\gamma^3\big] +

209: g^{T}_{[\alpha]}q_r\gamma^r + 

210: i g^{A}_{[\alpha]}q_r\epsilon^{ru}\gamma^u\gamma^5 \nonumber\\

211: =q_t \big[ g^{L(+)}_{[\alpha]}\gamma^+ 

212: +g^{L(-)}_{[\alpha]}\gamma^-\big] +

213: q_r\gamma^r\gamma^0 ~\big[ g^{T(+)}_{[\alpha]}\gamma^+ 

214: +g^{T(-)}_{[\alpha]}\gamma^-\big]~,

215: \label{eq:E3.5}

216: \end{eqnarray}

217: where, for the sake of brevity, we denote $\vec{q_t}=\vec{p_t}+\vec{k_t}$. 

218: A similar decomposition takes place for the self-energy,

219: \begin{eqnarray}

220: \Sigma_{[ret]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{p_t})=

221:  \Sigma^{0}\gamma^0 +\Sigma^{3}\gamma^3 +

222: \Sigma^{T}q_r\gamma^r + 

223: i \Sigma^{A}p_r\epsilon^{ru}\gamma^u\gamma^5 \nonumber\\

224: = \Sigma^{L(+)}\gamma^+ +\Sigma^{L(-)}\gamma^- +

225: p_r\gamma^r\gamma^0~\big[ \Sigma^{T(+)}\gamma^+ 

226: +\Sigma^{T(-)}\gamma^-\big]~,

227: \label{eq:E3.6}

228: \end{eqnarray}

229: and we obviously have,

230: \begin{eqnarray}

231: g^{L(\pm)}_{[\alpha]}={1\over 2}(g^{0}_{[\alpha]}\pm g^{3}_{[\alpha]}),~~~~

232: g^{T(\pm)}_{[\alpha]}={1\over 2}

233: (g^{T}_{[\alpha]}\pm g^{A}_{[\alpha]})~,~~~~

234: \Sigma^{L(\pm)}={1\over 2}(\Sigma^{0}\pm \Sigma^{3}),~~~~

235: \Sigma^{T(\pm)}={1\over 2}(\Sigma^{T}\pm \Sigma^{A})~.

236: \label{eq:E3.7}

237: \end{eqnarray}

238: 

239: It becomes easier to analyze the various pieces of the quark self-energy

240: if the gluon correlators  $D_{[\alpha]lm}$ are taken in the form of the 

241: following decomposition,\footnote{In what follows, we use the Greek

242: indices for the four-dimensional vectors and tensors in the curvilinear

243: coordinates (index $\eta$ is an exception, it always denotes the rapidity

244: direction), and the Latin indices from $a$ to $d$ for the vectors in flat

245: Minkowski coordinates. We use Latin indices from $r$ to $w$ for the

246: transverse $x$- and $y$-components ($r,...,w=1,2$), and the arrows over

247: the letters to denote the two-dimensional vectors, {\em e.g.}, ${\vec

248: k}=(k_x,k_y)$, $|{\vec k}|=k_{t}$. The Latin indices from $i$ to $n$

249: ($i,...,n=1,2,3$) will be used  for the three-dimensional internal

250: coordinates $u^i=(x,y,\eta)$ on the hyper-surface $\tau=const$.}

251: \begin{eqnarray}

252: D_{[\alpha]rs}=\bigg(\delta_{rs}- {k_r k_s\over k_t^2}\bigg)

253:   {\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[\alpha]}+ 

254: {k_r k_s\over k_t^2}{\cal D}^{(2)}_{[\alpha]},~~~

255: D_{[\alpha]\eta\eta}={\cal D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[\alpha]},~~~

256: D_{[\alpha]r\eta}={k_r\over k_t^2}{\cal D}^{(r\eta)}_{[\alpha]},~~~

257: D_{[\alpha]\eta s}={k_s\over k_t^2}{\cal D}^{(\eta s)}_{[\alpha]}~,

258: \label{eq:E3.8}

259: \end{eqnarray}

260: where the first term in $D_{[\alpha]rs}$ is due to the transverse 

261: electric mode, and all invariants of ${\cal D}_{[adv]}$ (except ${\cal

262: D}^{(TE)}_{[adv]}$ ) have two terms, ${\cal D}_{[0]}^{(\cdot\cdot\cdot)}$

263: from the  transverse magnetic mode of the radiation field, and ${\cal

264: D}_{[long]}^{(\cdot\cdot\cdot)}$ from the longitudinal field. All these

265: components were found in paper [III] and are given in the Appendix in the

266: form which is used in the calculation below.  After some algebra, we can 

267: present the retarded quark self-energy in the form, 

268: \begin{eqnarray}

269: \Sigma_{[ret]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{p_t})={i\alpha_s C_F\over 2\pi} 

270: \int d^2 \vec{k_t} \big[\gamma^+ S^{L(+)}+\gamma^- S^{L(-)}+ 

271:  p_r \gamma^r\gamma^0~\big(\gamma^+ S^{T(+)}

272:  +\gamma^- S^{T(-)}\big)\big]~,   

273: \label{eq:E3.9} \end{eqnarray} 

274: where the scalar invariants of $\Sigma_{[ret]}$ are the bilinears of the 

275: fermion  and gluon scalars,

276: \begin{eqnarray} 

277: S^{L(\pm)}=\sum_{[\alpha,\beta]}  \bigg\{q_t

278: g^{L(\pm)}_{[\alpha]}({\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[\beta]}+{\cal D}^{(2)}_{[\beta]})

279: +{q_t\over\tau_1\tau_2}g_{[\alpha]}^{L(\mp)} 

280: {\cal D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[\beta]} 

281: %\nonumber\\ 

282: \mp{(\vec{k_t} \vec{q_t})\over k_t^2}

283: \bigg({g^{T(\pm)}_{[\alpha]}{\cal D}^{(r\eta)}_{[\beta]}\over\tau_1}+

284: {g^{T(\mp)}_{[\alpha]}{\cal D}^{(\eta r)}_{[\beta]}\over\tau_2} 

285: \bigg)\bigg\}, 

286: \label{eq:E3.10}\end{eqnarray}

287: \begin{eqnarray} 

288: S^{T(\pm)}=\sum_{[\alpha,\beta]}  

289: \bigg\{\bigg[{(\vec{p_t} \vec{q_t})\over p_t^2} 

290: -2{(\vec{k_t} \vec{p_t})(\vec{k_t} \vec{q_t})\over k_t^2 p_t^2}\bigg] 

291: g^{T(\pm)}_{[\alpha]}({\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[\beta]}+{\cal D}^{(2)}_{[\beta]}) 

292: -{(\vec{q_t} \vec{p_t})\over p_t^2\tau_1\tau_2} 

293: g^{T(\mp)}_{[\alpha]}{\cal D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[\beta]}\nonumber\\ 

294: \mp {(\vec{k_t} \vec{p_t}) \over k_t^2 p_t^2} 

295: \bigg({g^{L(\pm)}_{[\alpha]} {\cal D}^{(r\eta)}_{[\beta]}\over\tau_1}-

296: {g^{L(\mp)}{\cal D}^{(\eta r)}_{[\beta]}\over\tau_2}\bigg)\bigg\} ~. 

297: \label{eq:E3.11}

298: \end{eqnarray} 

299: In these equations, the sum $\sum_{[\alpha,\beta]}$ runs over

300: $[\alpha,\beta]= \{[ret,1], [1, adv]\}$. 

301: 

302: 

303: \section{Fermion modes in the expanding system }

304: \label{sec:S2}

305: 

306: We shall look for the dispersion law of the fermions in the proper-time

307: dynamics studying the Dirac equation (\ref{eq:E3.0b}) with radiative 

308: corrections. Since the fermions are massless, it is convenient to use the

309: spinor basis where the Dirac matrices are

310: 

311: \begin{eqnarray}  

312: \gamma^0= \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & I \\ I & 0 \end{array} \right),  

313: ~~~~ \gamma^l= \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -\sigma^l 

314:                      \\ \sigma^l & 0 \end{array} \right)~, \nonumber 

315: \end{eqnarray} 

316: and  the Dirac equation can be split into two 

317: separate equations for the left- and right-handed two-component spinors.

318: The latter reads as

319: \begin{eqnarray}

320: G_{R}^{-1}(p_t;\tau_1,\eta_1)~\psi_{R}(p_t;\tau_1,\eta_1)=

321: \int_{0}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\tau_2 d\eta_2

322: \Sigma_R(p_t;\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta_1-\eta_2)\psi_{R}(p_t;\tau_2,\eta_2)~,

323: \label{eq:E2.1}

324: \end{eqnarray}

325: where the matrices of the right-handed differential operator $G_{R}^{-1}$ 

326: and of the right-handed self-energy $\Sigma_{R}$ are

327: \begin{eqnarray}

328: G_{R}^{-1}(p_t;\tau,\eta)\left[ \begin{array}{cc}

329:  i(\partial_\tau+{1\over 2\tau}- 

330:  {1\over \tau}\partial_\eta) &  p_x-ip_y \\

331:   p_x+ip_y & i(\partial_\tau+{1\over 2\tau}+ 

332:   {1\over \tau}\partial_\eta)

333:            \end{array} \right],\nonumber \\

334: \Sigma_R(p_t;\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta_1-\eta_2)=

335: \left[ \begin{array}{cc}

336:               \Sigma^{L(-)}    & -(p_x-ip_y)\Sigma^{T(+)}  \\

337:     -(p_x+ip_y)\Sigma^{T(-)}& \Sigma^{L(+)}      \end{array} \right] .	   

338: \label{eq:E2.2}

339: \end{eqnarray}

340: The equation for the left-handed spinors differs from (\ref{eq:E2.1}) only

341: by  a change of some signs in matrices (\ref{eq:E2.2}) and leads to the

342: same dispersion law. A solution with positive energy is looked for in the 

343: form,

344: \begin{eqnarray}  

345: \psi_{R}(p_t,\theta;\tau,\eta)=   \left( \begin{array}{c} 

346:                 e^{(\eta-\theta)/2)}~p_t \\

347:                -e^{-(\eta-\theta)/2)}~(p_x+ip_y) \end{array} \right)

348: 	       ~e^{-i\mu\tau\cosh(\eta-\theta)} ~,

349: \label{eq:E2.3}\end{eqnarray}

350: where $\mu$ is the effective ``transverse mass'' of the mode.          

351: For the free on-mass-shell solution we have $\mu=p_t$.

352: To solve Eq.~(\ref{eq:E2.1}), we introduce an auxiliary (left-handed) 

353: spinor

354: \begin{eqnarray}  

355: \tilde{\psi}(p_t,\theta';\tau,\eta)=   \left( \begin{array}{c} 

356:                 e^{-(\eta-\theta')/2)}~p_t \\

357:                -e^{(\eta-\theta')/2)}~(p_x-ip_y) \end{array} \right)

358: 	       ~e^{i\mu\tau\cosh(\eta-\theta')} ~.

359: \label{eq:E2.4}\end{eqnarray}

360: We insert (\ref{eq:E2.3}) into (\ref{eq:E2.1}), multiply it from the left

361: by (\ref{eq:E2.4}) and integrate this along the hypersurface 

362: $\tau_1=const$.

363: Then the left side of the equation becomes

364: \begin{eqnarray} 

365: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\tau_1 d\eta_1

366: \tilde{\psi}(p_t,\theta`;\tau_1,\eta_1)G_{R}^{-1}(p_t;\tau_1,\eta_1)

367: \psi_{R}(p_t,\theta;\tau_1,\eta_1)=

368: 4\pi{\mu-p_t\over\mu}~p_t^2~\delta(\theta-\theta')~.

369: \label{eq:E2.5}\end{eqnarray}

370: In deriving this equation, we assumed that $\mu$ is independent of $\tau_1$.

371: The weak dependence is admissible, provided $d\mu/d\tau_1\ll\mu/\tau_1$. 

372: A solution that has this property does indeed exist. The right hand side 

373: of the equation is, in fact, independent of $\theta'$ and is of the 

374: following form,

375: \begin{eqnarray} 

376: p_t^2~\int_{0}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\tau_1 \tau_2 d\eta_2

377: d\theta d(\eta_1-\eta_2)e^{i\mu\tau_1\cosh(\eta_1+\theta)} 

378: e^{-i\mu\tau_2\cosh\eta_2} \nonumber \\

379: \times [e^{-{\eta_1-\eta_2+\theta\over 2}}\Sigma^{(L)-}+

380: e^{{\eta_1-\eta_2+\theta\over 2}}\Sigma^{(L)+}+

381: e^{-{\eta_1+\eta_2+\theta\over 2}}\Sigma^{(T)+}+

382: e^{{\eta_1+\eta_2+\theta\over 2}}\Sigma^{(T)-}]~,

383: \label{eq:E2.6}\end{eqnarray}

384: where the exponentials are due to the Thomas precession of the spinor field.

385: Next, we integrate both sides with respect to $\theta$. Two rapidity

386: integrals, $d\theta d\eta_2$, on the right absorb the precession factors

387: yielding the product of Hankel functions,

388: \begin{eqnarray} 

389: \pi^2 H^{(1)}_{1/2}(\mu\tau_1)~H^{(2)}_{1/2}(\mu\tau_2)=

390: {2\pi\over\mu\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}e^{i\mu(\tau_1-\tau_2)}~.

391: \label{eq:E2.7}\end{eqnarray} 

392: Finally, we arrive at the dispersion equation that defines the fermion 

393: ``transverse mass'' $\mu$ as a function of the transverse momentum and the

394: latest time $\tau_1$,

395: \begin{eqnarray} 

396: \mu(p_t,\tau_1)-p_t ={1\over 2} 

397: \int_{0}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2 \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2} 

398: e^{i\mu(p_t,\tau_1)(\tau_1-\tau_2)}  \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~

399: [\Sigma^{L(+)}+\Sigma^{L(-)}+p_t \Sigma^{T(+)} +p_t \Sigma^{T(-)}]~.

400: \label{eq:E2.8}\end{eqnarray}

401: 

402: As it has been discussed in paper [II] for fermions (similar arguments

403: are true for gluons), only the independence of the quark and gluon

404: occupation numbers $n_f$ and $n_g$ on rapidity can provide that the

405: invariants  $S^{L(\pm)}$ and $S^{T(\pm)}$ naturally depend only on the

406: difference $\eta=\eta_1-\eta_2$. We shall consider only this case of the

407: local homogeneity;  we can do it safely only because no collinear

408: singularities which may require a  rapidity cut-off (e.g., $\pm Y$) in

409: the phase space will appear in the theory. Since we are computing an

410: essentially local quantity, such a cut-off would be unphysical. With

411: this reservation, we may rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq:E2.8}) as

412: \begin{eqnarray}  

413: \mu(p_t) = p_t + 

414: \int_{0}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2 \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}  e^{i\mu(p_t)(\tau_1-\tau_2)} 

415: [\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)+  p_t \Sigma^{T}(\tau_1,\tau_2)]~,

416: \label{eq:E3.12}\end{eqnarray} 

417: where we introduced the notation,

418: \begin{eqnarray} 

419: \Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)=

420: {i\alpha_s C_F\over 4\pi}\sum_{[\alpha,\beta]} \int d^2 \vec{k_t}

421: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~ q_t g^{0}_{[\alpha]}

422: [{\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[\beta]}+{\cal D}^{(2)}_{[\beta]} 

423: +{1\over \tau_1\tau_2}{\cal D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[\beta]}],

424: \label{eq:E3.13}\end{eqnarray}

425: \begin{eqnarray} 

426: \Sigma^{T}(\tau_1,\tau_2)={i\alpha_s C_F\over 4\pi}\sum_{[\alpha,\beta]} 

427: \int d^2\vec{k_t}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~

428: g^{T}_{[\alpha]} \bigg\{

429: \bigg[{(\vec{p_t} \vec{q_t})\over p_t^2} 

430: -2{(\vec{k_t} \vec{p_t})(\vec{k_t} \vec{q_t})\over k_t^2 p_t^2}\bigg]

431: ({\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[\beta]} +{\cal D}^{(2)}_{[\beta]})+ 

432: {(\vec{q_t} \vec{p_t})\over p_t^2\tau_1\tau_2}

433: {\cal D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[\beta]}\bigg\}.

434: \label{eq:E3.13a}\end{eqnarray}

435: Comparing these equations with Eqs.~(\ref{eq:E3.10}) and (\ref{eq:E3.11}), we

436: may observe a significant simplification. The terms with the off-diagonal

437: components ${\cal D}^{(\eta r)}$ and  ${\cal D}^{(r\eta)}$  have dropped out.

438: These terms, as it can be seen from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.6})-- (\ref{eq:A1.7}),

439: (\ref{eq:A1.10})--(\ref{eq:A1.11}), and 

440: (\ref{eq:A1.16})--(\ref{eq:A1.17}), are odd with respect to $\eta$, while

441: the invariants $g^{0}=g^{L(+)}+g^{L(-)}$ and  $g^{T}=g^{T(+)}+g^{T(-)}$ are

442: even. Therefore, integration over $\eta$ eliminates the terms with the

443: off-diagonal components.

444: 

445: 

446: 

447: \section{Propagators, densities of states, and occupation numbers

448:          in the expanding system }

449: \label{sec:S4}

450: 

451: In this section, we collect condensed information about various correlators

452: of quark and gluon fields derived in papers [II] and [III] which are

453: necessary for the calculation of the quark self-energy. We also discuss our

454: specific choice of  occupation numbers $n_g(k_t,\alpha)$ and

455: $n_f(q_t,\theta)$.  All field correlators are defined as the expectation

456: values over the distribution of the background particles. The latter are

457: the excitations of the modes allowed by the constraints and the boundary

458: conditions of wedge dynamics. The Fock space of these excitations was

459: constructed in papers [II] and [III]. We have analyzed two sets of quantum

460: numbers that may label the states. Both sets include the transverse

461: momentum $\vec{p_t}$ and polarization index. In one set, the remaining

462: variable was the boost $\nu$ (the variable conjugated to the coordinate

463: $\eta$); this set proved to be very useful in the practical calculation of

464: the gluon propagators.  In the second set, the particles are labeled by

465: their velocity $v_z=\tanh\theta$ in the direction of the collision axis.

466: This representation is used below. The fermion spectral functions are

467: \begin{eqnarray}

468:  G_{[10]}(q_t,\theta;\tau_1,\tau_2) =[1-n_f^+(q_t,\theta)]

469:  G^{(0)}_{[10]}(q_t,\theta;\tau_1,\tau_2) -

470:  n_f^-(q_t,\theta) G^{(0)}_{[01]}(q_t,\theta;\tau_1,\tau_2)~~,\nonumber\\

471:  G_{[01]}(q_t,\theta;\tau_1,\tau_2) = -n_f^+(q_t,\theta)

472:  G^{(0)}_{[10]}(q_t,\theta;\tau_1,\tau_2) + [1-n_f^-(q_t,\theta)]

473:  G^{(0)}_{[01]}(q_t,\theta;\tau_1,\tau_2)~.

474: \label{eq:E4.1}\end{eqnarray}

475: Their gluon counterparts are of a similar form,

476: \begin{eqnarray}

477: D_{[10]}(k_t,\alpha;\tau_1,\tau_2) =[1+n_g(k_t,\alpha)]

478:  D^{(0)}_{[10]}(k_t,\alpha;\tau_1,\tau_2) +

479:  n_g(q_t,\alpha) D^{(0)}_{[01]}(q_t,\alpha;\tau_1,\tau_2)~,\nonumber\\

480: D_{[01]}(k_t,\alpha;\tau_1,\tau_2) =n_g(k_t,\alpha)

481:  D^{(0)}_{[10]}(k_t,\alpha;\tau_1,\tau_2) +

482: [1+ n_g(q_t,\alpha)] D^{(0)}_{[01]}(q_t,\alpha;\tau_1,\tau_2)~, 

483: \label{eq:E4.2}

484: \end{eqnarray}

485: where $D^{(0)}_{[\alpha]}$ and $G^{(0)}_{[\alpha]}$ are the vacuum 

486: correlators of a given type $[\alpha]$.  They are defined as  vacuum 

487: expectation values  of the binary products of field operators,

488: \begin{eqnarray}

489: G^{(0)}_{[10]}(x_1,x_2) = 

490: -i\langle 0|\Psi (x_1)\overline{\Psi}(x_2)|0\rangle~,~~~~~

491: G^{(0)}_{[01]}(x_1,x_2)=

492: i\langle 0|\overline{\Psi}(x_2)\Psi (x_1)|0\rangle~, \nonumber\\

493: D^{(0)}_{[10]lm}(x_1,x_2) = 

494: -i\langle 0|A_ll(x_1) A(x_2)_m|0\rangle~,~~~~

495: D^{(0)}_{[01]lm}(x_1,x_2)=-i\langle 0|A_m(x_2)A_l(x_1)|0\rangle~.

496: \label{eq:E4.2a}

497: \end{eqnarray}

498: In this approximation, the field (anti-)commutators,

499: \begin{eqnarray}

500:  G_{[0]}= G_{[10]}-G_{[01]}=G^{(0)}_{[10]}-G^{(0)}_{[01]}=

501:  G^{(0)}_{[0]}~,\nonumber\\

502:  D_{[0]}= D_{[10]}-D_{[01]}=D^{(0)}_{[10]}-D^{(0)}_{[01]}=

503:  D^{(0)}_{[0]}~

504: \label{eq:E4.3}

505: \end{eqnarray}

506: appear to be insensitive to the presence of the particle distribution,

507: while their counterparts,

508: \begin{eqnarray}

509:  G_{[1]}= G_{[10]}+G_{[01]}= [1-2n_f]G^{(0)}_{[1]}~,\nonumber\\

510:  D_{[1]}= D_{[10]}+D_{[01]}= [1+2n_g]D^{(0)}_{[1]}~,

511: \label{eq:E4.4}

512: \end{eqnarray}

513: include the occupation numbers which modify the original vacuum density

514: of states. For the sake of simplicity, we take $n_f^+=n_f^-=n_f$, which 

515: corresponds to a neutral system. 

516: 

517: The Wightman functions (\ref{eq:E4.1}) and (\ref{eq:E4.2}) (or their

518: various linear combinations $G_{[\beta]}$ and $D_{[\beta]}$) eventually

519: appear under the integrals $d\theta$ and $d\alpha$. One must keep in mind 

520: that  in order to reduce  $G^{(0)}_{[\beta]}$ and $D^{(0)}_{[\beta]}$ to

521: the standard form of the vacuum correlators, at least two shifts of the

522: integration variables is necessary. Only after that will

523: $G^{(0)}_{[\beta]}$ and $D^{(0)}_{[\beta]}$  explicitly depend on the

524: boost-invariant variables $\eta$ and $\tau_{12}$.  The functions

525: $n_g(k_t,\alpha)$ and $n_f(q_t,\theta)$ are not indifferent to this shift.

526: It may well happen that a formal shift in $\theta$ or $\alpha$ will drive

527: the stationary points of the wave functions or the singularities of the

528: field correlators outside the physical boundaries of the distributions

529: $n_g(k_t,\alpha)$ and $n_f(q_t,\theta)$. Therefore, different

530: representations of $G_{[1]}$ and $D_{[1]}$ must be used for the study of

531: different subprocesses. One has to account for the reservations stemming

532: from the derivation procedure described in Sec.~4 of  paper [II]. These

533: different representations of the quark and gluon correlators are quoted in

534: the Appendix.

535: 

536: In our picture, first outlined in paper [I],  the fermion vacuum mode with

537: small transverse momentum $p_t$ and zero rapidity is modified by its

538: forward scattering either on gluons with high momentum $k_t$ and rapidity

539: $\alpha$, $k_t\gg p_t$ or on quarks with  high momentum $q_t$ and rapidity

540: $\theta$, $q_t\gg p_t$.  These hard modes are created at the earliest

541: moment of the collision and can be treated as well formed particles by the

542: time $\tau\sim 1/p_t$, since at that time $\tau k_t\gg 1$, and $\tau q_t\gg

543: 1$. Therefore, they may be consistently described by the distributions,

544: \begin{eqnarray}

545: n_f(q_t,\theta)\approx {{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_\bot^2}

546: {\theta (q_t-p_\ast) \over q_t^2},~~~

547:  n_g(k_t,\alpha)\approx {{\cal N}_g\over \pi R_\bot^2}

548:  {\theta (k_t-p_\ast) \over k_t^2}~.

549: \label{eq:E4.5}

550: \end{eqnarray}

551: where $p_\ast$ is the lower bound of the ``hard'' partons distribution.

552: Both distributions (per unit area, per unit rapidity) are chosen on

553: purely dimensional grounds, since we believe that the creation of a parton

554: with large transverse momentum is described by perturbative QCD which has 

555: no intrinsic scale. 

556: 

557: Currently, the normalization factors ${\cal N}_g$ and ${\cal N}_f$ are the

558: only (apart from the coupling $\alpha_s$) parameters of the theory. The

559: cross section $\pi R_\bot^2$ and the full width  $2Y$ of the rapidity

560: plateau are defined by the geometry of a particular collision and the

561: c.m.s. energy, respectively. These  are irrelevant for the local screening

562: parameters we are interested in. In the first approximation, one may try to

563: extract them from the event-by-event measurement of the high-$p_t$ tail of

564: the collision products and incorporating the standard phenomenology of the

565: fragmentation functions for the analysis.

566: 

567: As it was pointed out in paper [I], even in dense systems, the QCD

568: evolution at large $Q^2$ is not likely to be affected by finite-density

569: effects. Thus, one may also try to employ the known structure functions

570: (without shadowing corrections) and the factorization scheme in order to

571: estimate  ${\cal N}_g$  and ${\cal N}_f$. A most appealing opportunity to

572: find $n_g(k_t,\alpha)$ and $n_f(q_t,\theta)$ from first principles,

573: associating them with the known properties of hadrons and the QCD vacuum,

574: is still very distant. 

575: 

576: The distributions   (\ref{eq:E4.5})  are used below with the following

577: informal reservations. First, the total energy of any  collision is finite

578: and $k_t$  and $q_t$ have (though very high, but finite) upper boundary.

579: Eventually, this leads to the self-energy which is free from collinear

580: singularities in the interaction of charges with the vector gauge field.

581: Second, though the distributions (\ref{eq:E4.5}) are boost-invariant, only

582: the particles which physically affect the forward scattering  must be

583: accounted for. There is  a strong correlation between the position $\eta$

584: where the particle with large transverse momentum $q_t$ is measured (or is

585: interacting) and its rapidity $\theta$. Hence, the limits of integrals

586: $d\alpha$ and $d\theta$ over the rapidities of real particles (which either

587: mediate the scattering or are in the final states) cannot exceed the actual

588: rapidity boundaries of the scattering process.  In its turn, this puts an

589: additional requirement on the notion of the distribution itself. It must be

590: normalizeable in the physical volume of the reaction. This volume is

591: defined, in fact, by the light cone (i.e. causality of the forward

592: scattering amplitude). [We remind the reader that the notion of a

593: distribution itself makes sense only after it is prepared (measured) at

594: least in a {\em gedanken} experiment. Hence, the distributions  $n_g$ and

595: $n_f$ must exist, in this sense, both at final time $\tau_1$ and at the

596: initial time $\tau_2$ in the expression for the self-energy. In its turn,

597: this limits the time $\tau_2$ from below.]

598: 

599: \section{Leading part of the dispersion equation}

600: \label{sec:S3a}

601: 

602: 

603: \subsection{Derivation of the dispersion equation}

604: \label{subsec:Sb3a}

605: 

606: 

607: The most important outcome of this work is that the major contribution to

608: the effective quark mass comes from the $\eta\eta$-component of the

609: propagator of the longitudinal field. This contribution is computed in all

610: details below. All other terms are associated with the propagation of the

611: transverse fields and they appear to be parametrically small in the domain

612: $\tau_1p_t <1$, $(\tau_1-\tau_2) p_t \ll 1$, $\tau_1-\tau_2 \ll\tau_1$,

613: where the dynamical mass of the fermion is effectively formed.  The

614: component $D_{\eta\eta}$ of the propagator establishes the connection

615: between the $A_\eta$ component of the potential and the $j_\eta$ component

616: of the current. In its turn, $A_\eta$ is responsible for the

617: $\eta$-component $E_\eta=\partial_\tau A_\eta$ of the electric field and

618: the $x$- and $y$-components, $B_x=\partial_y A_\eta$,  $B_y=-\partial_x

619: A_\eta$ of the magnetic field. The electrical field in the longitudinal

620: $\eta$-direction is not capable of producing scattering with transverse

621: momentum transfer. However, this transfer can be provided by the magnetic

622: forces; the two currents $j_\eta$ can interact via the magnetic field

623: ${\vec B}_t=(B_x,B_y)$. The origin of these currents is intrinsically

624: connected with the geometry of states in the wedge form of dynamics. Any

625: state with a given $p_t$ begins its life being widely spread along the

626: light cone. If the state is charged, then  local charge density is small.

627: With time going on, the spread of the wave function diminishes and the

628: charge become localized in a narrower rapidity interval (see

629: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig0}). Therefore, any  charged state carries a current in

630: the longitudinal (rapidity) direction.  

631: 

632: \begin{figure}[htb]

633: \begin{center}

634: \mbox{ \psfig{file=./fig1b.ps,height=2.2in,bb=100 480 400 715} }

635: \end{center}

636: \caption{Evolution of the charge density in the typical state of wedge

637: dynamics}

638: \label{fig:fig0}\end{figure}

639: The magnetic fields of the {\em transition currents} provide scattering

640: with  the most effective transfer of the transverse momentum. Indeed, at

641: time $\tau_2$ a quark with the transverse momentum $p_t$, $\tau_2 p_t\ll

642: 1$, interacts with the gluon field and acquires a large transverse momentum

643: $k_t$, $\tau_2 k_t\gg 1$. This transition is characterized by a drastic

644: narrowing of the charge spread in the rapidity direction, and must be

645: accompanied by a strong $\eta$-component of the transition current. A

646: similar transition in the opposite direction happens at time $\tau_1$, when

647: the gluon field interacts with another quark that has large initial

648: transverse momentum $k_t$, and recovers the soft state with $\tau_2 p_t\ll

649: 1$ in the course of this interaction. This second transition current

650: readily interacts with the magnetic component of the gluon field. Our

651: estimates indicate that the leading contribution comes  from the term of

652: $D_{\eta\eta}(\tau_2,\tau_1; \eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})$   which is

653: proportional to $\delta (\eta_1-\eta_2)$ and does not depend on  ${\vec

654: k_t}$ [in coordinate  representation, this term is just  proportional to

655: $\delta (\eta_1-\eta_2) \delta (\vec{r_1}-\vec{r_2})$ ].  This is a

656: long-range contact interaction of the two currents, and is  not limited by

657: the light-cone boundaries (which suppress the interaction  via the strongly

658: localized states of the radiation field). Furthermore, the  contact part of

659: the longitudinal propagator is the only one that brings  into the integrand

660: of the dispersion equation (\ref{eq:E3.12}) the term  which is {\em

661: singular} at $\tau_1-\tau_2\to 0$. Therefore, it is capable  of providing

662: an appreciable contribution into the effective quark mass, which is {\em

663: defined locally}. This  part of the self-energy allows for an exact

664: calculation with a simple  analytic answer which is presented below.

665: Estimates of all small terms  are  explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:S6} and

666: \ref{sec:SA2}\footnote{ The authors appreciate discussions with Edward

667: Shuryak, who pointed out that the small effect of the radiation fields is

668: much less surprising than the finite contribution from the longitudinal

669: fields.}. This contact part  of the longitudinal propagator is

670: \begin{eqnarray} 

671: D^{[contact]}_{\eta\eta}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})

672: =-{\tau_1^2-\tau_2^2 \over 2}\delta (\eta).

673: \label{eq:E3.14}\end{eqnarray}

674: Because of the extreme locality of $D^{[contact]}_{\eta\eta}$ provided 

675: by $\delta(\eta)$, the invariants $g_{[1]}$ of the fermion density function

676: in (\ref{eq:E3.13}) lose their kinematic coefficients, 

677: \begin{eqnarray} 

678: g^{0}_{[1]}= {-2{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_t^2}~

679: {Y_1(\tau_{12}q_t)\over q_t^2}~,~~~~~~

680: g^{T}_{[1]}= {-2{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_t^2}~{Y_0(\tau_{12}q_t)\over q_t^2}~.

681: \label{eq:E3.16}\end{eqnarray}

682: First, we integrate over $\eta$, which leads to $\tau_{12}^{2}=

683: (\tau_1-\tau_2)^2$. Next, we change $d^2\vec{k_t}$ for $d^2\vec{q_t}$ and

684: integrate over the orientation of $\vec{q_t}$ gaining the factor $2\pi$ in

685: $\Sigma^{0}$. In $\Sigma^{T}$, $g^{T}_{[1]}$ is integrated with the weight

686: factor $(\vec{q}_t\cdot\vec{p}_t)/p_t^2$. Therefore, this term identically 

687: vanishes after integration over the azimuthal angle. The only remaining 

688: integral over the transverse momenta of hard partons is

689: \begin{eqnarray} 

690: \int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} Y_1[(\tau_1 -\tau_2)q_t]~d q_t =

691: {Y_0[(\tau_1 -\tau_2)p_\ast]\over\tau_1 -\tau_2}~.

692: \label{eq:E3.17}\end{eqnarray}

693: Eventually, we may write the dispersion equation (\ref{eq:E3.12}) as

694: follows,

695: \begin{eqnarray} 

696: \mu = p_t +  {i\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f\over 2\pi R_t^2}

697: \int_{0}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2 {\tau_1+\tau_2\over 2\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}} 

698: e^{i\mu(\tau_1-\tau_2)} Y_0[(\tau_1 -\tau_2)p_\ast] ~.

699: \label{eq:E3.18}\end{eqnarray}

700: 

701: \subsection{Study of the dispersion equation.}

702: \label{subsec:Sb3b} 

703: 

704: According to the qualitative analysis of paper [II], the dynamics of states

705: is different in the two limiting cases, $\tau p_t <1$ and $\tau p_t >1$.

706: With respect to $p_t\sim 1/\tau$, the states are divided into ``hard'' and

707: ``soft'' states. Therefore, it is natural to take $p_\ast\sim p_t$ in

708: Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.18}). Further, it is convenient to trade variable $\tau_2$ 

709: for $y=(\tau_1 -\tau_2)/\tau_1$,

710: \begin{eqnarray} 

711: {\mu(p_t,\tau_1)\over p_t} = 1+ 

712: {i\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f \tau_1 p_t\over 2\pi R_t^2 p_t^2}

713: \int_{0}^{1}dy {1-y/2\over \sqrt{1-y}}

714: e^{i\mu(p_t,\tau_1)\tau_1y} Y_0(\tau_1 p_t y) ~.

715: \label{eq:E3.19}\end{eqnarray}

716: In this form, the dispersion equation clearly reveals two  distinctive

717: regimes. When $\tau p_t <1$, then the function $Y_0(x)$ behaves as a

718: logarithm, and the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.19}) becomes

719: proportional to $\ln(2/\tau_1 p_t)$, the effective width of the rapidity

720: interval occupied by the state at the early time of the evolution. When

721: $\tau p_t >1$, then $Y_0(x)\sim 1/\sqrt{x}$, and the integral becomes

722: proportional to $1/\sqrt{\tau p_t}$, the effective rapidity width at

723: later times. Thus, the dispersion equation (\ref{eq:E3.19}) clearly

724: reveals  two distinctive regimes which were qualitatively analyzed in paper

725: [II].  The solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.19}) is generally complex. Taking

726: $\mu=\mu'+i\mu''$ we can separate real and imaginary parts of this 

727: equation,

728: \begin{eqnarray} 

729: \tau_1\mu'- \tau_1 p_t = 

730: - {\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f  \over 2\pi (R_t^2 /\tau_1^2)}

731: \int_{0}^{1}{dy\over 2}~\bigg[ ~{1\over \sqrt{1-y}}+\sqrt{1-y}\bigg] ~

732: e^{-\mu''\tau_1 y}~

733: \sin (\mu'\tau_1 y) Y_0(\tau_1 p_t y) ~,

734: \label{eq:E3.20}\end{eqnarray}

735: \begin{eqnarray}

736: \tau_1\mu''  =  

737: {\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f \over 2\pi (R_t^2/\tau_1^2)}

738: \int_{0}^{1}dy ~\bigg[ ~{1\over \sqrt{1-y}}+\sqrt{1-y}\bigg]~

739: e^{-\mu'' \tau_1 y}~

740: \cos (\mu'\tau_1 y) Y_0(\tau_1 p_t y) ~,

741: \label{eq:E3.21}

742: \end{eqnarray}

743: (The unit upper limit in these integrals corresponds to $\tau_2=0$, and is,

744: as a matter of fact,  fictitious. Practically, we are interested only in 

745: the domain where $\tau_2 p_t\sim 1$.)  We have rearranged the factor  in

746: front of the integral in such a way, that at early times, this factor is

747: small. It has been shown in paper [III], that the longitudinal part of the

748: gluon propagator vanishes when the distance $r_t$ exceeds $\tau_1$.

749: Therefore, this factor is proportional to the  (small) number of hard

750: partons per transverse area occupied by the soft quark  mode. Hence, we can

751: analyze Eqs,~(\ref{eq:E3.20}) and (\ref{eq:E3.21}) by successive

752: approximations. It is clear, that in the lowest approximation, we can take

753: $\mu'=p_t$ in the RHS of these equations, and that the imaginary part

754: $\mu''$ can be neglected. Using  $$\sin x\approx x~,~~~ \cos x\approx 1~,

755: ~~~ Y_0(x) \approx 2\pi^{-1} [\gamma_E +\ln x]~, $$ as an approximation,

756: and computing the remaining integrals, we arrive at

757: \begin{eqnarray} 

758: {\mu'\over p_t} -1 = 

759:  {\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f \over \pi^2 R_t^2 p_t^2}~(\tau_1 p_t)^2~ 

760: \bigg[ {4\over 5}\bigg( -\gamma_E +\ln{2\over \tau_1 p_t}\bigg) 

761: +{104-120\ln 2\over 75}\bigg]~,

762: \label{eq:E3.20a}\end{eqnarray}

763: \begin{eqnarray}

764: {\mu'' \over p_t} =  

765: {\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f \over \pi^2 R_t^2 p_t^2}~\tau_1 p_t~

766: \bigg[{4\over 3}(\gamma_E -\ln{2\over \tau_1 p_t}\bigg) 

767: + {26 - 24\ln 2\over 9}\bigg]~.

768: \label{eq:E3.21a}

769: \end{eqnarray}

770: These dependences are plotted below as  functions

771: of the argument $\tau_1 p_t$ up to the pre-factor

772: $\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f /\pi^2 R_t^2 p_t^2 $.

773: 

774: \begin{figure}[htb]

775: \begin{center}

776: \mbox{ 

777: \psfig{file=./dis2.ps,height=2.2in,bb=95 535 395 725}

778: }

779: \end{center}

780: \caption{Self-energy corrections to the real part ($\mu'/ p_t -1$,

781: upper curve) and to the imaginary part ($\mu''/ p_t $,

782: lower curve) of the effective transverse mass as  functions

783: of $\tau_1p_t$.}

784: \label{fig:fig1}

785: \end{figure}

786: Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.19}) describes the evolution of the effective transverse

787: mass $\mu$ of the state with a given transverse momentum $p_t$ as a

788: function of the proper time $\tau_1$. We see, that the real part $\mu'$

789: gradually grows with time reaching its maximum at $\tau_1p_t\approx 1$. The

790: mode acquires an ``adjoint mass'' due to the interaction with  hard

791: partons, as  was anticipated. The curves cannot be trusted above the

792: boundary $\tau_1\approx p_t^{-1}$, since at  later times, the mode becomes

793: ``hard''. It cannot be viewed as a soft cloud swept with  uniformly

794: distributed hard particles. The condition $$ {d\mu \over d\tau_1}\ll{\mu

795: \over \tau_1},$$ which was used in the course of the dispersion equation

796: derivation, is clearly fulfilled near the maximum of the dispersion curve.

797: 

798: One more important dependence is hidden in the pre-factor 

799: $\alpha_s C_F {\cal N}_f /\pi^2 R_t^2 p_t^2 $, and is not visible from the

800: figure above. This factor scales as $p_t^{-2} $, clearly indicating that at

801: large $p_t$, the effect of screening is small. There is almost no hard

802: particles with $k_t,q_t>p_t$.

803: 

804: 

805: \section{Cancelation of collinear terms in the vacuum part of 

806:           the self-energy}

807: \label{sec:S5}

808: 

809: Usually, the self-energy $\Sigma$ is studied in the momentum

810: representation, and the first subject of concern is the ultraviolet

811: divergence of this function. It is well known that this divergence can be

812: at most logarithmic. Thus, when we compute the four-dimensional integral

813: over the momentum in the loop, this divergence can show up only in the last

814: of these integrations. We compute the self-energy in the mixed

815: representation. Hence, we cannot see the UV divergence explicitly but we

816: {\em must} already see (e.g., in ${\rm Im}\Sigma$) the various infrared

817: divergences which emerge due to real processes with massless fields. A

818: corresponding analysis for the case of the null-plane dynamics  was done in

819: paper [I]. These divergences must be regularized (or even removed from the

820: theory, as is done by means of dimensional regularization) before the UV

821: renormalization. The primary goal of this section is to demonstrate that in

822: the wedge form of dynamics the quark self-energy is completely protected

823: from  collinear problems, and that this is not a surprise. Indeed,  in the

824: theory with massless fermions and gauge bosons, the infrared singularities

825: show up in a different way depending on the type of Hamiltonian dynamics

826: (including the gauge condition) which is used to describe the process. In

827: the gauge $A^+ =0$ they look like collinear divergences. In the gauge $A^0

828: =0$, they look like an infrared problem of the proper field of the charged

829: particle. In both cases, the problem emerges due to the incomplete gauge

830: fixing, and manifests itself through  spurious poles of the gauge field

831: propagators. As  has been shown in paper [III], the gauge $A^\tau =0$ is

832: fixed completely, and therefore, the quark self-energy that we compute here

833: is totally free of these problems.

834: 

835: In order to demonstrate this appealing feature we shall compute (the most

836: dangerous in this respect) the vacuum part of the fermion self-energy,

837: concentrating on the terms where the integrand as a function of the

838: rapidity $\alpha$ is not suppressed at $~|\alpha|\to\infty~$. A

839: self-consistent piece of this type is the contribution of the transverse

840: electric mode of the gluon field. The tensor part of any gluon correlator

841: for this mode is of a very simple form,

842: \begin{eqnarray}

843:  D_{[\alpha]rs}^{TE}=(\delta_{rs} -k_rk_s/k_t^2)~{\cal D}_{[\alpha]}^{TE}~;

844: \label{eq:E5.1}

845: \end{eqnarray}

846: it has no $\eta$ components, and the scalar functions

847: ${\cal D}_{[\alpha]}^{TE}$ can be computed exactly since they 

848: have simple integral representations. 

849: We use this piece of the self-energy to explain the principles we base our

850: calculations on.

851: Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:E3.13}) and (\ref{eq:E3.13a}), we get

852: \begin{eqnarray}

853: \big[\Sigma_{[ret]}^{L(\pm)}\big]^{TE}_{vac}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta,\vec{p_t})=

854: {i\alpha_sC_F\over 2\pi}\theta(\tau_{12}^2)\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)

855: \int d^2\vec{k_t}\big[q_t g^{L(\pm)}_{[0]}(q_t){\cal D}_{[1]}^{TE}(k_t)-

856: q_t g^{L(\pm)}_{[1]}(q_t){\cal D}_{[0]}^{TE}(k_t)\big]~,

857: \label{eq:E5.3}

858: \end{eqnarray}

859: where $\vec{q_t}=\vec{k_t}+\vec{p_t}$ and the minus sign in the second term

860: is due to the definition (\ref{eq:E3.2}) of $D_{[adv]}$. The 

861: $\Sigma_{[ret]}^{TE}$ is fully confined within the light wedge 

862: $\tau_{12}^2 >0$.

863: Then, the vacuum quark and gluon correlators have the following form,

864: \begin{eqnarray}

865: {\cal D}_{[0]}^{TE}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})=

866: 2^{-1}\theta(\tau_{12}^{2})J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)~,~~~~

867: {\cal D}_{[1]}^{TE}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})=

868: 2^{-1}i~Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)~,

869: \label{eq:E5.2a}

870: \end{eqnarray}

871: \begin{eqnarray}

872:  g^{L(\pm)}_{[0]}=

873:  i~{\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over 4\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}}

874:  \theta(\tau_{12}^2)~J_1(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|})~,~~~~

875:  g^{L(\pm)}_{[1]}= 

876:   {\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over 4\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}}

877:   ~Y_1(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|})~,

878: \label{eq:E5.2b}

879: \end{eqnarray}

880: where $\tau_{12}^2=\tau_{1}^2+\tau_{2}^2 - 2\tau_1\tau_2\cosh\eta$, and

881: the commutators $D_{[0]}^{TE}$ and $G_{[0]}$ include the causal  

882: $\theta(\tau_{12}^{2})$ by  definition, and the terms proportional

883: to $\theta(-\tau_{12}^{2})$ in the densities $D_{[1]}^{TE}$ and

884: $G_{[1]}$ are omitted.

885: Integration over the angle $\varphi$ between the vectors $\vec{p_t}$ and 

886: $\vec{k_t}$ involves only the invariants $g_{[\alpha]}$. According to

887: Eqs.(\ref{eq:E5.3}) and (\ref{eq:E5.2b}), we have to integrate,

888: \begin{eqnarray}

889: \int_{0}^{2\pi}q_t J_1(\tau_{12}q_t)d\varphi=

890: 2\pi~[ k_t J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)+

891: p_t J_1(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)]~,\nonumber\\

892: \int_{0}^{2\pi}q_t Y_1(\tau_{12}q_t)d\varphi=

893: 2\pi~\{\theta(k_t-p_t)[ k_t J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)Y_1(\tau_{12}k_t)+

894: p_t J_1(\tau_{12}p_t)Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)]+\nonumber\\

895: +\theta(p_t-k_t)[ k_t J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)Y_0(\tau_{12}p_t)+

896: p_t Y_1(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)] \}~.

897: \label{eq:E5.4}

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: This integration is done with the aid of the so called addition 

900: theorems \cite{Watson} for Bessel functions of the argument

901: $~q_t=[k_t^2+p_t^2+2k_tp_t\cos\varphi]^{1/2}$. Starting from this point, we

902: can continue in two ways. The most straightforward option is to use the

903: gluon correlators in the integrated form of the Bessel functions, thus 

904: sweeping under the rug the singular behavior stemming from 

905: $\alpha\to\infty$. This leads to the integral

906: \begin{eqnarray}

907: \big[\Sigma_{[ret]}^{L(\pm)}\big]^{TE}=

908: {i\alpha_sC_F\over 8}\theta(\tau_{12}^2)\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)

909: {\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over \tau_{12}}\nonumber\\

910: \times\bigg[ - J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)

911: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_t^2[J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)+

912: J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)Y_1(\tau_{12}k_t)]dk_t -

913: 2p_tJ_1(\tau_{12}p_t)

914: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_tJ_0(\tau_{12}k_t)Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)dk_t\nonumber\\

915: +p_tJ_1(\tau_{12}p_t)

916: \int_{0}^{p_t}k_tJ_0(\tau_{12}k_t)Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)dk_t+

917: J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)

918: \int_{0}^{p_t}k_t^2J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)Y_1(\tau_{12}k_t)dk_t\nonumber\\

919: -p_t Y_1(\tau_{12}p_t)

920: \int_{0}^{p_t}k_tJ_0(\tau_{12}k_t)J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)dk_t

921: -Y_0(\tau_{12}p_t)

922: \int_{0}^{p_t}k_t^2J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)dk_t\bigg]

923:  \label{eq:E5.5}

924: \end{eqnarray}

925: Here, all the integrals can be computed explicitly as indefinite integrals.

926: The integrals from $0$ to $p_t$ yield the regular part of the answer

927: below. Taking the upper limit of improper integrals to be $\Lambda\to\infty$,

928: we get the singular part as the limit,

929: \begin{eqnarray}

930: \lim_{\Lambda\to\infty} {\Lambda^2\over\tau}\bigg[[J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)

931: +\tau p_tJ_1(\tau_{12}p_t)]J_1(\tau\Lambda)Y_1(\tau\Lambda)+

932: \tau p_tJ_1(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau\Lambda)Y_0(\tau\Lambda)\bigg]~.

933: \label{eq:E5.6}

934: \end{eqnarray}

935: Using the asymptotic expansion of Bessel functions, we find that

936: the singular part is built from $\delta(\tau_{12})$ and its derivative.

937: The full answer reads as

938: \begin{eqnarray}

939: \big[\Sigma_{[ret]}^{L(\pm)}\big]^{TE}=

940: -{i\alpha_sC_F\over 16\pi}\theta(\tau_{12}^2)\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)

941: {\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over \tau_{12}}\nonumber\\

942: \times\bigg\{ p_t^2 {J_2(\tau_{12}p_t)\over\tau_{12}}

943: +\pi\bigg[{J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)\over\tau_{12}}\bigg(\delta'(\tau_{12})

944: -{2\over\tau_{12}}\delta(\tau_{12})\bigg)-

945: {4p_tJ_1(\tau_{12}p_t)\over\tau_{12}}\delta(\tau_{12})\bigg]\bigg\}~.

946: \label{eq:E5.7}

947: \end{eqnarray}

948: Thus, the answer is singular at the null planes $\tau_{12}^2=0$. In order to

949: find the true source of this singularity, we shall proceed in a different

950: manner, keeping the gluon invariants $g^{L(\pm)}$ in the integral form. We

951: shall integrate over $k_t$ first and leave the integral over the gluon

952: rapidity $\alpha$ for the end of calculation. This leads to

953: \begin{eqnarray}

954: \big[\Sigma_{[ret]}^{L(\pm)}\big]^{TE}=

955: {i\alpha_sC_F\over 8}\theta(\tau_{12}^2)\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)

956: {\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over \tau_{12}}

957: \bigg\{-~{ p_t^2\over 2\pi} {J_2(\tau_{12}p_t)\over\tau_{12}}\nonumber\\

958: +\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{d\alpha\over\pi}~

959: \bigg[ J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)

960: \bigg(\int_{0}^{\infty}k_t^2J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)\cos (T_{12}k_t) dk_t-

961: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_t^2 Y_1(\tau_{12}k_t)

962: \sin (T_{12}k_t) dk_t\bigg)\nonumber\\

963: +p_tJ_1(\tau_{12}p_t)

964: \bigg(\int_{0}^{\infty}k_tJ_0(\tau_{12}k_t)\cos (T_{12}k_t) dk_t-

965: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_t Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)

966: \sin (T_{12}k_t) dk_t\bigg)\bigg]\bigg\}~,

967:  \label{eq:E5.8}

968: \end{eqnarray}

969: where, we remind the reader that, 

970: $T_{12}=T_1-T_2=\tau_{12}\cosh(\alpha-\psi)$. The integrals

971: in this expression are the well-known Fourier transforms of the Bessel

972: functions,

973: \begin{eqnarray}

974: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_t^2J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)\cos (T_{12}k_t) dk_t=

975: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_t^2 Y_1(\tau_{12}k_t)\sin (T_{12}k_t) dk_t=

976: 3T_{12}\tau_{12}\big[T_{12}^{2}-\tau_{12}^2\big]_{+}^{-5/2}~,\nonumber\\

977: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_tJ_0(\tau_{12}k_t)\cos (T_{12}k_t) dk_t=

978: \int_{0}^{\infty}k_t Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)\sin (T_{12}k_t) dk_t=

979: -T_{12}\big[T_{12}^{2}-\tau_{12}^2\big]_{+}^{-3/2}~,

980:  \label{eq:E5.9}

981: \end{eqnarray}

982: where the distribution $x^{\lambda}_{+}$ is defined in a standard way with

983: the due number of subtracted terms of the Taylor expansion in the integral

984: $\int f(x) x^{\lambda}_{+}dx$ \cite{Gel'fand}.   Three different issues are

985: important here. First, each of the integrals (\ref{eq:E5.9}) is a well

986: defined distribution that includes all necessary regulators which provide

987: the convergence of subsequent integrations. The Bessel functions themselves

988: are {\em defined} as the Fourier transforms of the  (+)-distributions and we

989: just recover the original regular form by doing the inverse Fourier

990: transform (\ref{eq:E5.9}) (see Ref.\cite{Gel'fand})~. Second, as it will be

991: shown in the next section, the singular behavior  of the integrals

992: (\ref{eq:E5.9}) originates from the collinear domain. The (+)-prescription

993: that emerges here eliminates them term-by-term. Third, after the result of

994: the term-by-term integration is put back into  Eq.~(\ref{eq:E5.8}), the

995: singular collinear terms just cancel everywhere, including the null-plane

996: $\tau_{12}^2=0$. This type of cancelation of collinearly singular terms

997: takes place in all other pieces of the vacuum part of the quark self-energy.

998: 

999: All these observations lead us to the conclusion, that even in its vacuum

1000: part, the self-energy does not suffer from collinear problems, which seems

1001: to be a unique property of the expanding system. We do not continue to study

1002: the vacuum part of the self-energy here, since we are currently interested

1003: only in its material part which is discussed in the next section. [~The full

1004: analysis of this part, including the issue of its renormalization, will be

1005: published elsewhere.~]

1006: 

1007: 

1008: 

1009: \section{Radiation fields in the material part of the self-energy}

1010: \label{sec:S6}

1011: 

1012: We found that the major contribution to the one-loop effective mass of a

1013: ``soft'' quark mode in the background of ``hard'' quarks and gluons comes

1014: from the quark-quark forward scattering mediated by the magnetic component

1015: of the longitudinal field. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate

1016: that the interactions via transverse fields (including the forward

1017: scattering of soft quark on hard gluons) is a secondary effect at least at

1018: the very early stage of the nuclear collision. This conclusion may look

1019: counter-intuitive, since, namely in the interactions of the transverse

1020: fields, we expect to encounter the collinear enhancement of the radiation

1021: amplitude. As it has been shown in Sec.\ref{sec:S5}, in the vacuum part of

1022: the self-energy, the integrals of this type (taken in the limits from $0$ to

1023: $\infty$) cancel each other leaving the vacuum sector free from collinear

1024: divergences. The statistical weights ${\cal N}_g$ and ${\cal N}_f$, which

1025: are different for the different terms, prevent such a cancelation in the

1026: material part. Thus we have to analyze each term of the material part

1027: separately.

1028: 

1029: As in Sec.\ref{sec:S5}, we consider an isolated piece which corresponds to

1030: TE-gluons. The gluon correlators of this piece are the most singular and are

1031: known not only in the integral representation, but in closed analytic form

1032: also. The last circumstance is very helpful for the analysis of the multiple

1033: integrals we meet below. (The terms identical to those computed below, also

1034: appear in the part of self-energy due to the TM-gluons; the remaining terms

1035: of TM-sector are less singular and, eventually, smaller than considered

1036: here.) The corresponding fragment of the quark self-energy (\ref{eq:E3.13})

1037: in the dispersion equation (\ref{eq:E3.12}) is

1038: \begin{eqnarray} 

1039: \bigg[\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{(TE)}_{mat}=

1040: {i\alpha_s C_F\over 4\pi}~\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)\int d^2 \vec{k_t}

1041: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~ q_t \big[ g^{0}_{[0]} {\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[1]}

1042: - g^{0}_{[1]} {\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[0]}\big] ,

1043: \label{eq:E6.01}\end{eqnarray}

1044: \begin{eqnarray}

1045: \bigg[\Sigma^{T}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{(TE)}_{mat}=

1046: {i\alpha_s C_F\over 4\pi}~

1047: \theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)\int d^2\vec{k_t}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~

1048:  \bigg[{(\vec{p_t} \vec{q_t})\over p_t^2} 

1049: -2{(\vec{k_t} \vec{p_t})(\vec{k_t} \vec{q_t})\over k_t^2 p_t^2}\bigg]

1050: \big[ g^{T}_{[0]}{\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[1]}-g^{T}_{[1]}{\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[0]}\big].

1051: \label{eq:E6.02}\end{eqnarray}

1052: The invariants of (anti-)commutators are the same as in the vacuum case,

1053: \begin{eqnarray}

1054: g^{0}_{[0]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta;\vec{q_t})=

1055:  i~{(\tau_1 -\tau_2)\cosh(\eta/2)\over 2\tau_{12}}

1056:  \theta(\tau_{12}^2)~J_1(q_t\tau_{12})~,~~~~

1057:  g^{T}_{[0]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta;\vec{q_t})=

1058:  -{\cosh(\eta/2)\over 2}

1059:  \theta(\tau_{12}^2)~J_0(q_t\tau_{12})~,

1060: \label{eq:E6.03}\end{eqnarray}

1061: and the invariant ${\cal D}_{[0]}^{TE}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta;\vec{k_t})$ is

1062: given by the first of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:E5.2a}). They all differ from zero only

1063: for the timelike $\tau_{12}$. Hence, the material part of the invariants

1064: $g_{[1]}$ and ${\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[1]}$ will be needed only in this domain. As

1065: it has been discussed earlier, the distributions include only ``hard''

1066: particles which are defined with respect  to the soft mode with the

1067: transverse momentum $p_t$ by the inequalities,  $k_t>p_\ast$, and 

1068: $q_t>p_\ast$, where $p_\ast\geq p_t$. Now, we are interested only in  the

1069: material part with occupation numbers given by the equations,

1070: \begin{eqnarray}

1071: n_f(q_t,\theta)\approx {{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_\bot^2}

1072: {\theta (q_t-p_\ast) \over q_t^2} ,~~~~

1073:  n_g(k_t,\alpha)\approx {{\cal N}_g\over \pi R_\bot^2}

1074:  {\theta (k_t-p_\ast) \over k_t^2} ~,

1075: \label{eq:E6.04} 

1076: \end{eqnarray}

1077: and we must keep in mind the width $2Y$ of the rapidity plateau with the goal

1078: to study if this is a significant parameter for the calculation of local

1079: quantities. We may also question the validity of these formulae at

1080: sufficiently large  $k_t$ and $q_t$, since without a cutoff, the integral

1081: $\int dk_t/k_t$ diverges.

1082: 

1083: The material part of the densities will be employed in two different forms,

1084: \begin{eqnarray}

1085: g^{0}_{[1]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta;\vec{q_t})= 

1086: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d\theta\over \pi}

1087: n_f(\theta;q_t)\cosh\theta \sin q_t T_{12}(\theta)

1088: =-~{(\tau_1 -\tau_2)\cosh(\eta/2)\over \tau_{12}}

1089: n_f(q_t)~Y_1(q_t\tau_{12})~,

1090: \label{eq:E6.05}

1091: \end{eqnarray}

1092: \begin{eqnarray}

1093: g^{T}_{[1]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;\eta;\vec{q_t})= 

1094: -~i\cosh{\eta\over 2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d\theta\over \pi}

1095: n_f(\theta;q_t)~\cos q_t T_{12}(\theta)

1096: =-~i\cosh(\eta/2)~n_f(q_t)~Y_0(q_t\tau_{12})

1097: \label{eq:E6.06}

1098: \end{eqnarray}

1099: \begin{eqnarray}

1100: {\cal D}_{[1]}^{(TE)}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta;\vec{k_t})= 

1101: (\pi i)^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\alpha 

1102: n_g(\alpha;k_t) \cos k_t T_{12}(\alpha)

1103: =i~Y_0(\tau_{12}k_t)~n_g(k_t)~,

1104: \label{eq:E6.07}

1105: \end{eqnarray}

1106: where the second equation in (\ref{eq:E6.05})-(\ref{eq:E6.07}) is valid

1107: only when $n_g$ and  $n_f$ are rapidity-independent, and we employ the

1108: following notation,

1109: \begin{eqnarray}

1110: T_{12}(\alpha)=\tau_1\cosh(\alpha-\eta/2)-\tau_2\cosh(\alpha+\eta/2)=

1111: \tau_{12}\cosh(\alpha -\psi)~,\nonumber\\

1112: \tau_{12}^2=\tau_{1}^2+\tau_{2}^2 - 2\tau_1\tau_2\cosh\eta > 0,~~~~

1113: \tanh\psi(\eta)=

1114: {\tau_1+\tau_2\over\tau_1-\tau_2}\tanh{\eta\over 2},\nonumber\\ 

1115: |\eta|<\eta_0 =\ln{\tau_1\over\tau_2}

1116: \approx{\tau_1-\tau_2\over \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}=\xi  , ~~~

1117: \tanh\psi(\pm\eta_0)=\pm 1,~~~\psi(\pm\eta_0)=\pm \infty~, 

1118: \label{eq:E6.08} 

1119: \end{eqnarray} 

1120: 

1121: where $\xi=(\tau_1-\tau_2)/\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}\approx\eta_0$ is the main

1122: parameter  of our calculations. This parameter is supposed to be small in

1123: order that the notion of the current transverse mass $\mu(p_t,\tau_1)$ has

1124: the expected meaning of a slowly varying parameter. The geometric mean time

1125: $\tau_m= \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}$ has a simple interpretation. The two

1126: characteristics, one connecting the points $(\tau_2,-\eta_0)$ and 

1127: $(\tau_1,\eta_0)$, and the second one connecting the points

1128: $(\tau_2,\eta_0)$ and  $(\tau_1,-\eta_0)$, intersect at the point

1129: $(\tau_m,0)$. The proper time $\tau_m$ is always inside the domain of the

1130: ``causal interaction.''

1131: 

1132: Let us start the analysis of the radiation-dominated terms with the invariant

1133: $[\Sigma^{0}]^{(TE)}_{mat}$.  (The invariant $[\Sigma^{T}]^{(TE)}_{mat}$

1134: appears to have an extra small factor $\xi$.) According to

1135: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:E6.04}), (\ref{eq:E6.05}), and (\ref{eq:E6.07}) it can be

1136: written as a multiple integral, 

1137: \begin{eqnarray}

1138: \bigg[\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{(TE)}_{mat}=

1139: {i\alpha_sC_F\over 8\pi^2}

1140: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\eta  \theta(\tau_{12}^2) 

1141: \bigg\{{{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_\bot^2}\int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} d q_t

1142: \int_{0}^{2\pi}d\varphi ~J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)

1143: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d \theta~\cosh \theta

1144: \sin T_{12}(\theta)q_t \nonumber\\

1145: +{{\cal N}_g\over \pi R_\bot^2}

1146: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}}

1147: \int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} {d k_t\over k_t}\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\varphi

1148: ~q_t J_1(\tau_{12}q_t)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\alpha~

1149: \cos T_{12}(\alpha)k_t ~\bigg\}\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)~,

1150: \label{eq:E6.09} 

1151: \end{eqnarray}

1152: where we choose the integral form of the densities $g_{[1]}$ and  ${\cal

1153: D}^{(TE)}_{[1]}$ in order to find the domain in the multidimensional space

1154: where the dominant contribution comes from. Since the two terms in

1155: (\ref{eq:E6.09}) are not expected to interfere (or UV- diverge), we are free

1156: to change variables in these terms independently. We leave $d^2\vec{k_t}$ in

1157: the second term, and change for  $d^2\vec{q_t}$ in the first one. The next

1158: step is to integrate over the azimuthal angle between $\vec{q_t}$ and

1159: $\vec{p_t}$ in the first term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E5.3}), and over the angle

1160: between $\vec{k_t}$ and $\vec{p_t}$ in the second term. This integration

1161: deals only with the retarded propagators inside the self-energy loop and

1162: selects the lowest angular harmonics,

1163: \begin{eqnarray}

1164: \int_{0}^{2\pi}q_t J_1(\tau_{12}q_t)d\varphi=

1165: 2\pi~[ k_t J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)+

1166: p_t J_1(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)]~,~~~k_t>p_t~,

1167: \label{eq:E6.10a}

1168: \end{eqnarray}

1169: \begin{eqnarray}

1170: \int_{0}^{2\pi}~ J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)d\varphi=

1171: 2\pi~ J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau_{12}q_t)~,~~~q_t>p_t~.

1172: \label{eq:E6.10b}

1173: \end{eqnarray}

1174: Only the first of the two terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.10a}), corresponding to 

1175: the collinear geometry in the transverse plane survives in the limit of 

1176: $k_t\gg p_t$ and has to be retained by our major assumption. The second term

1177: describes the deviation from collinearity and is small. However, it is

1178: instructive to keep it for a while.  After these angular integrations,

1179: Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.09}) becomes

1180: \begin{eqnarray}

1181: \bigg[\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{(TE)}_{mat}=

1182: {i\alpha_sC_F\over 4\pi}\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)

1183: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\eta  \theta(\tau_{12}^2) 

1184: \bigg\{{{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_\bot^2}\int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} d q_t

1185: J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau_{12}q_t)

1186: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d \theta~\cosh \theta

1187: \sin T_{12}(\theta)q_t \nonumber\\

1188: +{{\cal N}_g\over \pi R_\bot^2}

1189: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}}

1190: \int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} {d k_t\over k_t}

1191: [ k_t J_0(\tau_{12}p_t)J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)

1192: +p_t J_1(\tau_{12}p_t)J_0(\tau_{12}k_t)]

1193: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\alpha 

1194: \cos T_{12}(\alpha)k_t ~\bigg\},

1195: \label{eq:E6.11} 

1196: \end{eqnarray}

1197: where the actual limits of integration over $\eta$, $\theta$, and $\alpha$ 

1198: have yet to be put in agreement with the model we employ. Now, we have

1199: approached the most subtle point of our analysis. This expression includes

1200: triple integrations, any of which (if performed formally) yields singular

1201: functions.  For the sake of definiteness, let us start with the second

1202: term in Eq.(\ref{eq:E6.11}) (which corresponds to the forward scattering of

1203: soft quark on a hard gluon from the distribution $n_g(\alpha,k_t)$), 

1204: rewriting it in its most expanded form,

1205: \begin{eqnarray}

1206: {\cal J}_2={{\cal N}_g\over \pi R_\bot^2}\int d\eta \theta(\tau_{12}^2) 

1207: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}}J_0[\tau_{12}(\eta)p_t]

1208: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\alpha

1209: \int_{p_\ast}^{\infty}J_1[\tau_{12}(\eta)k_t]

1210: \cos [k_t\tau_{12}(\eta)\cosh(\alpha-\psi(\eta))]~d k_t~.

1211: \label{eq:E6.12} 

1212: \end{eqnarray}

1213: 

1214: The first observation is that at large $k_t$ (which is the condition that

1215: the distribution $n_g(\alpha,k_t)$ can be measured within a short time) the

1216: main contribution to the $\alpha$-integration comes from the domain

1217: $\alpha\approx\psi(\eta)$ where the phase of the $\cos T_{12}(\alpha)k_t$ is

1218: stationary.  This is the domain of collinear interaction when the hard gluon

1219: from the distribution $n_g(\alpha,k_t)$ has almost the same rapidity as the

1220: virtual quark with transverse momentum $~\vec{q_t}=\vec{k_t}+\vec{p_t}~$ in

1221: the self-energy loop. Obviously, this quark is also hard. Furthermore, its

1222: propagator, $G_{[ret]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;q_t)= \theta

1223: (\tau_1-\tau_2)G_{[0]}(\tau_1,\tau_2;q_t)$, is devised only from the free

1224: on-mass-shell partial waves which themselves are well localized in the

1225: rapidity direction. Hence, we deal with the intuitively very clear case of

1226: collinear absorption and emission of the gauge field quantum by a charged

1227: particle. All participants of the process are moving with the same

1228: velocity.  According to  the property of localization of states in wedge

1229: dynamics studied in paper [II], such a fine tuning of  $\alpha$ to $\psi$ 

1230: is indeed possible.  This  is illustrated by the left-hand figure on 

1231: Fig.\ref{fig:fig2}. where the grey segments of the hyperbolas $\tau=\tau_2$

1232: and $\tau=\tau_1$ correspond to the rapidity intervals occupied by the soft

1233: quark mode, $\tau p_t<1$, at the beginning and at the end of the scattering

1234: process, respectively. The bold black and the dashed segments  show the 

1235: rapidity intervals where  the hard virtual quark and the hard gluon are

1236: localized at the same times. All three fields effectively overlap around

1237: rapidity $\eta_2=-\eta/2$ at $\tau=\tau_2$ and around $\eta_1=+\eta/2$ at

1238: $\tau=\tau_1$. The rapidity direction between these points is exactly

1239: $\psi(\eta)$.  The rapidity  $\alpha$ of the external gluon is sufficiently

1240: small and is close to the rapidity $\psi(\eta)$.  

1241: 

1242: \begin{figure}[htb]

1243: \begin{center}

1244: \mbox{ 

1245: \psfig{file=./col1.ps,height=2.2in,bb=105 535 385 715}

1246: \hspace{.2cm}

1247: \psfig{file=./col2.ps,height=2.2in,bb=105 535 385 715}

1248: }

1249: \end{center}

1250: \caption{Geometry of fields in the forward scattering amplitude $qg\to qg$.}

1251: \label{fig:fig2}

1252: \end{figure}

1253: 

1254: The maximal rapidity width of the interaction domain is defined by the

1255: causality condition $\tau_{12}^2 >0$, which immediately establishes the

1256: upper boundary  $|\eta|<\eta_0$.   Since the collinear interaction

1257: corresponds to the  condition $\alpha\approx\psi(\eta)$, the rapidity of the

1258: hard gluon must be within  this geometrically defined interval as well. The

1259: opposite case is depicted in the right-hand figure of Fig.\ref{fig:fig2}.

1260: The rapidity $\psi(\eta)$ is so large, that the external gluon is not

1261: localized within the causal boundaries $\pm\eta_0/2$ of the interaction

1262: domain. In order to avoid this, we have to impose an  even stronger

1263: requirement that $|\psi(\eta)|<\eta_0$.  According to  (\ref{eq:E6.08}), we

1264: have $|\psi(\eta)|>\eta$. Hence, we must further take  $|\eta|<\eta_\ast$,

1265: where the boundary $\eta_\ast$ is defined by the equation

1266: $\psi(\eta_\ast)=\eta_0$, 

1267: \begin{eqnarray}

1268: {\tau_1+\tau_2\over\tau_1-\tau_2}\tanh{\eta_\ast\over 2}=\tanh\eta_0

1269: \equiv {\tau_1^2-\tau_2^2\over\tau_1^2+\tau_2^2}~,

1270: \label{eq:E6.13} 

1271: \end{eqnarray}

1272: which has a solution,

1273: \begin{eqnarray}

1274: \tanh{\eta_\ast\over 2}

1275: = {(\tau_1-\tau_2)^2\over\tau_1^2+\tau_2^2}~,~~~~~~

1276: \eta_\ast\approx{(\tau_1-\tau_2)^2\over \tau_1\tau_2}~=\xi^2~.

1277: \label{eq:E6.14} 

1278: \end{eqnarray}

1279: We remind the reader that $\xi\ll 1$; only this condition allows one to 

1280: introduce the the time-dependent transverse mass $\mu(p_t,\tau)$.

1281: In order to simplify further analysis, it is convenient to present the

1282: internal integral over $k_t$  as the difference,

1283: \begin{eqnarray}

1284:  -~{\tau_{12}\over (T^2_{12}(\alpha)-\tau_{12}^2)_+^{1/2}

1285: [T_{12}(\alpha)+(T^2_{12}(\alpha)-\tau_{12}^2)^{1/2}]}~

1286: -\int_{0}^{p_\ast} J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)

1287: \cos [T_{12}(\alpha)k_t]~d k_t ~,

1288: \label{eq:E6.15} 

1289: \end{eqnarray}

1290: where the first singular term is the integral over $k_t$, computed from $0$ 

1291: to $\infty$, and thus, it completely accounts for the domain

1292: $k_t\to\infty$. It includes the function 

1293: \begin{eqnarray}

1294: f(\eta,\alpha) =[T^2_{12}(\alpha)-\tau_{12}^2]_+^{-1/2}=

1295: [\tau_{12}^2(\eta)\sinh^2(\alpha-\psi(\eta))]_+^{-1/2}~, \nonumber

1296: \end{eqnarray}

1297: which is singular at $\alpha = \psi(\eta)$, thus fully accounting for the

1298: expected collinear enhancement. This function, however,

1299: is  a canonical distribution with respect to both its arguments $\alpha$

1300: and $\eta$, and it carries the standard regulators for the subsequent

1301: integrations. We shall consider the singular and the regular terms 

1302: separately. Using the above found limits, we may write the singular term as

1303: \begin{eqnarray}

1304: I_{2}^{sing}=\int_{-\eta_\ast}^{\eta_\ast} d\eta 

1305: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}(\eta)}

1306: {1\over [\tau_{12}(\eta)]_+ }~

1307: \int_{-\eta_0}^{\eta_0}d\alpha~

1308: {e^{-|\alpha-\psi |}\over [\sinh^2|\alpha -\psi |]_{+}^{1/2}}~,

1309: \label{eq:E6.16} 

1310: \end{eqnarray}

1311: where, since $\tau_{12}p_t\ll 1$, we put $J_0[\tau_{12}p_t]\approx 1$. After

1312: an obvious change of variable, the internal integral of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.16})

1313: can be split  into two,

1314: \begin{eqnarray}

1315: \int_{-\eta_0}^{\eta_0} d\alpha~

1316: {e^{-|\alpha-\psi |}\over [\sinh^2|\alpha -\psi |]_{+}^{1/2}}=

1317: \bigg[ \int_{0}^{\eta_0+\psi}+\int_{0}^{\eta_0-\psi}\bigg] 

1318: {\alpha~e^{-\alpha}\over \sinh\alpha }~{d\alpha\over \alpha_{+}}~.\nonumber

1319: \end{eqnarray}

1320: Since by the definition of the (+)-distribution, 

1321: \begin{eqnarray}

1322: \int_{0}^{\beta} {\alpha~e^{-\alpha}\over \sinh\alpha }

1323: ~{d\alpha\over \alpha_{+}}= 

1324: \int_{0}^{\beta}{e^{-\alpha }d\alpha\over\sinh\alpha}

1325: -\int_{\epsilon}^{1}{d\alpha\over\alpha}=

1326: \ln{1-e^{-2\beta}\over 2}~,

1327: \label{eq:E6.17} 

1328: \end{eqnarray}

1329: we obtain the singular part in the form,

1330: \begin{eqnarray}

1331: I_2^{sing}=2~\int_{0}^{\eta_\ast}

1332: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}(\eta)}

1333: { d\eta \over [\tau_{12}(\eta)]_+ }~

1334: \ln\big\{{1\over 4}[1+e^{-4\eta_0}-2e^{-2\eta_0}\cosh 2\psi(\eta)]\big\}~.

1335: \label{eq:E6.18} 

1336: \end{eqnarray}

1337: Next, it is convenient to trade $\eta$ for a new variable $y$, 

1338: $\tau_{12}(\eta)=(\tau_1 -\tau_2)y$. The helpful relations for this change

1339: of variables are

1340: \begin{eqnarray}

1341: {\cosh(\eta/2)d\eta \over\tau_{12}(\eta)}={-1\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~

1342: {d y\over \sqrt{1-y^2}}~,~~~~

1343: \tau_{12}^2(\eta_\ast)=

1344: {(\tau_1 -\tau_2)^2\over 1+(\tau_1 -\tau_2)^2/\tau_1\tau_2}~,\nonumber\\

1345: y_\ast\approx 1-{(\tau_1 -\tau_2)^2\over 2\tau_1\tau_2}~,~~~~

1346: \cosh 2\psi={(\tau_1 +\tau_2)^2\over 2\tau_1\tau_2}{1\over y^2}-

1347: {\tau_1^2 +\tau_2^2\over 2\tau_1\tau_2}~.\nonumber

1348: \end{eqnarray}

1349: Taking into account that $\cosh 2\psi\to 1$, when $y\to 1$, we obtain,

1350: \begin{eqnarray}

1351: I_2^{sing}={4\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~\int_{y_\ast}^{1}

1352: {d y\over y\sqrt{1-y^2}}

1353: \ln{1-e^{-2\eta_0}\over 2} \approx {4\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}

1354: ~{\tau_1-\tau_2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}

1355: ~\ln{\tau_1-\tau_2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}=

1356: {4\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~\xi\ln\xi~.

1357: \label{eq:E6.19} 

1358: \end{eqnarray}

1359: 

1360: This formula has two distinctive elements. The first element is the large

1361: $\ln\xi$, which is due to the  collinear geometry of the interaction. This

1362: would lead to a divergence if the interaction domain were unlimited. The

1363: second element is the small factor $\xi$ which is due to the small volume

1364: occupied by the  interaction and it completely suppresses the potential

1365: divergence.  One may notice that when the mean time  $\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}$

1366: increases, then $\xi\to 0$, and the corresponding part of the self-energy

1367: also tends to zero. This is easy to understand, since with the mean time

1368: growing, the system becomes more and more diluted locally.

1369: 

1370: The regular part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.12}) is given by the integral,

1371: \begin{eqnarray}

1372: I_2^{reg}=\int_{-\eta_\ast}^{\eta_\ast} d\eta 

1373: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}(\eta)}

1374: \int_{-\eta_0}^{\eta_0}d\alpha~

1375: \int_{0}^{p_\ast} J_1(\tau_{12}k_t)

1376: \cos [T_{12}(\alpha)k_t]~d k_t ~,

1377: \label{eq:E6.20} 

1378: \end{eqnarray}

1379: where, when $~-\eta_0<\eta<\eta_0$, then $T_{12}(\alpha)$ varies between

1380: its minimal and maximal values,

1381: \begin{eqnarray}

1382: {(\tau_1 -\tau_2)^2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2} }e^{-|\alpha|} <

1383: T_{12}(\alpha)<{(\tau_1 -\tau_2)^2\over

1384: \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2} }e^{+|\alpha|}~.      \nonumber

1385: \end{eqnarray}

1386:  Therefore, when $k_t<p_t$,

1387: we have $T_{12}k_t\sim (\tau_1-\tau_2)k_t\ll 1$, and both functions under

1388: the integral over $k_t$ can be expanded in Taylor series. All integrations

1389: become trivial and yield \footnote{ Even if we impose no limitations on

1390: $\alpha$ the estimate is still as small as 

1391: $${\tau_1\tau_2 p_\ast^2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~\xi^2\ln\xi~.$$}

1392: \begin{eqnarray}

1393: I_2^{reg}= {\tau_1\tau_2 p_\ast^2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~

1394: \bigg[{\tau_1-\tau_2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}\bigg]^4

1395: ={\tau_1\tau_2 p_\ast^2\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~\xi^4~.

1396: \label{eq:E6.21} 

1397: \end{eqnarray}

1398: We have chosen this form of the answer, because our major assumption is 

1399: valid only as long as $\tau p_t \leq 1$ and because the dispersion equation 

1400: (\ref{eq:E3.12}) has a kinematic factor $\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}$ in it.

1401: 

1402: The other two terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.11}) can be studied along the same

1403: guidelines. The third term is suppressed with respect to ${\cal J}_2$ by the

1404: factor $p_t/k_t$, which is small by our major model agreement and it could

1405: have been discarded on this ground only. To be on safe side, let us rewrite

1406: it as

1407: \begin{eqnarray}

1408: {\cal J}_3={{\cal N}_g\over \pi R_\bot^2}\int_{-\eta_\ast}^{\eta_\ast} 

1409: d\eta ~{(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}}

1410: ~p_t~J_1[\tau_{12}(\eta)p_t]\nonumber\\

1411: \times\int_{-\eta_0}^{\eta_0} d\alpha ~ 

1412: \bigg\{ -\gamma_E -\ln\big[{\tau_{12}p_t\over 2}

1413: e^{|\alpha-\psi(\eta)|}\big]+

1414: \int_{0}^{p_\ast}{1- J_0[\tau_{12}(\eta)k_t]\cos (T_{12}(\alpha)k_t)

1415: \over k_t}~d k_t~\bigg\}~,

1416: \label{eq:E6.22} 

1417: \end{eqnarray}

1418: where the first term is the integral over $k_t$ from $0$ to $\infty$. As i

1419: could be expected, the integrand is regular. Since there is an accounted for

1420: difference between $k_t$ and $q_t$, the exactly collinear regime becomes

1421: impossible and we do not have the large collinear logarithm in ${\cal J}_3$.

1422: Overall, this term is also suppressed at least by a  factor $\xi$ stemming 

1423: from $J_1[\tau_{12}(\eta)p_t]$ in the integrand.

1424: 

1425: The first term in Eq.(\ref{eq:E6.11}) corresponds to the forward quark-quark 

1426: scattering with high momentum transfer,

1427: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal J}_1={{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_\bot^2}

1428: \int_{-\eta_\ast}^{\eta_\ast}  d\eta 

1429: ~J_0[\tau_{12}(\eta)p_t] \hspace{10cm}\nonumber\\ 

1430: \times \int_{-\eta_0}^{\eta_0} d\theta ~  

1431: \bigg\{ {\cosh\theta\over [\sinh^2(\theta-\psi(\eta))]_{+}^{1/2}} 

1432: {1\over[\tau_{12}(\eta)]_+}

1433: -\cosh\theta~\int_{0}^{p_\ast} J_0[\tau_{12}(\eta)q_t] 

1434: \sin (T_{12}(\theta)q_t)~d q_t~\bigg\}~. 

1435: \label{eq:E6.23}  \end{eqnarray} 

1436: Here, we again recognize the collinear singularity which is, as previously,

1437: regulated by the (+)-prescription. All further  calculations for 

1438: ${\cal J}_1$ are similar to the case of ${\cal J}_2$ and the answer reads, 

1439: \begin{eqnarray} 

1440: I_1^{sing} \leq {-8\xi + 4 \xi^2 \ln\xi\over \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}~,~~~~ 

1441: I_1^{reg}\approx 2{p_\ast^2 \tau_1\tau_2 \over \sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}\xi^5~. 

1442: \label{eq:E6.24} 

1443: \end{eqnarray} 

1444: These results will serve for us as a reference point for the estimates of

1445: the mathematically more complicated part connected with the radiation field

1446: of the transverse magnetic TM-modes. Before we address this issue, it is

1447: expedient to look at the obtained results more attentively and trace the

1448: correspondence between the calculations and physical picture in more

1449: details: 

1450: 

1451: {\em ~~1.} It has been observed in Sec.~\ref{sec:S5} (for the vacuum part of

1452: the quark self-energy) that in the framework of wedge dynamics, the

1453: collinear problems do not jeopardize the field theory. In ``material part''

1454: of the self-energy, the collinear interactions were proved to be the most

1455: intensive and to lead to a  visible enhancement of the interaction between

1456: the quark and {\em radiation} field. However, this enhancement never turns

1457: into a disaster of collinear divergence. One of the trivial reasons is that

1458: the space-time domain of the interaction is now limited, and large

1459: logarithms are multiplied by small phase volumes.  

1460: 

1461: {\em ~~2.} A deeper insight into the  wedge dynamics, shows that even

1462: intermediate  collinear singularities observed in the terms ${\cal J}_1$

1463: and  ${\cal J}_2$ are spurious. In order to reveal this fact, one can notice

1464: that the  singularity at $\alpha = \psi(\eta)$ is present only in ${\cal

1465: J}_1$ and ${\cal J}_2$.  It is absent in ${\cal J}_3$,  because of the extra

1466: negative power of $k_t$ brought by the subleading term of the angular

1467: integral $d\varphi$. This extra $k_{t}^{-1}$ effectively suppresses the

1468: distribution $n_g(\alpha,k_t)$ at large $k_t$.  Next, one may ask, what

1469: minimal change of $n_g(\alpha,k_t)$ at large $k_t$ is necessary in order

1470: that the intermediate collinear singularity does not appear at all. This can

1471: be learned by  changing the order of integration in Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.12}).

1472: One can start from the integral $d\eta$ with an assumption that the

1473: integrand only slowly varies within some interval of $\alpha$ around $\alpha

1474: =0$. Then, it is easy to see that the singular term $I_2^{sing}$ of

1475: Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.19}) {\em totally} originates from the domain of

1476: $k_t\to\infty$. It comes from a logarithmic integral between two infinite

1477: limits.  This residual piece emerges only because we extend the distribution

1478: $n_g\sim k_t^{-2}$ (obtained from a dimensional estimate) to an arbitrarily

1479: large $k_t$. As we have already mentioned, this dependence is unphysical,

1480: e.g., because the distribution $d^2\vec{k_t}/k_t^2$ is not normalizeable. It

1481: has to be modified above some value of $k_t$ and, therefore, the singular

1482: term must vanish completely.  Thus, in wedge dynamics, the phenomenon of

1483: collinear enhancement is intrinsically connected with the basic property of

1484: localization inherent in the one-particle states. Only the states with

1485: infinitely large $k_t$ can have a precisely given rapidity and be

1486: responsible for the singularities like we encounter in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:E6.15})

1487: and  (\ref{eq:E6.23}).

1488: 

1489: {\em ~~3.}  Our  way to pick out the leading contributions (in the mixed

1490: representation of wedge dynamics) from the space-time domains, where the

1491: phases of the interacting fields are stationary, is a generalization of the

1492: known method of isolating the leading terms using the pinch-poles in the

1493: plane of complex energy. The similarity of two methods can be easily

1494: understood since, e.g., the quark density correlator in the self-energy can

1495: be presented as a sum of two propagators,

1496: $G_{[1]}(q)=G_{[00]}(q)+G_{[11]}(q)$. In the plane of the complex energy

1497: $q^0=k^0+p^0$, the (Feynman-type) propagator $G_{[00]}(q)$ has poles in the

1498: second and fourth quadrants, while the (anti-Feynman-type) propagator

1499: $G_{[11]}(q)$ has poles in the first and third quadrants.  The radiation

1500: part of the retarded gauge field propagator $D_{[ret]}(k)$ has poles in the 

1501: third and fourth quadrants. Therefore, in both terms of  $G_{[1]}(q)

1502: D_{[ret]}(k) =G_{[00]}(q)D_{[ret]}(k) +G_{[11]}(q)D_{[ret]}(k)$, the

1503: integration path along the real axis of the complex $k^0$ plane is pinched

1504: between two poles (one from $D_{[ret]}$, and the second from $G_{[00]}$ or 

1505: $G_{[11]}$ ) giving the leading contribution when $p^0$ is small, and the

1506: three-momenta $\bbox{k}$ and $\bbox{q=k+p}$ are are very close to each

1507: other. Similar arguments are valid for the second part, $G_{[ret]}D_{[1]}$,

1508: of the quark self-energy. The term $G_{[1]}(q)D_{[long]}(k)$ is exceptional,

1509: because the propagator $D_{[long]}(k)$ of the longitudinal field has no

1510: poles corresponding to the propagation.

1511: 

1512: The wedge dynamics does not allow for a standard momentum representation,

1513: since its geometric background is not homogeneous in the $t$- and

1514: $z$-directions; accordingly, we do not have familiar pinch-poles in our

1515: calculations. Nevertheless, the patches of phase space where the phases of

1516: certain field fragments are stationary and effectively overlap, do now the

1517: same job as the pinch-poles, and yield the same answers when the homogeneity

1518: required for the momentum representation is restored. The way wedge dynamics

1519: tackles the problem is genuinely more general, because it addresses the

1520: space-time picture of the interacting fields.\footnote{It is well known,

1521: that the threshold behavior of the imaginary part of the photon self-energy

1522: can be derived from  the pinch geometry of the poles of the electron

1523: propagators \cite{Berest}. Since at the threshold, the $e^+ e^-$ pair is

1524: created with zero relative velocity, the pinch indeed corresponds to the

1525: overlap of the stationary phases of the $e^+$ and $ e^-$ wave functions in

1526: the maximal possible volume.} The momentum space is now split into the 

1527: subspaces of rapidity and transverse momentum; the correlation between the 

1528: particle's rapidity and its location is increasing with the increase of its

1529: transverse momentum . The role of pinch-poles is taken over by the

1530: geometrical overlap of the field patterns with the same rapidity. This

1531: observation can serve as a footing for the future development of  an

1532: effective technique for perturbative calculations in wedge dynamics. The

1533: arguments of the localization are not applicable to the  longitudinal part

1534: of the gluon field. In the term $G_{[1]}D_{[long]}$, no patch in space-time

1535: is dynamically selected, since $D_{[long]}$ is not assembled from the

1536: propagating waves that could match the virtual quark in the loop by their

1537: phase. This is in line with the absence of pinch-poles due to

1538: $D_{[long]}(k)$ in the momentum picture.

1539: 

1540: The arguments presented above allow one to estimate the contribution of the

1541: radiation fields of the TM-mode in a very economical way. Let us consider

1542: the group ${\cal D}_{[0]}^{(2)}g^0_{[1]}$, which is very similar to the term

1543: ${\cal J}_{1}$ studied above, as an example. Now, the invariant  ${\cal

1544: D}_{[0]}^{(2)}$, as can be inferred from Eq.~(\ref{eq:A1.4}), is known only

1545: in the integral representation, and not in an analytic form. Let us,

1546: therefore, employ the analytic form of $g^0_{[1]}$, given by

1547: Eq.~(\ref{eq:A1.20}). It is easy to see, that the integration over $\alpha$

1548: in ${\cal D}_{[0]}^{(2)}$ leads to the same causal step-function 

1549: $\theta(\tau_{12}^2)$ and, as previously shown,  we have $|\eta|<\eta_0$.

1550: The expanded form of this term is

1551: \begin{eqnarray}

1552: {\cal J}_4={{\cal N}_f\over \pi R_\bot^2}\int_{-\eta_0}^{\eta_0}

1553:  d\eta \theta(\tau_{12}^2) 

1554: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over\tau_{12}}\int d\alpha 

1555: \tanh\big(\alpha-{\eta\over 2}\big)  \tanh\big(\alpha+{\eta\over 2}\big)

1556: \int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} Y_1[\tau_{12}(\eta)q_t]

1557: \sin [ T_{12}(\alpha)q_t]dq_t ,

1558: \label{eq:E6.25} 

1559: \end{eqnarray}

1560: where we have integrated out the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ assuming that 

1561: $k_t,q_t\gg p_t$ (the first correction is smaller by the factor 

1562: $(p_t/k_t)^2\ll 1$). The internal integral over $q_t$ can be transformed into

1563: \begin{eqnarray}

1564:  -~{\cosh (\alpha-\psi(\eta))]\over 

1565:  [\tau_{12}^2(\eta)\sinh^2(\alpha-\psi(\eta))]_+^{1/2}}~

1566: -~\int_{0}^{p_\ast} Y_1(\tau_{12}q_t) \sin [T_{12}(\alpha)k_t]~d k_t ~,

1567: \label{eq:E6.26} 

1568: \end{eqnarray}

1569: which brings us very close to Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.23}) for ${\cal J}_1$. Once

1570: again, we encounter a collinear singularity at $\alpha=\psi(\eta)$, and

1571: exactly the same arguments force us to set the same limits in the integrals,

1572: as in  Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.23}). We do not have to continue the calculations to

1573: understand the smallness of ${\cal J}_4$, mention only, that due to the

1574: narrow limits of two rapidity integrations in Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.25}), the

1575: product of the two hyperbolic tangents in the integrand will add extra

1576: $\xi^2$ to the order of smallness of ${\cal J}_4$. By the same argument as

1577: used previously, we can easily  learn that the singular term in

1578: Eq.~(\ref{eq:E6.26}) is spurious.

1579: 

1580: In this group, associated with the $TM$-mode of the radiation field, the

1581: leading (still parametrically small, and equal to ${\cal J}_1$) 

1582: contribution comes from the  $D^{\eta\eta}$ component of the gluon

1583: correlators. We may summarize by the observation that only the overlap of the

1584: domains of stationary phase in two correlators matters. It can be visualized

1585: via the partial-wave expansion of any of the correlators in the self-energy

1586: loop.

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: \section{ Nonlocal part of the longitudinal propagator 

1591:      in the material part of the self-energy.}

1592: \label{sec:SA2}

1593: 

1594: The longitudinal part of the gluon propagator contributes, to the invariant

1595: $\Sigma^{0}$, the term

1596: \begin{eqnarray} 

1597: \bigg[\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{[long]}_{mat}=

1598: {i\alpha_s C_F\over 4\pi}~\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)\int d^2 \vec{k_t}

1599: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~ q_t ~g^{0}_{[1]}

1600: \bigg[{\cal D}^{(2)}_{[long]} 

1601: +{1\over \tau_1\tau_2}{\cal D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[long]}\bigg]~.

1602: \label{eq:A2.01}\end{eqnarray}

1603: Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.14a}) and (\ref{eq:A1.15a}) for the gluon invariants,

1604: and the first of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.20}) for the quark invariant $g^{0}_{[1]}$,

1605: we arrive at the following expression which accounts for the non-local part

1606: of the longitudinal propagator (the contact part was studied in 

1607: Sec.~\ref{sec:S3a}).

1608: \begin{eqnarray} 

1609: \bigg[\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{[long]}_{mat}=

1610: {i\alpha_s C_F{\cal N}_f\over 2\pi^2R_\bot^2}~\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)~

1611: \int_{p_\ast}^{\infty} d q_t

1612: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta~ 

1613: {(\tau_1-\tau_2)\cosh\eta/2\over |\tau_{12}^2|^{1/2}} \nonumber\\

1614: \times {k_t\cosh \eta\over 2} \int_{\tau_2}^{\tau_1} e^{-t q_t\sinh |\eta|} 

1615: \bigg(1-{t^2\over\tau_1\tau_2}\bigg) ~ dt 

1616: \bigg[\theta(\tau_{12}^2)~Y_1(\tau_{12}q_t)

1617: +{2\over\pi}\theta(-\tau_{12}^2)~

1618: K_1(\tilde{\tau}_{12}q_t)\bigg] ,

1619: \label{eq:A2.02}\end{eqnarray}

1620: 

1621: where we have integrated out the dependence on the azimuthal angle 

1622: $\varphi$ in the approximation of $q_t\gg p_t$. The key observation that

1623: allows one to judge about the smallness of this term is that the limits of

1624: integration over variable $t$ are very close, and the factor 

1625: $[1-t^2/\tau_1\tau_2]$ is very small. This factor reflects a known

1626: competition between the electric and magnetic interaction of  moving charges

1627: which reduces the net yield almost to zero.  Let us replace $t$ by the

1628: dimensionless  $u=t/\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}$. Then this part of the integral

1629: becomes 

1630: \begin{eqnarray} 

1631: {1\over\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}}

1632: \int_{\tau_2}^{\tau_1}

1633: \bigg[1-{t^2\over\tau_1\tau_2}\bigg]\cdot\cdot\cdot dt

1634: = \int_{\sqrt{\tau_2/\tau_1}}^{\sqrt{\tau_1/\tau_2}}

1635: (1-u^2)\cdot\cdot\cdot du

1636: =\int_{\sqrt{1-\xi^2/4}-\xi/2}^{\sqrt{1-\xi^2/4}+\xi/2}

1637: (1-u^2)\cdot\cdot\cdot du \approx -{\xi^3\over 3}f(\xi)~,

1638: \label{eq:A2.03}\end{eqnarray}

1639: where the limiting behavior $f(\xi)\sim const/\xi$  when $\xi\to 0$ can be

1640: conjectured from the behavior of the functions $Y_1(x)$ and $K_1(x)$ at

1641: small $x$. However, the Laplace transforms of these functions in

1642: Eq.~(\ref{eq:A2.02}) are singular functions of $\eta$ and we have to be

1643: careful in estimating these terms. In fact, the $\xi^2$ order of smallness

1644: is not altered by the remaining integrations. First, it is useful to notice

1645: that the last factor in square brackets in Eq.~(\ref{eq:A2.02}) is nothing

1646: but the invariant $g^{0}_{[1]}$ which, according to its integral

1647: representation (\ref{eq:A1.20}),  equals zero at $\xi=0$.  Next, it is

1648: profitable to change the variables of integration in the following way. We

1649: trade $\eta$ for $y$ according to $\tau_{12}(\eta)=(\tau_1 -\tau_2)y$ in the

1650: domain $\tau_{12}^2>0$. In the complimentary domain

1651: $\tau_{12}^2=-\tilde{\tau}_{12}^2<0$, we change $\eta$ for $y$ using

1652: $\tilde{\tau}_{12}(\eta)=(\tau_1 -\tau_2)y$. We also replace $\xi q_t$ by a

1653: new variable $q$.

1654: \begin{eqnarray}

1655: \bigg[\Sigma^{0}(\tau_1,\tau_2)\bigg]^{[long]}_{mat}=

1656: {i\alpha_s C_F{\cal N}_f\over 2\pi^2R_\bot^2}~\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)

1657: ~{1\over\xi}~\int_{\sqrt{1-\xi^2/4}-\xi/2}^{\sqrt{1-\xi^2/4}+\xi/2} (1-u^2)

1658: \int_{\xi p_\ast}^{\infty} q d q \nonumber \\

1659: \times\bigg\{\int_0^1 {dy\over\sqrt{1-y^2}}

1660: \bigg[1+{\xi^2\over 2}(1-y^2)\bigg]

1661: ~{\pi\over 2}~Y_1(\tau_m qy) 

1662: ~e^{-\tau_m q u\sqrt{1-y^2}~\sqrt{1*\xi^2(1-y^2)/2}}\nonumber \\

1663: +\bigg(\int_0^1+\int_1^\infty\bigg)

1664:  {dy\over\sqrt{1+y^2}}\bigg[1+{\xi^2\over 2}(1+y^2)\bigg]

1665: K_1(\tau_m qy) 

1666: ~e^{-\tau_m q u\sqrt{1+y^2}~\sqrt{1*\xi^2(1+y^2)/2}}\bigg\}~.

1667: \label{eq:A2.04}\end{eqnarray}

1668: where, we remind the reader that $\tau_m=\sqrt{\tau_1\tau_2}$. When the 

1669: argument is small, the functions  $Y_1(x)$ and $K_1(x)$ are,

1670: $${\pi\over 2}~Y_1(x)\approx -{1\over x} +\ln{x\over 2}\bigg({x\over 2}

1671: +O(x^3)\bigg),~~~~K_1(x)\approx {1\over x} +\ln{x\over 2}\bigg({x\over 2}

1672: +O(x^3)\bigg)~. $$

1673: It is easy to see now that in the sum of the two integrals $dy$ over the

1674: interval $(0,1)$, the leading singularities $dy/y$ exactly cancel each

1675: other. Furthermore, it is safe to take the limits of $\xi\to 0$, $u\to 1$ in

1676: the integrand, and even to set the lower limit of the integral $dq$ to be

1677: zero. The resulting integral is convergent, $\xi$-independent, and yields a

1678: term of  the order $\xi^2$. In the remaining integral, the variable $y$ runs

1679: from $1$ to $\infty$, the integrand is not singular at finite $y$ and $q$,

1680: and it is exponentially suppressed at large $y$ and $q$. The behavior of the

1681: integral at $\xi\to 0$ is not singular and the basic upper estimate

1682: $~const\times\xi^2$ remains unchanged for the entire integral

1683: (\ref{eq:A2.04}).

1684: 

1685: 

1686: \vspace{2cm}

1687: 

1688: 

1689: \noindent {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}

1690: 

1691: The authors are grateful to Berndt Muller and Edward Shuryak for

1692: helpful discussions at various stages in the development of this work,

1693: and appreciate the help of Scott Payson who critically read the

1694: manuscript.

1695: 

1696: 

1697: 

1698: \bigskip

1699: 

1700: 

1701: 

1702: 

1703: 

1704: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A\arabic{equation}}

1705: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1706: 

1707: \section{Appendix. Wightman functions and propagators of wedge dynamics.}

1708: \label{sec:SA1}

1709: 

1710: In this Appendix, we put all field correlators into a form which is needed

1711: for the practical calculation of the self-energy. The density of states

1712: $D_{[1]}$ and the causal part $D_{[0]}$ of the gluon propagator are used in

1713: the form of decomposition over the transverse modes,

1714: \begin{eqnarray}

1715:   D_{[10]}^{lm}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})= -i(2\pi)^2

1716:   \int d\alpha \sum_{\lambda} v^{(\lambda)l}_{\alpha,\vec{k_t}}(\tau_2,\eta_2)

1717:   \overstar{v}^{(\lambda)m}_{\alpha,\vec{k_t}}(\tau_1,\eta_1)~,\nonumber\\

1718:  D_{[01]}^{lm}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})= -i(2\pi)^2

1719:   \int d\alpha \sum_{\lambda} v^{(\lambda)l}_{\alpha,-\vec{k_t}}(\tau_2,\eta_2)

1720:   \overstar{v}^{(\lambda)m}_{\alpha,-\vec{k_t}}(\tau_1,\eta_1)~, 

1721: \label{eq:A1.1}

1722: \end{eqnarray}

1723: where

1724: \begin{eqnarray}  

1725: v^{(TE)}_{{\vec k},\alpha}(x)={1\over 4\pi^{3/2} k_{t}} 

1726: \left[ \begin{array}{c} 

1727:                          k_y \\ 

1728:                         -k_x \\ 

1729:                          0 

1730:                              \end{array} \right]

1731: e^{-ik_{t}\tau\cosh (\alpha-\eta)};~~~

1732: v^{(TM)}_{{\vec k},\alpha}(x)={1\over 4\pi^{3/2} k_{t}}  

1733: \left[ \begin{array}{c} 

1734:                  k_x f_1 \\ 

1735:                  k_y f_1 \\ 

1736:                   - f_2 

1737:                  \end{array} \right] ~~,

1738: \label{eq:A1.2}\end{eqnarray}  

1739: are the transverse electric and transverse magnetic modes of the radiation 

1740: field found previously in paper [II]. Here, we denoted,

1741: \begin{eqnarray}  

1742: f_1(\tau ,\eta)=  i \tanh (\alpha-\eta)

1743: (e^{-ik_{t}\tau \cosh (\alpha-\eta)} - 1)~~, \nonumber\\ 

1744: f_2(\tau ,\eta)= {e^{-ik_{t}\tau \cosh (\alpha-\eta)} -1 \over

1745: \cosh^{2} (\alpha-\eta)} +

1746: i k_{t}\tau {e^{-ik_{t}\tau\cosh (\alpha-\eta)} 

1747: \over  \cosh (\alpha-\eta)}~~.

1748: \label{eq:A1.3} 

1749: \end{eqnarray}        

1750: Starting from this form, we get the components of the commutator

1751: $D_{[0]}(\tau_2,\tau_1;\eta_2-\eta_1;\vec{k_t})$, \footnote{In all formulae

1752: below, the gluon rapidity $\alpha$ is counted from the reference point

1753: $(\eta_1+\eta_2)/2$, the geometric center of the coordinates $\eta_1$ and

1754: $\eta_2$ of the vertices in the self-energy loop. Thus, it corresponds to the

1755: rapidity $\theta'$ in the integral representation of the quark correlators

1756: in paper [II].}

1757: \begin{eqnarray}

1758:   D_{[0]}^{rs}=

1759: \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} \bigg\{\bigg[\delta_{rs}-{k_rk_s\over k_t^2}\bigg]

1760: \sin k_tT_{12}

1761: +{k_rk_s\over k_t^2}\tanh\big(\alpha+{\eta\over 2}\big) 

1762: \tanh\big(\alpha-{\eta\over 2}\big)

1763: \big[\sin k_tT_{12}\underline{-\sin k_tT_1 +\sin k_tT_2}~\big]\bigg\}~,

1764: \label{eq:A1.4}

1765: \end{eqnarray} 

1766: \begin{eqnarray}

1767:  D_{[0]}^{\eta\eta}=

1768: \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} 

1769: {1\over k_t^2\cosh^2(\alpha+{\eta\over 2}) \cosh^2(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})}

1770: \big[(1+k_t^2T_1T_2)\sin k_tT_{12}

1771: -k_tT_{12}\cos k_tT_{12}\nonumber\\

1772: \underline{+\sin k_tT_2-\sin k_tT_1-k_tT_2\cos k_tT_2 

1773: +k_tT_1\cos k_tT_1}~\big]~,

1774: \label{eq:A1.5}

1775: \end{eqnarray} 

1776: where $ T_1=\tau_1\cosh (\alpha-\eta/2)$, $ T_2=\tau_2\cosh (\alpha+\eta/2)$,

1777: $T_{12}=T_1-T_2$. In the first of these equations, the coefficients of the

1778: tensors  $(\delta_{rs}-k_rk_s/k_t^2)$ and $k_rk_s/k_t^2$ are the invariants 

1779: ${\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[0]}$ and ${\cal D}^{(2)}_{[0]}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.8}), 

1780: respectively. The latter is due to the $TM$-mode of the radiation field. Up to

1781: the factor $k_t^{-2}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:A1.5}) defines the invariant ${\cal

1782: D}^{(\eta\eta)}_{[0]}$. The underlined terms are connected with the boundary

1783: conditions imposed on the $TM$-mode at $\tau=0$. They cancel with the

1784: underlined terms in the longitudinal part of the gauge field propagator 

1785: given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.14}) and  (\ref{eq:A1.15}) thus

1786: providing the causal behavior of the components $D_{[adv]}^{rs}$ and

1787: $D_{[adv]}^{\eta\eta}$ of the retarded propagator $D_{[adv]}(\tau_2,\tau_1)$.

1788: In the body of the paper, we call the residues of this cancelation as

1789: the diagonal components  of $D^{[0]}$.

1790: The ``off-diagonal'' components of the commutator $D_{[0]}^{ij}$ are

1791: \begin{eqnarray}

1792: D_{[0]}^{r\eta}= {-ik_r\over k_t^2}

1793: \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} 

1794: {\tanh(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})\over\cosh^2(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})}

1795: \big[\sin k_tT_{12}- k_tT_1\cos k_tT_{12} 

1796: +\sin k_tT_2-\sin k_tT_1+k_tT_1\cos k_tT_1\big]~,

1797: \label{eq:A1.6}

1798: \end{eqnarray} 

1799: \begin{eqnarray}

1800: D_{[0]}^{\eta r}= {ik_r\over k_t^2}

1801: \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} 

1802: {\tanh(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})\over\cosh^2(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})}

1803: \big[\sin k_tT_{12}+ k_tT_2\cos k_tT_{12} 

1804: +\sin k_tT_2-\sin k_tT_1-k_tT_2\cos k_tT_2\big]~.

1805: \label{eq:A1.7}

1806: \end{eqnarray}

1807: The commutator is not a symmetric tensor. However, by examination, these

1808: components are odd with respect to the rapidity  difference 

1809: $\eta=\eta_1-\eta_2$, and hence they do not contribute to the effective quark

1810: mass we are computing in this paper.

1811: 

1812: The tensor of the gluon density   $D_{[1]}^{ij}(\tau_2,\tau_1; \eta_2-\eta_1;

1813: \vec{k_t})$ has the ``diagonal'' components,

1814: \begin{eqnarray}

1815: D_{[1]}^{rs}=

1816: -i \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} \bigg\{\bigg[\delta_{rs}-{k_rk_s\over k_t^2}\bigg]

1817: \cos k_tT_{12} \hspace{8cm}\nonumber \\

1818: +{k_rk_s\over k_t^2}\tanh(\alpha+{\eta\over 2}) \tanh(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})

1819: (\cos k_tT_{12}-\cos k_tT_1 -\cos k_tT_2 +1)\bigg\}~,

1820: \label{eq:A1.8}

1821: \end{eqnarray} 

1822: \begin{eqnarray}

1823:  D_{[1]}^{\eta\eta}=

1824: -i\int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} 

1825: {1\over k_t^2\cosh^2(\alpha+{\eta\over 2}) \cosh^2(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})}

1826: \big[(1+k_t^2T_1T_2)\cos k_tT_{12}

1827: +k_tT_{12}\sin k_tT_{12}\nonumber\\

1828: -\cos k_tT_2-\cos k_tT_1-k_tT_2\sin k_tT_2 -k_tT_1\sin k_tT_1 +1\big]~,

1829: \label{eq:A1.9}

1830: \end{eqnarray} 

1831: from which one can infer the invariants ${\cal D}^{(TE)}_{[1]}$ and 

1832: ${\cal D}^{(2)}_{[1]}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:E3.8}) exactly in the same way as it

1833: was done for the invariants of the commutator $D_{[0]}$. The off-diagonal

1834: components,

1835: \begin{eqnarray}

1836: D_{[1]}^{r\eta}= {-k_r\over k_t^2}

1837: \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} 

1838: {\tanh(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})\over\cosh^2(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})}

1839: \big[\cos k_tT_{12}- k_tT_1\sin k_tT_{12} 

1840: -\cos k_tT_2-\cos k_tT_1-k_tT_1\sin k_tT_1 +1\big]~,

1841: \label{eq:A1.10}

1842: \end{eqnarray} 

1843: \begin{eqnarray}

1844: D_{[1]}^{\eta r}= {k_r\over k_t^2}

1845: \int {d\alpha\over 2\pi} 

1846: {\tanh(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})\over\cosh^2(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})}

1847: \big[\cos k_tT_{12}- k_tT_2\sin k_tT_{12} 

1848: -\cos k_tT_2-\cos k_tT_1-k_tT_2\sin k_tT_2 +1\big]~,

1849: \label{eq:A1.11}

1850: \end{eqnarray}

1851: are also non-symmetric and odd with respect to the rapidity  difference 

1852: $\eta$. They also do not contribute to the effective quark mass. Equations

1853: (\ref{eq:A1.8})-- (\ref{eq:A1.11}) give  the components of the vacuum density

1854: of states of the gauge field in the wedge dynamics. In order to incorporate

1855: the ``material'' part given by the distribution of real gluons, the integrand

1856: of each of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.8})-- (\ref{eq:A1.11}) must be multiplied by the

1857: common factor $[1+2n_g(k_t,\alpha)]$.

1858: 

1859: The full tensor of the longitudinal part of the propagator that defines

1860: the field $A(\tau_1)$ via the current $j(\tau_2)$ at all preceding times,

1861: \begin{eqnarray}

1862: A^{[long]}_l(\tau_1)=\int_{0}^{\tau_1}\tau_2~d\tau_2~d\eta_2

1863: D^{[long]}_{lm}(\tau_2, \tau_1;\eta_1-\eta_2,{\vec k_t} ) j^m(\tau_2)~,

1864: \label{eq:A1.12}

1865: \end{eqnarray} 

1866: was found in paper [III] in the following form,

1867: \begin{eqnarray}

1868: D^{[long]}_{lm}(\tau_2, \tau_1;\eta_1-\eta_2, {\vec k_t})

1869: =\hspace{12cm}\\  \label{eq:A1.13}

1870: =  \int {d\nu d^2{\vec k} \over (2\pi)^3 k_{\bot}^2}

1871: \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 

1872:  k_rk_s [Q_{-1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_2)- Q_{-1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_1)] &

1873:  k_r \nu [ Q_{1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_2) -Q_{-1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_1)]\\

1874:  \nu k_s  [ Q_{-1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_2) -Q_{1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_1)] &

1875:  \nu^2  [ Q_{1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_2) -Q_{1,i\nu}(k_{\bot}\tau_1)]

1876:                                             \end{array} \right]_{lm} 

1877:  e^{-i\nu(\eta_1-\eta_2) }~.\nonumber     

1878: \end{eqnarray}  

1879: The diagonal components of this longitudinal part of the gluon propagator 

1880: are just the differences between the vector potentials of the ``static''

1881: gluon fields at the final time $\tau_1$ and the initial time $\tau_2$,

1882: \begin{eqnarray}

1883:  D^{[long]}_{rs}= {k_rk_s\over k_t^2}

1884:  \bigg\{ {\coth |\eta|\over 2} (e^{-\tau_1 k_t\sinh |\eta|}-

1885:  e^{-\tau_2 k_t\sinh |\eta|}) \hspace{6cm}\nonumber \\

1886:  -~ \underline{\int {d\alpha\over 2\pi}

1887:  \tanh(\alpha+{\eta\over 2}) \tanh(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})

1888: \big[~\sin k_tT_1-\sin k_tT_2~\big]}~\bigg\}~,

1889: \label{eq:A1.14}

1890: \end{eqnarray} 

1891: \begin{eqnarray}

1892:  D^{[long]}_{\eta\eta}= -  {\tau_1^2-\tau_2^2\over 2}\delta(\eta)

1893:  -\bigg\{\bigg[\bigg({\cosh\eta\over k_t^2\sinh^3|\eta|}+

1894:  {\tau_1\cosh\eta\over k_t\sinh^2\eta}+

1895:  {\tau_1^2\cosh\eta\over 2\sinh |\eta|}\bigg)e^{-\tau_1 k_t\sinh |\eta|}\bigg]

1896:  -\bigg[\tau_1\to\tau_2\bigg]\bigg\} \nonumber\\

1897:  -\underline{\int {d\alpha\over 2\pi}{1\over k_t^2\cosh^2(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})

1898:  \cosh^2(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})}

1899: \big[~  \sin k_tT_1-\sin k_tT_2-k_tT_1\cos k_tT_1 

1900:  +k_tT_2\cos k_tT_2~\big]} ~.

1901: \label{eq:A1.15}

1902: \end{eqnarray} 

1903: By the derivation, these components include $\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)$ of the

1904: following origin. The source current  which acts at the moment $\tau_2$

1905: produces the  simultaneous longitudinal electric field $E(\tau_2)$. The gauge

1906: field potential is rebuilt from the electric field at the time $\tau_1>\tau_2$

1907: by integrating the electric field $E(\tau)$ over all times from $0$ to

1908: $\tau_1$. The underlined terms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.14}) and (\ref{eq:A1.15})

1909: cancel out in the full assembly of the retarded propagator

1910: $D_{[adv]}(\tau_2,\tau_1)$ with the underlined terms in the radiation part,

1911: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A1.4}) and (\ref{eq:A1.5}). In the body of the paper, we

1912: call  the residue of this cancelation as the diagonal components of 

1913: $D^{[long]}$, which can be conveniently written as

1914: \begin{eqnarray}

1915:  D^{[long]}_{rs}= - {k_rk_s\over k_t^2}

1916:  ~{k_t\cosh \eta\over 2} 

1917:  \int_{\tau_2}^{\tau_1}  e^{-t k_t\sinh |\eta|} dt~,

1918: \label{eq:A1.14a}

1919: \end{eqnarray} 

1920: \begin{eqnarray}

1921:  D^{[long]}_{\eta\eta}= -  {\tau_1^2-\tau_2^2\over 2}\delta(\eta)

1922:  + {k_t\cosh \eta\over 2} 

1923:  \int_{\tau_2}^{\tau_1}  e^{-t k_t\sinh |\eta|} t^2~ dt~.

1924: \label{eq:A1.15a}

1925: \end{eqnarray} 

1926: Once again, the ``off-diagonal'' components of the longitudinal part of

1927: propagator,

1928: \begin{eqnarray}

1929: D^{[long]}_{r\eta}= {i k_r\over k_t^2}~

1930:  \big\{ -{{\rm sign}\eta\over 2\sinh^2\eta} (e^{-\tau_1 k_t\sinh |\eta|}-

1931:  e^{-\tau_2 k_t\sinh |\eta|}) 

1932:  +{k_t\tau_2\over\sinh\eta}e^{-\tau_2 k_t\sinh |\eta|}-

1933:  {k_t\tau_1\cosh^2\eta\over\sinh\eta}e^{-\tau_1 k_t\sinh |\eta|}\nonumber\\

1934:  -\int {d\alpha\over 2\pi}

1935:  {\tanh(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})\over  \cosh^2(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})}

1936:  [\sin k_tT_1-\sin k_tT_2+ k_t T_2\cos k_t T_2]\big\}

1937: \label{eq:A1.16}

1938: \end{eqnarray} 

1939: \begin{eqnarray}

1940: D^{[long]}_{\eta r}= {i k_r\over k_t^2}

1941:  \big\{ -{{\rm sign}\eta\over 2\sinh^2\eta} (e^{-\tau_1 k_t\sinh |\eta|}-

1942:  e^{-\tau_2 k_t\sinh |\eta|}) 

1943:  -{k_t\tau_1\over\sinh\eta}e^{-\tau_1 k_t\sinh |\eta|}

1944:  +{k_t\tau_2\cosh^2\eta\over\sinh\eta}e^{-\tau_2 k_t\sinh |\eta|}\nonumber\\

1945:  -\int {d\alpha\over 2\pi}

1946:  {\tanh(\alpha+{\eta\over 2})\over  \cosh^2(\alpha-{\eta\over 2})}

1947:  [-\sin k_tT_1+\sin k_tT_2+ k_t T_1\cos k_t T_1]\big\} 

1948: \label{eq:A1.17}

1949: \end{eqnarray}

1950: are odd with respect to $\eta$ and do not contribute the effective quark mass.

1951: 

1952: The gauge-field correlators have several distinctive features. First,  the

1953: lengthy expression for each component is such that the gauge field correlators

1954: obey the boundary condition  $A_{\eta}(\tau =0, \vec{r_t})=0$  which provides

1955: continuity of the field at $\tau=0$, and allows for a complete fixing of the

1956: gauge. Second, in the $rs-$ and $\eta\eta$-components of the propagator 

1957: \begin{eqnarray}

1958: D^{lm}_{[adv]}(\tau_2,\tau_1,\eta;k_t)=

1959: -\theta(\tau_1-\tau_2)D^{lm}_{[0]}(\tau_2,\tau_1,\eta;k_t)

1960: +D^{lm}_{L}(\tau_2,\tau_1,\eta;k_t)~,

1961: \label{eq:A1.18}

1962: \end{eqnarray}

1963: the boundary terms cancel between the transverse and longitudinal parts.

1964: This fact provides causal behavior of the $\Sigma(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ that

1965: defines the dispersion law.

1966: 

1967: The fermion invariants $g_{[\alpha]}$ were derived in paper [II].

1968: For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the final answers here,

1969: \begin{eqnarray}

1970:  g^{L(\pm)}_{[0]}=

1971:  i~{\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over 4\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}}

1972:  \theta(\tau_{12}^2)~J_1(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|})~,~~~~

1973:  g^{T(\pm)}_{[0]}= -~{ e^{\mp\eta/2}\over 4}

1974:  \theta(\tau_{12}^2)~J_0(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|})~,

1975:  \label{eq:A1.19}\end{eqnarray}

1976:   \begin{eqnarray}

1977:   g^{L(\pm)}_{[1]}=  - \int{d\theta' \over 4\pi} 

1978: \big[1- 2 n_f\big({\eta_1+\eta_2\over 2}+ \theta',p_t\big)\big]  

1979: ~e^{\mp\theta'}

1980: ~\sin\big( p_t[\tau_1\cosh(\theta-\eta/2)- 

1981:    \tau_2\cosh(\theta+\eta/2)]\big)\nonumber\\

1982: ={\tau_1 e^{\mp\eta/2}-\tau_2e^{\pm\eta/2}\over 4\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}}

1983:   \bigg[\theta(\tau_{12}^2)~Y_1\bigg(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}\bigg)

1984:   +{2\over\pi}\theta(-\tau_{12}^2)

1985:   K_1\bigg(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}\bigg)\bigg] 

1986:  ~\big[ 1-2n_f(q_t) \big] ~,\nonumber\\

1987: g^{T(\pm)}_{[1]}= -i e^{\mp\eta/2} \int{d\theta' \over 4\pi}

1988: \big[1- 2 n_f\big({\eta_1+\eta_2\over 2}+ \theta',p_t\big)\big]

1989: ~\cos\big( p_t[\tau_1\cosh(\theta-\eta/2)- 

1990:    \tau_2\cosh(\theta+\eta/2)]\big)\nonumber\\

1991: = i{ e^{\mp\eta/2}\over 4}

1992:   \bigg[\theta(\tau_{12}^2)~Y_0\bigg(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}\bigg)

1993:   -{2\over\pi}\theta(-\tau_{12}^2)

1994:   K_0\bigg(q_t\sqrt{|\tau_{12}^2|}\bigg)\bigg]~\big[ 1-2n_f(q_t) \big]~.

1995: \label{eq:A1.20}

1996: \end{eqnarray}

1997:  

1998: 

1999: 

2000: 

2001: \begin{references}

2002: \bibitem{tev}  A. Makhlin and E. Surdutovich, Phys.Rev. {\bf C 58} (1998) 389

2003:    (quoted as paper [I]).

2004: \bibitem{Xiong}L. Xiong, E.V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys {\bf A590} (1995) 589.

2005: \bibitem{Eskola}  Kari J. Eskola, Berndt Muller, and Xin-Nian Wang,

2006:     Selfscreened parton cascades, Preprint DUKE-TH-96-120 ( nucl-th/9608013).

2007: \bibitem{gqm}  A. Makhlin, {\em Scenario for Ultrarelativistic Nuclear 

2008:     Collisions: II.~ Geometry of quantum states at the earliest stage.}  

2009: 		hep-ph/0007300 (quoted as paper [II])

2010: \bibitem{wdg}   A. Makhlin, {\em Scenario for Ultrarelativistic Nuclear 

2011:    Collisions: III.~ Gluons in the expanding geometry.}   

2012: 		hep-ph/0007301 (quoted as paper [III]) 

2013: \bibitem{Keld}  L.V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 20} (1964) 1018; 

2014:                E.M. Lifshits, L.P. Pitaevsky, Physical kinetics, 

2015:              Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981. 

2016: \bibitem{QFK} A. Makhlin, Phys.Rev. {\bf C 51} (1995) 34

2017: \bibitem{QGD} A. Makhlin, Phys.Rev. {\bf C 52} (1995) 995.

2018: \bibitem{Watson} G.N. Watson, Treatise on the theory of Bessel functions

2019: \bibitem{Gel'fand} I.M. Gel'fand and G.E. Shilov, Generalized functions,

2020:             New York, Academic Press, 1964

2021: \bibitem{Landau} L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshits, Quantum mechanics, Sec.1,

2022:                  Oxford ; New York : Pergamon Press, 1977. 

2023: \bibitem{Dirac} P.A.M. Dirac, Rev.Mod. Phys, {\bf 21}, 392  (1949). 

2024: \bibitem{Fock}   V.A.Fock, Z. f. Phys. {\bf 57},  261 (1929).

2025: \bibitem{Witten}  M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz, E. Witten, Superstring

2026:                 theory, Cambridge University press, 1987.

2027: \bibitem{Berest}V.B. Berestetskii, E.M. Lifshitz, and L.P. Pitaevskii,

2028:                 Quantum electrodynamics,  Oxford ; New York : 

2029: 		Pergamon Press, 1982. 

2030: \end{references} 

2031: \end{document}

2032: 

2033: 

2034: