1: %\documentclass[prc,nofootinbib,twocolumn,showkeys]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[prc,nofootinbib,showkeys]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,graphicx}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6: %\draft
7:
8: \title{Fate of QCD sum rules or fate of vector meson dominance in a nuclear medium}
9:
10: \author{Stefan Leupold}
11:
12: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at
13: Giessen, Germany}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: A current-current correlator with the quantum numbers of the omega meson is studied
17: in a nuclear medium. Using weighted finite energy sum rules and dispersion
18: relations for the current-nucleon forward scattering amplitude it is shown that
19: strict vector meson dominance and QCD sum rules are incompatible with each other.
20: This implies that at least one of these concepts --- which are both very powerful
21: in the vacuum --- has to fade in the nuclear environment.
22: \end{abstract}
23: \pacs{14.40.Cs,21.65.+f,12.38.Lg}
24: % PACS numbers from http://publish.aps.org/PACS
25: % 10. THE PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS
26: % 12. Specific theories and interaction models; particle systematics
27: % 12.38.Lg Other nonperturbative calculations (12.38.-t Quantum chromodynamics)
28: % 14.40.Cs Other mesons with S=C=0, mass < 2.5 GeV (14. Properties of specific particles)
29: % 21.65.+f Nuclear matter
30: % 24.85.+p Quarks, gluons, and QCD in nuclei and nuclear processes
31: \keywords{QCD sum rules, vector meson dominance, meson properties, nuclear matter}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37: \label{sec:intro}
38:
39: The present work addresses the interrelation of two important concepts of hadron
40: physics, namely QCD sum rules \cite{shif79}
41: and vector meson dominance (VMD) \cite{sakuraiVMD}. Both concepts are extremely
42: successful in the description of hadrons and their interactions. However,
43: if we turn from the elementary (vacuum) properties and cross sections of hadrons
44: to a many-body system (here: nuclear matter), we will demonstrate that the two
45: concepts are not compatible any more. We will restrict ourselves here to the
46: omega meson and comment briefly on possible extensions in the end.
47: It is important to note that both methods
48: are also frequently used for in-medium calculations ---
49: concerning QCD sum
50: rules cf.~e.g.~\cite{Hatsuda:1992ez,klingl2,Leupold:1998dg,Thomas:2005dc} and
51: references therein, concerning VMD cf.~e.g.~\cite{Gale:1990pn,klingl2} and
52: references therein. Our work shows that at least
53: one of the two methods must be modified (at least for nuclear matter calculations
54: and at least for the omega meson). In fact, recently the incompatibility of the two
55: concepts has been observed numerically in \cite{Steinmueller:2005}. Here we study
56: that further by presenting an analytical derivation.
57:
58: In the next section we will
59: discuss the QCD sum rule method for our case of interest. In section \ref{sec:vmd}
60: we introduce the concept of VMD and combine it with the previously derived sum rule
61: formula. We will end up with an inconsistent relation. This proves that (at least)
62: one of the input assumptions --- sum rules or VMD --- must be wrong for the studied
63: case, omega mesons in nuclear matter. Finally we discuss this issue further in
64: section \ref{sec:disc}.
65:
66:
67:
68: \section{QCD sum rules}
69: \label{sec:cond}
70:
71: In this work we study the properties of a vector-isoscalar current
72: \begin{equation}
73: \label{eq:vecisoscal}
74: j_\mu := \frac12 \left( \bar u \gamma_\mu u + \bar d \gamma_\mu d \right)
75: \end{equation}
76: which is at rest with respect to the nuclear medium. From the current-current
77: correlator
78: \begin{equation}
79: \label{eq:curcur}
80: \Pi_{\mu\nu}(q) = i \int\!\! d^4\!x \, e^{iqx}
81: \langle T j_\mu(x) j_\nu(0) \rangle_{\rm med}
82: \end{equation}
83: we construct the dimensionless quantity
84: \begin{equation}
85: \label{eq:defR}
86: R(q^2) := \frac{\Pi^\mu_\mu(q^2,\vec q\,^2 =0)}{-3 q^2} \,.
87: \end{equation}
88: $R$ has a direct physical meaning in the time-like region $s=q^2 > 0$.
89: It is related to the cross section $e^+ e^- \to $ hadrons with isospin 0 via
90: \cite{klingl2}
91: \begin{equation}
92: \label{eq:crosssec}
93: \frac{ \sigma^{I=0}(e^+ e^- \to \mbox{hadrons})}{ \sigma(e^+ e^- \to \mu^+ \mu^-) }
94: = \frac43 \pi {\rm Im}R \,.
95: \end{equation}
96: At least for low energies this cross section is determined by hadronic degrees
97: of freedom. For high energies the cross section can be calculated by perturbative QCD.
98: One supposes that perturbative QCD yields a reliable result for energies above the
99: so-called continuum threshold \cite{shif79}. One gets
100: \begin{equation}
101: \label{eq:highen}
102: {\rm Im}R(s) = \frac{1}{8\pi}
103: \left(1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \right) \qquad \mbox{for} \quad s > s_0(\rho_N) \,.
104: \end{equation}
105: The continuum threshold $s_0$ might depend on the nuclear density $\rho_N$, but
106: otherwise the high-energy form is assumed to be independent of the medium. This
107: is in agreement with the general picture that in-medium changes are a (collective)
108: long-distance effect.
109:
110: As outlined e.g.~in \cite{Hatsuda:1993bv}
111: in-medium QCD sum rules can be obtained from an off-shell dispersion relation
112: which integrates over the energy at fixed (here vanishing) three-momentum of the current.
113: We also restrict ourselves to small densities $\rho_N$
114: by using the linear-density approximation. Effectively this means that the current is at
115: rest with respect to the nucleon on which it scatters.
116: The lowest two finite energy sum rules (FESRs) are given
117: by \cite{Hatsuda:1995dy,klingl3,Dutt-Mazumder:2000ys}
118: %(vacuum e.g.~\cite{Chetyrkin:1978ta,Bertlmann:1984ih,Fischer:1986pb,Bertlmann:1987ty,%
119: %Dominguez:1987nw,Gimenez:1990vg,maltman,Dominguez:1998wy,Davier:1998dz,%
120: %Hatsuda:1995dy,klingl3,Marco:1999xz,Marco:2001dh,Dominguez:2003dr,Leupold:2004gh}).
121: %\cite{shif79,Hatsuda:1992ez,klingl2,Dutt-Mazumder:2000ys,Zschocke:2002mp}
122: \begin{subequations}
123: \label{eq:FESR}
124: \begin{eqnarray}
125: \label{eq:FESR1}
126: \frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits^{s_0(\rho_N)}_0 \!\! ds \,
127: {\rm Im} R(s,\rho_N) & = &
128: c_0 s_0(\rho_N) - \frac{9 \rho_N}{4 m_N} \,, \\
129: \label{eq:FESR2}
130: \frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits^{s_0(\rho_N)}_0 \!\! ds \, s \,
131: {\rm Im} R(s,\rho_N) & = &
132: \frac12 \, c_0 s_0^2(\rho_N) - c_2 \,.
133: \end{eqnarray}
134: \end{subequations}
135: Here $\rho_N$ denotes the nuclear density and the $c_i$ encode the condensates:
136: \begin{subequations}
137: \label{eq:cond02}
138: \begin{eqnarray}
139: \label{eq:c0}
140: c_0 & = & \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left(1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \right) \,, \\
141: c_2 & = & m_q \langle \bar q q\rangle_{\rm med} +
142: \frac{1}{24} \, \left\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G^2 \right\rangle_{\rm med}
143: %\nonumber \\ && {}
144: + \frac{1}{4} \, m_N a_2 \rho_N \,.
145: \label{eq:c2}
146: \end{eqnarray}
147: \end{subequations}
148: Note that we have followed the common practice to neglect contributions
149: from $\alpha_s$ suppressed twist-two operators
150: (cf.~e.g.~\cite{Leupold:1998bt} for details). Their inclusion would not change our
151: lines of reasoning. The quantity $a_2$ is a moment of parton distributions and therefore
152: well constrained by deep inelastic scattering \cite{Hatsuda:1992ez}.
153: Note that we have extracted from
154: $R$ the Landau damping contribution --- last term on the right hand side of
155: (\ref{eq:FESR1}) \cite{Hatsuda:1992ez}.\footnote{Sign and size of the Landau damping
156: contribution are discussed in some detail in \cite{Steinmueller:2005}.}
157:
158: Using the linear-density approximation we get for quark and gluon condensate
159: \cite{Hatsuda:1992ez}:
160: \begin{eqnarray}
161: m_q \langle \bar q q \rangle_{\rm med} & = & m_q \langle \bar q q \rangle_{\rm vac}
162: + m_q \langle N \vert \bar q q \vert N \rangle \rho_N
163: %\nonumber \\
164: %& = &
165: = -\frac12 F_\pi^2 M_\pi^2 + \frac12 \, \sigma_N \rho_N \,,
166: \label{eq:scal2q}
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: and
169: \begin{equation}
170: \label{eq:gluoncond}
171: \left\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G^2 \right\rangle_{\rm med}
172: = \left\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G^2 \right\rangle_{\rm vac}
173: - \frac{8}{11 - \frac{2}{3}N_f } m_N^{(0)} \rho_N \,.
174: \end{equation}
175:
176: Let us briefly discuss the essence of the sum rules (\ref{eq:FESR}):
177: The basic idea \cite{shif79} is that the hadronic low-energy spectral information
178: (which enters the left hand side) is connected to QCD information about the
179: non-perturbative vacuum, or in other words: to perturbative QCD improved by condensates
180: via an operator product expansion. In short: High-energy information
181: (about quarks and gluons) is connected to low-energy information (about hadrons).
182: As already discussed in \cite{shif79}, it is {\em not} always possible to connect
183: these informations. At least, one has to make sure that the hadronic side of a sum
184: rule is indeed given/dominated by the low-energy information and that the
185: condensate side is dominated by the high-energy information encoded in the known
186: condensates of low dimensionality.
187: We will come back to that point below.
188:
189: Besides the condensates which are (more or less) well known and the quantity Im$R$ we are
190: interested in, we also have the continuum threshold
191: $s_0$ and its density dependence. It introduces an additional parameter which we are not
192: primarily interested in. In addition, the sum rules (\ref{eq:FESR}) mix vacuum and
193: in-medium information while we are only interested in the latter. At least, we want to
194: make sure that uncertainties in the vacuum description do not influence our conclusions for
195: the in-medium changes. In the following, we will show that one can get better sum rules
196: which solve some of the mentioned problems.
197:
198: To be more sensitive to the in-medium modifications we differentiate the
199: FESRs (\ref{eq:FESR}) with respect to the density. Since we work in
200: the linear-density approximation we should set $\rho_N$ to zero after the
201: differentiation. We get
202: \begin{subequations}
203: \label{eq:FESRdens}
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: %\lefteqn{
206: \frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{s_0} \!\! ds \,
207: \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_N} {\rm Im}R(s,\rho_N)
208: \right\vert_{\rho_N =0} + \tilde c
209: %} \nonumber \\ && \hspace*{8em}
210: & = & c_0 \left. \frac{d s_0}{d \rho_N} \right\vert_{\rho_N =0}
211: - \frac{9}{4 m_N} \,, \\[1em]
212: %\lefteqn{
213: \frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{s_0} \!\! ds \, s \,
214: \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_N} {\rm Im}R(s,\rho_N)
215: \right\vert_{\rho_N =0}
216: + s_0 \tilde c
217: %} \nonumber \\ && \hspace*{8em}
218: & = & c_0 s_0 \left. \frac{d s_0}{d \rho_N} \right\vert_{\rho_N =0}
219: - \frac{d c_2}{d \rho_N} \,.
220: %\phantom{mm}
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: \end{subequations}
223: with $s_0 = s_0(\rho_N = 0)$ and
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: \label{eq:defirr}
226: \tilde c = \left.
227: \frac1\pi \, {\rm Im}R(s_0,\rho_N) \, \frac{d s_0}{d \rho_N}
228: \right\vert_{\rho_N =0} \,.
229: \end{eqnarray}
230:
231: The FESRs (\ref{eq:FESR}) --- and also (\ref{eq:FESRdens}) ---
232: show an unpleasant feature: The region around the continuum threshold can sizably
233: contribute to the respective integrals. On the other hand, we recall that the
234: sum rules are derived under the assumption that at the continuum threshold
235: perturbative QCD immediately sets in and gives a reliable description. This is
236: expressed in (\ref{eq:highen}). Clearly this is an over-simplifying assumption.
237: Therefore, one would prefer sum rules
238: which are only sensitive to the low-energy region one is interested in and insensitive
239: to the region around the threshold. This criterion is not met by the FESRs, but e.g.~by
240: the Borel sum rules
241: already used in the seminal QCD sum rule papers \cite{shif79}. However, also
242: Borel sum rules have their shortcomings as compared to FESRs:
243: In principle, condensates of arbitrary high dimensions enter the Borel sum rules
244: while only condensates of a specific dimension enter a particular FESR
245: (e.g.~only dimension-four condensates collected in $c_2$ enter the
246: sum rule (\ref{eq:FESR2})). In addition, Borel sum rules introduce additional
247: parameters (the Borel window) in which one is primarily not interested in. A method which
248: combines the advantages of FESR and Borel sum rules are weighted FESRs.
249: For our case of interest we obtain the following
250: weighted finite energy sum rule (WFESR) by a linear combination of the
251: equations (\ref{eq:FESRdens}):
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: %\lefteqn{
254: \frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{s_0} \!\! ds \, (s_0-s)
255: \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_N} {\rm Im}R(s,\rho_N)
256: \right\vert_{\rho_N =0}
257: %} \nonumber \\ && \hspace*{8em}
258: = - \frac{9s_0}{4 m_N} + \frac{d c_2}{d \rho_N} \,.
259: \label{eq:wFESR1}
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: This is the sum rule which we will use from now on.
262:
263: As already noted, the standard FESRs are rather sensitive to
264: the modeling of the transition region from the hadronic part
265: to the continuum (see also e.g.~\cite{Leupold:2001hj} and references therein). This
266: is different for (\ref{eq:wFESR1}), since the transition region is suppressed by
267: $(s_0-s)$. Therefore (\ref{eq:wFESR1}) is
268: more reliable as it is insensitive to details of the
269: threshold modeling at $s_0$. This is a frequently discussed line of reasoning which is
270: not special for in-medium sum rules
271: (cf.~e.g.~\cite{maltman} and references therein).\footnote{Indeed, a very
272: interesting and successful application of WFESRs and a failure of standard
273: FESRs are documented in
274: \cite{Dominguez:2003dr} for Weinberg type sum rules
275: in the vacuum.}
276: The in-medium WFESR (\ref{eq:wFESR1}), however, has an
277: additional feature: It is independent of the in-medium change of the threshold parameter,
278: i.e.~independent of $\frac{d s_0}{d \rho_N}$.
279: Note that the vacuum threshold $s_0$
280: appears in (\ref{eq:wFESR1}). This, however, can be fixed by
281: an independent vacuum sum rule analysis which is free of all in-medium uncertainties.
282: If one takes the arithmetic
283: average of the squared masses of the omega and of its first
284: excitation \cite{pdg04} one gets $s_0 \approx 1.3\,$GeV$^2$.
285: We note already here that for our
286: qualitative arguments we do not need the numerical value.
287:
288: We would like to stress again that the sum rule (\ref{eq:wFESR1})
289: constitutes a big step forward in the sum rule analysis of in-medium properties:
290: First, we are directly sensitive to in-medium changes in contrast to
291: traditional analyses \cite{Hatsuda:1992ez,klingl2,Leupold:1998dg,Zschocke:2002mp}
292: which study vacuum plus medium contributions. Second, we have got
293: rid of all additional parameters like the in-medium continuum threshold and
294: the Borel masses
295: (cf.~also the discussion in \cite{Hatsuda:1995dy,Mallik:2001gv}). Third, we still share
296: with Borel type sum rules the feature that we are less sensitive to the modeling of the
297: continuum threshold.
298:
299:
300: \section{Vector meson dominance}
301: \label{sec:vmd}
302:
303: Strict VMD implies the identification \cite{sakuraiVMD,Gale:1990pn}
304: \begin{equation}
305: \label{eq:strvmd}
306: j_\mu = - \frac{M_\omega^2}{g} \, \omega_\mu
307: \end{equation}
308: with the mass of the omega $M_\omega \approx 782\,$MeV \cite{pdg04},
309: the universal vector meson coupling $g\approx 6$ \cite{Gale:1990pn}
310: and the omega meson field $\omega_\mu$. In other words, all hadronic interaction of
311: the current (\ref{eq:vecisoscal})
312: with hadrons is mediated by the omega meson. One gets
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: \label{eq:vmdR1}
315: {\rm Im}R(s) & = & -\frac{M_\omega^4}{g^2 s} \,
316: {\rm Im} \frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2-\Pi_\omega(s)}
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: with the self energy $\Pi_\omega$
319: which in general splits into a vacuum and an in-medium part.
320: Let us stress again, that according to strict VMD all in-medium modifications
321: influence the propagator of the omega meson (via the self energy),
322: but not the vertex between the current
323: (\ref{eq:vecisoscal}) and the omega. In linear-density approximation we get
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: \label{eq:vmdR}
326: {\rm Im}R(s,\rho_N) = -\frac{M_\omega^4}{g^2 s} \,
327: {\rm Im} \frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2-\rho_N T(s)}
328: \end{eqnarray}
329: and therefore
330: \begin{eqnarray}
331: %\lefteqn{
332: \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_N} {\rm Im}R(s,\rho_N)
333: \right\vert_{\rho_N =0}
334: %} \nonumber \\ &&
335: = \frac{M_\omega^4}{g^2 s} \, {\rm Im} \left[ \left(
336: \frac{d}{ds} \frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2 + i\epsilon} \right) T(s) \right]
337: \label{eq:rdiff}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: with the omega-nucleon forward scattering amplitude $T(s)$ for an in general off-shell
340: omega with invariant mass squared $s$ which is at rest with respect to the nucleon.
341: Note that we have neglected the small vacuum self energy of the omega meson. We will
342: come back to this approximation below.
343:
344: Using (\ref{eq:rdiff}) we obtain for the left hand side of the
345: sum rule (\ref{eq:wFESR1}) after some algebra:
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: \label{eq:lhs}
348: %\lefteqn{
349: \frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{s_0} \!\! ds \, (s_0-s)
350: \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_N} {\rm Im}R(s,\rho_N)
351: \right\vert_{\rho_N =0}
352: %} \\ &&
353: &= & \frac{M_\omega^4}{g^2 \pi} \left\{
354: \int\limits_0^{s_0} \!\! ds \, \left[
355: \frac{s_0}{s^2} \, {\rm Re}\frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2 + i\epsilon} \, {\rm Im} T(s)
356: %\right. \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \hspace{7em}
357: - \left( \frac{s_0}{s} -1 \right) {\rm Re}\frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2 + i\epsilon} \,
358: {\rm Im} T'(s) \right]
359: \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \hspace{3em}
360: - \frac{s_0}{M_\omega^4} \, \pi {\rm Re}T(M_\omega^2)
361: + \left( \frac{s_0}{M_\omega^2} -1 \right) \pi {\rm Re}T'(M_\omega^2) \right\} \,.
362: %\nonumber
363: \end{eqnarray}
364: It is important to note that the integrals which appear in the last expression look
365: like dispersive integrals. Indeed, we will use in the following dispersion relations
366: to calculate Re$T$ and bring the non-integral terms on the right hand side of
367: (\ref{eq:lhs}) in a form similar to the integral terms. There
368: is, however, one notable difference: Dispersive integrals cover the whole energy
369: range, i.e.~they are not restricted by $s_0$.
370:
371: Next we relate the real part of the scattering amplitude to its imaginary part
372: using a one time subtracted dispersion relation, i.e.~\cite{klingl2}
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: {\rm Re}T'(s) & = & - \frac1\pi {\cal P}\int\limits_0^\infty \!\! ds' \,
375: \frac{{\rm Im}T'(s')}{s-s'}
376: %\nonumber \\ & = &
377: = - \frac1\pi \int\limits_0^\infty \!\! ds' \, {\rm Im}T'(s') \,
378: {\rm Re}\frac{1}{s-s'-i\epsilon}
379: \label{eq:dispder}
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: and therefore
382: \begin{eqnarray}
383: \label{eq:dispsub}
384: {\rm Re}T(s) = {\rm Re}T(0) - \frac{s}{\pi} \int\limits_0^\infty \!\! ds' \,
385: \frac{{\rm Im}T(s')}{s'}
386: \, {\rm Re}\frac{1}{s-s'-i\epsilon} \,. \phantom{m}
387: \end{eqnarray}
388:
389: The subtraction constant appearing in (\ref{eq:dispsub}) is the omega-nucleon
390: forward scattering amplitude at the photon point. VMD relates this quantity
391: to the isospin-0 part of the photon-nucleon scattering amplitude for vanishing photon
392: momenta. The latter is just Thomson scattering and therefore we get
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: \label{eq:thom}
395: {\rm Re}T(0) = \frac{9 g^2}{4 m_N} \,.
396: \end{eqnarray}
397: Now we use (\ref{eq:lhs}), (\ref{eq:dispder}) and (\ref{eq:dispsub})
398: to evaluate the left hand side of the WFESR (\ref{eq:wFESR1}).
399: We get after some lengthy but straightforward algebra
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: \label{eq:nfin}
402: -\frac{s_0}{g^2} \, {\rm Re}T(0) +
403: \frac1\pi \frac{M_\omega^4}{g^2} \, X = - \frac{9s_0}{4 m_N} + \frac{d c_2}{d \rho_N}
404: \end{eqnarray}
405: with
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: X & = & \frac{1}{M_\omega^2} \, {\rm Im}T(s_0)
408: - \frac{s_0}{M_\omega^2} \int\limits_{s_0}^\infty \!\! ds \,
409: \frac{{\rm Im}T(s)}{s}
410: \, {\rm Re}\frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2+i\epsilon}
411: %\nonumber \\ &&
412: + \left( \frac{s_0}{M_\omega^2}-1 \right) \int\limits_{s_0}^\infty \!\! ds \,
413: {\rm Im}T'(s) \, {\rm Re}\frac{1}{s-M_\omega^2+i\epsilon} \,.
414: \label{eq:defX}
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: Using finally (\ref{eq:thom}) we get
417: \begin{eqnarray}
418: \label{eq:fin}
419: \frac1\pi \frac{M_\omega^4}{g^2} \, X = \frac{d c_2}{d \rho_N} \,.
420: \end{eqnarray}
421: It is important to note that $X$ contains purely high-energy information, i.e.~the
422: imaginary part of the scattering amplitude {\em above} the continuum threshold.
423: Concerning the sum rule philosophy this is a disastrous result: The condensates
424: on the right hand side --- to be more precise: their in-medium
425: changes --- do not constrain the low-energy information as they should, but rather
426: the high-energy information. In contrast, the basic idea of the sum rule method is
427: to make contact between the condensates and the hadronic low-energy information.
428: As already discussed above, the high-energy part (and especially the part around the
429: continuum threshold) is much less accurately treated.
430: In turn this means that a sum rule becomes unreliable, if it is not the low-energy
431: information which is connected to the condensates, but part of the high-energy
432: information. The sum rule method breaks down.
433:
434: In the spirit of the sum rule method one might even take a somewhat more simplified
435: point of view to demonstrate what is wrong with (\ref{eq:fin}):
436: We recall the proposition that the high-energy
437: part of Im$R$ is unchanged by the medium, as expressed in (\ref{eq:highen}).
438: Consequently, it should not matter much whether one stops the dispersion integral
439: (\ref{eq:dispsub}) at $s_0$ or at infinity. Stopping the dispersion at $s_0$, however, is
440: equivalent to completely neglecting $X$. Hence, we would deduce from (\ref{eq:fin}) that
441: the in-medium changes of the condensates vanish. On the other hand, plugging in
442: reasonable numbers \cite{Hatsuda:1992ez} in (\ref{eq:c2}), (\ref{eq:scal2q}),
443: (\ref{eq:gluoncond}) one finds that $dc_2/d\rho_N$ does not vanish.
444: This demonstrates even more clearly the breakdown of the sum rule method.
445:
446:
447: \section{Further discussion}
448: \label{sec:disc}
449:
450: We have found that the sum rule method becomes unreliable for the in-medium
451: part of the correlator.
452: Note, however, that this result is caused by VMD. Without VMD there would be terms
453: remaining at the left hand side of the sum rules which contain low-energy information.
454: This could easily be checked e.g.~with the extension used in \cite{Friman:1997tc}.
455: We will not go through this exercise here.
456: Hence, the main result of our purely analytical calculations is the following:
457: If strict VMD still works well in a nuclear medium, then the sum rule method does
458: not work any more. In turn, this means, that if the sum rule method works
459: in a nuclear medium, then strict VMD has to fade. We would like to stress that neither
460: the sum rule method nor VMD is strictly derivable from QCD. Therefore, we will not
461: speculate in the present paper which of the concepts should be modified. We only report
462: our finding that they do not fit together for an in-medium situation.
463: We note in passing that an in-medium fate of VMD has been found in the context of
464: the hidden local symmetry approach \cite{Harada:2003jx}.
465:
466: We should discuss the methods and approximations used to obtain our result:
467: By replacing (\ref{eq:vmdR1}) by (\ref{eq:vmdR}) we have neglected the vacuum
468: self energy of the omega meson, i.e.~its width and the corresponding real part.
469: Indeed, without that approximation the integrals
470: in (\ref{eq:lhs}) would not resemble dispersions. This would induce changes on the
471: left hand side of (\ref{eq:fin}) which scale with the (vacuum) width of the omega
472: meson. Do they contain the proper low-energy information which is constrained by
473: condensates on the right hand side of (\ref{eq:fin})? In principle, this could be
474: a way to reconcile sum rules and VMD. We give two reasons why this cannot be the case:
475: From a phenomenological point of view, we observe that the width of the omega is very
476: small --- about 1\% of its mass \cite{pdg04}.
477: Such small modifications cannot account for the condensates.
478: Also from a more formal point of view this would be unsatisfying: One can study
479: the sum rules as a function of the number of colors $N_c$ and explore the
480: large-$N_c$ behavior \cite{'tHooft:1974jz,witten}. In general, the condensates
481: (\ref{eq:cond02}) are $O(N_c)$. This is also true for their in-medium
482: changes.\footnote{The change of the gluon condensate is an exception,
483: see e.g.~\cite{Leupold:2004gh} for details.} Also the hadronic left hand side
484: of the sum rules is $O(N_c)$ which can be seen e.g.~from (\ref{eq:vmdR}) by noting
485: that the omega mass and the scattering amplitude $T$ are $O(N_c^0)$ and the
486: coupling $g^2=o(1/N_c)$. The vacuum width of the omega, however, is $o(1/N_c)$.
487: Therefore, the inclusion of the vacuum width of the omega on the hadronic side
488: of the sum rule would induce terms which are $O(N_c^0)$ or lower. This does not
489: match with the condensate side. We conclude that the inclusion of a vacuum self
490: energy for the omega does not change our lines of reasoning. We note in passing,
491: that the large-$N_c$ arguments could be immediately taken over for the rho meson.
492: Neglecting the vacuum width of the rho meson one would also conclude that
493: for a rho meson in a nuclear medium strict VMD does not fit together with the sum rules.
494: On the other hand, from a phenomenological point of view it is less satisfying
495: to neglect the rather large width ($\approx 150\,$MeV \cite{pdg04})
496: of the rho meson. Therefore we have decided to
497: concentrate on the omega meson in the present work.
498:
499: One might ask how sensitive our arguments are concerning the choice of the
500: used type of sum rules (Borel vs.~FESRs etc.). We have already
501: motivated why we prefer the use of WFESRs. On top of the arguments already given,
502: we would like to stress that using a WFESR we were able to show the incompatibility of
503: sum rules and VMD in a purely {\em analytical} way. On the other hand, the same
504: incompatibility can also be found numerically within analyses using other types of sum
505: rules --- and other types of vector mesons.
506: The sum rule practitioners have just not payed much attention to it. As an example
507: we discuss the Borel sum rule analysis of \cite{Leupold:1998dg} for the rho meson:
508: The parameter $F$ introduced in equation 12 in \cite{Leupold:1998dg} should
509: not change if strict VMD holds. From table 2 of \cite{Leupold:1998dg} we find
510: that $F$ drops sizably in a medium for all parameter choices. We conclude
511: that our findings are not special to the chosen type of sum rules. But obviously
512: the proof is most elegant using a WFESR.
513:
514: Finally, let us discuss in more detail which kind of VMD is actually incompatible
515: with the in-medium sum rules. The relation (\ref{eq:strvmd}) which holds on the
516: level of currents and fields can be obtained from a Lagrangian
517: \begin{equation}
518: \label{eq:lagrsVMD}
519: {\cal L}_{\rm int} = - \frac{e \, M_\omega^2}{3g} \, \omega^\mu A_\mu
520: + \omega^\mu j_\mu^{\rm had}
521: \end{equation}
522: with the photon field $A_\mu$, the electromagnetic coupling $e$ and the hadronic
523: current $j^{\rm had}_\mu$.
524: Such a Lagrangian --- albeit frequently used --- is
525: somewhat unsatisfying as it mixes photon and vector meson fields. In that way, the
526: field $A_\mu$ gets a mass and the massless ``real'' photon emerges from a linear
527: combination of $A_\mu$ and the vector meson field. Such complications are avoided
528: by a Lagrangian \cite{Friman:1997tc}
529: \begin{equation}
530: \label{eq:lagreVMD}
531: {\cal L}_{\rm int} = - \frac{e}{6g} \, \omega^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu}
532: + \omega^\mu j_\mu^{\rm had1} + e A^\mu j_\mu^{\rm had2}
533: \end{equation}
534: with the field strengths $\omega_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}$ for vector meson and
535: photon, respectively. Now the $A_\mu$ field remains massless, but real photons
536: decouple from the vector mesons. Therefore, a direct coupling of photons to hadrons
537: is needed. In general, the Lagrangian (\ref{eq:lagreVMD}) leads to a form for
538: the current-current correlator which is more complicated than the one
539: given in (\ref{eq:vmdR1}). In such a case, one can find in-medium interactions which
540: do not contradict the sum rule setting.
541: However, {\em if} there is a relation between the
542: two currents which appear in (\ref{eq:lagreVMD}), namely
543: \begin{equation}
544: \label{eq:had12}
545: g j_\mu^{\rm had1} = j_\mu^{\rm had2} \,,
546: \end{equation}
547: then relation (\ref{eq:vmdR1}) still holds. Since our proof of incompatibility relies
548: on (\ref{eq:vmdR1}) and not on the strict VMD relation (\ref{eq:strvmd}) we can conclude
549: that the sum rules are also incompatible with an in-medium interaction generated from
550: an extended VMD Lagrangian
551: (\ref{eq:lagreVMD}), if condition (\ref{eq:had12}) holds.
552:
553:
554: \bibliography{literature}
555: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
556:
557: \end{document}
558:
559:
560: