1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{article}
2: \usepackage{feynmf}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{psfig}
7: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{{\bf #1}}
8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}\normalsize
9: \setlength{\baselineskip}{20mm}
10: \textwidth 15.0 true cm
11: \textheight 22.0 true cm
12: \headheight 0 cm
13: \headsep 0 cm
14: \topmargin 0.4 true in
15: \oddsidemargin 0.25 true in
16: \newcommand{\eqb}{\begin{equation}}
17: \newcommand{\eqe}{\end{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\dmb}{\begin{displaymath}}
19: \newcommand{\dme}{\end{displaymath}}
20: \newcommand{\pd}{\partial}
21: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
22: \newcommand{\eab}{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \newcommand{\eae}{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}
25: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}
26: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}
27: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
28: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
29: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}\,}
30: \newcommand{\munu}{{\mu\nu}}
31: \newcommand{\ad}{{\dot{\alpha}}}
32: \newcommand{\bd}{{\dot{\beta}}}
33: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}
34: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37: \begin{titlepage}
38: \begin{flushright}
39: 2004-10 \\
40: HD-THEP-10-39\\
41: \end{flushright}
42: \vspace{0.6cm}
43:
44: \begin{center}
45: \Large{{\bf SU(2) Yang-Mills thermodynamics: two-loop corrections to the pressure}}
46:
47: \vspace{1cm}
48:
49: U. Herbst, R. Hofmann$^\dagger$, and J. Rohrer
50:
51: \end{center}
52: \vspace{0.3cm}
53:
54: \begin{center}
55: {\em
56: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\
57: Universit\"at Heidelberg\\
58: Philosophenweg 16\\
59: 69120 Heidelberg, Germany}
60: \end{center}
61: \vspace{0.3cm}
62: \begin{center}
63: {\em $\mbox{}^\dagger$Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\
64: Universit\"at Frankfurt\\
65: Johann Wolfgang Goethe - Universit\"at\\
66: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10\\
67: 60054 Frankfurt, Germany}
68: \end{center}
69: \vspace{0.5cm}
70: \newpage
71:
72: \begin{abstract}
73:
74: We compute the two-loop corrections to the
75: thermodynamical pressure of an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory being in
76: its electric phase. Our results prove
77: that the one-loop evolution of the effective gauge
78: coupling constant is reliable for any
79: practical purpose. We thus establish the
80: validity of the picture of almost
81: noninteracting thermal quasiparticles
82: in the electric phase. Implications of our results
83: for the explanation of the large-angle
84: anomaly in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the
85: cosmic microwave background are discussed.
86:
87:
88: \end{abstract}
89:
90: \end{titlepage}
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93:
94: In \cite{Hofmann2004} one of us has put forward an analytical and nonperturbative
95: approach to the thermodynamics of SU(N) Yang-Mills theory.
96: This approach self-consistently assumes the 'condensation' of (embedded) SU(2)
97: trivial-holonomy calorons \cite{HarrigtonShepard1977} into a macroscopically
98: stabilized adjoint Higgs field in the deconfining high-temperature phase of
99: the theory \footnote{This phase is referred to as electric phase in \cite{Hofmann2004}.}.
100: This assumption is subject to proof which we establish
101: in an analytical way in \cite{HerbstHofmann2004}. The incorporation of nontrivial-holonomy calorons
102: \cite{Nahm1984,KraanVanBaalNPB1998,vanBaalKraalPLB1998,Brower1998} into the ground-state dynamics
103: can be thermodynamically achieved in an exact way in terms of a
104: macroscopic pure-gauge configuration. We thus describe the effects of
105: dissociating nontrivial-holonomy calorons (magnetic monopoles which attract or
106: repulse one another for small or large holonomy, respectively \cite{Diakonov2004}, where
107: the former possibility is far more likely.) on the pressure and the energy density of the
108: ground state in an average fashion, that is, thermodynamically. By a global $Z_{2,\tiny\mbox{elec}}$
109: degeneracy of the ground state and a nonvanishing expectation value of the
110: Polyakov loop it can be shown analytically that the electric phase is
111: deconfining. Moreover, the inrafred problem of thermal perturbation theory is resolved
112: by a nontrivial ground-state structure giving rise to a mass for gauge-field
113: fluctuations off the unbroken Cartan subalgebra.
114:
115: On tree-level, excitations in the electric phase are either thermal quasiparticles or
116: massless 'photons'. The evolution equation for the
117: effective gauge coupling $e$ in the electric phase is derived from thermodynamical
118: self-consistency \cite{Gorenstein1995} which just expresses the demand
119: that Legendre transformations between thermodynamical quantities, as they are derived from
120: the partition function of the underlying theory, are not
121: affected within the effective theory. In \cite{Hofmann2004} we have assumed a one-loop expression for
122: the pressure to derive the evolution $e(T)$. The purpose of this paper is to show
123: that the one-loop evolution is exact for many practical purposes, that is,
124: (thermal (quasi)particle) excitations in the electric phase are
125: almost noninteracting throughout that phase\footnote{Some interesting
126: physics does, however, take place shortly before the theory settles
127: into its magnetic phase \cite{Hofmann2004}. We discuss its implications
128: for the large-angle `anomaly' in the power spectrum of
129: the cosmic microwave background in the last section of the present paper.}.
130:
131: The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.\,\ref{rules} we set
132: up the real-time-formalism Feynman rules in unitary-Coulomb gauge
133: and some notational conventions useful for organizing our calculations.
134: In Sec.\,\ref{diag} we sort out the diagrams that do contribute
135: to the two-loop pressure for the SU(2) case. We discuss their
136: general analytical form and defere hard-core
137: analytical expressions to an appendix. Kinematical constraints on
138: the off-shellness of quantum fluctuations as well
139: as the center-of-mass energy entering a four-gauge bosons
140: vertex are being set up and discussed. In the absence of external probes to the thermalized system
141: these constraints derive from the existence of a compositeness scale
142: characterizing the thermodynamics of the ground state.
143: In Sec.\,\ref{processing} we perform an analytical processing of the integrals
144: associated with nonvanishing two-loop contributions to the pressure.
145: In Sec.\,\ref{numprocessing} we discuss the problems inherent to a numerical evaluation of
146: loop integrals and their solutions. For the vacuum propagation integrals are either evaluated
147: in a Euclidean rotated way and a subsequent imposition of the kinematical constraints
148: or by performing $\epsilon\to 0$ limits numerically in the
149: Minkowskian expressions. In Sec.\,\ref{res} we present our results
150: graphically. In Sec.\,\ref{SO} we discuss and summarize our work
151: and point towards its possible phenomenological importance for the explanation of
152: the large-angle anomaly observed in the CMB
153: power spectrum \cite{WMAP2003}.
154:
155:
156:
157: \section{Feynman rules and notational conventions\label{rules}}
158:
159: In this section we set up prerequisites for our calculations.
160: The two-loop diagrams for the thermodynamical pressure split into the contributions as displayed in
161: Fig.\,\ref{fig:contribdiagr}. There are local and non-local contributions. We will
162: evaluate them within the real-time formalism of finite-temperature
163: field theory \cite{Landsman}. For an SU(N) Yang-Mills theory
164: the following rules apply:
165: \begin{enumerate}
166: \item Each diagram is divided by a factor $iV$, where $V$ denotes the number
167: of vertices.
168: \item Local diagrams are multiplied by a factor $1/8$,
169: nonlocal diagrams by $1/4$.
170: \end{enumerate}
171: %***********************
172: \begin{figure}
173: \begin{center}
174: %\leavevmode
175: %%\epsfxsize=9.cm
176: %\leavevmode
177: %%\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
178: %\vspace{4.3cm}
179: %\special{psfile=Fig-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-140
180: % hoffset=-205 hscale=55 vscale=75}
181: \includegraphics{Fig-1.ps}
182: \end{center}
183: \caption{Diagrams contributing to the pressure at two-loop level in a thermalized
184: SU(N) Yang-Mills theory.\label{fig:contribdiagr}}
185: \end{figure}
186: %************************
187: The three- and four-gauge-boson vertices
188: $\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\mu\nu\rho}(p,k,q)$ and $\Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ are, respectively
189: (see Fig.\ref{fig:vertices}):
190: %***********************
191: \begin{figure}
192: \begin{center}
193: %\leavevmode
194: %%\epsfxsize=9.cm
195: %\leavevmode
196: %%\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
197: %\vspace{4.3cm}
198: %\special{psfile=Fig-2.ps angle=0 voffset=-140
199: % hoffset=-205 hscale=55 vscale=75}
200: \includegraphics{Fig-2b.ps}
201: \hspace{2.5cm}
202: \includegraphics{Fig-2a.ps}
203: \end{center}
204: \caption{The vertices $\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\mu\nu\rho}(p,k,q)$ and $\Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}.$
205: \label{fig:vertices}}
206: \end{figure}
207: %************************
208: %*******************
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: \Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\mu\nu\rho}(p,k,q)&\equiv &e\,f_{abc}[g^{\mu\nu}(p-k)^{\rho}+g^{\nu\rho}(k-q)^{\mu}
211: +g^{\rho\mu}(q-p)^{\nu}]\nonumber\\
212: \Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}&\equiv &-ie^2[f_{abe}f_{cde}(g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})+\nonumber\\
213: &&f_{ace}f_{bde}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})+\nonumber\\
214: &&f_{ade}f_{bce}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma})]\label{eqn:vertices}
215: \end{eqnarray}
216: %*********************
217: Since the effective theory has a stabilized\footnote{The field $\phi$ is shown
218: to {\sl not} fluctuate statistically and quantum mechanically \cite{Hofmann2004}.},
219: composite, and adjoint Higgs
220: field $\phi$ characterizing
221: its ground state, we shall work in unitary gauge
222: where $\phi$ is diagonal and the pure-gauge background is zero (see
223: \cite{Hofmann2004} for a thorough discussion of the admissibility of this gauge condition).
224: There is a residual gauge freedom for
225: the unbroken abelian subgroup\footnote{This assumes maximal breaking by $\phi$.} U(1)$^{\tiny\mbox{N-1}}$.
226: A physical gauge choice is Coulomb gauge. In unitary-Coulomb gauge
227: each of the propagators for Tree-Level-Heavy/Massless (TLH/TLM)
228: modes split into a vacuum and a thermal part as follows \cite{Hofmann2004,Landsman}:
229: %*******************
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: \label{eqn:propagators}
232: D_{\mu\nu,ab}^{TLH}(p)&=&-\delta_{ab}\tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)
233: \left[\frac{i}{p^2-m^2}+2\pi\delta(p^2-m^2)n_B(|p_0/T|)\right]\\
234: \tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)&=&\left(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^2}\right)\nonumber\\
235: D_{\mu\nu,ab}^{TLM}(p)&=&-\delta_{ab}\bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)
236: \left[\frac{i}{p^2}+2\pi\delta(p^2)n_B(|p_0/T|)\right]\nonumber\\
237: \bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)&=&\left\{
238: \begin{array}[2]{cc}0&\mbox{if}\ \ \mu=0\ \ \mbox{or}\ \ \nu=0\\
239: \left(\delta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{\vec{p}^2}\right)&\mbox{else}\nonumber
240: \end{array}\right.\,.
241: \end{eqnarray}
242: %*********************
243: In Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:propagators}) $n_B(x)=1/(e^{x}-1)$ denotes the Bose-Einstein
244: distribution function, and $T$ is the temperature. We have neglected
245: the propagation of the $A_0$ field in the TLM propagator since we expect
246: that this field is strongly screened - for $T>2\,T_c$,
247: where the TLH mass is sizably smaller than $T$, the Debye mass is $\sim eT$
248: with $e\sim 5.1$, for $T\sim T_c$ there is an exponential
249: suppression of this screening.
250:
251: With these rules at hand the
252: two-loop correction to the pressure is given as
253: %*******************
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: \Delta P=\frac{1}{8}\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{local}}+\frac{1}{4}\Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{nonlocal}}\label{eqn:DP2total}\
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: %*******************
258: where the local contributions can be written as
259: %*******************
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: \Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{local}}=\frac{1}{i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^8}\,\Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}D_{\mu\nu,ab}(p)
262: D_{\rho\sigma,cd}(k)\,. \label{eqn:DP2local}
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: %*******************
265: For nonlocal diagrams we have
266: %*******************
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: \Delta P_{\tiny\mbox{nonlocal}}&=&\frac{1}{2i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^8}\,\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\lambda\mu\nu}(p,k,-p-k)
269: \Gamma_{[3]rst}^{\rho\sigma\tau}(-p,-k,p+k)\times\nonumber\\
270: &&\quad\quad D_{\lambda\rho,ar}(p)D_{\mu\sigma,bs}(k)D_{\nu\tau,ct}(-p-k)\,.\label{eqn:DP2nonlocal}
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: %*******************
273: In Eqs.(\ref{eqn:DP2local}) and (\ref{eqn:DP2nonlocal})
274: $D_{\mu\nu,ab}$ stands for both TLH- and TLM-propagators, and one
275: has to sum over all combinations allowed by the vertices $\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\lambda\mu\nu}$ and
276: $\Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$.
277:
278: Let us now introduce a useful convention: Due to the split of propagators
279: into vacuum and thermal contributions
280: in Eq.(\ref{eqn:propagators}) combinations of thermal and vacuum
281: contributions of TLH and TLM propagators arise in Eqs.(\ref{eqn:DP2local}) and (\ref{eqn:DP2nonlocal}).
282: We will consider these contributions separately and denote them by
283: %*******************
284: \begin{eqnarray}
285: \Delta P^{XYZ/XY}_{\alpha_X\beta_Y\gamma_Z/\alpha_X\beta_Y}
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: %*******************
288: where capital roman letters take the values $H$ or $M$,
289: indicating the propagator type (TLH/TLM), and the associated small greek
290: letters take the values $v$ (vacuum) or $t$ (thermal).
291:
292: \section{Contributing diagrams for SU(2)\label{diag}}
293:
294: In what follows we only investigate the case SU(2). It is clear that not
295: all combinations of TLH- and TLM-propagators may contribute.
296: This is due to the structure constants entering the vertices. For SU(2) they are
297: $f_{abc}=\epsilon_{abc}$. As a consequence, the thirteen (naively)
298: nonvanishing diagrams are
299: %*******************
300: \begin{eqnarray}
301: \Delta P^{HH}&=&\Delta P^{HH}_{vv}+\Delta P^{HH}_{vt}+\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}\nonumber\\
302: \Delta P^{HM}&=&\Delta P^{HM}_{vv}+\Delta P^{HM}_{vt}+\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}+\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}\nonumber\\
303: \Delta P_{HHM}&=&\Delta P^{HHM}_{vvv}+\Delta P^{HHM}_{vvt}+\Delta P^{HHM}_{tvv}+\nonumber\\
304: &&\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}+\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttt}+\Delta P^{HHM}_{vtt}\,.\label{eqn:contribdiagrams}
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: %*******************
307: The number of allowed diagrams reduces further
308: if one considers the strong coupling limit for the effective gauge coupling $e$
309: ($e>0.5$). This can be seen by virtue of
310: the following compositeness constraint \cite{Hofmann2004}:
311: %*******************
312: \begin{eqnarray}
313: |p^2-m^2|\leq |\phi|^2 & \mbox{or} & p_E^2+m^2 \leq |\phi|^2\label{eqn:offshellcutoff}
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: %*******************
316: where the index $E$ stands for the
317: Euclidean rotated momentum. Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:offshellcutoff}) expresses the fact
318: that the ground-state physics is characterized by a scale
319: set by $|\phi|$ which determines the maximal hardness for the
320: off-shellness of gauge-boson fluctuations the ground state
321: can possibly generate. A Gaussian smearing of this constraint for Euclidean
322: momenta introduces a ridiculously small effect since the
323: variance for this distribution is, again, given by $|\phi|^2$. Notice
324: that only in unitary-Coulomb gauge, that is, the only physical gauge, it makes sense to
325: impose the constraint (\ref{eqn:offshellcutoff}).
326:
327: By the adjoint
328: Higgs mechanism the (degenerate) mass of the two TLH modes is given as \cite{Hofmann2004}
329: %***********
330: \eqb
331: \label{massTLH}
332: m=2e|\phi|
333: \eqe
334: %***********
335: where
336: %***********
337: \eqb
338: \label{modphi}
339: |\phi|^2=\frac{\Lambda^3}{2\pi T}\,.
340: \eqe
341: %***********
342: In Eq.\,(\ref{modphi}) $\Lambda$ denotes the
343: Yang-Mills scale. For later use we introduce a
344: dimensionless temperature $\lambda$ as
345: %***********
346: \eqb
347: \label{dimlessT}
348: \lambda=\frac{2\pi T}{\Lambda}\,.
349: \eqe
350: %************
351: From the one-loop evolution of the effective gauge coupling it follows that $e$ runs
352: into a logarithmic pole
353: %************
354: \eqb
355: \label{logpole}
356: e(\lambda)\sim -\log(\lambda-\lambda_c)
357: \eqe
358: %*************
359: at $\lambda_c=11.65$ \cite{Hofmann2004}. This is the point where the theory undergoes a
360: 2$^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order phase transition by the condensation of magnetic monopoles,
361: and thus $\lambda_c$ corresponds to the lowest attainable temperature in the electric phase.
362:
363: We can scale out $|\phi|$ in Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:offshellcutoff}).
364: Then the Euclidean constraint becomes
365: %***********
366: \eqb
367: \label{dimlessconstraint}
368: \sqrt{w^2+(2e)^2}\leq 1\,
369: \eqe
370: %************
371: where $w^2\equiv p_E^2/|\phi|^2$. Since $w^2$ is always positive we conclude that
372: only for $e\leq 0.5$ we do get a contribution from TLH vacuum fluctations in loop
373: integrals. The plateau-value\footnote{This plateau indicates the conservation of isolated magnetic
374: charge for monopoles contributing to the ground-state thermodynamics. It is an attractor
375: of the (downward) evolution signalling the UV-IR decoupling property
376: that follows from the renormalizability of the underlying theory.}
377: for $e$ is, however, $e\sim 5.1$ as a result of the one-loop evolution \cite{Hofmann2004}. TLM vacuum
378: modes do contribute, however, and we are left with the computation of
379: $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$, $\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}$, $\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}$
380: and $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$ ($\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttt}$ vanishes by momentum conservation).
381:
382: There is one more kinematical constraint:
383: For a thermalized system with no external probes applied to it,
384: the center-of-mass energy flowing into a four-vertex
385: must not be greater than the compositeness scale $|\phi|$
386: of the effective theory. That is, the hot-spot generated within the
387: vertex must not destroy the ground state
388: of the system locally since the modes entering the vertex were generated
389: by the very same ground state elsewhere. This is expressed as
390: %**************
391: \begin{eqnarray}
392: |\phi|^2\geq |(p+k)^2|\label{eqn:integrationrestriction}
393: \end{eqnarray}
394: %**************
395: where $p$ and $k$ are the momenta of the modes entering the vertex. As we shall see,
396: Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:integrationrestriction}) leads to a strong restriction in the loop integration.
397:
398: To perform the contractions in Eqs.\,(\ref{eqn:DP2local}) and (\ref{eqn:DP2nonlocal})
399: it is useful to exploit the transversality of the tensorial part $\bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(q)$ of the
400: TLM propagator from the start. The following four relations hold:
401: %**************
402: \begin{eqnarray}
403: \bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(q)q^{\mu}&=&0\nonumber\\
404: \bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(q)g^{\mu\nu}&=&-2\nonumber\\
405: \bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(q)p^{\mu}p^{\nu}&=&|\vec{p}|^2-\frac{(\vec{q}\vec{p})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\nonumber\\
406: \bar{D}_{\mu\nu}(q)p^{\mu}k^{\nu}&=&
407: \vec{pk}-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})(\vec{p}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\,.\label{eqn:TLMfeatures}
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: %**************
410: The results for all relevant contractions are derived in the Appendix.
411:
412: \section{Calculation of the integrals\label{processing}}
413:
414: With the contractions of tensor structures at hand, we are now in a position to calculate all
415: two-loop corrections. For $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$ this is done in detail,
416: for the other contributions we resort to a more
417: compact presentation. We have
418: %**************
419: \begin{eqnarray}
420: \label{HHtt richtig}
421: \Delta P^{HH}_{tt}&=&\frac{1}{i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^8}\,
422: \Gamma_{[4]aacc}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)\tilde{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)\times\nonumber\\
423: &&(2\pi)\delta(p^2-m^2)\,n_B(|p_0/T|)(2\pi)\delta(k^2-m^2)\,n_B(|k_0/T|)\nonumber\\
424: &=&-2e^2\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^6}\left(24-6\frac{p^2}{m^2}-6\frac{k^2}{m^2}+2\frac{p^2k^2}{m^4}
425: -2\frac{(pk)^2}{m^4}\right)\times\nonumber\\
426: &&\delta(p^2-m^2)n_B(|p_0/T|)\,\delta(k^2-m^2)n_B(|k_0/T|)\,.
427: \end{eqnarray}
428: %**************
429: In Eq.\,(\ref{HHtt richtig}) both color indices $a,c$ are summed over $a,c=1,2$.
430: The product of $\delta$-functions can be rewritten as
431: %**************
432: \begin{eqnarray*}
433: \delta(p^2-m^2)\delta(k^2-m^2)&=&\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}}\times\\
434: &&\big[\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\delta(k_0-\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})+\\
435: &&\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\delta(k_0+\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})+\\
436: &&\delta(p_0+\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\delta(k_0-\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})+\\
437: &&\delta(p_0+\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\delta(k_0+\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})\big]\,.
438: \end{eqnarray*}
439: %**************
440: The contraction $\Gamma_{[4]aacc}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)\tilde{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)$
441: contains only even products of $k$ and $p$ (this is also true for the other contractions),
442: like $p^2$, $k^2$ or $pk$. Thus, performing the zero-component
443: integration over either
444: %**************
445: \begin{eqnarray*}
446: &\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\,\delta(k_0+\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})&\\
447: &\mbox{or}&\\
448: &\delta(p_0+\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\,\delta(k_0-\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})\,,&
449: %**************
450: \end{eqnarray*}
451: (signs in the argument of $\delta$-functions opposite, crossterms) leads to the same result.
452: This is also true for the two uncrossed products of $\delta$-functions with equal signs.
453: After the integration is performed we may therefore set
454: %**************
455: \begin{eqnarray}
456: p^2&\rightarrow& m^2\nonumber\\
457: k^2&\rightarrow& m^2\nonumber\\
458: (pk)&\rightarrow& \pm\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}-\vec{p}\vec{k}\nonumber\\
459: (pk)^2&\rightarrow& \vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2+(\vec{p}^2+\vec{k}^2)m^2+
460: m^4\mp 2\vec{p}\vec{k}\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}
461: +(\vec{p}\vec{k})^2\,.\nonumber\\ \label{eqn:0integration}
462: %**************
463: \end{eqnarray}
464: The upper case is obtained when the signs are equal, the lower case when they are opposite.
465:
466: Examining the integration constraint in Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:integrationrestriction})
467: after the zero-component integration over the products of $\delta$-functions
468: is performed shows that only the combinations with
469: opposite signs must be evaluated:
470: %**************
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: |\phi|^2&\geq&|(p+k)^2|=|p_{0}^2-\vec{p}^2+k_{0}^2-\vec{k}^2+2p_0k_0-2\vec{p}\vec{k}|\nonumber\\
473: &\rightarrow& |\phi|^2\geq |2m^2\pm 2\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}-2\vec{p}\vec{k}|\nonumber\\
474: &\rightarrow& 1\geq 2|(2e)^2\pm \sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}
475: \sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}-xy\cos{\theta}|
476: \label{eqn:HHttrestriction}
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: %**************
479: where we have introduced (also for later use) dimensionless variables
480: %**************
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: x=|\vec{p}|/|\phi|\,,&&y=|\vec{k}|/|\phi|\,,\nonumber\\
483: z=\cos{\theta}\,,&&\lambda^{-3/2}=\frac{|\phi|}{2\pi T}\label{eqn:scaling}\,.
484: %**************
485: \end{eqnarray}
486: In Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHttrestriction}) $\theta$ denotes the angle between ${\bf p}$ and ${\bf k}$.
487: We observe that for the "$+$" case the difference
488: between the second and third term is always positive. And,
489: because of the first term, the whole expression is greater than unity in the
490: strong coupling limit. Thus only the "$-$" case needs to be considered.
491: This is also true for $\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}$ and $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$
492: though the analytical expressions may look different.\\
493:
494: Applying the knowledge gathered in the Appendix, $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$ can be reduced to
495: %**************
496: \begin{eqnarray*}
497: \Delta P^{HH}_{tt}&=&-2e^2\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^6}\left(24-6\frac{p^2}{m^2}-6\frac{k^2}{m^2}+2\frac{p^2k^2}{m^4}-2\frac{(pk)^2}{m^4}\right)\times\\
498: &&\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})
499: \delta(k_0+\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})\frac{n_B(|p_0/T|)n_B(|k_0/T|)}
500: {2\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}}\,.
501: %**************
502: \end{eqnarray*}
503: Integrating over the zero components by using Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:0integration}), we arrive at
504: %**************
505: \begin{eqnarray*}
506: \Delta P^{HH}_{tt}&=&-2e^2\int\frac{d^3\vec{p}\,d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^6}\,
507: \frac{n_B(\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T)n_B(\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}/T)}{2\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}}\times\\
508: &&\Big[12-2\frac{\vec{p}^2}{m^2}-2\frac{\vec{k}^2}{m^2}-
509: 2\frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2}{m^4}
510: -2\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{k})^2}{m^4}-4\frac{\vec{p}\vec{k}}{m^4}
511: \sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}\Big]\,.
512: \end{eqnarray*}
513: %**************
514: After a change to polar coordinates and an evaluation of the angular integrals
515: the remaining integration measure takes the form
516: $2(2\pi)^2|\vec{p}|^2|\vec{k}|^2d|\vec{p}|d|\vec{k}|d\cos{\theta}$.
517: As a last step we re-scale variables according to Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:scaling}).
518: This re-casts the kinematic constraints of Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHttrestriction}) into
519: the following form:
520: %**************
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: -1/2\leq & (2e)^2-\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}-xyz & \leq +1/2\,.\label{eqn:HHrestriction}
523: \end{eqnarray}
524: %**************
525: Our final result for $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$ reads:\\
526: {\bf TLH-TLH-thermal-thermal:}
527: %**************
528: \begin{eqnarray}
529: \Delta P^{HH}_{tt}&=&\frac{-2e^2T^4}{\lambda^6}\int dx\, dy\, dz\;
530: \frac{x^2y^2}{\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}\times\nonumber\\
531: &&\Big[12-2\frac{x^2}{(2e)^2}-2\frac{y^2}{(2e)^2}-2\frac{x^2y^2}{(2e)^4}-2\frac{x^2y^2z^2}{(2e)^4}-
532: 4\frac{xyz}{(2e)^4}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}\Big]\times\nonumber\\
533: &&n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})
534: n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2})\label{eqn:P2HHtt}\,
535: \end{eqnarray}
536: %**************
537: where the integration is subject to the contraint in Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHrestriction}).
538: The other two-loop corrections $\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}$, $\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}$ and $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$
539: are calculated in essentially the same way:\\
540: {\bf TLH-TLM-thermal-thermal:}\\
541: We have
542: \begin{eqnarray*}
543: \Delta P^{HM}_{tt}&=&\frac{1}{i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^6}\,\Gamma_{[4]aa33}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
544: \tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)\bar{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)\times\\
545: &&n_B(|p_0/T|)n_B(|k_0/T|)\delta(p^2-m^2)\delta(k^2)\,
546: \end{eqnarray*}
547: where the sum is over $a=1,2$.
548: Consider the integration constraint Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:integrationrestriction}):
549: \begin{eqnarray}
550: \label{cmcdl}
551: |\phi|^2&\geq&|(p+q)^2|=|p_0^2-\vec{p}^2+k_0^2-\vec{k}^2+2p_0k_0-2\vec{p}\vec{k}|\nonumber\\
552: &\rightarrow& |\phi|^2\geq|m^2\pm 2|\vec{k}|\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}-2|\vec{p}||\vec{k}|\cos{\theta}|\nonumber\\
553: &\rightarrow& 1\geq |(2e)^2\pm 2y\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}-2xy \cos{\theta}|\,.
554: \end{eqnarray}
555: Again, the "$+$" case cannot be satisfied in the strong coupling limit ($e>0.5$),
556: so only the "$-$" case needs to be considered. Then $\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}$ reduces to\newpage
557: \begin{eqnarray}
558: \Delta P^{HM}_{tt}
559: &=&-2e^2\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^6}\left(-12+4\frac{p^2}{m^2}+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\times\nonumber\\
560: &&\frac{n_B(|p_0/T|)n_B(|k_0/T|)}{2|\vec{k}|\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}}\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\delta(k_0+|\vec{k}|)
561: \nonumber\\
562: &=&-\frac{2e^2}{(2\pi)^4}\int d|\vec{p}|\,d|\vec{k}|\,d(\cos{\theta})\,\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2
563: \left(-8+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\times\nonumber\\
564: &&\frac{n_B(\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T)n_B(|\vec{k}|/T)}{|\vec{k}|\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}}\nonumber\\
565: &=&-\frac{2e^2T^4}{\lambda^6}\int dx\,dy\,dz\,x^2y\left(-8+2\frac{x^2(1-z^2)}{(2e)^2}\right)\times\nonumber\\
566: &&\frac{n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}y)}{\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}}
567: \label{eqn:P2HMtt}\,,
568: \end{eqnarray}
569: subject to the constraint Eq.\,(\ref{cmcdl}).\\
570: {\bf TLH-TLM-thermal-vacuum:} \\
571: We have
572: \begin{eqnarray*}
573: \Delta P^{HM}_{tv}&=&\frac{1}{i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^7}\,\Gamma_{[4]aa33}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
574: \tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)\bar{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)\, n_B(|p_0/T|)\,\frac{i}{k^2}\,\delta(p^2-m^2)\,.
575: \end{eqnarray*}
576: After the $p_0$-integration is performed the integration constraints Eqs. (\ref{eqn:offshellcutoff})
577: and (\ref{eqn:integrationrestriction}) read:
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: \label{oHMVT}
580: |k^2|\leq |\phi|^2&\rightarrow&|\gamma^2-y^2|\leq 1\\
581: \label{cHMVT}
582: |(p+k)^2|\leq |\phi|^2&\rightarrow &|(2e)^2+\gamma^2-y^2\pm
583: 2\gamma\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}-2xy\cos{\theta}|\leq 1\,.\nonumber\\
584: \end{eqnarray}
585: Thus, the $k_0$- or $\gamma$-integration ($\gamma$ is the re-scaled $k_0$-component)
586: cannot be performed analytically. We have
587: \begin{eqnarray}
588: \label{PHMTVana}
589: \Delta P^{HM}_{tv}&=&-2ie^2\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^7} \left(-12+4\frac{p^2}{m^2}+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\times
590: \nonumber\\
591: &&\frac{n_B(\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T)}{\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}}\frac{1}{k^2}\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\nonumber\\
592: &=&-4ie^2\int\frac{d|\vec{p}|\,dk_0\,d|\vec{k}|\,d(\cos{\theta})}{(2\pi)^5\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}}\,
593: \vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2\left(-8+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\times
594: \nonumber\\
595: && n_B(\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T)\frac{1}{k_0^2-\vec{k}^2}\nonumber\\
596: &=&\frac{-4ie^2T^4}{(2\pi)^5\lambda^6}\int\frac{dx\,dy\,d\gamma\,dz}{\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}}\,x^2y^2
597: \left(-8+2\frac{x^2(1-z^2)}{(2e)^2}\right)\times
598: \nonumber\\
599: && n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})\frac{1}{\gamma^2-y^2}\,.
600: \end{eqnarray}
601: This is, however, not easy to evaluate numerically. To show the smallness of $\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}$
602: we resort to estimating an upper bound on the modulus of the integral in Eq.\,(\ref{PHMTVana}). This
603: is done by neglecting the center-of-mass energy constraint Eq.\,(\ref{cHMVT})
604: completely (but taking into account the constraint Eq.\,(\ref{oHMVT})) and by integrating over the modulus of the integrand:
605: \begin{eqnarray}
606: \left|\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}\right|&\leq&-2ie^2\int\frac{d^3p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^7}\,\frac{1}{k^2}\Big|
607: \left(-8+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\times
608: \frac{n_B(\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T)}{\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}}\Big|\nonumber\\
609: &=& e^2\int\frac{d|\vec{p}|\,d(\cos{\theta})\,dk}{(2\pi)^4}\,k\,\Big|\vec{p}^2
610: \left(-8+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\times
611: \frac{n_B(|\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T|)}{\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}}\Big|\nonumber\\
612: &=&\frac{e^2T^4}{2\lambda^6}\int dx\,dz\,\Big|\left(-8+2\frac{x^2(1-z^2)}{(2e)^2}\right)\times
613: \frac{x^2}{\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}}\times\nonumber\\
614: &&\;n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})\Big|\label{eqn:P2HMtv}\,.
615: \end{eqnarray}
616: In the second line of Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:P2HMtv}) $k$ has the meaning of $k\equiv\sqrt{k_E^2}$.
617: \newpage
618: {\bf TLH-TLH-TLM-thermal-thermal-vacuum:}\\
619: Here we have
620: \begin{eqnarray*}
621: \Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}&=&-\frac{1}{2i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k\,d^4q}{(2\pi)^6}\,\Gamma_{[3]ab3}^{\lambda\mu\nu}(p,k,q)
622: \Gamma_{[3]ab3}^{\rho\sigma\tau}(-p,-k,-q)\times\\
623: &&\tilde{D}_{\lambda\rho}(p)\tilde{D}_{\mu\sigma}(k)\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
624: \, n_B(|p_0/T|)n_B(|k_0/T|)\times\\
625: &&\frac{i}{(k+p)^2}\delta(p^2-m^2)\delta(k^2-m^2)\delta(q+p+k)\,
626: \end{eqnarray*}
627: where the sum is over $a,b=1,2$.
628: Due to momentum conservation both kinematic constraints, Eqs.\,(\ref{eqn:offshellcutoff}) and
629: (\ref{eqn:integrationrestriction}), are equivalent:
630: \begin{eqnarray*}
631: |q|^2&=&|(p+k)^2|=|p^2+k^2+2pk|\leq|\phi|^2\\
632: &\rightarrow& |2(2e)^2\pm 2\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}-2xy\cos{\theta}|\leq 1\,.
633: \end{eqnarray*}
634: This is the same as for $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$, so only the "$-$" case needs to be considered:
635: \begin{eqnarray}
636: \Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}&=&-\frac{2e^2}{2i}\int\frac{d^4p\,d^4k}{(2\pi)^6}
637: \Big[10p^2+10k^2+16pk-2\frac{p^4}{m^2}-2\frac{k^4}{m^2}-\nonumber\\
638: &&8\frac{p^2(pk)}{m^2}-8\frac{k^2(pk)}{m^2}-16\frac{(pk)^2}{m^2}
639: -\frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{(\vec{p}+\vec{k})^2}\times\nonumber\\
640: &&\Big(10-3\frac{p^2}{m^2}-3\frac{k^2}{m^2}-8\frac{pk}{m^2}+\frac{p^4}{m^4}+\frac{k^4}{m^4}+\nonumber\\
641: &&4\frac{p^2(pk)}{m^4}+4\frac{k^2(pk)}{m^4}+4\frac{(pk)^2}{m^4}+2\frac{p^2k^2}{m^4}\Big)\Big]\times\nonumber\\
642: &&\frac{n_B(\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}/T)n_B(\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}/T)}
643: {2\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}}
644: \frac{i}{(k+p)^2}\times\nonumber\\
645: &&\delta(p_0-\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2})\delta(k_0+\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2})\,.
646: \end{eqnarray}
647: Using Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:0integration}),
648: the part $\propto \frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{(\vec{p}+\vec{k})^2}$ in the square
649: brackets after $p_0$ and $k_0$ integration reads
650: \begin{eqnarray*}
651: 12+4\frac{\vec{p}^2}{m^2}+4\frac{\vec{k}^2}{m^2}+4\frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2(1-z^2)}{m^4}+
652: 8\frac{|\vec{p}||\vec{k}|z}{m^4}\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}
653: \end{eqnarray*}
654: where polar coordinates have already been introduced.\\
655: The remaining part is
656: \begin{eqnarray*}
657: -16\left[\vec{p}^2+\vec{k}^2+\frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2(1-z^2)}{m^2}+2\frac{|\vec{p}||\vec{k}|z}{m^2}
658: \sqrt{\vec{p}^2+m^2}\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+m^2}\right]\,.
659: \end{eqnarray*}
660: The propagator $1/(p+k)^2$ becomes after re-scaling
661: \begin{eqnarray*}
662: \frac{1}{(p+k)^2}\rightarrow \frac{1}{2(2e)^2-2\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}-2xyz}\,.
663: \end{eqnarray*}
664: Thus, we have
665: \begin{eqnarray}
666: \Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}&=&\frac{e^2T^4}{2\lambda^6}\int dx\,dy\,dz\,\frac{x^2y^2}{\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}\times\nonumber\\
667: &&\frac{n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})\,n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2})}{(2e)^2-\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}
668: \sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}-xyz}\nonumber\\
669: &&\Big\{16\Big[x^2+y^2+2\frac{xyz}{(2e)^2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}+\nonumber\\
670: &&\frac{x^2y^2(1+z^2)}{(2e)^2}\Big]+\frac{x^2y^2(1-z^2)}{x^2+y^2+2xyz}
671: \Big[12+4\frac{x^2}{(2e)^2}+4\frac{y^2}{(2e)^2}+\nonumber\\
672: &&+4\frac{x^2y^2(1+z^2)}{(2e)^4}+8\frac{xyz}{(2e)^4}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}\Big]\Big\}\,.\label{eqn:P2HHMttv}
673: \end{eqnarray}
674:
675:
676: \section{Numerical integration\label{numprocessing}}
677: The objective of this section is to numerically evaluate the expressions
678: (\ref{eqn:P2HHtt}), (\ref{eqn:P2HMtt}),(\ref{eqn:P2HMtv}), and (\ref{eqn:P2HHMttv}).
679:
680: Two observations should already be pointed out here:\\
681: (1) As it will turn out, ignoring the kinematical constraint
682: Eq.\,(\ref{cHMVT}) in the
683: expression for $\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}$ gives an
684: upper bound which is much smaller in modulus than the by-far dominating
685: contribution subject to these constraints for $\lambda$ not too far above $\lambda_c$.
686: While for the former the
687: exact implementation of the constraints
688: is virtually impossible it is difficult but doable for the others.\\
689: (2) The nonlocal correction has a singular integrand due to the
690: TLM propagator being massless.\\
691: Both problems are resolved in the following two sections.
692:
693: \subsection{Constraints on integrations}
694: %***********************
695: \begin{figure}
696: \begin{center}
697: \leavevmode
698: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
699: \leavevmode
700: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
701: \vspace{5.3cm}
702: \special{psfile=Fig-3.ps angle=0 voffset=-170
703: hoffset=-145 hscale=110 vscale=80}
704: \end{center}
705: \caption{Constraints on integration for $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$: The lower bound in $z$
706: is always $-1$ while the upper bound is not. White area: restriction is always satisfied,
707: $z_{max}=1$, grey area: restriction can be satisfied,
708: $z_{max}$ is given by $z_+$ as in Eq.(\ref{eqn:contplotrestriction}),
709: black area: restriction can never be satisfied.
710: \label{fig:contourplotHHtt}}
711: \end{figure}
712: %************************
713: A straight-forward implementation of the kinematical constraints is to
714: multiply the integrands with appropriate $\Theta$-functions.
715: This, however, cannot straight-forwardly be fed into a Mathematica program.
716: Here, we demonstrate how the problem is tackled
717: for $\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$.\\
718: Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHrestriction}) can be rewritten as
719: \begin{eqnarray}
720: z&=&\cos{\theta}\leq \frac{1+2(2e)^2-2\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}{2xy}\nonumber\\
721: &&\mbox{and}\nonumber\\
722: z&=&\cos{\theta}\geq \frac{-1+2(2e)^2-2\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}{2xy}
723: \end{eqnarray}
724: where $-1\le z\le 1$. For the lower and upper integration limit we therefore get
725: \begin{eqnarray}
726: \label{zminmax}
727: &&\mbox{lower limit: }z_{min}=\min[1,\max\left[-1,z_-(x,y,e)\right]]\nonumber\\
728: &&\mbox{upper limit: }z_{max}=\max[-1,\min\left[1,z_+(x,y,e)\right]]
729: \end{eqnarray}
730: with the definitions
731: \begin{eqnarray}
732: z_-(x,y,e)&\equiv&\frac{-1+2(2e)^2-2\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}{2xy}\nonumber\\
733: z_+(x,y,e)&\equiv&\frac{1+2(2e)^2-2\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}{2xy}\,.\label{eqn:contplotrestriction}
734: \end{eqnarray}
735: Notice that $z_{min}(x,y,5.1)$ always equals $-1$. A contour plot for $z_+(x,y,5.1)$ is
736: displayed in Fig.\,\ref{fig:contourplotHHtt}. This plot shows that the constraint hardly ever
737: is satisfied. We observe that $z_+(x,y,5.1)$ is smaller than $-1$ in the black
738: area, greater than $+1$ in the white and inbetween these boundaries in the grey area.
739: The integration is restricted to a small band around $x=y$ only. Parameterizing this area leads to
740: an upper and lower limit for the integration range in $y=y(x)$ (depending on $x$).
741: Looking at Fig.\,\ref{fig:contourplotHHtt},
742: one also sees that $x$ runs from zero to infinity. For $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$
743: the constraints are the same.
744: For $\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}$ we have to re-adjust our definitions of the integration limits.
745: The upper and lower limits of integration in $z$ formally are defined
746: as in Eq.\,(\ref{zminmax}) with the difference that $z_{\pm}$ now are given as
747: \begin{eqnarray}
748: z_-(x,y,e)&\equiv&\frac{-1+2(2e)^2-2y\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}{2xy}\nonumber\\
749: z_+(x,y,e)&\equiv&\frac{1+2(2e)^2-2y\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}{2xy}\,.\label{alter}
750: \end{eqnarray}
751:
752: \subsection{Singular integrand in the nonlocal diagram}
753:
754: For $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$ an additional problem arises. Consider the integrand:
755: \begin{eqnarray}
756: &&\frac{x^2y^2}{\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}}
757: \frac{n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})n_B(2\pi\lambda^{-3/2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2})}{(2e)^2-\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}-xyz}\nonumber\\
758: &&\Big\{16\Big[x^2+y^2+\frac{x^2y^2(1+z^2)}{(2e)^2}+2\frac{xyz}{(2e)^2}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}\Big]\nonumber\\
759: &&+\frac{x^2y^2(1-z^2)}{x^2+y^2+2xyz}
760: \Big[12+4\frac{x^2}{(2e)^2}+4\frac{y^2}{(2e)^2}+4\frac{x^2y^2(1-z^2)}{(2e)^4}\nonumber\\
761: &&+8\frac{xyz}{(2e)^4}\sqrt{x^2+(2e)^2}\sqrt{y^2+(2e)^2}\Big]\Big\}\,.
762: \end{eqnarray}
763: The first part in curly brackets has no singularity and can be integrated numerically
764: without additional thinking. The part $\propto \frac{x^2y^2(1-z^2)}{x^2+y^2+2xyz}$ can not
765: be integrated numerically as it stands since
766: it diverges at $x=y$ and $z=-1$. Complex analysis, that is, the residue theorem, can not be applied to this problem
767: because we can not close the line integral at infinity due to the integration constraint.
768: We therefore add $i\epsilon\,\ (\epsilon>0)$ to the inverse TLM propagator.
769: One needs to prescribe a
770: small value for $\epsilon$ and check the numerical convergence of the integral
771: in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. The results for $\lambda=70,200$ are shown in
772: Table\,\ref{tab:epsilon}: The real part stabilizes while the imaginary part
773: converges to zero. In our computations a value $\epsilon=10^{-7}$ is
774: reasonable in view of available numerical precision.
775: \begin{table}
776: \begin{center}
777: \begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r|r|}
778: \hline
779: $\epsilon$&$10^{-6}$&$10^{-7}$&$10^{-8}$&$10^{-9}$\\ \hline
780: $T^{-4}\times$ Re $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}(70)$($\times-10^{-2}$)&$2.1028$&$2.1051$&$2.1058$&$2.1060$ \\ \hline
781: $T^{-4}\times$ Im $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}(70)$&$-3\times 10^{-5}$&$-1\times 10^{-5}$&$-3\times 10^{-6}$&$-3\times 10^{-6}$ \\ \hline
782: $T^{-4}\times$ Re $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}(200)$($\times -10^{-3}$)&$9.8744$&$9.8850$&$9.8882$&$9.8892$ \\ \hline
783: $T^{-4}\times$ Im $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}(200)$&$-1\times 10^{-5}$&$-5\times 10^{-6}$&$-1\times 10^{-6}$&$-4\times 10^{-7}$\\ \hline
784: \end{tabular}
785: \label{tab:epsilon}
786: \caption{Numerical evaluation of the $\epsilon$-dependent
787: part of $\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$ (adding a term $i\epsilon$ ($\epsilon>0$) to the
788: inverse TLM propagator in Minkowskian signature). Obviously,
789: the real part of the integral is not sensitive to the value of
790: $\epsilon$ while the imaginary part tends to zero for $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$. }
791: \end{center}
792: \end{table}
793:
794: \section{Results\label{res}}
795:
796: Having performed the numerical integrations, we now are in a position to
797: present our results for each contributing diagram by plotting the
798: ratio of two-loop to one-loop diagrams as a function of the dimensionless
799: temperature $\lambda_c=11.65\le lambda\le 200$.
800: Figs.\,\ref{Fig-4.ps} through \ref{Fig-7.ps} show the results. Notice that the one-loop result,
801: see \cite{Hofmann2004} for a calculation, does not contain the
802: contribution of the ground state. Notice also, that we kept $e\equiv 5.1$
803: for all values of $\lambda$ thus ignoring
804: the logarithmic blow-up of Eq.\,(\ref{logpole}). Due to the
805: exponential suppression for large $e$ this yields an upper
806: bound for the modulus of each diagram in the critical region.
807: %***********************
808: \begin{figure}
809: \begin{center}
810: \leavevmode
811: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
812: \leavevmode
813: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
814: \vspace{4.3cm}
815: \special{psfile=Fig-4.ps angle=-90 voffset=190
816: hoffset=-230 hscale=55 vscale=75}
817: \end{center}
818: \caption{Ratio of $\frac{1}{8}\Delta P^{HH}_{tt}$ and $P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}$ as a function of $11.65\le\lambda\le 200$.\label{Fig-4.ps}}
819: \end{figure}
820: %***********************
821: %***********************
822: \begin{figure}
823: \begin{center}
824: \leavevmode
825: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
826: \leavevmode
827: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
828: \vspace{4.3cm}
829: \special{psfile=Fig-5.ps angle=-90 voffset=190
830: hoffset=-230 hscale=55 vscale=75}
831: \end{center}
832: \caption{Ratio of $\frac{1}{8}\Delta P^{HM}_{tt}$ and $P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}$ as a function of $11.65\le\lambda\le 200$.\label{Fig-5.ps}}
833: \end{figure}
834: %************************
835: \newpage
836: %***********************
837: \begin{figure}
838: \begin{center}
839: \leavevmode
840: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
841: \leavevmode
842: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
843: \vspace{5.3cm}
844: \special{psfile=Fig-6.ps angle=-90 voffset=170
845: hoffset=-230 hscale=55 vscale=75}
846: \end{center}
847: \caption{An upper bound for the modulus of the ratio of $\frac{1}{8}\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}$ and
848: $P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}$ as a function of $11.65\le\lambda\le 200$.\label{Fig-6.ps}}
849: \end{figure}
850: %************************
851: %***********************
852: \begin{figure}
853: \begin{center}
854: \leavevmode
855: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
856: \leavevmode
857: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
858: \vspace{5.3cm}
859: \special{psfile=Fig-7.ps angle=-90 voffset=170
860: hoffset=-230 hscale=55 vscale=75}
861: \end{center}
862: \caption{Ratio of $\frac{1}{4}\Delta P^{HHM}_{ttv}$ and $P_{\tiny\mbox{1-loop}}$ as a function of $11.65\le\lambda\le 200$.\label{Fig-7.ps}}
863: \end{figure}
864: %************************
865: Our computation indicates that the two-loop corrections
866: are at most 0.2\% of the one-loop result. The dominant contribution comes
867: from the nonlocal diagram in Fig.\,\ref{fig:contribdiagr}.
868:
869: \section{Summary and Outlook\label{SO}}
870:
871: Our results can be summarized as follows: The picture of almost noninteracting
872: thermal quasiparticles that was underlying the one-loop evolution of the effective coupling constant $e$ in the
873: electric phase of a thermalized SU(2) Yang-Mills theory is confirmed by the two-loop calculation of the
874: thermodynamical pressure. The (tiny) modification of the one-loop evolution
875: equation for $e$ due to two-loop effects will be
876: investigated in \cite{HofmannRohrer2004}. On a mesoscopic level this modification
877: can be understood in terms of scattering processes off magnetic
878: monopoles whose core size becomes comparable to the typical wave length $T^{-1}$ of a
879: TLM mode for $T\searrow T_{c}$ where $T_{c}=\frac{\lambda_c\Lambda}{2\pi}=\frac{11.65\,\Lambda}{2\pi}$ denotes the critical
880: temperature for the $2^{\tiny\mbox{nd}}$ order transition to the magnetic phase. For $T\gg T_{c}$ the magnetic charge
881: of a monopole is too much smeared to be 'seen' by the TLM mode. This simple fact arises from the constancy of $e$ for
882: large temperatures and the core size or charge radius $R(T)$ of a monopole being approximately
883: its inverse mass $M$ \cite{Hofmann2004}
884: %**********
885: \eqb
886: R(T)\sim M^{-1}(T)\sim e\sqrt{\frac{2\pi T}{\Lambda^3}}\,.
887: \eqe
888: %**********
889: Thus the quick die-off of the two-loop correction to the pressure
890: at large $T$ (compare with Figs.\,\ref{Fig-4.ps} through
891: \ref{Fig-7.ps} and ignore the fact that our estimate for
892: $\Delta P^{HM}_{tv}$, see Fig.\,\ref{Fig-6.ps}, is too rough for large $T$ due
893: to the omission of the vertex constraint and that a small infrared effect survives for large $T$ in
894: Fig.\,\ref{Fig-5.ps} due to the masslessness of the TLM mode).
895: The mechanical analogon for this situation is as follows:
896: Imagine a box filled with heavy lead balls being at rest and light ping-pong balls moving around them.
897: Now, switch on an interaction between the two species (wavelength of TLM mode becomes comparable
898: to charge radius of monopole for $T\searrow T_c$).
899: This will thermalize the system. However, the average momentum that is deprived from the ping-pong balls
900: and added to the lead balls does not have an effect on the partial thermodynamical pressure of the latter
901: since their momenta only probe the exponential tail of their Bose distribution.
902: On the other hand, a decrease of the average ping-pong-ball momentum sizeably decreases their
903: partial thermodynamical pressure. This is seen in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-7.ps} by the (negative!) dip
904: of the dominating two-loop correction.
905:
906: Despite the large value of $e\sim 5.1$ the smallness of two-loop corrections emerges from the
907: existence of compositeness constraints which in turn are derived
908: from the existence of a nontrivial ground state. We expect no major complications
909: when generalizing our computation to SU(N). The situation is somewhat reminiscent of ${\cal N}=2$
910: supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory where the {\sl perturbative} $\beta$
911: function for the gauge coupling is exact at one loop \cite{Seiberg1988}.
912: The important conceptual difference is that the one-loop exactness in the supersymmetric
913: case is inforced by a strong symmetry while in our approach to
914: the ${\cal N}=0$ Yang-Mills theory the identification of the essential
915: degrees of freedom makes the interactions thereof almost vanish. We expect
916: that the loop expansion of the thermodynamical pressure of an SU(N) Yang-Mills theory
917: is not asymptotic but converges very quickly.
918:
919: An important application of our results arises: If the photon is generated by an SU(2) Yang-Mills
920: theory of Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda\sim T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}\sim 10^{-4}\,$eV being at the boundary
921: between the magnetic and electric phases but on the magnetic side\footnote{Only there is the photon precisely
922: massless and completely unscreened: a situation which is dynamically stabilized by a dip of
923: the energy density at $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ \cite{Hofmann2004}.} then light,
924: being released at the time of decoupling of the CMB (deep within the electric phase of SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$),
925: must have travelled through a 'lattice' of scattering centers ({\sl dual} magnetic, that is,
926: electrically charged monopoles) shortly before the Universe settled
927: into the CMB dip where the monopoles are condensed into a classical field \cite{Hofmann2004}. This effect
928: is seen in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-7.ps} by a decrease of the dominating two-loop correction
929: to the pressure for $T$ approaching $T_c$ (that is $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$) from above.
930: The observable effect should be a cosmic Laue diagram with a large quadrupole contribution
931: and manifest itself in terms of a large-angle 'anomaly' in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in
932: the cosmic microwave background. Such an 'anomaly' indeed has been reported
933: by the WMAP collaboration \cite{WMAP2003}.
934:
935: \section*{Acknowledgments}
936:
937: It is a pleasure to thank Alan Guth for a very stimulating
938: discussion about the implications of SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$
939: for the CMB power spectrum. Useful conversations with Robert
940: Brandenberger, John Moffat, Nucu Stamatescu, Dirk Rischke, and
941: Frank Wilczek are gratefully acknowledged.
942:
943: \section*{Appendix}
944:
945: Here we evaluate the contractions of the tensor structures as they
946: appear in Eqs.\,(\ref{eqn:DP2local}) and (\ref{eqn:DP2nonlocal}). Exploiting Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:TLMfeatures}),
947: the contractions for local contributions are:\\
948: (1) Local, TLH-TLH:
949: \begin{eqnarray}
950: &&\Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\delta_{ab}\tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)\delta_{cd}\tilde{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)
951: =-ie^2[\epsilon_{abe}\epsilon_{cde}(g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})+\nonumber\\
952: &&\epsilon_{ace}\epsilon_{bde}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})
953: +\epsilon_{ade}\epsilon_{bce}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma})]\times\nonumber\\
954: &&\delta_{ab}\left(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^2}\right)\delta_{cd}\left(g_{\rho\sigma}-
955: \frac{k_{\rho}k_{\sigma}}{m^2}\right)\nonumber\\
956: &=&-ie^2\epsilon_{ace}\epsilon_{ace}\big[2g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}\big]\times\nonumber\\
957: &&\Big(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^2}\Big)\Big(g_{\rho\sigma}-\frac{k_{\rho}k_{\sigma}}{m^2}\Big)\nonumber\\
958: &=&-2ie^2\left(24-6\frac{p^2}{m^2}-6\frac{k^2}{m^2}+2\frac{p^2k^2}{m^4}-2\frac{(pk)^2}{m^4}\right)\,.\label{eqn:HHcontraction}
959: \end{eqnarray}
960: (2) Local, TLH-TLM:
961: \begin{eqnarray}
962: &&\Gamma_{[4]abcd}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\delta_{ab}\tilde{D}_{\mu\nu}(p)\delta_{cd}\bar{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)
963: =-ie^2[\epsilon_{abe}\epsilon_{cde}(g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})+\nonumber\\
964: &&\epsilon_{ace}\epsilon_{bde}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho})
965: +\epsilon_{ade}\epsilon_{bce}(g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma})]\times\nonumber\\
966: &&\delta_{ab}\left(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^2}\right)\delta_{cd}\bar{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)\nonumber\\
967: &=&-ie^2\epsilon_{ace}\epsilon_{ace}\big[2g^{\mu\nu}g^{\rho\sigma}-g^{\mu\sigma}g^{\nu\rho}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\sigma}\big]\times\nonumber\\
968: &&\Big(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{m^2}\Big)\bar{D}_{\rho\sigma}(k)\nonumber\\
969: &=&-2ie^2\left(-12+4\frac{p^2}{m^2}+2\frac{\vec{p}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{m^2}\right)\,.\label{eqn:HMcontraction}
970: \end{eqnarray}
971: In Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HMcontraction}) $\theta$ denotes the angle between ${\bf p}$ and ${\bf k}$.
972: For the nonlocal diagram we obtain:
973: \begin{eqnarray}
974: &&\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\lambda\mu\nu}(p,k,q)\Gamma_{[3]rst}^{\rho\sigma\tau}(p,k,q)\delta_{ar}\tilde{D}_{\lambda\rho}(p)
975: \delta_{bs}\tilde{D}_{\mu\sigma}(k)\delta_{ct}\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
976: &=&e^2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon_{rst}\big[g^{\lambda\mu}(p-k)^{\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}(k-q)^{\lambda}+g^{\nu\lambda}(q-p)^{\mu}\big]\times\nonumber\\
977: &&\big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big]\times\nonumber\\
978: &&\delta_{ar}\delta_{bs}\delta_{ct}\Big( g_{\lambda\rho}-\frac{p_{\lambda}p_{\rho}}{m^2}\Big)
979: \Big( g_{\mu\sigma}-\frac{k_{\mu}k_{\sigma}}{m^2}\Big)
980: \bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\,.\label{eqn:HHMuncontracted}
981: \end{eqnarray}
982: For not loosing track, we split the calculation into terms $\propto e^2$, $\propto\frac{e^2}{m^2}$
983: and $\propto\frac{e^2}{m^4}$ and keep $\bar{D}$ uncontracted in a first step.
984: The contraction of structure constants $\epsilon_{ab3}\epsilon_{ab3}$ gives an additional factor 2.\\
985: Term $\propto 2e^2$:
986: \begin{eqnarray}
987: &&\big[g^{\lambda\mu}(p-k)^{\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}(k-q)^{\lambda}
988: +g^{\nu\lambda}(q-p)^{\mu}\big]
989: \big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
990: &&g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big] g_{\lambda\rho}g_{\mu\sigma}\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
991: \nonumber\\
992: &=&\big[g_{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\nu}+g_{\sigma}^{\nu}(k-q)_{\rho}+g^{\nu}_{\rho}(q-p)_{\sigma}\big]\times\nonumber\\
993: &&\big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
994: \nonumber\\
995: &=&\big[4(p-k)^{\nu}(p-k)^{\tau}+(p-k)^{\nu}(k-q)^{\tau}+(p-k)^{\nu}(q-p)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
996: &&(k-q)^{\nu}(p-k)^{\tau}+(k-q)^2g^{\nu\tau}+(q-p)^{\nu}(k-q)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
997: &&(q-p)^{\nu}(p-k)^{\tau}+(k-q)^{\nu}(q-p)^{\tau}+(q-p)^2g^{\nu\tau}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
998: &=&\big[2p^{\nu}p^{\tau}+2k^{\nu}k^{\tau}-6p^{\nu}k^{\tau}+(q-p)^2g^{\nu\tau}+(k-q)^2g^{\nu\tau}\big]
999: \bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1000: &=&2\Big(\vec{p}^2-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)+
1001: 2\Big(\vec{k}^2-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)
1002: -6\Big(\vec{p}\vec{k}-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})(\vec{k}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)-\nonumber\\
1003: &&2(q-p)^2-2(k-q)^2\,.\label{eqn:HHMcontraction1}
1004: \end{eqnarray}
1005: Terms proportional to $q^{\nu}$ or $q^{\tau}$ have been omitted after the second-last equal sign in
1006: Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction1}) because, when
1007: contracted with $\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)$, they vanish. Again,
1008: using Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:TLMfeatures}) the expression after the last equal sign in
1009: Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction1}) easily follows.\\
1010: Next we look at the two terms proportional to $2\frac{e^2}{m^2}$
1011: (compare with Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHMuncontracted})).\\
1012: The first one is:
1013: \begin{eqnarray}
1014: \label{eqn:HHMcontraction2}
1015: &&\big[g^{\lambda\mu}(p-k)^{\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}(k-q)^{\lambda}
1016: +g^{\nu\lambda}(q-p)^{\mu}\big]
1017: \big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
1018: &&g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big]g_{\lambda\rho}k_{\mu}k_{\sigma}\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
1019: \nonumber\\
1020: &=&\big[k_{\rho}k_{\sigma}(p-k)^{\nu}+k^{\nu}k_{\sigma}(k-q)_{\rho}+k(q-p)g^{\nu}_{\rho}k_{\sigma}\big]\times\nonumber\\
1021: &&\big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}
1022: +g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1023: &=&\big[k^2(p-k)^{\nu}(p-k)^{\tau}+k(k-q)(p-k)^{\nu}k^{\tau}+k(q-p)(p-k)^{\nu}k^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
1024: &&k(k-q)k^{\nu}(p-k)^{\tau}+(k-q)^2k^{\nu}k^{\tau}+k(q-p)k^{\nu}(k-q)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
1025: &&k(q-p)k^{\nu}(p-k)^{\tau}+k(q-p)(k-q)^{\nu}k^{\tau}+[k(q-p)]^2g^{\nu\tau}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1026: &=&[k^2p^{\nu}p^{\tau}+q^2k^{\nu}k^{\tau}-2(kp) p^{\nu}k^{\tau}+[k(q-p)]^2g^{\nu\tau}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
1027: \nonumber\\
1028: &=&k^2\Big(\vec{p}^2-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)+q^2\Big(\vec{k}^2-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)
1029: -2pk\Big(\vec{p}\vec{k}-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})(\vec{k}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)\nonumber\\
1030: &&-2[k(q-p)]^2\,.
1031: \end{eqnarray}
1032: The second term $\propto 2\frac{e^2}{m^2}$ either is obtained by a
1033: direct calculation or by just
1034: exchanging $p\leftrightarrow k$ in Eq.\,(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction2}):
1035: \begin{eqnarray}
1036: &&\big[g^{\lambda\mu}(p-k)^{\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}(k-q)^{\lambda}
1037: +g^{\nu\lambda}(q-p)^{\mu}\big]\big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
1038: &&g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big] g_{\mu\sigma}p_{\lambda}p_{\rho}\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
1039: \nonumber\\
1040: &=&p^2\Big(\vec{k}^2-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)
1041: +q^2\Big(\vec{p}^2-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)
1042: -2pk\Big(\vec{p}\vec{k}-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})(\vec{k}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)-\nonumber\\
1043: &&2[p(q-k)]^2\,.\label{eqn:HHMcontraction3}
1044: \end{eqnarray}
1045: Finally, the term $\propto 2\frac{e^2}{m^4}$ is given by
1046: \begin{eqnarray}
1047: &&\big[g^{\lambda\mu}(p-k)^{\nu}+g^{\mu\nu}(k-q)^{\lambda}
1048: +g^{\nu\lambda}(q-p)^{\mu}\big]
1049: \big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+\nonumber\\
1050: &&g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big] p_{\lambda}p_{\rho}k_{\mu}k_{\sigma}
1051: \bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1052: &=&\big[(pk)p_{\rho}k_{\sigma}(p-k)^{\nu}+p(k-q)p_{\rho}k_{\sigma}k^{\nu}+k(q-p)p_{\rho}k_{\sigma}p^{\nu}\big]\times\nonumber\\
1053: &&\big[g^{\rho\sigma}(p-k)^{\tau}+g^{\sigma\tau}(k-q)^{\rho}+g^{\tau\rho}(q-p)^{\sigma}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)
1054: \nonumber\\
1055: &=&\big[(pk)(p-k)^{\nu}+[p(k-q)]k^{\nu}+[k(q-p)]p^{\nu}\big]\nonumber\\
1056: &&\big[(pk)(p-k)^{\tau}+[p(k-q)]k^{\tau}+[k(q-p)]p^{\tau}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1057: &=&\big[(kq)^2p^{\nu}p^{\tau}+(pq)^2k^{\nu}k^{\tau}-2(pq)(kq)p^{\nu}k^{\tau}\big]\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1058: &=&(kq)^2\Big(\vec{p}^2-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)
1059: +(pq)^2\Big(\vec{k}^2-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)-\nonumber\\
1060: &&2(pq)(kq)\Big(\vec{p}\vec{k}-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})(\vec{k}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)\,.\label{eqn:HHMcontraction4}
1061: \end{eqnarray}
1062: Now, adding up Eqs.(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction1}) through (\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction4}) (taking care of the
1063: correct signs), we have
1064: \begin{eqnarray}
1065: \mbox{Eq.(\ref{eqn:HHMuncontracted})}&=&2e^2\left[\mbox{Eq.(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction1})}-\mbox{Eq.(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction2})}
1066: -\mbox{Eq.(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction3})}+\mbox{Eq.(\ref{eqn:HHMcontraction4})}\right]\nonumber\\
1067: &=&2e^2\Big\{2\frac{[p(q-k)]^2}{m^2}+\frac{2[k(q-p)]^2}{m^2}-2(q-p)^2-2(k-q)^2+\nonumber\\
1068: &&[2-\frac{k^2}{m^2}-\frac{q^2}{m^2}+\frac{(kq)^2}{m^4}]\Big(\vec{p}^2-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)+\nonumber\\
1069: &&[2-\frac{q^2}{m^2}-\frac{p^2}{m^2}+\frac{(pq)^2}{m^4}]\Big(\vec{k}^2-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)-\nonumber\\
1070: &&[6-4\frac{pk}{m^2}+2\frac{(pq)(kq)}{m^4}]\Big(\vec{p}\vec{k}-\frac{(\vec{p}
1071: \vec{q})(\vec{k}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)\Big\}\,.
1072: \end{eqnarray}
1073: Using momentum conservation at the vertices, that is $q=-p-k$, we find:
1074: \begin{eqnarray}
1075: \Big(\vec{p}^2-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)=\Big(\vec{k}^2-\frac{(\vec{k}\vec{q})^2}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)
1076: =-\Big(\vec{p}\vec{k}-\frac{(\vec{p}\vec{q})(\vec{k}\vec{q})}{|\vec{q}|^2}\Big)=
1077: \frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2 \sin^2{\theta}}{(\vec{p}+\vec{k})^2}\,.
1078: \end{eqnarray}
1079: And thus,\\
1080: (3) Nonlocal, TLH-TLH-TLM:
1081: \begin{eqnarray}
1082: &&\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\lambda\mu\nu}(p,k,q)\Gamma_{[3]abc}^{\rho\sigma\tau}(-p,-k,-q)
1083: \tilde{D}_{\lambda\rho}(p)\tilde{D}_{\mu\sigma}(k)\bar{D}_{\nu\tau}(q)\nonumber\\
1084: &=&2e^2\Big[10p^2+10k^2+16pk-2\frac{k^4}{m^2}-2\frac{p^4}{m^2}-8\frac{p^2(pk)}{m^2}-8\frac{k^2(pk)}{m^2}-\nonumber\\
1085: &&16\frac{(pk)^2}{m^2}-\frac{\vec{p}^2\vec{k}^2\sin^2{\theta}}{(p+k)^2}\Big(10-3\frac{p^2}{m^2}-3\frac{k^2}{m^2}
1086: -8\frac{pk}{m^2}+\frac{p^4}{m^4}+\nonumber\\
1087: &&\frac{k^4}{m^4}+4\frac{p^2(pk)}{m^4}+4\frac{k^2(pk)}{m^4}
1088: +4\frac{(pk)^2}{m^4}+2\frac{p^2k^2}{m^4}\Big)\Big]\label{eqn:HHMcontracted}\,.
1089: \end{eqnarray}
1090: Here, we have used the fact that $\Gamma(-p,-k,-q)=-\Gamma(p,k,q)$.
1091:
1092: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1093:
1094: \bibitem{Hofmann2004}
1095: R. Hofmann, hep-ph/0404265, submitted to Foundations of Physics
1096:
1097: \bibitem{HarrigtonShepard1977}
1098: B. J. Harrington and H. K. Shepard, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2122 (1978).
1099:
1100: \bibitem{HerbstHofmann2004}
1101: U. Herbst and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0411214.
1102:
1103: \bibitem{Nahm1984}
1104: W. Nahm, Lect. Notes in Physics. 201, eds. G. Denaro, e.a. (1984) p. 189.
1105:
1106: \bibitem{KraanVanBaalNPB1998}
1107: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 533}, 627 (1998).
1108:
1109: \bibitem{vanBaalKraalPLB1998}
1110: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 435}, 389 (1998).
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Brower1998}
1113: R. C. Brower, D. Chen, J. Negele, K. Orginos, and C-I Tan, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 73}, 557 (1999).
1114:
1115: \bibitem{Diakonov2004}
1116: D. Diakonov, N. Gromov, V. Petrov, and S. Slizovskiy, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 036003 (2004)
1117: [hep-th/0404042].
1118:
1119: \bibitem{Gorenstein1995}
1120: M. I. Gorenstein and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 5206 (1995).
1121:
1122: \bibitem{WMAP2003}
1123: D. N. Spergel {\sl et al.}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).
1124:
1125: \bibitem{Landsman}
1126: N. P. Landsman and Ch. G. van Weert: {\it Real- and Imaginary-time field theory at finite
1127: temperature and density}, Phys. Rep. {\bf 145}, (1987) 141.
1128:
1129: \bibitem{HofmannRohrer2004}
1130: R. Hofmann and J. Rohrer, work in progress.
1131:
1132: \bibitem{Seiberg1988}
1133: N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 206}, 75 (1988).
1134:
1135: \end{thebibliography}
1136:
1137: \baselineskip25pt
1138: \end{document}
1139: