1: \documentclass[twocolumn,prd,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{dcolumn}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5: \newcommand{\bsigma} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}}
6: \newcommand{\balpha} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}}
7: \newcommand{\bnabla} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}}
8: \newcommand{\bdel} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}}
9: \newcommand{\bPi}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Pi$}}}
10: \def\A{{\bf A}}
11: \def\B{{\bf B}}
12: \def\x{{\bf x}}
13: \def\y{{\bf y}}
14: \def\k{{\bf k}}
15: \def\s{{\bf s}}
16: \def\l{{\bf l}}
17: \def\q{{\bf q}}
18: \def\z{{\bf z}}
19: \def\D{{\bf D}}
20: \def\P{{\bf P}}
21: \def\p{{\bf p}}
22: \def\E{{\bf E}}
23: \def\SS{S^{(Q{\bar Q}G)}}
24: \def\dk{ { {d{\bf k} } \over {(2\pi)^3} }}
25: \def\dq{ { {d{\bf q} } \over {(2\pi)^3} }}
26: \def\ddp{ { {d{\bf p} } \over {(2\pi)^3} }}
27: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
28: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}
29: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
30: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
31:
32:
33:
34: %this command is used to leave blank space in formulae to be filled
35: \newcommand{\gapproxeq}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}
36: \newcommand{\lapproxeq}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}
37: \def\question#1{{{\marginpar{\tiny \sc #1}}}}
38:
39: \begin{document}
40: \title{ Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the linked cluster
41: expansion }
42:
43: \author{Adam P. Szczepaniak and Pawel Krupinski }
44:
45: %\address{$^1$\
46: \address{
47: Department of Physics and Nuclear Theory Center \\
48: Indiana University,
49: Bloomington, Indiana 47405-4202 }
50: %\\
51: % $^2$
52: %Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh,
53: %Pittsburgh PA 15260 and \\
54: %Jefferson Lab, 12000 Jefferson Ave,
55: %Newport News, VA 23606.
56: % }
57:
58:
59:
60:
61: \begin{abstract}
62: We investigate dynamical chiral symmetry breaking
63: in the Coulomb gauge Hamiltonian QCD. Within the
64: framework of the linked cluster expansion we extend
65: the BCS ansatz for the vacuum and include
66: correlation beyond the quark-antiquark paring. In particular we
67: study the effects of the three-body correlations involving
68: quark-antiquark and transverse gluons. The high momentum behavior of
69: the resulting gap equation is discussed and numerical
70: computation of the chiral symmetry breaking is presented.
71:
72:
73:
74: \end{abstract}
75: \pacs{11.30.Qc, 11.30.Rd, 12.38-t, 12.38.Aw, 12.38.Lg, 10.10Ef, 11.10.Gh}
76: \maketitle
77:
78:
79:
80: %\tableofcontents
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83: Chiral symmetry plays a major role in constraining the spectrum of
84: low energy QCD. At zero density it is spontaneously broken and the
85: associated Goldstone bosons dominate the low energy, soft hadronic
86: interactions. The quark-gluon interactions which in vacuum break chiral
87: symmetry may in dense matter, {\it e.g.} in the interior of neutron
88: stars, lead to other, novel phases of the quark gluon plasma~\cite{cf1}.
89: The chiral properties of the QCD vacuum at
90: zero temperature and density have been extensively studied in
91: various approaches to soft QCD~\cite{chsd,chha,Lis,Cotan,AA}.
92: In principle one could investigate it using lattice gauge
93: methods. However, extrapolations of lattice simulations
94: to small quark masses $m_{u,d} << 50-100 \mbox{ MeV}$
95: (chiral extrapolation) still present a major challenge.
96: In approaches bases on a Dyson-Schwinger formulation of QCD,
97: dynamical chiral symmetry breaking can be studied by analyzing the
98: behavior of the quark propagator. Even though
99: no systematic truncation scheme of the Dyson series in QCD exists,
100: and in a majority of studies model interactions are
101: introduced, the approach gives a good description of the
102: low energy phenomenology.
103: In particular it enables to correctly predict many of the
104: static properties of the low lying mesons and baryons, {\it i.e.}
105: masses and charge moments, and simultaneously account for the
106: dynamical chiral symmetry breaking as measured by the vacuum
107: expectation value of the scalar
108: quark density, $\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle \sim
109: -(250\mbox{ MeV})^3$~\cite{Maris}.
110: This value follows from PCAC, Goldstone theorem and the current
111: algebra which result in the
112: Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner (or Thouless
113: theorem) relation,
114: $-2 m_q \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle = f_\pi^2 m_\pi^2. $
115: Here, $m_q \sim 5-10\mbox{ MeV}$ is the current light quark mass,
116: renormalized at the hadronic scale,
117: $f_\pi=93\mbox{ MeV}$ is the pion decay constant and $m_\pi$ is the
118: pion mass. Without explicit
119: chiral symmetry breaking $m_q=0$, the above relation cannot be used to
120: determine $\langle {\bar \psi}\psi \rangle$. However, as $m_q \to 0$
121: no phase transition to a chirally symmetric state is expected,
122: and therefore the $~-(200-250\mbox{ MeV})^3$ should still be a
123: good estimate of the condensate in the chiral limit.
124: % From GMOR relation it follows that the product
125: % $m_q \langle{\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ is renormalization group
126: % invariant, even though $m_q$ and the condensate may individually
127: % depend on the renormalization scheme.
128: % We will postpone further discussion on renormalization scheme
129: % dependence to Section III.
130:
131: Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking enables
132: to put the constituent quark representation of hadrons in a
133: firm theoretical ground. The bare
134: quark states defined with respect to the perturbative vacuum are
135: replaced by quasiparticle excitations
136: of the chirally noninvariant ground state.
137: Residual interactions correlate the quasiparticles
138: to form composite hadrons in which
139: each valence quasiparticle contributes kinetic energy of the order of a
140: few hundred MeV. This is analogous to the constituent quark model
141: representation of hadrons and therefore it might be possible
142: to further constraint the quark model phenomenology
143: from a first principle, QCD
144: based analysis of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking.
145: Since the quark model picture calls for a Fock
146: space representation it is most natural to consider a canonical,
147: time-independent formulation of QCD. Coulomb gauge QCD offers such a
148: framework~\cite{cl1,ss3,cl3}.
149: In the Coulomb gauge the single particle spectrum contains
150: only physical degrees of freedom, {\it i.e.}
151: two transverse gluon polarizations.
152: As long as the gauge fields are restricted to the
153: fundamental modular region, with no Gribov copies, the
154: Hamiltonian is positively defined, it leads to a
155: continuous time evolution, and it is amenable to a variational treatment.
156: Finally the Coulomb gauge formulation leads to a natural realization
157: of confinement. This arises because elimination
158: of the non-physical degrees of freedom
159: through the gauge choice, ${\nabla \cdot \A} = 0$ results in an
160: effective, long ranged instantaneous interaction between color
161: charges. This interaction is the analog of
162: the Coulomb potential in QED. In QCD however, the colored Coulomb
163: gluons can couple to transverse gluons leading to a Coulomb kernel
164: which also depends on the dynamical gluon degrees of freedom. As shown in
165: Ref.~\cite{ss7}
166: summation of the dominant IR contributions to the vacuum expectation
167: value of the Coulomb operator results in a potential between color charges
168: which grows linearly at large distances in agreement with
169: lattice calculations~\cite{latt1}. In a self-consistent
170: treatment the same potential modifies the single gluon spectral
171: properties and leads to an effective mass for
172: quasi-gluon excitations $~O(500-800\mbox{ GeV})$,
173: which is also in agreement with recent lattice
174: calculations. The appearance of the gluon mass gap can
175: be used to justify the implicit assumption of
176: the quark model that mixing between valence quarks and Fock space
177: sectors with explicit gluonic excitations is small.
178: We will return to this point in Section III.
179:
180: The Coulomb gauge formulation provides a very natural
181: starting point for building the constituent representation in accord
182: with confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking.
183: However, as it was noticed some time ago in the Coulomb gauge
184: the simple BCS treatment of the
185: vacuum is not sufficient to generate the right amount of chiral symmetry
186: breaking. In particular if a pure linear potential is used,
187: $V(r) = b r $ with $b \sim 0.2-0.25\mbox{ GeV}^2$ as determined by
188: lattice calculations one typically obtains $|\langle {\bar \psi}
189: \psi \rangle|^{1/3} \sim 100\mbox{ MeV}$ {\it i.e.} too small by a
190: factor of two~\cite{AA,chha,Cotan}.
191: The short range part of the Coulomb potential
192: requires proper handling of UV divergences and renormalization and
193: in most recent studies has been ignored. As will be shown later,
194: it does significantly enhance the condensate and we
195: will argue that the missing contribution can be accounted for
196: by three-particle correlations on top of the BCS-like, particle-hole
197: vacuum.
198:
199: The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we briefly discuss
200: the canonical Coulomb gauge formalism and the
201: linked cluster expansion which enables to include multi-particle
202: correlations into the many-body ground state. We will derive the
203: resulting contributions to the mass gap including up to three-body
204: correlations. The formalism is suitable for handling both
205: zero and finite density system and in this paper we will focus on the
206: former. In Section III we discuss the approximations, numerical
207: results and possible sources of UV divergence and their
208: renormalization. Our conclusions and outlook are given in
209: Section IV.
210:
211:
212: \section{Coulomb gauge Hamiltonian and the linked cluster expansion}
213:
214: QCD canonically quantized in a physical gauge, {\it
215: e.g.} Coulomb gauge, results in a Hamiltonian that can be represented in
216: a complete Fock space defined by a set of single particle
217: orbitals. One possibility is to choose the single particle basis
218: as eigenstates of the kinetic (noninteracting) part of the
219: full Hamiltonian,
220: \begin{eqnarray}
221: H_0 & = & H(g=0) = \int d\x \psi^{\dag}(\x)\left[
222: -i\bbox{\alpha}\cdot \nabla + \beta m \right] \psi(\x) \nonumber \\
223: & & + \int d\x \left[ \mbox{Tr } \bbox{\Pi}(\x)^2 +
224: \mbox{Tr } \left( {\bf \nabla} \times {\bf A}(\x) \right)^2
225: \right]. \label{h0}
226: \end{eqnarray}
227: The vacuum, $|0\rangle$,
228: of $H_0$ is shown schematically in Fig.~1a. The singe-particle
229: excitations at zero density correspond to adding gluons to the positive
230: energy, parton-like levels and
231: quark-antiquark paris by creating a particle-hole excitation around
232: the zero-energy Fermi surface. These excitations have energies given by,
233: $\epsilon^0_q(\k) = \epsilon^0_{\bar q}(\k) =
234: \sqrt{m^2 + \k^2}$, $\epsilon^0_g(\k) = |\k|$ for quarks, antiquarks
235: and gluons, respectively.
236: The quark fields in Eq.~(\ref{h0}) satisfy
237: the canonical anticommutation relations and the gluons fields are given by
238: $\bbox{\Pi} \equiv \bbox{\Pi}^a
239: T^a$ and ${\bf A} \equiv {\bf A}^a T^a$
240: and satisfy the canonical commutation relations for transverse fields, {\it
241: i.e.}
242: \begin{equation}
243: \left[ \bbox{\Pi}^a(\x), {\bf A}^b(\y) \right] = -i\delta^{ab} \bbox{\delta}_T(\nabla)
244: \delta^3(\x - \y),
245: %\left[
246: %\delta_{ij} - {{ \nabla_i \nabla_j} \over {\nabla^2}} \right]
247: %\delta^3(\x - \y)
248: \end{equation}
249: where $\bbox{\delta}_T(\nabla) = I - \bbox{\nabla}\otimes
250: \bbox{\nabla}/\bbox{\nabla}^2$.
251: In terms of the single particle creation and annihilation operators,
252: the color triplet of quark fields ($i=1,2,3$) is given by,
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: \psi_i(\x) = \sum_{\lambda=\pm1/2}\int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}} & & \left[
255: u(\k,\lambda) b (\k,\lambda,i) \right. \nonumber \\
256: & & \left. + v(-\k,\lambda) d^{\dag}(
257: -\k, \lambda,i) \right] e^{i\k\cdot\x}, \nonumber \\
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: where $u$ and $v$ are solution of the free Dirac equation for a fermion
260: with mass $m$. In the following we will restrict our discussion to chirally
261: symmetric case {\it i.e.} from now on we will set $m=0$.
262: The gluon field is given by,
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: {\bf A}^a(\x) = \sum_{\lambda=\pm 1} \int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
265: & & {1\over \sqrt{2 \omega^0(\k)}} \left[
266: a(\k,\lambda,a) \bbox{\epsilon}(\k,\lambda) \right. \nonumber \\
267: & & \left. +
268: a^{\dag}(-\k,\lambda,a) \bbox{\epsilon}^{*}(-\k,\lambda) \right]
269: e^{i\k\cdot\x},
270: \nonumber \\
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: with $\omega^0(\k) = \epsilon^0_g(|\k|)$.
273: The unrenormalized Coulomb operator is given by,
274: \begin{equation}
275: H_C = {g^2 \over 2} \int d\x d\y \rho^a(\x) K_{ab}(\x,\y,{\bf A})
276: \rho^b(\y),
277: \end{equation}
278: where $\rho^a(\x) = \psi^{\dag}(\x) T^a \psi(\x) +
279: f^{abc} \bbox{\Pi}^b(\x)\cdot{\bf A}^c(\x)$ is the color charge density
280: and the kernel $K$ is given by,
281: \begin{equation}
282: K_{ab}(\x,\y,A) = \langle \x,a| {1\over {\bbox{\nabla}\cdot {\bf D}}}
283: ( -\bbox{\nabla}^2) {1\over {\bbox{\nabla}\cdot {\bf D}}} |\y,b\rangle,
284: \end{equation}
285: where ${\bf D}$ is the covariant derivative in the adjoint
286: representation, and the $\langle {\bf x},a| \cdots |{\bf
287: y},b\rangle$ matrix element is given by
288: $\langle \x,a|{\bf D}|\y,b\rangle = \left[
289: \delta^{ab}\bbox{\nabla}_{\x} + g f^{acb} {\bf A}^c(\x)
290: \right] \delta^3(\x - \y)$, and $\langle {\bf x},a|
291: 1/\bbox{\nabla}^2 |{\bf y},b\rangle = -1/4\pi|{\bf x} - {\bf y}|$.
292: When $H_C$ is normal ordered with respect to the
293: perturbative vacuum, $|0\rangle$ one might expect that the
294: mean field, Hartee-Fock corrections to the single particle
295: energies could already generate an effective mass.
296: This is not the case.
297: The vacuum is a color singlet and thus the direct
298: contribution from $H_C$ to a single fermion energy vanishes.
299: Furthermore, chiral symmetry of the Hamiltonian and of the
300: perturbative, $| 0\rangle$ vacuum protects the exchange term from mass
301: generation. The effective mass can only be
302: obtained if quark-antiquark correlations are introduced into the
303: ground state as shown schematically in Fig.~1b.
304: \begin{figure}[htb]
305: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig1.eps}
306: \caption{Schematic representation of the particle,
307: $n^+ \equiv \langle b^{\dag} b \rangle$ (solid) and hole
308: $n^- \equiv 1 - \langle d^{\dag} d \rangle $ (dashed) occupations in
309: partonic (left) and BCS (right) ground state }
310: \end{figure}
311: %\vskip 20 pt
312:
313:
314: The full, unrenormalized Coulomb gauge Hamiltonian has the following
315: structure~\cite{cl3,ss7,CL,swif},
316: \begin{equation}
317: H = H_0 + H_C + V_{qg} + V_{3g} + V_{4g} + H_{corr}.
318: \end{equation}
319: Here $V_{qg}$ is the quark-transverse gluon interaction,
320: \begin{equation}
321: V_{qg} = g \int d\x \psi^{\dag}(\x) \bbox{\alpha}\cdot {\bf A} \psi(\x),
322: \end{equation}
323: and $V_{3g}$ and $V_{4g}$ represent 3-- and 4-- transverse gluon couplings
324: arising from the nonabelian part of the magnetic field,
325: ${\bf B}^a = \nabla \times {\bf A}^a + g f^{abc} {\bf A}^b(\x)
326: \times {\bf A}^c(\x)$. Finally $H_{corr}$ contains terms which come
327: from a commutator of the determinant of the Faddeev-Popov operator,
328: ${\cal J} = Det({\bbox{\nabla}\cdot {\bf D}})$ and the gluon
329: canonical momentum $\bbox{\Pi}$. The detailed analysis of this
330: Hamiltonian, emergence of confinement and
331: issues related to renormalization in the gluon sector were
332: discussed in Ref.~\cite{ss7}.
333:
334: \subsection{ Linked cluster expansion}
335:
336: Since the Fock space basis generated by the set of single
337: particle creation operators, $b^{\dag}$, $d^{\dag}$, $a^{\dag}$
338: is complete, the true ground
339: state, $|\Omega\rangle$ of $H$ can be written as,
340: %\begin{widetext}
341: %\begin{eqnarray}
342: %|\Omega\rangle = & & \left[ 1 + \sum_{1 2}
343: % F^{(q{\bar q})}_{ 1 2}b^{\dag}(1) d^{\dag}(2) +
344: %\sum_{12} F^{(gg)}_{ 1 2}a^{\dag}(1) a^{\dag}(2) +
345: % + \sum_{1 2 3} F^{(q{\bar q}g)}_{1 2 3} b^{\dag}(1) d^{\dag}(2) a^{\dag}(3)
346: %\right. \nonumber \\
347: %& & \left. + \sum_{1 2 3 4} F^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1 2 3 4 } b^{\dag}(1) d^{\dag}(2)
348: % b^{\dag}(3) d^{\dag}(4) + \cdots \right] |0\rangle. \label{Fe}
349: %\end{eqnarray}
350: %\end{widetext}
351: \begin{widetext}
352: \begin{equation}
353: |\Omega\rangle = \left[ 1 + \sum_{1 2}
354: F^{(q{\bar q})}_{ 1 2}b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2 +
355: \sum_{12} F^{(gg)}_{ 1 2}a^{\dag}_1 a^{\dag}_2 +
356: \sum_{1 2 3} F^{(q{\bar q}g)}_{1 2 3} b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2 a^{\dag}_3
357: +
358: \sum_{1 2 3 4} F^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1 2 3 4 } b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2
359: b^{\dag}_3 d^{\dag}_4 + \cdots \right] |0\rangle. \label{Fe}
360: \end{equation}
361: \end{widetext}
362: Here $F^{(n)}_{1 2 \cdots n}$ represent wave functions of
363: n-body clusters in the vacuum, and $1,2\cdots$ collectively denote
364: quantum numbers of single particle orbitals.
365: This expansion is however impractical since it does not
366: differentiate between connected (linked) and disconnected
367: contributions. For example, at the
368: 2-quark-2-antiquark level there are disconnected contributions
369: of the type, $F^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1234} = F^{(q{\bar q})}_{12}
370: F^{(q{\bar q})}_{34}$, {\it i.e.} part of the
371: $n$-particle cluster contribution
372: originates from products of smaller, $m<n$, $m$-particle
373: clusters.
374:
375: The essence of the linked cluster expansion is based on the observation that
376: all multi-particle correlation in the ground state, including the
377: disconnected ones can be accounted for by proper resummation of the
378: linked clusters only. This is achieved by
379: writing the full ground state as~\cite{exps}
380: \begin{equation}
381: |\Omega\rangle = e^{-S}|0\rangle,
382: \end{equation}
383: with $S$ having the expansion
384: %\begin{eqnarray}
385: %S = \sum_n S^{(n)} = & &
386: % \sum_{1 2} S^{(q{\bar q})}_{ 1 2}b^{\dag}(1) d^{\dag}(2)
387: %+ \sum_{1 2} S^{(gg)}_{ 1 2}a^{\dag}(1) a^{\dag}(2)
388: % + \sum_{1 2 3} S^{(q{\bar q}g)}_{1 2 3} b^{\dag}(1) d^{\dag}(2) a^{\dag}(3)
389: % \nonumber \\
390: %& & + \sum_{1 2 3 4} S^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1 2 3 4 } b^{\dag}(1) d^{\dag}(2)
391: % b^{\dag}(3) d^{\dag}(4) + \cdots, \label{s}
392: %\end{eqnarray}
393: \begin{widetext}
394: \begin{equation}
395: S = \sum_n S^{(n)} =
396: \sum_{1 2} S^{(q{\bar q})}_{ 1 2}b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2
397: + \sum_{1 2} S^{(gg)}_{ 1 2}a^{\dag}_1 a^{\dag}_2
398: + \sum_{1 2 3} S^{(q{\bar q}g)}_{1 2 3} b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2 a^{\dag}_3
399: + \sum_{1 2 3 4} S^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1 2 3 4 } b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2
400: b^{\dag}_3 d^{\dag}_4 + \cdots, \label{s}
401: \end{equation}
402: \end{widetext}
403: with the operators $S$ including connected pieces only.
404: Comparing Eq.~(\ref{Fe}) and Eq.~(\ref{s}) we find for example that,
405: \begin{eqnarray}
406: & & F^{(q{\bar q})}_{12} = S^{(q{\bar q})}_{12}, \;\;
407: F^{(q{\bar q}g)}_{123} = S^{(q{\bar q}g)}_{123}, \;\; \nonumber \\
408: & & F^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1234} = S^{(q{\bar q}q{\bar q})}_{1234}
409: + {1\over 2} S^{(q{\bar q})}_{12} S^{(q{\bar q})}_{34}, \cdots
410: \end{eqnarray}
411: {\it i.e.} the general expansion of Eq.~(\ref{Fe}) is obtained with all
412: disconnected contributions constrained by the connected ones.
413: The expansion coefficients, $S^{(n)}_{12\cdots n}$
414: can be determined from the eigenvalue equation for $|\Omega\rangle$,
415: \begin{equation}
416: e^{S} H e^{-S} |0\rangle = E_\Omega |0\rangle.
417: \end{equation}
418: This equation projected onto the partonic Fock space basis leads to a
419: set of equations
420: for the amplitudes $S^{(n)}_{12\cdots n}$ and the ground state energy,
421: $E_\Omega$,
422: %\begin{equation}
423: %\langle 0| e^{S} H e^{-S} |0\rangle = E_\Omega, \label{s1}
424: %\end{equation}
425: %\begin{eqnarray}
426: %\langle q_1,q_2,\cdots q_{n_q};{\bar q}_{1'},{\bar q}_{2'},\cdots {\bar
427: % q}_{n_{\bar q}};
428: % g_{1''},g_{2''},\cdots g_{n_g}| & & e^{S} H e^{-S} |0\rangle = 0,
429: % \nonumber \\ & & n_q, n_{\bar q}, n_g = 1,2,\cdots . \label{s2}
430: %\end{eqnarray}
431: \begin{widetext}
432: \begin{equation}
433: \langle 0| e^{S} H e^{-S} |0\rangle = E_\Omega, \;\;
434: \langle q_1,q_2,\cdots q_{n_q};{\bar q}_{1'},{\bar q}_{2'},\cdots {\bar
435: q}_{n_{\bar q}};
436: g_{1''},g_{2''},\cdots g_{n_g}| e^{S} H e^{-S} |0\rangle = 0,
437: n_q, n_{\bar q}, n_g = 1,2,\cdots . \label{s1}
438: \end{equation}
439: \end{widetext}
440: In a nonrelativistic many-body system
441: the Hamiltonian is typically a polynomial in the field operators. Since
442: each $S^{(n)}$ contains only particle creation operators, the
443: matrix elements of $e^{S} H e^{-S}$ between
444: an $n$-particle state and the free vacuum will involve only a
445: finite number of terms arising from the expansion of the
446: exponentials. For example in a
447: typical case when $H = H_0 + V$ with $H_0$ being a one body ({\it
448: e.g.} kinetic) operator
449: and $V$ a two-body potential one has,
450: \begin{equation}
451: e^{S} H e^{-S} = H + [S,H] + \cdots + {1\over {4!}}[S,[S,[S,[S,H]]]].
452: \end{equation}
453: In this case an approximation to Eq.~(\ref{s1}), is
454: fully specified by a number of clusters retained in $S$.
455: This is, however, not the case for the relativistic system discussed here.
456: The expansion of the Coulomb kernel leads to an infinite series of
457: operators to all orders in the transverse gluon field.
458: Thus an approximation to Eq.~(\ref{s1}) consists of
459: specifying which clusters are kept in the definition of $S$
460: and of a truncation scheme in evaluation of matrix
461: elements of $e^{S} H e^{-S}$.
462:
463: The truncation of $S$ limits the number of quark-antiquark-gluon
464: correlations build into the ansatz for the ground state. At first one
465: might think that such a truncation would be hard to justify since
466: any hadronic state, including the vacuum should have a large
467: (infinite) number of partons. However, the first two terms in $S$, $S^{(q{\bar q})}$ and $S^{(gg)}$
468: change the single particle excitation spectrum and effectively
469: replace the partonic basis by that of massive quasiparticles. This
470: is known as the Thouless reparameterization~\cite{BR}
471: and is equivalent to the
472: BCS ansatz for the vacuum which contains
473: two-body, quark-antiquark and gluon-gluon correlations.
474: The BCS ansatz leads to
475: the chiral gap, constituent mass for the quarks as well as
476: effective mass for the transverse gluons. Iterative contributions of
477: multiparticle states which determine the wave functions of larger
478: clusters, $S^{(n)}$, $n > 2$ are therefore
479: suppressed by the quasiparticle energy gap. This gap is
480: $O(400-600 \mbox{ MeV})$ for quark-antiquark excitations and $O(500\mbox{
481: MeV}- 800 \mbox{ GeV})$ for a gluonic excitation. The former follows
482: from the typical constituent quark mass and the later
483: from the gluon spectrum in a presence of static color sources as
484: calculated on the lattice~\cite{latt1} and are consistent with explicit
485: calculation using the BCS gluonic ansatz for the
486: Hamiltonian~\cite{ss7}.
487: The transformation form the partonic to the quasiparticle
488: basis, generated by $S^{(2)}$, proceeds as follows.
489: The (unnormalized)
490: quasiparticle, BCS vacuum $|\Omega_{BCS} \rangle$ is defined as,
491: \begin{equation}
492: |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle \equiv e^{-S^{(2)}} |0 \rangle,
493: \end{equation}
494: with,
495: \begin{eqnarray}
496: S^{(2)} = S^{(q{\bar q})} + S^{(gg)} = & &
497: \sum_{12} S^{(q{\bar q})}_{12} b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2 \nonumber \\
498: & & + \sum_{12} S^{(gg)}_{12} a^{\dag}_1 a^{\dag}_2,
499: \end{eqnarray}
500: so that
501: \begin{equation}
502: |\Omega \rangle = e^{-\sum_{n>2} S^{(n)} } |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle.
503: \end{equation}
504: A canonical transformation which maps the set of free particle
505: operators $b,b^{\dag},d,d^{\dag},a,a^{\dag}$ onto a set of
506: quasiparticle operators $B,B^{\dag},D,D^{\dag},\alpha,\alpha^{\dag}$
507: is defined by
508: \begin{eqnarray}
509: & & B_1 = {1\over {\sqrt{ 1 + |S^{(q{\bar q})}|^2 }}} b_1
510: + \sum_{2} {{ S^{(q{\bar q})}_{12} }\over {\sqrt{ 1 + |S^{(q{\bar q})}|^2 }}}
511: d^{\dag}_2, \nonumber \\
512: & & D_1 = {1\over {\sqrt{ 1 + |S^{(q{\bar q})}|^2 }}} d_1
513: - \sum_{2} b^{\dag}_2 {{ S^{(q{\bar q})}_{21} }\over {\sqrt{ 1 +
514: |S^{(q{\bar q})}|^2 }}},
515: \nonumber \\
516: & & \alpha_1 = {1\over {\sqrt{ 1 - |S^{(gg)}|^2 }}} a_1
517: + \sum_{2} {{ S^{(gg)}_{12} }\over {\sqrt{ 1 - |S^{(gg)}|^2 }}}
518: a^{\dag}_2, \label{BCS}
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: where $ |S^{(q{\bar q})}|^2\delta_{12} \equiv \left [ S^{(q{\bar q})}
521: {S^{(q{\bar q})}}^{\dag}
522: \right]_{12}$ and similarly for $|S^{(gg)}|$. These
523: quasiparticle operators satisfy the canonical
524: (anti)commutation relations, they annihilate the BCS ground state,
525: \begin{equation}
526: B_1 |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle = D_1 |\Omega_{BCS}\rangle = \alpha_1
527: |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle = 0,
528: \end{equation}
529: and generate a complete Fock space. The
530: eigenvalue conditions for the
531: vacuum, Eq~(\ref{s1}) can therefore be rewritten in the
532: quasiparticle basis,
533: %\begin{equation}
534: %\langle \Omega_{BCS} | e^{S} H e^{-S} |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle = E_\Omega
535: %\langle \Omega_{BCS} | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle, \label{S1}
536: %\end{equation}
537: %\begin{eqnarray}
538: %\langle Q(1), Q(2), \cdots Q(n_Q);{\bar Q}(1'),{\bar Q}(2'),\cdots
539: % {\bar Q}(n_{\bar Q});
540: % G(1''),G(2''),& & \cdots G(n_G)| e^{S} H e^{-S} |\Omega_{BCS}
541: % \rangle = 0, \nonumber \\ & & n_Q, n_{\bar Q},
542: % n_G = 1,2,\cdots .\label{S2}
543: \begin{widetext}
544: \begin{eqnarray}
545: { { \langle \Omega_{BCS} | e^{S} H e^{-S} |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle}
546: \over { \langle \Omega_{BCS} | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle }} = E_\Omega, \;\;
547: \langle Q_1, Q_2, \cdots Q_{n_Q};{\bar Q}_{1'},{\bar Q}_{2'},\cdots
548: {\bar Q}_{n_{\bar Q}};
549: G_{1''},G_{2''},& & \cdots G_{n_G}| e^{S} H e^{-S} |\Omega_{BCS}
550: \rangle = 0, \nonumber \\
551: & & n_Q, n_{\bar Q}, n_G = 1,2,\cdots .\label{S1}
552: \end{eqnarray}
553: \end{widetext}
554: Here the operator $S$ contains contributions from 3-quasiparticle
555: cluster and higher,
556: \begin{equation}
557: S = \sum_{123} {\tilde S}^{(Q{\bar Q} G )}_{123} B^{\dag}_1 D^{\dag}_2
558: \alpha^{\dag}_3 + \cdots .
559: \end{equation}
560: The matrix elements ${\tilde S}^{(n)}_{12\cdots n}$ can be related
561: to $S^{(n)}_{12\cdots n}$ by replacing the free particle operators
562: by the quasiparticle
563: operators. From the structure of Eq.~(\ref{BCS}) it follows that for
564: given $n$ the operators ${\tilde S}^{(n)}$ are a linear
565: combination of $S^{(i)}$ including $i \le n$.
566: Since Eq.~(\ref{BCS}) defines a canonical
567: transformation the two sets of equations, Eq~(\ref{s1}) and
568: Eq.~(\ref{S1}) are equivalent and one can simply use the
569: later {\it i.e.} work directly in the quasiparticle basis without
570: referring to the partonic basis. As suggested by the quark model
571: it is preferred to represent
572: low energy QCD eigenstates in terms of quasiparticle,
573: quark and gluon excitations.
574: From now on we will work the matrix elements of ${\tilde S}$
575: in the quasiparticle basis and for simplicity rename them as ${\tilde
576: S}^{(n)} \to S^{(n)} $.
577:
578: As mentioned earlier, in QCD, with $S = \sum_n S^{(n)}$ truncated at some
579: maximal $n$, Eq.~(\ref{S1}) still contain an infinite
580: number of terms arising from the expansion of $e^{S} H e^{-S}$.
581: Since this (infinite) series is related to the multi-gluon
582: structure of the Coulomb operator, $K(\x,\y,{\bf A})$,
583: it can be organized according
584: to how each of the terms renormalizes the 0-th order Coulomb potential,
585: $K_{ab}(\x,\y,0) = \delta_{ab}/4\pi|\x-\y|$. To illustrate this
586: consider truncating $S$ at $n=2$. The {\it lhs.} of the first
587: equation in ~(\ref{S1}) reduces to the expectation value of $H$ in
588: the BCS vacuum,
589: \begin{equation}
590: \langle \Omega_{BCS} |e^{S} H e^{-S} |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle = \langle \Omega_{BCS}
591: |H| \Omega_{BCS} \rangle.
592: \label{ex}
593: \end{equation}
594: The lowest order (in the loop
595: expansion) diagrams are shown on the left side of Fig.~2.
596: The matrix element $\langle \Omega_{BCS}
597: |H| \Omega_{BCS} \rangle $
598: defines an effective potential $V_{eff}(\x-\y)$, by
599: \begin{equation}
600: V_{eff}(\x - \y) \equiv g^2 {{\delta_{ab}}\over {N_c^2 - 1}}
601: \langle \Omega_{BCS} | K_{ab}(\x,\y,{\bf A}) | \Omega_{BCS}
602: \rangle. \label{veffbcs}
603: \end{equation}
604: It is straightforward to identify diagrams which give the dominant
605: contribution to $V_{eff}$ in both, the IR ($|\x-\y| >>
606: 1/\Lambda_{QCD}$) and the UV
607: ($|\x-\y|<<1/\Lambda_{QCD}$).
608: In the IR region these are given by diagrams which, at
609: a given loop order contain the maximum number of soft potential,
610: $K(\x,\y,0)$ lines; the UV region is
611: dominated by loops with the smallest number of vertices.
612: The series of ring and rainbow diagrams, shown in
613: Fig.~2, accounts for the leading IR and UV contributions to
614: $V_{eff}$, respectively. The
615: approximation can be systematically improved by taking into account
616: the subleading contributions {\it e.g.} vertex renormalization~\cite{ss7,swif}
617: \begin{figure}[htb]
618: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig2.eps}
619: \caption{\label{fig:2}
620: A few lowest order contributions to $V_{eff}$. The two
621: right most diagrams represent diagrams in the ring and rainbow
622: series. The dashed line stands for the 0-th order Coulomb potential
623: $g^2 K_0 = g^2/4\pi|\x-\y|$. }
624: \end{figure}
625: If larger clusters in $S$ are retained,
626: the expansion of $e^{S} H e^{-S}$ generates operators that
627: have nonvanishing matrix elements between the vacuum and states
628: with an arbitrary large number of particles. This is because as long
629: as $S^{(n)}$ contains a gluon operator an infinite number of commutators,
630: $[S^{(n)},[S^{(n)},[ \cdots [S^{(n)},H] \cdots]]]$ are nonvanishing.
631: Their contribution arise from contracting gluons
632: from each $S^{(n)}$ with gluons from the Coulomb operator. For
633: example a
634: term in $S$ which contains pure glue operators (no quark or
635: antiquark) will contribute
636: to any matrix element in Eq.~(\ref{S1}) with any
637: number of particles (gluons).
638: This is illustrated in Fig.~3 for $S^{(3g)}$. It is clear, however,
639: that this type of corrections have the effect of simply
640: renormalizing $V_{eff}$, beyond the BCS-like contributions shown in Fig.~2.
641: Since the operators $S^{(n)}$ commute with each other one possibility
642: is to consider the effects of the pure gluon operators first,
643: generate the new effective interaction and then introduce
644: clusters which contain quark and antiquark operators.
645: Since $H$ is a finite order polynomial in the quark
646: operators, each term in $S$ containing only quark and antiquark
647: operators will lead to a finite number
648: of terms in a matrix element between the BCS vacuum and a
649: multiparticle state with a fixed, $n=n_Q + n_{\bar Q} + n_G$.
650: \begin{figure}[htb]
651: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Fig3.eps}
652: \caption{\label{fig:3} Example of contributions to
653: $[S^{(n)},[S^{(n)},[ \cdots [S^{(n)},H] \cdots]]]$, for $S=S^{ggg}$
654: and $H = H_C$. The two diagrams contribute to a matrix element with
655: $n_G=2$ and $n_G=4$ respectively. Here the dashed line represents
656: the Coulomb potential dressed by the BCS corrections,
657: Eq.~(\ref{veffbcs}), {\it e.g.} through resummation of the ring-rainbow
658: series shown in Fig.~2. }
659: \end{figure}
660:
661: To summarize, the linked cluster expansion of the QCD ground state is
662: much more complicated that in a typical nonrelativistic many-body
663: problem. Nevertheless it can be used to systematically improve the
664: BCS approximation. It is important to notice, however, that even the
665: BCS ground state already probes the nonabelian multi-gluon dynamics
666: via $\langle \Omega_{BCS}|
667: K(\x,\y,\A) | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle$. In BCS this leads to and
668: effective interaction which is very close to the potential between
669: color sources and when treated selfconsistently
670: leads to a quasiparticle (constituent) representations.
671:
672: \subsection{ $Q {\bar Q} G$ contribution to the quark mass gap }
673:
674: In the following we will concentrate on the dynamical chiral symmetry
675: breaking and therefore consider vacuum properties in
676: quark sector.
677: \begin{figure}[htb]
678: \includegraphics[scale=0.44]{Fig4.eps}
679: \caption{\label{fig:4} Operators from Eq.~\ref{2} which contribute
680: to matrix elements $\langle n_Q,n_{\bar Q},n_G| \cdots |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle$
681: for $n_Q \le 1$, $n_{\bar Q} \le 1$ and $n_G \le 2$
682: As in Fig.~3, the
683: potential (dashed) line is the $V_{eff}$ of Eq.~(\ref{veffbcs}). The
684: matrix element, $\SS$ corresponds to the rightmost vertices. }
685: \end{figure}
686: As mentioned earlier the BCS mechanism of quark-antiquark
687: pairing seems to be insufficient to account for the full dynamical
688: symmetry breaking.
689: We will discuss this point quantitatively in the
690: following section.
691: Our interest here is in extending the
692: BCS approximation by including the effects of the next to
693: leading (beyond BCS) order in the cluster expansion {\it i.e.}
694: the 3--particle cluster contribution to the vacuum.
695: We will therefore study,
696: \begin{equation}
697: S \to \SS = \sum_{123} \SS_{123} B^{\dag}_1
698: D^{\dag}_2 \alpha^{\dag}_3. \label{gg1}
699: \end{equation}
700: The quark gap equation follows from,
701: \begin{equation}
702: \langle Q_1 {\bar Q}_2 | e^{\SS} H e^{-\SS} | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle =
703: 0. \label{1}
704: \end{equation}
705: This equation determines single particle orbitals and
706: therefore it also gives the
707: quasiparticle spectrum via, $\epsilon_1\delta_{12} =
708: \langle Q_1|H|Q_2\rangle $. There is a finite
709: number of terms contributing to, Eq.~(\ref{1})
710: \begin{widetext}
711: \begin{equation}
712: 0 = \langle Q_1 {\bar Q}_2 | H + [\SS,H] + {1\over
713: {2!}}[\SS,[\SS,H]] +
714: {1\over {3!}} [\SS,[\SS,[\SS,H]] |
715: \Omega_{BCS}\rangle .\label{2}
716: \end{equation}
717: \end{widetext}
718: The series is finite because starting at
719: $O(\left[{\SS}\right]^4 \sim \left[B^{\dag} D^{\dag}\right]^4 )$
720: commutators will produce operators which have at least
721: 2-quark and 2-antiquark creation operators and these vanish between
722: $\langle Q{\bar Q}|$ and $|\Omega_{BCS} \rangle$. Some of the
723: contributions to Eqs.~(\ref{2}) and ~(\ref{3}) are shown in Fig.~4.
724: In order to solve Eq.~(\ref{2}) and determine the single particle
725: basis, it is necessary to first solve for the amplitude $\SS$.
726: This amplitude can be obtained by projecting $e^{\SS} H e^{-\SS}$
727: onto the three particle cluster,
728: \begin{widetext}
729: \begin{equation}
730: \langle Q_1 {\bar Q}_2 G_3 | H + [\SS,H] + {1\over {2!}}[\SS,[\SS,H]]
731: + {1\over {3!}}[\SS,[\SS,[\SS,H]]]
732: |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle = 0, \label{3}
733: \end{equation}
734: \end{widetext}
735: which also contains a finite number of terms. The two
736: equations Eq.~(\ref{2}) and Eq.~(\ref{3}) form a set of coupled nonlinear,
737: integral equations for the amplitude $\SS$ and the single particle
738: orbitals (or the BCS angle, Eq.~(\ref{BCS})). In this paper we will
739: simplify these equations by linearizing them with respect to
740: $\SS$, Eq.(~\ref{3}) then yields,
741: %\begin{eqnarray}
742: % \SS | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle = & &
743: %\sum_n | n \rangle {1\over {E_{\Omega_{BCS} - E_n }}}
744: % \langle n | H | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle \nonumber \\
745: %& & = \langle Q(1){\bar Q}(2)G(3) | n \rangle {1\over
746: % {E_{\Omega_{BCS} - E_n }}}
747: % \langle n | V_{qg} + H_C | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle .
748: %\end{eqnarray}
749: \begin{equation}
750: \SS | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle =
751: \sum_n | n \rangle {1\over {E_n - E_{\Omega_{BCS}} }}
752: \langle n | H | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle
753: \end{equation}
754: Here $|n\rangle$ is the set of eigenstates of $H$ in the three
755: particle $Q{\bar Q} G$ subspace,
756: \begin{equation}
757: H |n \rangle = (E_n - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}) |n\rangle.
758: \end{equation}
759: The contribution from $\SS$ to the quark gap in Eq.~(\ref{2})
760: is then given by,
761: %\begin{eqnarray}
762: %& & \delta_{12,\Omega} \delta m_g \equiv \langle Q(1) {\bar Q}(2) |
763: % [\SS,H] |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle
764: % \nonumber \\
765: %& & =
766: %\sum_{1'2'3} \langle Q(1) {\bar Q}(2)| V_{qg} + H_C | Q(1')
767: %{\bar Q}(2') G(3) \rangle \langle Q(1') {\bar Q}(2') G(3) | n \rangle {1\over {E_n - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}}}
768: % \langle n | V_{qg} + H_C | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle.
769: %\end{eqnarray}
770: \begin{eqnarray}
771: \delta_{12,\Omega} \delta m_g & \equiv & \langle Q_1 {\bar Q}_2 |
772: [\SS,H] |\Omega_{BCS} \rangle \nonumber \\
773: & = &
774: - \sum_n \langle Q_1 {\bar Q}_2| H | n \rangle
775: {1\over {E_n - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}}}
776: \langle n | H | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle. \nonumber \\
777: \end{eqnarray}
778: Here, $\delta_{12,\Omega}$ symbolizes the product of all $\delta$-functions
779: which restrict the quantum numbers of
780: $|Q_1{\bar Q}_2 \rangle$ to be same as of the vacuum.
781: With inclusion of $\delta m_g$ the gap equation can be
782: written as,
783: \begin{equation}
784: 0 = \delta m_0 + \delta m_C + \delta m_g, \label{gap}
785: \end{equation}
786: where the BCS part given by
787: \begin{eqnarray}
788: \delta_{12,\Omega} \left[ \delta m_0 + \delta m_C \right]
789: & = & \langle Q_1{\bar Q}_2| H | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle \nonumber \\
790: & = &
791: \langle Q_1 {\bar Q}_2 | H_0 + H_C | \Omega_{BCS} \rangle .
792: \end{eqnarray}
793: The three contributions to the gap equation are illustrated in Fig.~5.
794: \begin{figure}[htb]
795: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Fig5.eps}
796: \caption{\label{fig:5} The three contributions to Eq.~(\ref{gap}). $\delta
797: m_0$ is determined by the kinetic term, $\delta m_C$ by $V_{eff}$
798: and $\delta m_g$ is the contribution of the $Q{\bar Q} G$ cluster.}
799: \end{figure}
800: In the next section we will write down the explicit form of the gap
801: equation and discuss the numerical solution.
802:
803: \section{Quark mass gap}
804:
805: From translational, rotational and global color
806: invariance of the vacuum it follows that for each quark flavor,
807: \begin{widetext}
808: \begin{equation}
809: \sum_{12} S^{(q{\bar q})}_{12} b^{\dag}_1 d^{\dag}_2 =
810: \sum_{\lambda_q\lambda_{\bar q},i_qi_{\bar q}}\int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}} S^{(q{\bar q})}(|\k|) b^{\dag}(\k,\lambda_q,i_q)
811: \left[ \bbox{\sigma}\cdot{\hat\k} \right]_{\lambda_q,\lambda_{\bar
812: q}} \delta_{i_q,i_{\bar q}}
813: d^{\dag}(-\k,\lambda_{\bar q},i_{\bar q}),
814: \end{equation}
815: \end{widetext}
816: The chiral angle is given by ({\it cf.} Eqs.~(\ref{BCS})),
817: \begin{equation}
818: \tan_\k \equiv \tan\phi_q(|\k|) = {{2S^{(q{\bar q})}}\over
819: {1 - |S^{q{\bar q}}|^2}} = {{2S^{qq}(|\k|)}\over {1 - (S^{qq}(|\k|))^2}}.
820: \end{equation}
821: To evaluate the matrix elements in Eq.~(\ref{S1}) the
822: Hamiltonian
823: needs to be expressed in terms of the quasiparticle operators. This
824: can simply be done by noticing that in the quasiparticle basis
825: the field operators become,
826: \begin{eqnarray}
827: \psi_i(\x) = \sum_{\lambda=\pm1/2}\int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}} & & \left[
828: U(\k,\lambda) B (\k,\lambda,i) \right. \nonumber \\
829: & & \left. + V(-\k,\lambda) D^{\dag}(
830: -\k, \lambda,i) \right] e^{i\k\cdot\x}, \nonumber \\
831: \end{eqnarray}
832: where the quasiparticle spinors $U$ and $V$ are given by
833: \begin{eqnarray}
834: & & U(\k,\lambda) = {1\over \sqrt{2E(E+M)}}
835: \left( \begin{array}{c} (E+M)\chi(\lambda) \\
836: A\bbox{\sigma}\cdot \hat{\k} \chi(\lambda)
837: \end{array} \right), \nonumber \\
838: & & V(-\k,\lambda) = {1\over \sqrt{2E(E+M)}}
839: \left( \begin{array}{c} -A\bbox{\sigma}\cdot \hat{\k} \chi(\lambda)\\
840: (E+M)\chi(\lambda) \end{array} \right)
841: \end{eqnarray}
842: with $E=E(|\k|)$, $M=M(|\k|) = E \sin_\k$, $A=A(|\k|) = E\cos_\k$.
843: Here we have
844: introduced an arbitrary function $E(\k)$ to make the expression for
845: the single quasiparticle
846: wave functions analogous to those of free particles, but it is
847: clear that $U$ and $V$ do not depend on $E$ but only on the chiral
848: angle.
849:
850: Similarly for the gluon fields we have,
851: \begin{eqnarray}
852: & &\sum_{12}S^{(gg)}_{12} a^{\dag}_1 a^{\dag}_2 = \nonumber \\
853: & & \sum_{\lambda,a}
854: \int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}} S^{(gg)}(|\k|) a^{\dag}(\k,\lambda,a)
855: a^{\dag}(-\k,\lambda,a).
856: \end{eqnarray}
857: and in terms of the quasi-gluon operators the fields are given by,
858: \begin{eqnarray}
859: {\bf A}^a(\x) & = & \sum_{\lambda=\pm 1} \int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
860: {1\over \sqrt{2 \omega(|\k|)}} \left[
861: a(\k,\lambda,a) \bbox{\epsilon}(\k,\lambda) \right. \nonumber \\
862: & & \left. +
863: a^{\dag}(-\k,\lambda,a) \bbox{\epsilon}^{*}(-\k,\lambda) \right]
864: e^{i\k\cdot\x},
865: \end{eqnarray}
866: with
867: \begin{equation}
868: \omega(|\k|) = |\k| (\cosh_\k + \sinh_\k),
869: \end{equation}
870: and
871: \begin{equation}
872: \tanh_\k = \tanh \phi_g(|\k|) = {{2S^{(gg)}}\over
873: {1 + |S^{gg}|^2}} = {{2S^{gg}(|\k|)}\over {1 + (S^{gg}(|\k|)^2}}.
874: \end{equation}
875: Truncating $S$ at the ${\bar Q}QG$ level leads to uncoupled gluon and
876: quark gap equations. The gluon gap equation was studied in
877: Ref.~\cite{ss7}. The gluon gap function $\omega(|\k|)$ was determined
878: by the matrix element of the Coulomb operator in the BCS vacuum, which
879: in turn was selfconsistently determined by the gluon mass gap. It was found
880: that a good analytical approximation to, $V_{eff}(\x-\y)$ ({\it c.f.}
881: Eq.~(\ref{veffbcs}) ) is, in momentum space, given by,
882: \begin{equation}
883: V_{eff}(\k) = {{f(\k) d^2(\k)}\over \k^2}, \label{potss}
884: \end{equation}
885: where $d(\k)$ is the expectation value
886: of the Faddeev-Popov operator and it is approximately given by,
887: \begin{equation}
888: d(\k) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} 3.5 \left( {m_g\over |\k|} \right)^{0.48}
889: & \mbox{for } |\k| < m_g \\
890: 3.5 \left( {{ \log(2.41)}\over {\log(1.41 + |\k|^2/m_g^2)}}
891: \right)^{0.4} & \mbox{for } |\k| > m_g
892: \end{array} \right. , \label{d}
893: \end{equation}
894: and
895: \begin{equation}
896: f(|\k|) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \left( {m_g\over |\k|} \right)^{0.97}
897: & \mbox{for } |\k| < m_g \\
898: \left( {{ \log(1.82)}\over {\log(0.82 + |\k|^2/m_g^2)}}
899: \right)^{0.62} & \mbox{for } |\k| > m_g
900: \end{array} \right. , \label{f}
901: \end{equation}
902: originates from renormalizing the composite Coulomb kernel. The
903: gluon mass, $m_g$ arises from dimensional transmutation and can be fixed by
904: the string tension. The result of the fit to lattice data,
905: yields $m_g \sim 1.6/r_0 \sim 600\mbox{ MeV}$ and is show in Fig.~6.
906: The gluon gap function $\omega(|\k|)$ is well approximated by,
907: \begin{equation}
908: \omega(|\k|) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} m_g & \mbox{ for } |\k| <
909: m_g \\ |\k| & \mbox{ for } |\k| > m_g \end{array}
910: \right. .
911: \end{equation}
912: The first two terms in Eq.~(\ref{gap}) are then given by
913: \begin{equation}
914: \delta m_0 = \delta m_0(|\q|) = |\q| \sin_\q ,
915: \end{equation}
916: and
917: \begin{widetext}
918: \begin{equation}
919: \delta m_C = \delta m_C(|\q|)
920: = - {C_F\over 2}\int {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
921: V_{eff}(|\k-\q|) \left[ \sin_\k \cos_\q - {\hat \k}\cdot {\hat \q} \sin_\q \cos_\k
922: \right].
923: \end{equation}
924: \end{widetext}
925: \begin{figure}[htb]
926: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig6.eps}
927: \caption{\label{fig:6} Comparison of the lattice results for the ground
928: state potential between two static ${\bf 3}$ and $ {\bf \bar 3}$
929: sources and the fit to $V_{eff}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{potss}) (solid
930: line), and Eq.~(\ref{vc}) (dashed line). Lattice data (boxes) come
931: from Ref.~\cite{latt1} }
932: \end{figure}
933: The new contribution to the gap arising from
934: the $Q{\bar Q}G$ cluster contains matrix elements of
935: $H$ evaluated between the BCS vacuum and a tree particle, $Q{\bar
936: Q} G$ state or between $Q{\bar Q} G$ and $Q{\bar Q}$ states.
937: Only $V_{qg}$ and $H_C$ contribute to those and they are
938: of order $O( g\sim
939: \langle d(|\k|) \rangle)$ and $O( g^3\sim \langle d^3(|\k|) \rangle)$
940: respectively. As discussed in Ref.~\cite{ss7} the later is of a type
941: of a vertex correction and is expected to be a small $O(10 - 20\%)$
942: correction to an $O(g)$ contribution from $V_{qg}$. Therefore we will
943: not further included it here (this is also
944: consistent with the ring-rainbow approximation to $V_{eff}$).
945: The final expression for $\delta m_g$ also requires $Q{\bar Q} G$
946: wave functions {\it i.e} the eigenstates of $H_0 + H_C$ projected
947: onto the $Q{\bar Q}G$ states. In this work we do not attempt to solve
948: this eigenvalue problem instead we will approximate the sum over 3-particle
949: intermediate states by,
950: \begin{widetext}
951: \begin{equation}
952: \sum_n |n\rangle {1\over {E_n - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}} } \langle n|
953: \longrightarrow |\Psi \rangle {1\over {E_\Psi - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}}} \langle \Psi |
954: + \sum_{Q{\bar Q} G, (E_{Q{\bar Q}G}-E_{\Omega_{BCS}}) > \Lambda_F} |Q{\bar Q} G \rangle
955: {1\over {E_{Q{\bar Q} G} - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}}} \langle Q {\bar Q} G |,
956: \end{equation}
957: \end{widetext}
958: {\it i.e.} we approximate the sum over the complete set of
959: eigenstates by a single state with energy smaller then some factorization
960: scale, $\Lambda_F$, $E_\Psi - E_{\Omega_{BCS}} < \Lambda_F$, and a
961: perturbative continuum of states with energy
962: grater then $\Lambda_F$. The scale $\Lambda_F$ should roughly equal the
963: energy where, due to string breaking the linear confining potential
964: saturates. For the first excited hybrid potential $\Lambda_F \gsim
965: 1.5 \mbox{GeV}$ which corresponds to the distance between color sources,
966: $r = 1.15\mbox{ fm}$~\cite{Bali}. Thus we expect that the size of the
967: momentum space wave function, $\langle Q{\bar Q} G|\Psi\rangle$
968: should be of the order $\beta \sim 1/r = 0.2 \mbox{GeV}$.
969: As for the spin-orbital momentum dependence of the $Q{\bar Q}G$ wave
970: function we shall assume that it corresponds to low values of the
971: orbital angular momenta which are consistent with those of the low
972: lying gluonic excitations in the presence of $Q{\bar Q}$ sources.
973: Lattice computation of the $Q{\bar
974: Q}$ adiabatic potentials arising from excited gluon configurations
975: indicate that the so called $\Pi_u$ potential has lower energy
976: then the $\Pi_g$ potential~\cite{latt1}. These two correspond to
977: gluon configuration with $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and $1^{--}$ respectively which is
978: also consistent with the bag model representation of gluonic
979: excitations~\cite{bag}. The
980: $Q{\bar Q} G$ wave function coupled with the $J^{PC}= 1^{+-}$
981: gluon quantum numbers would also have the $Q{\bar Q}$ pair with
982: the same $J^{PC} = 1^{+-}$ quantum numbers (to give the overall
983: $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$ of the vacuum) and would be given by
984: \begin{eqnarray}
985: \left[Q{\bar Q} G\right]^0 & = &
986: \left[ \left[ (L_{Q\bar Q}=1) \times (S_{Q\bar Q} = 0)\right]^1
987: \right. \nonumber \\
988: & \times &
989: \left. \left[ (L_G = 1) \times (S_G = 1) \right]^1 \right]^0.
990: \end{eqnarray}
991: It is easy to check, however, that since $V_{qg}$ is spin dependent
992: this wave function has vanishing overlap with the
993: $V_{qg}|\Omega\rangle$ state.
994: % It is worth mentioning however that this would not be the case it the
995: % $O(d^3)$ contribution from $H_C$ was retained.
996: The other possibility is to take
997: $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$ configurations for both the glue and the
998: quark-antiquark which give,
999: \begin{eqnarray}
1000: \left[Q{\bar Q} G\right]^0 & = &
1001: \left[ \left[ (L_{Q\bar Q}=0) \times (S_{Q\bar Q} = 1)\right]^1
1002: \right. \nonumber \\
1003: & \times &
1004: \left. \left[ (L_G = 0) \times (S_G = 1) \right]^1\right]^0 .
1005: \end{eqnarray}
1006: and take the spin-orbit wave function in the form of,
1007: \begin{widetext}
1008: \begin{equation}
1009: \langle Q(\k_Q,\lambda_Q, i_Q),{\bar Q}(\k_{\bar Q},
1010: \lambda_{\bar Q},i_{\bar Q}),
1011: G(\k_G,\lambda_G,a) | \Psi \rangle
1012: = (2\pi)^3\delta(\k_Q + \k_{\bar
1013: Q} + \k_G)
1014: U^{\dag}(\k_Q,\lambda_Q)
1015: \bbox{\alpha}\cdot \bbox{\epsilon}(\k_G,\lambda_G) V(\k_{\bar
1016: Q},\lambda_{\bar Q}) \Psi(\k_Q,\k_{\bar
1017: Q},\k_G).
1018: \end{equation}
1019: \end{widetext}
1020: The color part of the wave function is given by
1021: $T^a_{i_Q,i_{\bar Q}}$, and for the orbital wave function we
1022: will take a gaussian ansatz,
1023: \begin{equation}
1024: \Psi(\k_Q,\k_{\bar Q},\k_G) = exp(-(\k^2_Q + \k^2_{\bar Q} +
1025: \k^2_G)/\beta^2). \label{orb}
1026: \end{equation}
1027: The expression for $ \delta m_g$ is then given by,
1028: \begin{equation}
1029: \delta m_g = \delta m_g(|\q|) = \delta m_{g,soft} + \delta m_{g,hard}
1030: ,
1031: \end{equation}
1032: with
1033: \begin{widetext}
1034: \begin{eqnarray}
1035: \delta m_{g,soft} = - & & { {C_F}\over {E_\Psi -
1036: E_\Omega} }
1037: \int {{d\k} \over {(2\pi)^3} }
1038: {{d(|\k-\q|) \Psi(\k,\q,\k-\q)/|\Psi|} \over {\sqrt{\omega(|\q-\k|)}}}
1039: \left[ s_\k c_\q - I(\k,\q) c_\k s_\q \right] \nonumber \\
1040: & & \times
1041: \int {{d\p} \over {(2\pi)^3}} {{d\l}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
1042: {{ d(|\l-\p|)\Psi^{*}(\p,\l,\l-\p)/|\Psi|} \over
1043: {\sqrt{\omega(|\l-\p|)}}}
1044: \left[ 1 + s_\p s_\l + I(\p,\l) c_\p c_\l \right],
1045: \end{eqnarray}
1046: \begin{equation}
1047: \delta m_{g,hard} = - C_F
1048: \int {{d\k} \over {(2\pi)^3} }
1049: { { d^2(|\k-\q|) } \over {|\q-\k|}}
1050: {{ \left( 1-\Psi_{\Lambda_F}(\k,\q,\k-\q) \right)}
1051: \over {|\k| + |\q| + |\k-\q|}}
1052: \left[ s_\k c_\q - I(\k,\q) c_\k s_\q \right] .
1053: \end{equation}
1054: \end{widetext}
1055: Here
1056: \begin{equation}
1057: I(\k,\q) \equiv { { (|\k|^2 + |\q|^2) {\hat \k}\cdot {\hat \q} -
1058: |\k||\q|(1 + ({\hat \k}\cdot {\hat \q})^2 ) }
1059: \over {(\k - \q)^2} },
1060: \end{equation}
1061: \begin{equation}
1062: |\Psi|^2 = \int {{d\p} \over {(2\pi)^3}} {{d\l}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
1063: |\Psi(\p,\l,\l-\p)|^2
1064: \left[ 1 + s_\p s_\l + I(\p,\l) c_\p c_\l \right] ,
1065: \end{equation}
1066: and $\Psi_{\Lambda_F}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{orb}) with $\beta \to
1067: \Lambda_F$ so that $1 - \Psi_{\Lambda_F}$ cuts off hard $Q{\bar Q} G$
1068: contribution for energies below $\Lambda_F$.
1069:
1070:
1071: \subsection{ UV behavior and renormalization }
1072:
1073: Before analyzing the full gap equation and in particular the
1074: effects of $\delta m_g$, we shall first discuss the IR and UV
1075: behavior in the BCS approximations.
1076: The BCS approximation to the chiral gap has been studied earlier
1077: for various model approximations to $V_{eff}$. Most of them
1078: use an effective potential which is
1079: regular at
1080: at the origin, {\it e.g} a pure linear potential $V_{eff}(r) = b r$~\cite{chha,Cotan} or a
1081: harmonic oscillator, $V_{eff}(r) = k r^2$~\cite{Lis}. For such potentials the
1082: gap equation is finite in the high momentum limit and no
1083: renormalization is required. This is not the case if potential
1084: has the Coulomb component with
1085: $V_{eff}(r\to 0) \sim \alpha /r $ and $\alpha$
1086: being either a constant or a running coupling $\alpha \to
1087: \alpha(r) \sim 1/\ln(1/r)$. The BCS quark gap for potentials with
1088: the Coulomb tail was studied in Ref.~\cite{AA,swif} and
1089: Ref.~\cite{ss3}. The gap equation used in Ref.~\cite{AA} would be
1090: identical to one used here, if $\delta m_g$ was set to zero ({\it
1091: e.g.} the BCS approximation).
1092: Instead, in Ref.~\cite{AA} an energy-independent interaction
1093: motivated by a transverse gluon exchange was added.
1094: In Ref.~\cite{AA} it was argued that, in the chiral limit,
1095: the resulting gap equation,
1096: could be renormalized by introducing a single counterterm
1097: representing the wave function renormalization.
1098: Starting from the Coulomb gauge Hamiltonian this would arise if the free
1099: quark kinetic energy term was replaced by a renormalized one,
1100: \begin{eqnarray}
1101: & & \int d\x {\bar \psi}(\x) \left[ -i \bbox{\alpha}\cdot \bbox{\nabla}
1102: \psi(\x)\right] \nonumber \\
1103: & & \to Z(\Lambda)
1104: \int d\x {\bar \psi}(\x) \left[ -i \bbox{\alpha}\cdot \bbox{\nabla}
1105: \psi(\x) \right]_\Lambda
1106: \end{eqnarray}
1107: The explicit, UV cutoff-$\Lambda$ dependence regularizing the
1108: kinetic operator can be introduced, for example by field smearing,
1109: however, the regularization procedure becomes irrelevant once the resulting
1110: gap equation is renormalized. The unrenormalized BCS,
1111: gap equation (without effects from transverse
1112: gluons) is then given by,
1113: \begin{widetext}
1114: \begin{equation}
1115: Z(\Lambda)m(|\q|) = {C_F\over 2}\int^\Lambda {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
1116: V_{eff}(\k-\q) {{ m(\k)}\over {\sqrt{\k^2 + m^2(\k)}}}
1117: - {C_F\over 2}\int^\Lambda {{d\k} \over { (2\pi)^3}} V_{eff}(\k-\q) {\hat \k} \cdot {\hat
1118: \q} { {|\k|} \over {|\q|} } {{m(\q)}\over {\sqrt{\k^2 + m^2(\k)}}},
1119: \label{gap1}
1120: \end{equation}
1121: \end{widetext}
1122: where we have defined the {\it constituent} mass, $m(|\k|)$ by
1123: $m(|\k|) \equiv |\k|
1124: \sin_\k$. The renormalized equation is obtained by a single
1125: subtraction {\it i.e.} by fixing the $\Lambda$-independent solution,
1126: $m(|\k|)$ at a specific value of $|\q| = |\q_0|$. This leads to a
1127: ($\Lambda$ and $\q_0$-independent), renormalized gap equation,
1128: \begin{widetext}
1129: \begin{equation}
1130: m(|\q|) \lim_{\Lambda \to \infty} \left[ I_m(|\q_0|,\Lambda) -
1131: I_Z(|\q_0|,\Lambda) \right]
1132: = m(\q_0)\lim_{\Lambda\to \infty} \left[ I_m(|\q|,\Lambda)
1133: - I_Z(|\q|,\Lambda) \right] ,
1134: \end{equation}
1135: \begin{equation}
1136: I_m(|\q|,\Lambda) \equiv {C_F\over 2}\int^\Lambda {{d\k}\over {(2\pi)^3}}
1137: V_{eff}(\k-\q) {{ m(\k)}\over {\sqrt{\k^2 + m^2(\k)}}} ,\;\;
1138: I_Z(|\q|,\Lambda) \equiv {C_F \over 2}
1139: \int^\Lambda {{d\k} \over { (2\pi)^3}} V_{eff}(\k-\q)
1140: {\hat \k} \cdot {\hat \q}
1141: { {|\k|} \over {|\q| }} {{m(|\q|)}\over {\sqrt{\k^2 + m^2(\k)}}} ,
1142: \end{equation}
1143: \end{widetext}
1144: Whenever possible we will also use the notation $I(|\q|)
1145: \equiv I(|\q|,\infty)$.
1146: We will now show that,
1147: this equation does not have a well behaved, nontrivial
1148: solution vanishing asymptotically in the large momentum limit, as it
1149: was assumed, for example in Ref.~\cite{AA}. Before we do that first we
1150: need to take care of the possible IR divergences which appear in
1151: the integrals when $\k \to \q$. In this
1152: limit $V_{eff}(\k-\q)$ is highly divergent, reflecting the long range
1153: nature of the confining interaction, {\it e.g.} $V_{eff}(\k-\q) \propto
1154: 1/(\k-\q)^4$ for the linear potential. The gap equation, however, is
1155: finite due to cancellation
1156: of the numerators between $I_m$ and
1157: $I_Z$. To make individual integrals well behaved
1158: we can split the IU and UV parts of
1159: $V_{eff}$ defining,
1160: \begin{eqnarray}
1161: & & V^{IR}(\k,M) \equiv \theta(M-|\k|) V_{eff}(|\k|), \nonumber \\
1162: & & V^{UV}(\k,M) \equiv \theta(|\k|-M) V_{eff}(|\k|),
1163: \end{eqnarray}
1164: since $V^{IR}(\k,M) + V^{UV}(\k,M) = V_{eff}(\k)$ and gap equation is
1165: independent on the parameter $M$ and we will not write it
1166: explicitly. The gap equation becomes,
1167: \begin{equation}
1168: m(|\q|)
1169: = {1\over {A + B(|\q|)}} \left[ I^{IR}_m(|\q|) - I^{IR}_Z(|\q|) +
1170: I^{UV}_m(|\q|) \right], \label{gapuv}
1171: \end{equation}
1172: where
1173: \begin{equation}
1174: A = A(|\q_0|) =
1175: {
1176: {\left[I^{IR}_m(|\q_0|) -
1177: I^{IR}_Z(|\q_0|) + I^{UV}_m(|\q_0|) \right]} \over {m(|\q_0|)} },
1178: \end{equation}
1179: and
1180: %\begin{equation}
1181: % B(|\q|) = B(|\q|,|\q_0|)
1182: % = {C_F\over 2} \int {{d\k} \over { (2\pi)^3}}
1183: % {1 \over {\sqrt{\k^2 + m^2(\k)}}}
1184: %\left[ {\hat \k} \cdot {\hat \q}
1185: % { {|\k|} \over {|\q|}} V^{UV}(\k-\q)
1186: % - {\hat \k} \cdot {\hat \q_0}
1187: % { {|\k|} \over {|\q_0| }} V^{UV}(\k-\q_0) \right].
1188: %\end{equation}
1189: \begin{equation}
1190: B(|\q|) = B(|\q|,|\q_0|) = {{I_Z^{UV}(|\q|)}\over {m(|\q|)}}
1191: - {{I_Z^{UV}(|\q_0|)}\over {m(|\q_o|)}}. \label{BB}
1192: \end{equation}
1193: For given $\q_0$, $A$ is a constant and $B$ is a function of $\q$,
1194: and both, $A$ and $B$ are well defined. In $A$ the IR divergences
1195: cancel between $I^{IR}_m(|\q_0|)$ and $I^{IR}_Z(|\q_0|)$,
1196: and $I^{UV}_m$ is finite if $m(|\q|) \to 0$ as $\q \to \infty$.
1197: In $B$ each term is IR finite and the UV
1198: divergences cancel between the two terms in Eq.~(\ref{BB}).
1199: It is easy to show that for $|\q|>> M,|\q_0|$ the function $B(|\q|)$ ,
1200: behaves as,
1201: \begin{equation}
1202: B(|\q|) \to - C_F { \alpha \over {3\pi}} \log \q^2
1203: \end{equation}
1204: for $V_{eff}(|\k|) \to 4\pi \alpha/|\k|^2$ as $|\k| \to \infty$. If
1205: $\alpha$ is replaced by a running coupling then $|B(|\q|)|$
1206: grows with $|\q|$ like
1207: $\log\log \q^2$. From Eq.~(\ref{gapuv}) it thus follows that
1208: for some $|\q|/|\q_0| >> 1$,
1209: $A + B(|\q|)$ changes sign and therefore the equation is undefined.
1210: This also remains true if an additional
1211: transverse potential is added as done in ~\cite{AA}.
1212: In this case the
1213: the argument of the integrals defining function the $B(|\q|)$ becomes,
1214: \begin{eqnarray}
1215: {\hat \k} \cdot {\hat \q}
1216: { {|\k|} \over {|\q|}} V^{UV}(\k-\q) \to
1217: { {|\k|} \over {|\q|}}
1218: & & \left[ V^{UV}(\k-\q) {\hat \k} \cdot {\hat \q} \right. \nonumber \\
1219: & & \left. + 2 I(\k,\q) V^{UV}_T(\k-\q) \right] \nonumber \\
1220: \end{eqnarray}
1221: For $V_T(\k) = 4\pi \alpha /(\k^2 + const)$ (as used in
1222: Ref.~\cite{AA}) the
1223: additional transverse potential does not
1224: contribute to the $\log\q^2$ (or $\log\log\q^2$) behavior of $B(|\q|)$.
1225: In our case there would be a similar contribution arising from the
1226: hard part of the gluon exchange given by $\delta m_{g,hard}$.
1227: At large $|\q|$ it
1228: adds, a {\it positive }, $+ C_F {\alpha \over {12\pi}} \log \q^2$
1229: contribution to $B(|\q|)$ and therefore does not cause problems on
1230: its own but at the same time does not eliminate the singularity from
1231: the Coulomb potential since the net effect is such that
1232: $B(|\q|) \to - \infty$ as $|\q| \to \infty$.
1233:
1234: The problems with the renormalized gap equation for
1235: the Coulomb potential is illustrated in Figs.~7 and 8.
1236: In this test case we simply take
1237: \begin{eqnarray}
1238: V_{eff}(\k) & = & V^{IR}(\k) + V^{UV}(\k) \nonumber \\
1239: & = & {1\over C_F} {{8 \pi b } \over {\k^4}} + {{4\pi \alpha
1240: } \over {\k^2 \log( \k^2/m_g^2 + 2)^n}} \label{vc}
1241: \end{eqnarray}
1242: For the string tension, $b=0.24\mbox{ GeV}^2$, $\alpha = 0.1$, and
1243: $n=0$ this gives a good fit to the lattice data as shown in Fig.~6.
1244: \begin{figure}[htb]
1245: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig7.eps}
1246: \caption{\label{fig:7} Solution of the gap equation for a potential given
1247: by Eq.~(\ref{vc}), with $\alpha=1$, and $n=0,1,1/2,3/2$. The three
1248: upper lines correspond to $n=0$, the next three to $n=1$, $n=1/2$
1249: and $n=3/2$ respectively }
1250: \end{figure}
1251: \vskip 20pt
1252: \begin{figure}[htb]
1253: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig8.eps}
1254: \caption{\label{fig:8} Function $B(|\q|)$ calculated for the potential as in
1255: Fig.~7. The lines (from top to bottom at high $|\q|$) correspond to $n=3/2$,
1256: $n=1/2$, $n=1$ and $n=0$ respectively }
1257: \end{figure}
1258: In Fig.8 we show the function $B(q)$ calculated from a numerical
1259: solution to the gap equation,
1260: Eq.~(\ref{gapuv}).
1261: Since $V_{eff}$ is already given by a
1262: sum of two terms, one dominating in the IR and the other in the UV
1263: the components $V^{IR}$ and $V^{UV}$ can be defined as the
1264: linear and the Coulomb piece respectively. If $n>1$ there is no
1265: renormalization required and the gap equation is given by Eq.~(\ref{gap1})
1266: with $Z=1$. The $n=3/2$ case corresponds to an approximate
1267: analytical solution for $V_{eff}$ discussed in~\cite{ss7} and is
1268: also close to the exact, numerical solution given by
1269: Eqs.~(\ref{potss}).
1270: The solution of the gap equation, $m(q)$ for $n=3/2$ is shown in Fig.~7
1271: by the lowest line (boxes). The function $B(|\q|)$ corresponding to this case is
1272: shown in Fig.~8 by the upper solid line (at large $|\q|$),
1273: which asymptotically approaches $B(|\q|) \to const
1274: - 2 C_F \alpha/(3\pi \log(\q^2))$ as $|\q| \to
1275: \infty$. We then take this solution to set the value of
1276: $m(|\q_0|=m_g=600\mbox{ MeV})$ and solve the renormalized gap equation,
1277: Eq.~(\ref{gapuv}) for $n=1$, $n=1/2$ and $n=0$. The asymptotic behavior
1278: at large $|\q|$ of $B(|\q|)$ for these three cases is given by,
1279: \begin{equation}
1280: B(|\q|) \to \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} - C_F {\alpha\over {3\pi}}
1281: \log\log(|\q|^2), & n = 1 \\
1282: - 2 C_F {\alpha \over {3\pi}} \log^{1/2}(|\q|), & n = 1/2 \\
1283: - C_F {\alpha \over {3\pi}} \log(|\q|),& n = 0
1284: \end{array} \right.
1285: \end{equation}
1286: The corresponding solutions to the gap equation are shown by the
1287: five upper lines in Fig.~7.
1288: The highest three correspond to
1289: $n=0$ case and their splitting indicates that the
1290: numerical procedure has not converged into a unique solution.
1291: These three solutions correspond to three
1292: different cut-offs on the maximum momentum, $|\q|_{max} = 10m_g, 100m_g$ and $1000m_g$.
1293: The other two lines correspond to solutions for $n=1/2$ and $n=1$
1294: respectively. In these two cases
1295: the same three values for the
1296: momentum cutoffs were used and apparently in both cases a cutoff independent
1297: solution has emerged.
1298: This is because for $n=1/2$ and
1299: $n=1$ $|B(q)|$ grows very slowly and in practice the zero
1300: of the denominator in Eq.~(\ref{gapuv}) is not crossed.
1301: This test calculation was performed with unphysically large
1302: $\alpha=1$. For $\alpha \lsim 0.5$ numeral computations,
1303: which always have a build in a finite upper momentum cutoff
1304: converge for $|\q|_{max}$ as large as $10^6m_g$.
1305:
1306: It is clear that the problematic UV contributions
1307: originate from need for wave function renormalization. This
1308: problem has been resolved in Ref.~\cite{ss3} using an effective
1309: Hamiltonian with perturbative $O(g^2)$ contributions calculated
1310: via a similarity
1311: transformation~\cite{Glazek}. In that approach, in addition to the Coulomb and
1312: transverse gluon contributions to the gap equation, $\delta m_C$ and
1313: $\delta m_{g,hard}$, there was also a
1314: modification of the single particle kinetic. The additional
1315: contribution to the gap equation via $\delta m_0$ cancels the
1316: $\log|\q|$ term from $B(|\q|)$ and results in a well defined
1317: equation. The disadvantage of that approach
1318: however, is that it is restricted to the free rather then BCS
1319: basis and so far it has not being generalized beyond perturbation
1320: theory.
1321:
1322: The resummation of the leading UV contribution to the
1323: Faddeev-Popov operator and the Coulomb kernel has the effect of
1324: softening the UV behavior ({\it c.f.} Eqs.~(\ref{d}),~(\ref{f})) and
1325: at the BCS level leads to a finite gap equation without need
1326: for any additional, {\it e.g.} wave function renormalization
1327: counter-terms. Furthermore the $e^{-S}$ method enables to include
1328: effects of transverse gluons with a well defined energy dependence.
1329: The large momentum contribution from the
1330: $Q{\bar Q}G$ cluster, $\delta m_{g,hard}$ still requires
1331: renormalization through the wave function counterterm. As discussed
1332: above since it leads to $B(|\q|)$ which is positive at large $|\q|$
1333: the renormalized gap equation is well behaved.
1334:
1335: \subsection{ Numerical results }
1336:
1337: We will now discuss the numerical results. These are summarized
1338: Fig.~9.
1339: \begin{figure}[htb]
1340: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig9.eps}
1341: \caption{\label{fig:9} Solution to gap equation. The dashed line
1342: is a solution with the IR part of the potential
1343: (linear potential) only. The lowest solid line comes from a
1344: solution using the full
1345: static potential, $\delta m_C$.
1346: The next higher solid line includes the static potential and
1347: the hard gluon, $\delta m_{g,hard}$, contribution from the $Q{\bar
1348: Q} G$ sector calculated for $\Lambda_F = 1.5\mbox{ GeV}$.
1349: The shaded region corresponds to the full solution with
1350: $0.1 \mbox{ GeV} \le \beta \le 0.4 \mbox{ GeV}$, and $1 \mbox{ GeV}
1351: \le \Lambda_F \le 2 \mbox{ GeV}$}
1352: \end{figure}
1353: The BCS, potential contribution to the gap equation, $\delta m_C$ is
1354: split into an IR and UV parts by setting $f(\k)=0=d(\k)=0$ for
1355: $|\k| > m_g$ and $|\k| < m_g$ respectively. For the pure IR potential
1356: (dashed line in Fig.~9) the gap function, $m(q)$ is below $100\mbox { MeV}$ for
1357: low $|\q| < m_g$ and it vanishes rapidly (as $1/|\q|^4$) at high $q$.
1358: The addition of the UV component of the potential, {\it
1359: i.e.} the Coulomb tail with the $1/\log(q)^n, n>1$ UV
1360: suppression, does not change much the low momentum behavior of
1361: $m(|\q|)$. It actually decreases $m(0)$ to about $75\mbox{ MeV}$,
1362: by it increases the high momentum
1363: tail, overall leading to no change in the $\langle {\bar
1364: Q} Q \rangle$ condensate which stays at about $-(111\mbox{ MeV})^3$.
1365:
1366: The $\delta m_{g}$ contribution
1367: depends on, $\beta$ which sets the size of the
1368: soft wave function, $\Lambda_F$ which divides between the soft and
1369: hard one-gluon intermediate states, and $E_\Psi-E_\Omega$ which
1370: determines the energy of the low gluonic excitations.
1371: As discussed earlier it is reasonable to set $\beta \sim
1372: 0.2 \mbox{ GeV}$ and $\Lambda_F \sim 1.5 \mbox{ GeV}$.
1373: As for the energy of the soft $Q{\bar Q} G$ state we take,
1374: $E_\Psi - E_\Omega = m_g$ which we expect to
1375: be close to the lower bound and would therefore give
1376: the upper limit on the $Q{\bar Q}G$ contribution. The effect of the hard
1377: one-gluon-exchange contribution, defined by $\delta m_{g,hard}$, is
1378: to increase $m(q)$ yielding $m(0)\sim 80\mbox{ MeV}$ and
1379: enhancing the condensate, $\langle {\bar Q} Q \rangle = -(150\mbox{
1380: MeV})^3$. The solution to the gap equation including $\delta m_C$
1381: and $\delta m_{g,hard}$ is shown by the second to lowest solid line
1382: in Fig.~9.
1383:
1384: As mentioned above, the gap equation with
1385: $\delta m_{g,hard}$ requires
1386: renormalization and we have simply set $Z=1$ at $\Lambda=|\q_{max}|$.
1387: Using any of the three values of $|\q_{max}|$ given previously
1388: no effect on the solution could be observed. This is
1389: analogous to the test case discussed earlier.
1390:
1391: The full effect of the $Q{\bar Q} G$ sector,
1392: including the soft contribution, parametrized by $\delta m_{g,soft}$
1393: with the factorization scale $\beta$ in the range between $0.1 \mbox{
1394: GeV}$ and $0.4 \mbox{ GeV}$ and $\Lambda_F = 1 - 2 \mbox{ GeV}$
1395: is shown by the shaded region. The lower limit corresponds to
1396: $\beta=0.1\mbox{ GeV}$ and $\Lambda_F = 2\mbox{ GeV}$ and yields
1397: $\langle {\bar Q} Q \rangle = -(140\mbox{
1398: MeV})^3$; for the upper limit $\beta=0.4\mbox{ GeV}$,
1399: $\Lambda_F = 1\mbox{ GeV}$ and $\langle {\bar Q} Q \rangle = -(190\mbox{
1400: MeV})^3$. The addition of the soft gluon intermediate state
1401: brings both, the {\it constituent} quark mass
1402: and the condensate significantly closer to
1403: phenomenologically acceptable values.
1404:
1405: An alternative simple parameterization of the soft gluon contribution
1406: would be to replace it by an effective local operator, by expanding $\delta
1407: m_{g, soft}$ in powers of $|\k|/m_g$. The lowest dimension operator
1408: has the structure
1409: \begin{equation}
1410: \delta V = - {C\over {m^2_g}}
1411: \int d{\bf x} \left [ \psi^{\dag}({\bf x}) \alpha^i \psi({\bf x})
1412: \delta_{T,ij}(\bbox{\nabla}_{\x})
1413: \psi^{\dag}({\bf x}) \alpha^j \psi({\bf x}) \right]_{\beta}
1414: \end{equation}
1415: with $C$ being a dimensional constant, $1/m_g^2$ scale arising from
1416: the product of $E_\Psi - E_{\Omega_{BCS}}$ and $\omega(0) = m_g$,
1417: and the operator being related by the factorization scale
1418: $\Lambda_F$. The appearance of these to scales is quite natural. Since
1419: the operator arises through elimination of part of the Fock space the
1420: overall scale is given by the excitation energy of the eliminated
1421: sectors and the momentum cutoff comes from the spatial extend of the
1422: excited state wave function.
1423: Such a simple, local approximation of the soft $Q{\bar Q} G$
1424: exchange was considered previously in
1425: Ref.~\cite{prl} where it was shown that such an operator was
1426: indeed relevant to chiral
1427: symmetry braking effects, {\it e.g.} the condensate and the
1428: $\pi-\rho$ mass splitting.
1429: %Further increase of $\beta$ to $1\mbox{ GeV}$ increases
1430: % the magnitude of the condensate to about $(300\mbox{ Mev})^3$, {\it
1431: % i.e.} not overwhelming
1432: %\begin{eqnarray}
1433: %& & m(|\q|) \left[I^{IR}_m(\q_0) - I^{IR}_Z(\q_0) + I^{UV}_m(\q_0) \right]
1434: %\nonumber \\
1435: %& & = m(|\q_0|) \left[ I^{IR}_m(|\q|) - I^{IR}_Z(|\q|) +
1436: % I^{UV}_m(|\q|)
1437: %\right]
1438: % - m(|\q_0|) I^{UV}_Z(|\q|) + m(|\q|) I^{UV}_Z(|\q_0|)
1439: %\end{eqnarray}
1440:
1441: \section{Summary}
1442: Dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry is the fundamental property of
1443: QCD which leads to the constituent representation. In the
1444: canonical, Hamiltonian based formulation it arises via the BCS-like
1445: pairing between light quark and antiquarks mediated by the
1446: attractive Coulomb interaction. However, the extent of chiral symmetry
1447: breaking generated this way, as measured by the scalar quark density
1448: or as compared to the phenomenological constituent quark model is to
1449: small. We have shown that the naive inclusion of the short range part
1450: of the $Q{\bar Q}$ potential leads to instabilities in the quark gap
1451: equations which cannot be renormalized away. In contrast a
1452: systematical re-summation of the leading IR and UV corrections to to
1453: the bare Coulomb kernel leads to an effective interactions which is
1454: consistent with the variational treatment and the gap equation.
1455: Using the linked cluster expansion we have estimated the
1456: role of three-particle, $Q{\bar Q}G$ correlations in the vacuum, and
1457: shown that they are indeed important, in particular their
1458: low momentum components.
1459: Even though we have not used the
1460: exact solution describing the soft $Q{\bar Q}G$ state our result are
1461: expected to be close to the upper bound for the non-BCS contribution
1462: to the chiral condensate and are consistent with previous
1463: studies.
1464:
1465:
1466: \section{Acknowledgment}
1467: We would like to thank Bogdan Mihaila for discussion of the $exp(S)$
1468: method. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under contract
1469: DE-FG02-87ER40365.
1470:
1471:
1472:
1473: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1474:
1475:
1476:
1477: \bibitem{cf1} M.G.~Alford, K.~Rajagopal, F.~Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
1478: B}537, 443 (1999). T.~Schafer, F.~Wilczek,
1479: Phys. Rev. {\bf D}60, 074014 (1999).
1480:
1481:
1482: \bibitem{chsd} For a review of Dyson-Schwinger results see
1483: for example, C.D.~Roberts, A.G.~Williams,
1484: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 33}, 477 (1994).
1485:
1486: \bibitem{chha} J.R.~Finger, J.E.~Mandula, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}199, 168
1487: (1982); S.L.~Adler, A.C.~Davis, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}244, 469 (1984);
1488: A.~Le Yaouanc, {\it et al.} Phys. Rev. {\bf D}31, 137 (1985).
1489:
1490: \bibitem{Lis} P.J.de A.~Bicudo, J.E.F.T.~Ribeiro, Phys. Rev. D{\bf
1491: 42}, 1611 (1990), {\it ibid.} 1625 (1990), 1635 (1990).
1492:
1493: \bibitem{Cotan} F.J.~Llanes-Estrada, S.R.~Cotanch, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
1494: A}697, 303 (2002).
1495:
1496: \bibitem{AA} R.~Alkofer, P.A.~Amundsen, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 306}, 305
1497: (1988).
1498:
1499: \bibitem{Maris} P.~Maris, C.D.~Roberts, Phys. Rev. {\bf C}56, 3369
1500: (1997); P.~Maris, P.C.~Tandy, Phys. Rev. {\bf C}62, 055204
1501: (2000).
1502: \bibitem{cl1} A.P.~Szczepaniak, E.S.~Swanson, C.-R.~Ji, S.R.~Cotanch,
1503: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 2011 (1996); A.P.~Szczepaniak,
1504: E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D}55, 3987 (1997).
1505:
1506: \bibitem{ss3} A.P.~Szczepaniak, E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D}55,
1507: 1578 (1997).
1508:
1509: \bibitem{cl3} D.~Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}518, 237 (1998);
1510: A.~Cucchieri, D.~Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3814 (1997).
1511:
1512:
1513: \bibitem{ss7} A.P.~Szczepaniak, E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D}65,
1514: 025012 (2002).
1515:
1516: \bibitem{latt1} K.J.~Juge, J.~Kuti, C.J.~Morningstar,
1517: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 63}, 326 (1998).
1518:
1519: \bibitem{CL} N.H.~Christ, T.D.~Lee, Phys. Rev. {\bf D}22, 939 (1980).
1520:
1521: \bibitem{swif} A.R.~Swift, Phys. Rev. {\bf D}38, 668 (1988).
1522:
1523:
1524: \bibitem{exps} H.~K\"ummel, K.H.~L\"uhrmann, J.G.~Zabolitzky,
1525: Phys. Rep. {\bf 36}, 1 (1978).
1526:
1527:
1528: \bibitem{BR} J.-P.~Blaizot, G.~Ripka, {\it Quantum Theory of finite
1529: Systems}, (MIT Press, 1986).
1530:
1531:
1532: \bibitem{Bali} G.S.~Bali e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0010032;
1533: G.S.~Bali {\it et al.} (SESAM Collab.), Phys. Rev. {\bf D}62, 054503
1534: (2000).
1535:
1536:
1537: \bibitem{bag} T.~Barnes, F.E.~Close, F.~de Viron, J.~Weyers,
1538: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}224, 241 (1983); K.J.~Juge, J.~Kuti,
1539: C.J.~Morningstar, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 63}, 543 (1998).
1540:
1541:
1542: \bibitem{Glazek} K.G.~Wilson, T.S.~Walhout, A.~Harindranath,
1543: W.-M.~Zhang, R.J.~Perry, S.D.~Glazek, Phys. Rev. {\bf D}49, 6720
1544: (1994).
1545:
1546: \bibitem{prl} A.P.~Szczepaniak, E.S.~Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf
1547: 87}, 072001 (2001).
1548: \end{thebibliography}
1549:
1550:
1551:
1552:
1553:
1554:
1555: \end{document}
1556: