1: %\tolerance = 10000

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsf ]{revtex}

3: \documentstyle[prd,aps,twocolumn,epsfig]{revtex}

4: %

5: \def\br{\begin{eqnarray}}

6: \def\er{\end{eqnarray}}

7: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

8: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

9: \def\a{\alpha}

10: \def\D{\Delta}

11: \def\d{\delta}

12: \def\g{\gamma}

13: \def\G{\Gamma}

14: \def\l{\lambda}

15: \def\L{\Lambda}

16: \def\m{\mu}

17: \def\n{\nu}

18: \def\l{\label}

19: \def\({\left(}

20: \def\){\right)}

21: \def\<{\left\langle}

22: \def\>{\right\rangle}

23: \def\s{\sigma}

24: \def\S{\Sigma}

25: \def\cao{\c c\~ao\,}

26: \begin{document}

27: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname %%% TWO COLUMN

28: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname                            %%% TWO COLUMN

29: %

30: %\draft

31: %

32: \title{ Energy criterion to select the behavior of dynamical masses

33: in technicolor models }

34: \author{

35: A. Doff and A. A. Natale\\

36: }

37: \address{

38: Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica, UNESP,

39: Rua Pamplona 145,

40: 01405-900, S\~ao Paulo, SP,

41: Brazil}

42: %%%%

43: \date{\today}

44: \maketitle

45: %%%%

46: \begin{abstract}

47: We propose a quite general ansatz for the dynamical mass in technicolor models.

48: We impose on this ansatz the condition for formation of the tightest composite

49: boson state, or the criterion that it should lead to the deepest minimum of

50: energy. This criterion indicates a particular form of the technifermion self energy.

51: \end{abstract}

52: 

53: %\pacs{PACS: xxxxxxxx}

54: 

55: \vskip 0.5cm]

56: 

57: In the standard model of elementary particles the fermion and gauge boson

58: masses are generated due to the interaction of these particles with elementary

59: Higgs scalar bosons. Despite the success there are some points in the model

60: as, for instance, the enormous range of masses between the lightest and heaviest

61: fermions and other peculiarities that could be better explained with

62: the introduction of new fields and symmetries. One of the possibilities in this

63: direction is the substitution of elementary Higgs bosons by composite ones in the

64: scheme named technicolor\cite{kl}.

65: 

66: The beautiful characteristics of technicolor (TC) as well as its problems

67: were clearly listed recently by Lane\cite{lane}. Most of the technicolor

68: problems may be related to the dynamics of the theory as described in

69: Ref.\cite{lane}. Although technicolor is a non-Abelian gauge theory it is

70: not necessarily similar to QCD, and if we cannot even say that QCD is fully understood

71: up to now, it is perfectly reasonable to realize the enormous work that is needed

72: to abstract from the fermionic spectrum the underlying technicolor dynamics.

73: 

74: The many attempts to build a realistic model of dynamically generated

75: fermion masses are reviewd in Ref.\cite{kl,lane}. Most of the work in this area

76: try to find the TC dynamics dealing with the particle content of the

77: theory in order to obtain a technifermion self-energy that does not

78: lead to phenomenological problems as in the scheme known as walking

79: technicolor\cite{walk}. The idea of this scheme is quite simple. First,

80: remember that the expression for the TC self-energy is

81: proportional to   $ \Sigma (p^2)_{TC} \propto { (\langle \bar{\psi} \psi\rangle_{TC}}/{p^2})

82: (p^2/\L^2_{TC})^{-\gamma^*}$, where $\langle \bar{\psi} \psi\rangle_{TC}$ is

83: the TC condensate and $\gamma^*$ its anomalous dimension. Secondly, depending

84: on the behavior of the anomalous dimension we obtain different

85: behaviors for $ \Sigma (p^2)_{TC}$. A large anomalous dimension may solve the

86: problems in TC models. In principle we could deal with

87: many different models, varying fermion representations and particle content,

88: finding different expressions for  $ \Sigma (p^2)_{TC}$ and testing them

89: phenomenologically, i.e. obtaining the fermion mass spectra without

90: any conflict with experiment.

91: 

92: In this work we will introduce as one ansatz a quite general

93: expression for the technifermion self-energy. We will discuss its general properties

94: without paying attention to any group structure and will verify when this

95: ansatz imply that we have the tightest composite scalar boson, or the

96: deepest minimum of energy of the theory. In principle if we are able to

97: find the most probable expression for the technifermion self-energy based

98: on a general criterion we will only need to find the right theory that

99: lead to this formal expression.

100: 

101: In order to stablish a quite general ansatz for $ \Sigma (p^2)_{TC}$ we

102: go back to early work on the phenomenology of chiral symmetry breaking

103: in QCD, not because we shall assume that TC is similar to QCD, but because

104: the knowledge about solutions of the Schwinger-Dyson equations for the fermion

105: propagator in the QCD case will help us to find our general ansatz. This equation

106: as a function of the fermion and gauge boson propagators ($S$ and $D$ respectively)

107: is given by

108: %

109: \begin{equation}

110: S^{-1}(p)=\not\!{p}

111: -\imath \frac{4}{3} \int_{}^{\L} \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi )^4}

112: \gamma_\mu S(q)\Gamma_\nu(p,q)g^2D^{\mu\nu}(p-q),

113: \label{e13}

114: \end{equation}

115: %

116: and has two asymptotic solutions\cite{lane2}

117: %

118: \be

119: \S_I(-p^{2}) = \mu[1 + bg^2(\mu^2)ln(-p^2/\mu^2)]^{-\g}

120: \label{si}

121: \ee

122: %

123: \be

124: \hspace{0.5cm}\S_R (-p^{2}) = \frac{\mu^3}{-p^2}[1 + bg^2(\mu^2)ln(-p^2/\mu^2)]^{\g} ,

125: \label{sr}

126: \ee

127: %

128: which are named respectively as irregular and regular solutions, where $\mu$

129: is the dynamical fermion mass ($\approx \langle \bar{\psi} \psi\rangle^{1/3} $),

130: and $\g = 3c/16\pi^{2}b$, with c given by

131: $$

132: c = \frac{1}{2}[C_{2}(R_{1}) + C_{2}(R_{2})- C_{2}(R_{3})]

133: $$

134: \noindent where $C_{2}(R_{i})$ is the Casimir operator for the fermions in the

135: representations $R_1$ and $R_2$ that condensate in the representation $R_3$,

136: and $b$ is the coefficient of $g^{3}$ in the $\beta$ function.

137: Only the solution $\Sigma_R (p)$ is compatible with OPE\cite{lane2} and is consistent

138: with asymptotic freedom. The $\Sigma_I$ solution can only be understood

139: if the theory has an explicit breaking of the chiral symmetry.

140: 

141: These solutions show naturally the extreme forms that we are looking for. One

142: obeys asymptotic freedom ($\Sigma_R (p)$), appears in the case of a perturbative anomalous

143: dimension, and lead to the known TC problems. Any other form of self-energy

144: decaying faster than $1/p^2$ is not interesting phenomenologically (i.e. it is worse

145: than $\Sigma_R (p)$). The other solution ($\Sigma_I (p)$) could only be understood if suitable

146: new interactions are assumed to be relevant at the scale of the cutoff of Eq.(\ref{e13}),

147: or if, alternatively, the ultraviolet cutoff is eliminated altogether as assumed in

148: the model of Ref.\cite{soni}. The only restriction on this solution is $\g > 1/2$\cite{lane2},

149: and if we consider the formal equivalence between the solution of the Schwinger-Dyson equation

150: with the Bethe-Salpeter one for pseudoscalar bound states, the above restriction indicates

151: the condition for wave function normalization of the Goldstone bosons.

152: 

153: Considering the above discussion we can formulate the following ansatz for $ \Sigma (p^2)_{TC}$

154: \be

155: \S(-p^{2})_{TC} = \mu\(\frac{\mu^2}{-p^2}\)^{\a}[1 + bg^2(\mu^2)ln(-p^2/\mu^2)]^{-\beta{cos(\a\pi)}}.

156: \label{sa}

157: \ee

158: This choice interpolates between $\Sigma_R (p)$ and $\Sigma_I (p)$. When $\a \rightarrow 1$

159: we reproduce Eq.(\ref{sr}) with $\beta = \g$, and when $\a \rightarrow 0$ the solution of

160: explicit chiral breaking is obtained. As far as we know there is not any solution that has

161: been discussed in the TC literature that cannot be represented by Eq.(\ref{sa}).

162: 

163: We can now discuss which are the basic conditions that Eq.(\ref{sa}) should satisfy.

164: Since $\S(p)_{TC}$ is also equivalent to the solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation

165: for the scalar sector of technibosons, we could impose that the theory should be

166: stable when it forms the tightest bound states. This condition is the same as saying that

167: $\S(-p^{2})_{TC}$ must minimize the vacuum energy (or the vacuum expectation value of the

168: TC condensate).

169: 

170: To compute the vacuum energy for the technifermion self-energy we

171: can make use of the effective potential for composite operators

172: which is given by\cite{cornja}

173: %

174: \br

175: V(S,D) &=& - \imath \int \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}

176: Tr ( \ln S_0^{-1}S - S_0^{-1}S + 1) \nonumber \\

177: && +\,\,V_2(S,D),

178: \l{vfull}

179: \er

180: %

181: where $S$ and $D$ are the complete propagators of

182: fermions and gauge bosons, respectively; $S_0$ and $D_0$, the corresponding bare

183: propagators.

184: \begin{figure}[ht]

185: \begin{center}

186: \includegraphics{figart1.eps}

187: \caption{Diagrammatic expansion for the effective potential}

188: \end{center}

189: \end{figure}

190: 

191: $V_2(S,D)$ is the sum of all two-particle

192: irreducible vacuum diagrams, depicted in Fig.1, and

193: the equation

194: %

195: \be

196: \frac{\d V}{\d S}=0,

197: \l{delv}

198: \ee

199: %

200: gives the SDE for fermions. We are not considering the contributions

201: to the vacuum due to gauge and ghosts loops, because we are interested

202: only in the vacuum value of the fermionic operator.

203: 

204: We can represent $V_2(S,D)$ analytically in the Hartree-Fock approximation by

205: %

206: \be

207: \imath V_2(S,D) = - \frac{1}{2} Tr(\G S \G S D)

208: \l{v2full}

209: \ee

210: %

211: where $\G$ is the fermion proper vertex. In Eq.(\ref{v2full}) we

212: have not written the gauge and Lorentz indices, as well as the

213: momentum integrals.

214: 

215: We want to determine the vacuum expectation value for technifermion self-energy.

216: Therefore it is better to compute the vacuum energy density, which is given by

217: the effective potential calculated at minimum subtracted by its

218: perturbative part, which does not contribute to dynamical

219: mass generation\cite{cornja,cornor}

220: %

221: \be

222: \< \Omega \> = V_{min}(S,D) - V_{min}(S_p,D_p),

223: \l{omega}

224: \ee

225: %

226: where $S_p$ is the perturbative counterpart of $S$. $V_{min}(S,D)$ is

227: obtained substituting the SDE Eq.(\ref{delv}) back into Eq.(\ref{vfull}),

228: and in the chiral limit $S_p = S_0$. The complete fermion propagator

229: $S$ is related to the free propagator by

230: %

231: \be

232: S^{-1} = S_0^{-1} - \S ,

233: \l{sdf}

234: \ee

235: %

236: where $S_0 = \imath /\not \! p$.

237: 

238: Choosing Landau gauge and working in the Euclidean

239: space ($P^2 \equiv -p^2$) we find that $V_{min}$ is equal to~\cite{castorina}

240: %

241: \be

242: V_{min} = 2 N\int \frac{d^4P}{(2\pi)^4} \,

243: \left[ - \ln ( \frac{P^2 + \S^2}{P^2} ) +

244: \frac{\S^2}{P^2 + \S^2} \right],

245: \l{vminf}

246: \ee

247: %

248: where N is the number of technicolors (techniquarks are in the fundamental representation of SU(N)).

249: Since we are interested in the vacuum value $\< \Omega \>$, and, particularly,

250: in its leading term, we can expand $V_{min}$ in powers of $\S/P$ to obtain

251: %

252: \be

253: \< \Omega \> \simeq -N \int \frac{d^4P}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{\S^4}{P^4}.

254: \l{omega2}

255: \ee

256: %

257: To perform the integral in Eq.(\ref{omega2}),

258: with the self energy given by Eq.(\ref{sa}),

259: it is helpful to use a particular Mellin transform\cite{cs}

260: %

261: \be

262: \left[ 1 + \kappa \ln \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right]^{-\epsilon} =

263: \frac{1}{\Gamma ({\epsilon})}\int_0^\infty d\sigma \, e^{-\sigma}

264: \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)^{-\sigma \kappa} \sigma^{\epsilon - 1}.

265: \label{mt}

266: \ee

267: %

268: 

269: Before we calculate the expression of the vacuum energy for Eq.(\ref{sa})

270: it is instructive to show the result for Eq.(\ref{si}) and (\ref{sr}), which

271: are

272: %

273: \be

274: \< \Omega \>_I \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}d}{64\pi^{2}b}{\frac{N}{g^{2}}}[1 + bg^{2}(\m^{2})ln(\L^2/\m^2)]^{-4\g},

275: \label{omega2I}

276: \ee

277: %

278: %

279: \be

280: \< \Omega \>_R \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{64\pi^{2}}\left(\frac{\m^8}{\L^8}\right)[1 + bg^{2}(\m^{2})ln(\L^2/\m^2)]^{4\g}

281: \label{omega2R}

282: \ee

283: %

284: \noindent where $d = \frac{1}{(\gamma - 1/4)}$, $g^{2}=g^{2}(\Lambda^{2})$ and $\Lambda$ is an infrared cutoff momentum.

285: The natural value of this infrared cutoff is $\Lambda = \mu$ \cite{castorina}. Therefore

286: %

287: \be

288: \< \Omega \>_I \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}d}{64\pi^{2}b}{\frac{N}{g^{2}}},

289: \label{omega2Ib}

290: \ee

291: %

292: %

293: \be

294: \< \Omega \>_R \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{64\pi^{2}}.

295: \label{omega2Rb}

296: \ee

297: %

298: It is obvious that the values of the vacuum energy for the ansatz of

299: Eq.(\ref{sa}) will also interpolate between the ones of Eq.(\ref{omega2Ib}) and

300: (\ref{omega2Rb}).

301: 

302: There are some interesting remarks about this result. Only a solution behaving

303: logarithmically as $\S_I$ will give a vacuum

304: energy proportional to $1/g^2$, any other solution falling off faster

305: (as $1/p$ at some power) will produce a vacuum energy independent of

306: g. This is a consequence of the almost convergent behavior of Eq.(\ref{omega2}).

307: It is possible to verify that the vacuum energy (\ref{omega2}) is related to the fermion condensate

308: ($\< \Omega \> \propto \langle \bar{\psi} \psi\rangle$) (see, for instance, Ref.\cite{nago}),

309: consequently this one will also be proportional to $1/g^2$.

310: Therefore for this solution an argument by Gupta and Quinn\cite{quinn} could imply that

311: this solution cannot be predicted by OPE, because the vacuum value of an operator inversely

312: proportional to the coupling constant destroys the perturbative power counting of

313: the OPE series. Finally, the solution $\S_I$ minimizes the vacuum energy unless

314: the coupling constant in the infrared goes to a very large value, but there are

315: several indications that this does not happen in QCD\cite{aguilar} and this is also

316: what could be expected in walking TC theories. Here we shall

317: restrict ourselves to the scaling law $\frac{g^2}{4\pi} \approx 1$.  We can now

318: proceed to the calculation of the vacuum energy using Eq.(\ref{sa}), and we

319: can foresee two possible behaviors: a) the ansatz lead to some intricate

320: behavior with one or more minima between $\< \Omega \>_I$ and $\< \Omega \>_R$,

321: b) the vacuum energy interpolates smoothly between $\< \Omega \>_I$ and

322: $\< \Omega \>_R$ and the first one is the only minimum.

323: 

324: Due to the form of Eq.(\ref{sa}) it is better to write Eq.(\ref{omega2}) in the following

325: form

326: \be

327: \<\Omega\> \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{16\pi^2}\int^{\infty}_{\m^2} \frac{dP^{2}}{P^2}{\S(P^{2})}^{4},

328: \ee

329: \noindent where $\S(P^{2})=\S(P^{2})_{TC}/\m$ and using Eq.(\ref{sa}) and the Mellin transform Eq.(\ref{mt}) we obtain

330: \be

331: \<\Omega\> \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{16\pi^2}\frac{1}{\Gamma[\d]}\int_{0}^{\infty}{dz}z^{\d - 1}

332: e^{-z}\int_{1}^{\infty}{dx}x^{-az-4\a -1},

333: \ee

334: \noindent where we defined $\d=4\beta{cos}(\a\pi)$ ,  $\beta= 3c/16\pi^{2}b$,  $x = \frac{P^2}{\m^2}$,

335: and $a = b g^2$. Performing the $x$ integration we obtain

336: \be

337: \<\Omega\> \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{16\pi^2}\frac{1}{\Gamma[\d]}\int_{0}^{\infty}{dz}z^{\d - 1}e^{-z}\frac{1}{4\a + az}

338: \label{Ip}

339: \ee

340: 

341: We will present our analysis of $\<\Omega\>$ in the different regions of the parameter $\alpha$.

342: We start with the case $\a \simeq 0$ where we can make the expansion

343: $$

344: \frac{1}{4\a + az}\simeq \frac{1}{az}\left[ 1 - \frac{4\a}{az} + ...\right],

345: $$

346: \noindent than Eq.(\ref{Ip}) can be put in the following form

347: \be

348: \<\Omega\>_0 \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{16\pi^2a}\frac{1}{\Gamma[\d]}\int_{0}^{\infty}{dz}z^{\d - 1}e^{-z}

349: \frac{1}{z}\left[ 1 - \frac{4\a}{az} + ...\right].

350: \ee

351: \noindent Retaining only the first two terms after integration and using properties of Gamma functions we

352: can write

353: \be

354: \<\Omega\>_0 \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{16\pi^2a}\left[\frac{1}{(\d -1)} - \frac{4\a}{a}\frac{1}{(\d -1)(\d - 2)} + ...\right].

355: \ee

356: \noindent In this case we have $\d \simeq 4\beta$. The coefficient  $a=bg^2$ can be roughly estimated around of one,

357: $bg^{2} \approx 1$, because for many groups the coefficient $b$ is always smaller that one. For example,

358: in the case of $SU(N)$ and $N=4$, we have $b=0.067$ and if we assume the scaling law $\frac{g^2}{4\pi}\approx 1$,

359: we obtain $bg^2\approx 0.85$\,. For $N=8$ we have $bg^2\approx 2.0$. Therefore we can define

360: \br

361: \Phi(\Omega) \equiv \frac{64\pi^2{\<\Omega\>_{0}}}{\m^4N}=&&-\frac{1}{(\beta -1/4)}\times \nonumber\\

362: &&\left[1 - \frac{4\a}{(\beta - 1/2)} + ...\right].

363: \er

364: \noindent

365: \par This result is plotted in Fig.(2) as a function of $\a$ and $\beta$. In this figure we see that the deeper minimum happens for the smallest value of $\a$ and $\beta$$(=1/2)$;

366: \begin{figure}[ht]

367: \begin{center}

368: \hspace{-2cm}

369: \epsfig{file=grafico401.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,angle=-90}

370: \vspace{-1.5cm}

371: \caption{Behavior of $ \Phi (\Omega) \equiv \frac{64 \pi^2  \< \Omega \>_{0} }

372: { \m^4N} $ plotted in terms of the

373: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters.}

374: \end{center}

375: \end{figure}

376: 

377: \par In the case when $\a \simeq 1$ whe have

378: \be

379: \<\Omega\>_1 \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}N}{64\pi^2\a}\left[1 + \frac{a\beta}{\a} + ...\right].

380: \ee

381: \noindent Now $\beta cos(\a\pi)\approx -\beta$, and we define

382: \be

383: \Gamma(\Omega)\equiv\frac{64\pi^2{\<\Omega\>_{1}}}{\m^4N}=-\frac{1}{\a}\times\left[1 + \frac{\beta}{\a} + ...\right].

384: \ee

385: \noindent This case is depicted in Fig.(3).

386: \begin{figure}[ht]

387: \begin{center}

388: \hspace{-2cm}

389: \epsfig{file=grafico402.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,angle=-90}

390: \vspace{-1.5cm}

391: \caption{Behavior of $\Gamma(\Omega)\equiv\frac{64\pi^2{\<\Omega\>_{1}}}{\m^4N} $

392: plotted in terms of the

393: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters.}

394: \end{center}

395: \end{figure}

396: 

397: \noindent Note that in Fig.(3) the region of large $\a$ is one of maximum energy.

398: The surface decreases smoothly towards small $\a$ changing gradually its

399: minima from large $\beta$ to small $\beta$;

400: 

401: \par Note that Eq.(\ref{Ip}) can also be solved without recurring to expansions

402: in terms of the Wittaker functions $(W_{a,b}(x))$ and the result is equal to

403: \be

404: \<\Omega\>_F \simeq -\frac{\m^{4}}{16\pi^2a}\left[{\(\frac{4\a}{a}\)}^{\frac{\d - 2}{2}}e^{2\a/a}

405: W_{-\frac{\d}{2},\frac{1-\d}{2}}(4\a/a)\right].

406: \ee

407: \noindent However this solution it is valid only for positive $\beta cos(\a\pi)$. Expanding this solution for $\a \approx 0$ we recover the result for $\<\Omega\>_{0}$.

408: 

409: Our result shows that the deepest minimum of energy happens for a solution

410: behaving like

411: \be

412: \S_{TC}(-p^{2}) \simeq \mu[1 + bg^2(\mu^2)ln(-p^2/\mu^2)]^{-\g} ,

413: \label{tci}

414: \ee

415: %

416: where $\g = 3c/16\pi^{2}b$ has the smallest possible value ($\simeq 1/2$).

417: 

418: To conclude we can remember that the expression of Eq.(\ref{tci}) is indeed the

419: one that solve many of the TC problems. Unfortunately we verified only one

420: criterion that the solution must obey, from this one to the construction of

421: realistic models (and test of the criterion) there is still a lot of work to do.

422: 

423: \section*{Acknowledgments}

424: 

425: This research was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento

426: Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'ogico (CNPq) (AAN), by Fundac\~ao de Amparo \`a

427: Pesquisa do Estado de S\~ao Paulo (FAPESP) (AD,AAN), and by Programa de

428: Apoio a N\'ucleos de Excel\^encia (PRONEX).

429: 

430: \begin {thebibliography}{99}

431: 

432: \bibitem{kl} C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, {\it Strong Dynamics and Electroweak

433: Symmetry Breaking}, (March 2002) to appear in Physics Reports, hep-ph/0203079;

434: K. Lane, {\it Technicolor 2000}, Lectures at the LNF Spring

435: School in Nuclear, Subnuclear and Astroparticle Physics, Frascati (Rome),

436: Italy, May 15-20, 2000; hep-ph/0007304; R. S. Chivukula, {\it Models of

437: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking}, NATO Advanced Study Institute on Quantum

438: Field Theory Perspective and Prospective, Les Houches, France, 16-26 June

439: 1998, hep-ph/9803219.

440: 

441: \bibitem{lane} K. Lane, {\it Two Lectures on Technicolor} hep-ph/0202255.

442: 

443: \bibitem{walk} B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. {\bf D24}, 1441 (1981); Phys. Lett.

444: {\bf B150}, 301 (1985); T. Appelquist, D. Karabali and L. C. R.

445: Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}, 957 (1986); T. Appelquist and

446: L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. {\bf D36}, 568 (1987); K. Yamawaki, M.

447: Bando and K. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 1335 (1986); T. Akiba

448: and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B169} 432 (1986).

449: 

450: \bibitem{lane2} K. Lane, Phys. Rev. {\bf D10}, 2605 (1974).

451: 

452: \bibitem{soni} J. Carpenter, R. Norton, S. Siegemund-Broka and A. Soni,

453: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 153 (1990).

454: 

455: \bibitem{cornja} J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis,

456: Phys. Rev. {\bf D10}, 2428 (1974).

457: 

458: \bibitem{cornor} J. M. Cornwall and R. E. Norton, Phys. Rev.

459: {\bf D8}, 3338 (1973).

460: 

461: \bibitem{castorina} P. Castorina and S.-Y.Pi, Phys. Rev.

462: {\bf D31}, 411 (1985); V. P. Gusynin

463: and Yu. A. Sitenko, Z. Phys. {\bf C29}, 547 (1985).

464: 

465: \bibitem{cs} J. M. Cornwall and R. C. Shellard, Phys. Rev. {\bf D18}, 1216 (1978).

466: 

467: \bibitem{nago} E. V. Gorbar and A. A. Natale, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 054012 (2000).

468: 

469: \bibitem{quinn} S. Gupta and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. {\bf D26} (1982) 499;

470: {\bf D27} (1983) 980.

471: 

472: \bibitem{aguilar} A. C. Aguilar, A.Mihara and A. A. Natale, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65},

473: 054011 (2002).

474: 

475: 

476: 

477: 

478: \end {thebibliography}

479: 

480: 

481: \end{document}

482: 

483: 

484: 

485: