text:
# Hard Thermal Effects in Noncommutative U(𝑁)Yang-Mills Theory

## I Introduction

Noncommutative manifolds have been used in physics for quite some time Groenewold:1946  and were more recently applied in the context of string theories Connes:1998crSeiberg:1999vs . In certain circumstances, the low-energy behaviour of these theories may be described in terms of gauge fields defined on a space-time where the coordinates do not commute, so that

$$[x_\mu ,x_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
The antisymmetric tensor $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, which has the canonical dimension of inverse mass squared, is assumed to be independent of the space-time coordinates. Such gauge field theories are non-local and exhibit many intriguing properties, which have been much studied in recent years (for reviews and a complete list of references see, for example, Douglas:2001ba ; Szabo:2001kg . In particular, several thermal effects in noncommutative theories have been already examined in a series of interesting papers Arcioni:1999hw ; Fischler:2000fv ; Fischler:2000bp ; Landsteiner:2000bwlandsteiner:2001ky .

In gauge theories at finite temperature, a consistent perturbative expansion requires the resummation of a set of diagrams called hard thermal loops braaten:1990azBraaten:1990kk . These arise from one-loop diagrams in the region where the internal momenta are of order of the temperature $`T`$, which is large compared with all the external momenta. The purpose of this work is to study in the non-commutative $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$Yang-Mills theory, the high temperature behaviour of the two- and three-point gluon functions. Our method of calculation employs an analytic continuation of the imaginary-time formalism kapusta:book89lebellac:book96das:book97 . Using this approach, we relate the Green functions to forward scattering amplitudes of on-shell thermal particles, a technique that has been previously applied in the $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$gauge theory as well as in gravity frenkel:1991ts ; brandt:1993dk ; brandt:1997se . In contrast to the situation in the commutative theory, where the hard thermal loop contributions are completely determined in the region where $`Tp`$, one has to consider in the noncommutative case also the value of the independent parameter $`\theta pT`$. For arbitrary values of this parameter, the explicit calculation of these non-local amplitudes is, in general, very difficult. Only in certain limiting cases, such as $`\theta pT1`$ or $`\theta pT1`$, is that their evaluation becomes more transparent. An exception occurs in the static case, where one can evaluate, as shown in section II, the gluon self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ in a closed form for all values of $`\theta pT`$. The corresponding result shows a significant difference from the behaviour in the commutative case, where only the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ component survives in the static limit. On the other hand, in the noncommutative theory, we find that also the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}`$ components receives leading $`T^2`$ contributions in the static case. This behaviour reflects the effect of extra magnetic fields which are induced by the noncommutative character of the theory. Furthermore, we show in the section II that the gluon self-energy is generally transverse with respect to the external momenta, and that all the $`\theta `$-dependence resides in the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ subgroup of $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$.

The three-point gluon function is discussed in section III, where we also provide its full $`\theta `$-dependence which arises in both the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$sectors. Although the inherent angular integrations are extremely involved and cannot be performed in closed form, we demonstrate that, in general, the leading $`T^2`$ contributions to the three-point amplitude are related to those of the two-point function in a manner dictated by the Ward identity.

Our main motivation for this investigation is that, under certain conditions, these gauge invariant amplitudes, together with the Ward identity, may be sufficient to determine the effective action which sums up the effects of all hard thermal loops. We discuss this issue in section IV and present more details on our calculations in the appendices.

## II The two-point function

In accordance with the approach initiated in barton:1990fk  and extended to the Yang-Mills theory in frenkel:1991ts  we can compute the Feynman graphs of Fig. (1) by considering the on-shell forward scattering amplitudes $`𝒜_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ of Fig. (2).

These amplitudes are related to the corresponding two-point function by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{2|\stackrel{}{k}|}N(|\stackrel{}{k}|)𝒜_{\mu \nu }^{AB}|_{k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|};A,B=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N^21,$$
(2)
where

$$N(|\stackrel{}{k}|)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{|\stackrel{}{k}|/T}1}$$
(3)
is the Bose-Einstein distribution function.

Using the Feynman rules shown in the appendix A, the contribution of the graph of Fig. (2 a) to the forward scattering amplitude is given by

$$B_{AB}^{\mu \nu }{}_{(a)}{}^{}=3g^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }\left[\mathrm{Tr}D_AD_B\left(1c_p\right)\mathrm{Tr}F_AF_B\left(1+c_p\right)\right].$$
(4)
We are employing the definitions

$$(F_A)_{BC}f_{BAC},(D_A)_{BC}d_{BAC},$$
(5)
as well as the abbreviations

$$c_p\mathrm{cos}(p\times k),c_{pq}\mathrm{cos}(p\times q),c_{\frac{1}{2}p}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}p\times k),s_{\frac{1}{2}p}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{2}p\times k),c_{\frac{1}{2}p\times q}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}p\times q);p\times qp_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu $$
(6)
Using the results (see Armoni:2000xrBonora:2000ga  for similar formulas in the context of one-loop renormalization of noncommutative theories)

$`\mathrm{Tr}F_AF_B`$ $`=`$ $`N(1\delta _{A,0})\delta _{AB}`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}D_AD_B`$ $`=`$ $`N(1+\delta _{A,0})\delta _{AB}`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}D_AF_B`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
Eq. (4) reduces to

$$B_{AB}^{\mu \nu }{}_{(a)}{}^{}=6g^2N\delta _{AB}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\left(1\delta _{A,0}c_p\right).$$
(8)
From the graph of Fig. (2 bi) we receive a total contribution

$`B_{AB}^{\mu \nu }{}_{(bi)}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}N\delta _{AB}\left[5p^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }2p^\mu p^\nu +5\left(k^\mu p^\nu +k^\nu p^\mu \right)+10k^\mu k^\nu +2kp\eta ^{\mu \nu }\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2+2kp}}`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\left[D_AD_B(1c_p)F_AF_B(1+c_p)\right]+(kk).`$
The contribution of Fig. (2 bii) is identical to that of Fig. (2 bi) with the momentum reversed. Consequently, totalling Figs. (2 bi) and (2 bii) results in

$$B_{AB}^{\mu \nu }{}_{(b)}{}^{}=g^2N\delta _{AB}\left(1\delta _{A,0}c_p\right)\frac{5p^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }2p^\mu p^\nu +5\left(k^\mu p^\nu +k^\nu p^\mu \right)+10k^\mu k^\nu +2kp\eta ^{\mu \nu }}{p^2+2kp}+(kk).$$
(10)
In a completely analogous fashion, we find that the amplitude receives the following contributions from Figs. (2 ci) and (2 cii),

$$B_{AB}^{\mu \nu }{}_{(ci)}{}^{}=g^2N\delta _{AB}\left(1\delta _{A,0}c_p\right)\frac{k^\mu \left(k+p\right)^\nu }{p^2+2kp}+(kk).$$
(11)
and

$$B_{AB}^{\mu \nu }{}_{(cii)}{}^{}=g^2N\delta _{AB}\left(1\delta _{A,0}c_p\right)\frac{k^\mu \left(kp\right)^\nu }{p^22kp}+(kk).$$
(12)
In computing (8), (10), (11) and (12) the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ in Eq. (71) has been taken to be arbitrary, but it cancels completely in the final result for the $`T^2`$ terms. In the regime in which $`pkT`$, we make the expansion

$$\frac{1}{p^2+2kp}=\frac{1}{2kp}\frac{p^2}{(2kp)^2}+\mathrm{},$$
(13)
so that at the leading order in $`(2kp)^1`$, the total contribution to $`𝒜_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ coming from (8), (10), (11) and (12) is

$$𝒜_{\mu \nu }^{AB}=4g^2N\delta ^{A,B}\left[1\delta ^{A,0}\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{p}k)\right]G_{\mu \nu };\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu p^\nu \theta _{\nu \mu }$$
(14)
where

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{p^2k_\mu k_\nu }{(kp)^2}\frac{p_\mu k_\nu +p_\nu k_\mu }{kp}+\eta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(15)
One can easily verify that the transversality property

$$p^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}=0$$
(16)
is satisfied. Indeed, this is a direct consequence of $`p^\mu G_{\mu \nu }=0`$. Therefore, we can express the self-energy in terms of the following decomposition

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{AB}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right)+\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{AB}\left(p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{pu}}u_\mu \right)\left(p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{pu}}u_\nu \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{AB}p^2\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu +\mathrm{\Pi }_4^{AB}\left[\left(p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{pu}}u_\mu \right)\stackrel{~}{p}_\nu +\left(p_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{pu}}u_\nu \right)\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \right],`$
where $`u_\mu `$ represents the heat bath four velocity \[$`u=(1,0,0,0)`$\]. A straightforward calculation gives

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{AB}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}+(\sigma ^21)\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB};\sigma ^2\frac{p_0^2}{\stackrel{}{p}^2}$$
(18)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_2^{AB}=\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}+2\sigma ^2(\sigma ^21)\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}\sigma ^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}$$
(19)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{AB}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}\frac{\sigma ^21}{\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}+2\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^4p^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}$$
(20)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_4^{AB}=(\sigma ^21)\frac{p_0\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu 0}^{AB}.$$
(21)
In order to ensure unitarity Douglas:2001ba ; Szabo:2001kg , we have taken

$$\theta _{0\mu }=0.$$
(22)
The computation of the integrals appearing in Eqs. (18) to (21) is carried out in the appendix B. We find

$$\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu 0}^{AB}=0,$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\left[1\frac{6}{\pi ^2}\delta ^{A,0}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2+\tau ^2}\right],$$
(24)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\zeta \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\sigma \zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \zeta )^2}}\right]`$ (25)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\delta ^{A,0}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{[n^2+\tau ^2(1\zeta ^2)]^{3/2}}}\right].`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\zeta \{[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \zeta )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\zeta ^2}{2}}1]`$ (26)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\delta ^{A,0}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{[n^2+\tau ^2(1\zeta ^2)]^{3/2}}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\delta ^{A,0}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \zeta )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(n\sqrt{n^2+\tau ^2(1\zeta ^2)}\right)^2\left(n+2\sqrt{n^2+\tau ^2(1\zeta ^2)}\right)}{\left(n^2+\tau ^2(1\zeta ^2)\right)^{3/2}}}\},`$
We have defined $`\tau ^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2T^2=(\theta _{\mu \nu }p^\nu )^2T^2`$. However, in view of condition (22), this parameter is actually independent of the energy $`p_0`$.

As $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ in Eq. (15) is homogeneous of degree zero in $`k`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ acquires to leading order an overall factor of $`T^2`$.

We now consider the various limits referred to in the introduction. With the limit $`\theta pT1`$, we see that all terms proportional to $`\delta _{A,0}`$ vanish, so that non-planar graphs no longer contribute. This leaves us with some straightforward integration that leads to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3},$$
(27)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\left(1\frac{\sigma }{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma +1}{\sigma 1}\right)$$
(28)
and

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\frac{\sigma }{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\sigma ^21)\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma +1}{\sigma 1}\sigma \right]$$
(29)
Furthermore, in the limit $`\theta pT1`$, it is possible to extract the contribution to the sums in Eqs. (24) to (26) that are of leading order in $`\tau ^2`$. Using the standard results for the Riemann zeta function, $`\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6`$ and $`\zeta (4)=\pi ^4/90`$, we find that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\left[1\delta ^{A,0}+\frac{(\pi \tau )^2}{15}\delta ^{A,0}\right],$$
(30)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ $``$ $`N\delta ^{A,B}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2T^2}{3}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma +1}{\sigma 1}})(1\delta ^{A,0})`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi \tau )^2}{15}}(23\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sigma (\sigma ^21)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma +1}{\sigma 1}})\delta ^{A,0}]`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`N\delta ^{A,B}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2T^2}{3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sigma ^21)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma +1}{\sigma 1}}\sigma ](1\delta ^{A,0})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi \tau )^2}{15}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\sigma ^4{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\sigma (\sigma ^21)^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma +1}{\sigma 1}}]\delta ^{A,0}\}.`$
Terms of order $`\tau ^4`$ and beyond can be similarly computed. We note that all terms involving $`\theta `$ in Eqs. (30) to (LABEL:34) are proportional to $`\delta ^{A,0}`$.

The integration over $`\zeta `$ in Eqs. (25) and (26) can be performed and in the static limit when $`\sigma ,p_00`$. We find in this case that

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\left[1\frac{6}{\pi ^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{n^2}{(n^2+\tau ^2)^2}\delta ^{A,0}\right],$$
(33)
$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}=2N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{\pi ^2}\delta ^{A,0}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\tau ^2}{(n^2+\tau ^2)^2}.$$
(34)
(Of course, Eq. (24) remains unchanged in the static limit.) The sums appearing in Eqs. (24), (33) and (34) are standard gradshteyn :

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2+a^2}=\frac{\pi }{2a}\mathrm{coth}(\pi a)\frac{1}{2a^2},$$
(35)
$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(n^2+a^2)^2}=\frac{\pi }{4a^3}\mathrm{coth}(\pi a)+\frac{\pi ^2}{4a^2}\mathrm{csch}^2(\pi a)\frac{1}{2a^4}.$$
(36)
We consequently are led to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\left[13\left(\frac{1}{\pi \tau }\mathrm{coth}(\pi \tau )\frac{1}{(\pi \tau )^2}\right)\delta ^{A,0}\right],$$
(37)
$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\frac{g^2T^2}{3}\left\{1\frac{3}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\pi \tau }\mathrm{coth}(\pi \tau )\mathrm{csch}^2(\pi \tau )\right]\delta ^{A,0}\right\}$$
(38)
and

$`\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`N\delta ^{A,B}g^2T^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{csch}^2(\pi \tau )}{2(\pi \tau )^2}}\left[1+(\pi \tau )^2\mathrm{cosh}(2\pi \tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \tau }{2}}\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi \tau )\right]\delta ^{A,0}.`$ (39)
From the previous results we can now obtain the static limit of Eqs. (18), (19) and (20) (we show in the appendix that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_4^{AB}=0`$). From Eq. (18), we have

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{AB}=\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}.$$
(40)
Using Eqs. (24), (33) and (34), we obtain

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_1^{AB}=0.$$
(41)
The static limit of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ in Eq. (19) behaves as $`\sigma ^2`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ will contribute only to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ in Eq. (17) but not to either $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^{AB}`$ ($`i,j=1,2,3`$) \[of course, we do not need $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ in order to obtain $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ which has already been obtained explicitly in Eq. (38)\]. Using Eq. (20), we obtain for the static limit of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$

$`\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{p}}|^2|\stackrel{}{p}|^2}}\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}\right]`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`3\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$
Finally, using Eq. (39) in Eq. (42) as well as simple functional relations involving the hyperbolic functions, we obtain

$$\underset{\sigma 0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_3^{AB}=N\delta ^{A,B}\delta ^{A,0}\frac{3g^2T^2}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi \tau )}\frac{2}{(\pi \tau )^2}+\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\pi \tau )}{\pi \tau \mathrm{sinh}(\pi \tau )}\right].$$
(43)
Inserting Eq. (43) into Eq. (17) one can easily obtain $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}`$. It is interesting to note that in commutative Yang-Mills theory $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ is non-zero but $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}`$ vanishes, while in the noncommutative case, we see from Eq. (43) that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{AB}0`$ when then colour $`A`$ is in the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ sector ($`A=0`$). This is consistent with the additional magnetic interactions appearing in the initial Lagrangian. However, since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ii}^{AB}(p_0=0,\stackrel{}{p}0)=0`$, the magnetic mass vanishes also in the noncommutative theory.

It also proves possible to examine $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ in the long wave length limit $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau 0`$. In this case, we see from Eqs. (24), (25) and (26) that

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ $``$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{AB\mu }`$ $``$ $`N\delta ^{A,B}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2T^2}{3}}\left(1\delta ^{A,0}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $``$ $`N\delta ^{A,B}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2T^2}{9}}\left(1\delta ^{A,0}\right).`$ (44)
## III The three-point function

The Feynman graphs we consider are those of Fig. 3. These are associated with the amplitudes of Fig. 4. The calculation of the diagrams in figure 4 is straightforward but very tedious. After some algebra, the amplitude in figure 4 (a) can be written as (we have employed the Maple version of the symbolic computer package HIP hsieh:1992ti )

$$𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{glABC}=\left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}\right]L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gl}$$
(45)
Similarly the sum of the diagrams in figures 4 (b) and 4 (c) give

$$𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ghABC}=\left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}\right]L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gh}$$
(46)
The factors $`C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}`$ are trigonometric functions of the internal momentum $`k`$ and involve the colour factors. At any specific order in the hard thermal loop expansion, the Lorentz factors $`L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gl}`$ and $`L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gh}`$ will be odd or even in $`k`$. Terms which are odd in $`k`$ will be multiplied by the following antisymmetric factors

$`A_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}(k)C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}(k)\right)`$
$`A_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}(k)C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}(k)\right)`$
$`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}(k)C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}(k)\right)`$
$`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}(k)C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}(k)\right)`$ (47)
Terms which are even in $`k`$ will be multiplied by the following symmetric factors

$`S_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}(k)+C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}(k)\right)`$
$`S_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}(k)+C_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}(k)\right)`$
$`S_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}(k)+C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}(k)\right)`$
$`S_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}(k)+C_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}(k)\right)`$ (48)
A straightforward calculation gives

$`A_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[F^AD^BD^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}F^AF^BF^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}`$ (49)
$`+F^CD^AD^Bs_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}F^BD^CD^As_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}],`$
where we are using the abbreviations defined in Eqs. (5) and (6). Using the relations Armoni:2000xrBonora:2000ga

$$\mathrm{Tr}F^AF^BF^C=\frac{N}{2}f^{ABC}=\mathrm{Tr}F^AD^BD^C,$$
(50)
as well as the cyclic property of the trace, we can write

$`A_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}f^{ABC}[c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}`$ (51)
$`+s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}f^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2+p_3}{2}}\times k\right)=0,`$
where we have used the momentum conservation $`p_1+p_2+p_3=0`$. A similar calculation for the ghost part also gives

$$A_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}=0.$$
(52)
The Eqs. (51) and (52) imply that there is no contribution which is odd in the temperature $`T`$ and proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}[(p_1\times p_2)/2]`$.

Let us now consider the coefficients of $`\mathrm{cos}[(p_1\times p_2)/2]`$ which are antisymmetric functions of $`k`$, namely $`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}`$. The colour traces which are involved now are Armoni:2000xrBonora:2000ga

$`\mathrm{Tr}D^AD^BD^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\eta _{ABC}d^{ABC};\eta _{ABC}d_Ad_Bd_C4\delta _{A+B+C,0}`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}F^AF^BD^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}c_Ac_Bd_Cd^{ABC};c_A1\delta _{A,0};d_A1+\delta _{A,0}`$ (53)
A straightforward calculation gives

$`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[F^AF^BD^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+D^AF^BF^Cs_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}`$ (54)
$`+F^CF^AD^Bc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+D^AD^BD^Cs_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}]`$
In contrast to the antisymmetric coefficient of $`\mathrm{sin}[(p_1\times p_2)/2]`$, $`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}`$ does not vanish by itself. Using trace cyclicity, one can write

$`A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[F^AF^BD^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D^AD^BD^Cs_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}\right]`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{permut}.`$
Let us consider the specific case of the superleading contribution, which would be proportional to $`T^3`$. The Lorentz factor for this piece is the same for the gluon and for the ghost diagrams, being proportional to \[see the diagrams in figure 4 (a), (b) and (c)\],

$$\frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\lambda }{kp_1kp_3}$$
(56)
Including the colour and the $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)`$ factors, this leads to a contribution

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)A_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)k_\mu k_\nu k_\lambda \frac{1}{kp_1kp_3}$$
(57)
The only part of Eq. (57) which will change when we add together all cyclic permutations is the denominator. Using momentum conservation, we have

$$\frac{1}{kp_1kp_3}+\frac{1}{kp_1kp_2}+\frac{1}{kp_2kp_3}=0,$$
(58)
and thus we can easily see that the superleading contribution (viz. those that are proportional to $`T^3`$) will vanish. The same property is also true for the ghost diagram. This cancellation of the superleading contribution is similar to what happens in QCD frenkel:1991ts . However, in the case of noncommutative theories one has to employ the cyclicity property of the colour/trigonometric factor, rather than simply relying in the cancellation which occurs when we add the contributions with $`kk`$, as is the case in QCD. (In QCD, there is no $`k`$-dependent trigonometric factor which is odd in $`k`$.)

In a similar way, it is straightforward to show that

$`S_{\mathrm{cos}}^{glABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[F^AF^BF^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+F^AD^BD^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}`$ (59)
$`+F^BD^CD^As_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+F^CD^AD^Bs_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}f^{ABC}\mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1+p_2+p_3)\times k\right]={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}f^{ABC},`$
$`S_{\mathrm{cos}}^{ghABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[F^AF^BF^C(c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}^2c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}^2c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3})F^AD^BD^C(c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}^2s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}^2+c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3})`$ (60)
$`F^BD^CD^A(s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}^2s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}^2c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3})F^CD^AD^B(s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}^2c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}^2+c_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}f^{ABC},`$
$`S_{\mathrm{sin}}^{glABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[F^AF^BD^Cc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}F^BF^CD^As_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}`$ (61)
$`+F^CF^AD^Bc_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}+D^AD^BD^Cs_{\frac{1}{2}p_1}c_{\frac{1}{2}p_2}s_{\frac{1}{2}p_3}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}d^{ABC}[1+c_{p_1}(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0})`$
$`c_{p_2}\left(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\right)`$
$`c_{p_3}(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0})],`$
and

$`S_{\mathrm{sin}}^{ghABC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}[F^AF^BD^C+F^AD^BF^C+D^AF^BF^CD^AD^BD^C`$ (62)
$`+c_{p_1}\left(F^AF^BD^C+F^AD^BF^CD^AF^BF^C+D^AD^BD^C\right)`$
$`+c_{p_2}\left(F^AF^BD^C+F^AD^BF^CD^AF^BF^CD^AD^BD^C\right)`$
$`+c_{p_3}(F^AF^BD^C+F^AD^BF^C+D^AF^BF^C+D^AD^BD^C)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}d^{ABC}[1+c_{p_1}(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0})`$
$`c_{p_2}\left(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\right)`$
$`+c_{p_3}(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0})].`$
By Eqs. (59) to (62) it is evident that the full amplitude associated with Figs. 4 (a), (b) and (c) is

$`𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}|_{(a),(b),(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\left[f^{ABC}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right)+d^{ABC}\left(1+O^{ABC}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right)\right]`$ (63)
$`\times `$ $`\left[L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gl}+L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gh}\right],`$
where

$`O^{ABC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1\times k)\left(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\right)`$ (64)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_2\times k)\left(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(p_3\times k)\left(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\right)`$
is an oscillatory part which gives a subleading contribution for $`\theta pT1`$. Furthermore, explicit computation gives

$`L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gl}+L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{kp_3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_\mu k_\nu k_\lambda }{(kp_1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4k_\nu k_\mu p_{3}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}}{kp_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4p_{3}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}k_\mu k_\lambda }{kp_1}}k_\mu \eta _{\lambda ,\nu }k_\nu \eta _{\lambda ,\mu }\right]`$ (65)
$``$ $`\left([(\mu ,p_1),(\lambda ,p_3)]\right)\left([(\lambda ,p_3),(\mu ,p_1)]\right).`$
(As in the case of the two-point function, in the leading thermal contributions, all dependence of the three-point function on the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ cancels completely.) The full contribution to the three-point function is obtained adding to Eq. (63) two cyclic permutations of $`(\mu ,p_1),(\nu ,p_2)(\lambda ,p_3)`$. In the limit $`\theta pT1`$, when $`O^{ABC}`$ can be neglected, the colour/trigonometric factor in Eq. (63) does not change under cyclic permutations. Therefore, we can write

$`\underset{(\theta pT)\mathrm{}}{lim}[𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}|_{(a),(b),(c)}+\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{perm}.\mathrm{of}(\mu ,p_1),(\nu ,p_2)(\lambda ,p_3)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}C^{ABC}(p_1,p_2)\left[L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gl}+L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gh}\right]`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{perm}.\mathrm{of}(\mu ,p_1),(\nu ,p_2)(\lambda ,p_3),`$
where $`C^{ABC}(p_1,p_2)`$ is given by Eq. (79). Since the factor $`C^{ABC}(p_1,p_2)`$ does not change under cyclic permutations, the Lorentz factor $`L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gl}+L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{gh}`$, plus its cyclic permutations simplifies to an expression without terms involving the metric tensor $`\eta `$, so that the full expression from the diagrams in Figs. 4 (a), (b) and (c) can be written as

$`\underset{(\theta pT)\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}|_{(a),(b),(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iNC^{ABC}(p_1,p_2)}{kp_3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\lambda p_3^2}{(kp_1)^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\lambda p_{3}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}}{kp_1}}+(\mu \nu )]`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`[(A,\mu ,p_1),(C,\lambda ,p_3)][(C,\lambda ,p_3),(A,\mu ,p_1)].`$
The remaining contribution, associated with the amplitudes in Figs. 4 (d), (e) and (f), is purely oscillatory and hence will not contribute when $`\theta pT1`$. Including the two identical contributions which arise as a result of reversing the momentum flow of $`k`$ in Fig. 4 (d), (e), and (f) and also by interchanging the two vertices appearing there, we obtain

$`𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}|_{(d),(e),(f)}`$ $`=`$ $`2iNd^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}(p_1\times k)\left(\delta ^{A,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{B,0}\delta ^{C,0}\delta ^{A,0}\right)`$ (68)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu \eta _{\nu \lambda }+k_\nu \eta _{\mu \lambda }+4k_\lambda \eta _{\mu \nu }}{kp_3}}`$
$`+`$ $`\left([(\mu ,p_1),(\nu ,p_2)]\right)\left([(\nu ,p_2),(\mu ,p_1)]\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{perm}.\mathrm{of}(\mu ,p_1),(\nu ,p_2)(\lambda ,p_3).`$
After using (63) and (65) in conjunction with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{2|\stackrel{}{k}|}N(|\stackrel{}{k}|)𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}|_{k0=|\stackrel{}{k}|};A,B,C=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N^21$$
(69)
to compute the three-point function in the hard thermal limit, one is confronted with very complicated angular integrals. However, it is apparent that because $`𝒜_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}(k)`$ in Eq. (69) is homogeneous of zero degree in $`k`$, the three-point function is quadratic in $`T`$, as in commutative Yang-Mills theory. Furthermore, the simple Ward identity

$$p_3^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=iC^{ABX}(p_1,p_2)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{XC}(p_1)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu }^{XC}(p_2)\right)$$
(70)
can be seen to be satisfied in the hard thermal limit when $`\theta pT1`$, without having to perform the integration over $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. This can be verified directly, at the integrand level, using the explicit forms of the two- and three-point amplitudes given by Eqs. (14) (with $`\theta pT1`$) and (69). Actually, this Ward identity should be satisfied for all values of $`\theta pT`$. This is because in the hard thermal limit amplitudes with external ghost lines do not have a $`T^2`$ behaviour and hence BRS identities reduce to simple Ward identities such as those in (70). The above Ward identity, together with the results given in Eqs. (38) and (43), implies that the leading $`T^2`$ contributions to the static three point amplitude are non-vanishing. This behaviour contrasts with the one in the commutative theory, where the gluon self-energy is the only static amplitude with a hard thermal loop.

## IV Discussion

An essential ingredient of the resumation program is the computation of the effective action for the hard thermal loops. In this work, we have addressed the problem of obtaining the two- and three-point functions in noncommutative $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$Yang-Mills theory at high temperature. These calculation are much more difficult than the corresponding ones in commutative $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$theory, due to the presence of the tensor $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, which appears in the interaction vertices. It is interesting to remark at this point that, as $`\theta _{\mu \nu }0`$, the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ sector decouples, so that the usual results of the $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$gauge theory are recovered. This can be understood by noting that the temperature does provide a natural ultraviolet cut-off for the thermal part of the amplitudes (in contrast, such limit is singular at $`T=0`$, due to the phenomenon of the UV/IR mixing). This fact enables one to take, for the leading thermal contributions in the noncommutative theory, the limit $`\theta _{\mu \nu }0`$ in a smooth way.

The approach which relates the hard thermal loops to the angular integrals of forward scattering amplitudes of on-shell thermal particles, allows one to infer much useful information about their high-temperature behaviour. From an examination of these amplitudes, where the leading terms are all of order $`T^2`$, one learns the following properties of the angular integrands:

* The non-localities involve, in configuration space, products of $`\left(k\right)^1`$.
* Apart from the trigonometric factors involving the noncommutative parameter, the integrands are homogeneous functions of $`k`$ of zero degree and Lorentz covariant.
* They are gauge invariant and satisfy simple Ward identities analogous to those of the tree amplitudes.

Using similar arguments to the ones employed in reference brandt:1993mj , we expect that these properties, together with the results for the lowest order amplitudes, may be sufficient to determine the effective action for hard thermal loops. This issue of the noncommutative Yang-Mills theory is currently being considered.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Professors A. Das and J. C. Taylor for helpful discussions. D.G.C. McKeon would like to thank the Universidade de São Paulo for the hospitality and R. and D. MacKenzie for encouragement. This work was supported by CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil.

## Appendix A Feynman rules

The propagators of the gauge and ghost particles are respectively given by

$`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^{A,B}}{(p^2+iϵ)}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }(1\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right)`$
$`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^{A,B}}{p^2+iϵ}}`$ (71)
The vertices are

$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`gC^{ABC}(p_1,p_2)\left[(p_1p_2)^\lambda \eta ^{\mu \nu }+(p_2p_3)^\mu \eta ^{\nu \lambda }+(p_3p_1)^\nu \eta ^{\lambda \mu }\right]`$ (73)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`gC^{ABC}(p_2,p_3)p_2^\mu `$ (75)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`ig^2[C^{ABX}(p_1,p_2)C^{XCD}(p_3,p_4)(\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho }\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \lambda })`$
$`+C^{ACX}(p_1,p_3)C^{XBD}(p_4,p_2)(\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\lambda \nu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\lambda \rho })`$
$`+C^{ADX}(p_1,p_4)C^{XBC}(p_2,p_3)(\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\lambda \rho }\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho })],`$
where

$$C^{ABC}(p_1,p_2)=f^{ABC}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2})+d^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2});p_1\times p_2p_1^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }p_2^\nu $$
(79)
and all momenta are inward. Dirac delta functions for the conservation of momenta are understood.

## Appendix B Integrals

In this appendix, the integrals appearing in Eqs. (18) to (21) are evaluated, leaving us in general with answers in terms of infinite sums.

First of all, from Eqs. (2), (14) and (15) we obtain

$$p_0\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu 0}^{AB}=\frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}N(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\left[1\delta ^{A,0}\mathrm{cos}(k\stackrel{~}{p})\right]K\stackrel{~}{p}\left[\frac{p^2}{(Kp)^2}\frac{p_0}{Kp}\right];K(1,\frac{\stackrel{}{k}}{|\stackrel{}{k}|})$$
(80)
One can perform the previous integral using a coordinate system such that two of the three orthogonal directions are $`\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{|\stackrel{}{p}|}`$ and $`\frac{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{p}}}{|\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{p}}|}`$. Since the integrand is an odd function of $`\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{p}}`$, the integral will vanish. Therefore, we conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_4^{AB}=0.$$
(81)
Let us now consider the quantity $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}`$. Using Eqs. (2) and (14) we obtain, since $`G_\mu ^\mu =2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}=\frac{4g^2N\delta ^{A,B}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}N(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\left[1\delta ^{A,0}\mathrm{cos}(k\stackrel{~}{p})\right].$$
(82)
Using spherical coordinates as shown in the figure 5, so that

$$k\stackrel{~}{p}=|\stackrel{}{p}|\theta |\stackrel{}{k}|\mathrm{cos}(\psi ),$$
(83)
we can write (with $`u\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{T}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}=\frac{4g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{udu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi _1^1𝑑\zeta \left[1\delta ^{A,0}\mathrm{cos}(\tau u\zeta )\right]$$

$$=\frac{8g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{udu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}\left[1\delta ^{A,0}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\tau u)}{\tau u}\right].$$
(84)
Expressing the Bose distribution in terms of the geometrical series,

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^u1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{nu},\frac{u}{\mathrm{e}^u1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d}{dn}\mathrm{e}^{nu}.$$
(85)
$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{udu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d}{dn}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\mathrm{e}^{nu}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}$$
(86)
and similarly, expanding

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(bu)du}{\mathrm{e}^u1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}(bu)\mathrm{e}^{nu}𝑑u$$

$$=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2i}\left(\mathrm{e}^{(ibn)u}\mathrm{e}^{(ibn)u}\right)𝑑u=b\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{b^2+n^2},$$
(87)
we obtain from (84)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{\mu AB}=\frac{8g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\delta ^{A,0}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2+\tau ^2}\right]$$
(88)
Let us now consider the component $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$. Using Eqs. (2), (14) and (15) and the spherical coordinates indicated in figure 6, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}(\psi )){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{duu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi ))^2}}\right]`$ (89)
$`\times `$ $`\left[1\delta ^{A,0}\mathrm{cos}(\tau u\mathrm{sin}(\psi )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))\right].`$
Using the standard result gradshteyn

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{cos}(a\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))=2\pi J_0(a),$$
(90)
we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}(\psi )){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{duu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}}\left[1\delta ^{A,0}J_0(\tau u\mathrm{sin}(\psi ))\right]`$ (91)
$`\times `$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi ))^2}}\right].`$
But now we take

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{duu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}J_0(au)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d}{dn}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{nu}J_0(au)$$
(92)
which can be written as gradshteyn

$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n^2+a^2}}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{(n^2+a^2)^{3/2}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2a^2}{10}}\right).`$ (93)
By Eqs. (86) and (93), (91) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\zeta \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{\sigma \zeta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \zeta )^2}}\right]`$ (94)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\delta ^{A,0}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{[n^2+\tau ^2(1\zeta ^2)]^{3/2}}}\right].`$
Finally, let us compute $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$. Using Eq. (2) and the spherical coordinates indicated in figure 6, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}(\psi )){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{duu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi `$ (95)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi ))^2}}(\mathrm{sin}(\psi )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))^21\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[1\delta ^{A,0}\mathrm{cos}(\tau u\mathrm{sin}(\psi )\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))\right].`$
Performing the integration over $`\varphi `$ gradshteyn

$$_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}(a\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))=\frac{1}{2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi (1+\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ))\mathrm{cos}(a\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))=\pi \left[J_0(a)J_2(a)\right],$$
(96)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2N\delta ^{A,B}T^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}(\psi ))\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{e}^{nu}𝑑u\right)`$ (97)
$`\times `$ $`\{[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi ))^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi }{2}}1][1J_0(\tau u\mathrm{sin}(\psi ))\delta ^{A,0}]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^21}{(\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\psi ))^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi }{2}}J_2(\tau u\mathrm{sin}(\psi ))\delta ^{A,0}\}.`$
The integral over $`u`$ in Eq. (97) is first expanded. Similarly to the Eqs. (86) and (92), we now have

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{duu}{\mathrm{e}^u1}J_2(au)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d}{dn}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{nu}J_2(au)$$
(98)
which by standard formula in gradshteyn  becomes

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{e}^{nu}J_2(au)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dn}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2(\sqrt{n^2+a^2}n)^2}{\sqrt{n^2+a^2}}}`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n\sqrt{n^2+a^2})^2(2\sqrt{n^2+a^2}+n)}{(n^2+a^2)^{3/2}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^4}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4a^2}{120}}.`$
One can now reduce $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu }{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}`$ to the expression involving a sum and an integral over $`\zeta =\mathrm{cos}(\psi )`$ given in Eq. (26).


format: text

text:
# Light meson orbital excitations in the QCD string approach

## I Introduction

The spectra of hadrons form an extremely important test ground for nonperturbative QCD. The scaling property of QCD tells us that in the end all characteristics of hadrons must depend on a single parameter, say $`\sigma `$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Till now, all calculations of hadronic spectra with an accuracy comparable to the uncertainties in the experimental data, have relied on models that contain several, in some cases even many, parameters. Here we adopt the formalism that uses the QCD-string Hamiltonian which relies on only one parameter–the string tension $`\sigma `$, while for light mesons the interactions derived from perturbative QCD, both static and spin-dependent, can be considered as a perturbation. The string tension can be extracted from experiment, in particular from the slope of the leading Regge trajectory, and in the present paper we use it to describe the orbital excitations of light mesons.

The QCD string approach developed in recent years ref.1  \- ref.3  starts from first principles, i.e. from the Euclidian QCD Lagrangian. In Ref. ref.2  the relativistic Hamiltonian $`H_R`$ for the light mesons with spinless quarks was derived under several verifiable assumptions.

First, string excitations (hybrids) are not taken into account, since there is a large gap, $`1`$ GeV, between a mesonic ground state and its gluonic excitation ref.4 . Without this approximation one obtains a matrix multichannel Hamiltonian ref.5 . Therefore the ground states of the mesons with not too large orbital momentum ($`L5`$) can be treated in the closed channel approximation.

Secondly, the relativistic Hamiltonian $`H_R`$ used here is derived in the quenched approximation, where creation of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs (sea quarks) is neglected. The accuracy of this approximation for low-lying states is expected to be approximately 10% ref.1 , while high radial and orbital excitations can be strongly affected by $`q\overline{q}`$ pair creationref.6 .

Thirdly, to derive the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ only forward-in-time quark trajectories have been taken into account while backward trajectories of a quark (antiquark) were neglected. The accuracy of this approximation has been checked comparing meson spectra of the center-of-mass Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ and light-cone Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{LC}}`$, since in the latter case backward-in-time trajectories do not contribute ref.7 . This comparison has shown that the differences in meson masses for these Hamiltonians is not larger than 10% for all mesons with exception of the pion, which receives a large contribution from backward-in-time trajectories corresponding to negative energy components and for them the formalism should be modified. In the Hamiltonian used chiral effects are not taken into account.

Under these assumptions and with the use of the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger (FFS) representation the Green’s function $`G`$ of a meson with a spinless quark and antiquark can be written in a gauge invariant way as a functional integral with the action $`A`$ ref.2 :

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\overline{s}DzD\overline{z}\mathrm{exp}(A),`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`K+\overline{K}+\sigma S_{\mathrm{min}},`$ (1)
where in the action (1) the only approximation made is that the vacuum average over the Wilson loop $`W(C)`$ is taken in the form of the minimal area law, viz

$$W(C)=const\mathrm{exp}(\sigma S_{\mathrm{min}}).$$
(2)
The accuracy of this approximation is determined by the condition

$$RT_g,$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the size (e.g. the r.m.s. radius) of the meson and $`T_g`$ is the gluonic (vacuum) correlation length which determines how the vacuum correlators decrease as a function of the separation $`r`$ between the quark and the antiquark. The value of $`T_g`$ was calculated on the lattice ref.8  and in the quenched case was found equal to $`0.150.20`$ fm, i.e. it is much smaller than the r.m.s. radii $`R(nL)`$ for light mesons having $`R(nL)0.8`$ fm. Note that the condition (3) is also valid for most excited heavy-light mesons and even in heavy quarkonia, where e.g. $`R(1P,c\overline{c})R(2P,b\overline{b})0.65`$ fm.

In the general case the approximate area law can be replaced by the exact $`q\overline{q}`$ interaction which contains a linear confining part for distances satisfying Eq. (3) but should be modified at smaller distances, being fully determined by a bilocal field correlator. In the action $`A`$ (1) $`K`$ and $`\overline{K}`$ are the quark (antiquark) kinetic energy term written in the FFS representation:

$$K=_0^s\left[m^2+\frac{1}{4}\dot{z}(\tau )_\alpha ^2\right]𝑑\tau ,\overline{K}=_0^s\left[m^2+\frac{1}{4}\dot{\overline{z}}(\tau )_\alpha ^2\right]𝑑\tau ,$$
(4)
where $`m`$ is the current mass of a quark, $`\tau `$ is the proper time introduced by Schwingerref.9 , $`z(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{z}(\tau )`$ are the paths of the quark and antiquark.

To define the Hamiltonian one can use the connection between the meson Green’s function and the Hamiltonian $`H`$:

$$G/T=H_\mathrm{R}G,$$
(5)
where the Hamiltonian can be determined on any hypersurface, i.e. $`H`$ can be derived in different frames. Here we shall use the Hamiltonian obtained in the c.m. frame, while in Ref. ref.7  the Hamiltonian was derived in the light-cone frame.

In order to use the relation (5) in Euclidean space-time it is of great importance to go over from the proper time $`\tau `$ to the actual time $`tz_4`$, of a quark (antiquark). Doing so the new quantity $`\mu (t)`$ is introduced:

$$2\mu (t)=t/\tau .$$
(6)
After perfoming the canonical quantization the variable $`\mu `$ (being a canonical coordinate) will define the constituent mass of a quark. The last term in the action (1) has the form of the Nambu-Goto string:

$$S_{\mathrm{min}}=_0^T𝑑t_0^1𝑑\beta \sqrt{detg},$$
(7)
where $`g_{ab}=_aw_\alpha _bw^\alpha `$ with $`a,b=t,\beta `$ and $`w_\alpha (t,\beta )`$ are the coordinates of the string world surface. In Refs. ref.2  the string was approximated by a straight line connecting the path coordinates $`z_\alpha (t)`$ and $`\overline{z}_\alpha (t)`$ and in this case

$$w_\alpha (t,\beta )=z_\alpha (t)\beta +\overline{z}_\alpha (t)(1\beta ),0\beta 1.$$
(8)
Due to the presence of the square root in $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in Eq. (7) this term cannot be quantized and to get rid of it one can introduce two auxiliary fields, $`\nu (t,\beta )`$ and $`\eta (t,\beta )`$ in the standard way as done in string theoryref.10 .

By definition the introduction of the auxiliary fields is accompanied by the additional integration over $`D\mu `$, $`D\nu `$, $`D\eta `$ in the functional integral defining the meson Green’s function,

$$G=D\mu D\nu D\eta DR_\alpha Dr_\alpha \mathrm{exp}(A),$$
(9)
where “the center-of-mass” coordinate $`R_\alpha `$ and “the relative” coordinate $`r_\alpha `$ are introduced instead of the path coordinates $`z_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{z}_\alpha `$.

As shown in Refs. ref.2  the integrations over $`D\eta `$ and $`DR_\alpha `$ can analytically be performed in the integral (9) and after that the Green’s function has a simpler form, viz

$$G=D\mu D\nu Dr\mathrm{exp}(A_R).$$
(10)
As the next step instead of performing the integration over $`D\mu `$ and $`D\nu `$ in the integral (10) one can use an equivalent procedure–to go over to the canonical quantization of the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ which corresponds to the action $`A_\mathrm{R}`$. This Hamiltonian in Minkowski space-time is obtained from $`A_\mathrm{R}`$ in a standard wayref.2 ; ref.10  and is taken as a starting point in our analysis (see Eq. (17)).

The quantization of $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ has been performed in two cases: the quasiclassical quantization of $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ for large orbital momenta $`L,L1`$, in Ref. ref.11  and for not too large $`L`$ in Refs. ref.2 . Here we are interested only in orbital excitations with $`L4`$ and in this case the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ can be presented as the sum

$$H_\mathrm{R}=H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}},$$
(11)
where the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ is relatively small for $`L4`$ and can be considered as a perturbation. Then the problem reduces to the quantization of more simple Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ which can be easily done (see Sections III and IV). At the final stage we obtain the surprising result that after quantization the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ coincides with the Hamiltonian used in the relativistic potential model (RPM) ref.12 ; ref.13 . In this way (for the states with $`L4`$) the connection between the QCD string Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ and the RPM is established and we can also calculate the corrections which are absent in the RPM.

The first correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}`$, called the string correction, comes from the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ in Eq. (11); it is negative and varying from a value of about -50 MeV for $`L=1`$ to about -150MeV) for $`L=4`$.

A second correction to the meson mass, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}`$, is due to the spin (colour magnetic moment) interaction of a quark (antiquark) with the external (vacuum) field when the operator $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is inserted in the Wilson loop. The form of this operator is

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta \gamma _\beta \gamma _\alpha ).$$
(12)
This nonpertubative self-energy correction was analytically calculated in Ref. ref.14  with the the use of the FFS representation for the quark Green’s function. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}`$ is negative and has a rather large magnitude (of the order of -400 MeV to -300 MeV) for all states with $`L4`$, slightly decreasing with growing $`L`$. Owing to this correction the correct value of the Regge intercept was obtained.

We use here the current quark mass $`m=0`$ and due to the procedure of canonical quantization the constituent mass of a quark can be defined in a rigorous way as the canonical coordinate $`\mu `$ which is equal to the quark kinetic energy. It is of interest to note that the final expression of the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ does not contain the constituent mass at all. However, the constituent mass $`\mu `$ must be defined since it explicitly enters those terms in the Hamiltonian, like the spin-dependent and self-energy terms, which are considered as a perturbation.

Here we consider in detail the spin-averaged meson masses, $`\overline{M}(nL)`$, or the centers of gravity of the $`nL`$-multiplets (i.e. neglect the hyperfine and fine-structure splittings) for which the physical picture is simpler and at the same time more universal since the parameters do not depend on spin and isospin.

We concentrate mostly on the orbital excitations with $`n=0`$ for which experimental data exist for all ground states with $`L5`$. Then for the linear confining potential $`\sigma r`$ all meson masses $`\overline{M}(nL)`$ can be expressed through a single parameter–the string tension $`\sigma `$. The values of the slope and the intercept of the Regge L-trajectory $`(L4)`$ will be calculated analytically: their numerical values are $`\alpha _L^{}=0.80`$ GeV-2 ($`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2) and $`\alpha _L(0)=0.34`$ turn out to be in very good agreement with the experimental numbers. From the Regge slope a restriction on the admissable values of the string tension follows: $`\sigma =0.18\pm 0.005`$ GeV2 for the pure linear potential and $`\sigma =0.19\pm 0.01`$ GeV2 if the Coulomb interaction is taken into account.

The Coulomb contribution is mainly important for the $`1S`$ and the $`1P`$ states having values in the range $`200`$ to $`100`$ MeV, and is considered here in a twofold way: from exact calculations with the linear plus Coulomb potential and also when the Coulomb interaction is considered as a perturbation; both considerations give very close results. For $`\sigma =0.19`$ GeV2 the QCD coupling is $`\alpha _s=0.39`$ which is typical for heavy quarkonia, and from our analysis of the meson spectra the following restriction on the strong coupling $`\alpha _s0.42`$, is obtained. This number is in a good agreement with the two-loop value of the freezing coupling constant obtained in background field theory ref.15 .

## II Experimental data

The experimental numbers for the spin-averaged masses $`\overline{M}(L)`$, or the centers of gravity of the $`1L`$-multiplet (the ground states with $`n=0`$), are presented in Table 1 and need some remarks.

First, all members of the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet are supposed to be known: $`a_2(1318)`$, $`a_1(1235)`$, and the $`a_0(980)`$ too, are considered to form the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ multiplet with $`\overline{M}(1P)=1252`$ MeV. Similarly, for the $`f_J(1P)`$ mesons the spin-averaged mass is 1245 MeV ref.16 .

Second, in the case of $`L=2`$, the fine-structure splittings of the $`1D`$-wave mesons are supposed to be suppressed as compared to the $`P`$-wave states ref.17 . As a result, for all members of the $`1D_J`$-multiplet, e.g. the $`\rho _3(1.69)`$ and $`\pi _2(1.67)`$, their masses are very close to each other and one can expect that the true value of $`\overline{M}(1D)`$ lies between these two values. The same would be valid for the isoscalar mesons, if they were not mixed with other hadronic states, and just this situation is observed in experiment where the masses of the $`\omega _3(1.67)`$ and the $`\omega (1.65)`$ have values close to the corresponding isovector mesonsref.16 .

Due to the suppression of the matrix elements (m.e.) like $`<1/r^3>`$ the spin splittings for the higher orbital excitations like $`1F`$, $`1G`$, etc. should be even smaller than for the $`1D`$ mesons. Therefore the masses of the $`a_4`$(2.01) and the $`f_4`$(2.03) are supposed to be close to $`\overline{M}(1F)`$ as well as the masses of the $`\rho _5`$(2.30) with $`L=4`$, and $`a_6`$(2.45) and $`f_6`$(2.47) with $`L=5`$, lie close to their centers of gravity. The masses of all orbital excitations ($`n=0`$) can be nicely described by the Regge $`L`$-trajectory (see Fig.1):

$$\overline{M}^2(L)=(1.23\pm 0.02)L+0.37\pm 0.02(\mathrm{GeV}^2),$$
(13)
or

$$L=0.81\overline{M}^2(L)0.30$$
(14)
with the following Regge slope and intercept:

$$\alpha _{L\mathrm{exp}}^{}=0.81\pm 0.01(\mathrm{GeV}^2)\mathrm{and}\alpha _{L\mathrm{exp}}(0)=0.30\pm 0.02(L4).$$
(15)
and both values have a small experimental error.

Note that for the leading $`\rho `$-trajectory:

$$J=\alpha _J^{}M^2(J)+0.48$$
(16)
the slope $`\alpha _J^{}=0.88`$ GeV-2 and the intercept $`\alpha _J(0)=0.48`$ are larger since their values depend on the spin contributions. On the contrary, the $`L`$-trajectory is a universal one and in the approximation of closed channels it is the same for isovector and isosinglet mesons.

In our paper the meson masses, Regge slope and Regge intercept will be calculated analytically in the framework of the QCD string approach.

## III Relativistic Hamiltonian

We start with the Green’s function Eq. (10) which is obtained after performing two integrations $`D\eta DR`$ in the functional integral, so in the Green’s function still three integrations left: over the two auxiliary fields $`\mu (t)`$ and $`\nu (t)`$ and also over the separation $`r`$ between a quark and an antiquark, $`r_\alpha =z_\alpha (t)\overline{z}_\alpha (t)`$. The explicit expression of this action $`A_\mathrm{R}`$ was obtained in Refs. ref.2  and the dependence of $`A_\mathrm{R}`$ on $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ turns out to be rather complicated. Therefore it is more simple and convenient to go over to the equivalent procedure–canonical quantization of the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ which corresponds to the action $`A_\mathrm{R}`$ in Eq. (10):

$`H_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_r^2+m^2}{\mu (\tau )}}+\mu (\tau )`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{L}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{r^2}}\left[\mu (\tau )+2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\beta \nu (\beta )(\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2\right]^1`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^2r^2{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{\nu (\beta )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}d\beta \nu (\beta ]).`$
By definition the field operator $`\mu (t)`$ is

$$\mu (t)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{dt}{d\tau },$$
(18)
where $`t`$ is the actual time.

In Eq. (17) $`m`$ is the current quark mass, which for a light quark (antiquark) will be taken equal to zero; $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ is the angular orbital momentum, $`\stackrel{}{L}=\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{p}`$, and the operator $`p_r^2=(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})^2/(r^2)`$. Canonical quantization of $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ (17) has not been done in general, but was performed in two cases: first when the orbital momentum $`L1`$ (the quasiclassical quantization in Ref. ref.11 ) and for relatively small $`L4`$ which will be considered here. The constant $`\sigma `$ determining the nonperturbative potential is the string tension.

It is convenient to rewrite $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ as a sum of two terms:

$$H_\mathrm{R}=H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}},$$
(19)
with the “unperturbed” Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ defined by

$$H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{\mu (t)}+\mu (t)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^2r^2_0^1\frac{d\beta }{\nu (\beta )}+\frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑\beta \nu (\beta ).$$
(20)
where in $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ we have included the term $`L^2/(\mu r^2)`$ and subtracted the same term to give the string correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{L}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu (t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu +2_0^1𝑑\beta \nu (\beta )(\beta \frac{1}{2})^2}}\right]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{L}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{\mu r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2_0^1𝑑\beta \nu (\beta )(\beta \frac{1}{2})^2}{\mu +2_0^1𝑑\beta \nu (\beta )(\beta \frac{1}{2})^2}}.`$
If $`L`$ is not large, then the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ appears to be relatively small and can be considered as a correction to the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ ref.11  but for large $`L`$ the representation of $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ as the sum Eq. (19) is of no use, since in this case both terms are equally important. Note that to get the expression (20) one needs the following definition

$$\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=p_r^2+\frac{\stackrel{}{L}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{r^2}.$$
(22)
The simplest Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ with $`L=0`$ is a special case of $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ (or $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$) with $`\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ replaced by $`p_r^2`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ is considered as a perturbation, the canonical quantization needs to be performed only with the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$, which can be easily done, since the latter can be presented as the sum of the kinetic energy operator $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ which depends on $`\mu `$ and $`\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{pot}}`$ which depends on $`\nu `$:

$$H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}=\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}(\mu )+\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{pot}}(\nu ).$$
(23)
The variables $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are the canonical coordinates while the momenta $`\pi _\mu `$ and $`\pi _\nu `$ canonically conjugated to $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ turn out to be equal to zero, since $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ (as well as $`H_\mathrm{R}`$) does not depend on the derivatives $`\dot{\mu }`$ and $`\dot{\nu }`$. Hence it follows that

$$\dot{\pi }_\mu =H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}/\mu =0,\dot{\pi }_\nu =H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}/\nu =0.$$
(24)
Thus instead of calculating the Green’s function as the functional integral Eq. (10) and subsequently deriving the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$, one can obtain this Hamiltonian from $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ Eq. (20) with the use of the extremum conditions Eq. (24). The equivalence of these two procedures was explicitly illustrated in the third paper of Ref. ref.2  for the kinetic part in Eq. (23):

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{kin}}(\mu )=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{\mu ^2}+\mu (t).$$
(25)
For this Hamiltonian the explicitly calculated Green’s function for the free particle is

$$G_0=D\stackrel{}{z}(t)D\stackrel{}{p}\mathrm{exp}[i_0^T(\stackrel{}{p}\dot{\stackrel{}{z}}\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2})]$$
(26)
which is just the canonical representation of the Green’s function with the free Hamiltonian

$$H_0=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}$$
(27)
## IV The extremal values of the operators $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$

To understand the physical meaning of the auxiliary fields $`\mu (t)`$ and $`\nu (t)`$ let us find their extremal values. First, in the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ we determine the variable $`\nu (\beta )`$ from the extremum conditions (24:

$$\frac{\delta H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}}{\delta \nu (\beta )}=0,\frac{\delta H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}}{\delta \mu (t)}=0.$$
(28)
Then one finds that $`\nu (\beta )`$, which is an operator in general, does not depend on the string parameter $`\beta `$ and is equal to

$$\nu _0(\beta )=\sigma r,$$
(29)
i.e. is actually the energy density along the string.

With the use of Eq. (29) the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ reduces to a simpler operator:

$$H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{\mu (t)}+\mu (t)+\sigma r,$$
(30)
where $`\mu (t)`$ is still an operator in the Hamiltonian formalism. Its extremum can be found from the second extremum condition (28)

$$\mu (t)=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2},\mathrm{for}H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)},\mu _0(t)=\sqrt{p_r^2+m^2},\mathrm{for}H_0,$$
(31)
i.e. the extremal value of $`\mu `$ is one half the kinetic energy operator. Note that after canonical quantization the ‘coordinate’ $`\mu `$ is already independent of time. Substituting it into the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}=2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}+\sigma r$$
(32)
giving rise to an eigenvalue equation that is identical to the spinless Salpeter equation (SSE) with a linear potential

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}\psi (nL)=M_0(nl)\psi (nL).$$
(33)
This equation has been used in the RPM for many yearsref.12 ; ref.13  and the only difference is that in the Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ in Eq. (33) we must use the current quark mass $`m`$ since just the current mass enters the meson Green’s function ($`m=0`$ for the light mesons) while in the RPM $`m0`$ is usually used, e.g. in Ref. ref.13  $`m=(m_u+m_d)/2=220`$ MeV.

## V The constituent quark mass

Although the constituent mass $`\mu `$ is not explicitly present in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$, it enters many important physical characteristics like the spin splittings and magnetic moments, and also in the string and self-energy corrections, therefore it must not be left in as an operator. The simplest way to solve this is to define $`\mu _0`$ as the expectation value of one half the quark kinetic energy operator Eq. (31), i.e.,

$$\mu _0(nL)=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}+m^2}_{nL}.$$
(34)
Note that the eigenvalues $`M_0(nL)`$ in Eq. (32) for the linear potential $`\sigma r`$ are connected with $`\mu _0`$ as follows

$$M_0(nL)=4\mu _0(nL).$$
(35)
The values of $`\mu _0`$ can be expressed through a single parameter–the string tension $`\sigma `$ and the universal numbers $`a(nL)`$ given by

$$\mu _0(nL)=\sqrt{\sigma }a(nL).$$
(36)
This relation is a manifestation of the scaling property of the SSE in the case $`m=0`$.

Another definition of the constituent mass, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0`$, was used in Refs. ref.1 ; ref.3  in the so called “einbein approximation” (EA) where the second extremum condition in Eq. (22) is written not for the operator $`H_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ but for the eigenvalues $`M_0(nL)`$. A priori it is not clear whether in both definitions the extremal values $`\mu _0(nL)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(nL)`$ coincide or not, therefore let us compare them. In the EA Eq. (33) is rewritten as

$$\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }(t)}+\sigma r\right]\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\epsilon (nL)\stackrel{~}{\psi },$$
(37)
with

$$\epsilon (nL)=\left(\frac{\sigma ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\right)^{1/3}A(nL),$$
(38)
i.e., it reduces to the Airy equation with $`\epsilon (nL)=M_0(nL)\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and the quantities A(nL) in Eq. (38) are the zeros of the Airy function. The constituent mass $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(nL)`$ is now determined by the condition

$$\frac{d\epsilon (\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{d\stackrel{~}{\mu }}+1=0,(m=0).$$
(39)
Then from Eqs. (38, 39) one obtains that

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(nL)=\sqrt{\sigma }\left(\frac{1}{3}A(nL)\right)^{3/4}=\sqrt{\sigma }\stackrel{~}{a}(nL).$$
(40)
To compare $`\mu _0(nL)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(nL)`$ one can use the numbers presented in Appendix A (see Tables 7 and 8) from which the corresponding universal numbers $`a(nL)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}(nL)`$ can be determined.

The largest difference between $`\mu _0(nL)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(nL)`$ was found for $`S`$ waves and is increasing with growing radial quantum number $`n`$ from 5% for the $`1S`$ state to 7% for the $`5S`$ state. However, this difference is falling with increasing $`L`$, being only 1.7% for $`L=5(n=0)`$. So, $`\mu _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0`$ are numerically very close. In contrast to the eigenvalues $`M_0(nL)`$ for the Salpeter and Airy equations a large difference is found between some matrix elements (m.e.) like $`<1/r^3>`$ (for any $`L0`$) which define the fine-structure splittings. This difference can be as large as 30-50% in some cases (see Tables 7, 8). Moreover, while for the SSE these m.e. are growing, they are slightly decreasing for the Airy equation. It is worth to notice that these differences between the m.e. would be much larger if a fixed constituent mass, as in potential models, would be used.

The reason behind such discrepancies may be connected with the different asymptotic behavor of the wave functions(w.f.). For the SSE Eq. (32) it falls as $`\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\sigma r})`$ ref.18  while for the Airy Eq. (37) the w.f. decreases as $`\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0\sigma }r^{3/2})`$. Therefore the definition (33) of the constituent quark mass as well as the calculations of the m.e. with the use of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$ has to be considered as preferable compared to the EA.

Note a useful relation between the m.e.:

$$\sigma r=2\mu _0(nL)$$
(41)
and

$$1/r=\sqrt{\sigma }1/\rho _{nL},$$
(42)
where $`1/\rho `$ is independent of $`\sigma `$ but does depend on the quantum numbers.

It is worthwile to discuss some common features and differences between the QCD string approach used here and the RPM which was an essential step in our understanding of hadronic spectra.

First of all we have shown that the Hamiltonian used in the RPM is more than a model one, as it can be deduced from the meson Green’s function in QCD for not too large angular momenta $`L`$, assuming that the string correction coming from the part $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ Eq. (21) is neglected or considered as a perturbation.

However, in the QCD string approach the mass $`m`$ must be the current quark mass, since just the current mass enters the meson Green’s function in the FFS representation, in particular for light quarks $`m=0`$ and for the strange quark $`m_s=140160`$ MeV are taken ref.3 , while in the RPM $`m=(m_s+m_d)/2=220`$ MeV, $`m_s=465`$ MeV are taken in ref.13 .

Since in the QCD string approach the Hamiltonian as well as the string and self-energy corrections are calculated with the use of just the same FFS representation the whole picture is simplified and the spin-averaged mass can be expressed through the only parameter–the string tension $`\sigma `$.

The constituent mass of a quark does not enter the final form of the Hamiltonian Eq. (32) and the notion of the constituent mass appears to be necessary only when one takes into account the spin-dependent interaction and also the string and self-energy corrections to the meson mass. In the FFS representation all these terms are inversely proportional to just the same auxiliary field $`\mu `$ ref.1  which is strictly detremined from the extremum condition due to the procedure of canonical quantization and appears to be the kinetic-energy operator. However,to calculate these corrections the variable $`\mu `$ must not be used as an operator and we have defined the constituent mass as the expection value of the quark kinetic energy. This definition of the constituent mass is in accord with another one–the variational definition of the constituent mass used in Ref. ref.3

It is important that the constituent mass in our case depends on the quantum numbers and increases with growing $`L`$ and $`n_r`$.

Finally, instead of the string and self-energy corrections considered in next Sections (they are negative) in the RPM a universal negative constant is introduced.

## VI The string correction and the slope of the Regge trajectory

It is known that for the Salpeter equation (33) (or for the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{R}^{(1)}`$) the squared masses $`M_0^2(nL)`$ can be approximated (with an accuracy of about 1% for $`L0`$) by the “string formula” ref.19 ,

$$M_0^2(\mathrm{approx})=8\sigma L+4\pi \sigma (n+3/4).$$
(43)
The exact values of $`M_0^2(nL)`$ together with those of $`M_0^2`$(approx) ($`L6`$ , $`n=0`$) are given in Table 1 from which one can see that the differences between them are indeed $``$ 1% for $`L2`$.

As is clear from the approximation (43), the slope of the Regge trajectory for the SSE is $`(8\sigma )^1`$, i.e. $`\alpha _L^{}=0.69`$ GeV-2 for $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2, which is 17% smaller than the experimental number Eq. (15), $`\alpha _L^{}=0.81\pm 0.01`$ GeV-2. Note that the string corrections which come from the term Eq. (21) are also proportional to $`L`$ and therefore affect the Regge slope. The situation appears to be different in two domains: $`L4`$ and $`L5`$ respectively, and we consider them separately.

### VI.1 Case A. $`L4`$

By the definition (21) $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}`$ gives a negative correction to the eigenvalues $`M_0(nL)`$; its magnitude turns out to be relatively small, $`100`$ MeV, and therefore this term can be considered as a perturbation ref.11 .

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}(nL)=\mathrm{\Delta }H_{\mathrm{str}}=\frac{\sigma L(L+1)}{\mu _0(nL)}\frac{1}{r(6\mu _0+\sigma r)}.$$
(44)
In Eq. (44) we have used that the integral $`_0^1𝑑\beta (\beta 1/2)^2`$ is equal to 1/12 and the operators $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ were replaced by their extremal values Eq. (29) and Eq. (31). The factor in brackets can also be approximated (with an accuracy better than 3%) replacing $`\sigma r`$ by $`<\sigma r>`$. Then the string correction is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}(nL)=\frac{\sigma L(L+1)1/r}{\mu _0(6\mu _0+\sigma r)}.$$
(45)
Due to the relations (35) and (41) for the linear potential the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}=\frac{\sigma L(L+1)1/r}{8\mu _0^2}=\frac{2\sigma ^{3/2}1/\rho L(L+1)}{M_0^2}.$$
(46)
Note that in Eq. (46) the m.e. $`<1/\rho >\sqrt{L+1}`$ is almost constant, varying from 0.787 for $`L=1`$ to 0.741 for $`L=4`$ (see Table 7). The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}`$ (using the m.e. $`<1/r>`$ from Tables 8 and 9 ) are given in Table 2.

For comparison in Table 2 the string corrections valid for large $`L`$ $`(L5)`$ (see the asymptotic string correction formula Eq. (55)) are also given.

Now one can analytically calculate the Regge slope for the “corrected ” mass:

$$M(nL)=M_0(nL)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}(nL)(L4),$$
(47)
then the squared mass

$$M^2(L)=M_0^2(L)\frac{4\sigma ^{3/2}L(L+1)1/\rho }{M_0}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}^2.$$
(48)
If one neglects $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}^2`$ in Eq. (48) which is small ($`0.016`$ GeV2 for $`L4`$) and uses the approximation (43) for $`M_0^2(L)`$ then for the orbital excitations with $`n=0`$ the squared mass Eq. (48) becomes

$$M^2(L)=8\sigma L\sigma \frac{\sqrt{2}1/\rho (L+1)}{\sqrt{L+3\pi /8}}+3\pi \sigma =\left(\alpha _L^{}\right)^1L+3\pi \sigma $$
(49)
where the inverse Regge slope in Eq. (49) is

$$\left(\alpha _L^{}\right)^1=\left(8\frac{\sqrt{2}1/\rho (L+1)}{\sqrt{L+3\pi /8}}\right)\sigma =(6.95\pm 0.02)\sigma .$$
(50)
The values of $`(\alpha _L^{})^1`$ are practically constant, see the numbers in Table 9, varying from the value $`6.930\sigma `$ for $`L=1`$ to $`6.970\sigma `$ for $`L=4`$ and we take here $`(\alpha _L^{})^1=(6.95\pm 0.02)\sigma `$. Then

$$M^2(L)=6.95\sigma L+3\pi \sigma $$
(51)
or

$$L=0.144M^2(L)/\sigma 1.358.$$
(52)
It gives for $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 the Regge slope

$$\left(\alpha _L^{}\right)^1=1.25\mathrm{GeV}^2\mathrm{or}\alpha _L^{}=0.80\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(53)
in good agreement with the experimental number given in Eq. (15) $`\alpha _L^{}(\mathrm{exp})=0.81\pm 0.01`$ GeV-2. Thus, due to the string corrections we have obtained the correct Regge slope for the spin-averaged masses. However, the intercept in Eq. (52) has a very large magnitude and an additional contribution to the meson mass must be taken into account. We discuss this contribution in Sect. VII

### VI.2 Case B. Large $`L`$

For large $`L`$ the extremal value of the operator $`\nu `$ is not equal to $`\sigma r`$ but turns out to depend on the parameter $`\beta `$ as well as on the operator $`\mu (t)`$. In this case it is a difficult problem to find the exact eigenvalues $`M`$(asym) of the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{R}`$, therefore in Ref.ref.11  the eigenvalues of $`H_\mathrm{R}`$ have been calculated in the quasiclassical approximation with the following result,

$$M^2(\mathrm{asym})=2\pi \sigma \sqrt{L(L+1)}+3\pi \sigma .$$
(54)
Here, in the asymptotic mass formula (54) the string correction is already taken into account and the constant $`3\pi \sigma `$ is kept to match the solutions for large $`L`$ to those for $`L4`$. Now, for comparison one can formally define the string correction for large $`L`$ as the difference between the asymptotic mass Eq. (54) and the unperturbed mass $`M_0(nL)`$ Eq. (35)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}(\mathrm{asym})=\sqrt{3\pi \sigma +2\pi \sigma \sqrt{L(L+1)}}M_0(L),(L>>1,n=0).$$
(55)
The asymptotic masses are less than $`M_0(L)`$ Eq. (33) for $`L4`$. The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}`$ is increasing with growing $`L`$ and for $`L=6`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}(\mathrm{asym})`$ is already $`220`$ MeV.

From the numerical values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}`$ (asym) (see Table 3) one can see that for $`L=4`$ both string corrections, from the asymptotic formula Eq. (55)and from Eq. (47), practically coincide and in what follows the string correction will be taken in the form (47) for $`L4`$ and from Eq. (55) for $`L5`$ ( when the masses $`M`$(asym) are smaller, see Table 3).

For $`L>>1`$ the Regge slope in Eq. (55) is $`(2\pi \sigma )^1`$, i.e. for $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2, $`\alpha _L^{}(L>>1)=0.88`$ GeV-2 is larger than for $`L4`$ and coincides with $`\alpha _J^{}`$ for the $`\rho `$-tracjectory. Such a picture is partly seen in experiment, where for $`L=5`$ the difference $`M^2(a_6)M^2(\rho _5)`$ is relatively small and corresponds to the large value $`\alpha _L^{}1.1`$ GeV-2. However, this growth of $`\alpha _L^{}`$ is likely to be connected with another reason–an effective decreasing of the string tension at large distances due to new channels being opened. This effect is considered in our paperref.6 .

The calculated meson masses (see Table 3) still are large compared to experiment and to get agreement between them a negative constant (a fitting parameter) must be added to the squared mass $`M^2(nL)`$ref.13 . Here we shall not introduce a fitting constant, but instead take into account the quark self-energy correction to the meson mass.

## VII The quark self-energy contribution and meson masses

Recently it was observed that a negative constant must added to the meson mass, which comes from the nonperturbative quark self-energy contribution created by the color magnetic moment of the quark ref.14 . This constant is rather large and was calculated with the use of the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger representation of the quark Green’s function. The total nonperturbative self-energy contribution, both from the quark and the antiquark, was found to be fully determined by the string tension and by the current mass (flavor) of the quark:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}(nL)=\frac{4\sigma \eta (f)}{\pi \mu _0(nL)}.$$
(56)
Here $`\mu _0(nL)`$ is just the constituent mass defined by Eq. (34). The constant $`\eta (f)`$ depends on the flavor: its numerical value for a quark of arbitrary flavor was calculated in Ref. ref.14 , in particular for the light mesons we take as in Ref. ref.14

$$\eta (n\overline{n})=0.90.$$
(57)
The self-energy terms, as well as the meson masses, are given in Table 4 for the ground states $`(n=0,L5)`$ from which one can see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}(L)`$ decreases as a function of $`n`$ and $`L`$, being proportional to $`\mu _0^1(nL)`$. Still it is rather large (equal to -300 MeV) even for $`L=5`$.

With the self-energy and the string corrections taken into account the spin- averaged meson mass $`\overline{M}(nL)`$ is fully determined. The Coulomb correction will be discussed in the next Section and calculated in Appendix B.

The meson mass is now given by

$$\overline{M}(nL)=M_0(nL)\frac{\sigma 1/rL(L+1)}{\mu _0(6\mu _0+\sigma r)}\frac{4\sigma \eta }{\pi \mu _0},(L4)$$
(58)
and for the linear potential can be written as

$$\overline{M}(nL)=M_0(nL)\frac{2\sigma 1/rL(L+1)}{M_0^2}\frac{16\sigma \eta }{\pi M_0},$$
(59)
using the relations (35) and (41). The calculated meson masses $`(L4)`$ coincide with good accuracy with the experimental values ( see Table 4 ).

For large $`L`$ $`(n=0)`$

$$\overline{M}=\sqrt{3\pi \sigma +2\pi \sigma \sqrt{L(L+1)}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}(L).$$
(60)
## VIII The intercept of the Regge trajectory

From the mass formula (59) it follows that the self-energy term enters $`\overline{M}(nL)`$ in such a way that the negative constant $`C_0`$,

$$C_0=\frac{32\sigma \eta }{\pi },$$
(61)
appears in the squared spin-averaged mass $`\overline{M}^2(L)`$:

$$\overline{M}^2(nL)=(M_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}})^2\frac{32\sigma \eta }{\pi }+\left(\frac{16\sigma \eta }{\pi M_0}\right)^2.$$
(62)
Here the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}`$ will be neglected, because they give small contributions for $`L4`$, while the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}^2`$ is kept, since it is not small in all states. The constant $`C_0`$ is rather large and for $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 is equal to $`1.65`$ GeV. Using the expression (48) for the mass $`(M_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}})^2`$ and Eq. (43) for $`M_0^2`$, Eq. (62) can be presented as

$$\overline{M}^2(L)=\left(\alpha _L^{}\right)^1L+b(L),$$
(63)
with

$`b(L)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \left[3\pi {\displaystyle \frac{32\eta }{\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{32\eta ^2}{\pi ^2(L+3\pi /8)}}\right],(L0),`$
$`b(L=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \left[3\pi {\displaystyle \frac{32\eta }{\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{256\eta ^2}{\pi ^2M_0^2(1S)}}\right],`$ (64)
where for $`M_0(L=0)`$ it is better to use the exact value, $`M_0(1S)=3.157\sqrt{\sigma }`$ and $`\alpha _L^{}`$ was already defined by the expression (50). From (63) the intercept is

$$\alpha _L(0)=\alpha _L(M^2=0)=\alpha _L^{}b(L=0)=\frac{b(L=0)}{6.95\sigma }.$$
(65)
Note that in $`b(L)`$ the combination $`(3\pi 32\eta /\pi )\sigma `$ is a small number (equal 0.046 GeV2 for $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2) and therefore for the intercept the contribution of the self-energy term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}^2`$ is dominant.

From Eq. (64) it is clear that $`b(L)`$ is sensitive to the value of the flavor factor $`\eta `$, which may introduce an uncertainty on the order of 5%.

With the use of the analytical expression (64) and the exact value of $`M_0(L=0)`$, $`\eta (n\overline{n})=0.90`$ the quantity $`b(L=0)`$ is equal to

$$b(L=0)=2.365\sigma .$$
(66)
Then the intercept given by Eq. (65) takes the value

$$\alpha _L(0)=(\alpha _L^{})b(L=0)=2.356/6.95=0.34.$$
(67)
This number is in good agreement–larger by 10% only– with the experimental value $`\alpha _L(0)=0.30\pm 0.02`$. It is essential that the intercept does not depend on the string tension but instead is sensitive to the flavor parameter $`\eta `$. Just for this reason the intercept for the mesons with different flavor depends on the flavor.

So, finally, the Regge $`L`$-trajectory calculated in the QCD string approach with $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 is fully determined,

$$L=0.80\overline{M}^2(L)0.34$$
(68)
and appears to be very close to Eq. (15) obtained from a fit to the experimental spin-averaged meson masses, see Fig. 1. From Eq. (68) the averaged mass $`\overline{M}(\pi \rho )`$ is found:

$$\overline{M}^2(1S)=0.425\mathrm{GeV}^2\mathrm{or}\overline{M}(1S)=0.652\mathrm{GeV},$$
(69)
which corresponds to a $`\pi `$-meson mass $`\overline{M}(\pi )=301`$ MeV. This number turns out to be smaller than $`M(1S)=0.723`$ GeV calculated directly from Eq. (47) and this discrepancy illustrates how sensitive $`\overline{M}(1S)`$ is to the approximations used.

## IX Coulomb interaction

In the previous sections good agreement of the spin-averaged meson masses (for the ground states with $`L0)`$ was obtained without taking into account the Coulomb interaction. It is of interest to check whether the Coulomb effects are actually suppressed for $`L0`$ states and how large is Coulomb correction to $`\overline{M}(\pi \rho )`$.

To this end we solve the Salpeter equation with the string potential taken as a linear plus Coulomb term, i.e., with the Cornell potential:

$$V_C(r)=\sigma r\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{r},$$
(70)
where $`\alpha _s=`$ constant can be used, since the light mesons have very large sizes, $`R1.0`$ fm, and at such distances the strong coupling is saturated and close to the “freezing” valueref.15 . If for the string tension one takes $`\sigma =0.19`$ GeV2, then the fitted value of $`\alpha _s`$ appears to be just the same as for heavy quarkoniaref.20 ; ref.21 ,

$$\alpha _s=0.39$$
(71)
However, the masses of the ground states, including the $`1S`$ state, can be nicely described with a smaller value for the coupling constant, $`0.20\alpha _s0.39`$, if correspondingly the value of $`\sigma `$ is taken from the range $`0.18`$ GeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}<\sigma 0.19`$ GeV2.

The main characteristics of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system like the eigenvalues $`M_C(nL)`$ of Eq.(33) using the Cornell potential, the constituent masses $`\mu _C(nL)`$ defined by Eq. (34) together with the string and the self-energy corrections are presented in Appendix B in Tables 10 and 11. Here in Table 5 we give only the results of our calculations for the spin-averaged masses $`\overline{M}_C(nL)`$. Note that in the Coulomb case the relation (35) is not valid and therefore the meson mass $`\overline{M}_C(nL)`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{str}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}`$ should be written through the constituent mass (denoted as $`\mu _C(nL)`$) as in Eq. (58) (see Table 10 where the eigenvalues are given for $`\sigma =0.19`$ GeV2, $`\eta =0.90`$, and $`\alpha _s=0.39`$).

With the use of the string and the self-energy corrections from Table 11 the spin-averaged meson masses $`\overline{M}_C(L)`$, Eq. (58), are determined and their values are given in Table 5 together with the experimental numbers.

If now one compares the meson masses $`\overline{M}_C(L)`$ with those for the linear potential from Table 3, then one can see that in the Coulomb case for the $`1S`$ and $`1P`$ states a better agreement with the experimental numbers is obtained, however, in the Coulomb case the string tension appears to be larger, $`\sigma =0.19`$ GeV2. The calculated mass $`\overline{M}_C(1S)=0.632`$ GeV is very close to the value Eq. (69) from the Regge trajectory Eq. (67).

Now the Coulomb correction can be formally defined as the difference between the exact eigenvalues, $`\overline{M}_C(L)`$ and $`\overline{M}(L)`$:

$$E_C(\mathrm{exact})=\overline{M}_C(nL)\overline{M}(nL)$$
(72)
and compared with the Coulomb corrections $`E_C`$(pert):

$$E_C(\mathrm{pert})=\frac{4}{3}\alpha _s1/r$$
(73)
obtained when the Coulomb interaction is considered as a perturbation (see Table 6). In Eq. (73) the m.e. $`<1/r>`$ is to be taken for the linear potential with the same $`\sigma `$ as in the Cornell potential.

The numbers in Table 6 demonstrate that the exact and perturbative corrections coincide with an accuracy better than 5% for all states with $`L>0`$ (for the $`1S`$ state the difference is 11% ) and therefore these corrections can be calculated as a perturbation.

For the $`nL`$ states one should also take into account the difference between the exact constituent mass $`\mu _C(L)`$ and $`\mu _0(L)`$ for the linear potential; they are related as follows

$`\mu _C(1L)`$ $``$ $`\mu _0(1L)+|E_C|/3(n=0),`$
$`\mu _C(nL)`$ $``$ $`\mu _0(nL)+|E_C|/4,(n0).`$ (74)
This correction to the constituent mass is mostly important for the $`1S`$ state. For larger $`n`$ the difference between $`\mu _C`$ and $`\mu _0`$ can be neglected. As seen from Table 6, due to the Coulomb interaction all masses are shifted down by an amount in the range of 70 to 200 MeV and therefore a larger value of $`\sigma `$ is needed, $`\sigma =0.19`$ GeV2 for $`\alpha _s=0.39`$, than for the linear potential.

However, one cannot take an arbitrary or too large value for $`\sigma `$, otherwise the Regge slope $`\alpha _L^{}`$ would be small and in contradiction with the experimental value. Therefore, in the Coulomb case only values $`\sigma =0.19\pm 0.10`$ GeV2 are allowed. Then to obtain agreement with experiment using $`\sigma 0.20`$ GeV2 a restriction on the value of the strong coupling constant is found:

$$\alpha _s0.40(\sigma 0.20\mathrm{GeV}^2),$$
(75)
otherwise correct numbers for the Regge slope and the intercept cannot be obtained simultaneously.

This upper limit (75) for $`\alpha _s`$ appears to be in accord with the freezing value of the two-loop $`\alpha _B(q^2=0)=0.45`$ (with the QCD constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}=330`$ MeV, $`N_f=3`$) obtained in background field theory ref.15 .

## X Conclusions

In the framework of the QCD string approach the spin-averaged meson masses with $`L5(n=0)`$ have been calculated and expressed through a single parameter–the string tension $`\sigma `$ and a set of universal numbers. In this approach the kinetic energy is of the same type as in the spinless Salpeter equation. The constituent mass and the nonperturbative quark self-energy are calculable and also depend on the string tension only.

This is the first time accurate predictions for the meson masses have been obtained relying on one parameter only, that is directly connected to the confinment mechanism in QCD.

The analytical expressions for the slope and the intercept of the Regge $`L`$-trajectory (when the spin splittings are not taken into account) have been deduced, giving rise to a value $`\alpha _L^{}=(6.95\sigma )^1=0.80`$ GeV-2 ($`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2) which coincides with the experimental number. This $`L`$-trajectory can be considered as a universal one since in the approximation of closed channels it does not depend on spin and isospin .

It is shown that the Regge intercept does not depend on $`\sigma `$ and $`\alpha (M=0)(\mathrm{theory})=0.34`$ turned out to be only 10% larger than $`\alpha (M=0)(\mathrm{exp})=0.30\pm 0.02`$. From this intercept $`\overline{M}(1S)=652`$ MeV corresponds to a $`\pi `$-meson mass equal to 300 MeV (chiral effects have been neglected here).

For all orbital excitations with $`L0`$ the calculated masses are in a good agreement with existing experimental data.

In order to obtain this good agreement with the data we find it necessary to impose a restriction on the value of $`\alpha _s`$ that is in accord with the freezing picture.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the theory group of Thomas Jefferson National Acelerator Facility (TJNAF) for their hospitality. This work was partly supported by the RFFI - grant 00-02-17836 and INTAS grant 00-00110.

## Appendix A Detailed spectra

The eigenvalues and the wave functions of the SSE equation were calculated with the help of the code used before ref.21 ; ref.22 . The eigenvalues and relevant matrix elements are given in Tables 7 and 8 for the linear potential and in Tables 10-11 for the Cornell potential.

From Table 8 one can see that the difference between the m.e. $`<1/r^3>`$ for the SSE and the Airy equations for the P-wave states turn out to be large reaching 40% for $`n2`$. As briefly discussed in Sect. III the reason behind these differences lies in the different asymptotic behaviors of the eigenfunctions of these two equations. In Table 9 we also give the constituent masses Eq. (33) and the m.e. $`<1/r>`$ and $`<1/r^3>`$ for the ground states $`(n=0)`$ with $`L6`$.

The calculated m.e. $`<1/r>`$ is used to obtain the string and Coulomb corrections, while the m.e. $`<1/r^3>`$ can be used to calculate the hyperfine and fine-sructure splittings for the mesons with $`L0`$.

From Table 10 one can see that in the Coulomb case the constituent masses $`\mu _C(1S)`$ and $`\mu _C(1P)`$ are larger by 29% and 10% respectively, than for the linear potential (see Table 8) and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SE}}`$ is smaller for them.

## Appendix B Results for the Cornell potential

In this appendix we present some auxiliary values for the Cornell potential.