1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: 

3: %\usepackage{axodraw}

4: %\documentstyle[12pt,openbib,epsfig]{article}

5: %\nofiles

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: %twocolumn

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

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

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

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

12: \def\a{\alpha}

13: \def\b{\beta}

14: %\def\c{\chi}

15: \def\D{\Delta}

16: \def\L{\Lambda}

17: \def\S{\Sigma}

18: \def\n{\eta}

19: \def\g{\gamma}

20: \def\G{\Gamma}

21: \def\e{\epsilon}

22: \def\m{\mu}

23: %\def\l{\label}

24: \def\P{\Pi}

25: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

26: \def\d{\delta}

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

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

29: \def\gc{\<{\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}}G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}\>}

30: \def\a2{\<A^{\mu}A_{\mu}\>}

31: \def\G{\Gamma}

32: 

33: \begin{document}

34: 

35: \begin{frontmatter}

36: 

37: 

38: \title{A dynamical gluon mass solution in Mandelstam's approximation}

39: \author[ift]{A. C. Aguilar}

40: \ead{aguilar@ift.unesp.br}

41: \author[ift]{A. A. Natale}

42: \ead{natale@ift.unesp.br}

43: \address[ift]{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica,

44: Universidade Estadual Paulista\\

45: Rua Pamplona 145,

46: 01405-900, S\~ao Paulo, SP,

47: Brazil

48: }%

49: \date{\today}

50: 

51: 

52: \begin{abstract}

53: 

54: We discuss the pure gauge Schwinger-Dyson equation for the gluon propagator in the Landau gauge within an approximation

55: proposed by Mandelstam many years ago. We show that a dynamical gluon mass arises as a solution. 

56: This solution is obtained numerically in the full range of momenta that we have considered without 

57: the introduction of

58: any ansatz or asymptotic expression in the infrared region. The vertex function that we use follows a

59: prescription formulated by Cornwall to determine the existence of a dynamical gluon mass in the

60:  light cone gauge. The renormalization procedure differs from the one proposed by Mandelstam and allows for the possibility of a dynamical gluon mass.

61: Some of the properties of this solution, such as its dependence on $\Lambda_{QCD}$ and

62: its perturbative scaling behavior are also discussed.

63: 

64: 

65: 

66: \end{abstract}

67: 

68: 

69: \begin{keyword}

70: 

71: Nonperturbative QCD; Gluon Schwinger-Dyson Equation; Infrared Gluon Propagator

72: 

73: \PACS 12.38-t ; 11.15.Tk 

74: 

75: \end{keyword}

76: 

77: \end{frontmatter}

78: 

79: \section{Introduction}

80: 

81: 

82: It is widely believed that Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory which describes the strong

83:  interaction. For this theory we

84: know that  perturbation

85: theory has become a  reliable field theoretical method of calculating and predicting most of the

86:  quantities  in processes where high energies are

87: transferred between quarks and gluons.

88: 

89: This successful procedure to deal with the strongly interacting phenomena is known to be inadequate 

90: when it is applied to the infrared region.

91: There are phenomena at low energies such as dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, that, in

92: principle, could only be described when all orders of perturbation theory are taken into account,

93:  it means that they are necessarily

94: of a non-perturbative nature.

95: 

96: To bridge the gap between these two regions, infrared and ultraviolet, two main non-perturbative 

97: approaches are available, the lattice

98: theory which is based on discretization of space-time and a continuum one which makes use of an 

99: infinite tower of coupled integral

100: equations that contain all the information about the theory - the so called Schwinger-Dyson

101:  Equations (SDE).

102: 

103: In the continuum, we hope that the SDE provide an appropriate framework to study the transition 

104: from the perturbative to the non-perturbative

105: behavior of the QCD Green functions. However, its intricate structure only become tractable when

106:  we make some approximations.

107: 

108: Many attempts have been made to understand the gluon propagator behavior through SDE. In the 

109: late seventies Mandelstam initiated the

110: study of the gluon SDE in the Landau gauge \cite{mand}. Neglecting the ghost fields contribution 

111: and imposing cancellations of certain terms in the gluon polarization

112: tensor, he found a highly singular gluon propagator in the infrared. This enhanced gluon propagator

113:  was appraised for many years in the literature,

114: firstly because it provided a simple picture of quark confinement \cite{west}, since it is possible

115:  to derive from it an interquark potential that rises linearly

116: with the separation, and secondly because a gluon propagator, which is singular as $1/q^4$, has

117:  enough strength to support dynamical chiral

118: symmetry breaking, as it was claimed in the studies of the quark-SDE.  This approximation 

119: and its solution were extensively

120: studied by Pennington and collaborators \cite{Brown}.

121: However, these results are discarded by simulations of QCD on the

122: lattice at $95 \% $ confidence level \cite{mar}, where it is shown

123: that the gluon propagator is probably infrared finite.

124: 

125: Infrared finite solutions are also found in the Schwinger-Dyson approach, as result of different

126:  procedures. Many years ago, making use

127: of the ``pinch technique", Cornwall built up a gluon equation trading the conventional 

128: gauge-dependent SDE by one formed by gauge-independent

129: blocks. Analyzing this new equation, he obtained a gluon propagator endowed with a dynamical 

130: mass \cite{cornwall}. 

131: 

132: Recently, a quite extensive work on pure gauge SDE has been done

133: by the authors of Ref.\cite{alkofer} where they have shown that

134: when the ghost fields are taken into account, the  gluon propagator is suppressed and the ghost 

135: propagator is enhanced in the infrared region. Such solution was shown to satisfy the Kugo-Ojima 

136: confinement criterion \cite{kugo,alkugo}. These propagators exhibit an

137: infrared asymptotic power law behavior which is characterized by

138: a critical exponent $\kappa$. Axiomatic considerations \cite{kondo} and the 

139: latest results of the coupled gluon-ghost SDE seems to suggest

140: that $\kappa=0.5$ is allowed \cite{bl2}, signaling the possibility of

141: dynamical mass generation for the gluon.

142: 

143: All these solutions appear because different approximations were used and furthermore it is

144:  also perfectly possible that in the

145: same approximation more than one solution arise. It is interesting to note that, according to 

146: Mandelstam's work (see the comments

147: after Eq.(2.16) of Ref.\cite{mand}), a massive gluon solution was discarded from the beginning 

148: in his study.

149: 

150: It is important to stress at this point that a dynamical gluon mass does not break gauge invariance

151:  and is consistent

152: with {\sl massive} Slavnov-Taylor identities \cite{cornwall}. We would like to emphasize that

153: the presence of a dynamically generated

154: mass also does not mean that gluons can be considered as massive asymptotic states similar to 

155: dynamically generated quark mass does not

156: mean that quarks can be observed as massive asymptotic states. Why quarks and gluons are not 

157: observed as free states is the well known

158: problem of confinement. In the case of a theory with massive gluons we know that such theories 

159: admit  a vortex solution that may give a clue about the confinement

160: mechanism  \cite{cornwall,vortex}. Furthermore, a dynamically generated gluon mass is possibly

161:  connected to the existence of a QCD infrared fixed point \cite{ans}, whose presence has many

162:  phenomenological implications as nicely reviewed in Ref.\cite{brodsky}.

163: 

164: 

165: Our aim here is to revisit the gluon SDE within the Mandelstam approximation, in order to 

166: obtain a massive gluon solution. In section II, we

167: start building up  the gluon SDE, which embodies not just the full gluon propagator but also 

168: involves the  full triple gluon vertex. In order to allow

169: that a dynamical gluon mass takes place without breaking the relationship between  the Green's 

170: functions of different orders

171: which are imposed by the gauge invariance, the full triple gluon vertex behavior is modeled by a 

172: suitable Slavnov-Taylor identity.

173: Having found the gluon-SDE, the ultraviolet divergences will be removed by a subtractive renormalization 

174: procedure, in a similar way as

175: performed by Cornwall in Ref.\cite{cornwall}(although the equation is different), which introduces an arbitrary scale $\mu^2$ that

176:  can be related to the usual QCD

177: scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$. This discussion will appear in section III. We then solve the gluon equation

178:  by an iterative numerical procedure on the whole

179: range of momenta and present our results in section IV. In the present work we do not need to make

180:  any ansatz for the infrared solution.

181: Section V contains a discussion about the vacuum energy and stability of the solution. We draw our

182:  conclusions in section VI.

183: 

184: \vspace{0.5cm}

185: 

186: \section{The gluon equation in the Mandelstam's approximation}

187: 

188: 

189: The SDE are coupled integral equations which relate all the Green's functions of the theory.  

190: To illustrate how intricate is its structure we can look at what are the Green functions which 

191: are involved in the full gluon  equation.  Neglecting the fermionic interactions we can

192: see, in Fig.(\ref{fullesd}), that the  gluon propagator is written in terms of itself, the 

193: full 3 and 4-point gluon vertex, $\Gamma_{\mu\nu\rho}$ and $\Gamma_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$, and also 

194: the full ghost propagator and the gluon-ghost coupling.

195: 

196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

197: \begin{figure}[ht]

198: \vspace{-1.0 cm}

199: \begin{center}

200: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig2.ps}

201: \end{center}

202: \vspace{-8.5cm}

203: \caption{The complete Schwinger-Dyson equation for the gluon propagator without quarks. 

204: The spiral lines represent gluon

205: field and the dashed lines ghosts. The black blobs are the full propagators while the white 

206: ones are the full vertices.}

207: \label{fullesd}

208: \end{figure}

209: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

210: 

211: Actually, these unknown three and four point-functions obey their own SDE, which involve 

212: higher n-point functions which naturally must satisfy, in their turn, their own SDE. In fact,

213:  it is this entanglement of equations which makes  unavoidable the use of some truncation schemes.

214: 

215:  One famous truncation scheme is the Mandelstam's approximation where the fermion fields are 

216: neglected, since we believe that a pure Yang-Mills theory  must carry all the main features of QCD. 

217: Furthermore, based on perturbative results, the ghost fields are also neglected.

218: The justification, for the latter approximation is that the contribution which comes from 

219: the ghost field is supposed to be small even in the non-perturbative region. Therefore, this 

220: approximation can be represented pictorially by the graphics which compound  the first line of

221: the Fig.(\ref{fullesd}) and is written as \cite{mand}

222: %

223: \vspace{0.5cm}

224: \begin{eqnarray}

225: &&D^{-1\mu\nu}(k^2)=D_{0}^{-1\mu\nu}(k^2)  \nonumber \\

226: &&\hspace{1cm} +

227: g_{0}^{2}C_{2}\frac{1}{2}\int

228: \frac{d^{4}q}{(2\pi)^{4}}\Gamma_{0}^{\mu\rho\alpha}(k,-p,q)

229: D_{\alpha\beta}(q^2)D_{\rho\sigma}(p^2)\Gamma^{\beta\sigma\nu}

230: (-q,p,-k), \label{esd}

231: \end{eqnarray}

232: %

233: where $ p=k+q $, $ D_{0}$  and $ \Gamma_{0}$ are respectively  the propagator and

234: three-gluon vertex at tree level,

235: while $D$ and $ \Gamma $  are the two and three points full Green functions. In the case 

236: of the full gluon propagator in

237: Landau gauge, $D^{\mu\nu}$, we can write it as

238: %

239: \begin{equation}\label{prop1}

240: D^{\mu\nu}(q^2) = \left( \delta^{\mu\nu}

241: -\frac{q^{\mu}q^{\nu}}{q^2}  \right)\frac{{\mathcal Z}(q^2)}{q^2},

242: \end{equation}

243: %

244: where it will be useful to define the function, $D(q^2)$, in terms of the gluon

245:  renormalization function, ${\mathcal Z}(q^2)$.

246: %

247: \begin{equation}

248: D(q^2)=\frac{{\mathcal Z}(q^2)}{q^2}.

249: \label{func_d}

250: \end{equation}

251: %

252: 

253: Neglecting all contributions coming from ghosts fields, the Slavnov-Taylor identity 

254: between the three gluon vertex and the

255: inverse of the gluon propagator can be expressed in the following simple form

256: %

257: \begin{equation}

258: \label{slavnov}

259: k_{\mu}\Gamma^{\mu\nu\rho}(k,p,q)=  \frac{q^2}{{\mathcal{Z}}(q^2)}\left(\delta^{\nu\rho}

260: -\frac{q^{\nu}q^{\rho}}{q^2}\right) -

261: \frac{p^2}{{\mathcal{Z}}(p^2)}\left(\delta^{\nu\rho} -

262: \frac{p^{\nu}p^{\rho}}{p^2}\right).

263: \end{equation}

264: %

265: 

266: In order to allow that a massive gluon propagator will be also compatible with the 

267: Slavnov-Taylor identity expressed above, and supposing that  the

268: gluon renormalization function, ${\mathcal Z}(q^2)$ admits an expression of the following form

269: %

270: \begin{equation}

271: {\mathcal Z}(q^2)=\frac{q^2}{q^2+m^2},

272: \end{equation}

273: %

274: we note that it must be added new terms, that have massless poles, to the structure of

275:  the three gluon vertex, which, apart from a group theoretical factor, lead us to

276: a first modification that we should introduce in the construction of the full vertex, 

277: which is the one prescribed by Cornwall many years ago \cite{cornwall}

278: %

279: \begin{equation}\label{vpert}

280: \Gamma^{(m)}_{0\, \mu\nu\rho}(k,p,q)= (k-p)_{\rho}\delta_{\mu\nu}  +

281:  \frac{m^2}{2}\frac{k_{\mu}p_{\nu}

282: (k-p)_{\rho}}{k^2p^2} + \mbox{c.p.},

283: \end{equation}

284: %

285: where $c.p.$ means cyclic permutation, and, as discussed in Ref. \cite{cornwall},

286:  $\Gamma^{(m)}_{0\, \mu\nu\rho}$ is the vertex

287: for the massive theory.

288: 

289: As remarked by Corwnall \cite{cornwall}, during the procedure of construction of a vertex 

290: function which

291: automatically satisfied the Slavnov-Taylor identities, Ball and Chiu \cite{ball} have done a crucial assumption in order to

292: get a unique form for the longitudinal vertex. They supposed that the vertex should be free of kinematic singularities, since most of these singularities violate the general analyticity requirements of the vertex.  Therefore, 

293: tensorial structures  which have massless poles in three gluon vertex were explicitly excluded in their construction, despite the 

294: fact that they have already mentioned in the same work, that there are certain types which might naturally occur without the 

295: breakdown of analyticity in the

296: three gluon vertex, and one structure of this type is the one given by the second term 

297: in the right hand side of Eq.(\ref{vpert}).

298: 

299: It is important to bear in mind that the mass $m$ in Eq.(\ref{vpert}) has a momentum dependence 

300: and do not destroy the unitary behavior of the theory

301: \cite{cornwall}. Moreover, as stressed before, the role of the latter term from Eq.(\ref{vpert}), 

302: is  only to allow that the gluon propagator could

303: assume a non-zero value, {\it i.e. $D^{-1}(q^2=0)\neq 0$}, at the deep infrared region, without 

304: breaking the gauge invariance

305: imposed by the Slavnov-Taylor identity.  Exactly the massless poles of Eq.(\ref{vpert}) lead to

306:  the possibility of a mass gap, contrarily

307: to the solutions for the infrared gluon propagator behaving as $1/q^4$ found

308: in Ref.\cite{mand,baker} where a different vertex choice is made.

309: 

310: The next step in the Mandelstam approximation is to define the final expression for the full

311:  three gluon vertex. The form of the full three gluon vertex is \cite{Brown}

312: %

313: \begin{equation}

314: \Gamma^{\mu\nu\rho}(k,p,q) = \frac{1}{{\mathcal Z}(p^2)}\Gamma^{{(m)} \, \mu\nu\rho}_{0}(k,p,q).

315: \label{full}

316: \end{equation}

317: 

318: The use of the above full vertex, which is a combination of the Cornwall's and Mandelstam's

319:  prescriptions,

320: simplify even more the structure of gluon SDE than the use of the bare vertex, once it implies a 

321: cancellation

322: between  the gluon renormalization function which comes from a full gluon propagator and the one 

323: that comes from the full triple vertex.

324: %

325: \vspace{-2cm}

326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

327: \begin{figure}[ht]

328: \begin{center}

329: \hspace{-2.0 cm}

330: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig1.ps}

331: \end{center}

332: \vspace{-12cm}

333: \caption{The gluon Schwinger-Dyson equation in the Mandelstam's approximation.}

334: \label{apmad}

335: \end{figure}

336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

337: %

338: 

339: With the above expressions for the gluon propagators and vertices  and contracting this 

340: result with the projector, proposed by Brown and Pennington \cite{Brown},

341: %

342: \begin{equation}\label{proj}

343:   {\mathcal{R}}^{\mu\nu}(k) =\delta^{\mu\nu}

344:   -4\frac{k^{\mu}k^{\nu}}{k^2},

345: \end{equation}

346: %

347: the follow equation comes out,

348: %

349: 

350: \begin{eqnarray}\label{pennington}

351: \frac{1}{{\mathcal Z}(k^2)}= 1 &&+ \frac{g_{0}^2}{16\pi^2}

352: \int^{k^2}_{0}\frac{dq^2}{k^2} \left( \frac{7}{2}\frac{q^4}{k^4}

353: - \frac{17}{2}\frac{q^2}{k^2}

354: -\frac{9}{8}\right){\mathcal Z}(q^2) \nonumber \\&& \hspace{1.5cm}

355: +\frac{g_{0}^2}{16\pi^2}\int^{{\Lambda}^2}_{k^2}\frac{dq^2}{k^2}\,

356: \left( \frac{7}{8}\frac{k^4}{q^4} -

357: 7\frac{k^2}{q^2}\right){\mathcal Z}(q^2),

358: \label{fesd}

359: \end{eqnarray}

360: %

361: where $g_0$ is the bare coupling, we use the color factor, $C_{2}=3$ and $\Lambda$ is an ultraviolet 

362: cutoff which was introduced in

363: order to render the integral finite.

364: In fact, the great advantage of the Mandelstam approximation is that all the angular integrals can be performed analytically

365: leading us to a much simpler equation.

366: 

367: A remark concerning the  massive term of the three gluon vertex is in order.  This equation is

368:  exactly the same one obtained in Ref.\cite{Brown}.

369: Although the three gluon vertex has an extra term, no contributions come from it. Therefore, as mentioned before, its only role is to

370: allow that the inverse  gluon propagator can be different from zero at the origin consistently with the Slavnov-Taylor identity.

371: 

372: 

373: \section{Renormalization}

374: \label{rm}

375: 

376: The procedure to perform the renormalization of SDE in the Mandelstam's approximation 

377: consists in introducing the  gluon and

378: vertex  renormalization constants, $Z_3$ and $Z_{g}$, respectively which will absorb ultraviolet divergences of the equation. Through

379: these constants we can define the  following renormalized quantities

380: 

381: \begin{eqnarray}

382: D(q^2,\Lambda^2)&=&Z_3(\mu^2,\Lambda^2)D_R(q^2,\mu^2)    \nonumber \\

383: g_0(\Lambda^2)&=&Z_g(\mu^2,\Lambda^2)g(\mu^2),

384: \label{renor}

385: \end{eqnarray}

386: %

387: where $D_{R}$ and $g$ are the renormalized gluon propagator and the renormalized coupling.

388: 

389: Substituting into  the SDE, Eq.(\ref{fesd}), the nonrenormalized quantities, $D$ and $g_0$, by the renormalized ones lead us to

390: %

391: \begin{equation}\label{renorm}

392: D_{R}(k^2)= \left[k^2Z_{3} +

393: Z_{3}^{2}Z_{g}^{2}\frac{g^2(\mu^2)}{16\pi^2}{\mathcal {

394: I}}_{D_{R}}(k^2)\right]^{-1},

395: \end{equation}

396: %

397: where ${\mathcal{I}}_{D_R}(k^2)$ is given by

398: %

399: \begin{eqnarray}\label{funcional}

400: {\mathcal {

401: I}}_{D_{R}}(k^2)&=&\int^{k^2}_{0} dq^2\left(

402: \frac{7}{2}\frac{q^4}{k^4} - \frac{17}{2}\frac{q^2}{k^2}

403: -\frac{9}{8}\right)q^2D_{R}(q^2) \nonumber \\

404: &&\hspace{3cm}+\int^{{\Lambda}^2}_{k^2} dq^2\, \left(

405: \frac{7}{8}\frac{k^4}{q^4} - 7\frac{k^2}{q^2} \right)q^2D_{R}(q^2).

406: \end{eqnarray}

407: 

408: 

409: The vertex renormalization constant $Z_g$ can be eliminated from the Eq.(\ref{renorm}), using

410:  the identity, $Z_{g}Z_{3}=1$, which is  only valid in this approximation \cite{alk}. However, there

411:  still remains the gluon renormalization

412: constant $Z_3$ that is a naturally divergent quantity.

413: 

414: Despite all efforts to obtain a totally consistent renormalization of the gluonic SDE, be it in this

415:  truncation or even beyond the

416: Mandelstam approximation, we know that the renormalization of SDE is highly nontrivial. 

417: To illustrate this claim we notice that only in the

418: nineties, Curtis and Pennington pointed out a truncation scheme, for QED, which is gauge 

419: independent and also respect the multiplicative

420: renormalizability \cite{CP}. In the following we consider $Z_3$ as a factor which

421: renders the divergent terms of the gluon SDE in a finite one through a subtractive renormalization.

422: 

423: After imposing $Z_{g}Z_{3}=1$ in Eq.(\ref{renorm}) we are left with the following

424: equation

425: %

426: \begin{eqnarray}\label{presc}

427: D_{R}(k^2)^{-1}&=& k^2\left[ Z_3 + \frac{\alpha (\mu^2)}{4\pi} \int^{{\Lambda}^2}_{k^2} dq^2\, 

428: \left(- 7\right)D_{R}(q^2) \right] \nonumber \\

429: &+& \frac{\alpha (\mu^2)}{4\pi}

430: \int^{k^2}_{0} dq^2\left(

431: \frac{7}{2}\frac{q^4}{k^4} - \frac{17}{2}\frac{q^2}{k^2}

432: -\frac{9}{8}\right)q^2D_{R}(q^2)  \nonumber \\

433: &+& \frac{\alpha (\mu^2)}{4\pi}\int^{{\Lambda}^2}_{k^2} dq^2\, 

434: \frac{7}{8}\frac{k^4}{q^2}D_{R}(q^2)

435: \nonumber \\

436: \end{eqnarray}

437: %

438: where $ \alpha(\mu^2)=\frac{g^2(\mu^2)}{4\pi}$. $Z_3$ behaves as $1$ plus an infinite

439: piece. The factor $1$ is consistent with the perturbative behavior, and the infinite part of $Z_3$ must cancel the infinite part that comes out from the first integral in Eq.(\ref{presc}), which

440: is the only divergent integral in the above equation. 

441: 

442: It is important to notice that Eq.(\ref{presc}) is not of the same form as the one

443: shown in Ref.\cite{cornwall}, as well as we shall not follow the same procedure adopted up to now in the many papers to

444: renormalize the Mandelstam equation. In the previous papers where this equation

445: was solved it was verified that the dressing of the gluon propagator could behave as 

446: %

447: \begin{equation}

448: Z(k^2)= \frac{1}{A + B k^2 + J(k^2)}

449: \label{ABJ}

450: \end{equation}

451: %

452: The numerical solutions were then obtained assuming $A=0$ and $B=1$, which are not independent conditions. Note that these conditions are necessary to obtain a

453: solution compatible with the Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identities in the case of a massless

454: gluon. As discussed in the previous section, it is possible to introduce a new piece in the 

455: gluon vertex that makes the ST identities compatible with dynamical mass

456: generation for the gluons, alleviating any condition on $A$ and $B$.   

457: 

458: We will face $Z_3$ as the term that will eliminate the

459: infinite contribution of the following expression

460: %

461: \begin{equation}

462: Z_{3} - \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi}\int^{\Lambda^2}_{k^2} \, dq^2 

463: \,7 D_{R} (q^2) \,\,\, .

464: \label{refin}

465: \end{equation}

466: %

467: Of course, in the above subtraction there remains a finite contribution.

468: $D_R(q^2)$ must be known to perform the above calculation, but it is going to be

469: known only after we impose the renormalization conditions

470: 

471: %

472: \begin{equation}

473: {\mathcal{Z}_{R}}(\mu^2)=1,

474: \end{equation}

475: %

476: or equivalently

477: %

478: \begin{equation}

479: D_{R}^{-1}(\mu^2)=\mu^2.

480: \label{cond}

481: \end{equation}

482: %

483: 

484: The role of the above equation is to guarantee that exactly at the point $\mu^2$ we 

485: recover the bare

486: perturbative behavior, $D_R(q^2) = 1/q^2$. For this reason it is important that

487: the value of $\mu^2$ be fixed at a typical

488: perturbative scale, {\it i.e.}

489: it must satisfy the condition  $\mu^2 \gg \Lambda_{QCD}$.

490: 

491: Let us now discuss the prescription for the finite contribution to Eq.(\ref{refin}).

492: The solution usually found for the Mandelstam gluon propagator is of the form

493: $D_1(k^2)\approx 1/k^4$. But in principle, as long as we do not impose $A=0$ and $B=1$ as discussed

494: after Eq.(\ref{ABJ}), we cannot discard a solution behaving like $D_2(k^2) \approx 1/[(k^2+m^2)\ln (k^2+m^2)]$, which is a massive solution similar to the one found by Cornwall in Ref.\cite{cornwall}.  

495: 

496: If $D_R(q^2)$ behaves as $D_1(q^2)$ it is natural to have a finite contribution like

497: $\kappa_1/k^2$ in the integration of Eq.(\ref{refin}). The same is true for high

498: values of $k^2$ if $D_R(q^2)$ behaves as $D_2(q^2)$, since the integral

499: that appears in Eq.(\ref{refin}) will generate terms like $\ln\ln \Lambda^2$,

500:  $\ln\ln k^2$ and again a term proportional to $m^2/k^2$. It is also not likely that

501: the integral in Eq.(\ref{refin}) will give finite contributions like $\delta_n/(k^2)^n$ with $n\geq 2$, because this behavior is not consistent with any expected form of $D_R (q^2)$. As $\kappa_1$ and $m^2$ have exactly the same dimension, the simplest form of Eq.(\ref{refin})which is compatible with both behaviors 

502: is

503: %

504: \begin{equation}

505: Z_{3} - \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi}\int^{\Lambda^2}_{k^2} \, dq^2 

506: \, 7 D_{R} (q^2) = 1 + \frac{\kappa}{k^2} \,\, ,

507: \label{re2}

508: \end{equation}

509: %

510: where $\kappa$ has squared mass dimension and is going to be fixed by the 

511: renormalization procedure ($D_{R}^{-1}(\mu^2)=\mu^2$).

512: 

513: A more complex expression on the right-hand side would introduce new constants

514: besides $\kappa$, which could be fixed only in an {\sl ad hoc} fashion.

515: The $1$ in the right-hand side of the above expression corresponds to the first $Z_3$ term.

516: The choice we made in Eq.(\ref{re2}) does not obey

517: the conditions $A=0$ and $B=1$ that we discussed before, and, in  

518: principle, it allows even for a massive gluon solution.

519: This possibility is an actual one as long as we obtain

520: a stable solution for the final equation. 

521: 

522: In all the procedures used up to now to

523: solve the Mandelstam equation, it has been assumed a cancellation of

524: certain terms, and there is not any discussion about the finite terms that

525: survive renormalization. It is known that in perturbative calculations such finite

526: terms are nothing else than small quantum corrections which modifies the tree level value 

527: of the renormalized quantity. On the other hand the physical quantities which are

528: related to the non-perturbative dynamical mass generation will be exclusively generated by the quantum corrections. This means that such finite terms surviving renormalization are fundamental to the final result. 

529: 

530: With  the definition described by the Eq.(\ref{re2}) and imposing the renormalization condition

531: (\ref{cond}) into Eq.(\ref{presc}) we

532: can obtain the following expression for the parameter $\kappa$,

533: %

534: \begin{eqnarray}

535: \kappa= -&& \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi} \int^{\mu^2}_{0}dq^2 \left( \frac{7q^4}{2\mu^4}-

536: \frac{17q^2}{2\mu^2}-\frac{9}{8} \right)q^2D_R(q^2) \nonumber \\

537: && \hspace{3cm}- \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi} \int^{\Lambda^2}_{\mu^2} dq^2 \frac{(7\mu^4)}{8q^4}q^2D_R(q^2)

538: \label{kexp}

539: \end{eqnarray}

540: %

541: and, consequently, the final expression for the inverse of the gluon propagator can be written as

542: %

543: \begin{eqnarray}

544: D_R^{-1}(k^2)=\kappa + k^2 +&&  \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi}\int^{k^2}_{0}dq^2 

545: \left( \frac{7q^4}{2k^4}-\frac{17q^2}{2k^2}-\frac{9}{8} \right)q^2D_R(q^2) \nonumber \\

546: +&& 

547: \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi} \int^{\Lambda^2}_{k^2} dq^2 \frac{7k^4}{8q^4}q^2D_R(q^2).

548: \label{sde_final}

549: \end{eqnarray}

550: %

551: 

552: Since we are now dealing only with renormalized quantities, in the sequence we will dismiss the subscript $R$ in the Green functions in order to get a more compact notation.

553: It is interesting to note that the renormalization constant $Z_{3}$ as it is established

554:  by Eq.(\ref{re2}) is proportional 

555: to $1$ plus a function of $\mu^2$ and $\Lambda^2 $.

556: Such behavior is compatible with the expected weak coupling expansion for this constant.

557: 

558: As already stated, the renormalization procedure in Schwinger-Dyson equations  has an intricate 

559: structure and other

560: choices have already been applied in these equations, such as the ``plus prescription'' 

561: \cite{pb} where the contributions

562: which violate the massless Slavnov-Taylor identity would be subtracted out of the right hand 

563: side of Eq.(\ref{fesd}) or even in

564: more elaborated cases, as the gluon-ghost coupled system, where we have to deal with a bigger

565:  number of renormalization

566: constants, different approaches can be considered \cite{alkofer,bloch}. As long as we do not

567:  have an exact procedure for the renormalization

568: problem in non-Abelian SDE, we have to face this prescription as one more try, that certainly

569: can be improved,  where  the quantitative perturbative

570: behavior of the renormalization constant $Z_3$ is reproduced.

571: 

572: Our prescription in Eq.(\ref{re2}) acts as a seed for the dynamical gluon mass generation,

573: since $\kappa$ defined by Eq.(\ref{kexp}) is precisely a constant, like the $A$ term in

574: Eq.(\ref{ABJ}). Of course, this is not the most general prescription, and it does not

575: reproduce the exact perturbative ultraviolet behavior of the gluon propagator. This behavior

576: can be obtained if we use the following prescription

577: %

578: \begin{equation}

579: Z_{3} - \frac{\alpha(\mu^2)}{4\pi}\int^{\Lambda^2}_{k^2} \, dq^2 

580: \, 7 D_{R} (q^2) = 1 + \frac{\kappa_1}{k^2}+ \frac{4\pi}{\beta_0}\ln{\frac{k^2}{\kappa_2}} \,\, .

581: \label{re22}

582: \end{equation}

583: %

584: It is clear that the last term of Eq.(\ref{re22}) arises naturally from the integration

585: of the perturbative propagator ($D(q^2)=1/q^2$) in Eq.(\ref{refin}). However,   

586: the new constant ($\kappa_2$) cannot be fixed, since we have only one renormalization 

587: condition. In the next section we shall discuss the effect of a term like this one. 

588: 

589: 

590: Before starting the numerical calculation of the gluon propagator, it is useful to remind the 

591: definition of the running coupling that will be valid from the non-perturbative  to the perturbative region. 

592: Remembering that, in the Mandelstam

593: approximation, $Z_3Z_g =1 $, it follows from Eq.(\ref{renor}) that

594: %

595: \begin{equation}

596: \alpha(q^2) = \alpha(\mu^2)\left[\frac{{\mathcal Z}(q^2)}{{\mathcal Z}(\mu^2)}\right]^2,

597: \label{npr}

598: \end{equation}

599: %

600: where we assume that ${\mathcal Z}(\mu^2)=1$.

601: 

602: It is important to keep in mind that, in QCD, we have the possibility to define the running 

603: coupling constant using the different vertices

604: of the theory, such as, the three gluon, four gluon, ghost-gluon or even the fermion-gluon vertices. Despite

605: the fact that in the perturbative QCD all these constructions, based on  different vertices,

606:  converge to the same behavior for the

607: running coupling, since the Slavnov-Taylor identities are preserved, the same does not happen in 

608: the low energy scale, due

609: to the complex renormalization procedure in the infrared region of QCD, which cause the loss of  the multiplicative renormalizability.  As

610: a consequence we may not have a unique definition for the running coupling in the infrared region. For this reason it is important  to stress that, in this approximation, our QCD running coupling  is constructed on the basis of three-gluon vertex, since  all the others vertices do not appear in

611: this approximation.

612: 

613: In the sequence we shall need the perturbative expression for the running coupling,

614: which is given by 

615: %

616: \begin{equation}

617: \alpha(q^2)= \frac{4\pi}{\beta_0\ln\left(\frac{q^2}{\Lambda_{QCD}^2} \right)},

618: \label{alpha_pert}

619: \end{equation}

620: %

621: where $\Lambda_{QCD}$ is the usual scale for QCD and $\beta_0$ is the first coefficient of the 

622: the Callan-Symanzik $\beta$ function,  $\beta(g)=\mu(dg/d\mu)$, which is written as

623: %

624: \begin{equation}

625: \beta(g) = - \beta_0 \frac{g^3}{16\pi^2} -      \beta_1 \frac{g^5}{(16\pi^2)^2} + \ldots,

626: \label{beta}

627: \end{equation}

628: %

629: where the $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ coefficients are given by

630: \begin{eqnarray}

631: \beta_0 &=& 11- \frac{2}{3}n_f \nonumber \\

632: \beta_1 &=& 102- \frac{38}{3}n_f.

633: \label{coef}

634: \end{eqnarray}

635: 

636: Since we neglected the fermions fields, we have that $n_f = 0$ which lead us to  $\beta_0= 11$ at one loop.

637: 

638: \section{The massive solution}

639: 

640: It has been shown in several works that it is not an easy task to obtain an analytical solution 

641: for the Eq.(\ref{sde_final}) \cite{mand,Brown,alkofer}

642: and therefore the only  possibility to face this problem is through a numerical

643: approach.

644: 

645: Our aim here is to find consistent solutions over the whole momentum range without impose,

646:  neither in the infrared region nor in

647: the ultraviolet, any previous asymptotic behavior obtained from an expansion of the gluon

648:  renormalization function, ${\mathcal Z}(q^2)$,

649: at small $q^2$ or obtained from the known perturbative behavior.

650: 

651: For this reason, we apply for the integral equation, given by Eq.(\ref{sde_final}), an iterative 

652: numerical method, starting with a trial function which can be too remote from the exact solution.

653: 

654: To implement so, it is convenient to introduce the following variables $x = k^2$ and $y =q^2$ in 

655: the Eq.(\ref{sde_final}), and we

656: also recall that since the beginning of this article all variables are in the Euclidean space, with these changes we

657: can write Eq.(\ref{sde_final}) as

658: %

659: \begin{equation}

660: \hspace{-0.5cm}D^{-1}(x)= \kappa + x +  \lambda\int^{x}_{0}dy \left( \frac{7y^2}{2x^2}-\frac{17y}{2x}-\frac{9}{8}

661:  \right)yD(y) + \lambda \int^{\Lambda^2}_{x}dy \left(\frac{7x^2}{8y^2}\right)yD(y) 

662: \end{equation}

663: %

664: where

665: %

666: \begin{equation}

667: \kappa = - \lambda \int^{\mu^2}_{0}dy \left( \frac{7y^2}{2\mu^4}-\frac{17y}{2\mu^2}-\frac{9}{8} 

668: \right)yD(y) - \lambda \int_{\mu^2}^{\Lambda^2}dy \left(\frac{7\mu^4}{8y^2}\right)yD(y),

669: \label{sde_final1}

670: \end{equation}

671: %

672: with $\lambda = \alpha(\mu^2)/{4\pi}$.

673: 

674: In order to study, in more details, the small $x$ region, we use a logarithmic grid for the 

675: variables $x$ and $y$, which allow us to vary the momentum from the deep infrared to the ultraviolet

676:  region.  Such logarithmic grid split the whole momenta range in two regions: the infrared region - 

677: defined by the range $[0, \mu^2]$ and the ultraviolet that comprehends the range $[\mu^2,\Lambda^2]$.

678:  The aim of this separation is to allow us to set  ${\mathcal Z}(\mu^2)=1$ or equivalently, 

679: $D^{-1}(\mu^2)=\mu^2$ \cite{krein}.

680: 

681: We start with a trial function $D(x)$ and use a cubic spline interpolation for generating 

682: the values of $D(y)$ which will be utilized in the right hand side of the Eq.(\ref{sde_final1})

683:  and in the sequence we compute this integral through  the Adaptive Richardson-Romberg extrapolation.

684: 

685: 

686: The initial trial function is compared with the result which was obtained after the integration

687:  and the convergence criteria to stop the numerical code is to impose that the difference 

688:  between input and output functions must be smaller than $10^{-4}$.

689: 

690: It is important to stress that we have tested variations of initial guesses and verified that 

691: our results are completely independent of the trial function imposed for $D(x)$.

692: 

693: We also analyzed  the solution proposed in Ref.\cite{Brown} and we noticed that it can 

694: only be reproduced if we consider exactly the same momentum range showed in their Fig.3

695:  (as is already stressed in Ref.\cite{alk})  and use a trial function which is very close

696:  to the result found in \cite{Brown}. Such exigency reflects the instability of this solution, 

697: because if we extend the numerical range or even start from a different guess we do not recover 

698: the divergent $1/k^4$ behavior.

699: 

700: Our input data are the renormalization point, $\mu^2$, and the coupling constant defined at 

701: this point, $\alpha(\mu^2)$, which has the effect of fixing the value of the QCD scale,

702:  $\Lambda_{QCD}$, through the Eq.(\ref{alpha_pert}).

703: 

704: As stressed in the Sec.(\ref{rm}), the value of $\mu^2$ must be fixed at a typical 

705: perturbative scale in order to recover the high energy behavior of the gluon propagator. With the 

706: aim of analyze the dependency of our solution on the renormalization point, we vary the values  

707: of $\mu^2$ and $\alpha(\mu^2)$ within the range $[10 \,\mbox{GeV}^2,30 \,\mbox{GeV}^2]$

708:  and $[0.20,0.25]$  respectively. Such variation correspond  to run the $\Lambda_{QCD}$ parameter 

709: from $182\,\mbox{MeV}$ to $557\,\mbox{MeV}$ as we show in the Table(\ref{t1}).

710: 

711: The curves produced by these different scales are plotted in the Fig.(\ref{f1}) where it is shown

712:  the gluon propagator, $D(q^2)$, as a function of the momentum $q^2$.

713: The external curves  delimit  the lower and the higher values of the $\Lambda_{QCD}$

714:  in the range  mentioned above. The other set of input, shown in the Table(\ref{t1}), reproduce 

715: the same qualitative behavior and they are restricted to the shadow band.

716: 

717: We have also computed the case where $\alpha(\mu^2)$ is fixed at the bottom quark

718:  mass, $m_b^2=(4.5)^2 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$, and its central value is  $\alpha(m_b^2) = 0.22 $ \cite{PDG}, 

719: such solution is represented by the curve ``line + circle" displayed on the Fig.(\ref{f1}).

720: 

721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

722: \begin{figure}[ht]

723: \begin{center}

724: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig1_rev.eps}

725: \end{center}

726: \caption{Gluon propagator, $D(q^2)$, as function of momentum $q^2$ for different scales.  

727: The line + square curve was obtained when $\alpha(10 \, \mbox{GeV}^2)=0.2$ which corresponds 

728:  $\Lambda_{QCD}=  182\, \mbox{MeV}$, while in the line + triangle curve,

729:  $\alpha(30 \, \mbox{GeV}^2)=0.25$, which leads to $\Lambda_{QCD}=557\, \mbox{MeV} $. The

730:  shadowed area delimits the curves with $\Lambda_{QCD}$ varying within the range

731:  $ [182 \, \mbox{MeV}, 557 \, \mbox{MeV} ]$. The central curve (line + circle) was obtained 

732: when we fix the renormalization point, $\mu^2$, at bottom quark mass,

733:  $m_b^2=(4.5)^2 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$ with the central value of $\alpha(m_b^2)=0.22$. }

734: \label{f1}

735: \end{figure}

736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

737: 

738: 

739: We have run our numerical code efficiently within a momenta range

740:  of twelve orders of magnitude where the typical momenta values which were utilized vary 

741:  from $10^{-6}$ to $10^6 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$. We set the renormalization point at $m_b^2$,

742:  which is located approximately in the middle of our typical momenta range, and where

743:  the physical quantities can be certainly described by the perturbative theory. 

744: 

745: It is interesting to provide an analytic expression for the gluon propagator, 

746: in order to analyze the gluon mass values obtained in infrared region, when we set the 

747: renormalization point, $\mu^2$, at different values.  

748: With this aim we fit our numerical data by an Euclidean massive propagator 

749: expressed by \cite{cornwall}

750: %

751: 

752: \begin{equation}

753: D(q^2)= \frac{4\pi}{\beta_0\left(q^2 + m^2(q^2)\right)\ln\left(\frac{q^2 + 4m^2(q^2)}{\Lambda_{QCD}}\right)},

754: \label{corfit}

755: \end{equation}

756: %

757: where

758: %

759: \begin{equation}

760: m^2(q^2)= m^2_0\left[ \frac{\ln\left(\frac{q^2 + 4m_0^2}{\Lambda_{QCD}^2}\right)}

761: {\ln\left(\frac{4m_0^2}{\Lambda_{QCD}^2}\right)}\right]^{-12/11}.

762: \label{masscor}

763: \end{equation}

764: 

765: We have also considered the simpler expression

766: 

767: \begin{equation}

768: D(q^2)= \frac{1}{q^2 + {\mathcal M}^2(q^2)},

769: \label{prop}

770: \end{equation}

771: %

772: where the dynamical mass ${\mathcal M}^2(q^2)$ is described by

773: \begin{equation}

774: {\mathcal M}^2(q^2)= \frac{{m^{\prime}}^4}{q^2+ {m^{\prime}}^2}.

775: \label{ope}

776: \end{equation}

777: 

778: The last fit can be motivated by the gluon polarization tensor 

779: behavior at high energies, which can be predicted by OPE as~\cite{lav}

780: %

781: \be

782: \P_{OPE} (P^2) \sim - \frac{34 N \pi^2}{9(N^2-1)}

783: \frac{\gc}{P^2}.

784: \label{piuv}

785: \ee

786: %

787: 

788: On the other hand recently there has been a lot of discussion about a possible bilinear

789:  condensate of

790: the gluon field \cite{dudal}. Such condensate, $\a2$, would be responsible for a mass term

791:  appearing in the

792: infrared gluon polarization tensor \cite{dudal}.  Therefore the fit provided by Eq.(\ref{ope}) is 

793: just the simplest

794: way to account for the different condensate contributions to the polarization tensor, from where

795:  we could expect

796: approximate relations of the form $ {m^{\prime}}^2 \propto \a2$ or $ {m^{\prime}}^4 \propto \gc$. We will discuss 

797: such type of

798: relation in the next section.  

799: 

800: We can apply these simple fits for all curves shown in the Fig.(\ref{f1}) and in all cases  

801: it is remarkable the agreement found from the deep infrared region up to the ultraviolet 

802: regime, using a fit which has a unique

803:  parameter, $m_0$ or $m^{\prime}$.

804: 

805: In particular, we plot in the Fig.(\ref{fig5}) the numerical solution for the gluon propagator, 

806: $D(q^2)$, when $\mu^2=m_b^2$  together with the curve obtained through our fit given by  

807: Eqs.(\ref{prop}) and (\ref{ope}) when  ${m^{\prime}}^2= 1.11 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$ as well as

808: the fit provided by the Eqs.(\ref{corfit}) and (\ref{masscor}) when  ${m_0}^2= 0.82 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$.     

809: 

810: 

811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG. 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

812: \begin{figure}[ht]

813: \begin{center}

814: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fit_rev.eps}

815: \end{center}

816: \caption{Numerical solution for the gluon

817: propagator, $D(q^2)$, versus momentum $q^2$ for

818: $\alpha(m^2_{b})=0.22$. We compare this numerical solution

819: with the fit given by Eq.(\ref{prop}), where  ${m^{\prime}}^2= 1.11 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$, as well as the one given by the Eqs.(\ref{corfit}) and (\ref{masscor}) when  ${m_0}^2= 0.82 \, \mbox{GeV}^2$.}

820: \label{fig5}

821: \end{figure}

822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

823: 

824: In particular we can easily extract the value of ${m^{\prime}}$ for the others curves displayed in the Fig.(\ref{f1}),

825:  to do so we basically have just to note that  in the limit of $q^2\rightarrow 0$,  

826: Eqs.(\ref{prop}) and (\ref{ope}) of our gluon propagator reduces to $D(q^2\rightarrow 0) = 1/{m^{\prime}}^2$, 

827: and therefore the inverse of ${m^{\prime}}^2$ is given by the value of the point in what the  gluon

828:  propagator curves  cross the  y axis in Fig.(\ref{f1}).

829: 

830: We verified that the value of $m_0$ and ${m^{\prime}}$ depend on the choice  of the

831:  renormalization point, $\mu^2$, however we must remember that when we change its value, actually

832:  what we are really changing is the scale of the theory, once that $\mu^2$ and $\Lambda_{QCD}$ are

833:  linked by Eq.(\ref{alpha_pert}). For this reason what matters is the analysis

834:  of the ratio $m_0/\Lambda_{QCD}$ or ${m^{\prime}}/\Lambda_{QCD}$ which, in principle, give to us a better idea  about

835:  the true dependency on the renormalization point of our solution.        

836: 

837: Fixing  the coupling constant and running the renormalization point we can see  from the 

838: Table(\ref{t1}) that the aforementioned ratios practically do not vary for the set of coupling constants shown in the table. This means that the ratios $m_0/\Lambda_{QCD}$ 

839:  ${m^{\prime}}/\Lambda_{QCD}$ are quite stable in our procedure. 

840: 

841: \begin{center}

842: \begin{table}[ht]

843: \caption{\label{t1} Values of the renormalization point, $\mu^2$, and coupling constant, 

844: $\alpha(\mu^2)$, used as input data in the Eq.(\ref{sde_final1}). In the third column, we have the values  of $\Lambda_{QCD}$  computed  with  the usual perturbative value of $\beta_0=11$. The values of the ratios

845:  $m_0/\Lambda_{QCD}$ and $m^{\prime}/\Lambda_{QCD}$ are also shown in the last two columns.} 

846: 

847: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

848:     % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...

849:    \hline

850:    $\alpha(\mu^2)$ & $\mu ^2$ & $\Lambda_{QCD}$& ${m_0}/{\Lambda_{QCD}}$& ${m^{\prime}}/{\Lambda_{QCD}}$ \\

851:             &        &  $(\beta=11)$   &  Cornwall & OPE  \\

852:   \hline

853: $0.20\qquad$&$10\,\mbox{GeV}^2$  & $182 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$ &$3.18$& $3.90$\\

854: $0.20\qquad$&$20\,\mbox{GeV}^2$  &$257 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$ &$3.18 $& $3.90$ \\

855: $0.20\qquad$&$30\,\mbox{GeV}^2$  &$315 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$ &$3.18$& $3.90$ \\

856: $0.22\qquad$&$m_b^2=20.25\, \mbox{GeV}^2$ & $335 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$& $2.70$ &$3.15$ \\

857: $0.25\qquad$&$10\,\mbox{GeV}^2$  &$321 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$ &$2.23 $& $2.45$ \\

858: $0.25\qquad$&$20\,\mbox{GeV}^2$  &$455 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$ &$2.28$& $2.44$ \\

859: $0.25\qquad$&$30\,\mbox{GeV}^2$  &$557 \,\mbox{MeV}\qquad$ &$2.23$& $2.43$ \\

860: \hline

861: \end{tabular}

862: \end{table}

863: \end{center}

864: 

865: We have also checked the effect of the prescription shown in  Eq.(\ref{re22}) attributing

866: random values to $\kappa_2$. We also obtained massive solutions with a better ultraviolet

867: behavior. The numerical curves are totally identical to the ones in Fig.(\ref{f1}) but 

868: they scale up or down by a constant factor as we change  the value of $\kappa2$. The only way to 

869: eliminate such

870: constant is forcing point by point of the numerical solution in the large momentum region to

871: match with the curve given by the known asymptotic perturbative solution. 

872: 

873: We now turn to the infrared behavior of the coupling constant which was built based on

874:  the triple gluon vertex as outlined above. By imposing the limit $q^2 \rightarrow 0$ in the

875:  Eq.(\ref{npr}) where the renormalization function, ${\mathcal Z}(q^2)$, can be extracted from 

876:  the fit which is expressed by Eq.(\ref{prop}) and (\ref{ope}) we clearly obtain a vanishing 

877: coupling in the deep infrared region within the  Mandelstam approximation. Although it may look 

878: surprising to  find that in a confining theory the IR coupling constant goes to zero, it is important to stress again that, for QCD, we have distinct definitions for $\alpha(q^2)$ which are based on different vertices of the theory,  moreover it is interesting to say that using the same vertex, a lattice QCD simulation found the same vanishing behavior for the coupling \cite{shirkov}. Of 

879: course, the introduction of ghosts can modify this result, and

880: it seems unlikely then that this limit  does reflect the true behavior of the coupling constant 

881: since we know that it must develop a non-trivial fixed point in QCD infrared region \cite{ans}.   

882: 

883: Following the same procedure that are perfomed here, the qualitative behavior of the gluon

884: propagator does not change when the ghosts 

885: fields are included when we study the coupled SDE for the gluon and ghost \cite{gg}. We believe 

886: that the main role of the ghost fields in covariant gauges is to guarantee that the coupling 

887: constant will be  finite and different from zero in the infrared regime, although it is quite

888:  hard to obtain numerically this freezing of the coupling without imposing any previous asymptotic 

889: form for the gluon and ghost propagators . 

890: 

891: 

892: \section{Vacuum energy and stability of the solution}

893: 

894: In this section we would like to discuss some points about the

895: stability of the massive solution in this approximation. We call

896: attention to the fact that our solution is obtained numerically in

897: the full range of momenta. Other solutions for this kind of

898: equations in general assume one particular form of the solution in

899: the far infrared region and adjust free parameters  in a ``in" and

900: ``out" procedure. We notice that our numerical code finds

901: stability for the $1/q^4$ solution found in Ref.\cite{Brown} only

902: when we enter in the code a seed basically given by the final

903: result of Ref.\cite{Brown}, otherwise there is no convergence up

904: to a large computing time. We credit this behavior to the fact the

905: $1/q^4$ must be an unstable solution of the SDE in this

906: approximation, because any seed that is slightly away from the

907: result of Ref.\cite{Brown} does not lead to a convergent

908: calculation. Unfortunately we cannot say more than that about the

909: stability of the $1/q^4$ solution.

910: 

911: It is possible to use some methods of integral equations to study the existence and

912:  stability of the solutions as

913: in Ref.\cite{atkinson}, but these methods may depend on the many approximations that are

914:  necessary to

915: make in order to obtain a tractable equation before they can be applied. We believe that the

916:  best to be done is

917: to compute the vacuum energy for composite operators \cite{cornja}. This vacuum energy is a

918: function of the full propagator and vertices of the theory~\cite{cornja,cornor}. The idea is 

919: simply to recall that

920: the vacuum energy will select the solution that leads to the deepest minimum of energy as 

921: discussed in Ref.\cite{mont}

922: in the case of pure gauge QCD. If we follow the results of Ref.\cite{mont} we can foresee that the massive solution

923: is the one selected by the vacuum. However we can do more than that and we will show that the computation of

924: the vacuum energy obtained in the previous section also leads to a consistent value for the gluon condensate.

925: 

926: We will briefly outline the calculation of the vacuum energy with the formalism of the effective potential for

927: composite operators \cite{cornja}.  It will also be computed according to the Mandelstam's 

928: approximation,

929: what is equivalent to neglect diagrams with fermions, ghosts and the quadrilinear gauge coupling.

930:  The details can

931: be obtained in Ref.\cite{gorbar}.   The effective potential with the approximations already

932:  discussed

933: has the form~\cite{cornja}

934: %

935: \begin{equation}

936: V(D) =  \frac{\imath}{2} \int \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}

937: Tr ( \ln D_0^{-1}D - D_0^{-1}D + 1)  + V_2(D),

938: \label{vfull}

939: \end{equation}

940: %

941: where  $D (D_0)$ is the complete(bare) gluon propagator, $V_2(D)$ is a two-particle

942: irreducible vacuum diagram and

943: the equation

944: %

945: \be

946: \frac{\d V}{\d D}=0,

947: \label{delv}

948: \ee

949: %

950: gives the SDE for gauge bosons in the Mandelstam's approximation.

951: 

952: The two-loop contribution to $V_2 (D)$ is given by

953: %                                                                                               

954: \be

955: V_2 (D) = \frac{-\imath}{6} Tr(\G^{(3)}D\G^{(3)}DD),

956: \label{ommand}

957: \ee

958: %

959: where $\G^{(3)}$ is the trilinear gauge boson coupling~\cite{mont}, and  in Eq.(\ref{ommand}) we

960: have not written the gauge and Lorentz indices, as well as the momentum integrals.

961: 

962: 

963: The vacuum energy density is given by the effective

964: potential calculated at minimum subtracted by its

965: perturbative part, which does not contribute to dynamical

966: mass generation ~\cite{cornja,cornor}

967: %

968: \be

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

970: \label{omega}

971: \ee

972: %

973: where $D_p$ is the perturbative counterpart of $D$.  It is easy to see that \cite{gorbar}

974: %

975: 

976: \begin{equation}

977: \hspace{-0.5cm}\< \Omega \> = - \frac{3(N^2 -1)}{2} \int

978: \frac{d^4P}{(2\pi)^4} \, \left[ \frac{\P}{P^2+\P} - \ln \left(

979: 1+\frac{\P}{P^2} \right) + \frac{2}{3} \frac{\P^2}{P^2(P^2+\P)} \right], 

980: \label{omeg}

981: \end{equation}

982: %

983: where all the quantities are in Euclidean space, $N=3$ for QCD and $\P$  is the gluon

984:  polarization tensor.

985: We will compute Eq.(\ref{omeg}) with $\P = {\mathcal M}^2 (P^2)$, where   $ {\mathcal M}^2 (P^2)$ is given by Eq.(\ref{ope})

986: with  $m^{\prime 2}= 0.50 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$, with the coupling constant, $\alpha(\mu^2=10 \, \mbox{GeV}^2)=0.20$. We obtain 

987: %%%%%%

988: %

989: \be

990: \frac{ \< \Omega \>}{\Lambda^4_{QCD}} = 3.60 \,.

991: \label{valomega}

992: \ee

993: %

994: with

995: $m^{\prime}/\Lambda_{QCD}= 3.90$.

996: 

997: Let us recall that the  vacuum expectation value of the trace of the energy

998: momentum tensor of QCD is~\cite{cre}

999: %

1000: \be

1001: \< \Theta_{\m\m} \> = \frac{\b(g)}{2g} \< G_{\m\nu} G^{\m\nu} \>,

1002: \label{tmn}

1003: \ee

1004: %

1005: where the perturbative $\b (g)$ function up to two loops is given by Eq.(\ref{beta}),

1006: where the coefficients $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are expressed in Eq.(\ref{coef}), 

1007: and with $\alpha(\mu^2) = g^2 (\mu^2) / 4\pi$. 

1008: 

1009: We can relate the Eq.(\ref{tmn}) to the vacuum energy through

1010: %

1011: \be

1012: \< \Omega \> = \frac{1}{4} \< \Theta_{\m\m} \> . 

1013: \label{vt}

1014: \ee

1015: %

1016: 

1017: This  last expression for $\< \Omega \>$ can be compared

1018: with the value of Eq.(\ref{valomega}) and in this way we obtain one estimative of the gluon

1019:  condensate.

1020: 

1021: Using Eq.(\ref{beta}) and Eq.(\ref{coef}) with $n_f = 5$ (assuming that the inclusion 

1022: of fermions

1023: does not change drastically our results) and using $\alpha(\mu^2=10 \, \mbox{GeV}^2)=0.20$

1024:  (equivalent to $m^{\prime}/\Lambda_{QCD}= 3.90$) we have found the following value

1025: %

1026: \begin{equation}

1027: \gc =  0.015 \,\,\, \mbox{GeV}^4.    

1028: \end{equation}

1029: %

1030: 

1031: We obtained this last value  with $\Lambda_{QCD} = 182 \,\,\mbox{MeV}$ in the

1032: left hand side of Eq.(\ref{valomega}) consistent  with the perturbative value shown in the third column of Table I. The outcome of this procedure is quite close to the value commonly used in QCD sum rules \cite{svz}: 

1033: %

1034: \begin{equation}

1035: \gc =  0.012 \,\,\, \mbox{GeV}^4. 

1036: \end{equation}

1037: 

1038: The above result indicates that our approximation gives a reliable estimative of the

1039:  vacuum energy and that the inclusion of ghosts possibly do not modify the value of the vacuum energy \cite{gg}.

1040:  

1041: \section{Conclusion}

1042: 

1043: We computed the SDE for the gluon propagator in the Landau gauge within the Mandelstam

1044: approximation where the fermions and ghost fields are neglected, and where the full gluon

1045: vertex is inversely proportional to the gluon renormalization function.

1046: 

1047: The full triple gluon vertex is also extended to include the possibility of dynamical mass

1048: generation, according to a prescription formulated by Cornwall many years ago. This 

1049: prescription does not modify the SDE but is responsible for the compatibility of a massive

1050:  gluon propagator

1051: with the Slavnov-Taylor identity.

1052: 

1053: The renormalization of the SDE follows a procedure similar to the one proposed by Cornwall in

1054: the renormalization of the SDE in the light cone gauge. It is particularly suited for a massive case

1055: and leads to a renormalization constant of the form $Z_3 = 1 + f(\mu^2, \Lambda^2)$.

1056: 

1057: We were able to obtain a numerical solution in the full range of momenta that we have

1058: considered without the need of introducing any asymptotic expression for the solution. The

1059: propagator is renormalized using the central value of the coupling constant

1060: at the b quark mass. The solution has been checked  to be stable within a  momentum 

1061: range of twelve orders of magnitude. 

1062: 

1063: We verified that the ratio between the dynamical gluon mass and the QCD scale 

1064: ($m/\Lambda_{QCD}$) up to a large extent is independent on the choice of the renormalization point, and its value ($m/\Lambda_{QCD} \sim 2 - 3$) is consistent with previous estimates for this

1065:  mass \cite{cornwall}.

1066: 

1067: Using a fit to the numerical solution we computed the vacuum energy and associated it with

1068: the gluon condensate. The value that we obtain is consistent with the one usually assumed in

1069: QCD sum rules.

1070: 

1071: Our calculation is far from being complete and the most obvious extension is the introduction of ghosts. An analysis of this case shows that the behavior of the gluon propagator is not

1072: modified by the inclusion of the ghosts fields. However the behavior of the running coupling

1073: constant as $q^2 \rightarrow 0$ may be different from zero as happens in the present case

1074: \cite{gg}.

1075:  

1076: \section{Acknowledgments}

1077: 

1078: We benefited from discussions with A. Cucchieri and G. Krein and we would also like to 

1079: thank A. Colato for his numerical hints. This research was supported by the Conselho Nacional 

1080: de Desenvolvimento Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'{o}gico (CNPq) (AAN) and by

1081: Funda\c{c}\~ao de Amparo \`{a} Pesquisa do Estado de S\~{a}o

1082: Paulo (FAPESP) (ACA).

1083: 

1084: 

1085: \begin {thebibliography}{99}

1086: 

1087: \bibitem{mand} S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 3223.

1088: 

1089: \bibitem{west} G. B. West, Phys. Lett. B115 (1982) 468. 

1090: 

1091: \bibitem{Brown} N. Brown and M. R. Pennington, Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 2266 ; D39 (1989) 2723 .

1092: 

1093: \bibitem{mar} P.~Marenzoni, G.~Martinelli, N.~Stella, e M.~Testa,

1094: Phys.\ Lett.\ B318 (1993) 511; C. Alexandrou, Ph. de Forcrand and E. Follana, 

1095: Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 114508; D65 (2002) 117502; F. D. R. Bonnet {\it et al.},

1096: Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 034501; D62  (2000) 051501; D. B. Leinweber {\it et al.}

1097:  (UKQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 031501; C. Bernard, C. Parrinello, and A.

1098: Soni, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 1585; see also the most recent simulation of P. O. Bowman 

1099: {\it et al.}, hep-lat/0402032 and the

1100: references therein.

1101: 

1102: \bibitem{cornwall} J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D26 (1982) 1453; J. M. Cornwall and

1103:  J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 3474;  D44  (1991) 1285.

1104: 

1105: \bibitem{alkofer} R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. 353 (2001) 281;

1106: L. von Smekal, A. Hauck and R. Alkofer, Ann.

1107: Phys. 267 (1998) 1; L. vonSmekal, A. Hauck and R. Alkofer,

1108: Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3591.

1109: 

1110: 

1111: \bibitem{kugo} T. Kugo and I. Ojima, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 66 (1979) 1. 

1112: 

1113: \bibitem{alkugo} P. Watson and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5239.

1114: 

1115: \bibitem{kondo} K.-I. Kondo, hep-th/0303251.

1116: 

1117: \bibitem{bl2} J. C. R. Bloch, Few Body Syst. 33 (2003) 111.

1118: 

1119: \bibitem{vortex}  J. Gattnar, K. Langfeld and H. Reinhardt,  hep-lat/0403011.  

1120: 

1121: \bibitem{ans}A. C. Aguilar, A. A. Natale  and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, 

1122: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  90 (2003) 152001.

1123:               

1124: \bibitem{brodsky} S. J. Brodsky, hep-ph/0310289.

1125: 

1126: \bibitem{ball}  J. S. Ball and Ting-Wai Chiu, Phys. Rev.  D22 (1980) 2542. 

1127: 

1128: \bibitem{baker} R. Anishetty, M. Baker, S. K. Kim, J. S. Ball and F. Zachariasen,

1129:  Phys. Lett. B86 (1979) 52;

1130: J. S. Ball and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Lett. B95 (1980) 273. 

1131: 

1132: 

1133: \bibitem{alk} A. Hauck, L. von Smekal and R. Alkofer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 112 (1998) 149. 

1134: 

1135: \bibitem{CP} D.~C.~Curtis and M.~R.~Pennington, Phys.\ Rev.\ D42 (1990) 4165.

1136: 

1137: \bibitem{pb} N. Brown and M. R. Pennington, Phys. Lett. B202 (1988) 257.

1138: 

1139: \bibitem{bloch}  J. C. R. Bloch, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 116011; 

1140:  D. Atkinson, J.C.R. Bloch, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 094036.  

1141: 

1142: \bibitem{cornes}  M. R. Pennington, Rept. Prog. Phys. 46 (1983) 393.

1143: 

1144: \bibitem{krein} A. G. Williams, G. Krein and C. D. Roberts, Annals Phys. 210 (1991) 464.

1145:     

1146: \bibitem{PDG} K. Hagiwara {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 010001;

1147:  M. Jamin and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys, B507 (1997) 334.

1148: 

1149: \bibitem{lav} M. Lavelle, Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) R26.

1150: 

1151: \bibitem{dudal} D. Dudal {\it et al.}, JHEP 

1152: 0401 (2004) 044;  M. Esole and F. Freire, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 041701;  

1153: hep-th/0401055 

1154: 

1155:   

1156: \bibitem{shirkov} Ph. Boucaud {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys.

1157:  Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 266; D.V. Shirkov, Theor. Math. Phys. 132 (2002) 1309.

1158:  

1159: 

1160: \bibitem{gg} A. C. Aguilar and A. Natale, JHEP 0408 (2004) 057.

1161:   

1162:  

1163: \bibitem{atkinson} D. Atkinson, J. K. Drohm, P. W. Johnson and K. Stam,

1164:  J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 2704;  D. Atkinson, P. W. Johnson and K. Stam,

1165:  J. Math. Phys. 23 (1982) 1917. 

1166: 

1167: \bibitem{cornja} J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis,

1168: Phys.  Rev. D10 (1974) 2428.

1169: 

1170: \bibitem{cornor} J. M. Cornwall and R. E. Norton, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 3338.

1171: 

1172: \bibitem{mont} J. C. Montero, A. A. Natale and P. S. Rodrigues da

1173: Silva, Phys. Lett. B406  (1997) 130.

1174: 

1175: \bibitem{gorbar} E. V. Gorbar and A. A. Natale, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 054012.

1176: 

1177: \bibitem{cre} R.~Crewther, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 28 (1972) 1421;

1178: M.~Chanowitz and J.~Ellis, Phys.\ Lett.\ B40 (1972) 397;

1179: J.~C.~Collins, A.~Duncan and S.~D.~Joglekar, Phys.\ Rev.\ D16 (1977)

1180: 438.

1181: 

1182: \bibitem{svz} M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385,

1183:  448.

1184: 

1185:     

1186: \end{thebibliography}

1187: 

1188: \end{document}

1189: 

1190: