1: \documentclass[prd,eqsecnum,twocolumn,amsfonts,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: 

5: \usepackage{bm}

6: 

7: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

8: 

9: \def\fsl#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}           % set a box for #1

10:    \dimen0=\wd0                                 % and get its size

11:    \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1               % get size of /

12:    \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1                        % #1 is bigger

13:       \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}}      % so center / in box

14:       #1                                        % and print #1

15:    \else                                        % / is bigger

16:       \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}}   % so center #1

17:       /                                         % and print /

18:    \fi}                                         %

19: 

20: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

22: \newcommand{\beqs}{\begin{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\eeqs}{\end{eqnarray}}

24: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-

25: .6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}

26: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-

27: .6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}

28: \newcommand{\pslash}{p\hspace{-0.067in}\slash}

29: \newcommand{\qslash}{q\hspace{-0.067in}\slash}

30: \newcommand{\kslash}{k\hspace{-0.067in}\slash}

31: \newcommand{\drawsquare}[2]{\hbox{%

32: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}\hskip-#2pt%  left vertical

33: \rule{#1pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#1pt%  lower horizontal

34: \rule[#1pt]{#1pt}{#2pt}}\rule[#1pt]{#2pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#2pt%  upper horizontal

35: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}}% right vertical

36: \newcommand{\fund}{\raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}%  fund

37: \newcommand{\sym}{\raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}\hskip-0.4pt%

38:         \raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}%  symmetric second rank

39: \newcommand{\asym}{\raisebox{-3.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}\hskip-6.9pt%

40:         \raisebox{3pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}%  antisymmetric second rank

41: 

42: \begin{document}

43: 

44: \title{Behavior of the $S$ Parameter in the Crossover Region Between Walking 

45: and QCD-Like Regimes of an SU($N$) Gauge Theory} 

46: 

47: \author{Masafumi Kurachi}

48: %\thanks{masafumi.kurachi@sunysb.edu}

49: 

50: \author{Robert Shrock}

51: %\thanks{robert.shrock@sunysb.edu}

52: 

53: \affiliation{

54: C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics \\

55: State University of New York \\

56: Stony Brook, NY 11794}

57: 

58: \begin{abstract}

59: 

60: We consider a vectorial, confining SU($N$) gauge theory with a variable number,

61: $N_f$, of massless fermions transforming according to the fundamental

62: representation.  Using the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter equations, we

63: calculate the $S$ parameter in terms of the current-current correlation

64: functions. We focus on values of $N_f$ such that the theory is in the crossover

65: region between the regimes of walking behavior and QCD-like (non-walking)

66: behavior.  Our calculations indicate that the contribution to $S$ from a given

67: fermion decreases as one moves from the QCD-like to the walking regimes.  The

68: implications of this result for technicolor theories are discussed.

69: 

70: \end{abstract}

71: 

72: \pacs{PACS No.}%{14.60.PQ, 12.60.Nz, 14.60.St}

73: 

74: %\keywords{} 

75: 

76: \maketitle

77: 

78: \vspace{16mm}

79: 

80: \newpage

81: \pagestyle{plain}

82: \pagenumbering{arabic}

83: 

84: 

85: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

86: \section{Introduction}

87: \label{sec:Introduction}

88: 

89: 

90: The properties of a vectorial gauge theory as a function of the fermion content

91: are of fundamental importance.  Here we consider such a theory (in $(3+1)$

92: dimensions at zero temperature and chemical potential) with gauge group SU($N$)

93: and $N_f$ massless fermions transforming according to the fundamental

94: representation of this group.  For $N = N_c=3$ and $N_f=2$, this is an

95: approximation to actual quantum chromodynamics (QCD) with just the $u$ and $d$

96: quarks, since their current-quark masses are much smaller than the scale

97: $\Lambda_{QCD} \simeq 400$ MeV.  We restrict here to the range $N_f < (11/2)N$

98: for which the theory is asymptotically free.  An analysis using the two-loop

99: beta function and Schwinger-Dyson equation (reviewed below) leads to the

100: inference that for $N_f$ in this range, the theory includes two phases: (i) for

101: $0 \le N_f \le N_{f,cr}$ a phase with confinement and spontaneous chiral

102: symmetry breaking (S$\chi$SB), and (ii) for $N_{f,cr} \le N_f \le (11/2)N$ a

103: non-Abelian Coulomb phase with no confinement or spontaneous chiral symmetry

104: breaking. We shall refer to $N_{f,cr}$, the critical value of $N_f$, as the

105: boundary of the non-Abelian Coulomb (conformal) phase \cite{bz}.

106: 

107: For $N_f$ slightly less than $N_{f,cr}$, the theory exhibits an approximate

108: infrared (IR) fixed point. Let the SU($N$) running gauge coupling be denoted as

109: $g(\mu)$, where $\mu$ denotes the energy or momentum scale, and let

110: $\alpha(\mu) =\bar g(\mu)^2/(4\pi)$. As $\mu$ decreases from large values,

111: $\alpha(\mu)$ grows to be O(1) at a scale $\Lambda$, but increases only rather

112: slowly as $\mu$ decreases below $\Lambda$, so that there is an extended

113: interval in energy below $\Lambda$ where $\alpha$ is large, but slowly running

114: (``walking'').  In addition to its intrinsic field-theoretic interest, this

115: walking behavior is an essential ingredient of modern technicolor models of

116: dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking \cite{tc}, providing the requisite

117: enhancement of Standard-Model (SM) fermion masses \cite{wtc1}-\cite{chipt3}.

118: As $N_f$ approaches $N_{f,cr}$ from below, quantities with dimensions of mass

119: vanish continuously; i.e., the chiral phase transition separating phases (i)

120: and (ii) is continuous.

121:  

122: 

123: In this paper, we shall use solutions of the Schwinger-Dyson (SD) and

124: Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equations to compute a derivative of the difference of the

125: vector and axial-vector current-current correlation functions,

126: $\Pi'_{VV}(0)-\Pi'_{AA}(0)$.  Up to a multiplicative factor, this is the

127: coefficient $\bar L_{10}$ of one of the terms in the effective chiral

128: Lagrangian for the theory \cite{gl85,chipt}.  Moreover, in the context in which

129: one considers the SU($N$) theory as a technicolor (TC) model, with $N=N_{TC}$,

130: the above quantity is proportional to the correction to the $Z$ propagator due

131: to virtual electroweak-nonsinglet technicolor particles, often denoted as $S$

132: \cite{pt,ab}, \cite{pdg,lepewwg}. We focus on the crossover region between the

133: walking regime that occurs for $N_f \lsim N_{f,cr}$ and the QCD-like

134: (non-walking) regime that occurs for smaller $N_f$.

135: 

136: There are several motivations for this work. The quantity $S$, or equivalently

137: $\bar L_{10}$, is an intrinsic property of the SU($N$) theory, and it is of

138: interest to understand how this quantity depends on $N_f$. Further, our

139: calculations have important implications for technicolor models of dynamical

140: electroweak symmetry breaking \cite{wtc1}-\cite{chipt3}. For this application,

141: as noted, we identify the SU($N$) group with the technicolor gauge group.

142: Precision electroweak data \cite{pdg,lepewwg} determine allowed regions of

143: values of $S$ and the other $Z$ and $W$ propagator corrections denoted $T$ and

144: $U$, and yield a stringent constraint on the contributions from new particles

145: in technicolor models.  In order to assess the viability of these models, it is

146: necessary to have a reliable calculation of the contribution to $S$ from

147: technicolor particles.  A perturbative calculation of $S$ is not reliable since

148: the technifermions are strongly interacting on the relevant scale $\sim m_Z$.

149: Although it is possible to carry out a nonperturbative calculation for

150: technicolor theories that behave like scaled-up QCD (by using QCD data as input

151: for the relevant spectral functions), such theories are excluded since they

152: cannot produce sufficiently large standard-model fermion masses.  It is more

153: difficult to carry out a nonperturbative estimate of $S$ for technicolor models

154: that have walking behavior; such estimates have been presented in

155: Refs. \cite{ats}-\cite{iwts}.  These suggest that the contribution to $S$ per

156: technifermion electroweak doublet is reduced in the walking region. 

157: Meson masses and $f_P$ (the generalization of $f_\pi$) were

158: calculated in this walking regime in Ref. \cite{mmw}. (See also Ref. \cite{mme}

159: for the analogous calculations in QCD.)  A motivation for our

160: calculations in this paper is to gain further insight into the behavior of $S$

161: by studying its behavior in the crossover region between the walking and

162: QCD-like regimes. One of the reasons for concentrating on this crossover region

163: is that the theory still has an approximate infrared fixed point here, and

164: hence one can study the dependence of $S$ on $N_f$ without having to

165: introduce a model-dependent cutoff on the growth of the SU($N$) gauge coupling

166: in the infrared that was required in calculations of $S$ via the SD and BS

167: equations for small $N_f$ values, such as $N_f=3$ in QCD \cite{hys,pms}.  As

168: our previous calculations of meson masses and $f_P$ in this crossover region

169: showed, \cite{sg}, although it is a restricted interval in $N_f$ or

170: equivalently, the value of the infrared fixed point, it is sufficient large to

171: observe a significant change between walking and QCD-like behavior. 

172: 

173: This paper is organized as follows. Section II is devoted to a review some

174: background material concerning the beta function, approximate infrared fixed

175: point and walking behavior, and technicolor models. Section III contains

176: definitions of the current-current correlation functions and related spectral

177: functions together with the expression for $S$ in terms of these correlation

178: functions and an equivalent integral of spectral functions.  In this section we

179: also give the definition of $\bar L_{10}$ as a coefficient of a certain

180: operator in the low-energy effective chiral Lagrangian for the theory.  Section

181: IV explains how the current correlators are obtained from Bethe-Salpeter

182: amplitudes while Section V discusses the method of solution of the

183: Bethe-Salpeter equation.  Our results are presented in Section VI and their

184: implications for technicolor theories in Section VII.  An appendix discusses

185: some analytic approximations.

186: 

187: 

188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

189: \section{Some Preliminaries} 

190: \label{sec:large_Nf}

191: 

192: In this section we review some background for our calculations.  For the theory

193: under consideration, with an SU($N$) gauge group and $N_f$ massless fermions in

194: the fundamental representation, the renormalization group (RG) equation for the

195: running coupling $\alpha(\mu)$ is 

196: %

197: \beq

198: \beta = \mu \frac{d \alpha(\mu)}{d \mu} = - \frac{\alpha(\mu)^2}{2\pi}

199: \left ( b_0 + \frac{b_1}{4\pi}\alpha + O(\alpha^2) \right ) \ ,

200: \label{eq:RGE_for_alpha}

201: \eeq

202: %

203: where $\mu$ is the momentum scale. The two terms listed are scheme-independent.

204: The next two higher-order terms have also been calculated but are

205: scheme-dependent; their inclusion does not significantly affect our results.

206: For the relevant case of an asymptotically free theory, $b_0 > 0$ so that an

207: infrared fixed point exists if and only if $b_1 < 0$.  This coefficient $b_1$

208: is positive for $0 \le N_f \le N_{f,IR}$, where $N_{f,IR}=(34N^3)/(13N^2-3)$,

209: and negative for larger $N_f$.  For $N=3$, $N_{f,IR} \simeq 8.1$

210: \cite{integer}.  The value of $\alpha$ at this IR fixed point, denoted

211: $\alpha_*$, is given by $\alpha_* = -4\pi b_0/b_1$.  Substituting the known

212: values of these terms \cite{b0,b1}, one has

213: %

214: \beq

215: \alpha_* = \frac{-4\pi(11N -2N_f)}{34N^2-13N N_f+3N^{-1}N_f} \ .

216: \label{alpha_irfp}

217: \eeq

218: %

219: Solving Eq. (\ref{alpha_irfp}) for $N_f$ in terms of $\alpha_*$ yields

220: %

221: \beq

222: N_f=\frac{2N^2[17N(\alpha_*/\pi)+22]}{(13N^2-3)(\alpha_*/\pi)+8N} \ .

223: \label{nfsol}

224: \eeq

225: %

226: As is evident from Eqs. (\ref{alpha_irfp}) and (\ref{nfsol}), $\alpha_*$ is a

227: monotonically decreasing function of $N_f$ and equivalently $N_f$ is a

228: monotonically decreasing function of $\alpha_*$, for $N_{f,IR} \le N_f \le

229: (11/2)N$. 

230: 

231: To study the dependence of $S$ on $N_f$, what we actually vary is the value of

232: the approximate IR fixed point $\alpha_*$, which depends parametrically on

233: $N_f$.  For definiteness, we shall take $N=3$; however, as will be seen,

234: $N$ only enters indirectly, via the dependence of the value of the infrared

235: fixed point $\alpha_*$ (Eq. (\ref{alfcrit}) below) on $N_c$.  Hence, our

236: findings may also be applied in a straightforward way, with appropriate changes

237: in the value of $\alpha_*$, to an SU($N$) gauge theory with a different value

238: of $N$.

239: 

240: 

241: In the one-gluon exchange approximation, the Schwinger-Dyson gap equation for

242: the inverse propagator of a fermion transforming according to the

243: representation $R$ of SU($N$) has a nonzero solution for the dynamically

244: generated fermion mass, which is an order parameter for spontaneous chiral

245: symmetry breaking, if $\alpha \ge \alpha_{cr}$, where $\alpha_{cr}$ is given by

246: %

247: \beq

248: \frac{3 \alpha_{cr} C_2(R)}{\pi} = 1,

249: \label{alfcritcondition}

250: \eeq

251: %

252: and $C_2(R)$ denotes the quadratic Casimir invariant for the representation $R$

253: \cite{casimir}.  Using

254: %

255: \beq

256: C_2(fund.) \equiv C_{2f}=\frac{N^2-1}{2N}

257: \label{c2f}

258: \eeq

259: for the fundamental representation yields

260: %

261: \beq

262: \alpha_{cr} = \frac{2\pi N}{3(N^2-1)} \ .

263: \label{alfcrit}

264: \eeq

265: %

266: For the case $N=3$ that we use for definiteness here, Eq. (\ref{alfcrit})

267: gives $\alpha_{cr} = \pi/4 \simeq 0.79$.  To estimate $N_{f,cr}$, one solves

268: the equation $\alpha_* = \alpha_{cr}$, yielding the result \cite{chipt3}

269: %

270: \beq

271: N_{f,cr} = \frac{2N(50N^2-33)}{5(5N^2-3)} \ .

272: \label{nfcr}

273: \eeq

274: %

275: For the values $N=3$ and $N=2$ this gives $N_{f,cr} \simeq 11.9$ and $N_{f,cr}

276: \simeq 7.9$, respectively.  These estimates are only rough, in view of the

277: strongly coupled nature of the physics. Effects of higher-order gluon 

278: exchanges have been studied in Ref. \cite{alm}.  In principle, lattice gauge

279: simulations should provide a way to determine $N_{f,cr}$, but the groups that

280: have studied this have not reached a consensus \cite{lgt}.

281: 

282: 

283: If $\alpha_*$ is less than the critical value, $\alpha_{cr}$, for a bilinear

284: fermion condensate to form, the above IR fixed point is exact, with the

285: coupling $\alpha$ approaching $\alpha_*$ from below as the energy scale $E$

286: decreases from large values to zero.  Let us denote the fermions as $f_i^a$

287: with $a=1,...,N$ and $i=1,...,N_f$.  If $\alpha_* > \alpha_{cr}$, as $E$

288: descends from large values, the coupling $\alpha$ eventually exceeds the above

289: critical value, the fermion condensates $\langle \sum_{a=1}^{N} \bar f_{a,i}

290: f^a_i \rangle$ (with no sum on $i$) form, and are equal for each flavor

291: $i=1,...,N_f$ (with electroweak interactions negligibly small relative to the

292: SU($N$) interaction).  Accordingly, the global ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L \times {\rm

293: SU}(N_f)_R \times {\rm U}(1)_V$ symmetry (where U(1)$_V$ is fermion number) is

294: broken to generalized isospin times fermion number, ${\rm SU}(N_f)_V \times

295: U(1)_V$.

296: 

297: Associated with this, the fermions pick up dynamical masses $\Sigma$ and are

298: integrated out as the energy scale decreases below $\Sigma$.  Hence, in this

299: case, the IR fixed point is only approximate since in the effective field

300: theory for energies below $\Sigma$, the form of the beta function is that for

301: the pure gauge theory, $N_f=0$.  The case where $\alpha_*$ is close to, and

302: slightly larger than, $\alpha_{cr}$, yields walking behavior.  In the strong

303: walking regime, the dynamical fermion mass, and also hadron masses are

304: exponentially smaller than the scale $\Lambda$ at which the coupling first

305: becomes O(1) as the energy scale decreases from large values.  Although our SD

306: and BS equations are semi-perturbative, the analysis is self-consistent in the

307: sense that our $\alpha_{cr}$ really is the value at which, in our

308: approximation, one passes from the confinement phase to the non-Abelian Coulomb

309: phase, and our values of $\alpha$ do span the interval over which there is a

310: crossover from walking to QCD-like (i.e., non-walking) behavior.

311: 

312: As is evident from the above results, decreasing $N_f$ below $N_{f,cr}$ has the

313: effect of increasing $\alpha_*$ and thus moving the theory deeper in the phase

314: with confinement and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, away from the

315: boundary with the non-Abelian Coulomb phase.  This is the key parametric

316: dependence that we shall use for our study.  In Refs. \cite{mmw,pmsw} the range

317: of $\alpha_*$ used for the calculation of meson masses was chosen to be $0.89

318: \le \alpha_* \le 1.0$, an interval where there is pronounced walking behavior.

319: For the case $N=3$ considered in Ref. \cite{pmsw} and here, given the

320: above-mentioned value, $\alpha_{cr}=\pi/4$, it follows that this lower limit,

321: $\alpha_*=0.89$, is about 12 \% greater than this critical coupling.  The

322: reason for this choice of lower limit on $\alpha_*$ was that the calculation of

323: $S$ involves very strong cancellations as $\alpha_* - \alpha_{cr} \to 0^+$,

324: rendering it progressively more and more difficult to obtain accurate numerical

325: results in this extreme walking limit.  For our present study of $S$ we

326: consider an interval extending to larger couplings, from $\alpha_*=1.0$ to

327: $\alpha_*=1.8$.  Our upper limit is chosen in order for the ladder

328: approximation used in our solutions of the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter

329: equations to have reasonable reliability.  From Eq. (\ref{nfsol}) it follows

330: that $\alpha_*=0.89$ corresponds to $N_f=11.65$, about 2 \% less than

331: $N_{f,cr}$.  For a coupling as large as $\alpha_* = 1.8$, the semi-perturbative

332: methods used to derive eqs. (\ref{alpha_irfp}) and (\ref{nfsol}) are subject to

333: large corrections from higher-order perturbative, and from nonperturbative,

334: contributions; recognizing this, the above upper limit of $\alpha_*$

335: corresponds to $N_f \simeq 10.3$, a roughly 13 \% reduction from

336: $N_{f,cr}=11.9$.  Although this shift appears to be by only a modest amount

337: when expressed in terms of $N_f$, in terms of $\alpha_*$ it is a factor of

338: two, and our calculations in Ref. \cite{sg} showed a dramatic change in the

339: values of meson mass ratios and $f_P/\Lambda$ in this range, with these values

340: changing from their walking limits toward QCD-like values.  Hence we anticipate

341: that this range can be sufficient to study the shift in the value of $S$, and

342: our results confirm this.

343: 

344: If $N_f > N_{f,cr}$, i.e., $\alpha_* < \alpha_{cr}$ so that this IR fixed point

345: of the two-loop RG equation is exact, then, denoting $b \equiv b_0/(2\pi)$, the

346: solution to this equation can be explicitly

347: written~\cite{Gardi,ExplicitSolution} in the entire energy region as

348: %

349: \beq

350: \alpha(\mu)=\alpha_\ast \left[\ W(e^{-1}(\mu/\Lambda)^{b \alpha_*})+1 \ 

351: \right]^{-1},

352: \label{Lambert}

353: \eeq

354: %

355: where $W(x) = F^{-1}(x)$, with $F(x) = x e^x$, is the Lambert $W$

356: function, and $\Lambda$ is a RG-invariant

357: scale defined by~\cite{chipt2}

358: %

359: \beq

360:  \Lambda \ \equiv\  \mu \ \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{b} \left \{ 

361: \frac{1}{\alpha_\ast}

362: \ln\left( \frac{\alpha_\ast - \alpha(\mu)}{\alpha(\mu)} \right)

363:         + \frac{1}{\alpha(\mu)} \right \} \right] .

364: \label{eq:Lambda}

365: \eeq 

366: %

367: Now since we are studying the confined phase with $N_f < N_{f,cr}$, ($\alpha_*

368: > \alpha_{cr}$) with spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, $\alpha_*$ is only

369: an approximate, rather than exact, IR fixed point.  Hence, the solution

370: (\ref{Lambert}) is only applicable in an approximate manner to our case; for

371: momenta much less than the dynamical fermion mass $\Sigma$, the fermions

372: decouple, and in this very low-momentum region, with the fermions integrated

373: out, the resultant $\alpha$ would increase above the value $\alpha_*$ at the

374: approximate IR fixed point.  However, since $\Sigma \ll \Lambda$ in a walking

375: or near-walking theory, it follows that this lowest range of momenta makes a

376: small contribution to the relevant integrals to be evaluated in our

377: calculations.  Hence, over most of the integration range for these integrals

378: where the coupling $\alpha$ is large, it is approximately constant and equal to

379: its fixed-point value, $\alpha_*$ (see Fig. 2 of Ref. \cite{mmw}).  This means

380: that one can use, as a reasonable approximation, the expression 

381: %

382: \beq

383:   \alpha(\mu) = \alpha_\ast \, \theta(\Lambda-\mu),

384: \label{run_approx}

385: \eeq

386: %

387: where $\theta$ is the step function.  (This is the same approximation used in

388: Refs. \cite{sg,mmw}.)  Thus, in the walking region and the adjacent

389: crossover region, the calculations have the advantage that one can avoid having

390: to introduce an artificial cutoff on the growth of $\alpha$ in the infrared, in

391: contrast to the situation for smaller $N_f$, where the walking behavior

392: disappears and this cutoff is necessary. 

393: 

394: Since an important application of our results is to technicolor models, we

395: briefly mention some relevant features of these models.  As noted, the

396: technicolor gauge theory has a gauge group SU($N_{TC}$) and an asysmptotically

397: free coupling that gets large at the TeV scale \cite{tc}.  It contains a set of

398: massless, vectorially coupled technifermions.  The left-handed components of

399: these fermions transform as doublets under SU(2)$_L$.  The spontaneous chiral

400: symmetry breaking and formation of a bilinear technifermion condensate breaks

401: the electroweak symmetry from ${\rm SU}(2)_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y$ to

402: U(1)$_{em}$, producing masses for the $W$ and $Z$ given to leading order by

403: $m_W^2 = m_Z^2 \cos^2 \theta_W = (g^2/4)N_{D,TF} F_{TC}^2$, where $F_{TC}$ is

404: the technicolor analogue of $f_\pi$. In order to give masses to the

405: Standard-Model fermions (which are technisinglets), it is necessary to embed

406: technicolor in a larger, extended technicolor (ETC) theory \cite{etc,tcm}, with

407: interactions that transform technifermions to the Standard-Model fermions and

408: vice versa.  To satisfy constraints from flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC)

409: processes, the ETC vector bosons that mediate generation-changing transitions

410: must have large masses, ranging from a few TeV to $10^3$ TeV.  For our present

411: study, concerned with $S$, we concentrate on the technicolor theory at the

412: scale of a few hundred GeV, with the ETC gauge bosons integrated out.

413: 

414: We focus here on models in which the technifermions transform according to the

415: fundamental representation of the SU($N_{TC}$) gauge group.  Two simple

416: examples are the so-called one-doublet and one-family technicolor models.  A

417: one-doublet TC model has $N_f=2$ technifermions, denoted $U$ and $D$, whose

418: chiral components transform according to

419: %

420: \beqs

421: & & F_L = {U_L \choose D_L} \ : \ (N_{TC},1,2)_{0,L}, \cr\cr

422: & & U_R \ : \ \ (N_{TC},1,1)_{1,R}, \cr\cr

423: & & D_R \ : \ \ (N_{TC},1,1)_{-1,R} \ . 

424: \label{1d}

425: \eeqs

426: %

427: where the numbers in parentheses refer to the dimensions of the representations

428: of ${\rm SU}(N_{TC}) \times {\rm SU}(3)_c \times {\rm SU}(2)_L$ and the

429: subscripts refer to the weak U(1)$_Y$ hypercharges.  The value $N_{TC}=2$ has

430: been preferred in recent TC/ETC model-building \cite{at94,as} for several

431: reasons, including the fact that it (i) minimizes technicolor contributions to

432: the $S$ parameter, (ii) can naturally produce a walking theory in a one-family

433: model (see below), and (iii) makes possible a mechanism to explain

434: light neutrino masses \cite{as}.  The one-doublet TC model has one

435: SU(2)$_L$ doublet of technifermions for each technicolor index, which we

436: express as $N_{D,TF}=1$, and hence a total number of SU(2)$_L$ doublets

437: of technifermions equal to $N_{D,tot}=N_{D,TF}N_{TC}=N_{TC}$.  The TC sector

438: with just these $N_f=2$ technifermions would not exhibit walking behavior, but

439: one can add SM-singlet technifermions to produce a theory that does have such

440: behavior \cite{ts}.  In a one-family TC model the technifermions transform as

441: %

442: \beqs

443: & & Q_L: \ (N,3,2)_{1/3,L} \cr\cr

444: & & u_R: \ (N,3,1)_{4/3,R} \cr\cr

445: & & d_R: \ (N,3,1)_{-2/3,R} \cr\cr

446: & & L_L: \ (N,1,2)_{-1,L} \cr\cr

447: & & N_R: \ (N,1,1)_{0,R} \cr\cr

448: & & E_R: \ (N,1,1)_{-2,R}

449: \label{1fam_quarks}

450: \eeqs

451: %

452: Hence, this type of technicolor models contains $N_f=2(N_c+1)=8$

453: technifermions. As is evident from Eq.  (\ref{nfcr}), with $N=N_{TC}=2$, the

454: value $N_f=8$ is close to the value $N_{f,cr}$ and hence, to within the

455: accuracy of the two-loop beta function analysis, this technicolor model can

456: naturally exhibit walking behavior.  Reverting to general $N=N_{TC}$ for our

457: discussion, this one-family technicolor model thus has $N_{D,TF}=(N_c+1)=4$

458: \ SU(2)$_L$ doublets for each technicolor index, and hence a total of 

459: $N_{D,tot.}=4N_{TC}$ SU(2)$_L$ doublets of technifermions. 

460: 

461: Because of the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the technicolor theory,

462: the technifermions pick up dynamical masses $\Sigma_{TC}$ proportional to

463: $F_{TC} N_{TC}^{-1/2}$, where we have included the $N_{TC}$-dependent factor

464: that would be present in the large-$N_{TC}$ limit, since $f_P$ and

465: $\Sigma_{TC}$ scale, respectively, like $N_{TC}^{1/2}$ and $N_{TC}^0$ in this

466: limit.  For the one-doublet and one-family TC models, $F_{TC} \simeq 250$ and

467: 125 GeV, respectively.  In QCD, the constituent quark mass $\Sigma \simeq 3.5

468: f_\pi$, and one expects a roughly similar ratio in TC theories (see Fig. 3 in

469: our previous work \cite{sg}).  Since the SM gauge couplings are small at the

470: technicolor scale, different technifermions are expected to have roughly

471: degenerate dynamical masses, and the contributions of the techniquark and

472: technilepton doublets to one-loop corrections to the $Z$ propagator are

473: approximately equal.

474: 

475: 

476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

477: 

478: \section{Expression for $S$ in Terms of Current-Current Correlation 

479: Functions}

480: \label{sec:Spectral}

481: 

482: 

483: As a measure of corrections to the $Z$ propagator arising from heavy particles

484: in theories beyond the Standard Model, $S$ was originally defined as 

485: \cite{pt}

486: %

487: \beq

488: S = \frac{4 s_W^2 c_W^2}{\alpha_{em}(m_Z)} \left. \frac{d \Pi^{(NP)}_{ZZ}(q^2)}

489: {dq^2} \right\vert_{q^2 = 0} 

490: \label{s}

491: \eeq

492: %

493: where $s_W^2 = 1-c_W^2 = \sin^2\theta_W$, evaluated at $m_Z$ and the

494: superscript $NP$ refers to the fact that the definition includes new physics

495: beyond the Standard Model.  In the case of technicolor, the technifermions 

496: are taken to have zero masses; because of the spontaneous chiral symmetry 

497: breaking in the TC theory, they pick up dynamical masses $\Sigma_{TC}$ of order

498: the technicolor scale.  More recent analyses of precision electroweak data

499: define $S$ slightly differently, replacing the derivative at $q^2=0$ by a

500: discrete difference (in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme) \cite{pdg} 

501: %

502: \beq

503: S_{PDG} = \frac{4 s_W^2 c_W^2}{\alpha_{em}(m_Z)} \Bigg [ 

504: \frac{\Pi^{(NP)}_{ZZ}(m_Z^2) - \Pi^{(NP)}_{ZZ}(0)}{m_Z^2} \Bigg ] \ . 

505: \label{spdg}

506: \eeq

507: %

508: The difference between these definitions is small if the heavy physics scale

509: $\Sigma_{TC}$ satisfies $(2\Sigma_{TC}/m_Z)^2 \gg 1$, as is the case in the

510: TC models considered here. 

511: 

512: 

513: For our purposes it will be convenient to use the original definition, Eq.

514: (\ref{s}).  The implications of our results for technicolor theories would be

515: essentially the same if we used the expression (\ref{spdg}).  With either

516: definition, since a one-loop heavy fermion correction to the $Z$ propagator has

517: a prefactor $(g^2+g'^2)/(16\pi^2)$, where $g$ and $g'$ are the respective

518: SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$ gauge couplings, and since $(g^2+g'^2)/(16\pi^2)=

519: \alpha_{em}/(4\pi s_W^2 c_W^2)$, the prefactor $4 s_W^2 c_W^2/\alpha_{em}(m_Z)$

520: in the definition of $S$ cancels out the leading dependence on the electroweak

521: gauge couplings (evaluated at the scale $m_Z$), yielding a quantity that

522: depends on the intrinsic properties of the strongly coupled SU($N$) gauge

523: theory.

524: 

525: 

526: Now, suppressing the SU($N_{TC}$) gauge index, we write the fermions as a

527: vector, $\psi = (\psi_i,...,\psi_{N_f})$. We then define vector and the

528: axial-vector currents as

529: %

530: \beqs

531:    V_\mu^a(x) &=& \bar\psi(x) T^a \gamma_\mu \psi(x) \cr\cr

532:    A_\mu^a(x) &=& \bar\psi(x) T^a \gamma_\mu \gamma_5\psi(x) \, ,

533:   \label{def:currents}

534: \label{vacurrents}

535: \eeqs

536: %

537: where the $N_f \times N_f$ matrices $T^a$ ($a=1,..., N_f^2-1$) are the

538: generators of $SU(N_f)$ with the standard normalization ${\rm Tr}(T^a T^b) =

539: \frac{1}{2}\delta^{ab}$.  In terms of these currents, the two-point

540: current-current correlation functions $\Pi_{VV}$ and $\Pi_{AA}$ are defined via

541: the equations

542: %

543: \beqs 

544: && i\int d^4x\ e^{i q \cdot x}\ \langle 0|T(J_\mu^a(x) J_\nu^b(0))|0 \rangle \

545: \cr\cr

546: &=& \delta^{ab}\left(\frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{q^2}-g_{\mu\nu}\right)\Pi_{JJ}(q^2) \ ,

547: \label{pijjdef}

548: \eeqs

549: %

550: where $J_\mu^a(x) = V_\mu^a(x), A_\mu^a(x)$. With the above normalization of

551: $T^a$, $\Pi(q^2)$ measures the contributions to the time-ordered product in

552: Eq. (\ref{pijjdef}) per fermion.  Given that, to a good approximation,

553: different technifermion doublets contribute equally to $S$, it is natural to

554: define a reduced quantity, $\hat S$, that represents the contribution to $S$

555: from each such pair, viz.,

556: %

557: \beq

558: \hat S = \frac{S}{N_D} \ . 

559: \label{shat}

560: \eeq

561: %

562: 

563: Then, in terms of the current-current correlation functions defined above,

564: $S$, as defined in Eq. (\ref{s}), is given by 

565: %

566: \beq

567: \hat S = 4 \pi \left. \frac{d}{d q^2} \left[ \Pi_{VV}(q^2) - \Pi_{AA}(q^2)

568:    \right] \right\vert_{q^2 = 0}\, ,

569:  \label{scor}

570: \eeq

571: %

572: It is convenient to define the compact notation 

573: %

574: \beq

575: \Pi_{V-A}(q^2) \equiv \Pi_{VV}(q^2) - \Pi_{AA}(q^2) \ . 

576: \label{piva}

577: \eeq

578: %

579: 

580: As is evident from Eq. (\ref{scor}), one may also consider $S$ in a different

581: context, namely that of an abstract vectorial SU($N$) gauge theory with $N_f$

582: massless fermions transforming according to the fundamental representation of

583: this group, and with all other interactions much weaker in strength than the

584: SU($N$) gauge interaction.  In this case, in contrast to technicolor models,

585: where $N_f$ is even (since the technifermions have left-handed components

586: forming SU(2)$_L$ doublets), $N_f$ can be even or odd (being restricted to be

587: less than $N_{f,cr}$ so that the theory is in the confinement phase with

588: spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking).  Here, one could naturally define the

589: contribution to $S$ from each fermion individually, namely, $S/N_f$.  However,

590: since our main application will be to technicolor, we shall continue, as in

591: Ref. \cite{pmsw}, to present our results in terms of $\hat S$.

592: 

593: Because of the asymptotic freedom of the SU($N$) theory, for Euclidean $q^2$

594: much larger than $\Lambda^2$, dimensional considerations imply that,

595: asymptotically, $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2) \simeq \langle \bar\psi\psi \rangle^2/q^4$ up

596: to logs arising from anomalous dimensions.  Combining this property with the 

597: analytic properties of $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2)$, one can write the following 

598: dispersion relation, with $t \equiv q^2$:

599: %

600: \beq

601: \Pi_{V-A}(t) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty ds \, 

602: \frac{ Im(\Pi_{V-A}(s))}{s-t-i\epsilon}

603: \label{disprel}

604: \eeq

605: %

606: The dimensionless spectral function $\rho_J(s)$ is defined as 

607: %

608: \beq

609: \rho_J(s) \equiv \frac{Im(\Pi_{JJ}(s))}{\pi s}

610: \label{rho}

611: \eeq

612: %

613: This spectral function encodes information about the hadronic states produced

614: by the current $J$.  In terms of these spectral functions, one then has

615: %

616: \beq

617: \hat S = 4 \pi \int_0^\infty  \frac{ds}{s} \bigg [ \rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s) \bigg ] 

618: \label{w0}

619: \eeq

620: %

621: An early discussion of the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{w0})

622: and its connection to $\pi^+ \to \ell^+ \nu_\ell \gamma$ decay appeared in

623: \cite{dmo}.  It is of interest to comment on the two equivalent expressions,

624: Eqs. (\ref{scor}) and (\ref{w0}) for $\hat S$.  The first of these,

625: Eq. (\ref{scor}), expresses $\hat S$ in terms of the slope of $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2)$

626: at $q^2=0$.  In contrast, the second, Eq. (\ref{w0}) expresses it as an

627: integral of $1/s$ times the difference of the physical spectral functions for

628: the vector and axial vector currents in the timelike region, which depends on

629: the spectrum of hadronic states and the strengths of their couplings to these

630: currents.  Thus, naively, one might think that these two expressions depend on

631: rather different properties of the SU($N$) theory.  The fact that they are

632: actually equivalent is a consequence of the analytic properties of

633: $\Pi_{JJ}(q^2)$ which are used, via the Cauchy theorem, to derive the resultant

634: dispersion relation.  Thus, although it is evaluated at a single point, the

635: derivative $\Pi_{V-A}'(0)$ ``knows'' about the full hadronic spectrum,

636: including the presence or absence of walking.

637: 

638: In passing, we note that the spectral functions directly in terms of the 

639: products of currents, as 

640: %

641: \beqs

642: & & i\int d^4x \ e^{i q \cdot x} \ \langle 0|T(V_\mu^a(x)V_\nu^b(0))|0\rangle  

643: \cr\cr

644: &=& -\delta^{ab} \int_0^\infty \, ds \, 

645: \frac{\rho_V(s)(sg_{\mu\nu}-q_\mu q_\nu)}{s-q^2-i\epsilon} 

646: \label{rhov}

647: \eeqs

648: %

649: and

650: %

651: \beqs

652: && i \int d^4x \ e^{i q \cdot x} \ \langle 0|T(A_\mu^a(x)A_\nu^b(0))|0\rangle  

653: \cr\cr 

654: &=& -\delta^{ab}\bigg [ \int_0^\infty \, ds \,

655: \frac{\rho_A(s)(sg_{\mu\nu}-q_\mu q_\nu)}{s-q^2-i\epsilon} + 

656: \frac{q_\mu q_\nu}{q^2} f_P^2 \ \bigg ] \ , \cr\cr

657: & & 

658: \label{rhoa}

659: \eeqs

660: %

661: where one explicitly separates out the contribution from the ($J=0$ part 

662: of) $\rho_A(s)$ at $s=0$ due to the Nambu-Goldstone bosons (NGB's). In

663: Eq. (\ref{rhoa}), the quantity $f_P$ (where $P$ stands for ``pseudoscalar'') is

664: the $N_f$-flavor generalization of $f_\pi$ defined by the transition matrix 

665: element

666: %

667: \beq

668:    \langle 0 \vert A_\mu^a (0) \vert \pi^b(q) \rangle 

669:    = i q_\mu f_P \delta^{ab}\, ,

670: \label{fp}

671: \eeq 

672: %

673: with $a,b=1,2,\ldots,N_f^2-1$.  In actual QCD, the chiral symmetry is

674: explicitly broken by the $u$ and $d$ current-quark masses (and also by

675: electroweak interactions), so that the pions decay, and, in particular, the

676: dominant weak decay of the $\pi^+$, $\pi^+ \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu$ has a rate

677: proportional to $f_\pi^2$. Thus, $f_P$ might be called the generalized

678: Nambu-Goldstone decay constant, but we will avoid this term, since in our basic

679: SU($N$) theory with other interactions turned off, these Nambu-Goldstone bosons

680: are exactly massless and do not decay.  In the chiral limit of QCD, with

681: $m_u=m_d=0$, it has been estimated that $(f_\pi)_{ch.lim.}/f_\pi \simeq 0.935$

682: \cite{gl85}, so that, with the physical value $f_\pi=92.4 \pm 0.3$, one infers

683: that $(f_\pi)_{ch.lim.} \simeq 86$ MeV (with a theoretical uncertainty of

684: several per cent from the chiral extrapolation).  This slight decrease will not

685: be important for our work.

686: 

687: The constant $f_P$ may be calculated by first solving the Schwinger-Dyson

688: equation for the momentum-dependent dynamical fermion mass $\Sigma(p)$ and then

689: substituting this into the Pagels-Stokar relation \cite{psrel},

690: %

691: \beq

692:  f_P^2 \, = \, \frac{N_c}{4\pi^2} \int_0^\infty y \, dy \,

693:        \frac{\Sigma^2(y) \, - \,  \frac{y}{4} \,

694: \frac{d}{dy} \left[ \Sigma^2(y) \right] }

695:        { [ y \ +\  \Sigma^2(y) \ ]^2}  \ .

696: \label{psrel}

697: \eeq

698: %

699: Calculations using this method~\cite{hys,mmw,sg} have shown (for $N=N_c=3$)

700: that as $N_f$ increases from the value $N_f=2$ toward $N_{f,cr}$, the

701: generalized quantity $f_P$ decreases, as is expected, since $f_P$ is an order

702: parameter for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking.  Furthermore, in the strong

703: walking limit $N_f \nearrow N_{f,cr}$, i.e., $\alpha_* \searrow \alpha_{cr}$,

704: it has been found that $f_P$ vanishes like \cite{my,miranskybook}

705: %

706: \beq

707: f_P = c_f \Lambda \, \exp

708: \bigg [ -\pi \Big ( \frac{\alpha_*}{\alpha_{cr}} - 1 \Big )^{-1/2} \bigg ] \ ,

709: \label{sigsol}

710: \eeq

711: %

712: where $c_f$ is a constant.  In Ref. \cite{sg} we calculated $f_P$ in the

713: crossover region between this extreme walking limit and smaller values of

714: $N_f$, corresponding to larger values of $\alpha_*$, closer to QCD with $N_f=2$

715: or 3 and found a dramatic growth in $f_P/\Lambda$, approaching values nearer to

716: QCD, as expected.

717: 

718: 

719: Because of the asymptotic freedom and consequent asymptotic decay of

720: $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2)$ for large Euclidean $q^2$ and the fact that the fermions are

721: massless in the underlying SU($N$) theory, the following integral relations

722: (first and second Weinberg sum rules) hold \cite{wsumrule}-\cite{dg}:

723: %

724: \beq

725: \int_0^\infty \, ds \, \bigg [\rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s) \bigg ] = 

726: \Pi_{V-A}(0) = f_P^2 

727: \label{w1}

728: \eeq

729: %

730: and

731: %

732: \beq

733: \int_0^\infty \, ds \, s \,  \bigg [\rho_V(s) - \rho_A(s) \bigg ] = 0 \ . 

734: \label{w2}

735: \eeq

736: %

737: Clearly, Eqs. (\ref{w0}), (\ref{w1}), and (\ref{w2}) are of similar form,

738: viz., integrals of $\rho_V(s)-\rho_A(s)$ weighted, respectively by $s^{-1}$, 

739: 1, and $s$.  Because of these different factors, the contributions to

740: the integral (\ref{w0}) for $\hat S$ are weighted toward smaller 

741: $s$ values, while the contributions to the integral (\ref{w2}) are weighted

742: toward larger $s$ values, as compared with those for the integral in Eq. 

743: (\ref{w1}). 

744: 

745: Finally, in the context of an abstract SU($N$) gauge theory (with other

746: interactions turned off), it is worthwhile to mention the connection between

747: $S$ and the coefficient denoted $\bar L_{10}$.  To explain this connection, we

748: recall the definition of $\bar L_{10}$. Provided that $N_f \ge 2$, the theory

749: contains $N_f^2-1$ massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons.  (For this discussion, we

750: turn off electroweak interactions completely; for our application to

751: technicolor, we do not turn them off, and hence three of the would-be

752: Nambu-Goldstone bosons become the longitudinal modes of the $W^\pm$ and

753: $Z$. Furthermore, in the TC/ETC context, other would-be NGB's gain masses from

754: color and ETC interactions that explicitly break the ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L \times 

755: {\rm SU}(N_f)_R$ global chiral symmetry.) 

756: A useful description of the low-energy physics for energies $E \ll 4 \pi f_P$

757: is then provided by a chiral Lagrangian (see. e.g., \cite{gl85} and references

758: to earlier work therein).  This is a function of the chiral fields

759: %

760: \beq

761: U = \exp \left ( \frac{2 i \sum_{a=1}^{N_f^2-1} \pi^a T^a}{f_P} \right ) \ . 

762: \label{uchiral}

763: \eeq

764: %

765: For example, for QCD with just the two light quarks $u$ and $d$, $U$ would have

766: the form $U=e^{i \pi \cdot \tau/f_\pi}$.  Now let us denote the elements of the

767: global symmetry groups ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L$ and ${\rm SU}(N_f)_R$ as $U_L$ and

768: $U_R$.  Then under a transformation by an element of the chiral symmetry group

769: ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L \times {\rm SU}(N_f)_R$, $U \to U_L U U_R^\dagger$.  One can

770: also formally introduce external gauge fields (contracted with the respective

771: generators of ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L$ and ${\rm SU}(N_f)_R$), $L_\mu$ and $R_\mu$.

772: These have the transformation properties $L_\mu \to U_L L_\mu U_L^\dagger - i

773: (\partial_\mu U_L) U_L^\dagger$ and $R_\mu \to U_R R_\mu U_R^\dagger - i

774: (\partial_\mu U_R) U_R^\dagger$.  In terms of these, one constructs the

775: covariant derivative $D_\mu U = \partial_\mu U - i L_\mu U + i U R_\mu$.  One

776: also defines external field strengths $(F_L)_{\mu\nu}$ and $(F_R)_{\mu\nu}$ in

777: the usual manner.  The lowest-order term in this effective Lagrangian is then

778: %

779: \beq

780:  \frac{f_P^2}{4} \, {\rm Tr} \left [ (D_\mu U)^\dagger (D^\mu U) \right ] \ . 

781: \label{lowestterm}

782: \eeq

783: %

784: In terms of these quantities, $L^{(r)}_{10}$ is the coefficient of the term 

785: %

786: \beq

787: O_{10} = {\rm Tr}(U^\dagger (F_L)_{\mu\nu} U (F_R)^{\mu\nu}) , 

788: \label{o10}

789: \eeq

790: %

791: where the superscript $(r)$ refers to the renormalized quantity. From this, one

792: obtains a quantity which is constructed to be independent of the

793: renormalization scale $\mu$ \cite{gl85,chipt} 

794: %

795: \beq

796: \bar L_{10} = L_{10}^{(r)}(\mu) + \frac{1}{192\pi^2} 

797: \Bigg [ \ln \left ( \frac{m_\pi^2}{\mu^2} \right ) + 1 \Bigg ]

798: \label{l10bar}

799: \eeq

800: %

801: The relation with $S$ is then 

802: %

803: \beq

804: S = -16 \pi \bar L_{10} \ . 

805: \label{slrel}

806: \eeq

807: %

808: Note that although $\bar L_{10}$ requires $N_f \ge 2$ to be well-defined, it

809: does not require $N_f$ to be even.  For the specific case of QCD, fits to

810: experimental data, including, in particular, the radiative decay $\pi^+ \to e^+

811: \nu_e \gamma$, yield the value \cite{gl85,hyrev}

812: %

813: \beq

814: S = 0.33 \pm 0.04 \ . 

815: \label{svalue}

816: \eeq

817: %

818: 

819: To the extent that this is dominated by the two light quarks $u$ and $d$, one

820: has $N_f=2$, and hence $N_D=1$, so that the measured value of $S$ for QCD is

821: also equal to $\hat S$.  The fact that the light-quark vector and axial-vector

822: mesons $\rho$ and $a_1$ largely saturate the expression for $S$,

823: Eq. (\ref{w0}), is consistent with this conclusion.  An approximate calculation

824: of $\hat S$ has been performed using the ladder approximation to the

825: Schwinger-Dyson and (inhomogeneous) Bethe-Salpeter equations for QCD ($N=3$)

826: with $N_f=2$ quarks of negligible mass \cite{hys}.  Studies have also been done

827: for the case where one neglects the strange quark mass $m_s$, i.e., $N=3$,

828: $N_f=3$ \cite{hys,pms}.  Since for either of these values of $N_f$ the beta

829: function of the QCD theory does not exhibit an infrared fixed point, it is

830: necessary to cut off the growth of the strong coupling.  For typical cutoffs,

831: it was found that the SD-IBS calculations tended to yield slightly too large a

832: value of $\hat S = S$, namely $\hat S \simeq 0.45 - 0.5$ \cite{hys,pms}, rather

833: than a value in the $1\sigma$ experimental range $0.29 \lsim S \lsim 0.37$.

834: This suggests that in the SD-IBS approach, used for a vectorial confining

835: SU($N$) gauge theory with small values of $N_f$ such that the theory has no

836: perturbative IR fixed point, with a typical IR cutoff on the coupling, tends to

837: overestimate $S$ by about a factor of 1.4.  Since the calculation of $S$ in QCD

838: is a problem in strongly coupled, nonperturbative physics, and the

839: calculational method that was used is only approximate (neglecting, for

840: example, instanton contributions), one should probably not be surprised that it

841: does not precisely reproduce the measured value of $S$.

842: 

843: 

844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

845: \section{Current-Current Correlation Functions in Terms of Bethe-Salpeter 

846: Amplitudes}

847: \label{sec:correlator-BS}

848:  

849: In this section, we explain how the current-current correlation functions are

850: obtained from the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes, which will be calculated via the

851: inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter (IBS) equation \cite{bs}-\cite{marisroberts03},

852: \cite{miranskybook}.  These Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes $\chi^{(J)}$, where $J=V$

853: or $A$, are essentially form factors, whose behavior in the timelike region

854: describes the coupling of the given current to physical hadronic bound states

855: that can be produced by this current, with an analytic continuation into the

856: spacelike region.  Here we will only need these amplitudes for the spacelike

857: region $q^2 < 0$ and at the point $q^2=0$. The amplitudes may be defined in

858: terms of the three-point vertex function as

859: %

860: \beqs 

861: & & \delta_j^k \left( T^a \right)_{f}^{f'} \int \frac{d^4 p}{(2 \pi)^4} 

862: \, e^{- i p \cdot r} \, \chi^{(J)}_{\alpha \beta}(p;q,\epsilon) = \cr\cr

863: & & = \epsilon^\mu \int d^4 x \, e^{i q \cdot x} 

864: \langle 0 \vert T(\psi^k_{\alpha f}(r/2) \ \bar\psi_{jf'\beta}(-r/2)\

865: J_\mu^a(x)) | 0 \rangle, \cr\cr

866: & & 

867: \label{eq:three-point}

868: \eeqs

869: %

870: where $(f,f')$, $(j,k)$ and $(\alpha, \beta)$ are, respectively, the flavor,

871: gauge, and spinor indices.  Closing the fermion legs of the above

872: three-point vertex function and taking the limit $r \rightarrow 0$, one can

873: express the current correlator in terms of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude as

874: %

875: \beqs

876: & &  \Pi_{JJ}(q^2) = \cr\cr

877: & & \frac{1}{3} \Bigg ( \frac{N}{2} \Bigg ) \sum_{\epsilon} 

878:  \int \frac{d^4 p}{i (2\pi)^4} 

879: {\rm Tr} \left[ \left(\epsilon \cdot G^{(J)}\right) 

880:    \chi^{(J)}(p;q,\epsilon) \right] \cr\cr

881: & & 

882:  \label{eq:Pi_JJ}

883: \eeqs

884: %

885: where \cite{gamcon}

886: %

887: \beq

888: G_\mu^{(V)} = \gamma_\mu,\ \ \ \ G_\mu^{(A)} = \gamma_\mu \gamma_5,

889: \eeq

890: %

891: and an average has been taken over the polarizations, so that $\Pi_{JJ}(q^2)$

892: does not depend on the polarization $\epsilon$.

893:  

894:  

895: We expand the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $\chi_{\alpha

896: \beta}^{(J)}(p;q,\epsilon)$ in terms of a complete bispinor basis with basis

897: elements $\Gamma^{(J)}_i$ and the invariant amplitudes $\chi^{(J)}_i$ as

898: %

899: \beq

900:    \left[ \chi^{(J)}(p;q,\epsilon) \right]_{\alpha \beta} 

901:    =\ \sum_{i=1}^{8} \left[ \Gamma_i^{(J)}(p;\hat{q},\epsilon)

902:    \right]_{\alpha \beta} \chi^{(J)}_{i} (p;q) ,

903:  \label{eq:chi-expanded}

904: \eeq

905: %

906: where we define

907: %

908: \beq

909: Q^2 \equiv -q^2

910: \label{Qsq}

911: \eeq

912: %

913: so that $Q^2 > 0$ in the spacelike region, and set 

914: %

915: \beq

916: \hat{q}_\mu \equiv \frac{q_\mu}{\sqrt{Q^2}}

917: \label{qhat}

918: \eeq

919: %

920: The bispinor basis elements can be chosen in such a manner

921: that they have the same spin, parity and charge conjugation as the

922: corresponding current $J_\mu^a(x)$.  For the vector vertex we adopt the

923: following bispinor basis elements:

924: %

925: \beqs

926:  &&  \Gamma^{(V)}_1 = \fsl{\epsilon},\ \ 

927:      \Gamma^{(V)}_2 = \frac{1}{2} [\fsl{\epsilon},\fsl{p}] 

928:                             (p \cdot \hat q), \ \ 

929:      \Gamma^{(V)}_3 = \frac{1}{2} [\fsl{\epsilon},\fsl{\hat q}], \cr\cr

930:  &&  \Gamma^{(V)}_4 = \frac{1}{3!}[\fsl{\epsilon},\fsl{p},\fsl{\hat q}],\ \ 

931:      \Gamma^{(V)}_5 = (\epsilon \cdot p),\ \ 

932:      \Gamma^{(V)}_6 = \fsl{p} (\epsilon \cdot p), \cr\cr

933:  &&  \Gamma^{(V)}_7 = \fsl{\hat q}(p \cdot \hat q) 

934:             (\epsilon \cdot p),\ \ 

935:      \Gamma^{(V)}_8 = \frac{1}{2} [\fsl{p},\fsl{\hat q}]

936:             (\epsilon \cdot p),

937: \label{vbispinors}

938: \eeqs

939: %

940: where $[a,b,c] \equiv a[b,c] + b[c,a] + c[a,b]$.  For the axial-vector vertex

941: we use the bispinor basis elements

942: %

943: \beqs

944:  && \hspace{-4mm}

945:      \Gamma^{(A)}_1 = \fsl{\epsilon}\ \gamma_5 ,\  

946:      \Gamma^{(A)}_2 = \frac{1}{2} [\fsl{\epsilon},\fsl{p}] 

947:                             \gamma_5  ,\  

948:      \Gamma^{(A)}_3 = \frac{1}{2} [\fsl{\epsilon},\fsl{\hat q}]\ 

949:               (p \cdot \hat q)

950:                  \ \gamma_5 , \cr\cr

951:  && \hspace{-4mm}

952:       \Gamma^{(A)}_4 = \frac{1}{3!}[\fsl{\epsilon},\fsl{p},

953:               \fsl{\hat q}] \gamma_5,\ \ 

954:      \Gamma^{(A)}_5 = (\epsilon \cdot p)\ (p \cdot \hat q)\ 

955:         \gamma_5, \cr\cr

956:  && \hspace{-4mm}

957:      \Gamma^{(A)}_6 = \fsl{p} (\epsilon \cdot p)\ \gamma_5,\ \ 

958:      \Gamma^{(A)}_7 = \fsl{\hat q}\ (\epsilon \cdot p)\ 

959:              (p \cdot \hat q)

960:                  \ \gamma_5, \cr\cr

961:  && \hspace{-4mm}

962:      \Gamma^{(A)}_8 = \frac{1}{2} [\fsl{p},\fsl{\hat q}]

963:              (\epsilon \cdot p)\

964:       (p \cdot \hat q)\ \gamma_5.

965: \label{avbspinors}

966: \eeqs

967: %

968: Given the charge conjugation properties of the vector and axial-vector

969: currents and the above choice of the bispinor basis elements, it 

970: follows that invariant amplitudes $\chi_i^{(J)}$ are even functions of $p\cdot

971: \hat{q}$.

972:  

973: 

974: In the present analysis it is convenient to choose the Lorentz reference frame

975: so that only the timelike component of $q^\mu$ is nonzero.  Since we are

976: working in the spacelike region (which avoids physical mass singularities), we

977: thus use a Wick rotation with 

978: %

979: \beq

980:    q^\mu = (i Q , 0 , 0 , 0 ) .

981: \label{qparam}

982: \eeq

983: %

984: Similarly, for the relative momentum $p^\mu$ we perform a Wick rotation and

985: parametrize it in terms of the real variables $u$ and $w$ (with

986: dimensions of mass) as

987: %

988: \beq

989:    p \cdot q = - Q\  u \ ,\ \  p^2 = - u^2 - w^2 .

990: \label{pparam}

991: \eeq

992: %

993: Hence, the invariant amplitudes $\chi^{(J)}_i$ are functions of $u$ and $w$:

994: %

995: \beq

996:    \chi_i^{(J)} = \chi_i^{(J)}(u,w;Q) .

997: \label{chidep}

998: \eeq

999: %

1000: {}Owing to the charge-conjugation properties of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude

1001: $\chi^{(J)}$ and the bispinor basis elements defined above, the invariant

1002: amplitudes $\chi_i^{(J)}(u,w)$ satisfies the relation

1003: %

1004: \beq

1005:    \chi_i^{(J)}(u,w;Q) = \chi_i^{(J)}(-u,w;Q) \ .

1006:  \label{eq:even-property}

1007: \eeq

1008: %

1009: Using this property of the invariant amplitudes, we rewrite 

1010: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Pi_JJ}) as 

1011: %

1012: \beqs

1013:   && \hspace{-1.5cm}

1014:    \Pi_{VV}(Q^2) \ =\  \frac{N}{\pi^3} \int_0^\infty du 

1015:    \int_0^\infty dw\ w^2 \cr\cr

1016:   &&\left[ - \chi^{(V)}_1(u,w;Q) + \frac{w^2}{3} \chi^{(V)}_6(u,w;Q) \ \right],

1017:  \label{eq:PiVV}

1018:  \eeqs

1019:  \beqs

1020:   && \hspace{-1.5cm}

1021:    \Pi_{AA}(Q^2) \ =\  \frac{N}{\pi^3} \int_0^\infty du 

1022:    \int_0^\infty dw\ w^2 \cr\cr

1023: &&\left[\ \ \chi^{(A)}_1(u,w;Q)  - \frac{w^2}{3} \chi^{(A)}_6(u,w;Q) \ \right].

1024: \label{eq:PiAA}

1025: \eeqs

1026: %

1027: Here, we have used the expanded form of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude given in 

1028: Eq.~(\ref{eq:chi-expanded}) and carried out the three-dimensional 

1029: angular integration.

1030:  

1031:  From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:PiVV}) and (\ref{eq:PiAA}), it follows that 

1032: %

1033: \beqs

1034:  \Pi_{V-A}(Q^2) &=&

1035:  \frac{1}{3}\left (\frac{N}{2}\right )\sum_{\epsilon} \int \frac{d^4 p}{i (2

1036:  \pi)^4}  \cr\cr

1037:  &&{\rm Tr} \bigg [\fsl{\epsilon} \chi^{(J)}(p;q,\epsilon) -

1038:  \fsl{\epsilon} \gamma_5 \chi^{(A)}(p;q,\epsilon) \bigg ] \cr\cr

1039:  &=&  \frac{N}{\pi^3} \int_0^\infty du \int_0^\infty dw\ w^2 \cr\cr 

1040:  &&\Bigg[ - \bigg( \chi^{(V)}_1(u,w;Q) + \chi^{(A)}_1(u,w;Q) \bigg ) \cr\cr

1041:  && + \frac{w^2}{3} \bigg ( \chi^{(V)}_6(u,w;Q) + \chi^{(A)}_6(u,w;Q) \bigg )

1042:  \ \Bigg]. \cr\cr

1043: & & 

1044: \label{eq:PiV-A}

1045: \eeqs 

1046: % 

1047: Although both $\Pi_{VV}(Q^2)$ and $\Pi_{AA}(Q^2)$ are individually

1048: logarithmically divergent, the underlying ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L \times {\rm

1049: SU}(N_f)_R$ chiral symmetry guarantees that these divergences cancel in the

1050: difference $\Pi_{VV} - \Pi_{AA}$, which is therefore finite.

1051: 

1052: 

1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1054: \section{Inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation}

1055: \label{sec:IBS}

1056:  

1057: In this section we discuss the full (inhomogeneous) Bethe-Salpeter equation,

1058: which we will use to calculate current-current correlation functions and, from

1059: these, $S$ (and, as a check, also $f_P$).  The IBS equation is a

1060: self-consistent description of the coupling of a current $J^a_\mu$ to

1061: fermion-antifermion bound states.  This coupling is represented by the

1062: Bethe-Salpeter amplitude $\chi^{(J)}$.  The four-momenta assigned to the

1063: fermion and antifermion are $p_\psi = p + (q/2)$ and $p_{\bar \psi}=-p+(q/2)$

1064: so that the total momentum of the bound state is $q$, and the relative momentum

1065: of the $\psi$ and $\bar \psi$ is $2p$. Since we are dealing with $J=1$ bound

1066: states, the bound-state amplitude also depends on the polarization vector

1067: $\epsilon$, which satisfies $\epsilon \cdot q = 0$ and $\epsilon \cdot \epsilon

1068: = -1$.  A grapical indication of the inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation

1069: structure is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:IBSeq}. 

1070: %

1071: \begin{figure}[t]

1072:    \begin{center}

1073:      \includegraphics[height=1.8cm]{IBSeq.eps}

1074:    \end{center}

1075:  \caption{A graphical expression of the IBS equation in the 

1076:  (improved) ladder approximation.}

1077:  \label{fig:IBSeq}

1078:  \end{figure}

1079: %

1080: The IBS equation is 

1081: %

1082: \beq

1083:    T(p;q)\ \chi^{(J)}(p;q,\epsilon) \ \ =\ \ 

1084:    \epsilon \cdot G^{(J)}\ 

1085:    +\ K(p;k) \ast \chi^{(J)}(k;q,\epsilon) .

1086:  \label{eq:IBSeq}

1087: \eeq

1088: %

1089: Here the kinetic part $T$ is

1090: %

1091: \beq

1092:   T(p;q) =   - S_F^{-1}(p + q/2) \otimes  S_F^{-1}(p - q/2) \ ,

1093:  \label{Tdef}

1094: \eeq

1095: %

1096: where $S_F(p)=1/(A(p)\fsl{p} - \Sigma(p))$. We follow the standard procedure of

1097: using the Landau gauge in calculations with the Schwinger-Dyson and

1098: Bethe-Salpeter equations since in this gauge the fermion wave function

1099: renormalization factor $A(p)=1$.  The physical results are, of course,

1100: gauge-invariant. The Bethe-Salpeter kernel $K$ in the improved ladder

1101: approximation is expressed as

1102: %

1103: \beqs

1104: \hspace{-1cm}

1105:  K(p;k) &=&  C_{2f} \, \frac{\bar{g}^2(p,k)}{(p-k)^{2}} \times \cr\cr 

1106:   &\times&  \left(-g_{\mu\nu} + \frac{(p-k)_\mu (p-k)_\nu}{(p-k)^2}

1107:           \right) \cdot \gamma^\mu \otimes \gamma^\nu ,

1108: \label{Kdef}

1109: \eeqs

1110: %

1111: where $C_{2f}$ was given in Eq. (\ref{c2f}). 

1112: In the above expressions we use the tensor product notation

1113: %

1114: \beq

1115:    (A \otimes B) \,\chi  =  A\, \chi\, B \ ,

1116: \label{aob}

1117: \eeq

1118: %

1119: and the inner product notation

1120: %

1121: \beq

1122:   K(p;k) \ast \chi^{(J)}(k;q,\epsilon) =   

1123:    \int \frac{d^4 k}{i(2\pi)^4}\  K(p,k)\  \chi(k;q) \ .

1124: \label{kchi}

1125: \eeq

1126: %

1127: where summations over Dirac indices are understood.  (In contrast, for our

1128: previous calculations \cite{mmw,sg} of meson masses, we only needed to use the

1129: homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation.)

1130: 

1131: 

1132: As in Refs. \cite{Kugo:1992pr,mmw,pms,pmsw,sg}, we make the ansatz

1133: for the running coupling, after Euclidean rotation,

1134: %

1135: \beq

1136: \alpha(p_E,q_E) = \alpha(p_E^2+q_E^2) \ ,

1137: \label{gsqform}

1138: \eeq

1139: %

1140: where the subscript denotes Euclidean.  Since $\alpha$ would naturally depend

1141: on the gluon momentum squared, $(p-q)^2 = p^2+q^2-2p \cdot q$, the functional

1142: form (\ref{gsqform}) amounts to dropping the scalar product term, $-2p \cdot

1143: q$.  As discussed in Ref. \cite{sg}, this is a particularly reasonable

1144: approximation in the case of a walking gauge theory because most of the

1145: contribution to the integral comes from a region of Euclidean

1146: momenta where $\alpha$ is nearly constant.  Hence, the shift upward or downward

1147: due to the $-2p \cdot q$ term in the argument of $\alpha$ has very little

1148: effect on the value of this coupling for the range of momenta that make the

1149: most important contribution to the integral. The approximation (\ref{gsqform})

1150: enables one to carry out the angular integration analytically. 

1151: %

1152: 

1153: The momentum-dependent dynamical mass $\Sigma(p)$ for the fermion is obtained

1154: from the Schwinger-Dyson equation,

1155: %

1156: \beq

1157:    \Sigma(p) = - K(p,k) \ast S_F(p).

1158: \label{sdeq}

1159: \eeq

1160: %

1161: We use the same kernel $K(p,k)$ here as in the IBS equation in order to respect

1162: the ${\rm SU}(N_f)_L \times {\rm SU}(N_f)_R$ chiral symmetry~\cite{

1163: Kugo:1992pr,Bando-Harada-Kugo}.  The numerical method that is used for solving

1164: the SD equation and the IBS equation involves approximating the respective

1165: integrals by discrete sums and is the same as in Ref.~\cite{pms,pmsw}.

1166: The reader is referred to these papers for more details on this method.

1167: 

1168: 

1169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1170: \section{Results and Discussion}

1171: \label{sec:results}

1172: 

1173: In this section we present the results of our calculations of $\Pi_{V-A}(Q^2)$

1174: and $\hat S$ using the Schwinger-Dyson and (inhomogeneous) Bethe-Salpeter

1175: equations.  It is appropriate to include an obvious cautionary remark that

1176: these calculations involve strong couplings $\alpha$ of order unity, and

1177: therefore there could be significant corrections to the (improved) ladder

1178: approximation used in our solutions of the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter

1179: equations.  Accordingly, as one check on the reliability of our methods, we

1180: have also carried out a comparison of $f_P$ obtained from the SD and IBS

1181: equations via eq. (\ref{w1}) with $f_P$ obtained from the SD equation via the

1182: Pagels-Stokar relation.  

1183: 

1184: In Fig.\ref{fig:PiV-A} we plot our calculated values of $\Pi_{V-A}(Q^2)/f_P^2$

1185: for $\alpha_* = 1.8, 1.6, 1.4, 1.2$ and 1.0, as functions of the dimensionless

1186: quantity $Q^2/f_P^2$.

1187: %

1188:  \begin{figure}[t]

1189:    \begin{center}

1190:      \includegraphics[height=6.2cm]{PiV-A_over_fpi2.eps}

1191:    \end{center}

1192:  \caption{Plot of $\Pi_{V-A}(Q^2)/f_P^2$ as a function of $Q^2$ in the

1193: spacelike interval $0 \le Q^2/f_P^2 \le 1.2$, for $\alpha_* = 1.0, 1.2, 1.4,

1194: 1.6, 1.8$.  As indicated, the horizontal axis refers to the quantity

1195: $Q^2/f_P^2$.  For comparison, $\Pi_{V-A}(Q^2)/f_P^2$ for QCD with $N_f=3$ 

1196: massless quarks is also plotted.  See text for further details.}

1197:  \label{fig:PiV-A}

1198:  \end{figure}

1199: %

1200: %

1201: The slope of each curve at $Q^2=0$ is equal to $-{\hat S}/(4\pi)$ for the given

1202: value of $\alpha_*$.  We first observe that $\Pi_{V-A}(Q^2)$ is almost linear

1203: at $Q^2=0$, with a small positive second derivative.  This is the justification

1204: for our earlier statement that the implications of our findings for technicolor

1205: would be essentially the same whether we used the definition of $\hat S$ in

1206: terms of a derivative at $Q^2=0$ or a finite difference, analogously to

1207: Eq. (\ref{spdg}). Secondly, from Fig.  \ref{fig:PiV-A} it is clear that the

1208: magnitude of the slope, and hence $\hat S$, decreases as $\alpha_*$ decreases

1209: toward the chiral phase transition point $\alpha_{cr}$.

1210: 

1211: In Fig.~\ref{fig:S-hat_n}, we plot the values of ${\hat S}$, derived from the

1212: slope of $\Pi_{V-A}(Q^2)$ at $Q^2=0$, for several values of $\alpha_*$.  As

1213: indicated by the subscript $n$, the values are normalized by the value of $\hat

1214: S$ at $\alpha_*=1.8$.

1215: %

1216: %

1217: \begin{figure}[t]

1218:    \begin{center}

1219:      \includegraphics[height=6.4cm]{S-hat_n.eps}

1220:    \end{center}

1221:  \caption{Plot of ${\hat S}_n$ for several values of $\alpha_*$ in the 

1222: range $0.9 \le \alpha_\ast \le 1.8$. As indicated by the subscript $n$, the 

1223: values are normalized by the value of $\hat S$ at $\alpha_*=1.8$.}

1224:  \label{fig:S-hat_n}

1225: \end{figure}

1226: %

1227: %

1228: This figure shows that $\hat S$ decreases by about 40 \% as $\alpha_*$ is

1229: reduced from 1.8 to 0.9, or equivalently (c.f. Eq. (\ref{nfsol})) as $N_f$ is

1230: increased from 10.3 to 11.6.  As our calculation of meson masses in

1231: Ref. \cite{sg} showed, this is a crossover region, in which the theory is

1232: changing from QCD-like, non-walking behavior at smaller $N_f$ to the walking

1233: regime at larger $N_f$ approaching $N_{f,cr}$.  Reinserting the factor of

1234: $N_D=N_f/2$ to get $S$ itself, we obtain a decrease by about 30 \% in $S$,

1235: since $N_D$ only increases by about 10 \% over this range.  Thus, our

1236: calculation shows that for this range of values, $\hat S$ decreases

1237: significantly as one moves from the QCD-like to the walking regimes.  This

1238: finding is an important result of our present study. 

1239: 

1240: 

1241: As a check on our calculational methods, we compare $f_P$ calculated in two

1242: different ways: via the Pagels-Stokar relation, Eq. (\ref{psrel}), denoted

1243: $(f_P)_{PS}$, and by the first Weinberg sum rule (W1) or equivalent relation

1244: $\Pi_{V-A}(0)=f_P^2$ in Eq. (\ref{w1}), denoted $(f_P)_{W1}$.  In view of the

1245: fact that the Pagels-Stokar itself is approximate and that our solution of the

1246: SD and IBS equations involves the ladder approximation and the neglect of

1247: completely nonperturbative contributions such as those due to instantons, we do

1248: not expect exact agreement between these two different methods of calculation.

1249: In Fig. \ref{fig:fpi_ratio} we present a plot of the ratio

1250: $(f_P)_{PS}/(f_P)_{W1}$ as a function of $\alpha_*$.  The closeness of this

1251: ratio to unity gives one measure of the accuracy and reliability of our

1252: calculations.

1253: %

1254: %

1255: \begin{figure}[t]

1256:    \begin{center}

1257:      \includegraphics[height=6.4cm]{fpi_ratio.eps}

1258:    \end{center}

1259:  \caption{Plot of the ratio $(f_P)_{PS}/(f_P)_{W1}$, where $(f_P)_{PS}$ and 

1260: $(f_P)_{W1}$ denote $f_P$ calculated via Eq. (\ref{psrel}) and via 

1261: Eq. (\ref{w1}), respectively, as a function of $\alpha_*$.}

1262:  \label{fig:fpi_ratio}

1263: \end{figure}

1264: %

1265: %

1266: We see that the ratio is within about 20 \% of unity and is essentially

1267: independent of $\alpha_*$ in the range considered, with the Pagels-Stokar

1268: method yielding a slightly smaller value than the expression in terms of the

1269: current-current correlation functions.  This gives us further confidence in the

1270: results of our SD-IBS calculation of $\hat S$.

1271: 

1272: 

1273: Our finding that $\hat S$ and $S$ are reduced as one moves from the QCD-like

1274: regime toward the walking regime of an SU($N$) gauge theory is in agreement

1275: with the approximate analytic results of Refs. \cite{ats,acd,as_s,iwts}, and 

1276: it complements those works, being based on a numerical solution of the

1277: Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter equations. In the sub-interval 

1278: $0.9 \le \alpha_* \le 1.0$ closer to the walking limit our results coincide 

1279: with those in Ref. \cite{pmsw}.  Our use of a larger interval

1280: has the advantage that we are able to observe a larger reduction in $\hat S$ as

1281: $\alpha_*$ decreases than was done in Ref.  \cite{pmsw}.  We have not attempted

1282: here to examine the extreme walking limit $(\alpha_* - \alpha_{cr})/\alpha_{cr}

1283: \to 0^+$.  As discussed in Ref. \cite{pmsw}, it becomes increasingly difficult

1284: to obtain an accurate numerical solution for $\hat S$ in this limit because of

1285: very strong cancellations.  

1286: 

1287: 

1288: In addition to this decreasing trend of $\hat S$, one may also discuss the

1289: absolute magnitude of $\hat S$.  Our calculation yields $\hat S = 0.47$ at

1290: $\alpha_*=1.8$. If $\hat S$ continues to be a monotonically function of $N_f$

1291: (and hence, in the range of interest here, also a monotonic function of

1292: $\alpha_*$), then an extrapolation of our calculation to the QCD case with

1293: $N_f=2$ or, with the strange quark mass neglected, $N_f=3$, would predict a

1294: value of $\hat S \gsim 0.5$.  This is similar to the value that was obtained in

1295: earlier studies using the SD and IBS equations in a different manner than here,

1296: where it was necessary to introduce an cutoff on the growth of the strong

1297: coupling in the infrared \cite{hys,pms}.  In Ref. \cite{pms} it was shown that

1298: if one used a cutoff that led to a very large value of the coupling, one could

1299: get a result for $S$ in agreement with the experimental value (\ref{svalue}),

1300: but the reliability of the calculational method in the presence of such a large

1301: coupling was not clear.  We shall adopt the optimisitc viewpoint here of giving

1302: greater weight to the change in $\hat S$ as a function of $N_f$ than to the

1303: absolute value of $\hat S$ itself.  Equivalently, one could envision applying

1304: an overall correction factor of about 2/3 to the absolute magnitude of $\hat S$

1305: so that the value for small $N_f$ matches that in QCD.  Physically, this

1306: factor would be regarded as correcting for the strong-coupling effects not

1307: included in the SD-IBS analysis.  

1308: 

1309: 

1310: Although one cannot use perturbation theory reliably to calculate $S$ in a

1311: strongly coupled gauge theory, the perturbative result is often used in

1312: discussions of constraints on new physics, and hence it is worthwhile to see

1313: how our results compare with the perturbative computation. A one-loop

1314: perturbative calculation with degenerate fermions having effective masses

1315: satisfying $(2\Sigma/m_Z)^2 \gg 1$ yields the well-known result

1316: $S_{pert.}=N_{D,tot.}/(6 \pi)$ where here $N_{D,tot.}=N_D N$, i.e,

1317: %

1318: \beq

1319: \hat S_{pert.} = \frac{N}{6\pi} \ . 

1320: \label{s_hat_pert}

1321: \eeq

1322: %

1323: In QCD with $N_f=2$ and $N=N_c=3$, this perturbative calculation would predict

1324: $S_{QCD,pert.} \simeq 1/(2\pi) \simeq 0.16$.  The experimental value in

1325: Eq. (\ref{svalue}) is approximately twice this; $S_{QCD} \simeq 2

1326: S_{QCD,pert.}$.  The reductions that we have found in $\hat S$ and $S$ for the

1327: range of $\alpha_*$ investigated suggest that in a walking theory, much or all

1328: of the above factor of 2 might be removed, and the true value of $S$ might well

1329: be comparable to, or, indeed, perhaps less than, the perturbative estimate.

1330: 

1331: For reference, in the one-doublet and one-family technicolor models, the

1332: perturbative expressions for the techniparticle contributions to $S$ are

1333: $S_{TC,pert.}=N_{TC}/(6\pi)$ and $S_{TC,pert.}=2N_{TC}/(3\pi)$, respectively.

1334: With $N_{TC}=2$, these take the values $S_{QCD,pert.} \simeq 0.1$ and 0.4,

1335: respectively. Fits to precision electroweak data yield allowed regions in $S$

1336: and two other parameters describing modifications of the $Z$ and $W$

1337: propagators by new physics beyond the Standard Model, namely the parameter $T$

1338: measuring violations of custodial SU(2) from this new physics and a third

1339: parameter, $U$, of somewhat less importance here.  Since the Standard Model

1340: expression for $S$ includes a term $(1/(6\pi))\ln (m_H/m_{H,ref.})$, the

1341: resultant allowed regions depend on the choice of the reference value of the SM

1342: Higgs mass, $m_{H,ref.}$.  The comparison of these with a technicolor theory is

1343: complicated by the fact that technicolor has no fundamental Higgs field;

1344: sometimes one formally uses $m_{H,ref.} \sim 1$ TeV for a rough estimate, since

1345: the SM with $m_H \sim 1$ TeV has strong longitudinal vector boson scattering,

1346: as does technicolor. However, this may involve some double-counting when one

1347: also includes contributions to $S$ from technifermions, whose interactions and

1348: bound states (e.g., techni-vector mesons) are responsible for the strong $W^+_L

1349: W^-_L$ and $Z_LZ_L$ scattering in a technicolor framework.  The current fit

1350: \cite{pdg,lepewwg} disfavors values of $S \gsim 0.2$.  Our findings in this

1351: paper suggest, in agreement with the previous works noted above using different

1352: methods, that the constraint on walking technicolor models could be less severe

1353: than would be inferred from the perturbative formula for the technifermion

1354: contribution to $S$.

1355: 

1356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1357: \section{Summary}

1358: \label{sec:Summary}

1359: 

1360: In summary, using numerical solutions of the Schwinger-Dyson and

1361: (inhomogeneous) Bethe-Salpeter equation, we have calculated the $S$ parameter

1362: as a function of the approximate infrared fixed point, $\alpha_*$, or

1363: equivalently, the number of massless fermions, $N_f$, in a vectorial, confining

1364: SU($N$) gauge theory.  We have focused on the crossover region between the

1365: walking and QCD-like (non-walking) regimes.  Our results show that $\hat S$ and

1366: also $S$ decrease significantly as $\alpha_*$ decreases in this range.  This

1367: trend agrees with earlier indications of a decrease in $S$ in walking gauge

1368: theories.  We have discussed the implications for technicolor models.

1369: 

1370: \bigskip

1371: 

1372: M.K. thanks Profs. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki for the collaborations on the

1373: related Refs. \cite{mmw,pmsw}. R.S. thanks T. Appelquist for useful comments.  

1374: This research was partially supported by the grant NSF-PHY-03-54776. 

1375: 

1376: 

1377: \section{Appendix}

1378: \label{appendix}

1379: 

1380: In this appendix we present some results on vector meson dominance (VMD) and

1381: their relevance to the crossover region that we are studying numerically.  In

1382: QCD itself, VMD has served as a useful approximate model.  The matrix elements

1383: for the production of a vector or axial-vector meson from the vacuum are 

1384: %

1385: \beq

1386: \langle \rho^a | V^b_\mu | 0 \rangle = i \delta^{ab} f_\rho \epsilon_\mu

1387: \label{rhomatrixelement}

1388: \eeq

1389: %

1390: %

1391: \beq

1392: \langle a_1^a | A^b_\mu | 0 \rangle = i \delta^{ab} f_{a_1} \epsilon_\mu

1393: \label{a1matrixelement}

1394: \eeq

1395: %

1396: where $\epsilon_\mu$ are the respective polarization four-vectors. In QCD,

1397: $f_\rho \simeq 154$ MeV, so that the first Weinberg sum rule yields 

1398: $f_{a_1} =\sqrt{f_\rho^2-f_\pi^2} = 123$ MeV. A pole-dominated form for

1399: the current-current correlation functions in the (simplistic) narrow-resonance

1400: approximation is

1401: %

1402: \beq

1403: \Pi_{V-A}(q^2) = \frac{f_V^2 m_V^2}{m_V^2-q^2-i\epsilon} 

1404:                - \frac{f_A^2 m_A^2}{m_A^2-q^2-i\epsilon} \ , 

1405: \label{piform}

1406: \eeq

1407: %

1408: where, for QCD, the ground-state vector and axial-vector mesons are the

1409: $\rho(776)$ and $a_1(1230)$, i.e., $V = \rho$ and $A = a_1$.  

1410: Using the principal value relation

1411: %

1412: \beq

1413: \frac{1}{s-s_0 \mp i\epsilon} = P \bigg ( \frac{1}{s-s_0} \bigg ) 

1414: \pm i \pi \delta(s-s_0) \ , 

1415: \label{pvrel}

1416: \eeq

1417: %

1418: the pole-dominated form (\ref{piform}) gives, for the spectral functions, 

1419: %

1420: \beq

1421: \rho_V(s) = f_V^2 \delta(s-m_V^2)

1422: \label{rho_v}

1423: \eeq

1424: %

1425: and

1426: %

1427: \beq

1428: \rho_A(s) = f_A^2 \delta(s-m_A^2)

1429: \label{rho_a}

1430: \eeq

1431: %

1432: Although these are useful simplifications, more realistic analyses of the

1433: spectral function sum rules take into account the finite widths of the $\rho$

1434: and $a_1$ resonances, and also nonresonant contributions \cite{dg}. 

1435: 

1436: Expanding Eq. (\ref{piform}) for large Euclidean $q^2$, one obtains

1437: %

1438: \beq

1439: \Pi_{V-A}(q^2) = -\frac{(f_V^2 m_V^2 - f_A^2 m_A^2)}{q^2} + 

1440: O \Bigg ( \frac{1}{q^4} \Bigg ) \ . 

1441: \label{piexpand}

1442: \eeq

1443: %

1444: The asymptotic freedom of the SU($N$) gauge theory implies that for $|q^2| \gg

1445: \Lambda^2$, $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2) \propto 1/q^4$, so this yields  the relation

1446: %

1447: \beq

1448: f_V^2 m_V^2 - f_A^2 m_A^2 = 0 \ , 

1449: \label{w2vmd}

1450: \eeq

1451: %

1452: which is the second Weinberg sum rule, evaluated in the VMD approximation. 

1453: Substituting the forms for the spectral functions into Eq. (\ref{w0}) yields 

1454: %

1455: \beq

1456: S_{VMD} = -16\pi \bar L_{10} = 4\pi \Bigg ( \frac{f_V^2}{m_V^2}

1457:                                            -\frac{f_A^2}{m_A^2} \Bigg ) 

1458: \label{svmd}

1459: \eeq

1460: %

1461: Similar substitutions into the first and second Weinberg sum rules yield the

1462: relations 

1463: %

1464: \beq

1465: f_V^2-f_A^2=f_P^2 

1466: \label{w1vmd}

1467: \eeq

1468: %

1469: and Eq. (\ref{w2vmd}).  The narrow-width VMD relations are approximate, since

1470: they neglect the sizeable widths of the $\rho$ and $a_1$, but the Weinberg

1471: relations follow from the asymptotic freedom of QCD when one sets $m_u=m_d=0$.

1472: 

1473: As $N_f$ increases and there is a crossover in the SU($N$) theory from QCD-like

1474: behavior to walking behavior, there are resultant changes in how these integral

1475: relations are satisfied.  For both the QCD-like and walking regimes, the

1476: underlying asymptotic freedom of the theory implies that the current-current

1477: correlation functions $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2)$ have a $1/q^4$ asymptotic falloff (up to

1478: logs) for Euclidean $q^2 \gg \Lambda^2$.  However, in a walking regime, the

1479: scale of chiral symmetry breaking, given by $f_P \sim \Sigma$, is much less

1480: than $\Lambda$, and in the interval $\Sigma^2 \ll q^2 \ll \Lambda^2$,

1481: $\Pi_{V-A}(q^2)$ have a less rapid falloff, $\sim 1/q^{4-2\gamma})$, where

1482: $\gamma$ is the anomalous dimension of the bilinear fermion operator and is

1483: $\gamma \simeq 1$ for strong walking, whence a $\Pi_{JJ}(q^2) \sim 1/q^2$

1484: falloff in this interval. Physically, the coupling $\alpha$ is strong, of order

1485: O(1) but slowly varying for an extended interval of energies between $\Sigma$

1486: and $\Lambda$.  Thus it is plausible that in a walking theory, rather than just

1487: the lowest-lying vector and axial-vector resonances making important

1488: contributions to the various spectral function integrals, there could be

1489: significant contributions from a number of higher-lying states with the same

1490: quantum numbers \cite{lanerev}.  In this case, still retaining the VDM

1491: approximation, one would generalize the expressions above to be sums over these

1492: higher-lying states.  For example, the evaluation of Eqs. (\ref{w0}),

1493: (\ref{w1}), and (\ref{w2}) in the VMD approximation would read

1494: %

1495: \beq

1496: \hat S_{VMD} =  4\pi \sum_i \Bigg ( \frac{f_{V_i} ^2}{m_{V_i}^2}

1497:                                    -\frac{f_{A_i}^2}{m_{A_i}^2} \Bigg ) 

1498: \label{svmdwalk}

1499: \eeq

1500: %

1501: %

1502: \beq

1503: \sum_i(f_{V_i}^2-f_{A_i}^2)=f_P^2 

1504: \label{w1vmdwalk}

1505: \eeq

1506: %

1507: and

1508: %

1509: \beq

1510: \sum_i (f_{V_i}^2 m_{V_i}^2 - f_{A_i}^2 m_{A_i}^2) = 0 \ . 

1511: \label{w2vmdwalk}

1512: \eeq

1513: %

1514: More generally, however, it is not clear that the VMD model would apply in this

1515: walking regime.  One analytic approximation is to use VMD for a partial

1516: evaluation representing contributions from $\sqrt{s} \simeq \Sigma$ and

1517: supplement this with a term due to a fermion loop \cite{as_s}.  In the region

1518: that we have concentrated on in this paper, in which the theory is crossing

1519: over between strong walking behavior and QCD-like behavior, one expects that

1520: the saturation of the spectral function integrals has a form that is

1521: intermediate between walking and QCD-like.  In our actual calculation of $\hat

1522: S$ via Eq. (\ref{scor}), we only need to calculate $\Pi_{V-A}'(0)$, which we do

1523: by means of numerical solutions of the relevant SD and IBS equations, so we do

1524: not have to deal with questions of how the spectral functions behave in a

1525: walking gauge theory. In future work it would be worthwhile to use the

1526: connection between these two different ways of calculating $S$ to undersand the

1527: hadronic spectrum better in such a walking gauge theory.

1528: 

1529: 

1530: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1531: 

1532: \bibitem{bz}

1533: An early paper on the phase structure of vectorial gauge theories is 

1534: T.~Banks and A.~Zaks,

1535: %``On The Phase Structure Of Vector - Like Gauge Theories With

1536: %Massless Fermions,'' 

1537: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 196} (1982), 189.

1538: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B196,189;%%

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{tc}

1541: S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19}, 1277 (1979);

1542: L. Susskind, {\it ibid.} D {\bf 20}, 2619 (1979); see also 

1543: S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 13}, 974 (1976).

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{wtc1}

1546: B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 150}, 301 (1985).

1547: 

1548: \bibitem{wtc2}

1549: K. Yamawaki, M. Bando, and K. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1550: 56}, 1335 (1986).

1551: 

1552: \bibitem{chipt1}

1553: T. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1554: 57}, 957 (1986); T. Appelquist and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D

1555: {\bf 35}, 774 (1987); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 36}, 568 (1987).

1556: 

1557: \bibitem{chipt2}

1558: T. Appelquist, J. Terning, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana,

1559: Phys. Rev. Lett.  {\bf 77}, 1214 (1996).

1560: 

1561: \bibitem{my}

1562: V. Miransky and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 5051 (1997); {\it ibid.}

1563: {\bf 56}, E 3768 (1997). See also V. Miransky and P. Fomin,

1564: Sov. J. Part. Nucl. {\bf 16}, 203 (1985).

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{chipt3}

1567: T. Appelquist, A. Ratnaweera, J. Terning, and

1568: L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 105017 (1998).

1569: 

1570: \bibitem{gl85}

1571: J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 250}, 465 (1985); 

1572: {\it ibid.} B {\bf 250}, 517 (1985). See also the papers in

1573: Refs. \cite{chipt}-\cite{hyrev}. 

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{chipt}

1576: J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rept. C {\bf 87}, 77 (1982);

1577: J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. {\bf 321}, 311

1578: (1989); G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 603}, 

1579: 125 (2001). 

1580: 

1581: \bibitem{resonances}

1582: % The role of resonances in chiral perturbation theory

1583: G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 321}, 311

1584: (1989); G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael,

1585: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 223}, 425 (1989); M. Knecht and E. de Rafael, 

1586: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 424}, 335 (1998). 

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{meissner}

1589: U. Meissner, Rept. Prog. Phys. {\bf 56}, 903 (1993). 

1590: 

1591: \bibitem{hyrev}

1592: M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. {\bf 381}, 1 (2004).

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{pt}

1595: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

1596: %``A New Constraint On A Strongly Interacting Higgs Sector,''

1597: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 65}, 964 (1990);

1598: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,964;%%

1599: %M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

1600: %``Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,''

1601: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 381 (1992). 

1602: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,381;%%

1603: 

1604: \bibitem{ab}

1605: G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 253}, 161 (1991);

1606: G. Altarelli, R. Barbieri, F. Caravaglios,

1607: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 13}, 1031 (1998).

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{pdg}

1610: See http://pdg.lbl.gov. 

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{lepewwg}

1613: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/plots.

1614: 

1615: \bibitem{scalc1}

1616: B. Holdom and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 247}, 88 (1990); 

1617: M. Golden and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} {\bf 361}, 3 (1991);

1618: R. Johnson, B.-L. Young, and D. McKay, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43} (1991) R17;

1619: R. Cahn and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 3641 (1991).

1620: 

1621: \bibitem{ats}

1622: T. Appelquist and G. Triantaphyllou, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 278}, 345 (1992).

1623: 

1624: \bibitem{acd}

1625: R. Sundrum and S. Hsu, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 391}, 127 (1993).

1626: 

1627: \bibitem{hys}

1628: M.~Harada and Y.~Yoshida,

1629: %``QCD S parameter from inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation,''

1630: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 6902 (1994). 

1631: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9406402].

1632: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406402;%%

1633: 

1634: \bibitem{as_s}

1635: T. Appelquist and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 067702 (1999).

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{iwts}

1638: S. Ignjatovic, L. C. R. Wijewardhana, and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. 

1639: D {\bf 61}, 056006 (2000).

1640: 

1641: \bibitem{pmsw}

1642: M. Harada, M. Kurachi, and K. Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 115}, 765

1643: (2006); see also {\it  Proc. of 2004 International Workshop on Dynamical 

1644: Symmetry Breaking, 2004}, eds. M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, 

1645: (Nagoya Univ., 2005), p. 125.

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{sg}

1648: M.~Kurachi and R.~Shrock,

1649: %``Study of the Change from Walking to Non-Walking Behavior in a Vectorial

1650: %Gauge Theory as a Function of Nf,'' 

1651: hep-ph/0605290.

1652: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605290;%%

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{mmw} 

1655: M.~Harada, M.~Kurachi and K.~Yamawaki,

1656: %``Meson masses in large N(f) QCD from Bethe-Salpeter equation,''

1657: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 076001 (2003).

1658: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0305018].

1659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305018;%% 

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{mme}

1662: K.~I.~Aoki, M.~Bando, T.~Kugo, M.~G.~Mitchard and H.~Nakatani,

1663: Prog. Theor. Phys. {bf 84}, 683 (1990); T.~Kugo, {\it in Proc. of 1991 Nagoya

1664: Spring School on Dynamical Symmetry Breaking}, ed. K. Yamawaki (World

1665: Scientific Pub. Co., Singapore, 1992), p. 35; K.~I.~Aoki, T.~Kugo and

1666: M.~G.~Mitchard, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 266}, 467 (1991); Phys. Lett. B {bf 286}, 

1667: 355 (1992).

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{pms}

1670: M.~Harada, M.~Kurachi and K.~Yamawaki,

1671: %``pi+ - pi0 mass difference from the Bethe-Salpeter equation,''

1672: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 033009 (2004).

1673: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0403120]

1674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403120;%%

1675: 

1676: \bibitem{integer}

1677: %

1678: Here and below, when we mention non-integral values of $N_f$, it is implicitly

1679: understood that physical values of $N_f$ are, of course, non-negative integers,

1680: and the non-integral values are defined via an analytic continuation away from

1681: these physical values.

1682: 

1683: \bibitem{b0}

1684: D. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 30}, 1343 (1973);

1685: H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. lett. {\bf 30}, 1346 (1973). 

1686: 

1687: \bibitem{b1}

1688: W. Caswell, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 33}, 244 (1974); D. R. T. Jones, Nucl. Phys.

1689: B {\bf 75}, 531 (1974).

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{casimir} The Casimir invariant $C_2(R)$ of the representation $R$ is

1692: defined by ${\cal D}_R(T_a)^i_j{\cal D}_R(T_a)^j_k = C_2(R)\delta^i_k$, where

1693: $\{a,b\}$ and $\{i,j,k\}$ denote group and representation indices and sums over

1694: repeated indices are understood.

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{alm}

1697: T. Appelquist, K. Lane, and U. Mahanta, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1698: 61}, 1553 (1988); T. Appelquist, U. Mahanta, D. Nash, and L.C.R.  Wijewardhana,

1699: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 646 (1991);

1700: U. Mahanta, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 1405 (1992).

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{lgt} 

1703: Y.  Iwasaki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 21 (1992);

1704: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 014507 (2004); 

1705: P. Damgaard, U. Heller, A. Krasnitz, and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 400},

1706: 169 (1997); R.  Mawhinney, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 63A-C}, 212 

1707: (1998); R.  Mawhinney, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 83}, 57 (2000).

1708: 

1709: \bibitem{Gardi}

1710: E.~Gardi and M.~Karliner,

1711: %``Relations between observables and the infrared fixed-point in

1712: %{QCD},'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 529}, 383 (1998); 

1713: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9802218]

1714: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802218;%%

1715: E.~Gardi, G.~Grunberg and M.~Karliner,

1716: %``Can the {QCD} running coupling have a causal analyticity

1717: %structure?,'' J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 07}, 007 (1998). 

1718: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9806462]

1719: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806462;%%

1720: 

1721: \bibitem{ExplicitSolution}

1722: R.~M.~Corless, G.~H.~Gonnet, D.~G.~E.~Hare, D.~J.~Jeffrey and D.~E.~Knuth,

1723: Adv.\ Comput.\ Math.\  {\bf 5}, 329 (1996).

1724: 

1725: \bibitem{etc}

1726: S. Dimopoulos, L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B155}, 23, (1979);

1727: E. Eichten, K. Lane, Phys.  Lett. B {\bf 90}, 125 (1980);

1728: E.~Farhi and L.~Susskind, Phys. Rep. {\bf 74}, 277 (1981). 

1729: 

1730: \bibitem{tcm} 

1731: Some recent reviews of TC/ETC models are given in

1732: \cite{lanerev,etcrev} and some recent studies include \cite{at94,as,sann,lm}.

1733: We do not consider here models that hypothesize a strong (``topcolor'') 

1734: interaction that produces a $\langle \bar t t \rangle$ condensate; these are

1735: reviewed in Refs. \cite{lanerev,etcrev}. 

1736: 

1737: \bibitem{lanerev}

1738: K. Lane, hep-ph/0202255.

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{etcrev}

1741: C. Hill and E. Simmons, Phys. Rep. {\bf 381}, 235 (2003); 

1742: R. S. Chivukula, M. Narain, and J. Womersley, in Ref. \cite{pdg}.

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{at94}

1745: T. Appelquist and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 2116 (1994).

1746: 

1747: \bibitem{as}

1748: T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 548}, 204 (2002); 

1749: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 201801 (2003); T. Appelquist, M. Piai, and

1750: R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 015002 (2004); {\it ibid.}  

1751: D {\bf 70}, 093010 (2004);  Phys. Lett. B {\bf 593}, 175 (2004); 

1752: {\it ibid.} B {\bf 595}, 442 (2004). 

1753: 

1754: \bibitem{sann}

1755: D. Hong, S. Hsu, and F. Sannino, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 597}, 89 (2004); 

1756: D. Dietrich, F. Sannino, K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 055001 (2005). 

1757: 

1758: \bibitem{lm}

1759: K. Lane and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 076007 (2005); 

1760: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 635}, 118 (2006). 

1761: 

1762: \bibitem{ts}

1763: N. D. Christensen and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 632}, 92 (2006); see also

1764: N. D. Christensen and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 241801 (2005).

1765: 

1766: \bibitem{dmo}

1767: T.~Das, V.~S.~Mathur and S.~Okubo,

1768: %``Low-Energy Theorem In The Radiative Decays Of Charged Pions,''

1769: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 19}, 859 (1967).

1770: %%CITATION = PRLTA,19,859;%%

1771: 

1772: \bibitem{psrel}

1773: H. Pagels and S. Stokar, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20}, 2947 (1979).

1774: 

1775: \bibitem{miranskybook}

1776: V.~A.~Miransky, {\it Dynamical symmetry breaking in quantum field theories}, 

1777: (Singapore, World Scientific, 1993).

1778: 

1779: \bibitem{wsumrule}

1780: S.~Weinberg,

1781: %``Precise Relations Between The Spectra Of Vector And Axial Vector

1782: %Mesons,'' 

1783: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 18} (1967), 507.

1784: %%CITATION = PRLTA,18,507;%%

1785: 

1786: \bibitem{sumrule2} 

1787: C. Bernard, A. Duncan, J. LoSecco, and S. Weinberg,

1788: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 12}, 792 (1975); (1976); E. Floratos, S. Narison, and E. de

1789: Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 155}, 115 (1979); 

1790: S.~Weinberg, {\it The Quantum Theory of Fields} (Cambridge Univ. Press,

1791: Cambridge, 1996), v. 2, p. 266. 

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{svz}

1794: M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 147}, 385

1795: (1979). 

1796: 

1797: \bibitem{dg}

1798: A numerical analysis of these sum rules in QCD in terms of data on the spectral

1799: functions for is given in J. Donoghue and E. Golowich, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 

1800: 1513 (1994). 

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{bs}

1803: E. Salpeter and H. Bethe, Phys. Rev. {\bf 84}, 1232 (1951). 

1804: 

1805: \bibitem{nakanishi}

1806: %``A General Survey Of The Theory Of The Bethe-Salpeter Equation,''

1807: For an early review, see N. Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.  {\bf 43}, 1

1808: (1969).

1809: %%CITATION = PTPSA,43,1;%%

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{lane74}

1812: K. Lane, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 2605 (1974).

1813: 

1814: \bibitem{mn74}

1815: T. Maskawa and H. Nakajima, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 52}, 1326 (1974).

1816: % Schwinger-Dyson Equation For Massless Vector Theory And Absence Of Fermion

1817: % Pole.

1818: 

1819: \bibitem{kugo}

1820: R. Fukuda and T. Kugo, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 117}, 250 (1974);

1821: T. Kugo, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 76}, 625 (1978).

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{higashijima}

1824: K.~Higashijima,

1825: %``Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking,''

1826: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29}, 1228 (1984).

1827: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D29,1228;%%

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{Aoki:1990aq}

1830: K.~I.~Aoki, M.~Bando, T.~Kugo and M.~G.~Mitchard,

1831: %``Asymptotics Of The Pseudoscalar Bethe-Salpeter Amplitude,''

1832: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 85}, 355 (1991).

1833: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,355;%%

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{Kugo:1992pr}

1836: T.~Kugo and M.~G.~Mitchard,

1837: %``The Chiral Ward-Takahashi identity in the ladder approximation,''

1838: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 282}, 162 (1992). 

1839: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B282,162;%%

1840: 

1841: \bibitem{Bando-Harada-Kugo}

1842: M.~Bando, M.~Harada and T.~Kugo,

1843: %``External gauge invariance and anomaly in BS vertices and bound

1844: %states,''

1845: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 91}, 927 (1994). 

1846: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9312343]

1847: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9312343;%%

1848: 

1849: \bibitem{avsrev}

1850: R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. {\bf 353}, 281 (2001).

1851: 

1852: \bibitem{marisroberts03}

1853: P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E {\bf 12}, 297 (2003).

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{gamcon}

1856: Our gamma matrix and metric conventions are those of Bjorken and Drell. 

1857: 

1858: \end{thebibliography}

1859: 

1860: \end{document}

1861: 

1862: 

1863: 

1864: