1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %

2: %%

3: %%

4: %%   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

5: %%   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

6: %%

7: %%

8: %%   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

9: %%

10: %%   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

11: %%

12: 

13: \documentclass[prc,preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

14: 

15: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

16: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS

17: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line

18: % below if necessary.

19: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

20: \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal}

21: \usepackage{graphicx}

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

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

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

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

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

27:       #1                                        % and print #1

28:    \else                                        % / is bigger

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

30:       /                                         % and print /

31:    \fi}

32: 

33: \def\kp{k^{\,\prime}}

34: \def\kpsq{k^{\,\prime\,2}}

35: \def\ksq{k^2}

36: \def\kdp{k^{\,\prime\prime}}

37: \def\myint#1{\!\int\!\!\frac{d^4\!{#1}}{(2\pi)^4}\,}

38: \def\gev#1{ GeV${}^{#1}$}

39: \def\be{\begin{eqnarray}}

40: \def\ee{\end{eqnarray}}

41: 

42: 

43: \renewcommand{\theequation}%

44:     {\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

45: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother

46: 

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report

50: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.

51: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.

52: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults

53: % to display numbers if necessary

54: %\preprint{}

55: 

56: %Title of paper

57: \title{Quark Condensates and Momentum-Dependent Quark Masses

58:  in a Nonlocal Nambu--Jona-Lasinio Model}

59: 

60: \author{Bing He}

61: \author{Hu Li}

62: \author{Qing Sun}

63: \author{C.M. Shakin}

64:  \email[email:]{casbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu}

65: \affiliation{%

66: Department of Physics and Center for Nuclear Theory\\

67: Brooklyn College of the City University of New York\\

68: Brooklyn, New York 11210

69: }%

70: 

71: \date{January, 2002}

72: 

73: \begin{abstract}

74: % insert abstract here

75: The Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model has been extensively studied

76: by many researchers. In previous work we have generalized the NJL

77: model to include a covariant model of confinement. In the present

78: work we consider further modification of the model so as to

79: reproduce the type of Euclidean-space momentum-dependent quark

80: mass values obtained in lattice simulations of QCD. This may be

81: done by introducing a nonlocal interaction, while preserving the

82: chiral symmetry of the Lagrangian. In other work on nonlocal

83: models, by other researchers, the momentum dependence of the quark

84: self-energy is directly related to the regularization scheme. In

85: contrast, in our work, the regularization is independent of the

86: nonlocality we introduce. It is of interest to note that the value

87: of the condensate ratio,

88: $\langle\bar{s}s\rangle/\langle\bar{u}d\rangle$, is about 1.7 when

89: evaluated using chiral perturbation theory and is only about 1.1

90: in standard applications of the NJL model. We find that our

91: nonlocal model can reproduce the larger value of the condensate

92: ratio when reasonable values are used for the strength of the 't

93: Hooft interaction. (In an earlier study of the $\eta$(547) and

94: $\eta$'(958) mesons, we found that use of the larger value of the

95: condensate ratio led to a very good fit to the mixing angles and

96: decay constants of these mesons.) We also study the density

97: dependence of both the quark condensate and the momentum-dependent

98: quark mass values. Without the addition of new parameters, we

99: reproduce the density dependence of the condensate given by a

100: well-known model-independent expression valid for small baryon

101: density. The generalization of our model to include a model of

102: confinement required the introduction of an additional parameter.

103: The further generalization to obtain a nonlocal model also

104: requires additional parameters. However, we believe our results

105: are of sufficient interest so as to compensate for the

106: introduction of the additional parameters in our formalism.

107: \end{abstract}

108: 

109: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

110: \pacs{12.39.Fe, 12.38.Aw, 14.65.Bt}

111: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

112: %\keywords{}

113: 

114: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

115: \maketitle

116: 

117: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

118: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

119: \section{INTRODUCTION}

120: 

121: The Nambu--Jona-Lasinio model has been extensively studied for

122: several decades [1-3]. In recent years there has been strong

123: interest in the study of quark matter at high densities, using the

124: NJL model and related models. In particular, one finds color

125: superconductivity under certain conditions and it has been

126: suggested that some compact stars might be made of superconducting

127: quark matter [4-10]. It is our belief that in such studies one

128: should use a model which reproduces, as well as possible, know

129: features of QCD. In this work we wish to generalize the

130: SU(3)-flavor version of the NJL model to be consistent with the

131: type of momentum-dependent quark masses found in lattice

132: simulations of QCD [11]. For example, in Figs. 1 and 2 we show

133: some of the results obtained in Ref. [11]. It may be seen from

134: these figures that, in Euclidean space, the quark mass goes over

135: to the current mass for Euclidean momentum $k \gtrsim$ 2 GeV. On

136: the other hand, the NJL model, in the standard analysis [1], gives

137: rise to a constant value for the constituent quark mass. As we

138: will see, the form of the nonlocality used here is different from

139: that used in Refs. [6, 12-16]. For example, in reference [12] the

140: $q\bar{q}$ vertex is modified by a form factor which depends on

141: the relative momentum of the quark and antiquark, while, in

142: another scheme, a form factor is associated with each quark line

143: appearing in a diagram. In the latter procedure no further

144: regularization is needed. However, for the problem considered in

145: this work, the nonlocal models that appear in the literature are

146: of limited applicability, since, in the limit of zero current

147: quark mass, the quark self-energy is proportional to the form

148: factors used to define the nonlocality [12]. In contrast, in the

149: current work, we calculate the form of the quark self-energy after

150: introducing a regulator and a nonlocal quark interaction. We

151: stress that the procedure used here differs from any that appears

152: in the literature.

153: 

154: The organization of our work is as follows. In Section II we

155: review the standard analysis for the condensates and ``gap

156: equation" of the SU(3)-flavor NJL model [1]. We then go on to

157: review a procedure for including the contribution to the quark

158: self-energy due to the addition of a confining interaction for the

159: case of the SU(2)-flavor model. In Section III we introduce a

160: nonlocal interaction in the SU(3)-flavor NJL model while

161: maintaining the separable nature of the interaction. We also

162: describe the approximation used for the 't Hooft interaction in

163: the nonlocal model. In Section IV and V we present some of the

164: results of our numerical calculations. In Section VI we discuss

165: the density dependence of the quark condensate and the momentum

166: dependent quark mass. Finally, Section VII contains some

167: additional discussion and conclusions.

168: 

169:  \begin{figure}

170:  \includegraphics[

171:  bb=240 0 250 450,

172:  angle=-0.5

173:  , scale=0.5

174:  ]{fig1.eps}%

175:  \caption{Quark mass values obtained in Ref. [11]

176:  for various current quark masses: $m^0=91$ MeV [

177:  circles], $m^0=54$ MeV [crosses] and $m^0=35$ MeV

178:  [diamonds].}

179:  \end{figure}

180: 

181:  \begin{figure}

182:  \includegraphics[bb=280 20 290 480, scale=0.6]{fig2.eps}%

183:  \caption{Quark mass values obtained in Ref. [11]

184:  using an extrapolation of the current quark mass to zero.

185:  (The small dip at $k\sim 1.6$ GeV is not statistically significant

186:  [11].}

187:  \end{figure}

188: 

189: \section{The quark self-energy in the NJL model}

190: 

191: In order to best introduce the nonlocal model, we will first

192: review the calculation of the quark self-energy in the local

193: SU(3)-flavor NJL model and then proceed to add a confinement

194: interaction, as was done in an earlier study of the quark

195: self-energy [17]. We consider the generalization to a model with

196: nonlocal short-range and 't Hooft interactions in the next

197: section. The Lagrangian of the model is

198: \begin{eqnarray}

199: {\cal L}=&&\bar q(i\slr

200: \partial-m^0)q +\frac{G_S}{2}\sum_{i=0}^8[

201: (\bar q\lambda^iq)^2+(\bar qi\gamma_5 \lambda^iq)^2]\nonumber\\

202: && +\frac{G_D}{2}\{\det[\bar q(1+\gamma_5)q]+\det[\bar

203: q(1-\gamma_5)q]\}\,.

204: \end{eqnarray}

205: Here $m^0$ is the matrix of quark current masses, $m^0 =

206: \mbox{diag\,}(m_u^0, m_d^0, m_s^0)$ and the $\lambda^i

207: (i=1,\cdots,8)$ are the Gell-Mann matrices. Further, $\lambda_0 =

208: \sqrt{2\slash 3}\,\openone$, with \openone being the unit matrix

209: in the flavor space.

210: 

211: The quark propagator is written as

212: \begin{equation}

213: iS(k)=\frac{i}{\slr k-\Sigma(k)+i\epsilon}\,,

214: \end{equation}

215: with

216: \begin{equation}

217: \Sigma(k)=A(k^2)+B(k^2)\slr k\,.

218: \end{equation}

219: We may define

220: \begin{equation}

221: M_u(k^2)=\frac{A_u(k^2)}{1-B_u(k^2)}\,,

222: \end{equation}

223: and

224: \begin{equation}

225: Z_u(k^2)=\frac{1}{1-B_u(k^2)}\,,

226: \end{equation}

227: with similar definitions for $M_d(k^2),M_s(k^2),Z_d(k^2)$ and

228: $Z_s(k^2)$.

229: 

230: In the absence of a confinement model, we have $B(k^2)=0,

231: A_u(k^2)=A_d(k^2)=m_u$ and $A_s(k^2)=m_s$, where $m_u$ and and

232: $m_s$ are constants. (Here, we have take $m_u^0=m_d^0$.) In this

233: case we have [2]

234: \begin{equation}

235: m_u=m_u^0-2G_S\langle\bar uu\rangle-G_D\langle\bar

236: dd\rangle\langle\bar ss\rangle\,,

237: \end{equation}

238: \begin{equation}

239: m_d=m_d^0-2G_S\langle\bar dd\rangle-G_D\langle\bar

240: uu\rangle\langle\bar ss\rangle\,,

241: \end{equation}

242: \begin{equation}

243: m_s=m_s^0-2G_S\langle\bar ss\rangle-G_D\langle\bar

244: uu\rangle\langle\bar dd\rangle\,.

245: \end{equation}

246: These equations are depicted in Fig. 3a, where the last term

247: represents the 't Hooft interaction. The up quark vacuum

248: condensate is given by

249: \begin{eqnarray}

250: \langle\bar uu\rangle&=&-N_ci\myint{k}

251: \texttt{Tr}\frac{C(k^2)}{\slr

252: k-m_u+i\epsilon}\,,\\\nonumber\\

253: &=&-4N_ci\myint{k}\frac{m_uC(k^2)}{k^2-m_u^2+i\epsilon}\,.

254: \end{eqnarray}

255: Here, $C(k^2)$ is a function needed to regulate the integral. In

256: this work we will use the Pauli-Villars procedure and evaluate the

257: integral in Euclidean space, as was done in Ref. [17]. In the

258: general case we may write

259: \begin{equation}

260: \langle\bar uu\rangle=\;-4N_ci\myint{k}

261: \frac{Z_u(k^2)M_u(k^2)C(k^2)}{k^2-M_u^2(k^2)+i\epsilon}\,,

262: \end{equation}

263: where $Z_u(k^2)$ and $M_u^2(k^2)$ were defined in Eqs. (2.4) and

264: (2.5).

265: 

266: In the appendix of Ref. [17] we considered Lorentz-vector

267: confinement, with

268: \begin{equation}

269: \overline

270: {V^c}(k_E-k_E^{\,\prime})=\gamma^\mu(1)\gamma_\mu(2)V^c(k_E-k_E^{\,\prime})

271: \end{equation}

272: and

273: \begin{equation}

274: {V^c}(k_E-k_E^{\,\prime})=\;-8\pi\kappa\left\{\frac{1}{[(k_E-k_E^{\,\prime})^2+\mu^2]^2}

275: -\frac{4\mu^2}{[(k_E-k_E^{\,\prime})^2+\mu^2]^3}\right\}\,,

276: \end{equation}

277: where $k_E^\mu-k_E^{\prime\mu}$ denotes the Euclidean-space

278: momentum transfer. Here, $\mu$ is a small parameter introduced to

279: soften the momentum-space singularities. Note that the form

280: \begin{equation}

281: {V^c}(\vec k-\vec

282: k^{\,\prime})=\;-8\pi\kappa\left\{\frac{1}{[(\vec k-\vec

283: k^{\,\prime})^2+\mu^2]^2} -\frac{4\mu^2}{[(\vec k-\vec

284: k^{\,\prime})^2+\mu^2]^3}\right\}\,,

285: \end{equation}

286: represents the Fourier transform of $V^c(r)=\kappa re^{-\mu r}$,

287: so that for small $\mu, V^c(r)$ approximates a linear potential

288: over the relevant range of \emph r. In Fig. 3b we show the

289: equation for the self-energy when the confining field is included.

290: 

291: In Ref. [17] we obtained the following coupled equations in the

292: case of the SU(2)-flavor model

293: \begin{equation}

294: A(k^2)=\;i\myint{\kp}

295: \frac{[-4V^c(k-k^{\,\prime})+4N_cn_fG_S]A(\kpsq)}{k^{\,\prime

296: \,2}[1-B(k^{\,\prime \,2})]^2-A^2(k^{\,\prime \,2})+i\epsilon}\,,

297: \end{equation}

298: 

299: 

300: \begin{equation}

301: k^2B(k^2)=\;i\myint{\kp}\frac{2(k\cdot

302: k^{\,\prime})[1-B(k^{\,\prime

303: \,2})]V^c(k-k^{\,\prime})}{k^{\,\prime \,2}[1-B(k^{\,\prime

304: \,2})]^2-A^2(k^{\,\prime \,2})+i\epsilon}\,.

305: \end{equation}

306: These equations were solved after passing to Euclidean space and

307: including a Pauli-Villars regulator of the form

308: \begin{equation}

309: C(k_E^{\,2})=

310: \frac{2\Lambda^4}{[k_E^{\,2}+A^2(k_E^{\,2})+\Lambda^2][k_E^{\,2}+A^2(k_E^{\,2})+2\Lambda^2]}

311: \end{equation}

312: in Euclidean space. Note that the form

313: \begin{equation}

314: \widetilde C(k_E^{\,2})=

315: \frac{2\Lambda^4}{[k_E^{\,2}\left(1-B(k_E^{\,2})\right)^2

316: +A^2(k_E^{\,2})+\Lambda^2][k_E^{\,2}\left(1-B(k_E^{\,2})

317: \right)^2+A^2(k_E^{\,2})+2\Lambda^2]}

318: \end{equation}

319: may also be used. (In Eqs. (2.15) and (2.16) $V^c$ appears with a

320: sign opposite to that given in Ref. [17], since, in that work, we

321: used a negative value of $\kappa$. For the present work we use a

322: positive value of $\kappa$ to be consistent with all of our other

323: publications.)

324: 

325:  \begin{figure}

326:  \includegraphics[bb=180 25 190 250, angle=-0.2, scale=0.8]{fig3.eps}%

327:  \caption{a)A diagrammatic representation of the equation

328:  for the self-energy for a quark of momentum $k$. The first

329:  term on the right is the contribution of the current quark mass $m^0$.

330:  The second term corresponds to the term proportional to $G_S$ in Eqs. (3.6)--(3.8)

331:  and the last term represents the 't Hooft interaction.

332:  b)The self-energy equation in the presence of a confining interaction (wavy line.)

333:  Without the 't Hooft interaction, we have a representation of SU(2)-flavor

334:  model studied in Ref. [17]. (See Eqs. (2.15) and (2.16).)}

335:  \end{figure}

336: 

337: \section{A nonlocal NJL model}

338: 

339: In this section we describe the procedures we use to create a

340: nonlocal version of our generalized NJL model. We consider the

341: second term of Eq. (2.1) and make the replacement

342: \begin{eqnarray}

343: \frac{G_S}{2}&&\sum_{i=0}^8[(\bar q(x)\lambda_iq(x))^2+(\bar

344: q(x)i\gamma_5\lambda_iq(x))^2]\\\nonumber

345: &&\longrightarrow\frac{G_S}{2}\sum_{i=0}^8\{[\bar

346: q(x)\lambda^if(x)q(x)\cdot \bar q(y)\lambda^if(y)q(y)\\[0.4cm]\nonumber

347: &&\hspace{0.9cm}+[\bar q(x)i\gamma_5\lambda^if(x)q(x)\cdot\bar

348: q(y)i\gamma_5\lambda^if(y)q(y)]\}\,.

349: \end{eqnarray}

350: This replacement corresponds to the use of a separable interaction

351: $V(x-y)=G_Sf(x)f(y)$.

352: 

353: A related modification may be made for the 't Hooft interaction.

354: It is useful, however, to describe these modifications as they

355: affect momentum-space calculations. With reference to Fig. 4, we

356: replace $G_S$ by $f(k_1-k_2)G_Sf(k_3-k_4).$ In the evaluation of

357: the second term of Fig. 2 we need

358: $G_S(k-k^{\,\prime})=f(k-k^{\,\prime})G_Sf(k-k^{\,\prime})$ and

359: choose to write

360: \begin{eqnarray}

361: G_S(k-k^{\,\prime})&=&\:\exp[-(k-k^{\,\prime})^{\,2n}/2\beta]

362: G_S\exp[-(k-k^{\,\prime})^{\,2n}/2\beta]\\\nonumber

363: &=&\:G_S\exp[-(k-k^{\,\prime})^{\,2n}/\beta]\,.

364: \end{eqnarray}

365: In this work we take $n=4$ and $\beta=20$ GeV${}^{8}$. In Fig. 5

366: we exhibit the function $F(k^2)=\exp[-k^{\,2n}/\beta]$. It is

367: clear that many other functions may be chosen.

368: 

369: We now rewrite Eqs. (2.15) and (2.16) for the up, down and strange

370: quarks. For example, for the SU(3)-flavor case

371: \begin{eqnarray}

372: A_u(k^2)&=&m_u^0+i\myint{\kp}

373: \frac{[-4V^c(k-k^{\,\prime})+8N_cG_S(k-k^{\,\prime})]A_u(k^{\,\prime\,2})}

374: {k^{\,\prime\,2}[1-B_u(k^{\,\prime\,2})]^2-A_u^2(k^{\,\prime\,2})+i\epsilon}\,,

375: \\[0.35cm]

376: k^2B_u(k^2)&=&i\myint{\kp}

377: \frac{2(k\cdot\kp)[1-B_u(\kpsq)]V^c(k-\kp)}

378: {k^{\,\prime\,2}[1-B_u(k^{\,\prime\,2})]^2-A_u^2(k^{\,\prime\,2})+i\epsilon}\,,

379: \end{eqnarray}

380: with similar equations for $A_d(k^2), B_d(k^2),$ etc. Again, these

381: equations are solved after passing to Euclidean space and

382: introducing regulator functions: $C_u(\ksq),\, C_d(\ksq) \texttt{

383: and }C_s(\ksq)$. In Euclidean space we write \be

384: C_u(\ksq)=\frac{2\Lambda^4}{[\ksq+A_u^2(\ksq)+\Lambda^2][\ksq+A_u^2(\ksq)+2\Lambda^2]}\,,

385: \ee etc. Note that without the 't Hooft interaction the equations

386: for the up, down and strange quarks are uncoupled.

387: 

388:  \begin{figure}

389:  \includegraphics[bb=280 75 290 250, scale=0.6]{fig4.eps}%

390:  \caption{The figure indicates the replacement of the local quark interaction, $iG_S$,

391:  by the nonlocal (separable) term, $iG_S(k_1-k_2, k_3-k_4)=iG_Sf(k_1-k_2)f(k_3-k_4)$.

392:  The distinction between our separable model and that of Ref. [12], for example, is that

393:  in Ref. [12] the alternative replacement $iG_S\longrightarrow iG_S(k_2+k_4, k_1+k_3)

394:  =iG_Sf(k_2+k_4)f(k_1+k_3)$ was used.}

395:  \end{figure}

396: 

397:  \begin{figure}

398:  \includegraphics{fig5.eps}%

399:  \caption{The correlation function $F(k)=\exp[-k^{\,2n}/\beta]$ is

400:  shown for $n=4$ and $\beta=20$\gev{8}.}

401:  \end{figure}

402: 

403: Our treatment of the 't Hooft interaction is based upon a

404: generalization of the last term in Eqs. (2.6)-(2.8). With

405: reference to the third term on the right in Fig. 6, we introduce a

406: correlation between the quark of momentum \emph{k} and the quark

407: of momentum $\kp$. We also include a correlation between the quark

408: of momentum \emph{k} and that of momentum $\kp{}^\prime$.

409: (Therefore, our procedure does not introduce a correlation between

410: the two quarks in the separate condensates. At this stage of the

411: development of our model that seems to be a reasonable

412: approximation and avoids having to define a three-quark

413: correlation function, $f(k-\kp, \kp-\kdp, k-\kdp).$) For example,

414: we generalize the term $-G_D\langle\bar dd\rangle\langle\bar

415: ss\rangle$ to obtain the contribution to $A_u(k)$:\be A_u^t(k)=

416: -G_D\left[-4N_ci\myint{\kp}\frac{C_d(\kpsq)Z_u(\kpsq)M_u(\kpsq)f^2(k-\kp)}

417: {\kpsq[1-B_u(\kpsq)]^2-A_u^2(\kpsq)}\right]

418: \\[0.35cm]\nonumber \hspace{0.6cm}\times\left[-4N_ci\myint{\kdp}

419: \frac{C_s(\kdp{}^2)Z_s(\kdp{}^2)M_s(\kdp{}^2)f^2(k-\kdp)}

420: {\kdp{}^2[1-B_s(\kdp{}^2)]^2-A_s^2(\kdp{}^2)}\right] \ee in

421: Minkowski space. This expression is then evaluated in Euclidean

422: space and added to the right-hand side of Eq. (3.3). In a similar

423: fashion, we calculate $A_d^t(k)$ and $A_s^t(k)$.

424: 

425:  \begin{figure}

426:  \begin{center}

427:  \includegraphics[bb=200 50 210 250, angle=-2, scale=0.8]{fig6.eps}%

428:  \caption{The quark self-energy equation is depicted, with nonlocal terms replacing

429:  $G_S$ and $G_D$. [See Fig. 4.]}

430:  \end{center}

431:  \end{figure}

432: 

433: \section{Numerical Results: Condensates and Constituent Mass Values}

434: 

435: There is a good deal of flexibility in choosing the regulators

436: $C_u(\ksq)$, $C_d(\ksq)$, and $C_s(\ksq)$. Also, various forms

437: could be chosen for the correlation functions, $f(k-\kp)$.

438: Previously, in our Minkowski-space studies of the $\eta$ mesons we

439: used $G_S = 11.84$ GeV${}^{-2}$ and $G_D\simeq -200$\gev{-5} [18].

440: However, in that work we used a Gaussian regulator in Minkowski

441: space so that a direct comparison with the present study can not

442: be made. On the other hand, we do not expect to find radically

443: different parameters, if the constituent masses in the two

444: calculations are similar. For example, in our earlier work, in

445: which $m_u$ and $m_s$ were parameters, we used $m_u=0.364$\gev{},

446: which can be compared to the value of $M_u(0)$ calculated here. We

447: have also used either $m_s=0.565$\gev{} [19-23] or

448: $m_s=0.585$\gev{} [18], values which may be compared to $M_s(0)$.

449: 

450: To proceed, we take $\Lambda=1.0$\gev{}, $G_S=13.30$\gev{-2},

451: $\kappa=0.055$\gev{2}, $m_u^0=0.0055$\gev{}, $m_s^0=0.130$\gev{},

452: $\mu=0.010$\gev{} and $\beta=20.0$\gev{8}. We then consider

453: values of $G_D=0$, $G_D=-20G_S$, $G_D=-30G_S$ and $G_D=-40G_S$.

454: The results of our calculations are given in Table I. Recall that

455: the function $F(k)$ does not appear in our expression for the

456: condensates. The calculation of the condensates includes the

457: Pauli-Villars regulators, $C_u(\ksq)$, $C_d(\ksq)$ and

458: $C_s(\ksq)$, however. [See Eqs. (2.9)-(2.11).] In our calculation

459: of the properties of the $\eta$ mesons [18] we had $-G_D/G_S\simeq

460: 15-18$, since we used $G_D$ values in the range

461: $-180$\gev{-5}$\leq G_S\leq -220$\gev{-5} in that work.

462: 

463: In order to specify a value of $G_D$ for this work, we note that a

464: calculation based upon chiral perturbation theory yields

465: $\langle\bar ss\rangle/\langle\bar uu\rangle = 1.689$ [24].

466: Inspection of Table I suggests that the values of $G_D$, other

467: than $G_D=0$, given in Table I are acceptable. For

468: $G_D=-266$\gev{-5} we have $M_u(0)= 0.377$\gev{} and $M_s(0)=

469: 0.555$\gev{}, which are reasonably close to the phenomenological

470: parameters $m_u= 0.364$\gev{} and $m_s= 0.565$\gev{} used in our

471: earlier work [19-23].

472: 

473: It is worth noting that, in standard application of the

474: SU(3)-flavor NJL model, one finds $\langle\bar

475: ss\rangle/\langle\bar uu\rangle \sim 1.1$ [1], so that the results

476: shown in Table I are encouraging, given that the value for

477: $\langle\bar ss\rangle/\langle\bar uu\rangle$ obtained using

478: chiral perturbation theory is about 1.7 [24], as noted above.

479: 

480: \begin{table}%[H] add [H] placement to break table across pages

481: % \begin{ruledtabular}

482:  \begin{tabular}{||@{\hspace{0.2cm}}l@{\hspace{0.2cm}}||@{\hspace{0.5cm}}

483:  l@{\hspace{0.5cm}}|@{\hspace{0.5cm}}l@{\hspace{0.5cm}}

484:  |@{\hspace{0.5cm}}l@{\hspace{0.5cm}}|@{\hspace{0.5cm}}l@{\hspace{0.2cm}}||}\hline\hline

485:  $G_D$ [\gev{-5}]    &0.0     &-266.0 &-399.0 &-532.0\\\hline

486:  $M_u(0)$ [GeV]      &0.334   &0.377  &0.396  &0.416\\\hline

487:  $M_s(0)$ [GeV]      &0.538   &0.555  &0.564  &0.575\\\hline

488:  $\langle\bar uu\rangle^\frac{1}{3}$ [GeV]

489:                       &-0.207  &-0.215 &-0.217 &-0.220\\\hline

490:  $\langle\bar ss\rangle^\frac{1}{3}$ [GeV]

491:                       &-0.2605 &-0.261 &-0.261 &-0.261\\\hline

492:  $\frac{\langle\bar ss\rangle}{\langle\bar uu\rangle}$

493:                       &2.00    &1.80   &1.73   &1.68  \\\hline

494:  $A_u(0)$ [GeV]      &0.447   &0.481  &0.496  &0.512 \\\hline

495:  $B_u(0)$            &-0.335  &-0.276 &-0.253 &-0.233\\\hline

496:  $A_s(0)$ [GeV]      &0.614   &0.628  &0.636  &0.645  \\\hline

497:  $B_s(0)$            &-0.139  &-0.131 &-0.127 &-0.122\\\hline\hline

498: % Lines of table here ending with \\

499:  \end{tabular}

500:  \vspace{1.2cm}

501:  \caption{Calculated values for the condensates and for $A(0),

502: B(0), \mbox{and } M(0)$ are given for the up and strange quarks

503: for four values of $G_D$. The parameters $m_u^0=0.0055$ GeV,

504: $m_s^0=0.130$ GeV, $\kappa=0.055$\gev2, $\beta=20$\gev8,

505: $\mu=0.010$ GeV, $\Lambda=1.0$ GeV, $G_S=13.30$\gev{-2} were used.

506: The values of $\kappa$ and $\mu$ were fixed in earlier work

507: [18-23]. Values of $\langle\bar uu\rangle\simeq\langle\bar

508: dd\rangle\simeq -(0.240\pm 0.025\mbox{ GeV}){}^3$ have been

509: suggested [28], so we see that our calculated values are at, or

510: near, the lower limit for that quantity.}

511: % \end{ruledtabular}

512:  \end{table}

513: 

514: \section{numerical results:\\momentum dependence of the constituent quark masses}

515: 

516: In Fig. 7 we show $M_u(k)$, where \emph k is the magnitude of the

517: Euclidean momentum. The dashed line exhibits the result without

518: the confining interaction ($\kappa=0$). It is interesting to see

519: that inclusion of confinement improves the shape of the curve when

520: we compare our results to the lattice results shown in Figs. 1 and

521: 2. We note that $M_u(k)$ goes over to $m_u^0=0.0055$\gev{} for

522: large \emph k. In Fig. 8 we show $B_u(k)$. (Recall that

523: $Z_u(k)=[1-B_u(k)]^{-1}$.) We remark that $B_u(k)=0$ when

524: $\kappa=0$. In Figs. 9 and 10 we show $M_s(k)$ and $B_s(k)$,

525: respectively. As expected, we find that $M_s(k)$ goes over to

526: $m_s^0=0.130$\gev{} when \emph k is large.

527: 

528:  \begin{figure}

529:  \includegraphics{fig7.eps}%

530:  \caption{Values of $M_u(k)$ are shown for the parameters $m_u^0=0.0055$ GeV,

531:  $m_s^0=0.130$ GeV, $\kappa=0.055$\gev{2}, $\mu=0.010$ GeV, $\Lambda=1.0$ GeV,

532:  $\beta=20$\gev{8}, $G_S=13.3$\gev{-2}, and $G_D=-266$\gev{-5}. The dashed line

533:  shows the result without confinement ($\kappa=0$).}

534:  \end{figure}

535: 

536:  \begin{figure}

537:  \includegraphics{fig8.eps}%

538:  \caption{Values of $B_u(k)$ are shown. (See caption to Fig. 7.)}

539:  \end{figure}

540: 

541:  \begin{figure}

542:  \includegraphics{fig9.eps}%

543:  \caption{Values of $M_s(k)$ are shown. (See caption to Fig. 7.)}

544:  \end{figure}

545: 

546:  \begin{figure}

547:  \includegraphics{fig10.eps}%

548:  \caption{Values of $B_s(k)$ are shown. (See caption to Fig. 7.)}

549:  \end{figure}

550: 

551: \section{density dependence of the quark mass and quark

552: condensate}

553: 

554: As stated earlier, the behavior of the NJL model for finite values

555: of the baryon density is an extensively explored topic [1, 25,

556: 26], with particular recent emphasis on color superconductivity

557: [4-10]. In this section we explore the behavior of our model at

558: finite baryon density. (It should be noted that the nature of the

559: phase transition describing chiral symmetry restoration at finite

560: density is quite model dependent. For example, the inclusion of

561: current quark masses can change a strong first-order transition to

562: a smooth second-order transition [26].)

563: 

564: A comprehensive study of the thermodynamics of the three-flavor

565: NJL model has been reported in Ref. [27]. There it is found that

566: the up, down and strange quark masses are essentially constant up

567: to the density where a first-order phase transition appears. At

568: that point, the up and down quark masses drop from a value of

569: about 380 MeV to about 30 MeV. That behavior differs from the

570: behavior expected at low density. For example, we have the

571: well-known relation between the value of the condensate and the

572: baryon density of nuclear matter \be \frac{\langle\bar

573: qq\rangle_\rho}{\langle\bar

574: qq\rangle{}_0}=1-\frac{\sigma_N\rho_B}{f_\pi^2m_\pi^2}\,, \ee

575: where $\sigma_N$ is the pion-nucleon sigma term. This relation is

576: valid to first-order in the density. It may be derived, in the

577: case of nuclear matter, by writing \be \langle\bar qq\rangle_\rho

578: = \langle\bar qq\rangle_0+\langle N|\bar qq|N\rangle \rho_B \ee

579: and making use of the definition of the pion-nucleon sigma term,

580: $\sigma_N$, and the Gell-Mann--Oakes--Renner relation. If we put

581: $\sigma_N=0.045$ GeV, we have $\langle\bar

582: qq\rangle_\rho/\langle\bar qq\rangle_0=1-0.273\rho_B$, where

583: $\rho_B$ is in\gev{3} units. For nuclear matter $\rho_B=$(\,0.109

584: GeV)${}^3$, so we see that the condensate is reduced by about

585: 35\%, if we evaluate Eq. (6.1) at nuclear matter density. We can

586: check whether the density dependence given by Eq. (6.1) is

587: reproduced in our model, since it should not matter whether the

588: scalar density of the background matter is generated by quarks in

589: nucleons or by the presence of free quarks. In the former case, we

590: may write, for the baryon density, \be

591: \rho_B=4\!\int^{\,k_F}\hspace{-0.3cm}\frac{d^3\!k}{(2\pi)^3} \ee

592: where the factor of 4 is arises from the product of the spin and

593: isospin factors. In the case of quarks, we have \be

594: \rho_B=4N_c\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)

595: \!\int^{\,k_F}\hspace{-0.3cm}\frac{d^3\!k}{(2\pi)^3} \ee where, in

596: this case, the factor of 4 again arises from the spin and isospin

597: factor. (Both up and down quarks are present in equal numbers.)

598: The color factor, $N_c=3$, is cancelled by the baryon number of

599: 1/3 of each quark.

600: 

601: We need to modify the equations for the quark self-energy to take

602: into account the presence of the Fermi seas of up and down quarks

603: whose Fermi momentum is $k_F$. We take one Fermi sea to be

604: composed of on-mass-shell up quarks with constituent mass

605: $M_u(0)$. The following term is then added to the equation for

606: $A_u(k)$. \be A_u^{(\rho)}(k)=-(2G_S)N_c2\!\int^{\,k_F}

607: \hspace{-0.3cm}\frac{d^3\!\kp}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{M_u(0)}{E_u(k)}f^2(k-\kp)

608: \ee where $E_u(k)=\left[\vec k^2+M_u^2(0)\right]^\frac{1}{2}$. The

609: second factor of 2 in Eq. (6.5) reflects the spin degeneracy. We

610: note that $M_u(0)$ is density-dependent and could be written as

611: $M_u(0,\rho)$ in keeping with the labelling of Fig. 11, where

612: $M_u(k,\rho)$ is used. Also, if $f(k-\kp)=1$, $A_u^{(\rho)}(k)$

613: would then represent $-2G_S\,\rho_S$, where $\rho_S$ is the scalar

614: density associated with the up-quark Fermi sea.

615: 

616: In Fig. 11 we show $M(k,\rho)$ calculated for four values of

617: $\rho$ and in Fig. 12 we show \emph M(0) as a function of $k_F^3$.

618: Since the quarks in the Fermi sea are taken to be on-mass-shell,

619: we would, in principle, require $M_u(k,\rho)$ in Minkowski space.

620: However, since $k_F$ = 0.268 GeV for the case of nuclear matter,

621: only a very modest extrapolation of the curves shown in Fig. 11 is

622: needed for the densities considered in this work. In Fig. 13 we

623: show the value of the up quark condensate as a function of

624: $k_F^3$. (Note that $k_F^3 = 19.2\times 10^{-3}$\gev{3} represents

625: the density of nuclear matter.) It is seen that, for small values

626: of the density, the density dependence of the condensate

627: reproduces what is expected from Eq. (6.1). (If we extrapolate the

628: curve using a linear approximation, the condensate is reduced by

629: about 30\% at nuclear matter density.)

630: 

631:  \begin{figure}

632:  \includegraphics{fig11.eps}%

633:  \caption{The values of $M(k,\rho)$ are shown for $\rho/\rho_{NM}=0.26$ [dotted line],

634:  $\rho/\rho_{NM}=0.52$ [dashed line], and $\rho/\rho_{NM}=0.78$ [dash-dot line].}

635:  \end{figure}

636: 

637:  \begin{figure}

638:  \includegraphics{fig12.eps}%

639:  \caption{Values of $M(0)$ are shown as a function of $k_F^3$. Note that $\rho_B

640:  =(2/3\pi^2)k_F^3.$}

641:  \end{figure}

642: 

643:  \begin{figure}

644:  \includegraphics{fig13.eps}%

645:  \caption{The values of the up quark condensate are

646:  given as a function of $k_F^3$. Note that $\rho_B

647:  =(2/3\pi^2)k_F^3.$}

648:  \end{figure}

649: 

650: \section{discussion}

651: 

652: We have remarked earlier in this work that the large values of the

653: condensate ratio $\langle\bar ss\rangle/\langle\bar uu\rangle$

654: seen in Table I play a role in obtaining a good fit to the mixing

655: angles of the $\eta$(947) and $\eta\prime$(958) mesons [18]. To

656: understand this remark we note that the effective singlet-octet

657: coupling constants for pseudoscalar states are [3] \be

658: G_{00}^P&=&G_S-\frac{2}{3}(\alpha+\beta+\gamma)\frac{G_D}{2}\,,\\

659: G_{88}^P&=&G_S-\frac{1}{3}(\gamma-2\alpha-2\beta)\frac{G_D}{2}\,,

660: \ee and \be

661: \hspace{-0.5cm}G_{08}^P=-\frac{\sqrt2}{6}(2\gamma-\alpha-\beta)\frac{G_D}{2}\,,

662: \ee where $\alpha=\langle\bar uu\rangle$, $\beta=\langle\bar

663: dd\rangle$ and $\gamma=\langle\bar ss\rangle$. We take

664: $\alpha=\beta$, so that \be

665: G_{08}^P=-\frac{\sqrt2}{3}(\gamma-\alpha)\frac{G_D}{2}\,.\ee If

666: $\gamma=1.7\alpha$, the result for $G_{08}^P$ is six times larger

667: than when $\gamma=1.1\alpha$.

668: 

669: In addition to the effects of $G_{08}^P$, singlet-octet mixing is

670: induced by the quantity [18] \be

671: E_{08}(k)=\frac{2\sqrt2}{3}[E_u(k)-E_s(k)]\,,\ee where

672: $E_u(k)=\left[\vec k^2+m_u^2\right]^\frac{1}{2}$, etc. It is found

673: that, since $G_{08}^P$ and $E_{08}(k)$ tend to cancel in our

674: formalism, the significant singlet-octet mixing generated by

675: $E_{08}(k)$ is reduced by the values of $G_{08}^P$ obtained for

676: the larger value of the ratio $\langle\bar ss\rangle/\langle\bar

677: uu\rangle$, with the result that we reproduce the values of the

678: mixing angles found in other studies that make use of experimental

679: data to obtain values for the mixing angles [18].

680: 

681: In our earlier work, which was carried out in Minkowski space, the

682: values of $m_u=m_d$ and $m_s$ were taken as parameters. Inspection

683: of our figures which exhibit values of $M_u(k)$ and $M_s(k)$

684: suggests that an extrapolation into Minkowski space may be made if

685: $\ksq$ is not too large. The fact that $M_u(0)$ and $M_s(0)$ are

686: close to our phenomenological parameters for $G_D=-266$\gev{-5} is

687: encouraging and suggests that some support for our choice of quark

688: mass parameters may be found in our Euclidean-space analysis.

689: 

690: The full consequences of separating the specification of the

691: nonlocality of the quark interaction from the choice of the

692: regulator of the theory should be explored more fully. Although

693: that feature of our model introduces greater flexibility, that

694: comes with the disadvantage of having to introduce other

695: parameters in the model. We have made only limited variation of

696: the form of the nonlocality and the regulator. For further

697: applications it may be of interest to explore a more comprehensive

698: parameter variation. It is also necessary to extend the

699: calculations reported in Figs. 11--13 to larger values of the

700: density than those considered here. That step will require more

701: complex methods for solving our nonlinear equations for the

702: self-energy than the simple iteration scheme we have used thus

703: far.

704: 

705: Our work may be compared to that of Alkofer, Watson and Weigel

706: [29] who have solved the Schwinger-Dyson equation using a gluon

707: propagator whose low-momentum behavior is enhanced by a Gaussian

708: function. (That modification requires the introduction of two

709: phenomenological parameters [30].) The behavior found for $A(k)$

710: and $B(k)$ in Euclidean space is similar to that obtained in this

711: work. (See Fig. 1 of Ref. [29].) Those authors also solve the

712: Bethe-Salpeter equation to obtain the properties of various $q\bar

713: q$ mesons with generally satisfactory results. It is of interest

714: to note that the Minkowski space solution for $A(k)$ and $B(k)$ is

715: such that the quark can go on-mass-shell. That feature may be

716: related to our work [18-23] in which we use on-mass-shell quarks

717: with masses $m_u=m_d=0.364$ GeV and $m_s=0.565$ GeV (or 0.585 GeV

718: [18]) when solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation in our study of

719: $q\bar q$ mesons.

720: 

721: % If in two-column mode, this environment will change to single-column

722: % format so that long equations can be displayed. Use

723: % sparingly.

724: %\begin{widetext}

725: % put long equation here

726: %\end{widetext}

727: 

728: %\newpage

729: \vspace{1.5cm}

730: \noindent$\textbf{References}$\\[-2cm]

731: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

732:     \bibitem{spk}S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. $\textbf{64}$\,,

733:     649 (1992).

734:     \bibitem{uvw}U. Vogl and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.

735:     $\textbf{27}$\,, 195 (1991).

736:     \bibitem{tt}T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rep.

737:     $\textbf{247}$\,, 221 (1994).

738:     \bibitem{kf}For reviews, see K. Rajagopal and F. Wilcek, in B.

739:     L. Ioffe Festscrift, At the Frontier of Particle

740:     Physics/Handbook of QCD, M.Shifman ed. (World Scientific,

741:     Singapore, 2001);\\

742:     M. Alford, hep-ph/0102047.

743:     \bibitem{mjk}M. Alford, J. Berges and K. Rajagopal, Nucl.

744:     Phys. B $\textbf{558}$\,, 219 (1999);\\

745:     J. Kundu and K. Rajagopal, hep-ph/0112206 (2002).

746:     \bibitem{cd}C. Gocke, D. Blaschke, A. Khalatyan and H.

747:     Grigoria, hep-ph/0104183-v2 (2002).

748:     \bibitem{ia}I. A. Shovkovy, hep-ph/0110352 (2002).

749:     \bibitem{mr}M. Alford, R. Rajagopal and F. Wilcek, Phys. Lett.

750:     B $\textbf{422}$\,, 247 (1998).

751:     \bibitem{dt}D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D $\textbf{59}$\,, 094019

752:     (1999).

753:     \bibitem{ts}T. Sh$\ddot a$fer, E. V. Shuryak and M. Velkovsky,

754:     Phys. Rev. Lett. $\textbf{81}$\,, 53 (1998).

755:     \bibitem{js}J. Skullerud, D. B. Leinweber, and A. G. Williams,

756:     Phys. Rev. D $\textbf{64}$\,, 074508 (2001).

757:     \bibitem{hi}H. Ito, W. W. Buck and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. C

758:     $\textbf{43}$\,, 2483 (1991); C $\textbf{45}$\,, 1918

759:     (1992).

760:     \bibitem{ss}S. Schmidt, D. Blaschke, Y. L. Kalinovsky, Phys.

761:     Rev. C $\textbf{50}$\,, 435 (1994).

762:     \bibitem{rs}R. S. Plant and M. C. Birse, Nucl. Phys. A

763:     $\textbf{628}$\,, 607 (1998).

764:     \bibitem{rd}R. D. Bowler and M. C. Birse, Nucl. Phys. A

765:     $\textbf{582}$\,, 655 (1995).

766:     \bibitem{rm}R. S. Plant and M. C. Birse, hep-ph/0007340 and

767:     references therein.

768:     \bibitem{ls}L. S. Celenza, Xiang-Dong Li, and C. M. Shakin,

769:     Phys. Rev. C $\textbf{55}$\,, 1492 (1997).\\

770:     In this reference a negative value of $\kappa$ was used.

771:     Therefore, the sign on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (2.4) and

772:     (2.5), appearing in this reference, should be corrected to be

773:     positive.

774:     \bibitem{cm}C. M. Shakin and Huangsheng Wang, Role of the 't

775:     Hooft interaction in the calculation of the mixing angles of

776:     the $\eta$(547) and $\eta^\prime$(958) mesons, Brooklyn

777:     College\\

778:     Report No. BCCNT: 01/082/307 (2001).

779:     To be published in Physical Rev. C [DH8173].

780:     \bibitem{cms}C. M. Shakin and Huangsheng Wang, Phys. Rev. D

781:     $\textbf{63}$\,, 014019 (2000).

782:     \bibitem{lsc}L. S. Celenza, Huangsheng Wang, and C. M. Shakin,

783:     Phys. Rev. C $\textbf{63}$\,, 025209 (2001).

784:     \bibitem{cmsh}C. M. Shakin and Huangsheng Wang, Phys. Rev. D

785:     $\textbf{63}$\,, 074017 (2001).

786:     \bibitem{cms4}C. M. Shakin and Huangsheng Wang, Phys. Rev. D

787:     $\textbf{63}$\,, 114007 (2001).

788:     \bibitem{cms5}C. M. Shakin and Huangsheng Wang, Phys. Rev. D

789:     $\textbf{64}$\,, 094020 (2001).

790:     \bibitem{ga}G. Amoros, J. Bijnens, and P. Talavera, Nucl.

791:     Phys. B $\textbf{602}$\,, 87 (2001).

792:     \bibitem{ma}M. Asakawa and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A

793:     $\textbf{504}$\,, 668 (1989).

794:     \bibitem{vb}V. Bernard, Ulf-G. Meissner, and I. Zahed, Phys.

795:     Rev. D $\textbf{36}$\,, 819 (1987).

796:     \bibitem{fg}F. Gastineau, R. Nebauer, and J. Aichelin,

797:     hep-ph/0101289 (2001).

798:     \bibitem{msa}M. Shifman, A. Vainstein and V. Zakarov, Nucl.

799:     Phys. B $\textbf{147}$\,, 385 (1979); 448 (1979);\\

800:     L. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and Y. Yazaki, Phys. Rep.

801:     $\textbf{127}$\,, 2 (1985).

802:     \bibitem{ra}R. Alkofer, P. Watson and H. Weigel,

803:     hep-ph/0202053 (2002).

804:     \bibitem{pm}P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C

805:     $\textbf{60}$\,, 055214 (1999).

806: 

807: 

808: \end{thebibliography}

809: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

810: %\bibliography{basename of .bib file}

811: 

812: \end{document}

813: %

814: % ****** End of file template.aps ******

815: