1: \chapter{Propagators of Landau gauge Yang-Mills theory \label{YM}}
2:
3: In this chapter we investigate the Dyson--Schwinger equations for the propagators of
4: Yang--Mills theory. The knowledge of the two point
5: functions of Yang--Mills theory, the ghost and gluon propagator,
6: might shed light on those fundamental properties of QCD, which are generated in the gauge sector
7: (for a recent review see \cite{Alkofer:2000wg}). This is clearly the case
8: for the phenomenon of confinement, as can be inferred from lattice
9: calculations\footnote{In these simulations the string tension between a
10: pair of static quarks has been calculated and found to be linearly rising as is expected
11: for confined quarks. No dynamical quarks are involved in the calculations, therefore one concludes
12: that the string tension is generated by the gauge field only. There is even evidence
13: that only very particular gauge field configurations, namely center vortices, are
14: responsible for the linearly rising potential \cite{Langfeld:2001cz}. This might shed new light on the
15: origin of the violation of the cluster decomposition principle discussed in
16: subsection \ref{Kugo-Ojima}.}.
17: Furthermore the knowledge of the interaction strength in the gauge sector of QCD
18: provides the basis for a successful description of hadronic physics
19: \cite{Alkofer:2000wg,Roberts:2000aa}.
20: Based on the idea of infrared slavery older works on this subject assumed a
21: gluon propagator that is strongly singular in the
22: infrared. Recent studies based either
23: on Dyson--Schwinger equations
24: \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,Atkinson:1998tu,Watson:2001yv,Alkofer:2001iw,Zwanziger:2001kw,Lerche:2002ep,Zwanziger:2002ia}
25: or Monte-Carlo lattice calculations
26: \cite{Mandula:1999nj,Bonnet:2000kw,Bonnet:2001uh,Langfeld:2001cz,Cucchieri:1999ky,Cucchieri:2000kw,Cucchieri:1998fy}
27: in Landau gauge indicate quite the opposite: an infrared finite or even
28: infrared vanishing gluon propagator.
29:
30: Lattice simulations and the Dyson-Schwinger approach are complementary in the following sense:
31: On the one hand, lattice calculations include all non-perturbative
32: physics of Yang--Mills theories but cannot make definite statements about
33: the far infrared due to the finite lattice volume. On the other hand,
34: Dyson--Schwinger equations (DSEs) allow one to extract the leading infrared behaviour
35: analytically and the general non-perturbative behaviour with moderate numerical
36: effort. However, the infinite tower of coupled
37: non-linear integral DSEs has to be truncated in order to be manageable.
38: As we will see in the course of this chapter, the propagators
39: of SU(2) and SU(3) Landau gauge Yang--Mills theory
40: coincide for these two different approaches reasonably well.
41: Thus we are confident that our results for the qualitative features of
42: these propagators are trustworthy.
43:
44: Throughout this chapter
45: we stay in the framework of ordinary Faddeev--Popov quantisation.
46: Interesting enough, some of
47: our results can be directly compared with recent calculations
48: obtained in a framework employing stochastic quantisation \cite{Zwanziger:2002ia}.
49: We will
50: thus be able to check for systematic errors connected to the appearance
51: of Gribov copies\footnote{A corresponding investigation of the influence of Gribov copies on the
52: gluon propagator in lattice simulations can be found in
53: ref.~\cite{Cucchieri:1997dx,Alexandrou:2000ja}} \cite{Gribov:1978wm}, c.f. the discussion in section \ref{gribov}.
54:
55: Landau gauge, which has been chosen for all DSE studies of Yang-Mills theory so far,
56: is special for a number of
57: reasons. {\it First}, it is a fixed point under the
58: renormalisation procedure. This means that the gauge parameter $\lambda$
59: is not renormalised when $\lambda=0$, a fact which simplifies the
60: renormalisation of the DSEs considerably.
61: {\it Second}, as we saw in the last chapter, Landau gauge is a ghost-antighost
62: symmetric gauge. This is of principal interest as we
63: are then allowed to interpret ghost and antighost as (unphysical) particle
64: and antiparticle. On the other hand it simplifies matters if one attempts to
65: construct a non-perturbative dressed ghost-gluon vertex, as one is guided
66: by a symmetry. This has been exploited in
67: references \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is,hauck}. {\it Third}, the
68: ghost-gluon vertex does not suffer from ultraviolet divergences in Landau gauge,
69: as has been shown by Taylor
70: \cite{Taylor:1971ff}. Again, this simplifies the search for a suitable {\it ansatz} for this
71: vertex considerably. Indeed, one is even allowed to use the bare ghost-gluon
72: vertex, as we will see in the course of this chapter.
73:
74: This chapter is organised as follows:
75: We first give a brief summary of previously employed truncation and
76: approximation schemes for the coupled gluon and ghost DSEs in Landau gauge.
77: We discuss the key role of the ghost-gluon vertex in these truncations and
78: show how a non-perturbative definition of the running coupling can be inferred.
79: One of the obstacles encountered in providing numerical solutions
80: are the angular integrals inherent to these equations. Therefore
81: approximated treatments of the angular integrals have been applied so far
82: \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,Atkinson:1998tu}. In general these angular
83: approximations proved to be good for high momenta but less trustworthy in the
84: infrared. Recent studies \cite{Atkinson:1998zc,Zwanziger:2001kw,Lerche:2002ep}
85: therefore concentrated on the infrared analysis, where exact results have been
86: gained for the limit of vanishing momentum.
87: However, as we will see in the course of this chapter, not every extracted
88: infrared solution is connected to a numerical solution for finite values
89: of momenta. The main part of this chapter is therefore devoted to the
90: construction of a novel truncation scheme, which
91: allows to overcome the angular approximation for the whole range of momenta
92: \cite{Fischer:2002eq,Fischer:2002hn}.
93: Thus we are able to single out the physical infrared solutions of the
94: schemes used in \cite{Atkinson:1998zc,Zwanziger:2001kw,Lerche:2002ep}.
95: In the ultraviolet region of momentum
96: we obtain the correct one-loop anomalous dimensions of the propagators
97: known from resummed perturbation theory.
98:
99: \section{Gluon and ghost
100: Dyson--Schwinger equations in flat Euclidean space-time \label{gluonghost}}
101:
102:
103: The coupled set of gluon and ghost Dyson--Schwinger
104: equations, which has been given diagrammatically
105: in Fig.~\ref{DSEpic} in the last chapter,
106: loses a considerable amount of complexity in Landau gauge.
107: There, the four-ghost vertex vanishes and we are left with one dressing loop in the
108: ghost equation. As we will only be concerned with pure
109: Yang--Mills theory in this chapter the quark loop in the gluon equation
110: disappears as well. Furthermore in Landau gauge the tadpole term provides
111: an (ultraviolet divergent) constant only and will drop out during renormalisation.
112: Thus we will neglect this contribution from the very beginning.
113: All these simplifications are due to our choice of Landau gauge.
114: The resulting system of equations is still very complicated as it contains
115: full two-loop diagrams in the gluon equation. The first assumption of all
116: truncation schemes up to now is, that contributions from these two-loop diagrams
117: may safely be neglected\footnote{The only exception is the scheme discussed
118: in \cite{Bloch:2001wz}, which has not been solved yet.}.
119: We will join in this assumption and
120: provide some arguments for its validity in subsection \ref{YM-results}.
121:
122: Thus, we will effectively study the
123: coupled system of equations as depicted in Fig.\ \ref{GluonGhost}.
124: The corresponding equations are given by
125: \setlength{\jot}{3mm}
126: \beqa
127: [D_G(p)]^{-1}
128: &=& \tilde{Z_3} [D_G^{(0)}(p)]^{-1}
129: - \tilde{Z_1} \frac{g^2 N_c}{(2\pi)^4}\int d^4q \:\Gamma^{(0)}_\mu (p,q) \:
130: D_{\mu \nu}(p-q) \:\Gamma_\nu(q,p)D_G(q) \;, \hspace*{1.5cm}
131: \label{YM-DSE-ghost} \\
132: {[D(p)]^{-1}_{\mu \nu}}
133: &=& Z_3 [D^{(0)}(p)]^{-1}_{\mu \nu}
134: + \tilde{Z_1} \frac{g^2 N_c}{(2\pi)^4}\int d^4q \:\Gamma^{(0)}_\mu (p,q) \:
135: D_G(p-q) \:\Gamma_\nu(q,p)D_G(q)
136: \nonumber\\
137: &&\hspace{1cm}- Z_1 \frac{1}{2}\frac{g^2 N_c}{(2\pi)^4}\int d^4q
138: \:\Gamma^{(0)}_{\mu \rho \sigma} (p,q) \:
139: D_{\rho \rho^\prime}(p-q) \:\Gamma_{\rho^\prime \nu \sigma^\prime}(q,p)
140: D_{\sigma \sigma^\prime}(q).
141: \label{YM-DSE-gluon}
142: \eeqa
143: Here the ghost-gluon vertex is denoted by the symbol $\Gamma_\nu(q,p)$,
144: whereas the three-gluon vertex is given by $\Gamma_{\rho \nu \sigma}(q,p)$.
145: Furthermore we have the coupling $g$ and the number of colours $N_c$ stemming from the
146: colour trace of the respective loops.
147: Suppressing colour indices the explicit expressions for the ghost and gluon propagators as well as the
148: inverse of the gluon propagator are given by
149: \beqa
150: D_{G}(p) &=& -
151: %\delta^{ab}
152: \frac {G(p^2)}{p^2} \;, \label{Gh-prop}\\
153: D_{\mu \nu}(p) &=&
154: %\delta^{ab} \left[
155: \left(\delta_{\mu \nu} - \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2}
156: \right) \frac{Z(p^2)}{p^2} + \lambda \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^4}
157: %\right]
158: \;, \label{Gl-prop} \\
159: \left[ D_{\mu \nu}(p)\right]^{-1} &=&
160: %\delta^{ab} \left[
161: \left(\delta_{\mu \nu} - \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2}
162: \right) \frac{p^2}{Z(p^2)} + \frac{1}{\lambda} p_\mu p_\nu
163: %\right]
164: \;. \label{Gl-prop-inv}
165: \eeqa
166: For all linear covariant gauges the longitudinal parts of the full and bare inverse gluon
167: propagators cancel each other in the gluon equation (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon}). Furthermore
168: in Landau gauge we have $\lambda=0$.
169: \setlength{\jot}{0mm}
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172: \begin{figure}[t]
173: \centerline{ \epsfig{file=GluonGhost.eps,width=0.98\linewidth} }
174: \vskip 3mm
175: \caption{\sf Diagrammatic representation of the truncated Landau gauge
176: gluon and ghost DSEs studied in this chapter. In the gluon
177: Dyson--Schwinger equation terms with four--gluon vertices and quarks
178: have been dismissed.}
179: \label{GluonGhost}
180: \end{figure}
181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
182:
183: At this stage of treating the equations we spot a problem: The left hand
184: side of the gluon equation (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon}) is transverse to the gluon momentum
185: therefore the right hand side of this equation should be transverse as well. This is certainly
186: the case in the exact theory. However in an approximate treatment the gluon
187: polarisation on the right hand side may acquire spurious
188: longitudinal terms due to breaking gauge
189: invariance. In general there are two possible sources for this violation: The
190: {\it first} one is the
191: use of vertices which violate the corresponding Slavnov-Taylor identity. The
192: {\it second} one is the use of a regularisation scheme which breaks gauge invariance, such as
193: a cutoff in the radial momentum integral.
194:
195: We postpone the problem of the gauge invariance of the vertex {\it ansatz} to the next subsection
196: and discuss the regularisation problem first.
197: In the following we outline some rather abstract arguments which will become
198: more transparent in section \ref{truncation}, where we investigate the infrared and
199: ultraviolet properties of our new truncation scheme in detail.
200:
201: In general a cutoff in the loop integrals can lead to quadratically ultraviolet
202: divergent terms in the gluon equation. Such terms are scheme dependent and therefore
203: unphysical. Furthermore they are highly ambiguous because they depend on the
204: momentum routing in the loop integral.
205: Unfortunately, a gauge invariant regularisation scheme avoiding these terms is
206: hard to implement in Dyson--Schwinger studies\footnote{For the corresponding
207: use of dimensional regularisation see {\it e.g.\/}
208: refs.~\cite{vonSmekal:1991fp,Gusynin:1998se,Schreiber:1998ht}).}.
209:
210: It has been argued though \cite{Brown:1988bm,Brown:1989bn}, that quadratic divergences
211: can occur only in
212: that part of the right hand side of the equation which is proportional to
213: the metric $\delta_{\mu\nu}$.
214: Therefore an alternative procedure to avoid quadratic divergences
215: is to contract the equation with the tensor \cite{Brown:1988bm}
216: \begin{equation}
217: {\mathcal R}_{\mu\nu} (p) =
218: \delta_{\mu\nu} - 4 \,\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \, ,
219: \label{Rproj}
220: \end{equation}
221: which is constructed such that ${\mathcal R}_{\mu\nu} (p) \,\delta^{\mu\nu} =0$.
222: However, as has become obvious recently \cite{Lerche:2002ep},
223: the use of the tensor (\ref{Rproj}) interferes
224: with the infrared analysis of the coupled gluon-ghost system
225: (see also ref. \cite{Hauck:1998sm} for a corresponding discussion in a much
226: simpler truncation scheme).
227:
228: In order to study this problem more carefully we will contract the Lorentz
229: indices of eq.~(\ref{YM-DSE-gluon}) with the one-parameter family of tensors
230: \begin{equation}
231: {\mathcal P}^{(\zeta )}_{\mu\nu} (p) = \delta_{\mu\nu} -
232: \zeta \,\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2}
233: \, .
234: \label{Paproj}
235: \end{equation}
236: This allows us to interpolate continuously from the tensor (\ref{Rproj}) to
237: the transversal one (with $\zeta =1$). We will then encounter quadratic divergences
238: proportional to the factor $(4-\zeta)$, which can be identified unambiguously
239: and removed by hand. We will be able to show that this procedure restores
240: the correct perturbative behaviour of the equations even with a finite cutoff $\Lambda$.
241:
242: Having removed all quadratic divergences we are then in a position to evaluate
243: the remaining degree of breaking gauge invariance. As a completely transversal
244: right hand side would be independent of $\zeta$ after contraction with the projector
245: (\ref{Paproj}), the variation of our solutions with $\zeta$ is a measure for
246: the influence of the artificial longitudinal terms on the right hand side of the equation.
247:
248: \section{The ghost-gluon vertex in DSE studies and the running coupling \label{gg-vertex-sec}}
249:
250: We now focus
251: on two issues that are connected with the ghost-gluon vertex of Landau gauge.
252: We will argue for the surprising fact, that one can safely
253: use a bare ghost-gluon vertex even in the non-perturbative momentum region
254: of the DSEs.
255: Furthermore we describe, how one is able to relate
256: the running coupling of the strong interaction to the ghost and gluon dressing
257: functions by the renormalisation properties of the ghost-gluon vertex.
258:
259: \subsection{Dressing the ghost-gluon vertex \label{vertex-dressing}}
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261: \begin{figure}[t]
262: \vspace{0.5cm}
263: \centerline{
264: \epsfig{file=ghost-gluon-vertex.ps}
265: }
266: \caption{\sf \label{gg-vertex} A diagrammatical representation of the ghost-gluon vertex.}
267: \end{figure}
268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
269: For our further treatment of the ghost and gluon system of equations,
270: (\ref{YM-DSE-ghost}) and (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon}), we have to specify explicit forms
271: for the dressed ghost-gluon vertex $\Gamma_\nu(q,p)$ and the dressed three-gluon
272: vertex $\Gamma_{\rho \nu \sigma}(q,p)$. As has already been mentioned in the introduction
273: to this chapter, the ghost-gluon vertex does not attribute an independent
274: ultraviolet divergence in Landau gauge, {\it i.e.\/} one has $\widetilde Z_1 = 1$
275: \cite{Taylor:1971ff}. Therefore a truncation based on the tree-level form
276: for the ghost-gluon vertex function,
277: \beq
278: \Gamma_\mu (q,p) = iq_\mu
279: \label{bare-gg-vertex}
280: \eeq
281: is compatible
282: with the desired short distance behaviour of the solutions. Here the momentum
283: $q_\mu$ is the momentum of the outgoing ghost, see Fig. \ref{gg-vertex}.
284: Thus we obtain the correct
285: ultraviolet behaviour of the ghost loop in the gluon equation (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon})
286: and the dressing loop in the ghost equation (\ref{YM-DSE-ghost}),
287: as will be shown explicitly below.
288:
289: However, as the effects of non-perturbative vertex dressing are supposed to
290: be most pronounced in the infrared, one might wonder whether the tree-level
291: form of the ghost-gluon vertex leads to a sensible infrared behaviour of these equations.
292: Furthermore the bare vertex violates the {\it Slavnov-Taylor identity} (STI),
293: which restricts
294: that part of the ghost-gluon vertex which is longitudinal in the gluon momentum.
295: Such an identity is the manifestation of gauge invariance and
296: can be derived using the BRS-invariance of the gauge-fixed Lagrangian of Yang--Mills theory.
297:
298: Considering this, obviously the best way to obtain a
299: properly dressed {\it ansatz} for the ghost-gluon vertex is to solve the corresponding STI.
300: This strategy has been followed by
301: von Smekal, Hauck and Alkofer in \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is}.
302: On the level of connected Green's functions the STI for the
303: ghost-gluon vertex in general linear covariant gauges reads \cite{vonSmekal:1998is}
304: \beq
305: \frac{1}{\lambda} \langle c^c(z) \bar{c}^b(y) \partial A^a(x) \rangle
306: -\frac{1}{\lambda} \langle c^c(z) \bar{c}^a(x) \partial A^b(y) \rangle =
307: -\frac{g}{2} f^{cde} \langle c^d(z) c^e(z) \bar{c}^a(x) \bar{c}^b(y) \rangle.
308: \label{ghost-gluon-STI}
309: \eeq
310: Here we have the spatial coordinates $x$, $y$ and $z$, the bare coupling $g$, the gauge
311: parameter $\lambda$ and the
312: real structure constant $f^{cde}$ of the gauge group SU(3).
313: The left hand side of this equation can be decomposed into the full ghost-gluon vertex
314: and respective propagators. However, the right hand side contains the connected ghost-ghost
315: scattering kernel, which is completely unknown.
316:
317: By neglecting this irreducible correlation
318: von Smekal, Hauck and Alkofer were able to construct a vertex
319: {\it ansatz} which solves the resulting approximate STI. Together with a similar construction for
320: the three-gluon vertex they obtained a closed system of equations which has been solved
321: numerically using an angular approximation (c.f. subsection \ref{lorenz-trunc}).
322: The results, an infrared vanishing
323: gluon propagator and an highly singular ghost in the infrared
324: have been confirmed since in other DSE-calculations
325: as well as lattice Monte-Carlo simulations
326: \cite{Mandula:1999nj,Bonnet:2000kw,Bonnet:2001uh,Langfeld:2001cz}.
327: Thus the old idea of {\it infrared slavery} based on the notion of an
328: infrared divergent gluon propagator has been abandoned since.
329:
330: However, as became clear later, the vertex construction of
331: refs.~\cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is} is somewhat problematic. It has been
332: shown in ref.~\cite{Atkinson:1998tu} that this vertex causes inconsistencies in the infrared
333: behaviour of the ghost equation once the angular integrals of the dressing loop are treated
334: exactly. Furthermore it has been shown in refs.~\cite{Watson:1999ha,watson} that the neglection of
335: the irreducible ghost-ghost scattering kernel in the identity (\ref{ghost-gluon-STI})
336: is at odds with perturbation theory. On the other hand it is hard to see,
337: how one could include this irreducible correlation and thus improve the construction
338: of refs.~\cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is}.
339:
340: Therefore Atkinson and Bloch chose a different strategy
341: and employed a bare ghost-gluon vertex in their truncation scheme
342: \cite{Atkinson:1998tu,Atkinson:1998zc}, which
343: keeps only the ghost loop in the gluon equation\footnote{Although there is an
344: attempt in ref.~\cite{Atkinson:1998tu} to include the gluon loop as well, the authors themselves
345: note an inconsistency between their construction
346: and perturbation theory. Thus the focus
347: was mainly on the 'ghost-loop only' situation.}. The numerical calculations in this scheme
348: are also obtained using angular approximations in the integrals.
349: Amazingly, though, the bare vertex scheme and the one from
350: \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is} provide results with qualitatively similar
351: infrared behaviour: the gluon propagator vanishes in the infrared and the ghost propagator
352: is highly singular there.
353:
354: The surprising conclusion from the comparison of these two truncation schemes is, that
355: a bare ghost-gluon vertex (\ref{bare-gg-vertex})
356: is not only capable of providing the correct
357: ultraviolet behaviour of the ghost loop in the gluon equation (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon})
358: and the dressing loop in the ghost equation (\ref{YM-DSE-ghost}), but in addition leads
359: to a satisfactory infrared behaviour of the equations in accordance with
360: lattice Monte--Carlo simulations. Consequently recent analytical
361: infrared investigations concentrated on the bare vertex
362: \cite{Atkinson:1998zc,Zwanziger:2001kw}. The influence of multiplicative
363: corrections to the bare vertex has been assessed in refs.~\cite{Lerche:2002ep,Lerche}
364: and are found to be irrelevant for the qualitative behaviour in the infrared.
365:
366: For our novel truncation scheme, detailed in section \ref{truncation}, we will therefore
367: use the bare ghost-gluon vertex (\ref{bare-gg-vertex}), keeping in mind that we have
368: to check for the influence of artificial longitudinal terms due to the violation
369: of the Slavnov-Taylor identity (\ref{ghost-gluon-STI}). As a major improvement to previous
370: calculations we will be able to overcome the angular approximation and give solutions
371: for the ghost and gluon dressing functions which include the full angular dependence
372: of the loops in the equations.
373:
374: \subsection{The running coupling of the strong interaction \label{coupling-sec}}
375:
376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
377: %\begin{figure}[t]
378: %\vspace{0.5cm}
379: %\centerline{
380: %\epsfig{file=pics/ghost-gluon-vertex.ps}
381: %}
382: %\caption{\sf \label{gg-vertex2} A diagrammatical representation of the ghost-gluon vertex.}
383: %\end{figure}
384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
385: Before we give the details of our truncation scheme there is still more to be learned from the
386: ghost-gluon vertex in Landau gauge. In the following we consider the renormalisation of the vertex
387: term in the unrenormalised Lagrangian, eq.~(\ref{Lagrangian-gen}). In Landau gauge we have
388: \beq
389: {\cal{L}}_{ghost-gluon} = g f^{abc} \partial_\mu \bar{c}^a A_\mu^c c^b \;,
390: \label{L-bare}
391: \eeq
392: which is identical to the respective term in the Faddeev-Popov Lagrangian, eq.~(\ref{Lagrangian}).
393: Multiplicative
394: renormalisability means that it is possible to render all Green's functions finite
395: by renormalising the fields and parameters of the Lagrangian without changing
396: its form. Recall that the coupling $g$, the gluon field and the ghost field
397: are renormalised according to ({\it c.f.} eq.~(\ref{rescaling}))
398: \beqa
399: A_\mu^a &\rightarrow& \sqrt{Z_3}A_\mu^a \,, \label{a-field-ren}\\
400: \bar{c}^a&\rightarrow& \sqrt{\tilde{Z}_3} \bar{c}^a \,, \\
401: c^a &\rightarrow& \sqrt{\tilde{Z}_3} c^a \,, \label{c-field-ren}\\
402: g &\rightarrow& Z_g g \,, \label{g-ren}
403: \eeqa
404: where we have unrenormalised objects on the left hand side and renormalised ones
405: of the right hand side of the relations. Furthermore, by definition, the
406: vertex renormalisation constant $\tilde{Z}_1$ is related to the renormalisation
407: constants of the constituent fields
408: of the vertex by
409: \beq
410: \tilde{Z}_1=Z_g \tilde{Z}_3 Z_3^{1/2}.
411: \eeq
412: We then have the renormalised ghost-gluon vertex part of the Lagrangian
413: \beq
414: {\cal{L}}_{ghost-gluon}^R = \tilde{Z}_1 g f^{abc} \partial_\mu \bar{c}^a A_\mu^c c^b \,,
415: \eeq
416: which has the same form as the respective term (\ref{L-bare}) in the bare Lagrangian.
417:
418: We are now able to exploit the fact again that $\tilde{Z}_1=1$ in Landau gauge
419: \cite{Taylor:1971ff}. As the strong running coupling is defined by
420: $\alpha = g^2/(4\pi)$, we obtain the relation
421: \beq
422: \alpha(\Lambda^2) = \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{\tilde{Z}_3^2(\mu^2,\Lambda^2) Z_3(\mu^2,\Lambda^2)}
423: \label{coup}
424: \eeq
425: from the renormalisation of the coupling, eq.~(\ref{g-ren}). Here we gave the explicit
426: arguments of the renormalised coupling $\alpha(\mu^2)$, evaluated at the
427: renormalisation point $\mu$, and the bare
428: coupling $\alpha(\Lambda^2)$, which depends on the cutoff $\Lambda$ of our theory.
429: From the relations (\ref{a-field-ren}) and (\ref{c-field-ren}) we furthermore
430: infer that the ghost and gluon dressing functions, $G(p^2)$ and $Z(p^2)$,
431: are renormalised according to
432: \beqa
433: G(p^2,\Lambda^2) &=& G(p^2,\mu^2) \,\tilde{Z}_3(\mu^2,\Lambda^2) \,, \nonumber\\
434: Z(p^2,\Lambda^2) &=& Z(p^2,\mu^2)\, {Z}_3(\mu^2,\Lambda^2) \,,
435: \label{zg-ren}
436: \eeqa
437: where the unrenormalised quantities are on the left hand side of the equations.
438: Certainly the renormalisation point $\mu$ is completely free. We are thus
439: allowed to substitute these relations into eq.~(\ref{coup})
440: and renormalise once at an arbitrary point $\mu$ and once at the specific value
441: $p$. We obtain
442: \beq
443: \alpha(\Lambda^2)\, G^2(p^2,\Lambda^2)\, Z(p^2,\Lambda^2)
444: = \alpha(\mu^2)\, G^2(p^2,\mu^2) \, Z(p^2,\mu^2)
445: = \alpha(p^2) \, G^2(p^2,p^2) \, Z(p^2,p^2)
446: \label{alp}
447: \eeq
448: It suffices now to impose the non-perturbative renormalisation condition
449: \beq
450: G^2(p^2,p^2)\,Z(p^2,p^2)=G^2(\mu^2,\mu^2)\,Z(\mu^2,\mu^2)=1
451: \eeq
452: on equation (\ref{alp}) to arrive at
453: \beq
454: \setlength{\fboxsep}{3mm}
455: \fbox{$ \displaystyle \alpha(p^2) = \alpha(\mu^2) \, G^2(p^2,\mu^2) \, Z(p^2,\mu^2)$}
456: \label{coupling}
457: \eeq
458: This is a defining equation for the {\it non-perturbative running coupling}
459: $\alpha(p^2)$ of Landau gauge QCD \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is}. Note that the
460: running coupling $\alpha(p^2)$ defined this way does not depend on the arbitrary
461: renormalisation point $\mu$. This is equivalent to saying
462: that the right hand side of this equation
463: is a renormalisation group invariant \cite{Mandelstam:1979xd}.
464:
465: \section{The truncation scheme \label{truncation}}
466:
467: Having spent some time with the discussion of Landau gauge we now
468: return to the coupled set of eqs.~(\ref{YM-DSE-ghost}) and (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon})
469: and specify explicit expressions for the ghost-gluon vertex $\Gamma_\nu(q,p)$
470: and the three-gluon vertex $\Gamma_{\rho \nu \sigma}(q,p)$. In the following we
471: will show, that the bare ghost-gluon vertex
472: \beq
473: \Gamma_\mu (q,p) = iq_\mu
474: \label{bare-gg-vertex2}
475: \eeq
476: and the construction
477: \beq
478: \Gamma_{\rho \nu \sigma}(q,p) = \frac{1}{Z_1(\mu^2,\Lambda^2)} \,
479: \frac{G(q^2)^{(1-a/\delta-2a)}}{Z(q^2)^{(1+a)}}
480: \frac{G((q-p)^2)^{(1-b/\delta-2b)}}{Z((q-p)^2)^{(1+b)}} \, \Gamma^{(0)}_{\rho \nu \sigma}(q,p)
481: \label{3g-vertex}
482: \eeq
483: with the bare three-gluon vertex $\Gamma^{(0)}_{\rho \nu \sigma}$ given in
484: eq.~(\ref{three-gluon-app})
485: and the new parameters $a$ and $b$ lead to the correct one-loop anomalous dimensions of the
486: dressing functions in the ultraviolet, provided the quadratic divergences have been removed.
487: This is true for arbitrary values of the
488: parameters $a$ and $b$, although we will later
489: argue for the specific values $a=b=3\delta$, where $\delta$ is the anomalous dimension
490: of the ghost.
491:
492: For simplicity we introduce the abbreviations $x:=p^2$, $y:=q^2$ and $z:=k^2=(q-p)^2$ for
493: the squared momenta appearing as arguments of the dressing functions.
494: Furthermore $s:=\mu^2$ and $L:=\Lambda^2$ denote the squared
495: renormalisation point and the squared momentum cutoff of the theory.
496: Substituting the two vertices in the ghost and gluon system (\ref{YM-DSE-ghost}) and
497: (\ref{YM-DSE-gluon}) we then arrive at
498: \setlength{\jot}{1mm}
499: \begin{eqnarray}
500: \frac{1}{G(x)} &=& \tilde{Z}_3 - g^2N_c \int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4}
501: \frac{K(x,y,z)}{xy}
502: G(y) Z(z) \; , \label{ghostbare} \\
503: \frac{1}{Z(x)} &=& {Z}_3 + g^2\frac{N_c}{3}
504: \int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{M(x,y,z)}{xy} G(y) G(z) \nonumber\\
505: &&\hspace{0.6cm}+
506: g^2 \frac{N_c}{3} \int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4}
507: \frac{Q(x,y,z)}{xy} \frac{G(y)^{(1-a/\delta-2a)}}{Z(y)^{a}}
508: \frac{G(z)^{(1-b/\delta-2b)}}{Z(z)^{b}}
509: \; .
510: \label{gluonbare}
511: \end{eqnarray}
512: The kernels ordered with respect to powers of $z$ have the form:
513: \begin{eqnarray}
514: K(x,y,z) &=& \frac{1}{z^2}\left(-\frac{(x-y)^2}{4}\right) +
515: \frac{1}{z}\left(\frac{x+y}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{4} \,,\nonumber\\
516: M(x,y,z) &=& \frac{1}{z} \left( \frac{\zeta-2}{4}x +
517: \frac{y}{2} - \frac{\zeta}{4}\frac{y^2}{x}\right)
518: +\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\zeta}{2}\frac{y}{x} - \frac{\zeta}{4}\frac{z}{x} \,, \nonumber\\
519: Q(x,y,z) &=& \frac{1}{z^2}
520: \left( \frac{1}{8}\frac{x^3}{y} + x^2 -\frac{19-\zeta}{8}xy +
521: \frac{5-\zeta}{4}y^2
522: +\frac{\zeta}{8}\frac{y^3}{x} \right)\nonumber\\
523: && +\frac{1}{z} \left( \frac{x^2}{y} - \frac{15+\zeta}{4}x-
524: \frac{17-\zeta}{4}y+\zeta\frac{y^2}{x}\right)\nonumber\\
525: && - \left( \frac{19-\zeta}{8}\frac{x}{y}+\frac{17-\zeta}{4}+
526: \frac{9\zeta}{4}\frac{y}{x} \right)
527: %\nonumber\\
528: %&&
529: + z\left(\frac{\zeta}{x}+\frac{5-\zeta}{4y}\right) + z^2\frac{\zeta}{8xy} \,.
530: \hspace*{0.5cm} \label{new_kernels}
531: \end{eqnarray}
532:
533: \subsection{Ultraviolet analysis \label{ultraviolet}}
534:
535: In order to identify the quadratically divergent terms in the kernels $K$, $M$ and $Q$ we
536: now analyse eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}) and (\ref{gluonbare}) in the limit of large momenta $x$.
537: It is known from resummed perturbation theory (see e.g. \cite{Muta:1998vi})
538: that the behaviour of the dressing functions
539: for large Euclidean momenta can be described as
540: \setlength{\jot}{0mm}
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: Z(x) &=& Z(s) \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{x}{s}\right)+1 \right]^\gamma \; ,
543: \label{gluon_uv}\\
544: G(x) &=& G(s) \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{x}{s}\right)+1 \right]^\delta \; .
545: \label{ghost_uv}
546: \end{eqnarray}
547: Here $Z(s)$ and $G(s)$ denote the value of the dressing functions at some
548: renormalisation point $s:=\mu^2$ and $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are the respective
549: anomalous dimensions. To one loop one has $\delta = - 9/44$ and $\gamma = - 1
550: -2\delta=-13/22$ for arbitrary number of colours $N_c$ and no quarks, $N_f=0$.
551: Furthermore, $\omega = {11N_c}\alpha(s)/{12\pi}$.
552:
553: The slowly varying logarithmic behaviour of the dressing functions in the ultraviolet
554: justifies the angular approximation
555: \beq
556: Z(z),G(z) \longrightarrow Z(y),G(y) \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{for} \:\:\: y>x
557: \eeq
558: in the ultraviolet. The angular integrals in eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}) and (\ref{gluonbare})
559: can then be trivially calculated using the angular integration formulae of appendix \ref{angular}.
560: Furthermore, as the cutoff $L=\Lambda^2$ can be chosen arbitrary large, the
561: integrals will be dominated by the part from $x$ to $L$. We then obtain
562: \begin{eqnarray}
563: \frac{1}{G(x)} &=& \tilde{Z}_3 - g^2\frac{N_c}{16 \pi^2} \int \frac{dy}{x}
564: \frac{3}{4y} G(y) Z(y) \; , \label{ghost-UV} \\
565: \frac{1}{Z(x)} &=& {Z}_3 + g^2\frac{N_c}{48 \pi^2}
566: \int \frac{dy}{x} \left[\left(\frac{4-\zeta}{4} + \frac{\zeta-2}{4}\frac{x}{y}
567: \right) G^2(y) \right. \nonumber \\
568: &&\hspace*{2cm}+\left.\left(\frac{-3(4-\zeta)}{2} -
569: \frac{\zeta+24}{4}\frac{x}{y}
570: +\frac{7}{8}\frac{x^2}{y^2}\right)
571: \frac{G(y)^{(2-(a+b)/\delta-2(a+b))}}{Z(y)^{(a+b)}} \right]
572: \, . \hspace{0.8cm}
573: \label{gluon-UV}
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: We are now able to identify the quadratic divergences in the gluon equation, which are the
576: two terms independent of the integration momentum. Both, the one from the ghost loop and the
577: one from the gluon loop, are proportional to $(4-\zeta)$ and therefore vanish when we use the
578: Brown-Pennington projector, eq.~(\ref{Rproj}). For general values of $\zeta$ we have to
579: subtract
580: these terms by hand. However, this cannot be done straightforwardly at the
581: level of integrands: Such a procedure would disturb the infrared properties of
582: the Dyson--Schwinger equations. Since we anticipate from previous studies and
583: analytic work \cite{Zwanziger:2001kw,Lerche:2002ep} that the ghost loop is the
584: leading contribution in the infrared the natural place to subtract the
585: quadratically ultraviolet divergent constant is the gluon loop. We do this
586: by employing the substitution
587: \begin{equation}
588: Q(x,y,z) \,\, \to \,\,\tilde{Q} (x,y,z) = Q(x,y,z) + \frac 5 4 (4-\zeta )
589: \label{Q-tilde}
590: \end{equation}
591: in eq.\ (\ref{gluonbare}). Only the problematic terms in eq.~(\ref{gluon-UV}) then disappear.
592:
593: Having subtracted the quadratic divergences from the ghost and gluon system we now
594: check for the logarithmic divergences, which should match to perturbation theory.
595: We choose the perturbative renormalisation condition $G(s)=Z(s)=1$ at a large
596: Euclidean renormalisation point $s=\mu^2$ and plug
597: the perturbative expressions (\ref{gluon_uv}) and (\ref{ghost_uv}) in eqs.~(\ref{ghost-UV}),
598: (\ref{gluon-UV}). Thus we arrive at
599: \beqa
600: \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{x}{s}\right)+1 \right]^{-\delta} &=&
601: \tilde{Z}_3 - \frac{3 N_c g^2}{64 \pi^2 \omega(\gamma+\delta+1)}
602: \times \nonumber\\
603: &&\hspace*{0.8cm}\left\{
604: \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{L}{s}\right)+1 \right]^{\gamma+\delta+1} -
605: \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{x}{s}\right)+1 \right]^{\gamma+\delta+1} \right\}\,,
606: \hspace*{0.9cm} \nonumber\\
607: \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{x}{s}\right)+1 \right]^{-\gamma} &=&
608: Z_3 + \left(\frac{N_c g^2}{96 \pi^2 \omega (2\delta+1)}
609: - \frac{7 N_c g^2}{48 \pi^2 \omega (2\delta+1)}\right)\times \nonumber \\
610: &&\hspace*{0.8cm}\left\{
611: \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{L}{s}\right)+1 \right]^{2\delta+1} -
612: \left[ \omega \log\left(\frac{x}{s}\right)+1 \right]^{2\delta+1} \right\} \,.
613: \label{gluoneq_uv}
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: Note that these equations are completely independent of the parameters $a$ and $b$
616: in the three-gluon vertex, eq.~(\ref{3g-vertex}). Note also, that the ultraviolet
617: behaviour of the equations is independent of the parameter $\zeta$ in the projector
618: (\ref{Paproj}). We are therefore left with a transversal structure in the gluon
619: equation for ultraviolet momenta. The renormalisation constants $Z_3(s,L)$ and
620: $\tilde{Z}_3(s,L)$ cancel the cutoff dependence, {\it i.e.} the respective first terms in the
621: brackets. Thus, the power and the prefactor of the second term have to match with
622: the left hand side of the equations. This leads to three conditions:
623: \begin{eqnarray}
624: \gamma+2\delta+1 &=& 0 \; , \label{gd1}\\
625: \frac{3}{4 (\gamma+\delta+1)} \frac{N_c g^2}{ 16\pi^2 \omega} &=& 1 \;,
626: \label{go1}\\
627: \frac{13}{6 \: (2\delta+1)} \frac{N_c g^2}{16\pi^2 \omega} &=& 1 \; .
628: \end{eqnarray}
629: Eq.\ (\ref{gd1}) is of course nothing else but consistency of the ghost
630: equation with one-loop scaling. All three equations together result in the correct
631: anomalous dimensions $\gamma=-13/22$ and $\delta=-9/44$ for an arbitrary number of
632: colours and zero flavours.
633:
634: Having established this result let us pause for a moment and reflect our construction
635: (\ref{3g-vertex}) for the three-gluon vertex. There are two possible ways to
636: obtain this construction and we leave it to the taste of the reader which philosophy
637: to prefer. The {\it first} way to see eq.~(\ref{3g-vertex}) is to take it at face value as
638: a minimally dressed vertex {\it ansatz}, constructed in such a way as to obtain the correct
639: one-loop scaling of the gluon loop. Then the parameters $a$ and $b$ are completely
640: free. Note that the choice
641: $a=b=0$ corresponds to the truncation scheme of \cite{Bloch:2001wz}
642: whereas $a=3\delta, b=0$ together with the appropriate vertex dressings
643: reproduces case c) of ref.\ \cite{vonSmekal:1997is}.
644:
645: The {\it second} point of view, which is to be found in reference
646: \cite{vonSmekal:1997is}, is to employ a bare three-gluon vertex,
647: $\Gamma^0_{\rho \nu \sigma}(q,p)$, and then ask the question how the renormalisation
648: constant $Z_1$ has to behave, given that the theory should have the correct perturbative limit.
649: Certainly, as both vertices violate their respective Slavnov-Taylor identities, there is no
650: reason why the vertex renormalisation constant $Z_1$ should obey the corresponding
651: identity $Z_1=Z_3/\tilde{Z}_3$. For the present truncation scheme the answer is, that the
652: constant $Z_1$ acquires a momentum dependence according to
653: \begin{equation}
654: Z_1 \;\; \longrightarrow \;\; {\cZ}_1(x,y,z;s) =
655: \frac{G(y,s)^{(1-a/\delta-2a)}}{Z(y,s)^{(1+a)}}
656: \frac{G(z,s)^{(1-b/\delta-2b)}}{Z(z,s)^{(1+b)}} \, .
657: \label{Z1_ansatz}
658: \end{equation}
659: This is precisely the form required to transform our vertex (\ref{3g-vertex}) to the bare one and
660: nevertheless obtain eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}) and (\ref{gluonbare}).
661:
662: A reasonable choice of parameters is then one which keeps ${\cZ}_1$ as
663: weakly dependent as possible on the momenta $y$ and $z$,
664: {\it c.f.}~Fig.~\ref{z1.dat} in appendix \ref{one-loop}.
665: The infrared behaviour of the gluon loop in the gluon equation depends
666: strongly on $a$ and $b$. Setting $b=0$ one can distinguish three
667: cases: For $a<0$ the gluon loop is subleading in the infrared, for
668: $a=0$ as in ref.\ \cite{Bloch:2001wz} the gluon loop produces the same power as
669: the ghost loop, for $a>0$ the gluon loop becomes the leading term in the
670: infrared. In the latter case we did not find a solution to the coupled
671: gluon-ghost system.
672: In Appendix \ref{one-loop} we demonstrate that $a=b=3\delta$ minimises the momentum
673: dependence of ${\cZ}_1$. Thus we use these values except stated
674: otherwise explicitly.
675:
676: \subsection{Infrared analysis \label{infrared}}
677:
678: The leading infrared behaviour of the propagator functions in this truncation scheme
679: for the special case of the transverse projector ($\zeta=1$) has been determined recently
680: \cite{Zwanziger:2001kw,Lerche:2002ep}. Our analysis in this subsection is valid for
681: general values of the parameter $\zeta$ and furthermore includes subleading
682: contributions \cite{Fischer:2002hn}. The general assumption at the beginning
683: of all analytic infrared investigations is, that the ghost and gluon dressing functions,
684: G and Z, behave like power laws in the infrared:
685: \beqa
686: Z(x) &=& A x^{\kappa_1}, \nonumber\\
687: G(x) &=& B x^{\kappa_2}. \label{zg-power}
688: \eeqa
689: This assumption is justified, if we are able to show that the {\it ansatz} (\ref{zg-power}) solves
690: the ghost and gluon system, eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}), (\ref{gluonbare}),
691: self-consistently in the infrared. As all loop integrals in the equations are dominated by
692: contributions around the external momentum $x=p^2$, we are allowed to substitute the power laws for
693: the whole momentum range up to the cutoff $L=\Lambda^2$. Errors due to this approximation
694: are subleading in the infrared. Furthermore, as has been shown
695: in detail in reference \cite{Lerche:2002ep}, the renormalisation constants $Z_3$ and $\tilde{Z}_3$
696: can be dropped for very small momenta $x$: They are either subleading in the infrared
697: (gluon equation) or have to be zero when the renormalisation takes place at
698: $\mu=0$ (ghost equation). We will explain this point more precisely later on.
699: Plugging the power laws (\ref{zg-power})
700: into eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}), (\ref{gluonbare}) we then arrive at
701: \setlength{\jot}{2mm}
702: \begin{eqnarray}
703: \frac{1}{B x^{\kappa_2}} &=&
704: %\tilde{Z}_3
705: - g^2N_c AB \int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4}
706: \frac{K(x,y,z)}{xy}
707: z^{\kappa_1} y^{\kappa_2} \,, \label{ghostbare-ir}\\
708: \frac{1}{A x^{\kappa_1}} &=&
709: %{Z}_3 +
710: g^2\frac{N_c}{3} B^2
711: \int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4} \frac{M(x,y,z)}{xy} y^{\kappa_2} z^{\kappa_2} \nonumber\\
712: &&+
713: g^2 \frac{N_c}{3} B^{-4-12\delta} A^{-6\delta}\int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4}
714: \frac{\tilde{Q}(x,y,z)}{xy} y^{(-2-6\delta){\kappa_2} - 3\delta {\kappa_1}}
715: z^{(-2-6\delta){\kappa_2} - 3\delta {\kappa_1}} \,, \hspace*{0.8cm}
716: \label{gluonbare-ir}
717: \end{eqnarray}
718: with the kernels $K$, $M$ and $\tilde{Q}$ given by eqs.~(\ref{new_kernels}), (\ref{Q-tilde}) and
719: the parameters $a=b=3\delta$ as motivated in the last subsection.
720: \setlength{\jot}{0mm}
721:
722: We first investigate the ghost equation (\ref{ghostbare-ir}). Shifting the cutoff $L=\Lambda^2$
723: to infinity
724: we are able to use the
725: formula \cite{Lerche:2002ep}
726: \begin{equation}
727: \int d^4q \: y^a z^b = \pi^2 x^{2+a+b} \frac{\Gamma(2+a)\Gamma(2+b)\Gamma(-a-b-2)}
728: {\Gamma(-a)\Gamma(-b)\Gamma(4+a+b)}
729: \label{irintegral}
730: \end{equation}
731: for the integration of the dressing loop on the right hand side of the equation. The straightforward
732: but tedious algebra is done with the help of
733: the algebraic manipulation program FORM \cite{Vermaseren:2000nd}. We obtain
734: \beqa
735: \frac{1}{B x^{\kappa_2}} &=&
736: %\tilde{Z}_3
737: - x^{\kappa_1+\kappa_2} \:
738: \frac{g^2N_c AB}{16 \pi^2} \frac {3}
739: {2\,(\kappa_1 + \kappa_2 )\,( - 1 + \kappa_1 + \kappa_2 )} \times \nonumber\\
740: && \hspace*{5cm} \times \frac{
741: \Gamma (2 - \kappa_1 - \kappa_2
742: )\,\Gamma (1 + \kappa_1 )\,\Gamma (2 + \kappa_2 )}{\Gamma (3 + \kappa_1
743: + \kappa_2 )\,\Gamma (2 - \kappa_1 )\,\Gamma (1 - \kappa_2 )}. \hspace{1cm}{ }
744: \label{ghostbare-ir2}
745: \eeqa
746: Matching powers of $x$ on both sides of the equation we arrive at the condition
747: \beq
748: \kappa_1 = -2\kappa_2 \; .
749: \label{kappa-relation}
750: \eeq
751: With the definition $\kappa:=-\kappa_2$ we thus have from eqs.~(\ref{zg-power}) the power laws
752: \beq
753: \setlength{\fboxsep}{2mm}
754: %Z(x) &=& A x^{2\kappa} \nonumber\\
755: %G(x) &=& B x^{-\kappa}.
756: \fbox{$ \displaystyle \begin{array}{c} Z(x) = A x^{2\kappa} , \\ G(x) = B x^{-\kappa}. \end{array} $}
757: \label{zg-power-kappa}
758: \eeq
759: Our derivation of these power laws used the special form of a bare ghost-gluon vertex. It has been
760: shown, however, that relation (\ref{kappa-relation}) holds under the general
761: assumption that the ghost-gluon vertex can be expanded in a power series \cite{Watson:2001yv}.
762: We thus have the interesting situation that the infrared divergence of one of our dressing functions,
763: $Z$ or $G$, is always connected to the vanishing of the other. This has interesting
764: consequences for the running coupling $\alpha(x)$. Recall the definition
765: \beq
766: \alpha(x) = \alpha(s) \, G^2(x,s) \, Z(x,s)
767: \label{coupling2}
768: \eeq
769: from eq.~(\ref{coupling}) with $x=p^2$ and $s=\mu^2$ and $\alpha(s)=g^2/{4 \pi}$.
770: Substituting the power laws
771: (\ref{zg-power-kappa}) we obtain
772: \beq
773: \alpha(0) = \frac{g^2}{4 \pi}AB^2.
774: \eeq
775: The coupling approaches a finite value in the infrared.
776: Within the framework of Dyson-Schwinger studies such a behaviour of the running coupling
777: has first been found in ref.~\cite{vonSmekal:1997is}.
778: An infrared fixed point is also found in the flow equation study in ref.~\cite{Gies:2002af}
779: and analytic perturbation theory \cite{Milton:1997fc,Milton:1998us,Milton:2000fi,Shirkov:2001sm}.
780:
781: Consider now the gluon equation (\ref{gluonbare-ir}). After some algebra using
782: formula (\ref{irintegral}) we find, that the ghost loop is proportional to $x^{2\kappa_2}$, whereas
783: the gluon loop is subleading in the infrared. We thus again obtain relation (\ref{kappa-relation}),
784: $\kappa_1 = -2\kappa_2$,
785: as matching condition for the ghost loop and the leading power on the
786: left hand side of the equation in the infrared.
787: Together with eq.~(\ref{ghostbare-ir2}) we arrive at the
788: two conditions
789: \begin{eqnarray}
790: \frac{1}{18}
791: \frac{(2+\kappa)(1+\kappa)}{(3-2\kappa)}
792: &=& \frac{\Gamma^2(2-\kappa)\Gamma(2\kappa)}{\Gamma(4-2\kappa) \Gamma^2(1+\kappa)}
793: \: \frac{g^2N_c}{48 \pi^2}{AB^2} \; ,
794: \label{kappa1}\\
795: \frac{4\kappa-2}{4\zeta \kappa - 4\kappa + 6 - 3\zeta}
796: &=& \frac{\Gamma^2(2-\kappa)\Gamma(2\kappa)}{\Gamma(4-2\kappa) \Gamma^2(1+\kappa)}
797: \:\frac{g^2N_c}{48 \pi^2}{AB^2} \; .
798: \label{kappa2}
799: \end{eqnarray}
800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
801: \begin{figure}[t]
802: \vspace*{1cm}
803: \centerline{
804: \epsfig{file=kappa.eps,height=8cm}
805: }
806: \caption{\sf \label{kappa.dat}
807: Here the graphical solution to equations (\ref{kappa1}) and (\ref{kappa2}) is shown.
808: The thick line represents the
809: left hand side of equation (\ref{kappa1}), whereas the other four curves depict
810: the left hand side of equation
811: (\ref{kappa2}) for different values of the parameter $\zeta$. The ellipse marks the
812: bulk of solutions between
813: $\kappa=0.5$ and $\kappa=0.6$ for different $\zeta$, whereas the circles show the
814: movement of the solution $\kappa=1.3$
815: for a transverse projector to $\kappa=1$ for the Brown-Pennington case, $\zeta=4$.
816: }
817: \end{figure}
818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
819: from the ghost and gluon equations in the infrared. Equating both left and right hand sides
820: we are able to determine $\kappa$, see Fig.~\ref{kappa.dat}. For the Brown--Pennington projector,
821: {\it i.e.} $\zeta=4$, one then
822: finds the known solution $\kappa =1 $ \cite{Atkinson:1998tu}. However,
823: as can be seen immediately, the left hand side of the second equation
824: possesses a zero for $\kappa=1/2$ which is cancelled by a pole only for $\zeta=4$.
825: Lowering $\zeta$ only slightly a further solution with $\kappa$
826: slightly larger than 0.5 exists. For the transverse projector, {\it i.e.}
827: $\zeta=1$, this latter solution becomes
828: \beq
829: \kappa = \frac{93-\sqrt{1201}}{98} \approx 0.595353
830: \eeq
831: in accordance with
832: refs.~\cite{Zwanziger:2001kw,Lerche:2002ep}. Also the solution $\kappa =1 $
833: changes continuously when lowering $\zeta$. The corresponding $\kappa$ are
834: then all larger than 1 and contradict the masslessness condition, see section 5.2
835: of ref.~\cite{Alkofer:2000wg} for a discussion of this condition. One of the main
836: results of the numerical section of this chapter is that the infrared
837: behaviour $\kappa \approx 0.5$ matches
838: to a numerical solution whereas no numerical solutions could be found with the
839: infrared behaviour $\kappa \ge 1 $.
840: This is in perfect accordance with the Kugo-Ojima criterion and Zwanziger's
841: horizon condition discussed in section \ref{conf}.
842:
843: Now let us come back again to the running coupling, eq.~(\ref{coupling2}).
844: As can be seen directly from eqs.~(\ref{kappa1}), (\ref{kappa2}),
845: the product $N_c g^2 AB^2$ is constant for given
846: $\kappa$. With $\alpha(0) = {g^2}AB^2/{4 \pi}$ one concludes immediately that
847: $\alpha(x)$ is proportional to $N_c^{-1}$. Furthermore, the ghost and gluon
848: dressing functions $Z(x)$ and $G(x)$ are independent of the number of colours:
849: $N_c$ enters the Dyson-Schwinger equations only in the combination
850: $g^2 N_c$ at our
851: level of truncation. From the solution $\kappa = 0.595$ of the infrared
852: analysis with the transverse projector $\zeta=1$ one determines the infrared
853: fixed point of the running coupling to be
854: \beq
855: \alpha(0) = \frac{2 \pi}{3 \, N_c} \frac{\Gamma(3-2\kappa) \; \Gamma(3+\kappa) \; \Gamma(1+\kappa)}
856: {\Gamma^2(2-\kappa) \; \Gamma(2\kappa)} \approx 8.915/N_c
857: \eeq
858: for general numbers of colours $N_c$.
859:
860: Having determined the leading infrared behaviour of the ghost and gluon system we
861: now check for subleading contributions, and judge their importance for the numerical
862: treatment of the coupled system of equations.
863: An obvious extension of the power law (\ref{zg-power-kappa}) is the {\it ansatz}
864: \begin{eqnarray}
865: Z(x) &=& A x^{2 \kappa} (1+f x^{\rho}) \nonumber\\
866: G(x) &=& B x^{- \kappa} (1+g x^{\rho})
867: \label{IRansatz}
868: \end{eqnarray}
869: which is substituted in the eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}) and (\ref{gluonbare}).
870: After integration the conditions on the leading term
871: remain unchanged.
872: Matching subleading powers leads to the coupled set of homogeneous equations for $f,g$ and $\rho$:
873: \setlength{\jot}{3mm}
874: \begin{eqnarray}
875: %\left(\frac{3 N_c g^2 A B^2}{48 \pi^2}
876: \left(3 \nu
877: \frac{6 \kappa \,(\kappa-1) \,(-3+2\kappa)}{(\kappa+\rho-2)\,(\kappa+\rho-1)\,(\kappa+\rho)}
878: \frac{\Gamma(2\kappa)\,\Gamma(2-\kappa+\rho)\,\Gamma(3-\kappa-\rho)}
879: {\Gamma(4-2\kappa)\,\Gamma(1+\kappa-\rho)\,\Gamma(3+\kappa+\rho)}
880: -1\right) g && \hspace{1.0cm}\nonumber\\
881: % + \frac{3 N_c g^2 A B^2}{48 \pi^2}
882: + \left( 3 \nu
883: \frac{3 \,(-2+2\kappa+\rho)}{2\,(\kappa+\rho-2)\,(\kappa+\rho-1)\,(\kappa+\rho)}
884: \frac{\Gamma(2-\kappa)\,\Gamma(2\kappa+\rho+1)\,\Gamma(3-\kappa-\rho)}
885: {\Gamma(3-2\kappa-\rho)\,\Gamma(1+\kappa)\,\Gamma(3+\kappa+\rho)}
886: \right) f &=& 0 \; , \nonumber\\
887: \left(\nu \frac{4 \zeta \kappa - 4\kappa + 2\rho -2 \zeta \rho +6 - 3\alpha}{2\kappa-\rho-1}
888: \frac{\Gamma(2-\kappa)\,\Gamma(2\kappa-\rho)\, \Gamma(2-\kappa+\rho)}
889: {\Gamma(1+\kappa)\,\Gamma(1+\kappa-\rho)\,\Gamma(4-2\kappa+\rho)}
890: \right) g + f &=& 0 \; . \nonumber \\
891: \end{eqnarray}
892: Here $\nu={N_c g^2 A B^2}/{48 \pi^2}={\alpha(0)}/{4\pi}$. There is either the trivial solution $f=g=0$
893: or one has to set the determinant of these linear equations
894: to zero. We then obtain the results $\rho_{(1)}=0, \rho_{(2)}=0.58377,
895: \rho_{(3)}=1.20300$ and several other solutions with higher values of the power.
896: The solution $\rho_{(1)}=0$ corresponds to the pure power solution. The lowest non-vanishing
897: solution, $\rho_{(2)}=0.58377$, is sufficiently high that we safely may neglect it in the numerical
898: treatment of the infrared part of the equations. This will be detailed in the next section.
899: \setlength{\jot}{0mm}
900:
901: Finally, let us come back to the role of the renormalisation constants $\tilde{Z}_3$ and
902: ${Z}_3$ in eq.~(\ref{ghostbare-ir}), (\ref{gluonbare-ir}).
903: There are two possible situations, which have been clarified in
904: \cite{Lerche:2002ep}. {\it First},
905: consider an infrared vanishing dressing function, as is the case in the gluon equation.
906: Then the left hand side of eq.~(\ref{gluonbare-ir}) as well as the loop integral on
907: the right hand side are diverging, and the $x$-independent constant ${Z}_3$
908: is subleading and therefore negligible in the infrared.
909: {\it Second}, in the ghost equation we have the situation that
910: the ghost dressing function $G(x)$ diverges in the infrared. Therefore
911: the equation is not renormalisable at the point $\mu^2=0$.
912: Correspondingly the behaviour of the renormalisation constant $\tilde{Z}_3(\mu^2,\Lambda^2)$
913: is such that for a given cutoff $\Lambda^2$ the renormalisation constant tends to zero as
914: $\mu^2 \rightarrow 0$. At the point $\mu^2=0$ we have $\tilde{Z}_3(0,\Lambda^2)=0$,
915: the renormalisation process breaks down and
916: no scale can be generated. The power solution (\ref{zg-power-kappa}) is then not only
917: an infrared approximation but a solution for the whole momentum range up to infinity.
918: This in turn implies that the power solution can be determined with $\tilde{Z}_3$ set to zero.
919: We conclude that both renormalisation constants, $Z_3$ and $\tilde{Z}_3$, play no role
920: in the infrared analysis of the ghost and gluon system in accordance with our assumption
921: above eqs.~(\ref{gluonbare-ir}), (\ref{ghostbare-ir}).
922:
923: \section{Renormalisation and numerical results \label{YM-ren-results}}
924:
925: Corresponding to the analytical solution of the equations (\ref{ghostbare}) and (\ref{gluonbare})
926: in the infrared, our numerical treatment is done without the help of any angular approximations.
927: Thus the present investigation is the first calculation of the ghost and gluon dressing functions
928: which takes into account the full angular dependence in the loops for all momenta
929: \cite{Fischer:2002hn}.
930: The technical details of the necessary numerical procedures to solve
931: eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}), (\ref{gluonbare}) are given in appendix \ref{numerics}.
932: In the following subsections we describe the renormalisation scheme employed in our calculations
933: and give the numerical solutions for the ghost and gluon propagators as well as the running coupling.
934:
935: \subsection{The renormalisation scheme \label{subtraction}}
936:
937: We apply a MOM regularisation scheme similar to the ones used previously in
938: refs.~\cite{vonSmekal:1997is,Atkinson:1998tu}. In such a scheme the equations for the
939: ghost and gluon dressing functions for the external momentum $x$ and a fixed subtraction scale
940: $t_{ghost},t_{glue}$ are subtracted from each other. If we write the
941: equations (\ref{ghostbare}) and (\ref{gluonbare}) symbolically as
942: \beqa
943: \frac{1}{G(x)} &=& \tilde{Z}_3 + \Pi_{ghost}(x) \,, \\
944: \frac{1}{Z(x)} &=& {Z}_3 + \Pi_{glue}(x) \,,
945: \eeqa
946: this procedure yields
947: \beqa
948: \frac{1}{G(x)} &=& \frac{1}{G(t_{ghost})} + \Pi_{ghost}(x) - \Pi_{ghost}(t_{ghost}) \,, \\
949: \frac{1}{Z(x)} &=& \frac{1}{Z(t_{glue})} + \Pi_{glue}(x) - \Pi_{ghost}(t_{glue}).
950: \eeqa
951: We now see that the unknown renormalisation constants
952: $Z_3$ and $\tilde{Z}_3$ drop out and instead of them we have to specify the two
953: input variables $G(t_{ghost})$ and $Z(t_{glue})$. For numerical reasons it is favourable
954: to subtract the ghost equation at a very small momentum, $t_{ghost} \rightarrow 0$
955: and the gluon equation at a perturbative scale $l$.
956: We thus have to specify values for $Z(l)$ and the
957: parameter $B$ in the power law (\ref{zg-power-kappa}) which
958: describes the infrared behaviour of the ghost dressing function.
959: In practice we encounter a smooth transition at the infrared matching point $\epsilon^2$
960: (c.f. appendix \ref{numerics}) of our numerical integrals only if $B$ and $Z(l)$ are uniquely
961: related. This corresponds to the fact that we are not able to implement the
962: perturbative renormalisation condition $G(\mu^2)=Z(\mu^2)=1$ for general renormalisation
963: points $\mu$ but only the weaker condition $Z(\mu^2)\,G^2(\mu^2)=1$. A similar observation has
964: been made in \cite{vonSmekal:1997is,vonSmekal:1998is}. In the actual
965: calculation we use the arbitrary value $Z(l=(174 \,\mbox{GeV})^2)=0.83$. The value of the
966: renormalisation point $\mu$ is given implicitly by specifying the coupling
967: $\alpha(\mu^2)=g^2/16\pi^2=0.97$ entering eqs.~(\ref{ghostbare}), (\ref{gluonbare}).
968:
969: \subsection{Numerical results \label{YM-results}}
970:
971: For our numerical results we have fixed the momentum scale by calculating
972: the running coupling for the colour group SU(3), and requiring
973: the experimental value
974: $\alpha(x)=0.118$ at $x=M_Z^2=(91.187 \, \mbox{GeV})^2$ \cite{Hagiwara:2002pw}.
975: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
976: \begin{figure}[th!]
977: \vspace{0.5cm}
978: \centerline{
979: \epsfig{file=cont.main.z.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
980: \hspace{0.5cm}
981: \epsfig{file=cont.main.g.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
982: }
983: \vspace{1cm}
984: \centerline{
985: \epsfig{file=cont.main.a.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
986: \hspace{0.5cm}
987: \epsfig{file=beta.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
988: }
989: \caption{\sf \label{new.dat}
990: Shown are the results for the gluon dressing function $Z$, the ghost dressing
991: function $G$ and the running coupling $\alpha$ using a transverse projector, $\zeta=1$.
992: The two sets of fit functions are given in eqs.~(\ref{fitA}) and (\ref{fitB}).
993: The $\beta$-function corresponding to our DSE-solution is compared to the one- and two-loop
994: expressions as well as to a polynomial in $\alpha$.}
995: \end{figure}
996: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
997:
998: In Fig.~\ref{new.dat} we show the results for the transverse projector,
999: $\zeta=1$. The gluon and ghost dressing functions behave power-like for low
1000: momenta with $\kappa=0.595$ and obey one-loop scaling in the ultraviolet as expected.
1001: We found no numerical solution for the second analytical infrared power from
1002: subsection \ref{infrared}, $\kappa \approx 1.3$.
1003: We thus conclude, that only the infrared power $\kappa=0.595$ connects to the numerical solution
1004: for all momenta. This result will be corroborated in chapter \ref{torus}. As has been mentioned in the
1005: introduction to this chapter first results have been obtained in stochastic quantisation, which
1006: is supposed to solve the Gribov problem \cite{Zwanziger:2002ia}. The infrared analysis of a bare
1007: vertex truncation scheme in stochastic Landau gauge leads to the power $\kappa=0.521$ for the
1008: transversal part of the gluon propagator. This is surprisingly close to the value in Faddeev-Popov
1009: quantisation and suggests the influence of Gribov copies within the Gribov region to be small.
1010:
1011: According to the power solution of the dressing functions
1012: the running coupling has a fixed point in the infrared. Furthermore it decreases
1013: logarithmically in the perturbative regime above several GeV in accordance with perturbation theory.
1014: For intermediate momenta the behaviour of our running coupling induces a node in
1015: the $\beta$-function around $(100 \mbox{MeV})^2$. This, however,
1016: corresponds to a double valued $\beta$-function, which is a somewhat strange result not expected from
1017: renormalisation group analysis.
1018: Therefore we regard it as an artefact of our truncation scheme. Recall from section \ref{gluonghost}
1019: that we have omitted the two-loop diagrams in the gluon equation in all our calculations.
1020: Since the two-loop diagrams contain gluon dressing functions only they are subleading in the
1021: infrared in the present framework. Furthermore they are subleading in the ultraviolet
1022: as can be seen from perturbation theory. Thus the only region where the inclusion of the
1023: two-loop diagrams could lead to qualitative corrections of our solutions is the intermediate
1024: momentum regime. This is the region where the bump in the coupling appears.
1025:
1026: The $\beta$-functions in the bottom right diagram are defined in appendix
1027: \ref{alpha}. Compared to the one- and two-loop $\beta$-functions of perturbation theory
1028: the $\beta$-function
1029: from our DSE-solution \cite{Alkofer:2002ne}
1030: resembles the scaling behaviour of the one-loop result in the ultraviolet,
1031: that is for small values of $\alpha$.
1032:
1033: The asymptotic behaviour of the solutions can also be seen from the
1034: functional form of our fits. We employ two different fit functions \cite{Alkofer:2002aa} for the running
1035: coupling $\alpha(x)$:
1036: \setlength{\jot}{2mm}
1037: \begin{eqnarray}
1038: \mbox{Fit A:} \quad
1039: \alpha(x) &=& \frac{\alpha(0)}{\ln[e+a_1 (x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^{a_2}+
1040: b_1(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^{b_2}]}\,,
1041: \label{fitA}\\
1042: \mbox{Fit B:} \quad
1043: \alpha(x) &=& \frac{1}{a+(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^b}
1044: \bigg[ a \: \alpha(0) + \nonumber\\
1045: &&\hspace*{2cm} \left.\frac{4 \pi}{\beta_0} \left(\frac{1}{\ln(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})}
1046: - \frac{1}{x/\Lambda_{QCD}^2 -1}\right)(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^b \right]\,. \hspace*{0.5cm}
1047: \label{fitB}
1048: \end{eqnarray}
1049: The value $\alpha(0)=8.915/N_c$ is known from
1050: the infrared analysis. In both fits the ultraviolet behaviour
1051: of the solution fixes the scale, $\Lambda=0.714 \,\mbox{GeV}$.
1052: Note that we have employed
1053: a MOM scheme, and thus $\Lambda_{QCD}$ has to be interpreted as
1054: $\Lambda_{MOM}^{N_f=0}$, {\it i.e.} this scale has the expected magnitude.
1055: Fit A employs the four additional parameters:
1056: $a_1=1.106$, $a_2=2.324$,
1057: $b_1=0.004$, $b_2=3.169$.
1058: Fit B has only two free parameters:
1059: $a=1.020$, $b=1.052$.
1060: The dressing functions $Z(x)$ and $G(x)$ are then described by
1061: \setlength{\jot}{3mm}
1062: \begin{eqnarray}
1063: R(x) &=& \frac{c \,(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^{\kappa}+d \,(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^{2\kappa}}
1064: {1+ c \,(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^{\kappa}+d \,(x/\Lambda^2_{QCD})^{2\kappa}} \,, \nonumber\\
1065: Z(x) &=& \left( \frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha(\mu)} \right)^{1+2\delta} R^2(x) \,, \nonumber\\
1066: G(x) &=& \left( \frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha(\mu)} \right)^{-\delta} R^{-1}(x) \,,
1067: \label{zg-fit}
1068: \end{eqnarray}
1069: where $c,d$ are fitting parameters for the auxiliary function $R(x)$.
1070: They are given by $c=1.269$ and $d=2.105$. Recall
1071: from subsection \ref{ultraviolet} that
1072: the anomalous dimension $\gamma$ of the gluon is related to the
1073: anomalous dimension $\delta$ of the ghost by $\gamma=-1-2\delta$ and $\delta=-9/44$ for
1074: the number of flavours $N_f=0$.
1075: \setlength{\jot}{0mm}
1076: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1077: \begin{figure}[th!]
1078: %\vspace{-1cm}
1079: \centerline{
1080: \epsfig{file=cont.proj.z.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1081: \hspace{0.5cm}
1082: \epsfig{file=cont.proj.g.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1083: }
1084: \vspace{1cm}
1085: \centerline{
1086: \epsfig{file=cont.proj.a.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1087: }
1088: \caption{\sf \label{proj.dat}
1089: Shown are the results for the gluon dressing function, the ghost dressing
1090: function and the running coupling, {\it c.f.} Fig.\ \protect{\ref{new.dat}},
1091: for different projectors.}
1092: \end{figure}
1093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1094:
1095: Whereas Fit A is better in the region $0.3 \,\mbox{GeV}^2 < x<1 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$
1096: where $\alpha$ is strongly rising, Fit B is slightly better in the region
1097: $1 \, \mbox{GeV}^2 < x < 10 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$, where hadronic $\tau$-decay takes place
1098: \cite{Ackerstaff:1998yj,Geshkenbein:2002ri}. As can
1099: be seen in Fig.~\ref{new.dat} both fits works very well and can be used as input
1100: for phenomenological calculations in future work.
1101:
1102: Our results for different
1103: values of the parameter $\zeta$ ({\it c.f.}~eq.~(\ref{Paproj})) are shown in Fig.~\ref{proj.dat}. In accordance
1104: with the infrared analysis the power $\kappa$ changes from $\kappa=0.5953$ for $\zeta=1$ to $\kappa=0.4610$
1105: for $\zeta=5$. The perturbative properties of the solutions remain unchanged. The bump in the
1106: running coupling gets smaller but does not disappear even for $\zeta=5$. It has already been stated above
1107: that the dressing functions would be independent of $\zeta$ in a complete treatment of the gluon equation.
1108: As all our solutions are very similar even on a quantitative level we conclude that transversality is
1109: lost only to a moderate extent. This is a somewhat surprising result in such a simple truncation scheme
1110: as the one at hand.
1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1112: \begin{figure}[th!]
1113: %\vspace{-1cm}
1114: \centerline{
1115: \epsfig{file=cont.s.zg.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1116: \hspace{0.5cm}
1117: \epsfig{file=cont.s.a.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1118: }
1119:
1120: \vspace{1cm}
1121: \centerline{
1122: \epsfig{file=cont.ab.zg.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1123: \hspace{0.5cm}
1124: \epsfig{file=cont.ab.a.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6cm}
1125: }
1126: \caption{\sf \label{tech.dat}
1127: Here we display two technical issues. The upper panel shows the ghost and gluon dressing
1128: function as well as the running coupling for two different renormalisation points
1129: $\mu^2=s=0.9 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$ and $\nu^2=t=900 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$.
1130: The independence of the running coupling on the renormalisation point is clearly demonstrated.
1131: The lower panel shows the variation of the dressing functions with the parameters $a$ and $b$
1132: from the construction in eq.~(\ref{3g-vertex}). Recall $\delta=-9/44$.
1133: }
1134: \end{figure}
1135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1136:
1137: The Brown--Pennington projector, $\zeta=4$, is an exceptional case as can be
1138: seen from eqs.~(\ref{kappa1}), (\ref{kappa2}). Here the $\kappa$-dependence of the second term
1139: cancels and only one solution, $\kappa=1$, can be found ({\it
1140: c.f.}~ref.~\cite{Atkinson:1998zc}). We found no numerical solutions for this
1141: case. However, within the limit of numerical accuracy, solutions for $\zeta$
1142: slightly different from 4 can be found leading to a value for $\kappa$ slightly
1143: different from 1/2. {\it E.g.} in Fig.~\ref{proj.dat} the case $\zeta=3.9$
1144: leading to $\kappa=0.5038$ is depicted.
1145:
1146: In Fig.~\ref{tech.dat} we discuss two technical issues. First, we demonstrate what happens
1147: if we choose two different renormalisation points by specifying two different values for
1148: $\alpha(s) = g^2/4\pi$. Starting from eqs.~(\ref{zg-ren}) we can easily see that a change from
1149: the renormalisation point $s=\mu^2$ to the new value $t$ is performed by
1150: \beqa
1151: G(x,t) &=& G(x,s) \frac{\tilde{Z}_3(s,L)}{\tilde{Z}_3(t,L)} \,, \nonumber\\
1152: Z(x,t) &=& Z(x,s) \frac{{Z}_3(s,L)}{{Z}_3(t,L)} \,.
1153: \eeqa
1154: As the renormalisation constants $\tilde{Z}_3$ and $Z_3$ are independent of momentum, this
1155: results in the mere multiplication of the dressing functions by a constant number. Our numerical
1156: results obey exactly this behaviour, as can be seen in the upper right diagram of
1157: Fig. \ref{tech.dat}. The running coupling, however, is independent of the renormalisation
1158: point, c.f. eq.~(\ref{coupling}), as is clearly demonstrated in the upper right diagram
1159: of Fig. \ref{tech.dat}.
1160:
1161: In the lower panel of Fig. \ref{tech.dat} we show what happens when we vary the
1162: parameters $a$ and $b$ in our construction of the three-gluon vertex (\ref{3g-vertex}). Clearly,
1163: the qualitative behaviour of the curves does not change. In particular the ultraviolet behaviour of the
1164: solutions is independent of the values of $a$ and $b$ in accordance with our analysis in subsection
1165: \ref{ultraviolet}. However, we recognise the rising bump
1166: in the running coupling when we lower the absolute values of $a$ and $b$ from $a=b=3\delta$
1167: to $a=b=2\delta$. This corresponds to the equations becoming more and more unstable and no
1168: solutions are found for even lower values of $a$ and $b$. The extreme case $a=b=0$, where
1169: the gluon loop becomes leading in the infrared, has been
1170: investigated in reference \cite{Bloch:2001wz} with the same negative result: no
1171: solutions have been found.
1172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1173: \begin{figure}[t]
1174: \vspace{1cm}
1175: \centerline{
1176: %\epsfig{file=lettpic/lattice_gluecont.eps,width=7.5cm,height=7.0cm}
1177: \epsfig{file=latt_glue_cont.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6.8cm}
1178: \hspace{0.8cm}
1179: %\epsfig{file=lettpic/lattice_ghostcont.eps,width=7.5cm,height=7.0cm}
1180: \epsfig{file=latt_ghost_cont.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6.8cm}
1181: }
1182: \caption{\sf \label{lattice.dat}
1183: Solutions of the Dyson-Schwinger equations compared to recent lattice
1184: results for two colours \cite{Langfeld:2002dd,Bloch:2002we}.}
1185: \end{figure}
1186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1187:
1188: Finally, we compare our results to recent SU(2)
1189: lattice calculations\footnote{Note that the same set of lattice data
1190: have been analysed differently in refs.~\cite{Langfeld:2001cz,Langfeld:2002bg}. A comparison of our results
1191: with the differently analysed data can be found in ref.~\cite{Fischer:2002hn}.}
1192: \cite{Bloch:2002we,Langfeld:2002dd}. As has already been stated above
1193: the ghost and gluon dressing functions from Dyson-Schwinger equations are independent
1194: of the numbers of colours at least to our level of truncation. The only caveat in
1195: comparing our results with the lattice ones is the adjustment of the momentum
1196: scale. We used the lattice result $\alpha_{SU(2)}(x)=0.68$ at $x=10 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$ as input,
1197: which leads to a slightly different scale than the one used in the case of SU(3).
1198: The two graphs in figure (\ref{lattice.dat}) show that the main
1199: qualitative features, the infrared suppression of the gluon dressing function and the divergence of
1200: the ghost dressing function are common properties of both, the
1201: lattice solutions and the one from Dyson-Schwinger equations. Even the power
1202: $\kappa \approx 0.595$ of the gluon dressing function from the DSEs is very close
1203: to the one that can be extracted from the lattice fit to be $\kappa \approx 0.5$.
1204: The main difference between the two approaches is in the medium energy region around one
1205: GeV, where the Dyson-Schwinger solutions suffer from the missing two-loop contributions
1206: that are certainly present in lattice Monte-Carlo simulations\footnote{Despite this shortcome
1207: the DSE-solutions are surprisingly good also in this momentum regime. Of particular importance is
1208: the reproduction of the bump in the gluon propagator at $p\approx 0.8$ GeV. In lattice calculations
1209: center vortices have been identified as promising candidates for field configurations which are
1210: responsible for confinement \cite{Langfeld:2001cz}. Recent investigations on the lattice
1211: suggest \cite{Langfeld:2001fd} that the bump of the gluon propagator is induced by such
1212: field configurations.}.
1213: The combined evidence of the two methods points
1214: strongly towards an infrared vanishing or finite gluon propagator and an infrared
1215: singular ghost propagator in Landau gauge.
1216:
1217: \section{Summary}
1218:
1219: In this chapter we have presented approximate non-perturbative solutions for the
1220: gluon and the ghost propagators as well as the running coupling in Landau
1221: gauge. We obtained these solutions for the Dyson--Schwinger equations in a
1222: truncation scheme working with a bare ghost-gluon vertex and an {\it ansatz} for the
1223: three-gluon vertex such that we reproduce the correct one-loop scaling of
1224: the ghost and gluon dressing functions. We attempt to obtain two-loop scaling
1225: by the inclusion of the diagrams that involve four-gluon vertices in future work.
1226:
1227: An important improvement to previous
1228: treatments has been the explicit numerical calculation of all angular
1229: integrals thus overcoming the angular approximations that have been made so
1230: far. We could show that for a given projector only one out of two
1231: analytical solutions in the infrared can be connected to a numerical solution
1232: for finite momenta. For a transversal projector, $\zeta=1$, we found that the gluon
1233: propagator is only weakly infrared vanishing, $D_{gluon}(p^2) \propto
1234: (p^2)^{2\kappa -1}$, $\kappa =0.595\ldots$, and the ghost propagator is
1235: highly infrared singular, $D_{ghost}(p^2) \propto (p^2)^{-\kappa -1}$. This is in accordance
1236: with the Kugo-Ojima confinement criterion and Zwanziger's horizon condition.
1237: The running coupling possesses an infrared fixed point with the value
1238: $\alpha(0) \approx 2.97$ (or, for a general number $N_c$ of colours,
1239: $\alpha(0) \approx 8.92/N_c$).
1240:
1241: Despite the simplicity of the truncation our solutions agree
1242: remarkably well with recent lattice calculations performed
1243: for two colours. Due to the finite lattice volume the lattice results cannot, of
1244: course, be extended into the far infrared. In this respect our results are
1245: complementary to the lattice ones: We do obtain the infrared behaviour
1246: analytically. On the other hand, lattice calculations include, at least in
1247: principle, all non-perturbative effects whereas we had to rely on truncations.
1248: {\it E.g.\/} the deviations for the gluon renormalisation functions at
1249: intermediate momenta depicted in Fig.\ \ref{lattice.dat}
1250: might be due to the neglect of the four-gluon vertex
1251: function in our calculations.
1252:
1253:
1254: