Processing math: 100%

Emergence of mass in the gauge sector of QCD

  • It is currently widely accepted that gluons, while massless at the level of the fundamental QCD Lagrangian, acquire an effective mass through the non-Abelian implementation of the classic Schwinger mechanism. The key dynamical ingredient that triggers the onset of this mechanism is the formation of composite massless poles inside the fundamental vertices of the theory. These poles enter the evolution equation of the gluon propagator and nontrivially affect the way the Slavnov-Taylor identities of the vertices are resolved, inducing a smoking-gun displacement in the corresponding Ward identities. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the pivotal concepts associated with this dynamical scenario, emphasizing the synergy between functional methods and lattice simulations and highlighting recent advances that corroborate the action of the Schwinger mechanism in QCD.
  • [1] W. J. Marciano and H. Pagels, Phys. Rept. 36, 137 (1978) doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(78)90208-9
    [2] J. C. Collins, Renormalization: An Introduction to Renormalization, The Renormalization Group, and the Operator Product Expansion, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Vol. 26 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986)
    [3] I. C. Cloet and C. D. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 77, 1 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.02.001
    [4] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Front. Phys.(Beijing) 11, 111203 (2016) doi: 10.1007/s11467-015-0517-6
    [5] C. D. Roberts, Symmetry 12, 1468 (2020) doi: 10.3390/sym12091468
    [6] C. D. Roberts, AAPPS Bull. 31, 6 (2021) doi: 10.1007/s43673-021-00005-4
    [7] J. Horak, F. Ihssen, J. Papavassiliou et al, arXiv: 2201.09747 [hep-ph]
    [8] J. M. Cornwall, Nucl. Phys. B 157, 392 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90111-1
    [9] G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. B 94, 51 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90822-9
    [10] J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1453 (1982) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1453
    [11] C. W. Bernard, Phys. Lett. B 108, 431 (1982) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(82)91228-X
    [12] C. W. Bernard, Nucl. Phys. B 219, 341 (1983) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90645-4
    [13] J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2559 (1984) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.29.2559
    [14] J. Mandula and M. Ogilvie, Phys. Lett. B 185, 127 (1987) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91541-3
    [15] J. M. Cornwall and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 40, 3474 (1989) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.40.3474
    [16] K. G. Wilson, T. S. Walhout, A. Harindranath et al., Phys. Rev. D 49, 6720 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6720
    [17] M. Lavelle, Phys. Rev. D 44, 26 (1991) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.R26
    [18] F. Halzen, G. I. Krein, and A. A. Natale, Phys. Rev. D 47, 295 (1993) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.295
    [19] A. Mihara and A. A. Natale, Phys. Lett. B 482, 378 (2000) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00546-3
    [20] O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B 628, 167 (2002) doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00089-5
    [21] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Lett. B 514, 335 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00817-6
    [22] A. C. Aguilar, A. A. Natale, and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 152001 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.152001
    [23] A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP 11, 172 (2020) doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2020)172
    [24] A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP 12, 082 (2021) doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)082
    [25] J. C. Collins, A. Duncan, and S. D. Joglekar, Phys. Rev. D 16, 438 (1977) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.438
    [26] S. J. Brodsky and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B 666, 95 (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.054
    [27] J. Braun, H. Gies, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B 684, 262 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.01.009
    [28] D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou et al., Phys. Lett. B 742, 183 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.031
    [29] F. Gao, S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 034010 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.034010
    [30] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 121, 281 (2003) doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(03)01862-0
    [31] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, J. Papavassiliou et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 085018 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.085018
    [32] D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 054026 (2017)
    [33] Z.-F. Cui, J.-L. Zhang, D. Binosi et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 083102 (2020) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/8/083102
    [34] A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, PoS LATTICE2007, 297 (2007)
    [35] A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 241601 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.241601
    [36] I. Bogolubsky, E. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker et al., PoS LATTICE2007, 290 (2007)
    [37] I. Bogolubsky, E. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker et al., Phys. Lett. B 676, 69 (2009)
    [38] O. Oliveira and P. Silva, PoS LAT2009, 226 (2009)
    [39] O. Oliveira and P. Bicudo, J. Phys. G 38, 045003 (2011)
    [40] A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 016005 (2010)
    [41] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025010 (2008)
    [42] C. S. Fischer, A. Maas, and J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 324, 2408 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2009.07.009
    [43] D. Binosi, D. Ibañez, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085033 (2012)
    [44] J. Serreau and M. Tissier, Phys. Lett. B 712, 97 (2012)
    [45] M. Tissier and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. D 82, 101701 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.101701
    [46] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 045002 (2016)
    [47] M. Peláez, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065031 (2014) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.065031
    [48] D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 065047 (2008)
    [49] J. Rodriguez-Quintero, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 105 (2011)
    [50] M. R. Pennington and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 84, 119901 (2011)
    [51] J. Meyers and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 90, 045037 (2014)
    [52] F. Siringo, Nucl. Phys. B 907, 572 (2016)
    [53] A. K. Cyrol, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rothkopf et al., SciPost Phys. 5, 065 (2018) doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.6.065
    [54] A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, and E. M. S. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 141602 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.141602
    [55] A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, G. M. Nakamura et al., PoS FACESQCD, 026 (2010)
    [56] P. Bicudo, D. Binosi, N. Cardoso et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 114514 (2015)
    [57] D. Epple, H. Reinhardt, W. Schleifenbaum et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 085007 (2008)
    [58] D. R. Campagnari and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105021 (2010)
    [59] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034017 (2017)
    [60] S. D. Glazek, M. Gómez-Rocha, J. More et al., Phys. Lett. B 773, 172 (2017)
    [61] P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 094505 (2007)
    [62] W. Kamleh, P. O. Bowman, D. B. Leinweber et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 094501 (2007)
    [63] A. Ayala, A. Bashir, D. Binosi et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 074512 (2012)
    [64] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074010 (2013)
    [65] A. C. Aguilar, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 154 (2020)
    [66] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 125, 397 (1962) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.125.397
    [67] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.128.2425
    [68] C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33, 477 (1994) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(94)90049-3
    [69] R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. 353, 281 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00010-2
    [70] C. S. Fischer, J. Phys. G 32, R253 (2006) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/32/8/R02
    [71] C. D. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 50 (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.12.034
    [72] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rept. 479, 1 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.05.001
    [73] M. Q. Huber, Phys. Rept. 879, 1 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.04.004
    [74] J. M. Pawlowski, D. F. Litim, S. Nedelko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 152002 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.152002
    [75] J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 322, 2831 (2007) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2007.01.007
    [76] A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 054006 (2018)
    [77] L. Corell, A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter et al., SciPost Phys. 5, 066 (2018) doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.6.066
    [78] J.-P. Blaizot, J. M. Pawlowski, and U. Reinosa, Annals Phys. 431, 168549 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2021.168549
    [79] A. C. Aguilar, D. Ibanez, V. Mathieu et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 014018 (2012)
    [80] D. Ibañez and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034008 (2013)
    [81] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054029 (2018)
    [82] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 181 (2018)
    [83] G. Eichmann, J. M. Pawlowski, and João M. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114016 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.114016
    [84] J. M. Cornwall, J. Papavassiliou, and D. Binosi, The Pinch Technique and its Applications to Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Vol. 31 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
    [85] A. Cucchieri, A. Maas, and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014503 (2006)
    [86] A. Cucchieri, A. Maas, and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094510 (2008)
    [87] A. Athenodorou, D. Binosi, P. Boucaud et al., Phys. Lett. B 761, 444 (2016)
    [88] A. G. Duarte, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074502 (2016)
    [89] P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, K. Raya et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 114515 (2018)
    [90] J. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 33, 436 (1971) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90297-5
    [91] A. Slavnov, Theor. Math. Phys. 10, 99 (1972) doi: 10.1007/BF01090719
    [92] E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3254 (1974) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3254
    [93] E. C. Poggio, E. Tomboulis, and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2839 (1975)
    [94] J. Smit, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2473 (1974)
    [95] J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3179 (1990) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.41.3179
    [96] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014030 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.014030
    [97] A. C. Aguilar and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 012 (2006)
    [98] K.-I. Kondo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 122, 1455 (2010)
    [99] D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, and J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Phys. Rev. D86, 105005 (2012)
    [100] A. C. Aguilar, D. Ibañez, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114020 (2013)
    [101] A. K. Cyrol, L. Fister, M. Mitter et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 054005 (2016)
    [102] A. C. Aguilar, C. O. Ambrósio, F. De Soto et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 054028 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054028
    [103] W. Schleifenbaum, A. Maas, J. Wambach et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 014017 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.014017
    [104] M. Q. Huber and L. von Smekal, J. High Energy Phys. 04, 149 (2013)
    [105] M. Q. Huber, A. Maas, and L. von Smekal, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 035 (2012)
    [106] A. Blum, M. Q. Huber, M. Mitter et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 061703 (2014)
    [107] G. Eichmann, R. Williams, R. Alkofer et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 105014 (2014)
    [108] R. Williams, C. S. Fischer, and W. Heupel, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034026 (2016)
    [109] J. Papavassiliou, A. C. Aguilar, and M. N. Ferreira, Supl. Rev. Mex. Fis. 3, 0308112 (2022)
    [110] A. C. Aguilar and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 81, 034003 (2010)
    [111] R. Jackiw and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D 8, 2386 (1973) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2386
    [112] R. Jackiw, In *Erice 1973, Proceedings, Laws Of Hadronic Matter*, New York 1975, 225-251 and M I T Cambridge - COO-3069-190 (73, REC.AUG 74) 23p (1973)
    [113] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, D. Ibañez et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 085008 (2014)
    [114] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 66, 025024 (2002)
    [115] A. Hasenfratz and P. Hasenfratz, Phys. Lett. B 93, 165 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90118-5
    [116] B. Alles, D. Henty, H. Panagopoulos et al., Nucl. Phys. B 502, 325 (1997)
    [117] A. I. Davydychev, P. Osland, and O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D 58, 036007 (1998) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.036007
    [118] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli et al., J. High Energy Phys. 10, 017 (1998)
    [119] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli et al., JHEP 12, 004 (1998)
    [120] N. Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 43, 1 (1969) doi: 10.1143/PTPS.43.1
    [121] P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 56, 3369 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.3369
    [122] M. Blank and A. Krassnigg, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1391 (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.03.003
    [123] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 89, 085032 (2014)
    [124] P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, J. Leroy et al., Phys. Rev. D 79, 014508 (2009)
    [125] L. von Smekal, K. Maltman, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Lett. B 681, 336 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.030
    [126] P. Boucaud, D. Dudal, J. Leroy et al., J. High Energy Phys. 12, 018 (2011)
    [127] A. C. Aguilar, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira et al., Phys. Lett. B 818, 136352 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136352
    [128] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 002 (2010)
    [129] M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300
    [130] B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162, 1195 (1967) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.162.1195
    [131] J. Honerkamp, Nucl. Phys. B 48, 269 (1972) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90063-6
    [132] G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 35, 167 (1971) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90139-8
    [133] R. E. Kallosh, Nucl. Phys. B 78, 293 (1974) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90284-3
    [134] H. Kluberg-Stern and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D 12, 482 (1975) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.12.482
    [135] L. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185, 189 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90371-0
    [136] G. M. Shore, Annals Phys. 137, 262 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(81)90198-6
    [137] L. F. Abbott, M. T. Grisaru, and R. K. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. B 229, 372 (1983) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90337-1
    [138] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 034026 (2019)
    [139] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, and J. Papavassiliou, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 887 (2020) doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08453-2
    [140] C. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. D 50, R4247 (1994)
    [141] C. Parrinello, D. Richards, B. Alles et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 63, 245 (1998) doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00734-2
    [142] A. Sternbeck, P.-H. Balduf, A. Kizilersu et al., PoS LATTICE2016, 349 (2017)
    [143] M. Vujinovic and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034501 (2019)
    [144] P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, J. Rodríguez-Quintero et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 114503 (2017)
    [145] A. L. Blum, R. Alkofer, M. Q. Huber et al., Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 8, 321 (2015) doi: 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.8.321
    [146] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 094010 (2019)
    [147] A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. B 487, 467 (1997) doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00686-4
    [148] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 66, 111901 (2002) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.111901
    [149] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 77, 061702 (2008)
    [150] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 063 (2008)
    [151] P. A. Grassi, T. Hurth, and M. Steinhauser, Annals Phys. 288, 197 (2001) doi: 10.1006/aphy.2001.6117
    [152] D. Binosi and A. Quadri, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085036 (2013)
    [153] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 066 (2009)
    [154] K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2911 (1973) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2911
    [155] C. D. Roberts and C. Mezrag, EPJ Web Conf. 137, 01017 (2017) doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201713701017
    [156] D. Binosi, Few Body Syst. 63, 42 (2022) doi: 10.1007/s00601-022-01740-6
  • [1] W. J. Marciano and H. Pagels, Phys. Rept. 36, 137 (1978) doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(78)90208-9
    [2] J. C. Collins, Renormalization: An Introduction to Renormalization, The Renormalization Group, and the Operator Product Expansion, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Vol. 26 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986)
    [3] I. C. Cloet and C. D. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 77, 1 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.02.001
    [4] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Front. Phys.(Beijing) 11, 111203 (2016) doi: 10.1007/s11467-015-0517-6
    [5] C. D. Roberts, Symmetry 12, 1468 (2020) doi: 10.3390/sym12091468
    [6] C. D. Roberts, AAPPS Bull. 31, 6 (2021) doi: 10.1007/s43673-021-00005-4
    [7] J. Horak, F. Ihssen, J. Papavassiliou et al, arXiv: 2201.09747 [hep-ph]
    [8] J. M. Cornwall, Nucl. Phys. B 157, 392 (1979) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(79)90111-1
    [9] G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. B 94, 51 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90822-9
    [10] J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1453 (1982) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1453
    [11] C. W. Bernard, Phys. Lett. B 108, 431 (1982) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(82)91228-X
    [12] C. W. Bernard, Nucl. Phys. B 219, 341 (1983) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90645-4
    [13] J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2559 (1984) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.29.2559
    [14] J. Mandula and M. Ogilvie, Phys. Lett. B 185, 127 (1987) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91541-3
    [15] J. M. Cornwall and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 40, 3474 (1989) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.40.3474
    [16] K. G. Wilson, T. S. Walhout, A. Harindranath et al., Phys. Rev. D 49, 6720 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6720
    [17] M. Lavelle, Phys. Rev. D 44, 26 (1991) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.R26
    [18] F. Halzen, G. I. Krein, and A. A. Natale, Phys. Rev. D 47, 295 (1993) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.295
    [19] A. Mihara and A. A. Natale, Phys. Lett. B 482, 378 (2000) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00546-3
    [20] O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B 628, 167 (2002) doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00089-5
    [21] K.-I. Kondo, Phys. Lett. B 514, 335 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00817-6
    [22] A. C. Aguilar, A. A. Natale, and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 152001 (2003) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.152001
    [23] A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP 11, 172 (2020) doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2020)172
    [24] A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, JHEP 12, 082 (2021) doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)082
    [25] J. C. Collins, A. Duncan, and S. D. Joglekar, Phys. Rev. D 16, 438 (1977) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.438
    [26] S. J. Brodsky and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B 666, 95 (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.054
    [27] J. Braun, H. Gies, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B 684, 262 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.01.009
    [28] D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou et al., Phys. Lett. B 742, 183 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.031
    [29] F. Gao, S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 034010 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.034010
    [30] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 121, 281 (2003) doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(03)01862-0
    [31] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, J. Papavassiliou et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 085018 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.085018
    [32] D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 054026 (2017)
    [33] Z.-F. Cui, J.-L. Zhang, D. Binosi et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 083102 (2020) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/8/083102
    [34] A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, PoS LATTICE2007, 297 (2007)
    [35] A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 241601 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.241601
    [36] I. Bogolubsky, E. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker et al., PoS LATTICE2007, 290 (2007)
    [37] I. Bogolubsky, E. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker et al., Phys. Lett. B 676, 69 (2009)
    [38] O. Oliveira and P. Silva, PoS LAT2009, 226 (2009)
    [39] O. Oliveira and P. Bicudo, J. Phys. G 38, 045003 (2011)
    [40] A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 016005 (2010)
    [41] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025010 (2008)
    [42] C. S. Fischer, A. Maas, and J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 324, 2408 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2009.07.009
    [43] D. Binosi, D. Ibañez, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085033 (2012)
    [44] J. Serreau and M. Tissier, Phys. Lett. B 712, 97 (2012)
    [45] M. Tissier and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. D 82, 101701 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.101701
    [46] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 045002 (2016)
    [47] M. Peláez, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065031 (2014) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.065031
    [48] D. Dudal, J. A. Gracey, S. P. Sorella et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 065047 (2008)
    [49] J. Rodriguez-Quintero, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 105 (2011)
    [50] M. R. Pennington and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 84, 119901 (2011)
    [51] J. Meyers and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 90, 045037 (2014)
    [52] F. Siringo, Nucl. Phys. B 907, 572 (2016)
    [53] A. K. Cyrol, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rothkopf et al., SciPost Phys. 5, 065 (2018) doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.6.065
    [54] A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, and E. M. S. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 141602 (2009) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.141602
    [55] A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, G. M. Nakamura et al., PoS FACESQCD, 026 (2010)
    [56] P. Bicudo, D. Binosi, N. Cardoso et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 114514 (2015)
    [57] D. Epple, H. Reinhardt, W. Schleifenbaum et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 085007 (2008)
    [58] D. R. Campagnari and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 82, 105021 (2010)
    [59] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034017 (2017)
    [60] S. D. Glazek, M. Gómez-Rocha, J. More et al., Phys. Lett. B 773, 172 (2017)
    [61] P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 094505 (2007)
    [62] W. Kamleh, P. O. Bowman, D. B. Leinweber et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 094501 (2007)
    [63] A. Ayala, A. Bashir, D. Binosi et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 074512 (2012)
    [64] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074010 (2013)
    [65] A. C. Aguilar, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 154 (2020)
    [66] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 125, 397 (1962) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.125.397
    [67] J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.128.2425
    [68] C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33, 477 (1994) doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(94)90049-3
    [69] R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. 353, 281 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00010-2
    [70] C. S. Fischer, J. Phys. G 32, R253 (2006) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/32/8/R02
    [71] C. D. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 50 (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.12.034
    [72] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rept. 479, 1 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.05.001
    [73] M. Q. Huber, Phys. Rept. 879, 1 (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.04.004
    [74] J. M. Pawlowski, D. F. Litim, S. Nedelko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 152002 (2004) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.152002
    [75] J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. 322, 2831 (2007) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2007.01.007
    [76] A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 054006 (2018)
    [77] L. Corell, A. K. Cyrol, M. Mitter et al., SciPost Phys. 5, 066 (2018) doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.6.066
    [78] J.-P. Blaizot, J. M. Pawlowski, and U. Reinosa, Annals Phys. 431, 168549 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2021.168549
    [79] A. C. Aguilar, D. Ibanez, V. Mathieu et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 014018 (2012)
    [80] D. Ibañez and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034008 (2013)
    [81] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054029 (2018)
    [82] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 181 (2018)
    [83] G. Eichmann, J. M. Pawlowski, and João M. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114016 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.114016
    [84] J. M. Cornwall, J. Papavassiliou, and D. Binosi, The Pinch Technique and its Applications to Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Vol. 31 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
    [85] A. Cucchieri, A. Maas, and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014503 (2006)
    [86] A. Cucchieri, A. Maas, and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094510 (2008)
    [87] A. Athenodorou, D. Binosi, P. Boucaud et al., Phys. Lett. B 761, 444 (2016)
    [88] A. G. Duarte, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074502 (2016)
    [89] P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, K. Raya et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 114515 (2018)
    [90] J. Taylor, Nucl. Phys. B 33, 436 (1971) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90297-5
    [91] A. Slavnov, Theor. Math. Phys. 10, 99 (1972) doi: 10.1007/BF01090719
    [92] E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3254 (1974) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3254
    [93] E. C. Poggio, E. Tomboulis, and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2839 (1975)
    [94] J. Smit, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2473 (1974)
    [95] J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3179 (1990) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.41.3179
    [96] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014030 (2022) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.014030
    [97] A. C. Aguilar and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 012 (2006)
    [98] K.-I. Kondo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 122, 1455 (2010)
    [99] D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, and J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Phys. Rev. D86, 105005 (2012)
    [100] A. C. Aguilar, D. Ibañez, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114020 (2013)
    [101] A. K. Cyrol, L. Fister, M. Mitter et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 054005 (2016)
    [102] A. C. Aguilar, C. O. Ambrósio, F. De Soto et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 054028 (2021) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054028
    [103] W. Schleifenbaum, A. Maas, J. Wambach et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 014017 (2005) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.014017
    [104] M. Q. Huber and L. von Smekal, J. High Energy Phys. 04, 149 (2013)
    [105] M. Q. Huber, A. Maas, and L. von Smekal, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 035 (2012)
    [106] A. Blum, M. Q. Huber, M. Mitter et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 061703 (2014)
    [107] G. Eichmann, R. Williams, R. Alkofer et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 105014 (2014)
    [108] R. Williams, C. S. Fischer, and W. Heupel, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034026 (2016)
    [109] J. Papavassiliou, A. C. Aguilar, and M. N. Ferreira, Supl. Rev. Mex. Fis. 3, 0308112 (2022)
    [110] A. C. Aguilar and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 81, 034003 (2010)
    [111] R. Jackiw and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D 8, 2386 (1973) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2386
    [112] R. Jackiw, In *Erice 1973, Proceedings, Laws Of Hadronic Matter*, New York 1975, 225-251 and M I T Cambridge - COO-3069-190 (73, REC.AUG 74) 23p (1973)
    [113] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, D. Ibañez et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 085008 (2014)
    [114] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 66, 025024 (2002)
    [115] A. Hasenfratz and P. Hasenfratz, Phys. Lett. B 93, 165 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90118-5
    [116] B. Alles, D. Henty, H. Panagopoulos et al., Nucl. Phys. B 502, 325 (1997)
    [117] A. I. Davydychev, P. Osland, and O. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. D 58, 036007 (1998) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.036007
    [118] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli et al., J. High Energy Phys. 10, 017 (1998)
    [119] P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, J. Micheli et al., JHEP 12, 004 (1998)
    [120] N. Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 43, 1 (1969) doi: 10.1143/PTPS.43.1
    [121] P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 56, 3369 (1997) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.3369
    [122] M. Blank and A. Krassnigg, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1391 (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.03.003
    [123] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 89, 085032 (2014)
    [124] P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, J. Leroy et al., Phys. Rev. D 79, 014508 (2009)
    [125] L. von Smekal, K. Maltman, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Lett. B 681, 336 (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.030
    [126] P. Boucaud, D. Dudal, J. Leroy et al., J. High Energy Phys. 12, 018 (2011)
    [127] A. C. Aguilar, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira et al., Phys. Lett. B 818, 136352 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136352
    [128] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 002 (2010)
    [129] M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.95.1300
    [130] B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162, 1195 (1967) doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.162.1195
    [131] J. Honerkamp, Nucl. Phys. B 48, 269 (1972) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90063-6
    [132] G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 35, 167 (1971) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90139-8
    [133] R. E. Kallosh, Nucl. Phys. B 78, 293 (1974) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90284-3
    [134] H. Kluberg-Stern and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D 12, 482 (1975) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.12.482
    [135] L. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185, 189 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90371-0
    [136] G. M. Shore, Annals Phys. 137, 262 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(81)90198-6
    [137] L. F. Abbott, M. T. Grisaru, and R. K. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. B 229, 372 (1983) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90337-1
    [138] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 034026 (2019)
    [139] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, and J. Papavassiliou, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 887 (2020) doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08453-2
    [140] C. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. D 50, R4247 (1994)
    [141] C. Parrinello, D. Richards, B. Alles et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 63, 245 (1998) doi: 10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00734-2
    [142] A. Sternbeck, P.-H. Balduf, A. Kizilersu et al., PoS LATTICE2016, 349 (2017)
    [143] M. Vujinovic and T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034501 (2019)
    [144] P. Boucaud, F. De Soto, J. Rodríguez-Quintero et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 114503 (2017)
    [145] A. L. Blum, R. Alkofer, M. Q. Huber et al., Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 8, 321 (2015) doi: 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.8.321
    [146] A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, C. T. Figueiredo et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 094010 (2019)
    [147] A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. B 487, 467 (1997) doi: 10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00686-4
    [148] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 66, 111901 (2002) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.111901
    [149] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 77, 061702 (2008)
    [150] D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 063 (2008)
    [151] P. A. Grassi, T. Hurth, and M. Steinhauser, Annals Phys. 288, 197 (2001) doi: 10.1006/aphy.2001.6117
    [152] D. Binosi and A. Quadri, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085036 (2013)
    [153] A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 066 (2009)
    [154] K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2911 (1973) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2911
    [155] C. D. Roberts and C. Mezrag, EPJ Web Conf. 137, 01017 (2017) doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201713701017
    [156] D. Binosi, Few Body Syst. 63, 42 (2022) doi: 10.1007/s00601-022-01740-6
  • 加载中

Figures(13)

Get Citation
J. Papavassiliou. Emergence of mass in the gauge sector of QCD[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac84ca
J. Papavassiliou. Emergence of mass in the gauge sector of QCD[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac84ca shu
Milestone
Received: 2022-07-05
Article Metric

Article Views(1312)
PDF Downloads(44)
Cited by(0)
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:

Emergence of mass in the gauge sector of QCD

  • Department of Theoretical Physics and IFIC, University of Valencia and CSIC, E-46100, Valencia, Spain

Abstract: It is currently widely accepted that gluons, while massless at the level of the fundamental QCD Lagrangian, acquire an effective mass through the non-Abelian implementation of the classic Schwinger mechanism. The key dynamical ingredient that triggers the onset of this mechanism is the formation of composite massless poles inside the fundamental vertices of the theory. These poles enter the evolution equation of the gluon propagator and nontrivially affect the way the Slavnov-Taylor identities of the vertices are resolved, inducing a smoking-gun displacement in the corresponding Ward identities. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the pivotal concepts associated with this dynamical scenario, emphasizing the synergy between functional methods and lattice simulations and highlighting recent advances that corroborate the action of the Schwinger mechanism in QCD.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Gluons are massless at the level of the fundamental Lagrangian that describes pure Yang-Mills theories or the gauge sector of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) [1], and the use of symmetry-preserving regularization schemes, such as dimensional regularization [2], enforces their masslessness at any finite order in perturbation theory. Nonetheless, mounting evidence indicates [37] that the nonperturbative gluon self-interactions give rise to a dynamical gluon mass, or mass gap, as originally asserted four decades ago in a series of seminal works [813] and subsequently explored in a variety of contexts [1422]. In principle, this mass sets the scale for dimensionful quantities such as glueball masses [23, 24] and the "chiral limit" trace anomaly [25] and cures the instabilities (e.g., Landau pole) stemming from the infrared divergences of the perturbative expansion. The gluon mass gap underlies the concept of a "maximum gluon wavelength," above which an effective decoupling (screening) of the gluonic modes occurs [26] and is intimately connected to confinement, fragmentation, and suppression of the Gribov copies; see, e.g., [2729] and references therein.

      In a strict sense, the term mass gap is understood to mean a physical scale, which is independent of the gauge-fixing procedure used to quantize the theory, and invariant under changes of the renormalization scale μ. Of course, when the emergence of such a mass is exhibited by the off-shell n-point correlation (Green) functions of the theory, the resulting effects are both gauge- and μ-dependent. Nevertheless, the distinctive patterns induced by the gluon mass to the infrared behavior of two- and three-point functions admit a pristine physical interpretation, providing invaluable information on the nature and operation of the underlying dynamical mechanisms. Moreover, a special combination of these correlation functions, denominated process-independent QCD effective charge [10, 30, 31], allows the definition of a renormalization-group-invariant gluonic scale of approximately half the proton mass [32, 33].

      Particularly conclusive in this context is the characteristic feature of infrared saturation displayed by the gluon propagator, which has been observed in numerous large-volume lattice simulations [3440] and explored within a variety of continuum approaches [4153]. This special attribute is rather general, manifesting itself in the Landau gauge when other gauge-fixing choices are implemented [5460] and in the presence of dynamical quarks [6165]. In all these cases, as the scalar form factor, Δ(q2), of the gluon propagator reaches a finite nonvanishing value in the deep infrared, a gluon mass may be defined through the simple identification Δ1(0)=m2, as in the case of ordinary massive fields. However, as we will see in detail, the field-theoretic circumstances that account for this exceptional behavior are far from ordinary, involving a subtle interplay between nonperturbative dynamics and symmetry.

      The way to reconcile local gauge invariance with a gauge boson mass was elucidated long ago by Schwinger [66, 67]: a gauge boson may acquire a mass, even if the gauge symmetry forbids a mass term at the level of the fundamental Lagrangian, provided that, at zero momentum transfer (q2=0), its vacuum polarization develops a pole with positive residue. In what follows, we will refer to this fundamental idea as the "Schwinger mechanism." As we will demonstrate, this special mechanism is indeed operational in the gauge sector of QCD.

      The precise implementation of the Schwinger mechanism in the case of Yang-Mills theories is commonly explored with continuum Schwinger function methods, such as the Schwinger-Dyson equations (SDEs) [3, 6873] and the functional renormalization group [7478], which describe the momentum evolution of correlation functions. A crucial ingredient in all such studies is the incorporation of longitudinally coupled massless poles [7983] in the fundamental interaction vertices of the theory. These poles carry color and correspond to massless bound state excitations, whose formation is governed by appropriate Bethe-Salpeter equations (BSEs) [7982]. The inclusion of these poles in the diagrammatic expansion of the SDE that determines the function Δ(q2), or, equivalently, the gluon vacuum polarization, triggers the Schwinger mechanism, giving rise to a dynamically generated gluon mass [43, 59, 7982]. It is important to emphasize that these massless poles do not produce divergences in physical observables (see Sec. XI) and are intimately connected with the vortex picture of confinement; see, e.g., Ch.7 of [84] and references therein.

      Since the massless poles are longitudinally coupled, they drop out from the transversely projected vertices employed in lattice simulations [65, 8589], and only the pole-free parts contribute to the lattice results. Nonetheless, the information on the existence of the massless poles is unequivocally encoded in the pole-free parts. Indeed, the additional key role of the massless poles is their participation in the realization of the Slavnov-Taylor identities (STIs) [90, 91] satisfied by the vertices: the form of the STIs remains intact, but they are resolved through the crucial participation of the massless poles [10, 41, 43, 46, 9295]. Thus, when the gluon momentum of the STIs is taken to vanish, the Ward identities (WIs) satisfied by the pole-free parts are displaced by a characteristic amount, dubbed the displacement function [96]; quite remarkably, it is exactly identical to the BS amplitude for the pole formation found when solving the corresponding dynamical equations. The WI displacement function serves as a smoking-gun signal, whose precise measurement furnishes a highly nontrivial confirmation of the action of the Schwinger mechanism in QCD [46, 96].

      In this study, we review the central concepts and techniques that are instrumental to the aforementioned framework, focusing especially on recent developments that have enabled the systematic scrutiny and preliminary substantiation of this entire approach [96]. Furthermore, we emphasize the creative synergy between continuum methods and gauge-fixed lattice simulations of Schwinger functions and elaborate on the close connection between dynamics and symmetry, as expressed through the SDEs and BSEs, as well as the special displacement of the WIs.

      The article is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the notation and the basic SDEs that govern the relevant two- and three-point correlation functions. Then, in Sec. III, we discuss in detail the salient features of the Schwinger mechanism in the context of the pure Yang-Mills theory. Sec. IV is dedicated to the derivation and solution of the BSE that controls the emergence of poles in the three-gluon and ghost-gluon vertices. In Sec. V, we explain in detail how the gluon mass gets induced at the level of the gluon SDE, once the massless poles have been formed. In Sec. VI, we introduce the concept of the WI displacement and discuss its origin and implications, while in Sec. VII, we derive the WI displacement function of the three-gluon vertex. Then, in Sec. VIII, we determine this particular function from the judicious combinations of ingredients obtained from lattice QCD. In Sec. IX, we present a deep connection between the WI displacement and an important identity that enforces the nonperturbative masslessness of the gluon in the absence of the Schwinger mechanism. In Sec. X, we analyze in detail the structure of the transition amplitude that connects an off-shell gluon with the composite excitation and derive a compact formula that relates its value at the origin with the gluon mass. In continuation, in Sec. XI, we demonstrate with an explicit example the mechanism that leads to the cancellation of the massless poles from the S-matrix. Finally, our concluding remarks are presented in Sec. XII.

    II.   NOTATION AND GENERAL FRAMEWORK
    • In this section we establish the necessary notation and comment on the basic functional equations that determine the dynamics of the correlation functions that we consider in this work.

      The Lagrangian density of the SU(N) Yang-Mills theory with covariant gauge-fixing is given by

      LYM=14FaμνFaμν+12ξ(μAaμ)2¯caμDabμcb,

      (1)

      where Aaμ(x), ca(x), and ¯ca(x) denote the gauge, ghost, and antighost fields, respectively, Faμν=μAaννAaμ+gfabcAbμAcν is the antisymmetric field tensor, Dabμ=μδac+gfambAmμ is the covariant derivative in the adjoint representation, and ξ represents the gauge-fixing parameter. For the color indices, we have a=1,,N21, and fabc represent completely antisymmetric structure constants of SU(N). Clearly, the transition to QCD is implemented by adding the appropriate kinetic and interaction terms for the quark fields to LYM. In what follows, we will work exclusively with Eq. (1), corresponding to pure Yang-Mills theory.

      Throughout the article we carry out calculations employing Feynman rules derived in the Minkowski space; then, the final expressions are passed to the Euclidean space, where their numerical evaluation is carried out. Note that all derivations are valid for space-like momenta only; this allows the use of inputs taken from lattice simulations and facilitates the comparison of the functional results to those of the lattice.

      In the Landau gauge that we employ, the gluon propagator, Δabμν(q)=iδabΔμν(q), assumes the completely transversed form

      Δμν(q)=Δ(q2)Pμν(q),Pμν(q):=gμνqμqν/q2,Δ(q2)=Z(q2)/q2,

      (2)

      where, for latter convenience, we have introduced the gluon dressing function, Z(q2).

      The SDE for the gluon propagator is given by

      Δ1(q2)Pμν(q)=q2Pμν(q)+iΠμν(q),

      (3)

      where Πμν(q) is the gluon self-energy, shown diagrammatically in the first row of Fig. 1. Since Πμν(q) is transverse,

      Figure 1.  (color online) (first row) The diagrammatic representation of the gluon self-energy. (second row) The SDE for the three-gluon vertex. (third row) The SDE for the ghost-gluon vertex. White (colored) circles denote fully dressed propagators (vertices), while the orange ellipses denote four-particle kernels.

      qμΠμν(q)=0Πμν(q)=Π(q2)Pμν(q),

      (4)

      and from Eq. (3), it follows that

      Δ1(q2)=q2+iΠ(q2).

      (5)

      Note that, in the case of the infrared finite solutions for Δ1(q2), found in lattice simulations and numerous SDE analyses, the square of the gluon mass is identified with the finite nonvanishing value of Δ1(q2) at the origin [41, 97], namely

      m2=Δ1(0).

      (6)

      In addition, we introduce the ghost propagator, denoted by Dab(q2)=iδabD(q2), and the corresponding dressing function, F(q2), defined as

      D(q2)=F(q2)q2.

      (7)

      According to numerous lattice simulations and studies in the continuum, at q=0, the dressing function reaches a finite nonvanishing value; see, e.g., [41, 48, 73, 89, 98102].

      We next turn to the three-point sector of the theory, which, in the absence of dynamical quarks, contains the three-gluon and the ghost-gluon vertices, denoted by

      IΓabcαμν(q,r,p)=gfabcIΓαμν(q,r,p),IΓmnaμ(r,p,q)=gfmnaIΓμ(r,p,q),

      (8)

      where all momenta are incoming, and q+p+r=0. The corresponding SDEs that govern the evolution of IΓαμν(q,r,p) and IΓμ(r,p,q) are shown in the second and third row of Fig. 1, respectively [73, 82, 100, 103109]. The omitted terms, indicated by ellipses, contain the fully dressed four-gluon vertex (with incoming momentum q). In general, these latter contributions are technically harder to compute; nonetheless, related studies suggest that their impact on our analysis is likely to be small [73, 108].

      Note that, in Fig. 1, we show the Bethe-Salpeter version of the vertex SDE, whose main difference is that, inside the loops, the tree-level vertices (with incoming momentum q) are replaced by their fully dressed counterparts. This substitution may be carried out provided that the corresponding four-particle kernels Kij are modified accordingly, in order to avoid overcounting. For example, ladder graphs (straight boxes) must be omitted, while cross-ladder graphs (crossed boxes) are retained (see e.g., Fig. 7 of [79]). This particular formulation of the SDE offers an important technical advantage: vertex renormalization constants, which otherwise would appear when explicitly multiplying individual diagrams, are fully absorbed by the additional dressed vertices (see Sec. V).

      The algebraic manipulations of potentially divergent integrals require the use of symmetry-preserving regularization schemes. This is particularly important, because a flawed regularization procedure may introduce artifacts that mimic the effects of a gluon mass. Dimensional regularization [2] is especially well-suited for this purpose and will be adopted forthwith. Note, in fact, that its use is crucial for the demonstration of the seagull identity [46, 110] (see Sec. IX), whose validity, in turn, guarantees the nonperturbative masslessness of the gluon, when the Schwinger mechanism is not activated.

      For the loop integrals regularized with dimensional regularization, we introduce the short-hand notation

      k:=μϵ0(2π)d+ddk,

      (9)

      where d=4ϵ is the dimension of the space-time, and μ0 denotes the 't Hooft mass. It is understood that the regularization is employed until certain crucial cancellations take place, and the procedure of renormalization is duly carried out. Past that point, the resulting equations are finite, and no regularization is needed.

    III.   SCHWINGER MECHANISM IN YANG-MILLS THEORIES
    • Endowing gauge bosons with a mass in a field-theoretically consistent way is particularly subtle. In this section, we review the generation of a gluon mass through the nonperturbative realization of the well-known Schwinger mechanism [66, 67], in the context of a Yang-Mills theory described by Eq. (1).

      The general idea of the mechanism is best expressed in terms of the dimensionless vacuum polarization, ¯Π(q2), defined in terms of the gluon self-energy Π(q2) through Π(q2)=q2¯Π(q2), such that

      Δ1(q2)=q2[1+i¯Π(q2)].

      (10)

      Schwinger's fundamental observation states that, if the vacuum polarization ¯Π(q2) develops a pole at zero momentum transfer (q2=0), the vector meson (gluon) acquires a mass, even if the gauge symmetry prohibits the inclusion of a mass term at the level of the defining Lagrangian. Thus, one has

      limq0i¯Π(q2)=m2/q2limq0Δ1(q2)=limq0(q2+m2)Δ1(0)=m2,

      (11)

      and the vector meson picks up a mass, in the sense that its propagator at the origin saturates at a finite nonvanishing value, which is determined by the (positive) residue of the pole.

      The argument described above is completely general, and its key conclusion does not depend on the dynamical details that lead to the appearance of a massless pole in ¯Π(q2). Of course, in practice, depending on the characteristics of each theory, the circumstances that trigger the sequence described in Eq. (11) may be very distinct [111, 112]. In the case of Yang-Mills theories, the origin of the pole is purely dynamical, as first described in the classic work by Eichten and Feinberg [92]. In what follows, we will present the modern implementation of this scenario, as it has been developed in a series of articles during the past few years.

      The general idea is that the nonperturbative vertices of the theory develop special massless composite excitations, which find their way into the gluon vacuum polarization through the SDE in Fig. 1 [43, 7982]. In particular, the three-gluon and ghost-gluon vertices assume the general form (see Fig. 2)

      Figure 2.  (color online) The diagrammatic representation of the three-gluon and ghost-gluon vertices introduced in Eq. (12): IΓαμν(q,r,p) (first row) and IΓα(q,r,p) (second row). The first term on the r.h.s. indicates the pole-free part, Γαμν(q,r,p) or Γα(q,r,p), while the second denotes the pole term Vαμν(q,r,p) or Vα(q,r,p).

      IΓαμν(q,r,p)=Γαμν(q,r,p)+Vαμν(q,r,p),IΓα(q,r,p)=Γα(q,r,p)+Vα(q,r,p),

      (12)

      where Γαμν(q,r,p) and Γα(r,p,q) are the pole-free components of the two vertices, while Vαμν(q,r,p) and Vα(q,r,p) contain longitudinally coupled bound-state poles, with the special tensorial structure

      Vαμν(q,r,p)=qαq2Cμν(q,r,p)+rμr2Aαν(q,r,p)+pνp2Bαμ(q,r,p),Vα(q,r,p)=qαq2C(q,r,p).

      (13)

      We emphasize that the pole-free components are not "regular" functions, in the strict sense of the term, because certain of their form factors diverge logarithmically in the infrared region; see, e.g., [113]. Note also that the corresponding tree-level expressions are given by

      Γ0αμν(q,r,p)=(qr)νgαμ+(rp)αgμν+(pq)μgνα,Γ0α(q,r,p)=rα.

      (14)

      The longitudinal nature of the Vαμν(q,r,p) and Vα(q,r,p) is easily established at the level of Fig. 2. Specifically, the black circle denotes the transition amplitude, Iα(q), connecting a gluon with a (massless composite) scalar; since this amplitude depends on a single momentum, q, and a single Lorentz index, α, its general form is simply Iα(q)=qαI(q2), where I(q2) is a scalar form factor [79, 80]. In the case of Vαμν(q,r,p), Bose symmetry enforces the same property in the remaining two channels, thus finally accounting for the general form given in Eq. (13). The form factor I(q2) is eventually absorbed into C(q,r,p) and Cμν(q,r,p); additional details on the structure of Iα(q) will be given in Sec. X.

      An immediate consequence of Eq. (13) is that Vαμν(q,r,p) and Vα(q,r,p) satisfy the crucial relations

      Pαα(q)Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)Vαμν(q,r,p)=0,Pαα(q)Vα(q,r,p)=0,

      (15)

      therefore, they drop out from the typical quantities studied on the lattice, which involve the transversely projected vertices [see, e.g., Eq. (75)]. In fact, as we will see in detail in Sec. XI, Eq. (15) is instrumental for the cancellation of all pole divergences from physical observables, such as S-matrix elements.

      Note that, even though Vαμν(q,r,p) possesses poles in all three of its channels, only the one associated with the q-channel, i.e., the channel that carries the physical momentum entering the gluon propagator, is actually relevant. In fact, the longitudinal structure of Vαμν(q,r,p), together with the fact that we work in the Landau gauge, making the gluon propagators inside Feynman diagrams transverse, leads to the simplification

      Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)Vαμν(q,r,p)=qαq2Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)Cμν(q,r,p).

      (16)

      Thus, for our analysis, we only require the tensorial decomposition of the term Cμν(q,r,p) in Eq. (13), given by

      Cμν(q,r,p)=C1gμν+C2rμrν+C3pμpν+C4rμpν+C5pμrν,

      (17)

      where Cj:=Cj(q,r,p). Now, when the Cμν(q,r,p) of Eq. (17) is substituted into Eq. (16) and the relation q+p+r=0 is appropriately employed, only two form factors survive:

      Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)Vαμν(q,r,p)=qαq2Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)[C1gμν+C5qμqν].

      (18)

      Since we are mostly interested in the behavior of the gluon propagator at the origin, we will be expanding the relevant equations around q=0, keeping terms at most linear in q. In such an expansion, the term proportional to C5 in Eq. (18) is subleading, being of order O(q2). Therefore, finally, one ends up with a single relevant form factor per pole vertex, namely C1(q,r,p), related to Vαμν(q,r,p), and C(q,r,p), the unique component of Vα(q,r,p).

      In what follows, we will repeatedly use the Taylor expansion of a function f(q,r,p) around q=0 (p=r), given by

      limq0f(q,r,p)=f(0,r,r)+qα[f(q,r,p)qα]q=0+,=f(0,r,r)+2(qr)[f(q,r,p)p2]q=0+,

      (19)

      where the ellipses denote terms of O(q2) or higher.

      There are two important results relevant for the Taylor expansion of C1(q,r,p) and C(q,r,p), namely

      C1(0,r,r)=0,C(0,r,r)=0.

      (20)

      The first relation follows directly from the Bose symmetry of the three-gluon vertex, which implies that C1(q,r,p)=C1(q,p,r). The justification of the second relation in Eq. (20) is less immediate, relying on special relations [72, 114] linking IΓα(q,r,p) with the vertex ˜Γα(q,r,p) introduced in Sec. VI. As we will see in Sec. VII, the first relation in Eq. (20) will be derived in a completely independent way from the fundamental WIs satisfied by the three-gluon vertex.

      In view of Eq. (20), the Taylor expansion of C1(q,r,p) and C(q,r,p) around q=0 yields

      limq0C1(q,r,p)=2(qr)C(r2)+,limq0C(q,r,p)=2(qr)C(r2)+,

      (21)

      with

      C(r2):=[C1(q,r,p)p2]q=0,C(r2):=[C(q,r,p)p2]q=0.

      (22)

      The functions C(r2) and C(r2) are central to the ensuing analysis. In particular, there are three pivotal points related to them that will be elucidated in the next sections. First, we will prove that nonvanishing C(r2) and C(r2) do indeed emerge from the corresponding dynamical equations for IΓαμν(q,r,p) and IΓα(q,r,p). In fact, as we will see in the next section, these two functions turn out to be the BS amplitudes describing the formation of a gluon-gluon and a ghost-antighost colored composite bound state, respectively. Second, we will derive the formula that expresses the gluon mass in terms of C(r2) and C(r2) and demonstrate that it furnishes a result compatible with the lattice simulations; this will be the subject of Sec. V. Third, in Sec. VI, we will elaborate on the notion of the WI displacement and show that C(r2) corresponds precisely to the displacement function that quantifies the modification of the WIs satisfied by Γαμν(q,r,p) in the presence of massless poles.

    IV.   DYNAMICAL FORMATION OF MASSLESS POLES
    • We next turn to the study of the precise dynamics that leads to the formation of the poles that compriseVαμν(q,r,p) and Vα(q,r,p) entering Eq. (13). The fundamental equations that control this process are the SDEs for IΓαμν(q,r,p) and IΓα(q,r,p), which, in the limit q0, provide a set of linear BSEs for the quantities C(r2) and C(r2), defined in Eqs. (21) and (22).

      In what follows, we set λ:=ig2CA/2, where CA is the Casimir eigenvalue of the adjoint representation [N for SU(N)]. Then, the system of SDEs shown in Fig. 1 assumes the form [96]

      IΓαμν=Γ0αμνλkIΓαβγΔβρΔγσKμνσρ11+2λkIΓαDDKμν12,IΓα=Γ0αλkIΓαβγΔβρΔγσKσρ21λkIΓαDDK22,

      (23)

      where, for compactness, all momentum arguments, indicated explicitly on the diagrams of Fig. 1, have been suppressed.

      Next, we substitute into Eq. (23) the expressions for the fully dressed vertices given in Eq. (12). In addition, in order to exploit Eq. (18), the first of the two equations are multiplied by the factor Pμμ(r)Pμν(p). Then, as the limit q0 is taken, two tensorial structures emerge: one associated with the pole-free terms, which is proportional to rα, and one associated with the pole terms, being proportional to qα. The matching of the terms proportional to qα on both sides leads to the desired BSEs, while the matching of the terms proportional to rα furnishes a dynamical system for the so-called "soft-gluon" form-factors of Γαμν(q,r,p) and Γα(q,r,p) [see, for example, Eq. (68)]. Focusing on the BSEs, the limit q0 activates Eq. (21), and the functions C(r2) and C(r2) make their appearance.

      Specifically, after employing the useful relation

      k(qk)f(k,r)=(qr)r2k(rk)f(k,r),

      (24)

      with f(k,r) denoting a generic kernel, we arrive at a system of homogeneous equations involving C(r2) and C(r2), namely (see Fig. 3)

      Figure 3.  (color online) The diagrammatic representation of the coupled system of BSEs that governs the evolution of the functions C(r2) and C(r2).

      C(r2)=λ3kC(k2)Δ2(k2)Pρσ(k)Pμν(r)˜Kμνσρ11+2λ3kC(k2)D2(k2)Pμν(r)˜Kμν12,C(r2)=λkC(k2)Δ2(k2)Pσρ(k)˜Kσρ21λkC(k2)D2(k2)˜K22,

      (25)

      where ˜Kij:=(rk/r2)Kij(r,r,k,k). Note that the above derivation has been carried out in Minkowski space, and hence, the imaginary factor of i in the definition of λ. Before proceeding with the numerical analysis, the result must be passed to the Euclidean space, following standard conversion rules. Note, in particular, that the integral measure changes according to d4kid4kE; this additional factor of i combines with λ to yield real expressions.

      The system of integral equations given in Eq. (25) are the BSEs that govern the formation of massless colored bound states out of two gluons and a ghost-antighost pair; the functions C(r2) and C(r2) are the corresponding BS amplitudes. It is therefore of the utmost importance to find nontrivial solutions for these functions, even if certain simplifying assumptions will be implemented at the level of the ingredients entering Eq. (25).

      To that end, we employ the "one-particle exchange" approximation for the kernels Kij, shown in Fig. 4; the ingredients required for their evaluation are the fully dressed propagators and vertices. Note that only the pole-free parts Γαμν and Γα are relevant for the evaluation of the kernels Kij, because the various projections implemented during the derivation of Eq. (25) activate Eq. (15); the reader is referred to [96], and in particular Appendix A therein, for further details.

      Figure 4.  (color online) The one-particle exchange approximations of the kernels Kij and the associated kinematic conventions.

      The system of integral equations in Eq. (25) is linear and homogeneous in the unknown functions, thus corresponding to an eigenvalue problem, which finally singles out a special value for the strong coupling, αs=g2/4π. Specifically, we find that αs=0.63 when the renormalization point μ=4.3 GeV. For this particular value of αs, we find nontrivial solutions for C(r2) and C(r2), which are shown in the left panel of Fig. 5. This value of αs is to be contrasted with the corresponding value obtained within the concrete renormalization scheme that we employ. Specifically, we work within the general framework of the momentum subtraction (MOM) scheme [115], where two-point functions acquire their tree-level expressions at a given scale μ, i.e., Δ1R(μ2)=μ2. Within this scheme, we adapt the so-called asymmetric version [65, 87, 116119], characterized by the condition Lsg(μ2)=1, where Lsg(r2) is the form factor of the three-gluon vertex in the soft-gluon ("asymmetric") configuration (see Eq. (75)); the estimated value of αs within this scheme is αs=0.27 [65, 87].

      Figure 5.  (color online) (left panel) The solutions for C(r2) (purple dot-dashed) and C(r2) (red dashed) obtained from the coupled BSE system of Eq. (25). (right panel) Diagrammatic representation of the mass term that emerges from the insertion of the pole term Vναβ into the diagrams d1 and d4 of Fig. 1.

      It is natural to interpret this numerical discrepancy in the values of αs as an artifact of the truncation employed, especially the approximation of the kernels Kij by their one-particle exchange diagrams. It is worth mentioning that, according to a preliminary analysis, moderate modifications of the kernel affect the value of αs considerably, leaving the form of the solutions found for C(r2) and C(r2) essentially unmodified. This observation implies that a more complete knowledge of the corresponding BSE kernels is required in order to decrease αs towards its correct MOM value. Nevertheless, the solutions obtained with the approximations described above should be considered as fairly reliable.

      It is important to stress that, due to the homogeneity and linearity of Eq. (25), the overall scale of the solutions is undetermined, since the multiplication of a given solution by an arbitrary real constant produces another solution. In the case of the solutions shown in Fig. 5, denoted by C(r2) and C(r2), the scale has been fixed by requiring the best possible match with the corresponding result obtained for C(r2) from the WI displacement in Sec. VIII. This scale ambiguity originates from considering only the leading order terms of the BSEs in the expansion around q=0; it may be resolved if further orders in q are kept, because of the additional inhomogeneous terms that they induce; see, e.g., [120122].

      Note finally that C(r2) is considerably larger in magnitude than C(r2) [82], indicating that the three-gluon vertex accounts for the bulk of the gluon mass.

    V.   GLUON MASS VIA THE SCHWINGER MECHANISM
    • In this section, we elucidate in some detail how the inclusion of vertices with massless poles into the gluon SDE triggers the Schwinger mechanism, leading to the generation of a gluon mass.

      In order to fix the ideas, let us consider a specific example, namely the diagram dμν1(q) shown in the first row of Fig. 1, corresponding to the expression

      idμν1(q)=λkΓμαβ0(q,k,kq)Δαα(k)Δββ(k+q)×IΓναβ(q,k,kq).

      (26)

      Next, we use a three-gluon vertex containing the type of massless poles described above (evidently with the appropriate relabeling of indices) for IΓναβ(q,k,kq). In particular, we substitute the vertex given in the first equation of Eq. (12) into Eq. (26), with {α,μ,ν}{ν,α,β}, and denote by ˆdμν1(q), the contribution originating exclusively from the term Vναβ(q,k,kq), namely

      iˆdμν1(q)=λkΓμαβ0(q,k,kq)Δαα(k)Δββ(k+q)×Vναβ(q,k,kq).

      (27)

      Now, from the general form of Vαμν given in Eq. (13) it is evident that, since we work in the Landau gauge, the only term that survives in Eq. (27) is proportional to Cαβ(q,k,kq), such that

      iˆdμν1(q)=λqνq2kΓμαβ0(q,k,kq)Δαα(k)Δββ(k+q)×Cαβ(q,k,kq).

      (28)

      Clearly, ˆdμν1(q) can only be proportional to qμqν; therefore, we set ˆdμν1(q)=(qμqν/q2)ˆd1(q2), with

      iˆd1(q2)=λqμq2kΓμαβ0(q,k,kq)Δαα(k)Δββ(k+q)×Cαβ(q,k,kq).

      (29)

      We next determine ˆd1(0),

      iˆd1(0)=λqμq2limq0kΓμαβ0(q,k,kq)×Δαα(k)Δββ(k+q)Cαβ(q,k,kq).

      (30)

      The expansion of the integrand around q=0 proceeds by inserting Eq. (21) and setting q=0 elsewhere, yielding

      iˆd1(0)=2λqμqνq2kkνΓμαβ0(0,k,k)Pαβ(k)Δ2(k2)C(k2),

      (31)

      with

      Γμαβ0(0,k,k)=2kμgαβkαgμβkβgμα.

      (32)

      Since the integral is proportional to gμν, we find (using that gμμ=4 and Pμμ(q)=3)

      iˆd1(0)=λ2kkμΓμαβ0(0,k,k)Pαβ(k)Δ2(k2)C(k2)=3λkk2Δ2(k2)C(k2).

      (33)

      To establish explicit contact with the formulation by Schwinger described in Sec. III, notice that the contribution of ˆdμν1(q) to the gluon vacuum polarization, ¯Π(q2), is simply given by ˆd1(0)/q2; as advocated, it amounts to a massless pole, whose residue is precisely ˆd1(0).

      The full computation of the total gluon mass proceeds by including the effects of diagrams d3 and d4, shown in the first line of Fig. 1. Specifically, diagram d4 will contribute to the mass for the same reason as d1, namely due to the insertion of the massless pole associated with the three-gluon vertex, proportional to Cαβ; eventually, after the limit q0 has been taken, C(k2) emerges once again. As a result, the corresponding contributions from d1 and d4 may be naturally combined into a single expression, whose diagrammatic representation is given in the right panel of Fig. 5. Note that the contribution from graph d4 contains a function denoted by Y(k2), given by [43]

      Y(k2)=iλ2k2kρΔμρ()Δαν(+k)Γαμν(k,,k),

      (34)

      whose origin is the one-loop subdiagram nested inside d4. In addition, the contribution of d3 originates from the pole in the fully dressed ghost-gluon vertex, IΓα, in accordance with Eqs. (12) and (13); it is proportional to C(q,r,p), and once the limit q0 has been implemented, to C(k2).

      As with any SDE computation, multiplicative renormalization must be implemented following the standard rules. In particular, we introduce the renormalized fields and coupling constant [123]

      AaμR(x)=Z1/2AAaμ(x),caR(x)=Z1/2cca(x),gR=Z1gg,

      (35)

      such that the associated two-point functions are renormalized as

      ΔR(q2)=Z1AΔ(q2),DR(q2)=Z1cD(q2).

      (36)

      Similarly, the renormalization constants of the three fundamental Yang-Mills vertices (ghost-gluon, three-gluon, and four-gluon) are defined as

      IΓμR=˜Z1IΓμ;IΓμαβR=Z3IΓμαβ;IΓμαβνR=Z4IΓμαβν.

      (37)

      In addition, we employ the following set of exact relations

      Zg=˜Z1Z1/2AZ1c=Z3Z3/2A=Z1/24Z1A,

      (38)

      which are enforced by the STIs of the theory. Once the renormalization procedure has been completed, the subscript "R" will be suppressed from all quantities, in order to avoid notational clutter.

      Next we pass the answer to Euclidean space and make standard use of the hyperspherical coordinates, carrying out the trivial angular integrations. The final result reads

      m2=3ˆλ0dyZ2(y)[6παsCAZ4Y(y)Z3]C(y)+ˆλ˜Z10dyF2(y)C(y),

      (39)

      where we have employed the gluon and ghost dressing functions, Z(q2) and F(q2), introduced in Eqs. (2) and (7), respectively, and have set ˆλ:=CAαs/8π.

      Turning to the renormalization constants appearing in Eq. (39), let us first point out that, in the Landau gauge, ˜Z1 has a finite, cutoff-independent value, by virtue of Taylor's theorem [90]; in fact, in the so-called "Taylor scheme" [124126], we have that ˜Z1=1. However, in our analysis we will employ the "asymmetric" MOM scheme mentioned earlier, which yields a slightly lower value, ˜Z10.95 [102]. On the other hand, both Z3 and Z4 are cutoff-dependent, thus, considerably complicating the use of Eq. (39).

      To circumvent this difficulty, consider the renormalized SDE of the pole-free part, Γαμν, shown in Fig. 6; the renormalization constants that survive, after the relations in Eq. (38) are duly employed, are explicitly shown. It is relatively straightforward to establish that the sum

      Figure 6.  (color online) The SDE satisfied by the pole-free part of the renormalized three-gluon vertex, with the vertex renormalization constants Z3 and Z4 explicitly indicated. The symmetry factor of diagrams a3 and a4 is 12.

      Gμαβ(q,r,p):=Z3Γμαβ0(q,r,p)+Z4[aμαβ3(q,r,p)+aμαβ4(q,r,p)]

      (40)

      is precisely the combination of vertex diagrams that appears inside the kernel of the mass equation (right panel of Fig. 5), in the special momentum configuration Gμαβ(0,k,k) [123]. Note that the graphs a3 and a4, after appropriate symmetrization, generate precisely the contribution associated with the function Y(k2); in fact, the symmetry factor of the diagrams a3 and a4 is 12, exactly as needed to reach Eq. (40).

      Then, if we set

      Gμαβ(0,k,k)=2G(k2)kμgαβ+,

      (41)

      where the ellipsis indicates contributions proportional to kαgμβ, kβgμα, or kμkαkβ, which get annihilated when contracted by the projector Pαβ(k), Eq. (39) may be written as

      m2=3ˆλ0dyZ2(y)G(y)C(y)+ˆλ˜Z10dyF2(y)C(y).

      (42)

      But, as is clear from the SDE, one may also set

      Gμαβ(q,r,p)=Γμαβ(q,r,p)[aμαβ1(q,r,p)+aμαβ2(q,r,p)].

      (43)

      For practical purposes, the main difference between Eqs. (40) and (43) is the absence of renormalization constants in the latter. In that sense, Eq. (43) is more reliable, and will be used for the actual determination of the value of the gluon mass.

      In particular, we have that

      Γμαβ(0,k,k)=2Lsg(k2)kμgαβ+,aμαβi(0,k,k)=ai(k2)kμgαβ+(i=1,2),

      (44)

      so that the form factor G(k2), introduced in Eq. (40), is now given by

      G(k2)=Lsg(k2)12[a1(k2)+a2(k2)].

      (45)

      This last form of G(k2) will be used in Eq. (42) for the numerical computation of m2. The quantity Lsg(k2) is determined from large-volume lattice simulations [65, 87, 123, 127], while the form factors a1(k2) and a2(k2) must be computed from the graphs a1 and a2 in Fig. 6, where the one-particle exchange approximation for the kernels K11 and K12, shown in Fig. 4, will be implemented.

      It is important to stress that the solutions for C(y) and C(y) obtained from the BSEs decrease sufficiently rapidly in the ultraviolet for the integrals of Eq. (42) to be convergent. In particular, for large values of y, we have that C(y)y1.45 and C(y)y1.12 [96].

      The numerical evaluation of Eq. (42) finally yields the value of m=320±35 MeV [7], where the error is estimated from the uncertainties in the evaluation of the form factors a1(k2) and a2(k2). The calculated value of m is in very good agreement with the lattice value mL=354±1 MeV, which is obtained from the inverse of the saturation value of the gluon propagator, Δ(0)=7.99±0.05GeV2, when the renormalization point is μ=4.3 GeV; see Fig. 7 and [102]. Note that the lattice error reported is purely statistical.

      Figure 7.  (color online) (upper panel) The gluon propagator (left) and the first derivative of its inverse (right). (lower panel) The ghost dressing function (left) and the soft gluon form factor Lsg(r2) of the three-gluon vertex (right). All items are taken from [102] and cured from volume and discretization artifacts. Note that Lsg(r2) is markedly below unity in the infrared region, displaying the characteristic zero crossing and the attendant logarithmic divergence at the origin [77, 87, 113, 144146].

      It is clear that the value of m extracted in this manner depends on the choice of the renormalization point μ, as already stated in the Introduction. Specifically, if a different point of renormalization, say ν, had been chosen instead, the entire curve of the gluon propagator would be modified according to [128]

      Δ(q2,ν2)=Δ(q2,μ2)ν2Δ(ν2,μ2),

      (46)

      which, for q2=0, yields

      m2(ν2)=m2(μ2)ν2Δ(ν2,μ2).

      (47)

      Note finally that a renormalization-group-invariant gluon mass may be obtained by working with the process-independent effective charge [5, 32, 33], which constitutes the QCD analogue of the Gell-Mann–Low coupling known from QED [129]. The value of this mass turns out to be mRGI=430±10 MeV.

    VI.   WARD IDENTITY DISPLACEMENT: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
    • We will now turn to another central point of the entire approach and elaborate on the displacement that the Schwinger mechanism induces to the WIs satisfied by the pole-free parts of the vertices [46].

      In order to fix the ideas with a relatively simple example, we consider the vertex Baα(q)ˉcm(r)cn(p), where Baα is the "background" gluon, while ˉcm (cn) are the anti-ghost (ghost) fields. This vertex has a reduced tensorial structure, and, due to the general properties of the Background Field Method (BFM) [130137] (see Sec. IX), it satisfies an Abelian STI. Specifically, after suppressing the gauge coupling g and the color factor famn, the contraction of the remainder of this vertex, to be denoted by ˜Γα(q,r,p), yields

      qα˜Γα(q,r,p)=D1(p2)D1(r2),

      (48)

      where D(q2) is the ghost propagator defined in Eq. (7).

      At this point, we assume that the form factors comprising ˜Γα(q,r,p) do not contain poles, i.e., the Schwinger mechanism is turned off. In that case, one may carry out the Taylor expansion of both sides of Eq. (48), keeping terms at most linear in q:

      [l.h.s]=qα˜Γα(0,r,r),[r.h.s]=qαD1(r2)rα.

      (49)

      Equating the coefficients of the terms linear in qα on both sides, one arrives at a simple QED-like WI

      ˜Γα(0,r,r)=D1(r2)rα.

      (50)

      Since ˜Γα(0,r,r) is described by a single form factor, namely

      ˜Γα(0,r,r)=˜A(r2)rα,

      (51)

      we may cast Eq. (50) into the equivalent form

      ˜A(r2)=2D1(r2)r2.

      (52)

      Let us now activate the Schwinger mechanism, and denote the resulting full vertex by ˜IΓα(q,r,p); in complete analogy with Eq. (13), it is composed of a pole-free component and a pole term, according to

      ~IΓα(q,r,p)=˜Γα(q,r,p)+qαq2˜C(q,r,p).

      (53)

      As the Schwinger mechanism becomes operational, the STIs satisfied by the elementary vertices retain their original form but are now resolved through the nontrivial participation of the massless pole terms [10, 41, 43, 46, 9295]. In particular, ~IΓα(q,r,p) satisfies, as before, precisely Eq. (48), namely

      qα~IΓα(q,r,p)=qα˜Γα(q,r,p)+˜C(q,r,p)=D1(p2)D1(r2).

      (54)

      Importantly, the contraction of ~IΓα(q,r,p) by qα cancels the massless pole in q2, yielding a completely pole-free result. Consequently, the WI obeyed by ˜Γα(q,r,p) may be derived as before, by carrying out a Taylor expansion around q=0, keeping terms at most linear in q. In particular, we obtain

      qα˜Γα(0,r,r)=˜C(0,r,r)+qα{D1(r2)rα[˜C(q,r,p)qα]q=0}.

      (55)

      It is clear now that the only zeroth-order contribution present in Eq. (55), namely ˜C(0,r,r), must vanish:

      ˜C(0,r,r)=0.

      (56)

      It is interesting to note that this last property is a direct consequence of the antisymmetry of ˜C(q,r,p) under rp, ˜C(q,r,p)=˜C(q,p,r), which is imposed by the general ghost-antighost symmetry of the B(q)ˉc(r)c(p) vertex. Let us now set

      [˜C(q,r,p)qα]q=0=2rα˜C(r2),˜C(r2):=[˜C(q,r,p)p2]q=0,

      (57)

      and proceed with the matching the terms linear in q, thus, arriving at the WI

      ˜Γα(0,r,r)=D1(r2)rα2rα˜C(r2)WIdisplacement.

      (58)

      Evidently, the WI in Eq. (58) is displaced with respect to that of Eq. (50) by an amount proportional to the BSE amplitude for the dynamical pole formation, namely ˜C(r2). Similarly, the displaced analogue of Eq. (52) is given by

      ˜A(r2)=2[D1(r2)r2˜C(r2)].

      (59)
    VII.   WARD IDENTITY DISPLACEMENT OF THE THREE-GLUON VERTEX
    • In this section, we demonstrate that the WI displacement of Γαμν is expressed precisely in terms of the function C(r2), which is thus found to play a dual role: it is both the BS amplitude associated with the pole formation and the displacement function of the thee-gluon vertex.

      The starting point of our analysis is the STI satisfied by the vertex IΓαμν(q,r,p),

      qαIΓαμν(q,r,p)=F(q2)[Δ1(p2)Pσν(p)Hσμ(p,q,r)Δ1(r2)Pσμ(r)Hσν(r,q,p)],

      (60)

      where Habcνμ(q,p,r)=gfabcHνμ(q,p,r) is the ghost-gluon kernel [138]. Note that Hσμ(p,q,r) and Hσν(r,q,p) contain massless poles in the rμ and pν channels, respectively, which are completely eliminated by the transverse projections in Eq. (65). In what follows, we will employ the special relation [80, 96]

      Hνμ(p,q,r)=˜Z1gνμ+qρKνμρ(p,q,r),

      (61)

      which is particular to the Landau gauge. ˜Z1 is the same constant introduced in Eq. (39), and the kernel K does not contain poles as q0.

      It is clear from Eqs. (12) and (13) that

      Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)[qαIΓαμν(q,r,p)]=Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)[qαΓαμν(q,r,p)+Cμν(q,r,p)],

      (62)

      while, from the STI of Eq. (60)

      Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)[qαIΓαμν(q,r,p)]=Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)F(q2)Rνμ(p,q,r),

      (63)

      where

      Rνμ(p,q,r):=Δ1(p2)Hνμ(p,q,r)Δ1(r2)Hμν(r,q,p).

      (64)

      Then, equating the right-hand sides of Eqs. (62) and (63), we obtain

      qα[Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)Γαμν(q,r,p)]=Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)[F(q2)Rνμ(p,q,r)Cμν(q,r,p)].

      (65)

      Next, we carry out the Taylor expansion of both sides of Eq. (65) around q=0, keeping terms that are at most linear in q.

      The computation of the l.h.s. of Eq. (65) is immediate, yielding

      [l.h.s]=qαTμνμν(r)Γαμν(0,r,r),Tμνμν(r):=Pμμ(r)Pνν(r).

      (66)

      Given that Γαμν(0,r,r) depends on a single momentum (r), its general tensorial decomposition is given by

      Γαμν(0,r,r)=2A1(r2)rαgμν+A2(r2)(rμgνα+rνgμα)+A3(r2)rαrμrν.

      (67)

      The form factors Ai(r2) do not contain poles, but are not regular functions; in particular, A1(r2) diverges logarithmically as r0, due to the "unprotected" logarithms that originate from the massless ghost loops in the diagrammatic expansion of the vertex [87, 113].

      It is then elementary to derive from Eq. (67) that

      Tμνμν(r)Γαμν(0,r,r)=A1(r2)λμνα(r),λμνα(r):=2rαPμν(r),

      (68)

      and therefore, Eq. (66) becomes

      [l.h.s]=A1(r2)qαλμνα(r).

      (69)

      The computation of the r.h.s. of Eq. (65) is slightly more laborious; hence, we will highlight some of the technical issues involved [96].

      (i) The action of the projectors Pμμ(r)Pνν(p) on Cμν(q,r,p) triggers Eq. (18), and, to the lowest order in q, only the term C1(q,r,p)gμν remains.

      (ii) Since it follows immediately from Eq. (64) that Rνμ(r,0,r)=0, the vanishing of the zeroth order contribution imposes the condition

      C1(0,r,r)=0,

      (70)

      in exact analogy to Eq. (56). Note that we have arrived once again at the result of Eq. (20), but through an entirely different path: while Eq. (20) is enforced by the Bose symmetry of the three-gluon vertex, Eq. (70) is a direct consequence of the STI that this vertex satisfies.

      (iii) The Taylor expansion involves the differentiation of the ghost-gluon kernel. In particular, to the lowest order in q, we encounter the partial derivatives

      [Hνμ(p,q,r)qα]q=0=Kνμα(r,0,r),[Hμν(r,q,p)qα]q=0=Kμνα(r,0,r),

      (71)

      where Eq. (61) has been used.

      (iv) We next employ the tensorial decomposition [139],

      Kμνα(r,0,r)=W(r2)r2gμνrα+,

      (72)

      where the ellipsis denotes terms that get annihilated upon contraction with the projector Tμνμν(r). Eq. (72), in conjunction with the elementary relation Tμνμν(r)Kνμα(r,0,r)=Tμνμν(r)Kμνα(r,0,r), enables us to finally express the partial derivatives of Eq. (71) in terms of the function W(r2).

      Taking points (i)–(iv) into account, we can show that the r.h.s. of Eq. (65) becomes

      [r.h.s]=qαλμνα(r)[F(0){˜Z1[Δ1(r2)]+W(r2)r2Δ1(r2)}C(r2)],

      (73)

      where the "prime" denotes differentiation with respect to r2.

      The final step is to equate the terms linear in q that appear in Eqs. (70) and (73) and thus obtain the WI

      A1(r2)=F(0){˜Z1[Δ1(r2)]+W(r2)r2Δ1(r2)}C(r2).

      (74)

      Thus, the inclusion of the term Vαμν(q,r,p) in the three-gluon vertex leads ultimately to the displacement of the WI satisfied by the pole-free part Γαμν(q,r,p), by an amount given by the function C(r2). Evidently, if C(r2)=0, one recovers the WI in the absence of the Schwinger mechanism.

    VIII.   THE DISPLACEMENT FUNCTION FROM LATTICE INPUTS
    • In this section, we determine the functional form of C(r2) from the "mismatch" between the quantities entering both sides of the WI of Γαμν, using inputs obtained almost exclusively from lattice simulations. The crucial conceptual advantage of such a determination is that the lattice is inherently "blind" to field theoretic constructs, such as the Schwinger mechanism; the results are obtained through the model-independent functional averaging over gauge-field configurations. Thus, the emergence of a nontrivial signal would strongly indicate that the Schwinger mechanism, with the precise field theoretic realization described here, is indeed operational in the gauge sector of QCD.

      We first establish a pivotal connection between the form factor A1(r2) and a special projection of the three-gluon vertex, which has been studied extensively in lattice simulations [65, 85, 86, 88, 89, 116, 118, 127, 140143]. Specifically, after appropriate amputation of the external legs, the lattice quantity Lsg(r2) is given by

      Lsg(r2)=Γ0αμν(q,r,p)Pαα(q)Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)IΓαμν(q,r,p)Γ0αμν(q,r,p)Pαα(q)Pμμ(r)Pνν(p)Γ0αμν(q,r,p)|q0pr,

      (75)

      where the suffix "sg" stands for "soft gluon."

      Clearly, by virtue of Eq. (15), the term Vαμν(q,r,p), associated with the massless poles, drops out from Eq. (75) in its entirety, amounting to the effective replacement IΓαμν(q,r,p)Γαμν(q,r,p).

      Then, the numerator, N, and denominator, D, of the fraction on the r.h.s. of Eq. (75), after employing Eq. (67), become

      N=4(d1)[r2(rq)2/q2]A1(r2),D=4(d1)[r2(rq)2/q2].

      (76)

      At this point, the path-dependent contribution contained in the square bracket drops out when forming the ratio N/D, and Eq. (75) yields the important relation [102]

      Lsg(r2)=A1(r2).

      (77)

      In conclusion, the form factor A1(r2) appearing in Eq. (74) is precisely the one measured on the lattice in the soft-gluon kinematics; Eq. (77) is to be employed in Eq. (74), in order to substitute A1(r2) by Lsg(r2).

      After this last operation, we pass the result of Eq. (74) from Minkowski to Euclidean space, following the standard conversion rules. Specifically, we set r2=r2E, with r2E>0 the positive square of an Euclidean four-vector, and use

      ΔE(r2E)=Δ(r2E),FE(r2E)=F(r2E),LEsg(r2E)=Lsg(r2E),CE(r2E)=C(r2E).

      (78)

      Then, solving for C(r2), we get (suppressing the indices "E")

      C(r2)=Lsg(r2)F(0){W(r2)r2Δ1(r2)+˜Z1[Δ1(r2)]}.

      (79)

      For the determination of C(r2), we use lattice inputs for all the quantities that appear on the r.h.s. of Eq. (79), with the exception of the function W(r2), which will be computed from the SDE satisfied by the ghost-gluon kernel. The lattice inputs are shown in Fig. 7; all curves are renormalized at μ=4.3 MeV. The computation of W(r2) is rather technical and given in detail in [96], Appendix B; the result is shown in the left panel of Fig. 8.

      Figure 8.  (color online) (left panel) The function W(r2), computed from the one-loop dressed SDE that governs the ghost-gluon kernel. (right panel) The displacement function C(r2) obtained from Eq. (79) (blue continuous curve), compared to the same quantity obtained from the BSE in Eq. (25) (purple dot-dashed curve).

      When all aforementioned quantities are inserted into the r.h.s. of Eq. (79), a nontrivial result emerges for C(r2), which is shown in the right panel of Fig. 8. The blue error band assigned to C(r2) represents the total propagation of the individual errors associated with all the inputs entering Eq. (79). Quite interestingly, the result obtained is markedly different from the case ofC(r2)=0 (green dotted horizontal line in the right panel of Fig. 8) and bears a striking resemblance to the C(r2) obtained from the BSE solution. In fact, the marked similarity between the two curves provides strong evidence in support of the veracity of the approximations employed in deriving these results and corroborates the SDE treatment that yields the result for W(r2) shown in the left panel of Fig. 8.

    IX.   WARD IDENTITY DISPLACEMENT AND SEAGULL IDENTITY
    • When deriving the mass formula of Eq. (39), we dealt exclusively with the qμqν component of the gluon propagator, given that the pole terms V contribute only to this particular tensorial structure. The transversality of the self-energy, as captured by Eq. (4), clearly states that the complete treatment of the gμν component must yield precisely the same answer; nonetheless, the detailed demonstration of this fact in the present context is highly non-trivial. In particular, the WI displacement turns out to be crucial for the appearance of a term gμνΔ1(0), as can be best exposed within the formalism emerging from the fusion of the pinch technique (PT) [10, 15, 72, 147, 148] and the BFM, known as "PT-BFM scheme." In this section, we briefly outline the key elements of this general construction; for further details, the reader is referred to [97, 149].

      (i) Within the PT-BFM framework, the starting point of our analysis is the propagator ˜Δμν(q) connecting a quantum gluon, Qaμ(q), with a background one, Baμ(q); the corresponding self-energy, ˜Πμν(q), is diagrammatically shown in Fig. 9. One of the most striking properties of ˜Πμν(q) is its "block-wise" transversality [97, 149, 150]: each of the three subsets of diagrams shown in Fig. 9 is individually transverse, i.e.,

      Figure 9.  (color online) The diagrammatic representation of the self-energy ˜Πμν(q); the grey circles at the end of the gluon lines indicate a background gluon. The corresponding Feynman rules are given in Appendix B of [72].

      qν˜Πμνi(q)=0i=1,2,3.

      (80)

      This result is a direct consequence of the Abelian STIs satisfied by the fully dressed vertices, denoted by ~IΓ, entering these diagrams, namely

      qμ~IΓμαβ(q,r,p)=Δ1αβ(r)Δ1αβ(p),qμ~IΓmnrsμαβγ(q,r,p,t)=fmsefernIΓαβγ(r,p,q+t)+fmnefesrIΓβγα(p,t,q+r)+fmrefensIΓγαβ(t,r,q+p),

      (81)

      together with Eq. (54).

      (ii) Δ(q2) and ˜Δ(q2) are related by the exact identity

      Δ(q2)=[1+G(q2)]˜Δ(q2),

      (82)

      where G(q2) is the gμν component of a special two-point function [114, 151, 152]. Eq. (82) allows one to recast the SDE governing Δ(q2) in the alternative form

      Δ1(q2)Pμν(q)=q2Pμν(q)+i˜Πμν(q)1+G(q2),

      (83)

      which has the advantage that its diagrammatic expansion contains vertices that satisfy Abelian STIs. Note finally that, in the Landau gauge only, the powerful identity F1(0)=1+G(0) [153] expresses the function G at the origin in terms of the saturation value of the ghost dressing function.

      (iii) The corresponding vertices develop massless poles, following the exact same pattern indicated in Eq. (12) and (13). We can generically set

      ~IΓ=˜Γ+˜V,

      (84)

      and the tensorial structures of the vertices ˜V are those given in Eq. (13) but with the corresponding form factors carrying a "tilde," e.g.,

      ˜Vα(q,r,p)=qαq2˜C(q,r,p).

      (85)

      (iv) In order to isolate the gμν component, we simply set q=0 in the parts of the diagrams that contain the pole-free vertices, ˜Γ; the implementation of this limit, in turn, triggers the corresponding WIs. The block-wise transversality property of Eq. (80) enables one to meaningfully consider this limit within each block, in the sense that there is no communication between blocks that enforces cancellations, as what happens in the conventional formulation within the ordinary covariant gauges. We can therefore illustrate this basic point by means of the block that is operationally simpler, namely ˜Πμν2(q), represented by diagrams a3 and a4 of Fig. 9.

      (v) A crucial ingredient in this demonstration is the seagull identity [46, 110], which states that

      ddkk2f(k2)k2+d2ddkf(k2)=0,

      (86)

      for functions f(k2) that satisfy Wilson's criterion [154]; the cases of physical interest are f(k2)=Δ(k2),D(k2). This identity is particularly powerful, because, in conjunctions with the WIs of the PT-BFM formalism, it enforces the nonperturbative masslessness of the gluon in the absence of the Schwinger mechanism.

      (vi) We now want to determine the value of the gμν component of ˜Πμν2(q) at q=0. We have that the (q-independent) contribution from aμν4 is proportional to gμν, while aμν3(q) contains both gμν and qμqν components; however, in the limit q0 the latter vanishes, precisely due to the absence of a pole in q2. Let us denote by B(q2) the total contribution proportional to gμν originating from both diagrams; using the Feynman rules of the BFM [72], it is rather straightforward to show that, as q0,

      iB(0)=2λdF(0)[kkμD2(k2)˜Γμ(0,k,k)dkD(k2)].

      (87)

      When the Schwinger mechanism is turned off, the WI of Eq. (50) may be recast in the form

      ˜Γμ(0,k,k)=2kμD2(k2)D(k2)k2,

      (88)

      and therefore, Eq. (87) becomes

      iB(0)=4λdF(0)[kk2D(k2)k2+d2kD(k2)]seagullidentity=0.

      (89)

      When the Schwinger mechanism is activated, the displaced WI of Eq. (58) must be employed, such that

      ˜Γμ(0,k,k)=2kμ[D2(k2)D(k2)k2+˜C(k2)].

      (90)

      Upon insertion of Eq. (90) into Eq. (87), the first term triggers the seagull identity as before and vanishes, while the second furnishes a nonvanishing finite result

      iB(0)=4λdF(0)kk2D2(k2)˜C(k2).

      (91)

      (vii) Using the exact relation [96]

      C(k2)=F(0)˜C(k2),

      (92)

      which is derived from the "background-quantum identity" that relates ˜IΓα(q,r,p) and IΓα(q,r,p) [72, 114], Eq. (91) becomes

      iB(0)=4λdkk2D2(k2)C(k2).

      (93)

      Setting d=4, introducing the renormalization constant ˜Z1 and the ghost dressing function F, and then passing to Euclidean space and employing spherical coordinates, it is a straightforward exercise to confirm that the expression in Eq. (93) is identical to that given by the second term in Eq. (39). Completely analogous procedures may be applied to the remaining two blocks, ˜Πμν1(q) and ˜Πμν3(q), by exploiting the Abelian STIs of Eq. (82) [43].

      In summary, the WI displacement of the vertices evades the seagull identity and endows the gμν component of the gluon propagator with the exact amount of mass required by its transverse nature.

    X.   RELATING THE GLUON MASS WITH THE TRANSITION AMPLITUDE
    • It is particularly instructive to zoom into the detailed composition of the vertex Vαμν(q,r,p), by essentially unfolding the black circles in Fig. 2 and exposing the diagrammatic structure of the transition amplitude Iα(q), introduced in the paragraph following Eq. (14). This analysis unravels interesting diagrammatic properties and allows us to derive a simple relation between the transition amplitude and the gluon mass.

      The basic elements composing the vertex Vαμν(q,r,p), shown in Fig. 10, are (i) the transition amplitude Iα(q), which connects a gluon to the massless composite excitation, (ii) the propagator of the latter, and (iii) the vertex function Bμν(q,r,p), connecting the massless excitation to a pair of gluons. Since color indices are suppressed in Fig. 10, we emphasize that the propagator of the colored massless excitations is given by the expression iδab/q2, i.e., it carries color, as it should. Similarly, the vertex Bμν(q,r,p) is multiplied by the structure constants fabc, providing precisely the color term that has been factored out from Vαμν(q,r,p) in Eq. (13). Thus, we have

      Figure 10.  (color online) The diagrammatic representation of the vertex Vαμν(q,r,p) in terms of the transition amplitude Iα(q), the propagator of the massless excitation, and the vertex function. Note that the diagrams si are in one-to-one correspondence with di of Fig. 1, except for the seagull graph d2, which has no analogous s2.

      Vαμν(q,r,p)=Iα(q)(iq2)Bμν(q,r,p),Iα(q)=qαI(q2),

      (94)

      with

      Bμν(q,r,p)=B1gμν+B2rμrν+B3pμpν+B4rμpν+B5pμrν.

      (95)

      Given that the Vαμν(q,r,p) appearing in Eqs. (13) and (94) represents the same vertex, we immediately deduce that

      C1(q,r,p)=iI(q2)B1(q,r,p).

      (96)

      Evidently, since C1(0,r,r)=0 [see Eqs. (20) and (70)], one obtains from Eq. (96) that B1(0,r,r)=0, so that

      limq0B1(q,r,p)=2(qr)B(r2)+,B(r2):=[B1(q,r,p)p2]q=0,

      (97)

      and therefore, from Eq. (96), we have

      C(r2)=iI(0)B(r2).

      (98)

      In order to illustrate the origin of a key relation between I(0) and m2, let us simplify the discussion by assuming that graph s1 in Fig. 10 represents the only contribution to Iα(q), denoted by ˉIα(q). Clearly, the equivalent approximation at the level of the analysis presented in Sec. V would be to assume that only graph d1 in Fig. 1 contributes to the gluon mass.

      It is straightforward to deduce from Fig. 10 that ˉIα(q) is given by

      ˉIα(q)=CA2kΓαβλ0(q,k,k+q)Δλμ(k)Δβν(k+q)×Bμν(q,k,kq),

      (99)

      where 12 is the corresponding symmetry factor. Since, by Lorentz invariance, ˉIα(q)=qαˉI(q2), we have that ˉI(q2)=qαˉIα(q)/q2. Therefore, from Eq. (99), we obtain

      ˉI(q2)=CA2q2k{qαΓαβλ0(q,k,k+q)}Δλμ(k)Δβν(k+q)×Bμν(q,k,k+q).

      (100)

      Next, employing the expression for Γ0αμν(q,r,p) given in Eq. (14), we have that

      qαΓαβλ0(q,k,kq)=(q2+2qk)gβλ+

      (101)

      where the ellipsis indicates terms that get annihilated upon contraction with the Landau-gauge propagators Δλμ(k) and Δβν(k+q) in the integrand of Eq. (100).

      In order to determine from Eq. (100) the expression for ˉI(0), note that, by virtue of Eq. (97), only the term (2qk) in Eq. (101) contributes to ˉI(0), yielding the combined contribution (2qk)2B(k2). Thus, using Pμμ(k)=3,

      ˉI(0)=6CAqμqνq2kkμkνΔ2(k2)B(k2)=3CA2kk2Δ2(k2)B(k2).

      (102)

      Returning to Eq. (33) and substituting in it Eq. (98), it is clear that (λ:=ig2CA/2)

      iˆd1(0)=g2ˉI(0){3CA2kk2Δ2(k2)B(k2)}ˉI(0).

      (103)

      As mentioned above, at this level of approximation, iˆd1(0) is the only contribution to the gluon mass, to be denoted by ¯m2; therefore, Eq. (103) becomes

      ¯m2=g2ˉI2(0).

      (104)

      Thus, the pattern that emerges from the study of this particular example may be summarized as follows: when the vertex Vαμν is given by Eq. (94) with Iα(q)ˉIα(q), its insertion in the corresponding propagator graph d1 leads to the replication of ˉIα(q), as shown schematically in Fig. 11.

      Figure 11.  (color online) The diagrammatic representation of the sequence that leads to Eq. (104). (first row) The diagram d1 of Fig. 1, once the replacement IΓαμν(q,r,p)=Γαμν(q,r,p)+Vαμν(q,r,p) of Eq. (12) is implemented. (second row) The diagrammatic steps that lead to the replication of ˉIα(q), and eventually, to Eq. (104).

      It turns out that this property may be generalized to include the entire Iα(q), composed by the graphs s1, s3, s4, and s5 in Fig. 10, provided that the propagator graphs d1, d3, d4, and d5 of Fig. 1 are correspondingly included; for details, see [80]. The final result is precisely the generalization of Eq. (104), namely

      m2=g2I2(0).

      (105)

      We emphasize that, as far as the numerical determination of the gluon mass is concerned, Eq. (105) contains the same information as that in Eq. (39) once the diagrammatic expansion of Iα(q) is implemented. Nonetheless, the formulation presented above exposes an elaborate diagrammatic pattern and is particularly useful for the analysis presented in the next section, mainly due to the role played by the vertex function Bμν(q,r,p).

    XI.   ABSENCE OF POLE DIVERGENCES IN THE S-MATRIX
    • As has been emphasized in early literature on the subject, one of the main properties of the massless composite excitations that trigger the Schwinger mechanism is that they do not induce divergences in on-shell amplitudes; see, e.g., [111, 112]. In the case of the Yang-Mills theories that we study, the elimination of potentially divergent terms hinges on the longitudinality of the vertices V, as captured by Eq. (13), in conjunction with the special limit given by Eq. (97). In this section, we demonstrate with a specific example how all terms containing massless poles are either annihilated in their entirety, or, in the kinematic limit where poles might in principle cause divergences, they give finite contributions, i.e., they correspond to evitable singularities.

      Let us consider the elastic scattering process gaμ(k1)gbν(k2)gcρ(k3)gdσ(k4), depicted in Fig. 12, where the gaα(ki) denotes an "on-shell" gluon of momentum ki, and q=k2k1=k4k3 is the corresponding momentum transfer, with q2=t being the relevant Mandelstam variable. The scattering amplitude consists of the three distinct terms denoted by (a), (b), and (c) in Fig. 12. We notice that, unlike (a) and (c), diagram (b) has no perturbative analogue, since all components that compose it are generated through nonperturbative effects; in particular, note the appearance of the vertex function Bμν(q,r,p), introduced in the previous section.

      Figure 12.  (color online) The four-gluon scattering amplitude and the three types of diagrams contributing to it. The abbreviation "1PI" stands for "one-particle irreducible." Note that diagram (b) is composed entirely by nonperturbative structures.

      As we will show at the end of this section, the elimination of all pole divergences does not rely on any particular properties associated with the "on-shellness" of the gluons; this feature is especially welcome, given that gluons do not appear as asymptotic states. Nonetheless, it is instructive to first examine how the cancellations proceed when the gluons are assumed to be on-shell, because this will allow us to identify the crucial properties that must be fulfilled in the off-shell case.

      To that end, let us assume that due to the on-shellness of the gluons, each external leg is contracted by the corresponding transverse polarization vector, ϵμ(k), for which

      kμϵμ(k)=0.

      (106)

      We start our discussion with diagram (a), given by

      (a)=ϵμ(k1)ϵν(k2)IΓαμν(q,k1,k2)Δ(q)Pαβ(q)×IΓβρσ(q,k3,k4)ϵρ(k3)ϵσ(k4).

      (107)

      Noting that, due to the longitudinality of Vαμν(q,r,p),

      Vαμν(q,r,p)Pαβ(q)ϵμ(r)ϵν(p)=0,

      (108)

      it is clear that the terms V drop out from Eq. (107), and the two fully dressed vertices IΓ are replaced by their pole-free counterparts, Γ. As a result, the contribution from graph (a) is finite.

      Turning to diagram (b), we have that

      (b)=Bμν(q,k1,k2)[iq2]Bρσ(q,k3,k4).

      (109)

      As the limit q0 is taken, Eq. (97) is triggered, such that

      limq0(b)={2(qk1)B(k21)}[iq2]{2(qk3)B(k23)}=4i|k1||k3|cosθ1cosθ3B(k21)B(k23),

      (110)

      where θ1 and θ3 are the angles formed between q and k1 and k3, respectively. The above contribution is clearly finite.

      Finally, note that none of the possible V-type vertices survives in the diagrams contributing to (c), precisely due to their longitudinal nature. Indeed, if a vertex is fully inserted in a diagram, i.e., when none of its momenta is any of the ki, it is contracted by three Landau-gauge gluon propagators, and Eq. (15) is automatically triggered. In contrast, if some of the legs of the vertex carry a momentum ki, say k1, the part of V that does not get cancelled by the transverse gluon propagators will be proportional to kμ1/k2; it is therefore annihilated upon contraction withϵμ(k1), by virtue of Eq. (106).

      Thus, it is evident from the above considerations that, in the limit q0, the terms associated with the massless composite excitations furnish only finite contributions to the amplitude.

      It is important to recognize that, in the above demonstration, the only element introduced due to the assumed on-shellness of the scattered gluons is the contraction of the amplitude by the corresponding polarization vectors, satisfying Eq. (106). In particular, note that at no point have we assumed anything special about the values of k2i, i.e., neither that k2i=0 nor that k2i=m2.

      As a result, it is possible to relax the on-shellness condition completely and consider the above amplitude as an off-shell sub-process, embedded into a more complicated scattering process, as depicted in Fig. 13. Indeed, the demonstration presented above remains unaltered, because the on-shell gluons are replaced by Landau-gauge propagators, which trigger precisely the same relations that the polarization vectors did in the on-shell case.

      Figure 13.  The four-gluon amplitude regarded as a completely off-shell subprocess, embedded into a multi-quark scattering process.

      In conclusion, the above analysis, albeit restricted to a special example, strongly supports the notion that the terms associated with the massless excitations do not induce any divergences in the QCD scattering amplitudes.

    XII.   CONCLUSIONS
    • The apparent simplicity of the QCD Lagrangian conceals a wealth of dynamical patterns, giving rise to a vast array of complex "emergent phenomena" [155]. As argued in a series of recent works [5, 6, 156], the pivotal notion that unifies all these phenomena is the emergence of a hadronic mass, which leaves its imprint on a wide range of physical observables. The generation of a mass scale due to the self-interactions of the gluons represents arguably the most fundamental expression of such an emergence. In the present work, we have highlighted certain salient aspects of the research activity dedicated to this subject, within a framework that is based predominantly on the SDEs of the theory but capitalizes extensively on a number of results obtained from large-volume lattice simulations.

      The central idea underlying the approach summarized in this article is the implementation of the celebrated Schwinger mechanism in the context of nonperturbative QCD. The activation of this mechanism hinges on the formation of massless longitudinal poles in the fundamental vertices of the theory. These poles are composite, carry color, and play a dual role: they provide the required structures in the gluon vacuum polarization and nontrivially affect the way the STIs of these vertices are realized. This dual nature of the poles is perfectly encoded in the function C(r2), which describes the distinct displacement to the WI satisfied by the pole-free part of the three-gluon vertex, and, at the same time, is the bound-state wave function that governs the dynamical formation of the massless poles by the merging of two gluons, through a characteristic BSE. This duality, in turn, unveils a profound connection between dynamics (BSEs) and symmetry (STIs), which becomes particularly patent within the PT-BFM framework.

      In fact, it is tempting to interpret these massless poles as composite would-be Nambu-Goldstone bosons, given that they appear to fulfill precisely all crucial functions typically ascribed to the latter, namely (i) they are "absorbed" by the gluons to make them massive, (ii) maintain the STIs of the theory intact once the gluons have been endowed with mass, (iii) are longitudinally coupled, and (iv) do not introduce divergences in physical observables, e.g., the S-matrix, as shown in Sec. XI. It would be very interesting to pursue this point further; a most promising starting point for such an investigation is offered by the PT-based analysis first presented in [95].

      The displacement of the WI, quantified by the function C(r2), is exclusive to the special realization of the Schwinger mechanism reviewed here. The use of lattice results as the main ingredients for the pertinent WI reveals the presence of a robust model-independent signal for C(r2), which is in agreement with the result obtained from the solution of the BSE, under certain simplifying assumptions. These findings corroborate the operation of the Schwinger mechanism in QCD and set the stage for further novel developments.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • The author thanks A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, M. N. Ferreira, D. Ibáñez, J. Pawlowski, C. D. Roberts, and J. Rodríguez-Quintero for several collaborations, and Craig Roberts for prompting the completion of this work.

Reference (156)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return