1: \documentstyle[11pt,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \textwidth 170truemm
4: \textheight 235truemm
5: \topmargin -10truemm
6: \oddsidemargin 3truemm
7:
8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}
9:
10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
14:
15:
16: \newcommand{\SG}{\sigma}
17: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
18: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
19: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
20: \newcommand{\albe}{f(\alpha,b;x)}
21: \newcommand{\gebe}{f(\gamma,b;x)}
22:
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \begin{center}{ \Huge {\bf Running coupling and fermion mass
28: in strong coupling $QED_{3+1}$}}
29: \end{center}
30: \
31: \\
32: \
33: \
34: \begin{center} {\large \bf Vladim\'{\i}r \v{S}auli}
35: \end{center}
36: \
37: \
38:
39: \begin{center}{ \it Department of Theoretical Physics,
40: Nuclear Physics Institute,}
41: \end{center}
42: \begin{center}{\it \v{R}e\v{z} near Prague, CZ-25068,
43: Czech Republic}
44: \end{center}
45:
46: \
47:
48:
49: \begin{center} {\large \bf Abstract}
50: \end{center}
51:
52: Simple toy model is used in order to exhibit the technique of
53: extracting the non-perturbative information about
54: Green's functions in Minkowski space.
55: The effective charge and the dynamical electron mass are
56: calculated in strong coupling 3+1 QED by
57: solving the coupled Dyson-Schwinger equations for electron and
58: photon propagators. The minimal Ball-Chiu
59: vertex was used for simplicity and we impose the Landau gauge fixing
60: on QED action. The solution obtained separately in Euclidean and
61: Minkowski space were compared, the latter one was extracted with the
62: help of spectral technique.
63:
64:
65: \newpage
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: In quantum field theory and even in physics at all, the dispersion relations (DRs)
70: were recognized as providing useful connections between physical quantities.
71:
72: Very recently \cite{ALDEFIMA2003}, it was recognized that
73: in the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in Landau gauge
74: the full (non-perturbative) gluon propagator is (very likely) an analytic function in the
75: whole complex plane of momenta except the positive-timelike \cite{CONV}
76: real $p^2$ half-axis. This has been achieved
77: by the analytical fits of
78: some recent solutions of Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSEs) \cite{FISCHER}
79: and by analytical parameterization of some contemporary lattice data.
80: The reasonable spacelike domain agreement of these fits with the recent Euclidean
81: data give us a good guidance on the possible analytical structure of the Green's function
82: in timelike axis of momenta.
83: The similar was argued for the quark propagator, however in this case the observed singularities
84: do not occur exactly on - but rather say - very close to
85: the real positive $p^2$ half-axis.
86:
87: In this paper, we instead to make an analytical guesses of already known Euclidean results
88: we start with the assumption of $C-R_+$ analyticity of the
89: Green's functions which allows us to solve the DSEs system directly in Minkowski space.
90: It is well known that such an assumption is intimately related with the
91: formulation of the appropriate dispersion relations (DRs) and spectral
92: representation (SR) of Green's functions (for more then the
93: derivation of DRs in the context of QCD see \cite{KON2003}).
94: The main advantage of such an approach is the possibility to the
95: knowledge of the propagators at the whole range of momentum $p^2$
96: while the main inconvenience of this method is
97: the necessity of 'inhuman' effort when the absorptive parts
98: of Green's functions are actually derived.
99: Unfortunately at the contemporary stage of our calculation we are not able to write
100: down the appropriate DRs for ghosts and transverse gluons.
101: Due to this fact we confine ourself to the less complicated
102: (at least from the technical point of view) case of
103: one flavor strong coupling Quantum Electrodynamics
104: and we leave the involvement of Yang-Mills theory for the future study.
105:
106: In the present
107: paper and in contrast to \cite{SAULI} we adopt the Ball-Chiu (BC) vertex
108: \cite{BALLCHIU} which is the known minimal ansatz consistent with
109: the Ward-Takahashi identity (WTI). Implementing this into the equations for electron and
110: photon we then solve the corresponding DSE also for the photon polarization function.
111: In this sense, the presented study is the extension of the previous numerical study of
112: the renormalized electron mass in the strong coupling
113: QED in simplest approximation to the DSEs:
114: the bare vertex and bare photon propagators were employed \cite{SAULI}.
115:
116: Up to the case of perturbative theory the direct Minkowski space treatment of
117: DSEs is usually rather involved and the progress is adequately less when
118: compared with the relatively large amount of calculations performed
119: in Euclidean space (for a list of references see the paper \cite{SAULI}
120: and also the paper \cite{BICUDO} where the approximative analytical solutions are discussed) .
121: Although the spectral approach is rapidly getting technically rather
122: involved when one goes beyond lowest order truncation, one of the
123: purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that it is still
124: manageable for the considered model with WTI respecting vertex. As in the paper \cite{SAULI}
125: we again compare in detail the solutions for fermion propagator in
126: Minkowski and Euclidean space, besides we compare for the first
127: time also the photon propagator.
128: There is a another important reason for the use of improved vertex.
129: It is long time known that the scalar part of BC vertex dramatically affect the analytical structure
130: of the DSEs \cite{BURDEN} (which paper is the extended study of the
131: Munczek-Nemirovsky model \cite{MUNNEM}), for the earlier study of the
132: quark gap equation in the axial gauge see \cite{MUNCZEK}.
133: In this place we should stress that the recent study of QCD DSEs
134: confirms this suggestion: {\it the bare vertex leads
135: to the complex singularity of the chiral limit quark propagator} .
136: The authors of Ref. \cite{ALDEFIMA2003} observed that the scalar part of the BC vertex
137: in used plays the crucial role in the analytical structure of
138: quark propagator and one can conclude
139: that the inclusion of {\it the scalar part of the BC vertex
140: leads again to the real singularity
141: of quark propagator}, noting that the same is true for quenched
142: QED in the chiral limit
143: (note only that the full Curtis-Pennington vertex \cite{CURTIS} was used
144: which fact has no large significance due to the Landau gauge employed).
145:
146:
147: Contrary to QCD, the considered model here
148: is not an asymptotic free theory and posses the additional complication due to the
149: triviality statement. It requires the
150: introduction of ultraviolet cut-off function $f(\Lambda)$ which well known
151: fact is clearly confirmed by our numerical analysis.
152: However, we stress here that QED is
153: trivial and the appropriate solution of DSEs (Euclidean and spectral
154: as well as) collapse due to the presence of Landau singularity
155: {\cite{LANDAU}}, we regard the strong QED as an useful toy model which is clearly
156: reliable when we take cutoff reasonably smaller then the position of the expected
157: of Landau singularity. Further, in order to fully
158: specify our model we consider non-zero bare electron mass $m_0$.
159:
160:
161: For comparison we have also calculated the propagators in unquenched
162: approximation (i.e., $\Pi(q^2) \neq 0$), but with the bare vertex. In
163: that case the vacuum polarization tensor is not gauge invariant and
164: contains two independent scalar functions. We impose the transversality
165: by hands before the numerical solution. As expected from the earlier studies
166: \cite{WILLIAMS},\cite{BLOCH} the
167: results obtained in Landau gauge are very close to the results
168: calculated with BC vertex. This pleasant but extraordinary property of
169: Landau gauge fixing makes the solutions of DSEs with the bare vertex
170: approximation meaningful. However the similar conclusion was made in some QCD studies
171: \cite{BENDER}, \cite{ROBERTEK} one should be aware about the incidence
172: on the analytical structure of the quark propagator.
173: Although when using the bare vertex
174: the transverse projection by hands is not theoretically justified
175: and although the analyticity assumptions seems not to be fully justified
176: the usage of bare gauge vertices in Landau-like gauges remains popular in
177: studies of more complicated gauge models
178: (like extended, walking Technicolor etc. for review see \cite{KING} ).
179: This is why we believe that
180: showing in detail the effects due to BC vertex is interesting: in our
181: studies its effects are less than 10 per cents even for rather large
182: coupling constant. The strong coupling QED should serve as an
183: instructive tool for its 'simplicity' and the proposed technique could
184: be helpful elsewhere.
185:
186: The layout of the article is following:
187: In next section we review the DSE formalism
188: and describe the model.
189: The section 3 is devoted to the solution of DESs in Euclidean space.
190: In the section 4 the DSEs are written in Minkowski
191: space and the desired DRs for electron selfenergy
192: and gluon polarization function are derived. The numerical results
193: are presented in the section 5 and then we summarize.
194:
195:
196: \section{Model- Unquenched QED with BC vertex}
197:
198: In this section we review the basic elements of the
199: considered model and set the notation and conventions used in the main
200: part of the paper.
201: First of all, let us stress some differences and improvements used in this paper when compared
202: with until now published works that are dealing with QED DSEs.
203: Using the full photon propagator, instead of the bare propagator that authors of the papers
204: \cite{HAWES},\cite{HAWES1}, \cite{WILLIAMS} (bare and improved vertices, Euclidean space), \cite{SAULI}
205: (bare vertex, Minkowski space) used is an important improvement.
206: Further we use the form of the vertex that is consistent with WTI instead of bare vertex
207: $\gamma_{\mu}$ that was used in the study of renormalized DSEs in unquenched QED \cite{RAKOW}.
208: This leads to the solution which reflects not only the effect of running coupling caused by fermion loop
209: but also to the vacuum polarization which is automatically transverse.
210: Thus we can call our solution as a gauge covariant one since it naturally respect the conservation low
211: that follows from the gauge invariance of QED Lagrangian.
212: The three lowest DSEs read:
213: %
214: \bea
215: \left[S\right]^{-1}= \left[S_0\right]^{-1}-\Sigma \quad &;& \quad
216: \Sigma=e^2\int S\Gamma^{\mu}G_{\mu\nu}\gamma^{\nu} \, ,
217: \label{DSEferm}\\
218: %
219: \left[G_{\mu\nu}\right]^{-1}=\left[G_{0\mu\nu}\right]^{-1}-\Pi_{\mu\nu}
220: \quad &;&
221: \Pi_{\mu\nu}= e^2\, Tr\,\int S\Gamma^{\mu}S\gamma^{\nu} \, ,
222: \label{DSEphot}\\
223: %
224: \Gamma^{\mu}=\gamma^{\nu}+e\int S\Gamma^{\mu}S {\cal M}
225: &=&\Gamma^{\mu}_{L}+\Gamma^{\mu}_T \, ,
226: \label{DSEvert}
227: \eea
228: %
229: where ${\cal M}$ is the electron-positron scattering kernel (without annihilation channel),
230: $S$ is the full fermion propagator
231: %
232: \be
233: \label{parametr}
234: S(p)=\frac{1}{A(p^2)\not p-B(p^2)}=\frac{F(p^2)}{\not p -M(p^2)} \, ,
235: \ee
236: %
237: parametrized in a usual way in terms of two scalar functions $A,B$.
238: Equation (\ref{DSEferm}) then reduces to a coupled set of two scalar
239: equations for the functions $A,B$ or equivalently for the dynamical
240: mass $M=B/A$ and the electron renormalization function $F=A^{-1}$.
241: When the interaction is neglected, Eq.\ (\ref{parametr}) reduces to the
242: free propagator: $ S_0^{-1}=\not p- m_0$, $m_0 $ being the bare
243: electron mass. The sixteen Lorentz components of Eq.\ (\ref{DSEphot})
244: can be reduced to single equation for polarization function $\Pi$
245: %
246: \be
247: \label{scalarpol}
248: \Pi^{\mu\nu}(q)={\cal P}_T^{\mu\nu}q^2\Pi(q^2)\quad ; \quad
249: {\cal P}^{\mu\nu}_T=(g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{q^2}) \, ,
250: \ee
251: %
252: by virtue of the gauge invariance $q^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu\nu}=0$. The function
253: $G_0^{\mu\nu} $ is the quenched approximation ($\Pi=0$) to the full photon
254: propagator $G^{\mu\nu}(q)$, which is purely transverse in Landau gauge,
255: %
256: \be
257: G^{\mu\nu}(q)=-\frac{{\cal P}^{\mu\nu}_T}{q^2\left[1-\Pi(q^2)\right]}
258: \, .
259: \ee
260: %
261:
262: The functions $\Gamma^{\mu}_{L}$ and $\Gamma^{\mu}_T$ in
263: (\ref{DSEvert}) are the longitudinal and transverse parts of the full
264: vertex $\Gamma^{\mu}$. Multiplying the vertex by the photon momentum $p-l$
265: one gets the WT identity
266: %
267: \be \label{WTI} S^{-1}(p)-S^{-1}(l)=(p-l)_{\mu}\Gamma_L^{\mu}(p,l) \, ,
268: \ee
269: while from its definition $\Gamma^{\mu}_T(p,l).(p-l)=0 $.
270: Any truncation of DSEs system leading to gauge covariant solution of DSEs must involve
271: vertex satisfying WTI. Instead of solving own equation for $\Gamma$ there exists much economic way.
272: Within the requirement of right Lorentz transformation property, charge conservation
273: and the unique limit when $p\rightarrow l$ (the absence of
274: kinematic singularity) the longitudinal part
275: $\Gamma^{\mu}_{L}$:
276: %
277: \bea
278: \label{gamaL}
279: \Gamma^{\mu}_{L}(p,l)&=&\frac{\gamma^{\mu}}{2}\left(
280: A(p^2)+A(l^2)\right) \nn \\
281: &+&\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\not p +\not l)(p^{\mu}+l^{\mu})}{p^2-l^2}
282: \left( A(p^2)-A(l^2)\right) -\frac{p^{\mu}+l^{\mu}}{p^2-l^2}
283: \left( B(p^2)-B(l^2)\right) \, .
284: \eea
285: %
286: was found in the paper \cite{BALLCHIU} while the transverse part $\Gamma^{\mu}_T(p,l)$
287: can be decomposed into the eight component vector basis (see for instance
288: \cite{BALLCHIU} or\cite{PENNINGTON} for the details)
289: %
290: \bea
291: \Gamma_T^{\mu}(p,l)=\sum_{i=1}^8t_iT_i^{\mu}.
292: \label{covform}
293: \eea
294: with coefficient functions $t_i$ unspecified in general.
295:
296: The one loop analysis and determination of $t_i$ was performed
297: in the paper \cite{PENNINGTON}
298: in arbitrary covariant gauges. The two loop results was obtained in the Feynman
299: gauge also \cite{BALLCHIU}.
300: The minimal version of the gauge covariant vertex - BC vertex simply neglect
301: the transverse part and hence is given by the Eq. (\ref{gamaL}).
302: Some better improvement of the full vertex $\Gamma$ necessarily
303: differs only by its transverse part $\Gamma_T$. In chiral symmetric case with
304: given truncation of DSEs and within the requirement of multiplicative renormalizability
305: the additional constraints on the transverse pieces of the vertex were found \cite{DONG}.
306: Also the additional information was obtained from the requirement gauge independence of
307: chiral symmetry breaking in quenched QED \cite{BASHIR}.
308: Although, as it follows form the above two notations
309: the BC vertex has not probably most ideal form for some 'definitely conclusive'
310: nonperturbative study of QED, nevertheless
311: we use this vertex for its simplicity. The implementation of the methods
312: used in \cite{DONG}, \cite{BASHIR}
313: and mainly their true Minkowski space extension is far away from
314: triviality and thus remains the challenging task for future investigation.
315:
316:
317:
318: In the Landau gauge and in the ladder approximation of the electron
319: DSE there is no self-energy contribution to the electron
320: renormalization function since the Feynman (F) pole part of photon
321: propagator $G_{\mu\nu}$ is exactly canceled by the contribution of
322: longitudinal (LO) $q_{\mu}q_{\nu}$ part of $G_{\mu\nu}$. Explicitly
323: their absorptive parts satisfy:
324: %
325: \be
326: \Im A_F(\omega)=-\Im A_{L0}(\omega)=\frac{e^2 m}{(4\pi)^2}
327: \int d a \left(1-\frac{a^2}{\omega^2}\right)\sigma_v(a)\Theta(\omega-a) \, ,
328: \ee
329: %
330: which leads to $A=A_F+A_{LO}=1$ (here $\sigma_v(a)$ is Dirac
331: coefficient Lehmann function (\ref{lemani}), $m$ is the physical (pole)
332: electron mass). It is also well known that the property $A\simeq 1$
333: persists beyond the bare vertex approximation and that in angle
334: approximation \cite{KONDO} $A=1$ is even valid exactly. The above mentioned study
335: \cite{RAKOW} of unquenched QED shows rather small and irrelevant violations from the
336: identity $A=1$ which then turns to few percentage error only when momentum approaches
337: the ultraviolet cutoff $\lambda$ (note, the condition $A(0)=1$ was exactly imposed in the paper
338: \cite{RAKOW}). Further study on
339: dynamical mass generation in unquenched supercritical QED \cite{BLOCH},
340: \cite{KONDO} confirm this also in this case. They justify our approximation with at most ten
341: percentage deviation in the infrared region (when $A(\Lambda)=1 $ condition was imposed by the authors.
342: To reduce the complexity of our DSEs we explore this nice Landau gauge property
343: and we put explicitly $A=1$ for all momenta. We should stress here that this neglection has no
344: effect on the gauge invariance of polarization tensor, i.e. we still have
345:
346: \be
347: \Pi(q)^{\mu\nu}q_{\mu}=0
348: \ee
349: since the WTI (\ref{WTI}) is not violated.
350:
351: When we renormalize we adopt the standard notation for the renormalization constants $Z_1$,
352: $Z_2$ and $Z_3$ (see e.g.,\ \cite{ZUBER}). From the approximation
353: employed it follows that $Z_1=Z_2=1$ which is in agreement with the
354: multiplicative renormalizability and WTI. Furthermore, the unrenormalized vacuum polarization
355: $\Pi(\mu)$ should be absorbed into the renormalization constant $Z_3$.
356: Similarly, the unrenormalized electron
357: self-energy $Tr\, \Sigma(\mu)/4$ is absorbed into the constant $Z_m$.
358:
359:
360: \section{Solution of DSEs in Euclidean space}
361:
362: The DSEs are often solved in Euclidean space after the Wick rotation
363: $k_0 \rightarrow k_{1E}$ is made for each momentum. Then the loop
364: integrals should be free of singularities and the Green functions are
365: found for positive Euclidean momentum $k_E^2=k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2+k_4^2$.
366: If there is no additional singularity in the complex plane of momenta
367: (that would prohibit the validity of the naive Wick rotation), then
368: from the solution for some generic function $f(p^2_E)$ one would get
369: the solution for Minkowski spacelike momentum $f(p^2_M);\, p^2<0$.
370: The solution for timelike momentum would be in principle obtained by
371: the analytical continuation of $f$ to the real axis $p^2_M>0$. In our
372: case, because of QED triviality in four dimensions, the assumption of
373: non-singular behavior holds only with the presence of UV cut-off. We
374: presume here, that any numerical attempt to avoid UV cut-off
375: implementation would lead to an uncontrolled behavior of the
376: Gell-Mann-Low effective charge. The presence of the ultraviolet cut-off
377: is required not only due to the inner consistence (the Wick rotation)
378: but also to ensure the numerical stability of our calculation.
379:
380:
381: Substituting the Ball-Chiu vertex into the DSEs and employing the
382: projection proposed in \cite{PENN2} (and successfully used in
383: the papers \cite{BLOCH},\cite{FISCHER}) we obtain the following coupled
384: DSEs to be solved numerically:
385: %
386: \bea \label{bloch1}
387: \Pi_U(x)&=&\frac{2\alpha}{3x\pi^2}\int d y \frac{y}{y+M^2(y)}\int d\theta \sin^2\theta
388: \frac{1}{z+M^2(z)}\biggr[\left(2y-8y\cos^2\theta+6\sqrt{yx}\cos\theta\right)
389: \nn \\
390: &+&
391: \frac{(M(y)-M(z))}{y-z}\left(M(y)+M(z)\right)
392: \left(2y-8y\cos^2\theta+3\sqrt{yx}\cos\theta\right) \nn\\
393: &+&3M(y)(M(y)-M(z))\biggl] \, , \\
394: %
395: \label{bloch2}
396: M(x)&=&m_0+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi^2}\int d y \frac{y}{y+M^2(y)}
397: \int d\theta \sin^2\theta \nn\\
398: &&\frac{1}{z(1-\Pi(z))}
399: \left[3M(y)-\frac{(M(y)-M(z))}{y-z}\frac{2yx\sin^2\theta}{z}\right]\quad,
400: \eea
401: %
402: where $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ and variables $x,y,z$ represent squares of
403: Euclidean momenta, $z=x+y-2\sqrt{yx}\cos\theta$. For details of the
404: derivation of (\ref{bloch1}),(\ref{bloch2}) we refer to refs.\
405: \cite{PENN2},\cite{BLOCH}.
406:
407: The gauge invariance $q^{\mu}\Pi_{\mu\nu}=0$ implies that the photon
408: polarization tensor has to be of the form (\ref{scalarpol}.
409:
410: In the DSE's formalism the gauge invariance of $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$ follows
411: from the gauge covariance of the Ball-Chiu vertex. This fact helped the
412: authors of \cite{PENN2} to construct simple recipe how to avoid
413: numerical quadratical divergence which would be otherwise presented in
414: equation for $\Pi$. Anticipate here that it is convenient reduce the
415: photon polarization to a single scalar function also in our Minkowski
416: calculation, although there it is not a numerical necessity, but merely
417: matter of technical convenience.
418:
419: The first line inside the brackets $[\dots ]$ of the Eq.\
420: (\ref{bloch1}) and the first term in the brackets $[\dots ]$ of Eq.\
421: (\ref{bloch2}) represent the kernels of the bare vertex approximation
422: (with only $\gamma_{\mu}$ retained). They give dominant contributions
423: to the dynamical mass of electron and the vacuum polarization as well.
424: Neglecting the vacuum polarization effect (putting $\Pi(z)=0$) in the
425: Eq.\ (\ref{bloch1}), the equation for $M$ can be further simplified.
426: This so-called ladder approximation of fermion DSE is represented by
427: one dimensional momentum integral equation first derived in ref.\
428: \cite{JOHNSON} and used also in the Euclidean confinement study
429: \cite{KUGO}.
430:
431:
432: \section{Direct treatment in Minkowski space}
433:
434: Assuming analyticity for complex $p^2$ in $C-R_+$ Gaussian plain with indicated cut
435: and using the known asymptotic behavior of the propagator one can derive the
436: appropriate Lehmann representation (LR) for the propagators ( without positivity).
437: The appropriate LR for the fermion propagator in parity conserving theory reads
438: %
439: \be
440: \label{lemani}
441: S(\not\!p)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty} d\omega \frac{\not\!p\SG_v(\omega)+
442: \SG_s(\omega)}{p^2-\omega+i\epsilon}=
443: \frac{r}{\not\!p-m}+
444: \int d\omega \frac{\not\!p\SG_{v(c)}(\omega)+\SG_{s(c)}(\omega)}
445: {p^2-\omega+i\epsilon} \, ,
446: \ee
447: %
448: where we integrated out the single particle state contribution to the
449: full Lehmann weight $\SG^{(1.p.s.)}(a)=r\delta(a-m^2)$. The remaining
450: term $\SG_{(c)}$ is assumed to be a real and continuous spectral
451: density that originates from the interaction. Similarly we can write
452: for the photon propagator in linear covariant gauges
453: %
454: \be \label{fotoni}
455: G^{\mu\nu}(q)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty} db
456: \frac{\sigma_{\gamma}(b)\left(-g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{q^2}\right)}
457: {q^2-b+i\epsilon}-\xi \frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{q^2}\:,
458: \ee
459: %
460: where the single photon spectrum $r_P\delta(b)$ can be integrated out
461: as in the previous case.
462:
463:
464: Due to the asymptotic the dispersion formula for fermion
465: mass function $B$ requires one subtraction
466: %
467: \bea \label{selfcon}
468: B(p^2)&=&m(\mu)+\int d\alpha
469: \frac{\rho_s(\alpha)(p^2-\mu^2)}{(p^2-\alpha+i\ep)(\alpha-\mu^2)}\, ,
470: \eea
471: %
472: where $m(\mu)$ is the renormalized mass at the scale $\mu$. Similar
473: relation could be derived for the function $A$, but here $A=1$ and
474: therefore the function $B$ represents renormgroup mass function.
475:
476: Renormalized photon polarization function
477: in momentum subtraction scheme reads:
478: %
479: \be \label{mom}
480: \Pi_R(q^2,\mu'^2)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}
481: d\omega \frac{\rho(\omega)(q^2-\mu'^2)}{(q^2-\omega+i\epsilon)(\omega-\mu'^2)} \, ,
482: \ee
483: %
484: where we distinguish two possibly different renormalization scales $\mu,\mu'$.
485: The appropriate renormalization accompanied by the detailed derivation
486: of dispersion relations (\ref{selfcon}) and (\ref{mom}) is given
487: in the next two sections.
488:
489: In the perturbation theory the relations for $\rho$ is usually represented by the series
490: expanded in the coupling constant. Here the appropriate relations for $\rho$ and $\rho_s$
491: are represented by the integral equations involving the Lehmann functions $\sigma$'s and even the
492: function $\rho$ itself. Together with two additional
493: equations for the $\sigma's$ they form the set of the so called {\it Unitary Equations} (UEs)
494: (since these are the relations between the imaginary and real parts of propagator
495: (and inverse of propagator) functions, here we follow the paper \cite{SAULI} ).
496: In order to derive the UEs recall the
497: well known functional identity for distributions
498: %
499: \be
500: \frac{1}{x'-x+i\ep}=P \cdot \frac{1}{x'-x}-i\pi\delta(x'-x) \, ,
501: \ee
502: %
503: where $P \cdot$ stands for principal value integration. Making use of
504: the LR for $G^{\alpha\beta}$ and of the appropriate DR for $\Pi$ in
505: $G^{-1}$ and evaluating the imaginary part of the unit tensor
506: $G_{\alpha\beta}^{-1}G^{\beta\gamma}$ one arrives to the integral
507: equation:
508: %
509: \be \label{eqforphot}
510: \sigma_{\gamma(c)}(a)=\frac{r_{\gamma}}{a}\rho(a)+[\sigma_{\gamma(c)}* \rho](a) \, ,
511: \ee
512: %
513: where we have adopted a shorthand notation for real functional:
514: %
515: \be \label{principial}
516: [\sigma * \rho](a)=P \cdot \int_{T}^{\infty} dx\frac{\rho(a)\sigma(x)+
517: \sigma(a)\rho(x)\frac{a-\mu^2}{x-\mu^2}}{a-x}\, .
518: \ee
519: %
520: Notice that the both (\ref{eqforphot}) and (\ref{principial}) are
521: non-zero only for timelike (square of) momentum $a$ (here $a>T=4m^2$).
522:
523: For the electron Lehmann weights we get in a similar way:
524: %
525: \bea \label{Tak2}
526: \SG_{v(c)}(\omega)= \frac{f_1+m(\mu)f_2}{\omega-m^2(\mu)}
527: \quad &;& \quad
528: \SG_{s(c)}(\omega)=\frac{m(\mu)f_1+\omega f_2}{\omega-m^2(\mu)} \, ,
529: \\
530: %
531: f_1 \equiv r\frac{m\rho_s(\omega)}{\omega-m^2}
532: +[\SG_{s(c)} * \rho_{s(c)}](\omega)
533: \quad &;& \quad
534: f_2\equiv r\frac{\rho_s(\omega)}{\omega-m^2}+
535: [\SG_{v(c)} * \rho_s](\omega) \, ,
536: \eea
537: %
538: which are non-zero only for the timelike $\omega>m^2$.
539:
540: The physical electron mass is defined by $S^{-1}(p=m)=0$ or
541: equivalently $M(m)=m$. Using the dispersion relation (\ref{selfcon})
542: the desired relation reads:
543: %
544: \be \label{masspole}
545: m=m(\mu)+\int dx\frac{\rho_s(x)(m^2-\mu^2)}{(m^2-x)(x-\mu^2)} \, .
546: \ee
547: %
548: The residuum value $r$ of pole part of the propagator is fixed
549: already when the renormalization procedure is done.
550: Because of our numerical solution
551: is is not convenient to determine $r$
552: by taking the on-shell limit $p\rightarrow m$ directly.
553: The easiest way to evaluate $r$ is the inspection
554: of the real part of the identity $S^{-1}S=1$
555: evaluated at some arbitrary scale $p^2$. Choosing for instance $p=0$
556: one gets the desired relation
557: %
558: \be \label{residuum}
559: r=\frac{m}{m(\mu)-\int\frac{\rho_s(x)\mu^2}{x(x-\mu^2)}dx}-
560: \int\sigma_{s(c)}(x)\frac{m}{x}dx \, .
561: \ee
562: %
563: which helps us to avoid dealing with complicated infrared
564: singularities.
565:
566: The original momentum space DSEs are now converted into a coupled set
567: of the UEs (\ref{eqforphot},\ref{Tak2})
568: complemented by the subsidiary conditions for the residua and
569: thresholds (\ref{masspole}) and (\ref{residuum}).
570:
571: To solve UEs one has to consider these six integral equations
572: simultaneously at all the positive values of spectral variables where
573: the corresponding spectral functions are non-zero. Any internal
574: inconsistency (i.e.,\ spacelike Green functions singularities
575: mentioned in the introduction) should be seen or felt when the UEs are
576: actually solved. The original momentum space Green functions are then
577: obtained through the dispersion relation for the proper function or
578: equivalently by the integration of the spectral representation for the
579: full connected propagators $S,G$. Checking (numerically) this
580: equivalence verifies the internal consistence of the method. Compared
581: to the Euclidean approach the spectral approach has clear advantage of
582: ``already known'' analytical continuation at all momenta. The
583: disadvantage of the spectral approach is its failure in the (confining)
584: regime where the underlying assumptions are not justified.
585:
586:
587:
588: %PHOTONPPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTONPHOTON
589: \subsection{Photon propagator}
590:
591: In a fixed gauge the photon propagator is fully determined by the
592: gauge independent polarization function. We describe below the
593: derivation of once subtracted DR, following from the momentum space
594: subtraction procedure for photon polarization tensor. First we briefly
595: review the method in its perturbative context.
596:
597: In $4+\ep$ dimensions and for spacelike momentum $q^2<0$ the one loop
598: polarization function can be written as \cite{nevim}
599: %
600: \bea
601: \Pi(q^2)&=&\frac{4e^2}{3(4\pi)^2}\left\{\frac{2}{\ep}+\gamma_E-ln(4\pi)+
602: ln\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu_{t'H}^2}\right)\right.
603: \nn \\
604: &+&(1+2m^2/q^2)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{q^2}}
605: ln\left[\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{q^2}}}{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{q^2}}}\right]
606: \nn \\
607: &-&\left.\frac{4m^2}{q^2}-\frac{5}{3}\right\}-\delta Z_3\mu_{t'H}^{-\ep}\, ,
608: \eea
609: %
610: where $\mu_{t'H}$ is t'Hooft dimensionfull scale. The mass-shell
611: subtraction scheme defines $Z_3$ so that $\Pi^{MASS}_R(0)=0$ which
612: implies that the photon propagator behaves as free one near $q^2=0$.
613: Choosing $\delta Z_3$ to cancel entire $O(e^2)$ correction we find
614: %
615: \be
616: \delta Z_3^{MASS}=\lim_{q^2\rightarrow 0}\Pi(q^2)=
617: \frac{e^2}{12\pi^2}\left[\frac{2}{\ep}+\gamma_E-ln(4\pi)+
618: ln\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu_{t'H}^2}\right)\right]
619: \ee
620: %
621: and renormalized polarization function in mass-shell renormalization
622: prescription satisfies well known dispersion relation
623: %
624: \be
625: \label{drs}
626: \Pi_R^{MASS}(q^2)=\Pi(q^2)-\lim_{q^2\rightarrow0}\Pi(q^2)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}
627: d\omega \frac{q^2}{(q^2-\omega+i\epsilon)\omega}\, \rho(\omega)
628: \ee
629: %
630: with the absorptive part
631: %
632: \be
633: \label{oneloop}
634: \pi\rho(\omega)=\frac{\alpha_{QED}}{3}(1+2m^2/\omega)\sqrt{1-4m^2/\omega}
635: \, \Theta(\omega-4m^2) \, .
636: \ee
637: %
638: which is given in many standard textbooks (see for instance
639: \cite{BOGOLIUBOV}, where the result of the integration in (\ref{drs})
640: is written also for timelike momenta). Recall that the one loop
641: $\Pi_R^{MASS}$ represents also self-energy calculated in the popular
642: $\overline{MS}$ scheme for the special choice of t'Hooft scale
643: $\mu_{t'H}=m$ \cite{SILVERS}). Finally, let us remind the definition
644: of the off-shell momentum space subtraction: $\delta Z_3=\Pi(\mu^2)$.
645: Making redefinition of the electron charge accompanied by the finite
646: subtraction of (\ref{drs}) we can immediately write down the desired
647: dispersion relation (\ref{mom}).
648:
649: Now we turn our attention to the derivation of momentum space
650: subtracted $\Pi_R(p^2,\mu^2)$ with the dressed propagators and with the
651: full Ball-Chiu vertex included. As mentioned in the previous section
652: validity of Ward-Takahashi identity for $\Gamma_{BC}$ naturally leads
653: to the transversality of the polarization tensor
654: %
655: \be
656: \label{cunik}
657: \Pi_{U,R}^{\mu\nu}(q)={\cal P}_T^{\mu\nu}q^2\Pi_{U,R}(q^2) \, ,
658: \ee
659: %
660: where $ {\cal P}^{\mu\nu}_T=(g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{q^{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}) $
661: is the transverse projector and capital (R) indicates that renormalized
662: tensor (\ref{cunik}) must respect gauge symmetry of unrenormalized (U)
663: one.
664:
665: The truly massless photons with $\Pi_R^{MASS}(0)=0$ are consequence of
666: the renormalization prescription
667: %
668: \bea
669: \label{onesub}
670: \Pi_R(q^2,0)&=&\Pi_U(q^2)-\Pi_U(0) \, ,
671: \nn \\
672: \Pi_U(q^2)&=&\frac{\Pi_U^{\mu\nu}(q)
673: \left[g_{\mu\nu}-C\frac{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}}{q^2}\right]}{3q^2} \,
674: \eea
675: %
676: with arbitrary constant $C$, applied on the full polarization tensor
677: %
678: \be
679: \label{tensor}
680: \Pi_U^{\mu\nu}(q) \equiv
681: ie^2 \int\frac {d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}
682: \, Tr \left[ \gamma^\mu \, S(l) \,
683: \Gamma^\nu(l,l-q) \, S(l-q) \right] \, ,
684: \ee
685: %
686: where the explicit dependence of Ball-Chiu vertex on fermionic momenta reads:
687: %
688: \be \label{ball}
689: \Gamma^{\mu}_{L}(l,l-q)=
690: \gamma^{\mu}-\frac{(2l-q)^{\mu}}{(l-q)^2-l^2}[M((l-q)^2)-M(l^2)]\, .
691: \ee
692:
693: As soon as we use WTI constrained vertex the $C$ independence of
694: resulting $\Pi$ is evident but the right choice of $C$ facilitates
695: derivation of DR. The reason is that the Pennington-Bloch \cite{PENN2}
696: projector
697: %
698: \be
699: {\cal P}_{\mu\nu}^{(d)}(q)=\frac{1}{d}
700: \left[g_{\mu\nu}-(d+1)\frac{q_\mu q_\mu}{q^2}\right]
701: \ee
702: %
703: cancels the contribution from $d+1$ space-time metric tensor
704: $g_{\mu\nu}$ which simplifies the actual calculations.
705:
706: Let us now derive $\Pi_{R}$
707: %
708: \be
709: \label{receipt}
710: \Pi_{R}(q^2,\mu^2)=\frac{\Pi_{U}^{\alpha\beta}(q)
711: {\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}^{(3)}(q)}{3q^2}-
712: \Bigl\{q\rightarrow \mu\Bigl\}
713: \ee
714: %
715: for the case when only $\gamma^{\mu}$ part of $\Gamma_{L}^{\mu}$ is
716: retained. Substituting the spectral representation (\ref{lemani}) into
717: the expression for photon polarization function (\ref{receipt}),
718: (\ref{tensor}) we immediately get
719: %
720: \bea
721: \Pi_{U(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2)&=&\frac{ie^2}{3q^2}\, Tr\,
722: \int\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4} \int d\al \int d b \nonumber\\
723: &&
724: \frac{\left(\gamma_{\mu}-4\frac{q_\mu \not q}{q^2}\right)
725: \left[(\not l-\not q) \sigma_v(a)+\sigma_s(a)\right]
726: \left[\not l \sigma_v(b)+\sigma_s(b)\right]} {(l-q)^2-a)(l^2-b)}\, .
727: \eea
728: %
729: From now on we omit the spectral integrals and assume that the
730: presence of any spectral function with given arguments automatically
731: implies integration over these variables. Since we will include
732: explicitly the boundaries (thresholds) in step functions in
733: the integral kernels, all integrals can be taken from zero to
734: infinity $\int_0^{\infty}$. Moreover we label the measure $-i\,
735: d^4l/(2\pi)^4$ by $d_l$ and we also suppress $i\epsilon$
736: factors in denominators. Combining the denominators with the help
737: of Feynman parameterization then gives
738: %
739: \be
740: \Pi_{U(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2)=8e^2\, \int{d_l}\int_0^1 dx
741: \frac{\sigma_v(a)\sigma_v(b)x(1-x)}
742: {(l^2+q^2x(1-x)-a x-b (1-x))^2} \, .
743: \ee
744: %
745: The remaining integral is logarithmic divergent. After the subtraction
746: %
747: \be \label{twotrem}
748: \Pi_{R(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2;\mu^2)=\Pi_{U(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2)-
749: \Pi_{U(\gamma_{\mu})}(\mu^2)
750: \ee
751: %
752: it leads to the finite dispersion relation. Although this procedure is
753: rather straightforward we present for completeness briefly intermediate
754: steps of the derivation. The subtracting procedure (\ref{twotrem})
755: yields explicitly
756: %
757: \bea
758: \Pi_{R(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2;\mu^2)&=&8e^2\int{d_l}\int_0^1 dx\int_0^1 dz
759: \nonumber\\
760: &&
761: \frac{ \sigma_v(a)\sigma_v(b)[x(1-x)]^2(q^2-\mu^2)(-2)}
762: {(l^2+(q^2-\mu^2)zx(1-x)+\mu^2x(1-x)-a x-b(1-x))^3}
763: \nn \\
764: &=&\frac{8e^2}{(4\pi)^2}\int_0^1 dx \int_{\frac{a x+b(1-x)}{x(1-x)}}^{\infty}d\omega
765: \frac{ \sigma_v(a)\sigma_v(b)x(1-x)(q^2-\mu^2)}
766: {(\omega-\mu^2)(q^2-\omega)}\:,
767: \eea
768: %
769: where (after the loop momentum integration) the substitution
770: $z\rightarrow \omega=\frac{a x+b(1-x)}{x(1-x)}+\mu^2-\frac{\mu^2}{z}$ was made.
771: Changing the order of integrations and integrating over $x$
772: (the appropriate integrals are listed in the Appendix A)
773: we obtain the DR:
774: %
775: \bea
776: \label{rojedna}
777: \Pi_{(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2;\mu)&=& \frac{e^2}{12\pi^2}
778: \int\limits^{\infty}_{(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2}
779: d\omega\frac{q^2-\mu^2}{(\omega-\mu^2)(q^{2}-\omega+i\epsilon)}
780: \nn \\
781: &&
782: \frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)}{\omega}
783: \left[1+\frac{a+b}{\omega}-\frac{b-a}{\omega}\left(1+\frac{b-a}{\omega}\right)\right]
784: \sigma_v(a)\sigma_v(b)\:,
785: \eea
786: %
787: where $\Delta$ is the well-known triangle function
788: %
789: \be \label{triangle}
790: \Delta(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2xz-2yz \, .
791: \ee
792: %
793: Considering in the expression above for $\sigma_v(x)$ only the delta
794: function parts of spectral functions, i.e., $r_f\, \delta(x-m^2)$, we
795: just recover the one loop perturbative result (\ref{oneloop}) (up to
796: the presence of electron propagator residuum $r_f$, which is assumed
797: to be close to $1$ when the coupling is small):
798: %
799: \bea
800: \Pi^{pole}_{R(\gamma_{\mu})}(q^2,0)= r_f^2\,
801: \frac{\al_{QED}(0)}{3\pi}\int\limits^{\infty}_{4m^2}
802: d\omega\frac{q^2}{\omega(q^{2}-\omega+i\epsilon)}
803: \, \sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{\omega}}\left(1+\frac{2m^2}{\omega}\right)\, .
804: \eea
805: %
806: We see immediately that $\Pi_R(0,0)=0$ as required and that using the
807: projector ${\cal P}^d$ naturally reproduces the perturbation theory in
808: its lowest order.
809:
810:
811: Using the prescription (\ref{receipt}) we now carry on the derivation
812: for the part of the polarization function with the {\it remaining }
813: term of Ball-Chiu vertex (second term in rhs of Eq.\ (\ref{ball})).
814: First we drop the part of the vertex which is proportional to $l$
815: (because the photon propagator is transverse) and take a trace which
816: leads to following finite loop integral:
817: %
818: \bea
819: \label{holina}
820: \Pi_{U(rem)}(q^2)&=&-\frac{4e^2}{3q^2}\int d_l
821: \left[\frac{M(l)-M(l-q)}{l^2-(l-q)^2}\right] \nn \\
822: && \hspace*{-2.0truecm}
823: \frac{ \left\{\sigma_v(a)\sigma_s(b)
824: \left[2l^2-8\frac{(l\cdot q)^2}{q^2}+3l\cdot q+3q^2\right]+
825: \sigma_v(b)\sigma_s(a)\left[2l^2-8\frac{(l\cdot q)^2}{q^2}-
826: 3l\cdot q\right]\right\}}
827: {[(l-q)^2-a][l^2-b]}\, .
828: \eea
829: %
830: The next intermediate steps of the DR derivation are given in the
831: Appendix B, here we simply present the final result: The full polarization
832: function with the Ball-Chiu vertex satisfies the once subtracted DR
833: %
834: \be
835: \Pi_R(q^2,\mu^2)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty} d\omega\,
836: \frac{\left(\rho_{\gamma_{\mu}}(\omega)+
837: \rho_{rem}(\omega)\right)(q^2-\mu^2)}
838: {(q^2-\omega+i\epsilon)(\omega-\mu^2)}\, ,
839: \ee
840: %
841: where $\rho_{(\gamma_{\mu})}$ follows from (\ref{rojedna}) and
842: $\rho_{(rem)}$ from (\ref{holina}) and (\ref{dolina}). Explicitly, they
843: read:
844: %
845: \bea
846: \label{skutek}
847: \rho_{(\gamma_{\mu})}(\omega)&=&\frac{e^2}{12\pi^2}
848: \frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)}{\omega}
849: \left[1+\frac{a+b}{\omega}-
850: \frac{b-a}{\omega}\left(1+\frac{b-a}{\omega}\right)\right] \, ,
851: \nn\\
852: &&
853: \sigma_v(a)\sigma_v(b)\Theta\left(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2\right)
854: \nn \\
855: \rho_{(rem)}(\omega)&=&\frac{e^2}{6\pi^2}
856: \sigma_v(a)\sigma_s(b)\rho_S(c)
857: \left[\frac{F(\omega,c,c)-F(\omega,c,a)+F(\omega,b,a)-
858: F(\omega,b,c)}{(c-b)(c-a)}\right]
859: \, ,
860: \nn \\
861: F(\omega,c,a)&=&\frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,c,a)}{\omega}
862: \left[\frac{a+c}{\omega}-2\frac{a-c}{\omega}
863: \left(1+\frac{a-c}{\omega}\right)\right]
864: \Theta\left(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{c})^2\right)\:.
865: \eea
866: %
867: These expressions in their full form have been used in our numerical
868: calculation. No principal value integration is necessary and the whole
869: integrand has a regular limit when one spectral variable approaches
870: another. Recall that the ordinary integrals over the spectral variables
871: $a,b,c$ are implicitly assumed. The function $\pi\rho_{S(c)}$ is simply
872: $\Im M(\omega)$ and it is evaluated in the next section.
873:
874:
875: %ELECTRONELECTRONELECTRONELECTRONELECTRONEELECTRONELECTRONEL
876: \subsection{Fermion propagator}
877:
878:
879: In this section we show that the Ball-Chiu vertex
880: %
881: \be \label{ballchiu} \Gamma^{\mu}_{L}(p-l,p)=
882: \gamma^{\mu}-\frac{(2p-l)^{\mu}}{(p-l)^2-p^2}[M((p-l)^2)-M(p^2)]
883: \ee
884: %
885: substituted to the electron self-energy
886: %
887: \be
888: \Sigma(p)=
889: e^2\int d_l \gamma^{\nu} S(p-l)\Gamma^{\mu}_{L}(p-l,p)G_{\mu\nu}(\xi=0,l)\:,
890: \ee
891: %
892: together with the assumed LR for electron (\ref{lemani}) and photon
893: propagator (\ref{fotoni}) leads to the dispersion formula for the
894: dynamical mass (\ref{selfcon}). In $F=1$ approximation we can write
895: %
896: \bea
897: M(p^2)&=&m_o+\frac{Tr}{4}\Sigma(p)
898: \nn \\
899: &=& m_o+e^2 \frac{Tr}{4} \int d_l \gamma^{\nu}\frac{(\not\!p-\not l)
900: \sigma_v(a)+\sigma_s(a)}
901: {(p-l)^2-a}\Gamma^{\mu}_{L}(p-l,p)
902: \frac{-g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{l_{\mu}l_{\nu}}{l^2}}{l^2-b}\sigma_{\gamma}(b)
903: \, ,
904: \eea
905: %
906: where we have adopted conventions and notations of the previous
907: section. Relating bare mass and the renormalized one by $m_o=Z_m(\mu)
908: m(\mu)$ and absorbing $\Sigma(p=\mu)$ into the mass renormalization
909: constant $Z_m(\mu)$ gives the finite mass $m(\mu)$ and finite DR for
910: $\mu$ independent dynamical mass function (\ref{selfcon}).
911:
912: Let us again start with the pure $\gamma_{\mu}$ matrix part of the
913: $\Gamma_L$ in $\Sigma$. It leads to the following DR:
914: %
915: \bea
916: \label{hmotny}
917: M_{(\gamma_{\mu})}(p^2)&=&\int_{m^2}^{\infty} d\omega \frac{p^2-\mu^2}{\omega-\mu^2}
918: \frac{\rho_{\gamma_{\mu}}(\omega)}{p^2-\omega+i\epsilon} \, ,
919: \nn \\
920: \rho_{(\gamma_{\mu})}(\omega)&=&-
921: 3\left(\frac{e}{4\pi}\right)^2 \sigma_s(a)\sigma_{\gamma}(b)
922: \frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)}{\omega} \, .
923: \eea
924: %
925: (The derivation is straightforward, see for instance Appendix of
926: Ref.\ \cite{SAULI}). This is a dominant momentum dependent part of $M$.
927:
928: Using the {\it remainder} terms in Ball-Chiu vertex (\ref{ballchiu}) we
929: get the following contribution to $M$:
930: %
931: \be \label{linetwo}
932: M_{(rem)}(p)=2e^2 \int d_l
933: \frac{\left[\frac{(p.l)^2}{l^2}-p^2\right]\rho_S(o)\sigma_{\gamma}(b)\sigma_v(a)}
934: {[(p-l)^2-a][(p-l)^2-o][p^2-o][l^2-b]} \, ,
935: \ee
936: %
937: where we have self-consistently used the formula for difference of the dispersion
938: integrals for $M$:
939: %
940: \be \label{ayrtonsenna}
941: -\frac{(2p-l)^{\mu}}{(p-l)^2-p^2}[M((p-l)^2)-M(p^2)]=\int
942: d\gamma\frac{\rho_S(\gamma)(2p-l)^{\mu}}{(p^2-\gamma)((p-l)^2-\gamma)}\, .
943: \ee
944: %
945: Using the Feynman parameterization (\ref{linetwo}) is after some
946: algebra transformed into:
947: %
948: \be \label{bobr}
949: -2e^2\ \int_0^1 dx \int_0^1 dy\int d_l \,
950: \frac{\left[(p\cdot l)^2-l^2p^2\right]\rho_S(o)\sigma_{\gamma}(b)\sigma_v(a)}
951: {[(p-l)^2-ax-o(1-x)]^2[p^2-o][l^2-by]^2} \, .
952: \ee
953: %
954: Matching in (\ref{bobr}) two $l$-dependent denominators
955: (using a Feynman variables $z$), making a shift
956: $l=\tilde{l}+pz$ and integrating over the momentum $\tilde{l}$
957: yields the result:
958: %
959: \be \label{easy}
960: \frac{3p^2e^2}{(4\pi)^2} \int _0^1 dx \int_0^1 dy \int_0^1 dz
961: \frac{\rho_S(o)\sigma_{\gamma}(b)\sigma_v(a)z(1-z)}
962: {[p^2z(1-z)-axz-o(1-x)z-by(1-z)][p^2-o]} \, ,
963: \ee
964: %
965: which is UV finite by construction.
966:
967: It is now easy to write down the DR following from (\ref{easy}) (Some
968: details of its derivation are given in the Appendix C). The 'dominant'
969: part following from the pure pole $\beta=0$ of the photon propagator
970: reads explicitly:
971: %
972: \bea \label{vysl}
973: \Im \frac{ M_{rem}^{pole}(\omega)}{\pi}&=&\frac{3e^2}{2(4\pi)^2}
974: P\cdot \int_{m^2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\omega-u} \nn\\
975: && \hspace*{-2.0truecm}
976: \left[\frac{u+a}{\omega^2}\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(u)\Theta\left(\omega-\frac{u+a}{2}\right)
977: +\frac{\omega+a}{u^2}\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(\omega)\Theta\left(u-\frac{\omega+a}{2}\right)\right]
978: \, .
979: \eea
980: %
981: To sum it up, the dynamical fermion mass is given by:
982: %
983: \be \label{completa}
984: M(p^2)=m(\mu)+M_{(\gamma_{\mu})}(p^2)+M_{rem}(p^2)\, .
985: \ee
986: %
987: Anticipating our numerical results: since the whole $M_{rem}$ changes the
988: numerical results only slightly (as compared to $M_{(\gamma_{\mu})}$),
989: we are approximating its imaginary part in our numerics just by the pole
990: contribution $M_{rem}^{pole}$.
991:
992:
993:
994: \section{Numerical solutions and results}
995:
996: First, let us describe some technical points of our numerical
997: treatment. First, consider the spectral approach which is simpler from
998: the numerical point of view. After the formal derivation of the DRs for
999: electron self-energy and vacuum polarization function we introduce the
1000: positive cut-off $\Lambda$ in the following way
1001: %
1002: \be
1003: F(s)=\int_T^{\Lambda^2} dx\, \frac{s\rho(s)}{x(s-x+i\epsilon)}\, ,
1004: \ee
1005: %
1006: where the function $F$ represents $\Pi$ or $\Sigma$. That is, the
1007: absorptive parts of proper function $\pi\rho(s)$ is modified by a step
1008: function $\rho(s)\rightarrow \rho(s)\Theta (\Lambda^2-s)$. The same
1009: cut-off is then formally introduced into the Lehmann representation
1010: for propagators. With the cut-off implemented the set of equations that
1011: have been numerically solved comprise: the coupled nonlinear integral
1012: unitary equations (\ref{eqforphot}),(\ref{Tak2}) for photon and
1013: electron Lehmann functions, the equation for absorptive part of
1014: self-energies (\ref{skutek},\ref{hmotny},\ref{kick}) and necessary
1015: conditions (\ref{masspole},\ref{residuum}). This set of equations is
1016: solved by iterations. Then the various Green's functions are calculated
1017: through the appropriate DRs and considered to be physical for
1018: $|p^2|<\Lambda^2$.
1019:
1020: We have found that no other approximation is necessary and the unitary
1021: form of DSEs converges under the iteration procedure, no matter
1022: whether the bare or BC vertex is used. This procedure naturally fails
1023: when the employed cut-off is rather close to the expected singularity
1024: of the running constant. Before this numerics fails one observes only a
1025: trace of this singularity -- the large growth of the effective charge
1026: at $p^2$ close to $\Lambda^2$ Fig.~1). Then the dynamical mass appears
1027: to be negative at large value of timelike momenta (see the curve for
1028: $\Lambda^2=10^7$ and $\alpha(0)=0.4$ in Fig.~4).
1029:
1030: In our Euclidean treatment we adopted the simplest cut-off functions:
1031: The Heaviside step function $\Theta(-k_E^2+\Lambda^2)$ has been
1032: introduced into the kernel of DSEs (\ref{bloch1}),(\ref{bloch2}),
1033: i.e., upper bound of integrals is replaced $\infty \rightarrow
1034: \Lambda^2_E$. The value of the cut-off $\Lambda_E=10^7 M^2(0)$ is taken
1035: to be exactly the same as in the spectral technique described above,
1036: where the zero momentum electron mass $M(0)$ is used as a scale. After
1037: the subtraction the DSEs for renormalized photon polarization $\Pi$ and
1038: dynamical mass $M$ have been solved on suitable grid $p_i^2 \in
1039: (0,\Lambda^2)$. For the bare vertex the equations can be solved by
1040: iteration without any numerical problem. The form of the BC vertex
1041: makes the numerical procedure more difficult, even in the quenched
1042: approximation. For the unquenched solution this is even more
1043: troublesome due to uncontrolled oscillations of the numerical
1044: iterations of the running charge in the infrared region. Hence we
1045: approximate the finite difference in (\ref{bloch1}),(\ref{bloch2}) by
1046: the appropriate differentiation- (the similar trick was used in the
1047: paper \cite{FISCHER}). Explicitly, we replace:
1048: %
1049: \be \label{aproxim}
1050: \frac{(M(y)-M(z))}{y-z}\rightarrow M'(y) \, .
1051: \ee
1052: %
1053: After making this approximation in the Euclidean DSEs with BC vertex we
1054: were able to find the numerical solution for the coupling up to the
1055: half of the critical coupling for the bare vertex approximation.
1056:
1057: The DSEs has to be renormalized with the help of subtraction (both in
1058: bare vertex approximation and the BC vertex, modified as discussed
1059: above). Since in this case the subtraction cannot be done analytically
1060: (unlike in the Minkowski treatment), one has to implement it
1061: numerically, which is not straightforward as we describe below. The
1062: following expression for polarization function
1063: %
1064: \be
1065: \Pi(x)=\int dx\, f(x,y)/x \, ,
1066: \label{pigen}
1067: \ee
1068: %
1069: need to be renormalized so that $\Pi_R(0)=0$ (for the explicit form of
1070: the function $f$ see (\ref{bloch2})). Doing this numerically with
1071: reasonably high accuracy is not as simple task as for the spectral
1072: approach or in a perturbation theory. We first solved the equation for
1073: the quantity
1074: %
1075: \be
1076: \tilde{\Pi}(x)=\int dx \left[f(x,y)-f(0,y)\right]/x \, . \ee
1077: %
1078: After finding the solution for $\tilde{\Pi}$ we looked the limit
1079: $x\rightarrow 0$ at which $\tilde{\Pi}(0) = K$ and subtracted this
1080: constant in order to obtain 'right' $\Pi_R(x)=\tilde{\Pi}(x)-K$. When
1081: one step is not sufficient we repeated the procedure. Without this we
1082: were not able to find the Euclidean solution an accuracy comparable
1083: with our Minkowski technique. For instance, for $\alpha=0.2$ making the
1084: subtraction directly for (\ref{pigen}) leads to 35 per cent
1085: underestimate of $\alpha(p^2)$ in the infrared region and 50 per cent
1086: underestimate in the ``ultraviolet'' region. Compared to this, five
1087: iterations of the procedure described above gives a satisfying with 0.2
1088: per cent deviation in the infrared, the subtraction constants in
1089: successive interpolations are $K_i=+0.35,-0.12,+0.03,-0.008,+0.002$.
1090: Furthermore, we use the linear interpolation and log (perturbative)
1091: extrapolation to evaluate functions $\Pi(z)$ and $M(z)$ at
1092: $z=x+y-2xy\cos{\theta}$ in Eqs (\ref{bloch1}),(\ref{bloch2}).
1093:
1094: In the both formalisms we use one common renormalization scale
1095: ($\mu^2=0$) to define the running coupling
1096: %
1097: \bea
1098: \label{running}
1099: \alpha(p^2)&=&\frac{\alpha}{1-\Pi_R(p^2)} \, , \nn \\
1100: \alpha&=&\frac{e^2_R}{(4\pi)} \, ,
1101: \eea
1102: %
1103: where we have explicitly used $\alpha=\alpha(0)$ and we omit explicit
1104: dependence on $\mu$ in R-label quantities for purpose of brevity. We
1105: use the same scale in order to renormalize the electron mass. As a mass
1106: scale of the theory we use $M^2(p^2=0)=1$ in arbitrary units. The
1107: momentum axis at all figures defined in this unit.
1108:
1109: When the coupling $\alpha$ increases the pole mass and the residuum of
1110: fermion propagator become different from their non-interacting values
1111: ($r=1 ; M_p=M(0)$). Couple of values of $r$ and $M_p$ following from
1112: our solutions of DSEs with bare and BC vertex are shown in the Tab.1.
1113: The residuum $r$ is clearly renormalization (and gauge fixing) scheme
1114: dependent quantity. However on the physical ground one can expect that
1115: 'one particle' contribution to an interacting
1116: particle propagator is less than one, i.e. we would have naively
1117: $r<1$, here the values of residua are greater
1118: then 1 which is the consequence of our subtraction scheme.
1119: Not surprisingly, if the similar scheme and the same gauge are employed than
1120: the property $r>1$ survive in the case of quark propagator too
1121: \cite{ALDEFIMA2003}.
1122:
1123:
1124: \begin{center}
1125: \small{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
1126: $\alpha $& 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.4 \\
1127: \hline
1128: $M_p /M(0)$ -BC& 1.044& 1.10 & 1.39 \\
1129: \hline
1130: $M_p /M(0)$ -BV& 1.042 & 1.09 & 1.23 \\
1131: \hline
1132: $r$ -BC &1.090& 1.22& 1.98 \\
1133: \hline
1134: r -BV& 1.085 & 1.19 & 1.53 \\
1135: \hline\hline
1136: \end{tabular}}
1137: \end{center}
1138: Tab.1 Pole mass and residua of pole part of the electron
1139: propagator. The label BC(BV) means the results calculated with BC
1140: (bare) vertices. The coupling $\alpha$ is the value of running
1141: charge at zero momenta.
1142:
1143:
1144: Let us finally compare our numerical results obtained in the both
1145: formalisms with bare or BC vertices. The so-called photon
1146: renormalization functions $G$ (it is defined by $G=\alpha(p^2)/\alpha$)
1147: are compared for spacelike momenta in Fig.~1. One sees excellent
1148: agreement between the solutions obtained in spectral and Euclidean
1149: formalism. The one-loop perturbation theory (PT) result is added for
1150: comparison. The correct pole mass $M_p$ is used in perturbative
1151: formulas. The PT results always below the lines corresponding to the
1152: DSEs solutions. This can be easily read from the bar vertex form of the
1153: Euclidean DSE: the decreasing $M(x)$ enhances the function $|\Pi|$,
1154: which being negative must enhance $\alpha(x)$. The same functions $G$
1155: are displayed for timelike momenta in Fig.~2., where only the results
1156: obtained from the unitary equations are presented. Again we would like
1157: to stress that the differences between the solutions with bare and BC
1158: vertices are very small.
1159:
1160: The expected exceptions are solutions with the value coupling constant
1161: close to the one for which the numerical solutions fail, that is
1162: $\alpha_c \simeq 0.41$ and corresponding $G(p^2=-\Lambda^2)\simeq \Re
1163: G(p^2=\Lambda^2) \simeq 2.6$. The dynamical fermion mass obtained from
1164: DSEs is displayed for spacelike regime of momenta in Fig.~3. The small
1165: deviation of Euclidean results from the spectral ones can be explained
1166: as a numerical error. The Fig.~4 shows the difference that follows from
1167: the use of different vertices. The absorptive parts of $M$ for bare
1168: vertex approximation are also displayed in this Fig. for the same
1169: coupling $\alpha=0.1, 0.2, 0.4$. The negative damp of $\Re M$ is observed
1170: for $\alpha=0.4$. At the end we should remind the reader that the bare vertex
1171: solution was already obtain by Rakow in the paper \cite{RAKOW}.
1172: The aforementioned approximative independence on the cutoff value
1173: was explicitly shown in this work. In order to check the consistence we
1174: took the cutoff to be as in the paper \cite{RAKOW}, for instance:
1175: $M(0)/\Lambda=10^{-3}$ together with increasing of the renormalized coupling as
1176: $ \alpha=0.5$ then we the agreement between us and the Rakow solution
1177: was found.
1178:
1179:
1180:
1181:
1182: \section{Conclusion}
1183:
1184:
1185: The Dyson-Schwinger equations for strong coupling QED were solved in the truncation
1186: which respects the gauge identity.
1187: It is the first time when the Minkowski and the Euclidean solutions
1188: for lowest QED Green functions were made.
1189: Working in the Landau gauge we have found a good numerical agreement
1190: between the solutions obtained in these two technically
1191: different frameworks. From this we argue that the electron as well as the photon
1192: propagator posses the standard textbook spectral (Lehmann) representations.
1193: We showed that at least up to the certain renormalized coupling
1194: the proper Green functions - the photon polarization function
1195: as well as the electron selfenergy- satisfy appropriately subtracted dispersion relations.
1196: The form of them corresponds with the results already known
1197: from the conventional perturbation theory.
1198: In the other words, there is no significant signal for complex singularity of the propagators,
1199: which posibility is sometimes sugested in the literature.
1200:
1201: In the other side,
1202: the small difference between the Minkowski and the Euclidean solutions cannot
1203: fully excluded such situation, but from the smallness of observed
1204: we can speculate that this effect must be rather negligible
1205: even for rather strong coupling case $\alpha(p^2=0;\Lambda=10^4m)\simeq 0.4$.
1206:
1207: Triviality of QED was confirmed in our approach. We did not find the possibility
1208: to send the appropriate ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$ to infinity with simultaneous keeping
1209: the renormalized coupling non-zero. With increasing $\Lambda$ and
1210: with the non-zero bare electron mass
1211: we cannot observe a second order chiral phase transition
1212: as in the paper \cite{RAKOW} but instead of this we observe the appearance of Landau singularity
1213: in the running charge.
1214: The obtained results were also compared with bare
1215: vertex approximation. In that case only the small violation from our
1216: 'gauge covariant' solution was observed. This difference is still small even for
1217: rather strong coupling case $\alpha(p^2=0;\Lambda=10^4m)\simeq 0.5$.
1218: The obtained solutions reduce to their perturbative counterpartners
1219: in small coupling limit. Furthermore, the explicit comparison with the one
1220: loop perturbation theory was made. Note, that the triviality statement is confirmed
1221: in these two later cases too.
1222:
1223: There is still missing link between theory with $m_0=0$
1224: (in chiral symmetry phase as well as in chiral symmetry broken phase)
1225: and our dispersion technique in used. Nevertheless, we believe that the
1226: possibility to extract the
1227: information about the timelike behavior of Green functions from
1228: spectral approach remains the main attractive feature when
1229: compared with usual Euclidean approach.
1230: After a certain automatization of the dispersion relations evaluation
1231: the method should be extend-able to a more
1232: complex theories. The certain progress was already achieved in QCD and the results
1233: will be published elsewhere. There is also a broad scope for possible future
1234: investigations in pure QED:study of $S-matrix$ property when
1235: it is composed from dressed Green-functions, the
1236: study of bound states with dressed propagators,
1237: including transverse correction to the vertex, etc..
1238:
1239: \begin{center}
1240: Acknowledgments
1241: \end{center}
1242: This work was supported by GA \v{C}R under contract n.~202/03/0210.
1243:
1244: %$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
1245: \appendix
1246:
1247:
1248: \section{Assorted Integrals}
1249:
1250: In this Appendix we list several useful relation. The following
1251: integral has been used many times in the last step of derivations of
1252: DRs:
1253: %
1254: \be \label{sigi}
1255: X_n(\omega,a,b)=\int_0^1 \Theta(\omega-a/(1-x)-b/x) x^n dx \quad,
1256: \ee
1257: where $a,b$ are positive real numbers. For the several lowest $n$
1258: it equals:
1259: %
1260:
1261: \bea
1262: X_0(\omega,a,b)&=&\frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)}{\omega}
1263: \Theta(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2) \, ,
1264: \nn \\
1265: X_1(\omega,a,b)&=&\frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)[\omega+b-a]}{2\omega^2}
1266: \Theta(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2) \, ,
1267: \nn \\
1268: X_2(\omega,a,b)&=&\frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)
1269: [(\omega+b-a)^2-\omega b]}{3\omega^3}
1270: \Theta(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2) \, ,
1271: \nn \\
1272: X_3(\omega,a,b)&=&\frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,a,b)
1273: [\omega+b-a][(\omega+b-a)^2-2\omega b]}{4\omega^4}
1274: \Theta(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2)\, ,
1275: \eea
1276: %
1277: where $\Delta$ is the triangle function (\ref{triangle}). The variable
1278: $x$ in (\ref{sigi}) appears from the Feynman parametrization of
1279: products of the inverse scalar propagators $D_{1,2}$:
1280: %
1281: \be
1282: D_1^{-\alpha} D_2^{-\beta}=\int_0^1 dx\,
1283: \frac {x^{\alpha-1}(1-x)^{\beta-1}\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)}
1284: {[D_1x+D_2(1-x)]^{ (\alpha+\beta)}\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}
1285: \ee
1286: %
1287: or from the difference of the propagators $D_{1,2}$
1288: %
1289: \be
1290: D_1^{-\alpha}-D_2^{-\alpha}=\int_0^1 dx\, \frac {(D_2-D_1)\alpha}
1291: {[D_1x+D_2(1-x)]^{ (\alpha+1)}}\:.
1292: \ee
1293: %
1294: %$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
1295: \section{ Derivation of $\Pi_{R(rem)}$}
1296:
1297: In this Appendix we derive DR for the function $\Pi_{U(rem)}$. To this
1298: end we formally interchange the labeling of the variables
1299: $a\leftrightarrow b $ in the last term of
1300: Eq.\ (\ref{holina}). Further we substitute $l\rightarrow -l+q$ which
1301: yields
1302: %
1303: \be
1304: \label{domino}
1305: \Pi_{U(rem)}(q^2)=\frac{4e^2}{3q^2}\int d_l\,
1306: \frac{ \sigma_v(a)\sigma_s(b)\rho_S(c)\left[4l^2-16
1307: \frac{(l\cdot q)^2}{q^2}+20l\cdot q-6q^2\right]}
1308: {[(l-q)^2-a][l^2-b][(l-q)^2-c][l^2-c]} \, ,
1309: \ee
1310: %
1311: where we have used the dispersion relation formulas for $M$
1312: (\ref{selfcon}) in order to evaluate their shifted argument difference:
1313: %
1314: \be
1315: -\frac{M(l)-M(l-q)}{l^2-(l-q)^2}=\int dc \, \frac{\rho_S(c)}{[(l-q)^2-c][l^2-c]}
1316: \, ,
1317: \ee
1318: which is invariant under the shift $l\rightarrow -l+q$.
1319:
1320: Next it is convenient to rewrite the product of four denominators in (\ref{domino})
1321: making use of
1322: %
1323: \bea \label{simply}
1324: \left\{[(l-q)^2-a][l^2-b][(l-q)^2-c][l^2-c]\right\}^{-1}
1325: &=&\frac{I(q;c,c)+I(q;a,b)-I(q;a,c)-I(q;c,b)}
1326: {(c-b)(c-a)} \, , \nn
1327: \\
1328: I(q;a,b)&=&\left\{[(l-q)^2-a][l^2-b]\right\}^{-1}.
1329: \eea
1330: %
1331: It is sufficient to deal only with one term on rhs. of (\ref{simply}),
1332: the others are obtained simple by changing the spectral variables (the
1333: logarithmic divergence appears but it cancels against the same
1334: contribution of three remaining terms). For instance choosing the
1335: variable $a,c$ and making a shift $x\rightarrow 1-x$ leads after the
1336: subtraction to:
1337: %
1338: \be
1339: \frac{4e^2}{3(4\pi)^2}\int_0^1 dx
1340: \int_{\frac{c x+a(1-x)}{x(1-x)}}^{\infty} d\omega \,
1341: \frac{\sigma_v(a)\sigma_s(b)(2+4x-12x^2)(q^2-\mu^2)}
1342: {(\omega-\mu^2)(q^2-\omega)(c-b)(c-a)} \, .
1343: \ee
1344: %
1345: Integrating over the Feynman variable $x$ yields
1346: %
1347: \be
1348: \frac{4e^2}{3(4\pi)^2}\int_0^1 dx \int_{\frac{c x+a(1-x)}{x(1-x)}}^{\infty}
1349: d\omega \,
1350: \frac{ \sigma_v(a)\sigma_s(b)(2X_0+4X_1-12X_2)(q^2-\mu^2)}
1351: {(\omega-\mu^2)(q^2-\omega)(c-b)(c-a)} \, ,
1352: \ee
1353: %
1354: where $X_n$ is the shorthand notation for the function $
1355: X_n(\omega,c,a)$ introduced in the Appendix A. Gathering all
1356: expressions together one gets the dispersion relation for the
1357: polarization function $\Pi_{R(rem)}$:
1358: %
1359: \bea \label{dolina}
1360: \Pi_{R(rem)}(q^2,\mu^2)&=&\frac{8e^2}{3(4\pi)^2}
1361: \int_{m^2}^{\infty}d\omega \,
1362: \frac{ \sigma_v(a)\sigma_s(b)(q^2-\mu^2)}
1363: {(\omega-\mu^2)(q^2-\omega)} \nn\\
1364: &&
1365: \left\{\frac{F(\omega,c,c)-F(\omega,c,a)+F(\omega,b,a)-F(\omega,b,c)}{(c-b)(c-a)}\right\}
1366: \, ,
1367: \nn \\
1368: F(\omega,c,a)&=&\frac{\Delta^{1/2}(\omega,c,a)}{\omega}
1369: \left[\frac{a+c}{\omega}-2\frac{a-c}{\omega}\left(1+\frac{a-c}{\omega}\right)\right]
1370: \Theta\left(\omega-(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{c})^2\right)\:.
1371: \eea
1372:
1373: %@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
1374: \section{ Dispersion relation for $M_{(rem)}$}
1375:
1376: In this Appendix we derive the absorptive part of Eq.\ (\ref{vysl}).
1377: We start from the relation (\ref{easy}) and consider the dominant
1378: contribution that following from the pole of photon propagator, i.e.
1379: $\sigma_{\gamma}(b)=r_{\gamma}\delta(\beta)$. In addition we make the
1380: substitution $\Omega=\frac{a x+o(1-x)}{1-z}$ which leads to the
1381: following double dispersion integral:
1382: %
1383: \bea
1384: &&\frac{3p^2e^2}{(4\pi)^2} \int_0^1 dx \int_{ax+o(1-x)}^{\infty}
1385: d\Omega\, \frac{ax+o(1-x)}{\Omega^2(p^2-\Omega)}\,
1386: \frac{\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(o)}{p^2-o}
1387: \\
1388: \label{vojeb}
1389: &&\approx\frac{3p^2e^2}{2(4\pi)^2} \int_{\frac{a+o}{2}}^{\infty}
1390: d\Omega\, \frac{a+o}{\Omega^2(p^2-\Omega)}\,
1391: \frac{\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(o)}{p^2-o}
1392: \eea
1393: %
1394: The last step is to use algebraic identity
1395: %
1396: \be
1397: \frac{1}{(p^2-\Omega)(p^2-o)}=
1398: \frac{1}{\Omega-o}\left\{\frac{1}{p^2-\Omega}-\frac{1}{p^2-o}\right\}
1399: \label{iident} \ee
1400: %
1401: and re-write the double DR as the difference of single DRs.
1402: Substituting (\ref{iident}) into (\ref{vojeb}) we relabel
1403: $\Omega\rightarrow \omega,o\rightarrow u$ in the first term and
1404: $\Omega\rightarrow u,o\rightarrow \omega$ in the second one. This
1405: cosmetics leads to the unsubtracted DR:
1406: %
1407: \bea
1408: \label{pppr}
1409: \frac{3p^2e^2}{2(4\pi)^2} \left\{P\cdot
1410: \int_{m^2}^{\infty}du \int_{\frac{a+u}{2}}^{\infty}d\omega
1411: \frac{(a+u)\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(u)}{\omega^2(\omega-u)(p^2-\omega)} +
1412: P\cdot \int_{m^2}^{\infty}d\omega\int_\frac{a+\omega}{2}^{\infty}du
1413: \frac{(\omega+a)\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(\omega)}{u^2(\omega-u)(p^2-\omega)}\right\}\:.
1414: \eea
1415: %
1416: Taking a subtraction at the point $\mu$ we get for $M_{(rem)}(p^2)$
1417: once subtracted DR with the weight function $\rho_{(rem)}$:
1418: %
1419: \bea \label{kick}
1420: \rho_{(rem)}(\omega)&=&\frac{3e^2}{2(4\pi)^2} P\cdot \int_{m^2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\omega-u}
1421: \nn\\
1422: &&
1423: \left[\frac{u+a}{\omega^2}\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(u)\Theta\left(\omega-\frac{u+a}{2}\right)+
1424: \frac{\omega+a}{u^2}\sigma_v(a)\rho_S(\omega)\Theta\left(u-\frac{\omega+a}{2}\right)\right]
1425: \, .
1426: \eea
1427:
1428:
1429:
1430:
1431: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1432:
1433: \bibitem{ALDEFIMA2003}
1434: R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C.S. Fischer, P. Maris, hep-ph/0309077.
1435:
1436: \bibitem{CONV}
1437: in this paper we use the Minkowski metric $g_{\mu\nu}=diag(1,-1,-1,-1)$, and hence
1438: $p_E^2=-p^2$ for negative (spacelike) $p^2$.
1439:
1440: \bibitem{FISCHER}
1441: C.S. Fischer R. Alkofer, hep-ph/0301094.
1442:
1443: \bibitem{KON2003}
1444: K. Kondo, hep-th/0303251.
1445:
1446: \bibitem{SAULI}
1447: V.\v{S}auli, JHEP {\bf02}, 001 (2003).
1448:
1449: \bibitem{BALLCHIU}
1450: J.S. Ball and T-W. Chiu, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 22}, 2542
1451: (1980).
1452:
1453: \bibitem{BICUDO}
1454: P. Bicudo, arXiv:hep-ph/0312373.
1455:
1456: \bibitem{BURDEN}
1457: C.J. Burden, C.D. Roberts, A.G. Williams,
1458: {\it Phys. Lett.} B 285, 347 (1992).
1459:
1460: \bibitem{MUNNEM}
1461: H.J. Munczek, A.M. Nemirovsky,
1462: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 28}, 181 (1983).
1463:
1464: \bibitem{MUNCZEK}
1465: H.J. Munczek,
1466: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 175}, 215 (1986).
1467:
1468: \bibitem{CURTIS}
1469: D.C. Curtis and M.R. Pennington, {\it
1470: Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 42}, 4165 (1990).
1471:
1472: \bibitem{LANDAU}
1473: L.D. Landau, {\it On the Quantum Field Theory, in Niels Bohr and
1474: the Development of Physics,} ed. W. Pauli Pergamon, London (1955).
1475:
1476: \bibitem{WILLIAMS}
1477: F.T.Hawes, T.Sizer and A.G.Williams, {\it Phys. Rev.}
1478: D {\bf55}, 3866 (1997.
1479:
1480: \bibitem {BLOCH}
1481: J.C.R. Bloch, Ph.D. thesis - University of Durham (1995),
1482: hep-ph/0208074.
1483:
1484: \bibitem{BENDER}
1485: A. Bender, W. Detmold, C.D. Roberts, A.W. Thomas,
1486: {\it Phys.Rev.} C{\bf65}, 065203 (2002).
1487:
1488: \bibitem{ROBERTEK}
1489: P. Maris, C.D. Roberts, nucl-th/0301049.
1490:
1491: \bibitem{KING}
1492: S.F. King, {\it Rept.Prog.Phys.} {\bf 58}, 263 (1995).
1493:
1494: \bibitem{HAWES}
1495: F.T. Hawes, A.G. Williams, {\it Phys.Rev.}, D{\bf51}3081 (1995).
1496:
1497: \bibitem{HAWES1} F.T. Hawes, A.G.Williams, C.D. Roberts,
1498: {\it Phys.Rev.}D {\bf 54}, (1996).
1499:
1500: \bibitem{RAKOW}
1501: P.E.L. Rakow, {\it Nuc. Phys.}
1502: {\bf B 356}, 27 (1990).
1503:
1504: \bibitem{PENNINGTON}
1505: A. Kizilersu, M. Reenders, M.R. Pennington,
1506: {\it Phys.Rev.} D{\bf 52}, 1242 (1995).
1507:
1508: \bibitem{DONG}
1509: Z. Dong, H.J. Munczek, C.D. Roberts,
1510: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 333}, 536 (1994).
1511:
1512: \bibitem{BASHIR}
1513: A. Bashir, M.R. Pennington, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 50}, 7679 (1994).
1514:
1515: \bibitem{KONDO}
1516: K. Kondo and H. Nakatani
1517: {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 88}, 737 (1992).
1518:
1519: \bibitem{ZUBER}
1520: C. Itzykson and J-B. Zuber, {\it Quantum Field Theory},
1521: McGraw-Hill (1980).
1522:
1523: \bibitem{PENN2}
1524: J.C.R. Bloch and M.R. Pennington, {\it Mod.Phys.Lett.} A {\bf
1525: 10}, 1225, (1995).
1526:
1527: \bibitem{JOHNSON}
1528: M. Baker, K. Johnson, ,
1529: {\it Phys.Rev.} D{\bf3}, 2516 (1971).
1530:
1531: \bibitem{KUGO}
1532: R. Fukuda and T. Kugo, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 117}, 250 (1976).
1533:
1534: \bibitem{nevim}
1535: J.C. Collins and A.J.MacFarlane, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf10}, 1201
1536: (1974).
1537:
1538: \bibitem{BOGOLIUBOV}
1539: N.N. Bogoliubov, D.V. Shirkov, {\it Introduction to Theory of
1540: Quantum Fields}, Moskva (1957).
1541:
1542: \bibitem{SILVERS}
1543: W. Celmaster and D.Sivers, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf23}, 227 (1981).
1544:
1545:
1546: \end{thebibliography}
1547:
1548:
1549:
1550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1551: % ______________________appended figures_________________________________________%
1552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1553:
1554: \newpage
1555:
1556:
1557:
1558: \begin{figure}[t]
1559: \label{figjedna}
1560: \centerline{\mbox{\psfig{figure=foton2.eps,width=8.5truecm,height=12.5truecm,angle=270}
1561: }}
1562: \caption[caption]
1563: {Charge renormalization function
1564: $G=\alpha(p^2)/\alpha(0)$ obtained by solutions of DSEs. Each
1565: beam of lines is labeled by the corresponding coupling $\alpha(0)$.
1566: The results of leading order perturbation theory (dotted lines) always lie below
1567: the DSE result. Only one solution with the BC is shown in the figure
1568: (for $\alpha=0.4$), for smaller coupling the BC solutions would be undistinguishable
1569: from the bare vertex ones.}
1570: \end{figure}
1571:
1572: \begin{figure}[t]
1573: \label{figdva}
1574: \centerline{\mbox{\psfig{figure=fcompare.eps,width=8.5truecm,height=12.5truecm,angle=270}
1575: }} \caption[caption]
1576: {Spectral solutions for charge renormalization
1577: function $G$ for timelike momenta and for couplings:$\alpha=0.1, 0.2, 0.4$. The
1578: down oriented peaks correspond with the threshold $4M_p^2$. }
1579: \end{figure}
1580:
1581: \begin{figure}[t]
1582: \label{figtri}
1583: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfig{figure=dynnew.eps,width=8.5truecm,height=12.5truecm,angle=270}
1584: }} \caption[caption] {The comparison of dynamical mass $M(p^2)$
1585: obtained in Euclidean and Minkowski formalism for spacelike momenta.
1586: For comparison we added also one Euclidean solution calculated with
1587: the BC vertex (solved with approximations described in the section
1588: IV). }
1589: \end{figure}
1590:
1591: \begin{figure}[t]
1592: \label{figctyri}
1593: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfig{figure=dynnewtime.eps,width=8.5truecm,height=12.5truecm,angle=270}
1594: }} \caption[caption]{The absolute values of real and imaginary
1595: parts of the electron dynamical mass as obtained by solving the
1596: unitary equations. The position of the up oriented peaks
1597: correspond with the pole mass: $[M_p,M_p]$. The excess for the
1598: solution with $\alpha=0.4$ is shown, the real part of $M$ becomes
1599: negative at large momenta. }
1600: \end{figure}
1601:
1602:
1603:
1604: %\end{widetext}
1605:
1606:
1607: \end{document}
1608:
1609:
1610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FUTURE PAPER:%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1611:
1612:
1613: \bibitem{ALDEFIMA2003}
1614: R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C.S. Fischer, P. Maris, {Analytic properties of the Landau gauge
1615: gluon and quark propagator}, hep-ph/0309077.
1616:
1617: \bibitem{CONV}
1618: in this paper we use the Minkowski metric $g_{\mu\nu}=diag(1,-1,-1,-1)$, and hence
1619: $p_E^2=-p^2$ for negative (spacelike) $p^2$.
1620:
1621: \bibitem{FISCHER}
1622: C.S. Fischer R. Alkofer, {\it Non-perturbative Propagators,
1623: Running Coupling and Dynamical Quark Mass of Landau gauge QCD},
1624: hep-ph/0301094.
1625:
1626: \bibitem{KON2003}
1627: K. Kondo, {\it Implications of analyticity to mass gap, color confinement
1628: and infrared fixed point in Yang-Mills theory}
1629:
1630: \bibitem{CURTIS}
1631: D.C. Curtis and M.R. Pennington, { \it Truncating The
1632: Schwinger-Dyson Equations: How Multiplicative Renormalizability
1633: and the Ward identity Restrict the Three point vertex in QED},{\it
1634: Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 42}, 4165 (1990).
1635:
1636: \bibitem{SAULI}
1637: V.\v{S}auli, {\it Minkowski solution of Dyson-Schwinger equations
1638: in momentum subtraction scheme}, JHEP {\bf02}, 001 (2003).
1639:
1640: \bibitem{BALLCHIU}
1641: J.S. Ball and T-W. Chiu, {\it Analytic properties of the vertex
1642: function in gauge theories 1.},{\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 22}, 2542
1643: (1980).
1644:
1645: \bibitem{BURDEN}
1646: C.J. Burden, C.D. Roberts, A.G. Williams,
1647: {\it Phys. Lett.} B 285, 347 (1992).
1648:
1649: \bibitem{MUNNEM}
1650: H.J. Munczek, A.M. Nemirovsky,
1651: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 28}, 181 (1983).
1652:
1653: \bibitem{MUNCZEK}
1654: H.J. Munczek,
1655: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 175}, 215 (1986).
1656:
1657: \bibitem{LANDAU}
1658: L.D. Landau, {\it On the Quantum Field Theory, in Niels Bohr and
1659: the Development of Physics,} ed. W. Pauli Pergamon, London (1955).
1660:
1661: \bibitem{HAWES}
1662: F.T. Hawes, A.G. Williams, {\it Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Quenched Massive
1663: Strong-Coupling QED$_4$}, {\it Phys.Rev.}, D{\bf51}3081 (1995).
1664:
1665: \bibitem{HAWES1} F.T. Hawes, A.G.Williams, C.D. Roberts,
1666: {\it Renormalization and Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Quenched QED in Arbitrary Covariant Gauge}
1667: {\it Phys.Rev.}D {\bf 54}, (1996).
1668:
1669: \bibitem{WILLIAMS}
1670: F.T.Hawes, T.Sizer and A.G.Williams,{\it On Renormalized
1671: Strong-Coupling Quenched QED in Four Dimensions}, {\it Phys. Rev.}
1672: D {\bf55}, 3866 (1997.
1673:
1674: \bibitem{RAKOW}
1675: P.E.L. Rakow, {\it Renormalization group flow in QED -
1676: An investigation of the Schwinger-Dyson equation}, {\it Nuc. Phys.}
1677: {\bf B 356}, 27 (1990).
1678:
1679: \bibitem {BLOCH}
1680: J.C.R. Bloch, {\it Numerical Investigation of Fermion Mass
1681: Generation in QED}, Ph.D. thesis - University of Durham (1995),
1682: hep-ph/0208074.
1683:
1684: \bibitem{BENDER}
1685: A. Bender, W. Detmold, C.D. Roberts, A.W. Thomas,
1686: {\it Bethe-Salpeter equation and a nonperturbative quark-gluon
1687: vertex}, {\it Phys.Rev.} C{\bf65}, 065203 (2002).
1688:
1689: \bibitem{ROBERTEK}
1690: P. Maris, C.D. Roberts, {\it Dyson-Schwinger equations: a tool for
1691: hadron physics}, nucl-th/0301049.
1692:
1693: \bibitem{KING}
1694: S.F. King, {\it Dynamical Electroweak Symmetry Breaking},
1695: {\it Rept.Prog.Phys.} {\bf 58}, 263 (1995).
1696:
1697: \bibitem{PENNINGTON}
1698: A. Kizilersu, M. Reenders, M.R. Pennington,
1699: {\it One loop QED vertex in any covariant gauge: its complete
1700: analytic form}, {\it Phys.Rev.} D{\bf 52}, 1242 (1995).
1701:
1702: \bibitem{KONDO}
1703: K. Kondo and H. Nakatani {\it Strong Coupling Unquenched QED. II},
1704: {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 88}, 737 (1992).
1705:
1706: \bibitem{ZUBER}
1707: C. Itzykson and J-B. Zuber, {\it Quantum Field Theory},
1708: McGraw-Hill (1980).
1709:
1710: \bibitem{PENN2}
1711: J.C.R. Bloch and M.R. Pennington, {\it Numerical cancellation of
1712: phton quadratic divergence in the study of the Schwinger-Dyson
1713: Equations in Strong Coupling QED}, {\it Mod.Phys.Lett.} A {\bf
1714: 10}, 1225, (1995).
1715:
1716: \bibitem{JOHNSON}
1717: M. Baker, K. Johnson, {\it Asymptotic form of the electron
1718: propagator and the selfmass of the electron},
1719: {\it Phys.Rev.} D{\bf3}, 2516 (1971).
1720:
1721: \bibitem{KUGO}
1722: R. Fukuda and T. Kugo, {\it Schwinger-Dyson equation for massless vector
1723: theory and the absence of a fermion pole}, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 117}, 250 (1976).
1724:
1725: \bibitem{nevim}
1726: J.C. Collins and A.J.MacFarlane, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf10}, 1201
1727: (1974).
1728:
1729: \bibitem{BOGOLIUBOV}
1730: N.N. Bogoliubov, D.V. Shirkov, {\it Introduction to Theory of
1731: Quantum Fields}, Moskva (1957).
1732:
1733: \bibitem{SILVERS}
1734: W. Celmaster and D.Sivers, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf23}, 227 (1981).
1735:
1736:
1737: