Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/GeneralPunctuation.js

Chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement in the contact interaction model of quarks with parallel electric and magnetic fields

  • We study the impact of steady, homogeneous, and external parallel electric and magnetic field strengths (eEeB) on the chiral symmetry breaking-restoration and confinement-deconfinement phase transition. We also sketch the phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) at a finite temperature T and in the presence of background fields. The unified formalism for this study is based on the Schwinger-Dyson equations, symmetry preserving vector-vector contact interaction model of quarks, and an optimal time regularization scheme. At T=0, in the purely magnetic case (i.e., eE0), we observe the well-known magnetic catalysis effect. However, in a pure electric field background (eB0), the electric field tends to restore the chiral symmetry and deconfinement above the pseudo-critical electric field eEχ,Cc. In the presence of both eE and eB, we determine the magnetic catalysis effect in the particular region where eB dominates over eE, whereas we observe the chiral inhibition (or electric chiral rotation) effect when eE overshadows eB. At finite T, in the pure electric field case, the phenomenon of inverse electric catalysis appears to exist in the proposed model. Conversely, for a pure magnetic field background, we observe the magnetic catalysis effect in the mean-field approximation and inverse magnetic catalysis with eB-dependent coupling. The combined effects of eE and eB on the pseudo-critical Tχ,Cc yields an inverse electromagnetic catalysis, with and without an eB-dependent effective coupling of the model. The findings of this study agree well with the already predicted results obtained via lattice simulations and other reliable effective models of QCD.
  • Over the years, the gravitational wave searches for the coalescence of compact binaries [1] and the shadow images captured by the Event Horizon Telescope [2, 3] explicitly provide evidence of the existence of BHs. In general relativity, essential singularities, which cannot be eliminated by coordinate transformation, are present in BHs. Modern physics tries to construct a complete theory of quantum gravity and understand the microscopic mechanism of BHs. However, the description of the essential singularity has encountered enormous difficulties. To overcome this problem, one can consider that the BHs without essential singularities are known as regular black holes. Compared with those of singular black holes, regular black holes exhibit some new phenomena, which have recently attracted significant attention [4]. This kind of solution was first proposed by Bardeen [5]. Ayón-Beato and García found that, to obtain a regular black hole solution, the energy-momentum tensor should be the gravitational field of some magnetic monopole generated by a specific form of nonlinear electrodynamics [68]. Since then, numerous researchers have contributed various singularity-free solutions [914], which have attracted increasing attention in recent years [1517].

    In the context of binary black hole coalescence, the process can be divided into three distinct stages: inspiral, merge, and ringdown, each calculated using different methods. The inspiral can be discussed by the post-Newtonian approximation, and the merge is always calculated using numerical calculation. The final stage is equivalent to making a perturbation to the equilibrium state of the black hole. This stage corresponds to damped oscillations with complex frequencies, which always depend only on the black hole properties, such as mass, charge, and angular momentum. These modes are called quasinormal modes (QNMs). The gravitational perturbation equations for the axial sector of Schwarzschild spacetime were initially formulated by Regge and Wheeler [18] and later extended to the polar sector by Zerilli [19, 20]. Extensive research has been dedicated to numerically determining the quasinormal frequencies (ω) for various scenarios. It is well-established that the axial and polar gravitational perturbations of asymptotically flat spacetime, such as those associated with Schwarzschild or Reissner-Nordström BHs, exhibit isospectrality [21]. Conversely, the investigation of quasinormal modes in asymptotically Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has attracted significant interest owing to the AdS/CFT duality [22, 23]. Numerical investigations have revealed a distinct parity splitting phenomenon for Schwarzschild-AdS BHs [24]. Furthermore, in addition to their classical properties, quasinormal modes also exhibit intriguing quantum characteristics inherent to BHs [25, 26].

    After the Bardeen solution was presented, many studies focused on the perturbation problem of the Bardeen BHs. The QNMs due to the neutral or charged scalar field perturbation for regular black holes have been discussed in Refs. [27, 28]. Ulhoa investigated the axial gravitational perturbations of a regular black hole [29]. To investigate the stability of nonlinear electrodynamic black holes, Moreno and Sarbach derived the perturbation equations [30]. Based on this result, Chaverra et al. calculated the QNMs of black holes in nonlinear electrodynamics and discovered that parity splitting exists for the alternative model to the Bardeen black hole [31]. Further, Toshmato et al. studied the electromagnetic perturbation of black holes coupled with nonlinear electrodynamics, and their results show a correspondence between the axial and polar parts of electromagnetic perturbations of electrically charged or magnetically charged black holes [32, 33]. The Dirac QNMs of regular black holes were also investigated in [34].

    The Bardeen BH with cosmological constant was initially introduced by Fernando [35]. In this study, we derive the master variables and corresponding master equations for the gravitational perturbations of Bardeen (Anti-) de Sitter BHs, employing the so-called A-K notation. Our analysis encompasses both the axial (odd-parity) and polar (even-parity) sectors. Subsequently, we numerically compute the QNMs with the necessary analysis. The structure of the paper is outlined as follows: In the subsequent section, we provide a brief overview of the Bardeen BH solutions and the construction of master equations for (axial and polar) gravitational perturbations. Section III focuses on the study of QNMs for the Bardeen de Sitter BH utilizing the 6th-order WKB approach. Additionally, we present a comparative discussion regarding the quasinormal frequency splitting phenomenon. Moving on to Section IV, we employ the HH method to calculate the QNMs of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter BH. Finally, Section V is dedicated to summarizes our findings and provides a comprehensive discussion. Throughout our study, we chose c=G=1 and ignored the factor κ=8π in gravitational equations.

    First, we briefly introduce the Bardeen de Sitter BH following the work in Ref. [35]. The action is given by

    S=d4xg[(R2Λ)16π14πL(F)],

    (1)

    where L(F)=32αq2(2q2F1+2q2F)5/2 is the Lagrangian of the nonlinear electromagnetic field strength F, and R and Λ are the scalar curvature and cosmological constant, respectively. The parameter α in L(F) is related to the magnetic charge q and the mass M of the space time as follows: α=q/2M. The field strength F can be written as

    F=14FμνFμν,

    (2)

    where Fμν=μAννAμ. The only non-vanishing component of Fμν for spherically symmetric spacetime is F23=qsinθ, and then F=q2/2r4.

    Taking the variation of the action, the equation of motion can be expressed as

    Rμν12Rgμν+Λgμν=2(L(F)FFμλFνλgμνL(F))μ(L(F)FFνμ)=0.

    (3)

    The static spherically symmetric solution is given by [35]

    ds2=f(r)dt2+f(r)1dr2+r2(dθ2+sin2θdφ2),

    (4)

    where f(r)=12Mr2(r2+q2)32Λr23. Here, M and q are the total mass and the magnetic charge of the Bardeen de Sitter BH. The Λ>0 case represents the Bardeen de Sitter BH, and the Λ<0 case represents the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter BH.

    The decomposition of perturbed metric was first presented by Regge and Wheeler. The perturbed metric can be written as

    gab=ˉgab+hab,

    (5)

    where ˉgab denotes the metric of the background spacetime. For spherically symmetric spacetime, hab can be decomposed to the axial part and polar part under the Regge-Wheeler gauge. In this study, we use the A-K notation to decompose hab [36], which helps to give the perturbed source terms. Note that when calculating the QNMs, we do not need the source term. However, here, we present the master equation with the source term to provide some basis for studying the self-force or extreme mass ratio inspiral problems for Bardeen (Anti-)de Sitter black holes. As such, the complete basis on the two-sphere is constructed by a 1-scalar spherical harmonic, Ylm=Ylm(θ,φ), three pure-spin vector harmonics, and six tensor harmonics [37]. The vector harmonics are defined as

    YE,lma=raYlm,YB,lma=rϵabcnbcYlm,YR,lma=naYlm,

    (6)

    and the tensor harmonics are defined as

    TT0,lmab=ΩabYlm,TL0,lmab=nanbYlm,TE1,lmab=rn(ab)Ylm,TB1,lmab=rn(aϵdb)cncdYlm,TB2,lmab=r2Ωc(aϵdb)enecdYlm,TE2,lmab=r2(ΩcaΩdb12ΩabΩcd)cdYlm,

    (7)

    where va=(1,0,0,0) and na=(0,1,0,0) are two orthogonal co-vectors, Ωab is the projection operator defined as Ωab=r2diag(0,0,1,sin2θ), ϵabc represents the spatial Levi-Civita tensor ϵabcvdϵdabc, and ϵtrθφ=r2sinθ. Now, hab can be decomposed as

    hlmab=AvavbYlm+2Bv(aYE,lmb)+2Cv(aYB,lmb)+2Dv(aYR,lmb)+ETT0,lmab+FTE2,lmab+GTB2,lmab+2HTE1,lmab+2JTB1,lmab+KTL0,lmab,

    (8)

    where the coefficients of each term in the above equation are all scalar functions of t and r. Hence, the polar and axial parts of hab can be written as

    hpolarab=(AYlmDYlmrBθYlmrBϕYlmSymKYlmrHθYlmrHϕYlmSymSymr2Zlmr2FXlmSymSymSymr2sin2θZlm)

    (9)

    haxialab=(00rcscθCϕYlmrsinθCθYlm00rcscθJϕYlmrsinθJθYlmSymSymr2cscθGXlmr2sinθGWlmSymSymSymr2sinθGXlm)

    (10)

    where

    Wlm=[2θ+12l(l+1)]YlmXlm=[θϕcotθϕ]YlmZlm=(EYlm+FWlm).

    (11)

    Assuming that the value of charge q is fixed, taking the variation of Eq. (3), we obtain

    Eab=hab+abhcc2(achb)c+2Rcdabhcd(Rachbc+Rbchac)+gab(cdhcdhdd)gabRcdhcd+Rhab2Λhab+2δTBardeenab,

    (12)

    where

    δTBardeenab=2δ(L(F)FFacFbcgabL(F)).

    (13)

    Projecting the above equations to the A-K directions, one can get the projection equations EAEK. The explicit expression of EAEK will be placed in Appendix A.

    For spherically symmetric spacetimes, there are several gauge choices [18]. In this study, we choose the RW gauge, i.e., the gauge vector ξa , as

    ξa=(rB+r22tF)vaYlm+(rHr2rF)YR,lma+r2FYE,lma+r2GYB,lma,

    (14)

    which yields B=F=H=G=0. Then, the polar and axial sectors of hab become

    hpolarab=(AYlmDYlm00DYlmKYlm0000r2EYlm0000r2sin2θEYlm)

    (15)

    haxialab=(00rcscθCϕYlmrsinθCθYlm00rcscθJϕYlmrsinθJθYlmSymSym00SymSym00)

    (16)

    Then, we construct the master variables and master equations for the axial or polar part, respectively. For the axial part, let

    ψ()=fJ

    (17)

    and ψ() be satisfied

    (f22r22t2+ffrV())ψ()=S()

    (18)

    with

    V()=fr2(2+λ+2r2Λ+2f+rf+r2f

    (19)

    and

    S^{(-)}=f^2E_\mathrm{J}-\frac{1}{2}rf\left(f\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}E_\mathrm{G}+f'E_\mathrm{G}\right).

    (20)

    where \lambda=l(l+1) .

    For the polar part, we choose the gauge invariants χ and φ, defined as [38]

    \begin{aligned}[b] \chi=& -\frac{1}{2} {\rm e}^{2\Lambda(r)}\mathrm{E}, \\ \varphi=& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{K}-\frac{1}{2}(r\Lambda'(r)+1) {\rm e}^{2\Lambda(r)}\mathrm{E}-\frac{r}{2}{\rm e}^{2\Lambda(r)}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\mathrm{E}. \end{aligned}

    (21)

    Note that here, \Lambda(r) is the metric function mentioned in [38], rather than the cosmological constant. Then, the master variable \psi^{(+)} can be constructed as

    \psi^{(+)}=\frac{\chi}{f}-\frac{2\varphi}{-2+\lambda+2r^{2}\Lambda+2f+2rf'+4r^2\kappa\mathcal{L}}\; ,

    (22)

    which satisfies the polar sector equation as

    \left(f^2 \frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial r^2}-\frac{rN}{\sigma \tau}\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t^2}+c_1\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}+c_0\right)\psi^{(+)}=S^{(+)}

    (23)

    with

    \begin{aligned}[b] S^{(+)}=&\frac{r}{2f\sigma}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial r}E_\mathrm{A} -\frac{M_F}{2\sigma}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}E_\mathrm{F}-N_{\rm A} E_\mathrm{A}+N_{\rm F} E_\mathrm{F} \\ & +\frac{rN}{2\sigma\tau}\left(\frac{r}{f\sigma}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}E_\mathrm{D}+E_\mathrm{H}+\frac{1}{2}E_\mathrm{K}\right). \end{aligned}

    (24)

    where the parameters N, σ, τ, c_1 , and c_0 as well as M_{\rm F}, N_{\rm A}, and N_{\rm F} are all the functions of background. The explicit expression of these functions can be found in Appendix B. It is easy to check that the above results can be reduce to those of GR when q=0 .

    Calculating the QNM, we set the source term to vanish and consider the variable \psi^{(\pm)}=\psi^{(\pm)}(r) {|rm e}^{-{\rm i}\omega t} . The axial sector Eq. (18) can be directly written as the Schrödinger-like equation with an effective potential,

    \frac{{\rm d}^{2}{\psi^{(-)}(r)}}{{\rm d}r^{2}_{\ast}}+\left[\omega^{2}-V^{(-)}\right]\psi^{(-)}(r)=0,

    (25)

    with

    \frac{{\rm d}r}{{\rm d}r^*}=f(r),

    (26)

    where ω is the quasinormal frequency, which indicates that the black hole will oscillate under gravitational perturbations. However, for the polar sector, Eq. (23) can be denoted as

    \left[\eta_1\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\eta_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\eta_3\right)\right]\psi^{(+)}(r)=0 ,

    (27)

    where

    \begin{aligned}[b]&\eta_1=f^2\frac{\sigma\tau}{r N},\\&\eta_2=c_1\frac{\sigma\tau}{r N},\\&\eta_3=c_0\frac{\sigma\tau}{r N}\end{aligned}

    (28)

    and following the standard steps presented in [39], the standard Schrödinger-like equation is given by

    \frac{{\rm d}^{2}{Z}}{{\rm d}z^{2}}+\left[\omega^{2}-V^{(+)}\right]Z=0,

    (29)

    where

    Z=\eta_1^{-\frac{1}{4}}\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{\eta_2}{\eta_1}{\rm d}r\right)\psi^{(+)}(r)

    (30)

    and

    \frac{{\rm d}r}{{\rm d}z}=\eta_1^{\frac{1}{2}}

    (31)

    meanwhile the potential in Eq. (29) reads as

    \begin{aligned}[b] V^{(+)}=& -\frac{\sqrt{\eta_1}}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(\frac{{\rm d}\sqrt{\eta_1}}{{\rm d}r}-\frac{\eta_2}{\sqrt{\eta_1}}\right)' \\ & +\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{{\rm d}\sqrt{\eta_1}}{{\rm d}r}-\frac{\eta_2}{\sqrt{\eta_1}}\right)^2-\eta_3. \end{aligned}

    (32)

    In this section, we calculate the QNMs of the gravitational perturbation of the Bardeen de Sitter spacetime as a function of the magnetic charge q and the cosmological constant by applying the sixth-order WKB approach. The WKB approximation is one of the most widely used methods for calculating the QNMs of BHs. This method, which employs a semianalytic technique, is designed to solve the problem of scattered waves near the peak of the potential barrier V(r_0) in quantum mechanics [4045]. Since the complete expression of the potential V^{(+)} in Eq. (29) is too complex, we expand the wave equations up to the fourth order of q in the following calculations. Hence, f(r) and \mathcal{L} can be rewritten as

    f(r)= 1-\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{\Lambda r^{2}}{3}+\frac{3Mq^{2}}{r^{3}}-\frac{15Mq^{4}}{4r^{5}}

    (33)

    \mathcal{L}= \frac{3Mq^{2}}{r^{5}}-\frac{15Mq^{4}}{2r^{7}}.

    (34)

    In the following subsection, the numerical results show that the 4th order expansion of q has enough accuracy for our discussion. However, in order to improve the computational accuracy, we expand f(r) and \mathcal{L} to the 10th order of q in our calculation program.

    Here, we use the sixth-order WKB approach to calculate the QNMs for the Bardeen de Sitter BH. For general potential V(r) , the sixth order formula is given by

    {\rm i} \frac{\omega^{2}-V_0}{\sqrt{-2V_0''}}-\Lambda_{2}-\Lambda_{3}-\Lambda_{4}-\Lambda_{5}-\Lambda_{6}=n+\frac{1}{2},

    (35)

    where

    V_0=V|_{r=r_{\max}},\quad V_0''=\frac{{\rm d}^2V}{{\rm d}r_{\ast}^2}\Big|_{r=r_{max}},

    (36)

    r_{\max}, corresponding to the maximum value of the potential V, n, is the overtone number, which can be set as n=0,1,2... . The explicit expressions of \Lambda_{2} and \Lambda_{3} can be found in [41, 42], and \Lambda_{4} , \Lambda_{5} , and \Lambda_{6} can be found in [43].

    The gravitational modes exist for l\geq2 . In de Sitter spacetime, we set M=1 . Figure 1 describes the QNMs of axial gravitational perturbation when expanding to various orders of q. For polar gravitational perturbation, the results also indicate similar convergent behavior. It shows that expanding to the fourth order of q is sufficient, i.e., Eqs. (33) and (34) are valid in our calculation.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) QNMs of axial gravitational perturbation for varying the expanding order of q. Here, we set l=2 , n=0 , q=0.2 , and \Lambda=0.05 .

    Figure 2 and Fig. 3 show the QNMs of the axial and the polar parts of the gravitational perturbation for l=2 and n=0 , respectively. The figures reveal that, when q increases, the real part increases, but the magnitude of the imaginary part decreases first and then increases. The specific data for the QNM frequencies are presented in Appendix C. The data in Table 2 indicate that the breaking of isospectrality of QNMs exists in the Bardeen de Sitter BH.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) QNM frequencies of the axial gravitational perturbation of the Bardeen de Sitter BHs for l=2,n=0 .

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) QNM frequencies of the polar gravitational perturbation of the Bardeen de Sitter BHs for l=2,n=0 .

    One should confirm that the WKB approach does not cause this breaking of isospectrality. We calculate the QNMs using various orders of the WKB approach and find that the error due to considering various orders of the WKB approach is much smaller than the breaking of isospectrality when q=0.6 . Therefore, we consider that the axial and the polar gravitational perturbations of Bardeen de Sitter BHs are not isospectral.

    In Fig. 4, we show the relative gap between the axial gravitational and the polar gravitational QNM frequencies, where \Delta\omega is defined as

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) The relative gap between the axial and polar QNMs of Bardeen de Sitter BHs with \Lambda=0.02 and l=2, n=0 .

    \Delta\omega=\frac{\omega^{\text{odd}}-\omega^{\text{even}}}{\omega^{\text{odd}}}\times 100{\text{%}}.

    (37)

    This result clearly shows that isospectrality will break in Bardeen de Sitter spacetime as charge q increases. However, when l is sufficiently large, our numerical results show that the frequency spectra for the axial and polar gravitational perturbations converge. This implies that isospectrality will tend to be preserved for large l's.

    For the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter BH, we use the HH method to calculate the QNMs [23, 24]. A brief introduction to this method is as follows: In the HH method, the condition M=1 no longer holds. For the axial sector, we write \phi^{(-)} for a generic wavefunction as

    \phi^{(-)}= {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\omega r_*}\psi^{(-)},

    (38)

    the Schrödinger-like equation becomes

    f(r)\frac{\partial^{2}{\phi^{(-)}}}{\partial{r}^{2}}+\left[f'(r)-2{\rm i}\omega\right]\frac{\partial \phi^{(-)}}{\partial r}-\frac{V}{f(r)}\phi^{(-)}=0.

    (39)

    For the polar sector, from Eq. (29), we consider that \phi^{(+)} can be written as

    \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} \phi^{(+)}= {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\omega z}Z \end{array}

    (40)

    and satisfied by

    g(r)\frac{\partial^{2}{\phi^{(+)}}}{\partial{r}^{2}}+\left[g'(r)-2{\rm i} \omega\right]\frac{\partial \phi^{(+)}}{\partial r}-\frac{V}{g(r)}\phi^{(+)}=0

    (41)

    where

    \frac{\partial r}{\partial z}=f(r)\sqrt{\frac{\sigma\tau}{r N}}=g(r) .

    (42)

    Then, introducing a transformation x=1/r to restrict the studied region r_{h}<r<\infty to a finite region 0<x<x_{h} and expanding Eqs. (39) and (41) at the horizon x_h , we obtain

    s(x)\frac{{\rm d}^{2}}{{\rm d}x^{2}}\phi(x)^{(\pm)}+\frac{t(x)}{x-x_{h}}\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x}\phi(x)^{(\pm)}+\frac{u(x)}{\left(x-x_{h}\right)^{2}}\phi(x)^{(\pm)}=0.

    (43)

    The coefficient functions s(x) , t(x) , and u(x) can be expanded at horizon x=x_h ,

    s(x)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}s_n(x-x_h)^n

    (44)

    and similarly for t(x) and u(x) . Note that u(x_h)=0 yields u_0=0 . After that, we consider the solution for Eqs. (39) and (41),

    \phi(x)=\sum\limits^{\infty}_{n=0}a_{n}(\omega)\left(x-x_{h}\right)^{n},

    (45)

    and Eq. (43) gives

    a_{n}(\omega)=-\frac{1}{P_{n}}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}\left[k(k-1)s_{n-k}+k t_{n-k}+u_{n-k}\right]a_{k},

    (46)

    where

    \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} P_{n}=n(n-1)s_{0}+n t_{0}. \end{array}

    (47)

    Using the boundary condition \phi=0 at infinity, i.e., x=0 ,

    \sum\limits^{\infty}_{n=0}a_{n}(\omega)\left(-x_{h}\right)^{n}=0 .

    (48)

    The problem is now reduced to that of finding a numerical solution of Eq. (48). Since one cannot get a full sum from 0 to infinity, the summation should be cut off at an appropriate position N. Taking a partial sum from 0 to N, the numerical roots for \omega_N of Eq. (48) can be evaluated by some numerical method. Then, we move on to the case that takes a partial sum from 0 to N+1 , and similarly determine \omega_{N+1} . Comparing \omega_N and \omega_{N+1} can help us determine N to achieve a certain computational accuracy. It shows that when N=50 for axial perturbation or N=150 for polar perturbation, the calculation accuracy has three significant digits. Note that in Bardeen Anti-de Sitter spacetime, we set \Lambda=-3 .

    Here, we use the HH method to calculate the QNMs of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter BH and study the influence of magnetic charge q on QNMs. The range of r_h is limited to r_{h}\in\left[1,100\right] . The specific data are placed in Appendix C. Figure 5 and Fig. 6 show the axial and polar parts of the gravitational QNM frequencies for Bardeen Anti-de Sitter spacetime. For the axial gravitational perturbation, we only consider the range \log{r_h}\in [0.4, 0.7] to obviously show that as the charge q increases, the real part of ω will decrease, and the magnitude of imaginary part of ω will increase. However, for the polar gravitational perturbation, we only consider the range \log{r_h}\in [1.5, 2.0] , where the deviations due to the presence of charge q can be clearly seen.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) QNM frequencies of the axial gravitational perturbation of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter BHs with l=2 and n=1 .

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) QNM frequencies of the polar gravitational perturbation of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter BHs with l=2,n=0 .

    In this study, we investigate the gravitational perturbations of the Bardeen BH in the presence of a cosmological constant. Both the axial (odd-parity) and polar (even-parity) sectors are considered, and we provide the detailed construction process for the decoupled equations with source terms. Then, we derive Schrödinger-type equations with effective potentials given by equations (25) and (29). Subsequently, we apply the WKB approach to analyze the quasinormal modes (QNMs) for the Bardeen de Sitter spacetime. The obtained QNM frequencies are presented in Tables 1 and 2. We explore various combinations of values for q and Λ while fixing l and n, and vice versa. The results reveal deviations between the QNM frequencies in the polar sector and those in the axial sector. We conduct additional calculations using different orders of q and the WKB approach to ensure that these deviations are not due to numerical errors, . Our findings demonstrate convergence, suggesting that the deviations are not due to the order of q or the WKB approach (and the currently used orders are sufficiently high to ensure the required accuracy of our conclusions). Moreover, numerical analysis indicates that the errors arising from different choices of the orders of q and the WKB approach are significantly smaller than the observed deviations. This provides evidence that the deviations are due to the inherent differences in odd and even parities rather than the order of q or the WKB approach.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  QNM frequencies of the gravitational perturbations calculated using the WKB approach with different l and n in Badeen de Sitter spacetime. The parameters are chosen as q=0.1 and \Lambda=0.02 .
    l n odd parity even parity relative deviation
    Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω)
    200.33960.08160.33920.08170.1178%0.1225%
    10.32010.24850.31960.24900.1562%0.2012%
    300.54460.08440.54430.08440.0551%0%
    10.53230.25510.53200.25520.0564%0.0392%
    20.50870.43160.50830.43160.0786%0%
    400.73480.08550.73460.08550.0272%0%
    10.72560.25770.72530.25770.0413%0%
    20.70760.43310.70730.43310.0424%0%
    30.68180.61420.68160.61420.0293%0%
    500.91900.08610.91880.08610.0218%0%
    10.91160.25890.91140.25890.0219%0%
    20.89700.43390.89680.43390.0223%0%
    30.87580.61260.87560.61260.0228%0%
    40.84880.79640.84850.79640.0353%0%
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Table 2

    Table 2.  QNM frequencies of the gravitational perturbations calculated using the WKB approach with different q and Λ in Badeen de Sitter spacetime. Here, l=2 and n=0 .
    q Λ odd parity even parity relative deviation
    Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω)
    0.20.000.37840.08830.37660.08860.4757%0.3238%
    0.020.34320.08130.34150.08150.4953%0.2472%
    0.040.30390.07310.30230.07320.5265%0.1752%
    0.060.25860.06310.25720.06320.5414%0.1220%
    0.080.20350.05040.20240.05050.5405%0.1646%
    0.100.12650.03180.12580.03180.5534%0%
    0.40.000.39350.08680.38590.08731.9314%0.5760%
    0.020.35880.08010.35150.08002.0346%0.1248%
    0.040.32020.07240.31340.07282.1237%0.5525%
    0.060.27600.06330.26990.06362.2101%0.4739%
    0.080.22300.05190.21790.05202.2870%0.1927%
    0.100.15270.03600.14910.03612.3576%0.2778%
    0.60.000.42820.08150.40490.08395.4414%2.9448%
    0.020.39270.07650.37180.07805.3221%1.9608%
    0.040.35420.07030.33550.07115.2795%1.1380%
    0.060.31130.06280.29470.06325.3325%0.6369%
    0.080.26160.05350.24750.05375.3899%0.3738%
    0.100.19990.04140.18900.04145.4527%0%
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    The results unequivocally demonstrate that, for a fixed nonlinear electromagnetic charge q, the axial and polar gravitational perturbations exhibit distinct QNM frequencies. This observation indicates a violation of isospectrality in the case of Bardeen de Sitter BHs. Unlike linear electromagnetic fields, the presence of nonlinear electromagnetic fields disrupts the isospectrality of gravitational perturbations.

    Furthermore, we compute the QNMs of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter spacetime. To gain a clearer understanding of the impact of varying q on the QNMs, we consider different ranges for the parameter r_h . Our results show the influence of the parameter q on the real and imaginary parts of the QNMs.

    Notably, the master equations derived in this study contain source terms. However, owing to the QNM calculations in this study, we impose that the source terms vanish. However, if we consider the extreme mass ratio inspiral model, i.e., a point particle moving around the Bardeen BH, one can calculate the energy flux at infinity or the gravitational wave of inspiral phase using our master equations. In contrast, the Bardeen BH considered in this study is a simple RBH solution. The ABG solution seems to be a more reasonable choice as it approaches the Reissner-Nordström solution at asymptotic infinity [6]. Whether the breaking of isospectrality occurs in all nonlinear electromagnetic theories is worth further exploration. With the improvement of detection sensitivity, the LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA cooperation is expected to accurately measure the QNMs of the BH ringdown phase and confirm/deny the breaking of isospectrality from the QNM signal in the near future.

    By projecting the perturbed metric h^{lm}_{ab} onto these orthogonal tensor bases, the expressions for coefficients A-K can be obtained.

    \begin{aligned}[b] \mathrm{A}=&f^2\oint h^{lm}_{ab}(v^av^bY^{\ast}_{lm}){\rm d}\Omega, \\ \mathrm{B}=&-\frac{f}{l(l+1)}\oint h^{lm}_{ab}v^{a}Y^{b\ast}_{E,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \end{aligned}

    \begin{aligned}[b] \mathrm{C}=&-\frac{f}{l(l+1)}\oint h^{lm}_{ab}v^{a}Y^{b\ast}_{B,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \\ \mathrm{D}=&-\oint h^{lm}_{ab}v^{a}Y^{b\ast}_{R,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \\ \mathrm{E}=&\frac{1}{2}\oint h_{ab}^{lm}T^{ab\ast}_{T0,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \\\mathrm{F}=&\frac{2(l-2)!}{(l+2)!}\oint h_{ab}^{lm}T^{ab\ast}_{E2,lm}{\rm d}\Omega,\\\mathrm{G}=&\frac{2(l-2)!}{(l+2)!}\oint h_{ab}^{lm}T^{ab\ast}_{B2,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \\ \mathrm{H}=&\frac{1}{l(l+1)f}\oint h^{lm}_{ab}T^{ab\ast}_{E1,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \\ \mathrm{J}=&\frac{1}{l(l+1)f}\oint h^{lm}_{ab}T^{ab\ast}_{B1,lm}{\rm d}\Omega, \\ \mathrm{K}=&\frac{1}{f^2}\oint h^{lm}_{ab}T^{ab\ast}_{L0,lm}{\rm d}\Omega. \end{aligned} \tag{A1}

    Only the case of l\geq 2 is considered in this study.

    The field equation of {E}_{\rm A}-{E}_{\rm K}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{A}=&-\frac{2(f-1+r^{2}\Lambda+2r^2\mathcal{L}+rf')}{r^2}\mathrm{A} \\ &-\frac{(l^2+l+2f+4rf')f^2}{r^2} \mathrm{K}-\frac{2f^3}{r}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial r}\mathrm{K} \\ &-\frac{(l^2+l-2)f}{r^2}\mathrm{E}+\frac{f(6f+rf')}{r}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial r}\mathrm{E} \\&+2f^2\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial r^2}\mathrm{E}, \end{aligned}\tag{A2}

    E_\mathrm{B}=-\frac{f'}{r}\mathrm{D}-\frac{f}{r}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial r}\mathrm{D}-\frac{1}{r} \frac{ \partial }{ \partial t}\mathrm{E}-\frac{f}{r}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial t}\mathrm{K},\tag{A3}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{C}=&-\frac{l^2+l-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+2f+2rf'+r^2f''+4r^2\mathcal{L}}{r^2}\mathrm{C} \\ &+\frac{2f}{r}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{C}+f\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial r^2}\mathrm{C}+\frac{3f}{r}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}\mathrm{J}+f\frac{ \partial^2 }{ \partial t \partial r}\mathrm{J}, \end{aligned}\tag{A4}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{D}=&-\frac{l^2+l-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+2f+4r^2\mathcal{L}+2rf'}{r^2}\mathrm{D} \\&+\frac{rf'-2f}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}\mathrm{E}-2\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t \partial r}\mathrm{E}+\frac{2f}{r}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial t}\mathrm{K},\end{aligned}\tag{A5}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{E}=&-\frac{f(l^2+l+2rf'+2r^2f'')-r^2{f'}^2}{2r^2f^2}\mathrm{A}-\frac{rf'-2f}{2rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{A} \\ &+\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial r^2}\mathrm{A}+\frac{2f+rf'}{rf}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial t}\mathrm{D}+2\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t \partial r}\mathrm{D} \\ &-\frac{4r\mathcal{L}+2f'+r(2\Lambda+2r\mathcal{L}'+f'')}{r}\mathrm{E} \\ &+\frac{r^3\mathcal{L}'-2f-rf'}{r}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{E}-f\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial r^2}\mathrm{E}+\frac{1}{f}\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t^2}\mathrm{E} \\ &+\frac{r^2{f'}^2+f(l^2+l+6rf'+2r^2f'')}{2r^2}\mathrm{K} \\ &+\frac{f(2f+rf')}{2r}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{K}+\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t^2}\mathrm{K}, \end{aligned}\tag{A6}

    E_\mathrm{F}=-\frac{1}{r^2f}\mathrm{A}+\frac{f}{r^2}\mathrm{K},\tag{A7}

    E_\mathrm{G}=-\frac{2}{rf}\frac{ \partial }{ \partial t}\mathrm{C}-\frac{2f+2rf'}{r^2}\mathrm{J} -\frac{2f}{r}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{J},\tag{A8}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{H}=&\frac{2f+rf'}{2r^2f^2}\mathrm{A}-\frac{1}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{A} -\frac{1}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}\mathrm{D} +\frac{1}{r}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{E} \\&-\frac{2f+rf'}{2r^2}\mathrm{K},\end{aligned}\tag{A9}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{J}=&\frac{1}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}\mathrm{C}-\frac{1}{f}\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t \partial r}\mathrm{C}-\frac{1}{f}\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t^2}\mathrm{J} \\ & -\frac{l^2+l-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^2\mathcal{L}+2rf'+r^2f''}{r^2}\mathrm{J}, \end{aligned}\tag{A10}

    \begin{aligned}[b] E_\mathrm{K}=&-\frac{l^2+l+2rf'}{r^2f^2}\mathrm{A}+\frac{2}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{A} +\frac{4}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}\mathrm{D}+\frac{l^{2}+l-2}{r^{2}f}E \\ &-\frac{2f+rf'}{rf}\frac{ \partial}{ \partial r}\mathrm{E} +\frac{2}{f^2}\frac{ \partial^2}{ \partial t^2}\mathrm{E} \\ &-\frac{2(2r^2\mathcal{L}-1+r^{2}\Lambda)}{r^2} \mathrm{K}, \end{aligned}\tag{A11}

    Here, we present the explicit expressions of the parameters in Eq. (23), which are given by

    N= -4f^{2}\mu-\sigma\left(-\rho\sigma+2f'\right)+2f\left(\gamma\sigma-\nu\sigma+\sigma'\right), \tag{B1}

    \sigma= -2+\lambda +2r^{2}\Lambda +2f+2rf'+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}, \tag{B2}

    \tau= -2+\lambda +2r^{2}\Lambda+3rf'+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}, \tag{B3}

    \begin{aligned}[b] c_{0}=& \frac{1}{2fN\sigma^{2}}\bigg\{-2f^{2}M_{1}N\mu-M_{1}N\sigma f' \\ & +f\Big[\sigma N M_{1}'-\sigma M_{1}N'+M_{2} N\left(-\nu\sigma+\sigma'\right)\Big]\bigg\}, \end{aligned}\tag{B4}

    \begin{aligned}[b] c_{1}=& \frac{1}{2N \sigma}\bigg\{M_{1}N-f\Big[N^{2}+2f\sigma N' \\ & +2N\left(2f^{2}\mu+f\nu\sigma-\sigma f'-2f\sigma'\right)\Big]\bigg\}, \end{aligned}\tag{B5}

    and the parameters appearing in the source term Eq. (24) are given by

    M_{F}= \frac{r}{\tau}\left(\eta+\lambda\sigma-2f\sigma+rf'\sigma\right), \tag{B6}

    \begin{aligned}[b] N_{A}=& \frac{1}{4f^{2}N\sigma^{2}}\bigg\{rN^{2}+2rf\sigma N' \\ & +2N \Big[2rf^{2}\mu+2r\sigma f'+f\left(-\sigma+r\nu\sigma-r\sigma'\right)\Big]\bigg\}, \end{aligned}\tag{B7}

    \begin{aligned}[b] N_{F}=& \frac{1}{4fN\sigma^{2}\tau}\bigg\{rN^{2}\eta+2fM_{F}\sigma\tau N'+2N\tau\Big[2f^{2} M_{F}\mu \\ & +M_{F}\sigma f'-f\left(\sigma M_{F}'-\nu\sigma M_{F}+\sigma' M_{F}\right)\Big]\bigg\}, \end{aligned}\tag{B8}

    Here, we have

    M_{1}= f\Big[\rho\sigma^{2}+f\left(-2\nu\sigma+2\sigma'\right)\Big],\tag{B9}

    M_{2}= 2f\left(2f^{2}\mu-f\gamma\sigma+\sigma f'\right),\tag{B10}

    \begin{aligned}[b] \eta=& 4-\lambda ^{2}-8r^2\Lambda+4r^{4}\Lambda^{2}+4f^{2}+16r^{4}\kappa^{2}\mathcal{L}^{2} \\ & -8rf'-rf'\lambda+8r^{3}f'\Lambda+4r^{2}f'^{2} \\ & +16r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}\left(r^{2}\Lambda+rf'-1\right) \\ & +2f\left(-4+\lambda+4r^{2}\Lambda+8r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+4rf'\right), \end{aligned}\tag{B11}

    \begin{aligned}[b] \gamma=& -\frac{1}{2f\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+3rf'\right)} \times\bigg\{4f\left(r\Lambda+2r\kappa\mathcal{L}+f'\right) +f'\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+4rf'\right)\bigg\}, \end{aligned}\tag{B12}

    \rho= \frac{1}{r}-\frac{f'}{\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+3rf'}, \tag{B13}

    \begin{aligned}[b] \nu=& -\frac{1}{2rf\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+3rf'\right)} \times\bigg\{2f\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa \mathcal{L}+4rf'\right) \\ & + rf'\Big[-rf'+5\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+3rf'\right)\Big]\bigg\} , \\\end{aligned}\tag{B14}

    \begin{aligned}[b] \mu=& \frac{1}{4rf^{2}\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+3rf'\right)} \times\bigg\{8f^{2}\left(\lambda-2+r^{2}\Lambda+2r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+2rf'\right) \\ & -r^{2}f'^{2}\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda+4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}+2rf'\right) +2f\Big[r^{2}f'^{2}+rf'\left(-12+6\lambda+2r^{2}\Lambda-3r^{2}f''\right) \\ & +\left(\lambda-2+2r^{2}\Lambda\right)\left(2\lambda-4-r^{2}f''\right) -4r^{2}\kappa\mathcal{L}\left(4-2\lambda-rf'+r^{2}f''\right)\Big]\bigg\} . \end{aligned}\tag{B15}

    Table C1

    Table C1.  Axial gravitational QNM frequencies of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter spacetime calculated using the HH method with different q and r_h , where the cosmological constant is set as \Lambda=-3 , and the cutoff number of the summation is determined as N=50 .
    q r_{h} l=2, n=0 l=2, n=1 l=3,n=0 l=3,n=1
    Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω)
    0.220~0.8168394.364655.389950~2.388474.477335.22429
    40~0.3692577.7681610.68220~0.9137027.9397610.6235
    60~0.24205411.348516.00050~0.58773711.476215.9616
    80~0.18049214.985721.32370~0.43559215.085021.2945
    100~0.14400918.647026.64880~0.34659518.727726.6254
    500~0.02867292.5018133.1950~0.06869292.5184133.190
    1000~0.014334184.957266.3860~0.034337184.966266.384
    0.420~1.100904.107275.916450~3.298423.881436.03826
    40~0.4559237.6540410.86650~1.012607.8206010.8118
    60~0.29533611.273616.11740~0.64396011.400416.0793
    80~0.21935214.929821.41000~0.47561015.028821.3810
    100~0.17470018.602326.71730~0.37786118.682926.6940
    500~0.03467792.4929133.2080~0.07470292.5095133.204
    1000~0.017335184.953266.3930~0.037338184.961266.391
    0.620~1.647294.341317.416370~~5.198877.46867
    40~0.6017357.4579611.20950~1.180297.6152211.1654
    60~0.38443911.146816.32130~0.73809111.272016.2847
    80~0.28423414.835721.55730~0.54244714.934221.5289
    100~0.22590818.527526.83320~0.43003418.607926.8102
    500~0.04468792.4781133.2310~0.08471992.4947133.226
    1000~0.022336184.946266.4040~0.042340184.954266.402
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Table C2

    Table C2.  Polar gravitational QNM frequencies of the Bardeen Anti-de Sitter spacetime calculated using the HH method with different q and r_h , where the cosmological constant is set as \Lambda=-3 , and the cutoff number of the summation is determined as N=150 .
    q r_{h} l=2, n=0 l=3, n=0
    Re(ω) -Im(ω) Re(ω) -Im(ω)
    0.224.481993.950464.583413.30879
    48.031159.553878.323988.57327
    611.590614.941211.930914.3709
    815.217720.214415.486519.9298
    1018.880625.439119.081725.3612
    5093.1610128.66992.8456130.662
    100186.243257.431185.524261.567
    0.424.390163.823574.536693.32935
    48.205058.949058.202608.38047
    612.058013.970911.886313.8573
    815.944218.902815.543719.1484
    1019.849223.792019.230424.3338
    5098.5247120.38794.3123125.134
    100197.003240.864188.5045250.488
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table
    [1] S. P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer, Phys. Rev. D 38, 3559-3565 (1988)
    [2] H. Suganuma and T. Tatsumi, Annals. Phys. 208, 470-508 (1991) doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(91)90304-Q
    [3] K. G. Klimenko , Theor. Math. Phys. 89, 1161-1168 (1992)
    [4] K. G. Klimenko, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 89, 211 (1991)
    [5] S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys 64, 649-708 (1992) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.64.649
    [6] I. V. Krive and S. A. Naftulin, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2737-2740 (1992)
    [7] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3499-3502 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3499
    [8] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1005 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9405262
    [9] V. P. Gusynin, V.A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4718-4735 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9407168
    [10] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A.Shovkovy, Phys. Lett. B 349, 477-483 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9412257
    [11] K. G. Klimenko, Theor. Math. Phys. 90, 1-6 (1992) doi: 10.1007/BF01018812
    [12] K. G. Klimenko, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 90, 3 (1992)
    [13] G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi et al., PoS LATTICE2011, 192 (2011), arXiv:1111.5155
    [14] G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi et al., JHEP 04, 130 (2013), arXiv:1303.1328
    [15] G. Endrodi, M. Giordano, S. D. Katz et al., JHEP 07, 007 (2019), arXiv:1904.10296
    [16] R.L S. Farias, K. P. Gomes, G. I. Krein et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 025203 (2014), arXiv:1404.3931
    [17] P. Costa, M. Ferreira, D. P. Menezes et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 036012 (2015), arXiv:1508.07870
    [18] E. J. Ferrer, V. de la Incera, and X. J. Wen, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054006 (2015), arXiv:1407.3503
    [19] A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez et al., Phys. Lett. B 759, 99-103 (2016), arXiv:1510.09134
    [20] J. O. Andersen, W. R. Naylor, and A. Tranberg, JHEP 02, 042 (2015), arXiv:1410.5247
    [21] N. Mueller and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 91, 116010 (2015), arXiv:1502.08011
    [22] A. Ahmad and A. Raya, J. Phys. G 43, 065002 (2016), arXiv:1602.06448
    [23] R. L. S. Farias, V. S. Timoteo, S. S. Avancini et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 101 (2017), arXiv:1603.03847
    [24] S. He, Y. Yang, and P. H. Yuan, Analytic Study of Magnetic Catalysis in Holographic QCD, (2020), arXiv:2004.01965
    [25] A. Yu Babansky, E. V. Gorbar, and G. V. Shchepanyuk, Phys. Lett. B 419, 272-278 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9705218
    [26] G. Cao and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 016007 (2016), arXiv:1510.05125
    [27] W. R. Tavares and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094001 (2018), arXiv:1801.10566
    [28] M. Ruggieri and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. D 93, 094021 (2016), arXiv:1602.08994
    [29] L. Wang and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034014 (2018), arXiv:1712.09780
    [30] W. R. Tavares, R. L. S. Farias, and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. D 101, 016017 (2020), arXiv:1912.00305
    [31] A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phys. Lett. B 710, 171-174 (2012), arXiv:1111.1949
    [32] W. T. Deng and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044907 (2012), arXiv:1201.5108
    [33] J. Bloczynski, X. G. Huang, X. Zhang et al., Phys. Lett. B 718, 1529-1535 (2013), arXiv:1209.6594
    [34] J. Bloczynski, X. G. Huang, X. Zhang et al., Nucl. Phys. A 939, 85-100 (2015), arXiv:1311.5451
    [35] D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A 803, 227-253 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950
    [36] K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382
    [37] X. G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 232302 (2013), arXiv:1303.7192 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.232302
    [38] Y. Jiang, X. G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D 91, 045001 (2015), arXiv:1409.6395
    [39] I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 213 (2017), arXiv:1610.04717
    [40] X. L. Xia, H. Li, Z. B. Tang et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 024905 (2018), arXiv:1803.00867
    [41] D. X. Wei, W. T. Deng, and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1810.00151
    [42] L. Wang, G. Cao, X. G. Huang et al., Phys. Lett. B 780, 273-282 (2018), arXiv:1801.01682
    [43] G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094027 (2020), arXiv:2003.09209
    [44] Q. Li, D. E. Kharzeev, C. Zhang et al., Nature Phys. 12, 550-554 (2016), arXiv:1412.6543 doi: 10.1038/nphys3648
    [45] X. L. Zhao, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 792, 413-418 (2019), arXiv:1901.04156
    [46] H. L. L. Roberts, A. Bashir, L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 065206 (2011), arXiv:1102.4376
    [47] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664-679 (1951) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.82.664
    [48] K. L. Wang, Y. X. Liu, L. Chang et al., Phys. Rev. D 87, 074038 (2013), arXiv:1301.6762
    [49] F. Marquez, A. Ahmad, M. Buballa et al., Phys. Lett. B 747, 529-535 (2015), arXiv:1504.06730
    [50] L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, V. Bashir, I. C. Cloet et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 065202 (2010), arXiv:1002.1968
    [51] H. L. L. Roberts, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet et al., Few Body Syst. 51, 1-25 (2011), arXiv:1101.4244 doi: 10.1007/s00601-011-0225-x
    [52] H. L. L. Roberts, C. D. Roberts, A. Bashir et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 065202 (2010), arXiv:1009.0067
    [53] C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts et al., Few Body Syst. 53, 293-326 (2012), arXiv:1204.2553 doi: 10.1007/s00601-012-0466-3
    [54] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, A. L. Yaouanc et al., Few Body Syst. 53, 387-436 (2012), arXiv:1109.1936 doi: 10.1007/s00601-011-0301-2
    [55] A. Ahmad, A. Martínez and A. Raya, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054027 (2018), arXiv:1809.05545
    [56] A. Ahmad, A. Ayala, A. Bashir et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 651, 012018 (2015) doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/651/1/012018
    [57] D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 388, 154-160 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9608223
    [58] J. C. Ward, Phys. Rev. 78, 182 (1950)
    [59] Y. Takahashi, Nuovo Cim. 6, 371 (1957) doi: 10.1007/BF02832514
    [60] C. D. Roberts, M. S. Bhagwat, A. Holl et al., Eur. Phys. J. ST 140, 53-116 (2007), arXiv:0802.0217 doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2007-00003-5
    [61] W. de Haas and P. van Alphen, Leiden Comm. 208d 212a, (1930)
    [62] G. Cao and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 105030 (2015), arXiv:1505.05307 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.105030
    [63] A. Ahmad, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla et al., J. Phys. G 48(7), 075002 (2021), arXiv:2008.03847
    [64] A. Bandyopadhyay and R. L. S. Farias, Inverse magnetic catalysis -- how much do we know about?, (2020), arXiv:2003.11054
  • [1] S. P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer, Phys. Rev. D 38, 3559-3565 (1988)
    [2] H. Suganuma and T. Tatsumi, Annals. Phys. 208, 470-508 (1991) doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(91)90304-Q
    [3] K. G. Klimenko , Theor. Math. Phys. 89, 1161-1168 (1992)
    [4] K. G. Klimenko, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 89, 211 (1991)
    [5] S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys 64, 649-708 (1992) doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.64.649
    [6] I. V. Krive and S. A. Naftulin, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2737-2740 (1992)
    [7] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3499-3502 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.3499
    [8] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1005 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9405262
    [9] V. P. Gusynin, V.A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4718-4735 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9407168
    [10] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A.Shovkovy, Phys. Lett. B 349, 477-483 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9412257
    [11] K. G. Klimenko, Theor. Math. Phys. 90, 1-6 (1992) doi: 10.1007/BF01018812
    [12] K. G. Klimenko, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 90, 3 (1992)
    [13] G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi et al., PoS LATTICE2011, 192 (2011), arXiv:1111.5155
    [14] G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi et al., JHEP 04, 130 (2013), arXiv:1303.1328
    [15] G. Endrodi, M. Giordano, S. D. Katz et al., JHEP 07, 007 (2019), arXiv:1904.10296
    [16] R.L S. Farias, K. P. Gomes, G. I. Krein et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 025203 (2014), arXiv:1404.3931
    [17] P. Costa, M. Ferreira, D. P. Menezes et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 036012 (2015), arXiv:1508.07870
    [18] E. J. Ferrer, V. de la Incera, and X. J. Wen, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054006 (2015), arXiv:1407.3503
    [19] A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez et al., Phys. Lett. B 759, 99-103 (2016), arXiv:1510.09134
    [20] J. O. Andersen, W. R. Naylor, and A. Tranberg, JHEP 02, 042 (2015), arXiv:1410.5247
    [21] N. Mueller and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 91, 116010 (2015), arXiv:1502.08011
    [22] A. Ahmad and A. Raya, J. Phys. G 43, 065002 (2016), arXiv:1602.06448
    [23] R. L. S. Farias, V. S. Timoteo, S. S. Avancini et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 101 (2017), arXiv:1603.03847
    [24] S. He, Y. Yang, and P. H. Yuan, Analytic Study of Magnetic Catalysis in Holographic QCD, (2020), arXiv:2004.01965
    [25] A. Yu Babansky, E. V. Gorbar, and G. V. Shchepanyuk, Phys. Lett. B 419, 272-278 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9705218
    [26] G. Cao and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 016007 (2016), arXiv:1510.05125
    [27] W. R. Tavares and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094001 (2018), arXiv:1801.10566
    [28] M. Ruggieri and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. D 93, 094021 (2016), arXiv:1602.08994
    [29] L. Wang and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034014 (2018), arXiv:1712.09780
    [30] W. R. Tavares, R. L. S. Farias, and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. D 101, 016017 (2020), arXiv:1912.00305
    [31] A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phys. Lett. B 710, 171-174 (2012), arXiv:1111.1949
    [32] W. T. Deng and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044907 (2012), arXiv:1201.5108
    [33] J. Bloczynski, X. G. Huang, X. Zhang et al., Phys. Lett. B 718, 1529-1535 (2013), arXiv:1209.6594
    [34] J. Bloczynski, X. G. Huang, X. Zhang et al., Nucl. Phys. A 939, 85-100 (2015), arXiv:1311.5451
    [35] D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A 803, 227-253 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950
    [36] K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382
    [37] X. G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 232302 (2013), arXiv:1303.7192 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.232302
    [38] Y. Jiang, X. G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D 91, 045001 (2015), arXiv:1409.6395
    [39] I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 213 (2017), arXiv:1610.04717
    [40] X. L. Xia, H. Li, Z. B. Tang et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 024905 (2018), arXiv:1803.00867
    [41] D. X. Wei, W. T. Deng, and X. G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1810.00151
    [42] L. Wang, G. Cao, X. G. Huang et al., Phys. Lett. B 780, 273-282 (2018), arXiv:1801.01682
    [43] G. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094027 (2020), arXiv:2003.09209
    [44] Q. Li, D. E. Kharzeev, C. Zhang et al., Nature Phys. 12, 550-554 (2016), arXiv:1412.6543 doi: 10.1038/nphys3648
    [45] X. L. Zhao, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 792, 413-418 (2019), arXiv:1901.04156
    [46] H. L. L. Roberts, A. Bashir, L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 065206 (2011), arXiv:1102.4376
    [47] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664-679 (1951) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.82.664
    [48] K. L. Wang, Y. X. Liu, L. Chang et al., Phys. Rev. D 87, 074038 (2013), arXiv:1301.6762
    [49] F. Marquez, A. Ahmad, M. Buballa et al., Phys. Lett. B 747, 529-535 (2015), arXiv:1504.06730
    [50] L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, V. Bashir, I. C. Cloet et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 065202 (2010), arXiv:1002.1968
    [51] H. L. L. Roberts, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet et al., Few Body Syst. 51, 1-25 (2011), arXiv:1101.4244 doi: 10.1007/s00601-011-0225-x
    [52] H. L. L. Roberts, C. D. Roberts, A. Bashir et al., Phys. Rev. C 82, 065202 (2010), arXiv:1009.0067
    [53] C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts et al., Few Body Syst. 53, 293-326 (2012), arXiv:1204.2553 doi: 10.1007/s00601-012-0466-3
    [54] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, A. L. Yaouanc et al., Few Body Syst. 53, 387-436 (2012), arXiv:1109.1936 doi: 10.1007/s00601-011-0301-2
    [55] A. Ahmad, A. Martínez and A. Raya, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054027 (2018), arXiv:1809.05545
    [56] A. Ahmad, A. Ayala, A. Bashir et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 651, 012018 (2015) doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/651/1/012018
    [57] D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 388, 154-160 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9608223
    [58] J. C. Ward, Phys. Rev. 78, 182 (1950)
    [59] Y. Takahashi, Nuovo Cim. 6, 371 (1957) doi: 10.1007/BF02832514
    [60] C. D. Roberts, M. S. Bhagwat, A. Holl et al., Eur. Phys. J. ST 140, 53-116 (2007), arXiv:0802.0217 doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2007-00003-5
    [61] W. de Haas and P. van Alphen, Leiden Comm. 208d 212a, (1930)
    [62] G. Cao and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 105030 (2015), arXiv:1505.05307 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.105030
    [63] A. Ahmad, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla et al., J. Phys. G 48(7), 075002 (2021), arXiv:2008.03847
    [64] A. Bandyopadhyay and R. L. S. Farias, Inverse magnetic catalysis -- how much do we know about?, (2020), arXiv:2003.11054
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Tavares, W.R., Ramos, R.O., Farias, R.L.S. et al. Charged scalars at finite electric field and temperature in the optimized perturbation theory[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 110(11): 116024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.116024
2. Upadhaya, S.. Fluctuations and Correlations of Conserved Charges Serving as Signals for QGP Production: An Overview from Polyakov Loop Enhanced Nambu–Jona-Lasinio Model[J]. Universe, 2024, 10(8): 332. doi: 10.3390/universe10080332
3. Ahmad, A., Azhar, M., Raya, A. Robust features of a QCD phase diagram through a contact interaction model for quarks: a view from the effective potential[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(11): 252. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01169-3
4. Corrêa, E.B.S.. Phase transition in a four-fermion interaction model under boundary conditions and electromagnetic effects[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 108(7): 076002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.076002
5. Tavares, W.R., Avancini, S.S., Farias, R.L.S. Quark matter under strong electric fields in the linear sigma model coupled with quarks[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 108(1): 016017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.016017
6. Ahmad, A., Murad, A. Color-flavor dependence of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model and QCD phase diagram[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2022, 46(8): 083109. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac6cd8

Figures(22)

Get Citation
Aftab Ahmad. Chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement in the contact interaction model of quarks with a parallel electric and magnetic fields[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abfb5f
Aftab Ahmad. Chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement in the contact interaction model of quarks with a parallel electric and magnetic fields[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abfb5f shu
Milestone
Received: 2021-03-13
Article Metric

Article Views(1934)
PDF Downloads(27)
Cited by(6)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement in the contact interaction model of quarks with parallel electric and magnetic fields

    Corresponding author: Aftab Ahmad, aftabahmad@gu.edu.pk
  • Institute of Physics, Gomal University, 29220, D.I. Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhaw, Pakistan

Abstract: We study the impact of steady, homogeneous, and external parallel electric and magnetic field strengths ( eE\parallel eB ) on the chiral symmetry breaking-restoration and confinement-deconfinement phase transition. We also sketch the phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) at a finite temperature T and in the presence of background fields. The unified formalism for this study is based on the Schwinger-Dyson equations, symmetry preserving vector-vector contact interaction model of quarks, and an optimal time regularization scheme. At T = 0 , in the purely magnetic case (i.e., eE\rightarrow 0 ), we observe the well-known magnetic catalysis effect. However, in a pure electric field background ( eB\rightarrow 0 ), the electric field tends to restore the chiral symmetry and deconfinement above the pseudo-critical electric field eE^{\chi, C}_c . In the presence of both eE and eB , we determine the magnetic catalysis effect in the particular region where eB dominates over eE , whereas we observe the chiral inhibition (or electric chiral rotation) effect when eE overshadows eB. At finite T, in the pure electric field case, the phenomenon of inverse electric catalysis appears to exist in the proposed model. Conversely, for a pure magnetic field background, we observe the magnetic catalysis effect in the mean-field approximation and inverse magnetic catalysis with eB -dependent coupling. The combined effects of eE and eB on the pseudo-critical T^{\chi, C}_c yields an inverse electromagnetic catalysis, with and without an eB -dependent effective coupling of the model. The findings of this study agree well with the already predicted results obtained via lattice simulations and other reliable effective models of QCD.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and confinement are the two fundamental properties of non-perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD). At zero or low temperatures T, the fundamental degrees of freedom of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) are the low energy hadrons, whereas at high T, the interaction gets increasingly screened and thus becomes weak, causing hadrons to melt down to a new phase in which the predominant degrees of freedom are quarks and gluons. This phenomenon is referred to as the confinement–deconfinement phase transition. As the strength of the QCD interaction decreases with increasing T, only the current quark mass survives when the parameter T exceeds a critical value. This is termed as the chiral symmetry breaking–chiral symmetry restoration phase transition. Such a phase transition is expected to have occured in the early universe, a few microseconds after the Big Bang, and it is experimentally observed in heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in CERN and Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brook Heaven National Laboratory (BNL). In addition, when the hadronic matter is subjected to an external electromagnetic field background, it yields a significant impact on phase transition. It is well known that at T = 0 , in the pure magnetic case, the strong magnetic field tends to strengthen the formation of quark anti-quark condensate, and the system remains in the chiral symmetry broken phase, even at a high magnetic field strength eB . This phenomenon is known as magnetic catalysis (MC) [1-10]. It was verified in earlier studies that at a finite T, the pseudo-critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c of the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement increases with an increase in eB ; hence, magnetic catalysis is also observed at finite T [1, 2, 5, 11, 12]. Recently, the lattice QCD simulation [13-15] predicted that at finite T, a magnetic field suppresses the formation of quark-antiquark condensates and tends to restore the chiral symmetry at approximately the pseudo-critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c . Consequently, T^{\chi, C}_c decreases with an increase in eB , and such a phenomenon is known as the inverse magnetic catalysis (IMC). This phenomenon is validated and supported by effective models of low energy QCD [16-23], as well as in holographic QCD models [24].

      In a pure electric case, and at T = 0 , the situation is relatively different from that of a pure magnetic field background. The strong electric field suppresses the formation of a quark-antiquark condensate, and thus tends to restore the chiral symmetry, i.e., the electric field anti-screens the strong interaction. Such a phenomenon is known as the chiral electric inhibition effect [1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 25-28] or the chiral electric rotation effect [29]. The nature of chiral phase transitions is of the second order in the chiral limit but cross-over when the bare quark mass is considered. At finite temperature, it is well understood that the pseudo-critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c decreases with an increase in electric field strength eE , and this phenomenon is known as the inverse electric catalysis (IEC) [28, 30]. The study on the influence of electric fields on the chiral phase transitions, as well as the effect of the magnetic field, is equally important from theoretical and experimental perspectives. Experimentally, in heavy-ion collisions, the electric and magnetic fields are generated with the same order of magnitude ( \sim 10^{18} to 10^{20} Gauss) [31-34] in the event-by-event collisions using Au + Au at RHIC-BNL and in a non-central heavy-ion collision of Pb + Pb in ALICE-LHC. Moreover, some interesting anomalous effects, such as the chiral magnetic [35, 36], chiral electric separation [37, 38], and particle polarization [39-41] effects, which may arise owing to the generation of vector and/or axial currents in the presence of strong electromagnetic fields, are also required for theoretical exploration. Recently, a special case of considering the electric field strength parallel to the magnetic field strength ( eE\parallel eB ) significantly focused on exploring the above-mentioned phenomenon in the effective models of QCD [28, 29, 42, 43]. A major reason behind this approach is that the parallel electric and magnetic fields play important and prominent roles in several heavy-ion collision experiments [44, 45].

      Considering the aforementioned facts and findings, the objective of this study is to elucidate the traits of the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking-restoration transition in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields. The unified framework of this study is based on Schwinger-Dyson equations (SDE) in the rainbow-ladder truncation, Landau gauge, symmetry preserving the confining vector-vector contact interaction model (CI) [46], and Schwinger optimal time regularization scheme [47]. We adopt the quark-antiquark condensate -\langle\bar{q}q\rangle as an order parameter for the chiral symmetry breaking-restoration, whereas for the confinement-deconfinement transition, we use the confinement length scale [22, 48]. It should be noted that the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement occur simultaneously in this model [22, 49].

      This article is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the general formalism and contact interaction model at zero temperature, in the absence of background fields. In Sec. III, we discuss the gap equation at zero temperature, in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields presented in Sec. IV. Next, in Sec. V, we present the phase diagram at finite temperature, in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields. Finally, in Sec. VI, we present the summary and perspectives of this study.

    II.   GENERAL FORMALISM AND CONTACT INTERACTION MODEL
    • We begin with the Schwinger-Dyson's equations (SDE) for a dressed-quark propagator S_f , which is given by

      S^{-1}_f(p) \!=\! {\rm i}\gamma \!\cdot\! p \!+\! m_f \!+\!\!\!\int\!\!\! \frac{{\rm d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4} g^2 \Delta_{\mu\nu}(p\!-\!k)\frac{\lambda^a}{2}\gamma_\mu S_f(k) \frac{\lambda^a}{2}\Gamma_\nu(p,k)\,,

      (1)

      the subscript f represents the two light quark flavors, i.e., up (u) and down (d) quarks, g is the coupling constant, and m_f is the current quark mass, which can be set to zero in the chiral limit. \lambda^a represents the conventional Gell-Mann matrices, \Gamma_\nu is the dressed quark-gluon vertex, and \Delta_{\mu\nu} depicts the gluon propagator.

      In literature, it is well known that the properties of low energy hadrons can be reproduced by assuming that the interaction among the quarks occurs not via a mass-less vector boson exchange but by the symmetry preserving four-fermions vector-vector CI with a finite gluon mass [46, 50-53]:

      g^2 \Delta_{\mu \nu}(k) = \delta_{\mu \nu} \frac{4 \pi \alpha_{\rm ir}}{m_G^2} \equiv \delta_{\mu \nu} \alpha_{\rm eff}\,,

      (2)

      where \alpha_{ ir} = 0.93\pi represents the infrared enhanced interaction strength parameter, and m_G = 800 MeV is the gluon mass scale [54]. In the CI model, for a small value of \alpha_{ir} and a large value of the gluon mass scale m_G , there must be a critical value \alpha_{\rm eff} ; above this critical value, the chiral symmetry is broken, and below this value, there is a lesser chance for the generation of the dynamical mass. The d-dimensional (arbitrary space-time dimensions) dependence of this effective coupling and its critical value on the chiral symmetry breaking, using an iterative method in the superstrong regime, has been comprehensively studied in Ref. [55].

      The CI model Eq. (2), together with the choice of rainbow-ladder truncation \Gamma_\nu(p,k) = \gamma_\nu , forms the kernel of the quark SDE, Eq. (1), which brings the dressed-quark propagator into a very simple form [56]:

      S_f^{-1}(p) = {\rm i}\gamma\cdot p+M_f\,.

      (3)

      This is possible because the wave function renormalization trivially tends to unity in this case, and the quark mass function M_f becomes momentum independent:

      M_f = m_f+\frac{4\alpha_{\rm eff}}{3}\int^\Lambda \frac{{\rm d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr}[S_f(k)]\;.

      (4)

      In this truncation, the quark-anitquark condensate is given by

      -\langle \bar{q} q\rangle_f = N_c\int^\Lambda \frac{{\rm d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr}[S_f(k)]\;,

      (5)

      with N_c = 3 representing the number of colors. The form of the proposed gap equation, Eq. (4), is significantly similar to the NJL model gap equation, except the coupling parameter \alpha_{\rm eff} = \dfrac{9}{2} G [49].

      Further simplification of Eq. (4) yields the following gap equation.

      M_f = m_{f}+ \frac{16\alpha_{\rm eff}}{3} \int^\Lambda \frac{{\rm d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{M_f}{k^2+M_f^2}\;,

      (6)

      where M_f represents the dynamical mass, and the symbol \displaystyle\int^\Lambda stresses the need to regularize the integrals. Using {\rm d}^4 k = (1/2) k^2 {\rm d}k^2 \sin ^2 \theta {\rm d}\theta \sin \phi {\rm d} \phi {\rm d}\psi , and performing trivial regular integrations with the variable s = k^2 , the above expression reduces to:

      M_f = m_{f}+\frac{ \alpha_{\rm eff} M_f }{8\pi^2}\int^{\infty }_{0} {\rm d}s\frac{s}{s+M_f^2}. \,

      (7)

      The integral in Eq. (7) is not convergent; therefore, we need to regularize it via the proper-time regularization scheme [47]. In this scheme, we take the exponent of the integrand's denominator and then introduce an additional infrared cutoff, in addition to the conventional ultraviolet cut-off, which is widely adopted in NJL model studies. Accordingly, the confinement is implemented using an infrared cut-off [57]. By adopting this scheme, the quadratic and logarithmic divergences are eliminated, and the axial-vector Ward-Takahashi identity [58, 59] is satisfied. From Eq. (7), the denominator of the integrand is given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] \frac{1}{s+M^{2}_{f}} &= \int^{\infty }_{0} {\rm d}\tau {\rm e}^{-\tau(s+M^{2}_{f})} \rightarrow \int^{\tau_{ir}^2}_{\tau_{uv}^2} {\rm d}\tau {\rm e}^{-\tau(s+M^{2}_{f})} \\ &= \frac{ {\rm e}^{-\tau_{uv}^2(s+M^{2}_{f})}-{\rm e}^{-\tau_{ir}^2(s+M^{2}_{f})}}{s+M^{2}_{f}}. \end{aligned}

      (8)

      Here, \tau_{uv}^{-1} = \Lambda_{uv} is an ultra-violet regulator that plays the dynamical role and sets the scale for all dimensional quantities. \tau_{ir}^{-1} = \Lambda_{ir} represents the infrared regulator whose non zero value implements confinement by ensuring the absence of quarks production thresholds [60]. Hence, \tau_{ir} corresponds to the confinement scale [22]. From Eq. (8), it is clear that the location of the original pole is at s = -M^2 , which is canceled by the numerator. Accordingly, we discarded the singularities, and the propagator is free from real and complex poles, which is consistent with the definition of confinement: "an excitation described by a pole-less propagator would never reach its mass-shell" [57].

      After performing integration over "s", the gap equation is given by

      M_f = m_{f} + \frac{M_f^3 \alpha_{\rm eff}}{8\pi^{2}} \Gamma(-1,\tau_{uv} M_{f}^2,\tau_{ir} M_{f}^2)\,,

      (9)

      where

      \Gamma (a, x_1,x_2) = \Gamma (a,x_1)-\Gamma(a,x_2)\,,

      (10)

      and \Gamma(a,x) = \displaystyle\int_x^{\infty} t^{\alpha-1} {\rm e}^{-t} {\rm d}t , which is the incomplete Gamma function. By using the parameters of Ref. [50], i.e., \tau_{{ir}} = (0.24\; \mathrm{GeV})^{-1} and \tau_{uv} = (0.905\; \mathrm{GeV})^{-1} , with the bare quark m_u = m_d = 0.007 GeV, we obtain the dynamical mass M_u = M_d = 0.367 GeV and the condensate \langle\bar{q}q\rangle_u = \langle\bar{q}q\rangle_d = -(0.0143) GeV ^3 .

    III.   GAP EQUATION AT T = 0 AND IN THE BACKGROUND OF PARALLEL eE AND eB
    • In this section, we study the gap equation in the presence of a uniform and homogeneous electromagnetic field with eE\parallel eB and at zero temperature. In the QCD Lagrangian, the interaction with the parallel electromagnetic field A^{\rm ext}_\mu embedded in the covariant derivative is expressed as

      D_\mu = \partial_\mu -{\rm i}\,Q_f A_\mu^{\rm ext},

      (11)

      where Q_{f} = (q_u = +2/3 ,q_d = -1/3)e refers to the electric charges of u and d-quarks, respectively. We adopt the symmetric gauge vector potential A^{\rm ext}_\mu = ({\rm i}\, E z, 0,-B x, 0) in Euclidean space, where both the electric and magnetic fields are selected along the z-axis. The gap equation in the presence of the parallel electromagnetic field remains in the form of Eq. (4), where S_f(k) is dressed with parallel background fields, i.e., {S_f}(k) \rightarrow\tilde{S_f}(k) . \tilde{S_f}(k) , in the Schwinger proper time representation [1, 2, 5, 47], in the presence of the parallel magnetic field in Euclidean space [26, 29], is given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] \tilde{S_f}(k) =& \int^{\infty}_{0} {\rm d}\tau {\rm e}^{-\tau \bigg( M_{f}^{2}+(k_{4}^{2}+k_{3}^{2}) \frac{{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E| \tau)}{|Q_{f}E|\tau}+(k_{1}^{2}+k_{2}^{2})\frac{{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B|\tau)}{|q_{f}B|\tau}\bigg)} \\ &\times \bigg[-\gamma^4 k_4+M_f+{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E| \tau ) \bigg(\gamma^4 k_3-\gamma^3 k_4\bigg) \\ &-{\rm i}\, {\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B\tau |) \bigg(\gamma^1 k_2-\gamma^2 k_1\bigg) \bigg]\\ &\times \bigg[1-{\rm i}\,{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B|\tau) {\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E|\tau )\gamma^5 \\ &-{\rm i}\,{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B |\tau)\gamma^1 \gamma^2+{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E|\tau)\gamma^4 \gamma^3 \bigg], \end{aligned}

      (12)

      where the magnetic field couples with the coordinate indices 1 and 2 , while the electric field couples with 3 and 4 . Now, taking the trace of Eq. (12) and introducing both infrared and ultraviolet cut-offs, the gap equation in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields is given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] \tilde{M_f} = & m_{f}+ \frac{ 16\alpha_{\rm eff}}{3}\sum_{f = u,d} \int^{\tilde{\tau}^{2}_{ir}}_{\tau^{2}_{uv}} {\rm d}\tau \tilde{M}_f {\rm e}^{-\tau \tilde{M}_{f}^{2}} \\ &\times\int\frac{{\rm d} k_{1}}{(2\pi)} \frac{{\rm d} k_{2}}{(2\pi)}\frac{{\rm d} k_{3}}{(2\pi)}\frac{{\rm d} k_{4}}{(2\pi)} {\rm e}^{-\tau ((k_{4}^{2}+k_{3}^{2}) \frac{{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E| \tau)}{|Q_{f}E|\tau}+(k_{1}^{2}+k_{2}^{2})\frac{{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B|\tau)}{|Q_{f}B|\tau}}. \end{aligned}

      (13)

      The infrared cu-off \tau_{ir} is introduced in the model to mimic confinement by ensuring the absence of quarks production thresholds. In the presence of both eE and eB , it is required to vary slightly with both eE and eB . Therefore, the entanglement between dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and confinement is expressed using an explicit eE and eB -dependent regulator in the infrared [22]:

      \tilde{\tau}_{ir} = \tau_{ir}\frac{M_f}{\tilde{M}_f},

      (14)

      where M_f is the dynamical mass in the absence of background fields, and \tilde{M}_f represents the eE and eB dependent dynamical mass. For chiral quarks (i.e., m_f = 0 ), the confining scale \tilde{\tau}_{ir} diverges at the chiral symmetry restoration parameter near its critical value, which ensures the simultaneity of deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration [22]. After the integration over k, the gap equation, Eq. (13), can be written as

      \tilde{M}_f \! =\! m_{f}\!+\! \frac{\alpha_{\rm eff}}{3\pi^2}\!\sum_{f = u,d} \!\int^{\bar{\tau}^{2}_{ir}}_{\tau^{2}_{uv}}\!\! \!\!{\rm d}\tau \tilde{M}_f {\rm e}^{-\tau \tilde{M}_{f}^{2}} \left[\!\frac{|Q_{f}E|}{{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E|\tau)} \!\frac{|Q_{f}B|}{{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B|\tau)}\!\right].

      (15)

      When both fields eE and eB \rightarrow 0 , Eq. (15) reduces to Eq. (9). The gap equation for the pure electric field can be obtained by setting eB\to 0 , while for pure magnetic field, eE\to 0 . The quark-antiquark condensate in the presence of background fields is in this form.

      In this study, we adopt two flavors f = 2 , i.e., u- and d-quarks. We use the same current quark mass for the up and down quarks, i.e., m_u = m_d = 0.007 GeV, such that the iso-spin symmetry is preserved. As is well-known, the response to the electromagnetic field is different for u and d-quarks because they have different electric charges [1, 5].

      The numerical solution of the gap equation Eq. (15) as a function of eB for fixed values of eE , is plotted inFig. 1. In the pure magnetic case ( eE\rightarrow0 ), the dynamical mass \tilde{M_f} monotonically increases with an increase in eB , which ensures the magnetic catalysis phenomenon. The increase in \tilde{M_f} as a function of eB reduces in magnitude upon varying eE from its smaller to larger given values. We noticed that at eE\geqslant 0.33 GeV ^2 , the dynamical mass \tilde{M_f} exhibits the de Haas-van Alphen oscillatory type behavior [61]. In other words, it remains constant for small eB values, then monotonically decreases with an increase in eB , and abruptly declines to lower values in the region eB\approx[0.3-0.54] GeV ^2 , where the chiral symmetry is partially restored via first-order phase transition; above it, the value increases again. This phenomenon can be attributed to the strong competition that occurs between parallel eB and eE , i.e., on the one hand, eB enhances the mass function, while on the other hand, eE suppresses it. We also sketch a zoom-in plot of the mass function, which shows the de Haas-van Alphen oscillatory behavior in the region eB\approx[0.3-0.54] GeV ^2 with eE = 0.33 GeV ^2 , as illustrated in Fig. 2. Such a behavior type is also explored and discussed in the other effective model of QCD, for example, refer to Refs. [29, 62].

      Figure 1.  (color online) Behavior of the dynamically generated quark mass, Eq. (15), as a function of the magnetic field strength eB at several given values of eE.

      Figure 2.  Zoom-in plot of the mass function that shows the de Haas-van Alphen oscillatory behavior in the magnetic field region eB = [0.3 - 0.5] GeV ^2 with the electric field eE = 0.33 GeV ^2

      The behavior of the quark-antiquark condensate, Eq. (16), as a function of eB at various given values of eE , is illustrated in the Fig. 3. For a pure magnetic case ( eE\rightarrow0 ), the magnetic field strength eB facilitates the formation of the quark-antiquark condensate. For given non zero values of eE , particularly, at eE\approx 0.33 GeV ^2 the evolution in the condensate is suppressed in the region eB = [0.3- 0.54] GeV ^2 . The nature of the transition in this region suddenly changes to first-order; however, above this region, it is enhanced with eB . The pseudo-critical values of the fields at which the chiral symmetry partially is restored and first-order phase transition occurres are eB_c\approx0.3 GeV ^2 and eE_c = 0.33 GeV ^2 . Although such values of electric or magnetic field strength are sufficiently large in terms of what is typically generated during heavy-ion collisions, they may be relevant to astronomical objects, such as neutron stars, magnetars, etc. The confinement parameter \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} as a function of eB for different fixed values of eE is presented in Fig. 4. We observed the same pseudo-critical fields eB_c\approx0.3 GeV ^2 and eE_c = 0.33 GeV ^2 for the confinement transition, similar to the case of chiral symmetry breaking.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Quark-antiquark condensate, Eq. (16), as a function of eB for several values of eE.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Confinement scale \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} as a function of eB for several values of eE.

      In the following, we discuss the variation of \tilde{M_f} and \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} as a function of eE , in the pure electric field, as well as for several non-zero values of eB . In Figs. 5, 6, and 7, we illustrate the behaviors of all three parameters as a function of eE , for various values of eB\geqslant 0 .

      Figure 5.  (color online) Dynamical mass as a function of eE for several values of eB.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Quark-antiquark condensate, Eq. (16), as a function of eE for several values of eB.

      Figure 7.  (color online) Confinement scale \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} as a function of eE for a given several values of eB.

      In the pure electric field case ( eB\rightarrow0 ), the three-parameters monotonically decrease with an increase in eE , and at a pseudo-critical field strength eE^{\chi, C}_c , the chiral symmetry is partially restored and deconfinement transitions occurred; hence, the nature of the transitions here becomes smooth cross-over. Accordingly, we observed the chiral rotation or chiral electric inhibition effect in the contact interaction model, as already predicted by other effective models of QCD [1, 2, 25-29]. For non-zero eB values, we determined an interesting behavior for all the three parameters, as a function of eE . All three parameters are enhanced for given smaller to larger values of eB , except the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement regions, where all the parameters are suppressed by higher eB values. The pseudo-critical field strength E^{\chi, C}_{c} decreases with an increase in eB , and at a pseudo-critical eB_c\approx 0.3 GeV ^2 , the transition changes from cross-over to first order. The nontrivial behaviors of all three parameters represent the competition between the magnetic catalysis and electric inhibition effects, both induced by eB in the presence of parallel eE [29]. As elucidated and validated in Ref. [25], the cause of the chiral inhibition effect is the second Lorentz invariant of the electromagnetic field, {E}\cdot {B} . The magnitude of eE^{\chi,C}_{c} at which the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement occurred are triggered from the inflection point of the electric gradients of \textrm{and}\; \partial _{eE} \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} , as presented in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. In the pure electric case, the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement transition occur at eE^{\chi,C}_{c}\approx0.34 GeV ^2 . For several given values of eB\neq0 , eE^{\chi,C}_{c} decreases with an increase in eB . We determined a smooth cross-over phase transition up to the pseudo-critical magnetic field strength eB_c\approx0.3 GeV ^2 , where the transitions take the first-order nature. Here, eE^{\chi,C}_{c} remains constant in the region eB\approx[0.3-0.54] GeV ^2 and then increases with larger values of eB , as shown in Fig. 10. A similar behavior has already been demonstrated in [29]. The boundary point where the cross-over phase transition ends and the first order phase transition starts is known as a critical end point, and its co-ordinates are at (eB_{p}\approx0.3,eE_{p}\approx0.33) GeV ^2 .

      Figure 8.  (color online) Electric gradient of the quark-antiquark condensate as a function of eE for fixed values of eB . At a particular fixed value of eB^ = 0.3 GeV ^2 , the electric gradient diverges at eE^{\chi}_{c,}\approx0.33 GeV ^2 and above this value, the first order phase transition occurs.

      Figure 9.  (color online) Electric gradient of the confinement scale \partial _{eE} \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} , as a function of eE for different fixed values of eB . At a particular fixed value of eB = 0.3 GeV ^2 , the electric gradient of the confinement scale diverges at eE^{C}_{c}\approx0.33 GeV ^2.

      Figure 10.  (color online) Phase diagram of chiral symmetry and confinement for eE^{C,\chi}_{c} vs eB . eE = eE^{C,\chi}_{c} is obtained from the inflection points of the electric gradient of the condensate and the confining length scale \partial _{eE} \tilde{\tau}^{-1}_{ir}.

    IV.   QCD PHASE DIAGRAM AT T \neq 0 AND IN THE PRESENCE OF PARALLEL eE AND eB
    • In this section, we elucidate the behaviors of the dynamical mass, condensate, and confinement length scale at a finite temperature and in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields. We also explore the IEC, MC, and IMC phenomena, as well as the competition among them. Finally, we sketch the QCD phase diagram.

      The finite temperature version of the gap equation, Eq. (13), in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields can be obtained by adopting the standard convention for momentum integration:

      \int\frac{{\rm d}^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \rightarrow T \sum\limits_{n} \int\frac{{\rm d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3},

      (17)

      and the four momenta k\rightarrow(\omega_{n},\vec{k}) , with \omega_n = (2n+1)\pi T , represent the fermionic Matsubara frequencies. The Lorentz structure does not preserve anymore at finite temperature. By making the following replacements in Eq. (13),

      \int\frac{{\rm d} k_{1}}{(2\pi)} \frac{{\rm d} k_{2}}{(2\pi)}\frac{{\rm d} k_{3}}{(2\pi)}\frac{{\rm d} k_{4}}{(2\pi)}\rightarrow T \sum\limits_{n}\int\frac{{\rm d} k_{1}}{(2\pi)} \frac{{\rm d} k_{2}}{(2\pi)}\frac{{\rm d} k_{3}}{(2\pi)},

      and k_{4}\rightarrow \omega_{n} , we have

      \begin{aligned}[b] \hat{M_f} = & m_{f}+ \frac{ 16\alpha_{\rm eff}}{3}T\sum\limits_{n}\sum\limits_{f = u,d} \int^{\hat{\tau}^{2}_{ir}}_{\tau^{2}_{uv}} {\rm d}\tau \hat{M_f} {\rm e}^{-\tau \hat{M}_{f}^{2}} \\ &\times \int\frac{{\rm d} k_{1}}{(2\pi)} \frac{{\rm d} k_{2}}{(2\pi)}\frac{{\rm d} k_{3}}{(2\pi)}{\rm e}^{-\tau ( (\omega^{2}_{n}+ k_{3}^{2}) \frac{{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E| \tau)}{|Q_{f}E|\tau}+(k_{1}^{2}+k_{2}^{2})\frac{{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B|\tau)}{|Q_{f}B|\tau})}, \end{aligned}

      (18)

      with \hat{M}_f = {M}_f (eE, eB,T ) . Performing sum over Matsubara frequencies and integrating over k's , the gap equation can be written as

      \begin{aligned}[b] \hat{M}_f =& m_{f}+ \frac{\alpha_{\rm eff}}{3\pi^{2}}\sum\limits_{f = u,d} \int^{\hat{\tau}^{2}_{ir}}_{\tau^{2}_{uv}} {\rm d}\tau \hat{M}_f {\rm e}^{-\tau \hat{M}_{f}^{2}}{\Theta_{3}} \bigg(\frac{\pi}{2}, {\rm e}^{- \frac{|Q_{f}E|}{4 T^{2}{\rm \tan}(|Q_{f}E|\tau)}}\bigg) \\ &\times \left[ \frac{|Q_{f}E|}{{\rm tan}(|Q_{f}E|\tau)} \frac{|Q_{f}B|}{{\rm tanh}(|Q_{f}B|\tau)}\right] , \end{aligned}

      (19)

      where {\Theta_{3}}(\frac{\pi}{2},{{\rm e}^{-x}}) is the third Jacobi's theta function. The confinement scale \hat{\tau}_{ir} here slightly varies with T, eE , and eB , and it takes the form

      \hat{\tau}_{ir} = \tau_{ir}\frac{M_f}{\hat{M}_f}.

      (20)

      Here, M_f = M_f(0,0,0) is the dynamical mass at eB = eE = T = 0 , whereas \hat{M}_f = {M}_f (eE, eB,T ) is the variation of the dynamical mass at finite eB , eE , and T. The quark-antiquark condensate is given by the following.

      First, we consider the case of a pure electric field at a finite temperature. The numerical solution of Eq. (19) as a function of T, for different given values of eE , is presented in Fig. 11. The dynamical mass \hat{M}_f monotonically decreases with the increase of T until the dynamical chiral symmetry is partially restored. The response of eE is to suppress the dynamical mass. The quark-antiquark condensate, Eq. (14), and confinement length scale, Eq. (15), as a function of T for various given values of eE are depicted in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. We infer that both parameters decrease with temperature T, and at a pseudo-critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c , the chiral symmetry is partially restored, and deconfinement occurs. We note that the electric field eE suppresses both parameters in the low-temperature regions and also reduces the pseudo-critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c . In Figs. 14 and 15, we plotted the thermal gradients of the condensate and the confinement length scale, respectively. The peaks in the thermal gradients of both parameters shift toward the low-temperature regions upon increasing the value of eE . Consequently, the critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c decreases with an increase in electric field strength eE ; hence, inverse electric catalysis is observed at a finite temperature in the proposed contact interaction model. Therefore, the observations of this study are consistent with other effective models of QCD [28-30]. The magnitude of the critical temperature T^{\chi,C}_c\approx0.22 GeV ^2 is obtained from the inflection points of the thermal gradients of and \partial _{T} \hat{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} .

      Figure 11.  (color online) Dynamical mass, Eq. (19), as a function of temperature for various given values of electric field strength eE.

      Figure 12.  (color online) Quark-antiquark condensate, Eq. (21), plotted as a function of temperature for various given values of electric field eE.

      Figure 13.  (color online) Behavior of confinement scale, Eq. (20), plotted as a function of temperature for different given values eE.

      Figure 14.  (color online) Thermal gradient of the quark-antiquark condensate plotted as a function of temperature T for various values of the electric field eE . The peaks in the derivatives shift toward low temperature regions from small to large values of eE.

      Figure 15.  (color online) Thermal gradient of the confinement scale \partial _{T} \hat{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} plotted as a function of temperature T for various values of eE.

      Second, we consider the case of a pure magnetic field at finite temperature T. We plot the thermal gradient of the quark-antiquark condensate and the confinement length scale, as presented in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. We note that the inflection points in both parameters shift toward the higher temperatures. In other words, eB enhances the pseudo-critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_c of chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement. Hence, in a pure magnetic case and at a finite temperature, we observe the magnetic catalysis phenomenon, which has already been observed in the CI model [22, 63].

      Figure 16.  (color online) Thermal gradient of the quark-antiquark condensate plotted as a function of temperature T for various values of magnetic field eB . From the plots, it is evident that the peaks shift toward higher temperatures.

      Figure 17.  (color online) Thermal gradient of the confinement scale \partial _{T}\hat{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} plotted as a function of temperature for several values of the magnetic field strength field eB.

      In most effective model calculations of QCD, it is well demonstrated that to reproduce the inverse magnetic catalysis effect as predicted by the lattice QCD [13, 14], the effective coupling must be taken as magnetic field dependent [17, 22, 28, 63] or both temperature and magnetic field dependent [16, 19, 23, 63, 64]. In the case of this study, we just employed the following functional form of the eB -dependent effective coupling {\rm\alpha_{eff}}(eB) [22], where the coupling decreases with the magnetic field strength as

      {\alpha_{\rm eff}}(\kappa) = {\alpha_{\rm eff}} \bigg(\frac{1+a\kappa^{2}+b\kappa^{3}}{1+c\kappa^{2}+d\kappa^{4}}\bigg),

      (22)

      here \kappa = eB/\Lambda^2_{\rm QCD} , with \Lambda_{\rm QCD} = 0.24 GeV. The parameters a, b, c, and d were extracted to reproduce the behavior of critical temperature T^{\chi,C}_{c} for the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement in the presence of magnetic field strength, obtained by lattice QCD simulations [13, 14]. The thermal gradients of the condensate and the confinement length scale, with the magnetic field dependent coupling, Eq. (22), is plotted in Figs. 18 and 19, respectively. It can be observed that the critical T^{\chi,C}_{c} decreases with an increase in eB ; hence, the inverse magnetic catalysis can be observed at a finite T.

      Figure 18.  (color online) Thermal gradient of the condensate with magnetic field dependent coupling, Eq. (22), plotted as a function of temperature for several values of magnetic field strength. The IMC effect is depicted in this figure.

      Figure 19.  (color online) Behavior of \partial _{T}\widehat{\tau}^{-1}_{ir} with the magnetic field dependent coupling, Eq. (22), as a function of temperature for several values of magnetic field strength eB.

      In Fig. 20, we sketch the combined phase diagram in the T^{\chi,C}_{c}-eE,\;eB planes, where we demonstrated the inverse electric catalysis, magnetic catalysis, and inverse magnetic catalysis (with magnetic dependent coupling). In the pure electric background, the solid-black curve indicates that the critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_{c} decreases with an increase in eE ; hence, the electric field strength inhibits the chiral symmetry breaking and confinement. In the pure magnetic limit (without magnetic field dependent coupling), the magnetic field eB enhances the critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_{c} , and thus eB acts as a facilitator of chiral symmetry breaking and confinement. If we use the magnetic field dependent coupling, it can be observed that the critical temperature T^{\chi, C}_{c} decreases as the magnetic field strength eB increases (red dotted-dashed curve). In this case, eB acts as an inhibitor of the chiral symmetry and confinement.

      Figure 20.  (color online) Combined phase diagram in the T^{\chi,C}_{c} vs eE,\;eB planes of chiral symmetry breaking and confinement. The plot shows the evalution of IEC as well as MC without and IMC with eB -dependent coupling, Eq. (22). The T^{\chi,C}_{c} values are obtained from the inflection points in \partial _{T}\widehat{\sigma} and \partial _{T}\widehat{\tau}^{-1}_{ir}.

      Third, we adopt both the non-zero values of eE and eB , and draw the phase diagram in the T^{\chi,C}_{c}-eE plane for various given values of eB , as shown in Fig. 21. At this point, the competition between IEC vs MC starts: the eB tends to catalyze the chiral symmetry breaking and confinement; consequently, T^{\chi, C}_{c} is enhanced. In contrast, eE tries to inhibit the chiral phase transition and tends to suppres T^{\chi, C}_{c} ; finally, it is concluded with a combined inverse electromagnetic catalysis (IEMC). This may be different for a very strong eB , where the eB dominates over the eE . Next, we consider the eB -dependent coupling, Eq. (22), and sketch the phase diagram T^{\chi,C}_{c} vs eE for various given values of eB in Fig. 22. It can be observed that the effect of parallel eE and eB with eB -dependent coupling tends to reduce T^{\chi,C}_{c} . Therefore, both eE and eB produce IEC and IMC simultaneously.

      Figure 21.  (color online) Phase diagram in the T^{\chi, C}_{c} eE plane of chiral symmetry breaking and confinement for various given values of eB . Here, eE inhibits the chiral phase transition, whereas eB facilitates it; consequently, the IEMC effect is observed.

      Figure 22.  (color online) Phase diagram in the T^{\chi,C}_{c} vs eE of chiral symmetry breaking and confinement for various given values of eE with eB-dependent coupling Eq. (22). Here, both fields eE and eB inhibit the chiral phase transition; hence, the IEMC is observed.

    V.   SUMMERY AND PERSPECTIVES
    • In this work, we studied the influence of uniform, homogeneous, and external parallel electric and magnetic fields on the chiral phase transitions. In this context, we implemented the Schwinger-Dyson formulation of QCD, with a gap equation kernel comprising a symmetry preserving vector-vector contact interaction model of quarks in a rainbow-ladder truncation. Subsequently, we adopted the well-known Schwinger proper-time regularization procedure. The findings of this study are presented as follows.

      At zero temperature, in the pure magnetic background, the magnetic field facilitated the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and confinement; hence, we observed the magnetic catalysis phenomenon. However, the electric field tends to restore chiral symmetry and deconfinement above the pseudo-critical electric field eE^{\chi, C}_c\approx0.34 GeV ^2 , i.e., the chiral rotation effect demonstrated in the proposed model. We observed that the electric field acted as an inhibitor of the chiral symmetry breaking and confinement. When both eE and eB were considered, we determined the magnetic catalysis effect for small given values of eE up to and above the critical electric field strength eE_{c}\approx0.33 GeV ^2 , where the other parameters exhibited the de Haas-van Alphen oscillatory type behavior in the region eB = [0.3-0.54] GeV ^2 . In this particular region, eE dominated over eB , and we observed the electric chiral inhibition effect, while above that region where eB was superior to eE , we observed magnetic catalysis again. We also realized that the pseudo-critical strength eE^{\chi, C}_{c} was suppressed with the increase in eB , and the transition nature was determined to be the smooth cross-over nature up to and above the pseudo-critical magnetic field strength eB^{\chi, C}_{c}\approx0.3 GeV ^2 , where the transition suddenly changed to the first order transition. Subsequently, we located the position of the critical endpoint at (eB_p\approx0.3,\;eE_p\approx0.33) GeV ^{2} . We further determined that eE^{\chi,C}_{c} initially remains constant in the limited region eB = [0.3-0.54] GeV ^2 and then increases with larger values of eB .

      Finally, we sketched the phase diagram at a finite temperature and in the presence of parallel electric and magnetic fields. At a finite T, in the pure electric field limit, we determined that the pseudo-critical temperature decreased as we increased eE ; hence, the inverse electric catalysis was observed. However, for the pure magnetic field background, we observed the magnetic catalysis effect in the mean-field approximation and inverse magnetic catalysis with eB -dependent coupling. The combined effect of both eE and eB on T^{\chi, C}_c yielded the inverse electromagnetic catalysis, with and without eB- dependent effective coupling of the model.

      Qualitatively and quantitatively, the predictions of the presented CI-model agree well with results obtained from other effective QCD models, as well as modern Lattice QCD results. In the near future, we plan to extend this work to study the Schwinger pair production rate, including the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking for a higher number of colors, flavors, and in a parallel electromagnetic field. We are also interested in extending this work to study the IEMC phenomenon with the electric field and temperature-dependent coupling. Regarding the dependence of the model coupling on the considered electric field, there is no first-principle simulation for comparisons because lattice simulations in the presence of real electric background fields are not feasible to date. However, progress in this case has commenced, and results will be published somewhere else. The next strategy will be to study the properties of light hadrons in the background of parallel electric and magnetic fields.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • The author acknowledges A. Bashir, A. Raya, R.L.S. Farias, and E. V. Gorbar for their valuable suggestions in the process of completing this work. The author also thanks his colleagues at the Institute of Physics, Gomal University, Pakistan.

Reference (64)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return