text:
# Elusive physical electron propagator in 𝑄𝐸𝐷-like effective theories

## I Introduction

In a generic $`(1+1)`$-dimensional (hereafter 2D) many-fermion system, an arbitrarily weak short-range repulsive interaction is known to completely destroy the conventional Fermi liquid, thereby giving rise to the so-called Luttinger behavior. As one of the hallmarks of the Luttinger regime, the electron propagator exhibits an algebraic decay with distance which is controlled by a non-universal exponent and appears to be faster than in the non-interacting case.

In higher dimensions (3D and 4D) the Fermi liquid is believed to be more robust, although it is not expected to remain absolutely stable. In the absence of a clear-cut evidence, however, the possibility of a non-Fermi liquid behavior in $`D>2`$ has recently become the subject of an intense debate.

While in the case of short-ranged repulsive interactions any departures from the Fermi liquid are likely to be limited to the infinitely strong coupling regime, the long-ranged forces are considered to be capable of destroying the Fermi liquid even at finite coupling. One of the most extensively studied such examples, the finite density system of non-relativistic massive fermions which are minimally coupled to an abelian gauge field, was indeed shown to manifest a distinctly non-Fermi liquid behavior, although the latter turned out to be rather different from the Luttinger one .

More recently, there has been a renewed interest in the 3D relativistic counterpart of this model governed by the conventional $`QED_3`$ action

$$S[\psi ,\overline{\psi },A]=𝑑𝐳[\underset{f=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{\psi }_f(i\widehat{\gamma }^\mu _\mu +\widehat{\gamma }^\mu A_\mu m)\psi _f+\frac{1}{4g^2}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )^2]$$
(1)
for the $`N`$-flavored Dirac fermions which are described by a reducible (four-component) representation corresponding to the choice of the $`\gamma `$-matrices $`\widehat{\gamma }_\mu =\widehat{\sigma }_\mu \widehat{\sigma }_3`$ constructed from the triplet $`\sigma _\mu `$ of Pauli matrices. The use of the parity-even representation guarantees that radiation corrections do not generate any parity-breaking Chern-Simons terms.

Among the previously discussed examples of the 3D condensed matter systems that support the Dirac-like low-energy excitations and allow for such an effective description are the so-called flux phase in doped Mott insulators  and $`d`$-wave superconductors with strong phase fluctuations  proposed as an explanation of the pseudogap and insulating (spin and/or charge density wave) phases of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Also, the non-Lorentz-invariant version of $`QED_3`$ was shown to provide a convenient description of the normal semimetalic state of highly oriented pyrolytic graphite .

The number $`N`$ of the fermion flavors depends on the problem in question, although it is not necessarily equal to the number of different conical Dirac points in the bare electron spectrum. In the abovementioned condensed matter-inspired $`QED`$-like models , $`N=2`$ is a number of the electron spin components, while the number of the conical points turns out to be either four  or two .

In some of the strongly correlated electron systems described by the effective $`QED`$-like theories, such as the problem of graphite, the theory is formulated in terms of the electrons themselves which enables one to directly compute various experimentally relevant observables .

However, in other systems the effective gauge fields serve as a convenient representation of such bosonic collective modes as spin or pairing fluctuations, while the Dirac fermions correspond to some auxiliary fermionic excitations, such as spinons , ”topological” fermions , and so forth.

In the latter case, a generic quantum mechanical amplitude written in terms of the Lagrangian fermions turns out to be gauge-dependent, while all the physical observables, which experimental probes can only couple to, must be manifestly gauge-invariant. In light of that, it is absolutely imperative to establish the correct form of the physical electron propagator in terms of the Lagrangian fermions. Until this task is accomplished, no theoretical prediction obtained in the framework of the $`QED`$-like effective models can be put under a decisive test against experimental data which will be the ultimate means of ascertaining the validity of these scenarios.

## II Exact versus limited gauge invariance of fermion amplitudes

In the recent theory of the pseudogap phase of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors , the authors advocated the use of the ”stringy ansatz” with the inserted Wilson-like exponent of the line integral

$$G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(xy)=<0|\psi (x)\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu )\overline{\psi }(y)|0>$$
(2)
as a viable candidate for the gauge-invariant physical electron propagator (in spite of its being gauge-independent, the function $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ explicitly depends on the choice of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which connects the end points $`x`$ and $`y`$).

Moreover, the authors of Refs. argued that the amplitude (2) exhibits the so-called Luttinger-type behavior

$$G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\frac{\widehat{x}}{|x|^{d+\eta }}$$
(3)
characterized by a $`positive`$ (albeit varying from one reference to another) value of the anomalous exponent $`\eta `$, provided that the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is chosen as the straight-line segment between the end points.

Although the idea of using Eq.(2) for elucidating the behavior of the physical electron propagator has been previously entertained, one must be cautioned by the fact that, apart from its relative simplicity, it never received any firm justification. A potential problem with both the simple form of the line integral and the particular choice of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Eq.(2) stem from the fact that in the theory of Refs. the phase $`\varphi (x)`$ of the (singular) gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=e^{i\varphi (x)}\psi (x)`$ which relates the physical electron operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ to the Lagrangian fermion field $`\psi (x)`$ is not uniquely defined.

In what follows, we address some of the misconceptions pertaining to the use of Eq.(2) in the earlier works and ascertain the status of the previously obtained results. To this end, we start out by casting $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(xy)`$ in the form of a functional integral taken over both the gauge and fermion Lagrangian variables

$$G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(xy)=D[A]D[\overline{\psi }]D[\psi ]\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu )\mathrm{exp}(iS[\psi ,\overline{\psi },A])$$
(4)
Upon integrating the fermions out, the amplitude (4) turns into a functional average over different gauge field configurations

$$G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(xy)=D[A]𝒢(x,y|A)\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu )\mathrm{exp}(iS_{eff}[A])$$
(5)
applied to the inverse Dirac operator $`𝒢(x,y|A)=<x|[i\widehat{}+\widehat{A}(z)m]^1|y>`$ computed for a given gauge field configuration $`A_\mu (z)`$.

The weight of the average in Eq.(5) is controlled by the effective gauge field action

$$S_{eff}[A]=\frac{1}{4g^2}𝑑𝐱(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )^2+\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐱𝑑𝐲A_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(xy)A_\nu (y)+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
where the dots stand for the higher order (non-Gaussian) terms produced by fermion polarization (processes of ”light-light scattering” and alike) which we hereafter neglect, as in all of the previous works on the subject.

With the transverse fermion polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)=\mathrm{\Pi }(q)(\delta _{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu /q^2)`$ taken in to account, the gauge field propagator computed in the covariant $`\lambda `$-gauge assumes the form

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=\frac{g^2}{q^2+g^2\mathrm{\Pi }(q)}(\delta _{\mu \nu }+(\lambda 1)\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2})$$
(7)
In order to obtain Eq.(7) one has to complement (6) with a (generally, non-local) gauge fixing term $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{eff}[A]=𝑑𝐱𝑑𝐲_\mu A_\mu (x)<x|[1g^2\mathrm{\Pi }(i)/^2]|y>_\nu A_\nu (y)/2g^2\lambda `$.

In the case of the conventional (that is weakly coupled, $`g^21`$) $`QED_4`$, the fermion polarization behaves as $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q)q^2`$, and the above gauge fixing term becomes local in the coordinate space. As a result, the ultraviolet (UV) divergencies occur at fermion momenta of order the upper momentum cutoff.

In contrast, $`QED_3`$ develops its highly non-trivial behavior at $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒}`$ fermion momenta $`mp\mathrm{\Lambda }=Ng^2`$ controlled by the (this time, dimensionful) coupling constant $`g`$ . However, adhering to the customary terminology, we will refer to this regime as the UV one, for this is where all the logarithmic corrections originate from, whereas above the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ no terms $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/p)`$ can possibly occur.

In this regime, the gauge propagator (7) is totally dominated by the fermion polarization which, due to the parity conserving structure of the reducible four-fermion representation produces no Chern-Simons terms and, in the leading $`1/N`$ approximation, reads as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(q)=\frac{N}{8}\sqrt{q^2}$$
(8)
In this way, the number of fermion flavors $`N`$ becomes the actual parameter controlling perturbation expansion, regardless of the strength of the bare coupling $`g`$.

Without making any additional approximations, the function $`𝒢(x,y|A)`$ can be expressed in the form of a quantum mechanical path integral  (see also  where this representation was used in a non-perturbative calculation of the Dirac fermion propagator in a $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐}`$ spatially random gauge field which is pertinent to such problems as the effect of vortex disorder on the quasiparticle properties of $`d`$-wave superconductors or that of dislocations in layered graphite)

$$𝒢(x,y|A)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _{x(0)=y}^{x(\tau )=x}DxDpe^{i\widehat{S}_0[x,p]}\mathrm{exp}(i_0^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}A_\mu (z)\frac{dz^\mu }{d\tau ^{}})$$
(9)
where $`x_\mu (\tau )`$ is a fermion trajectory parametrized by the proper time $`\tau `$. The spinor structure of the fermion propagator is fully accounted for by integrating over the additional variable $`p_\mu (\tau )`$ with the free (matrix-valued) fermion action

$$\widehat{S}_0[x(\tau ),p(\tau )]=_0^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}p_\mu [\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau ^{}}\widehat{\gamma }^\mu m],$$
(10)
thus providing a systematic improvement of the celebrated Bloch-Nordsieck model. In the latter, all the spin-related effects are ignored which makes this model exactly soluble but restricts its applicability to the infrared (IR) regime $`|p^2m^2|m^2`$ near the fermion mass shell. In the IR regime, the relevant fermion trajectories contributing to (9) deviate only slightly from the straight-path contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (which coincides with the fermion world line in the case of a light cone-like separation between the end points, $`(xy)^2=0`$).

One must recognize that the IR regime can only exist if the fermions are massive, while in the case of $`m=0`$ the entire region below the upper cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ falls into the opposite, UV, regime. In the UV regime, the fermion trajectories which dominate the amplitude (9) may strongly depart from the straight-path contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for there is no mass term to suppress such deviations.

Combining Eqs.(5) and (9) we represent the amplitude (2) in the form manifesting its gauge invariance

$$G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(xy)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _{x(0)=y}^{x(\tau )=x}DxDpe^{i\widehat{S}_0[x,p]}<\mathrm{exp}(i_\mu A_\nu d\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu })>$$
(11)
where the brackets stand for the (normalized) functional average over the gauge field with the weight $`\mathrm{exp}(iS_{eff}[A])`$ which is to be taken for each trajectory $`x_\mu (\tau )`$ before the sum over all the different trajectories is executed.

In order to obtain the area integral in the exponent we applied Stokes’ theorem to the line integral taken along a closed contour which is composed of a trajectory $`x_\mu (\tau )`$ and the straight-line segment $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, parametrized as $`x_\mu ^{(0)}(\tau ^{})=\tau ^{}(xy)_\mu /\tau `$ and traced backwards.

The averaging procedure generates a sum of all the multi-loop diagrams with no couplings between the fermion polarization insertions into the gauge field propagators and the open fermion line which describes the fermion propagating from $`y`$ to $`x`$.

Elucidating the structure of the gauge invariant amplitude (2) helps one to appreciate the difference between (11) and all the other ($`\xi 0`$) members of the family of functions labeled by a continuous parameter $`\xi `$ (not to be confused with the covariant gauge parameter $`\lambda `$!)

$$G_\xi (xy)=\frac{<0|\psi (x)\mathrm{exp}(i(\xi 1)_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu )\overline{\psi }(y)|0>}{<0|\mathrm{exp}(i\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu )|0>}=$$

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _{x(0)=y}^{x(\tau )=x}DxDpe^{iS_0[x,p]}\frac{<\mathrm{exp}(i\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu 𝑑z^\mu +i_\mu A_\nu d\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu })>}{<\mathrm{exp}(i\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu 𝑑z^\mu )>}$$
(12)
Amongst others, Eq.(12) also includes the function

$$G_1(xy)=\frac{<0|\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)|0>}{<0|\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu )|0>}$$
(13)
which was invoked by the authors of Ref. who asserted that $`G_1(x)`$ given by Eq.(13) is identical to the amplitude (3) and, therefore, can be used to compute $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=G_0(x)`$.

The UV anomalous dimension of Eq.(13) can be deduced rather straightforwardly by computing the ratio between the wave function renormalization factor determining the anomalous dimension of the ordinary (gauge variant) fermion propagator

$$<0|\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)|0>G(xy)(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)^{(4/3\pi ^2N)(23\lambda )}$$
(14)
(hereafter $`G(x)`$ stands for the free fermion propagator which also yields the bare value of $`G_\xi (x)`$ for any $`\xi `$) and the Gaussian average of the Wilson line

$$<\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu 𝑑z^\mu )>=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_1^\mu _\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_2^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(z_1z_2)](\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)^{(4/\pi ^2N)(2\lambda )},$$
(15)
thus indeed resulting in the anticipated Luttinger-type behavior of Eq.(13) which is characterized by the overall $`positive`$ anomalous dimension

$$\eta _1^{3d}=\frac{16}{3\pi ^2N}$$
(16)
Notably, this result is free of the gauge parameter $`\lambda `$, thus creating the impression that Eq.(13) represents a truly gauge invariant function.

As one immediate objection to the assertion of Ref., one might recall that the very nature of the relationship between the electrons and the auxiliary Lagrangian fermions implemented via the singular gauge transformation $`<0|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(y)|0>=<0|\psi (x)\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi (x)\varphi (y)]\overline{\psi }(y)|0>`$ implies that the physical electron propagator can only be given by a $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒}`$ average over the gauge field, rather than a $`\mathrm{𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜}`$ of such.

However, except for the case of the original amplitude $`G_0(x)`$, Eq.(12) is represented by a ratio of the two averages and, therefore, it can not be truly gauge invariant. Indeed, the gauge fields, over which one averages in both the numerator and denominator of Eq.(12), may transform totally independently of one another ($`A_\mu ^{1,2}A_\mu ^{1,2}+_\mu f^{1,2}`$), thus resulting in the overall phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i\xi (f^1(x)f^2(x)f^1(y)+f^2(y))]`$ which only vanishes for $`f^1(x)=f^2(x)`$, as long as $`\xi 0`$.

Nevertheless, as shown below, $`G_\xi (x)`$ turns out to be independent of the gauge parameter $`\lambda `$ within the class of the covariant gauges for any $`\xi `$. Presumably, it was this $`limited`$ gauge independence that led the authors of Ref. to their conclusion that the (seemingly gauge-invariant) amplitude $`G_1(x)`$ must be identical to the (truly invariant) amplitude $`G_0(x)`$, for they apparently coincide with each other in the axial gauge $`(xy)^\mu A_\mu (z)=0`$, in which the line integral $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu `$ vanishes.

However, should this happen to be valid, the same argument would also apply to an arbitrary $`G_\xi (x)`$ which is seemingly gauge invariant to absolutely the same extent as Eq.(13) is (that is, provided that one uses the $`identical`$ gauge transformation in both numerator and denominator), and all these functions coincide with each other when computed in the axial gauge.

Nonetheless, one can readily see that $`G_\xi (x)`$ does bear a non-trivial $`\xi `$-dependence by simply evaluating the integrand in Eq.(12) for certain chosen trajectories. As an example, we consider the case of a square-shaped closed contour consisting of four straight segments, each of length $`|xy|`$. Having all the adjoint sides of the square at right angles to each other guarantees one from a possible occurrence of the additional (”cusp”) UV singularities .

Applying the method of dimensional regularization near $`d=3`$ we obtain

$$\frac{<\mathrm{exp}(i_\mu A_\nu d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }+i\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu 𝑑z^\mu )>}{<\mathrm{exp}(i\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu dz^\mu >}$$

$$\mathrm{exp}[\frac{4(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)^{3d}}{\pi ^{(d+1)/2}N}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d1}{2})(2\xi )[I_1(1(\lambda 1)(d2))2I_2(\lambda 1)(d1)]]$$

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)^{8(2\xi )/\pi ^2N}$$
(17)
where the terms in the exponent proportional to

$$I_1=_0^1_0^1\frac{d\alpha d\beta }{|\alpha \beta |^{d1}}=\frac{2}{(3d)(2d)}$$
(18)
and

$$I_2=_0^1_0^1\frac{\alpha \beta d\alpha d\beta }{(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^{(1+d)/2}}=\frac{2}{(3d)(1d)}[2^{(1d)/2}1]$$
(19)
correspond to the line integrals taken along the same and two adjoint sides of the square, respectively (pairs of the opposite sides produce no terms $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)`$ which is what we are after). Despite the fact that the gauge parameter $`\lambda `$ cancels out, as expected, the values of the exponent given by Eq.(17) are markedly different for, say, $`\xi =0`$ and $`\xi =1`$.

In fact, Eq.(17) can either vanish or grow with increasing $`|xy|`$, depending merely on whether $`\xi `$ is greater or smaller than $`2`$. This observation suggests that for different values of $`\xi `$ the functions $`G_\xi (x)`$ are indeed different (it would be rather fortuitous if the $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑢𝑚}`$ over all the fermion trajectories were $`\xi `$-independent, despite the difference between contributions from each $`individual`$ trajectory).

It is worth mentioning that in the case of massive fermions the different functions (12) do become approximately identical in the vicinity of the mass shell ($`|p^2m^2|m^2`$) where the leading functional dependence on the gauge field originates from the eikonal phase factor $`𝒢(x,y|A)\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu 𝑑z^\mu )`$. Therefore, the entire IR divergence of the ordinary (gauge variant) propagator can be obtained by simply averaging this exponential factor, while any $`G_\xi (x)`$ appears to be totally IR divergence-free.

This factorization of the exponent of the line integral in the IR regime which had long been known in the case of $`QED_4`$  was extended into the $`3D`$ case in Ref., where it was shown that for any $`\xi `$ the function (12) possesses the same simple pole in the momentum representation $`G_\xi (p)(\widehat{p}m)/(p^2m^2)`$, which corresponds to the universal ($`\xi `$-independent) behavior in the coordinate space $`G_\xi (x)e^{m|x|}`$.

In order to avoid confusion we reiterate that the universal IR behavior by no means prevents the different functions (12) from having different UV anomalous dimensions, as manifested by Eq.(17). Incidentally, in the massless case it turns out to be the UV exponent $`\eta _\xi `$ which controls the power-law decay (3) extending to arbitrarily long distances.

## III Perturbative calculation of fermion amplitudes

Having demonstrated the possibility of a non-trivial $`\xi `$-dependence non-perturbatively, we now present a direct perturbative calculation of $`G_\xi (x)`$. Expanding (12) to second order in $`A_\mu (z)`$ we find three different kinds of correction terms

$$G_\xi (xy)=G(xy)𝑑𝐳_1𝑑𝐳_2<G(xz_1)\widehat{A}(z_1)G(z_1z_2)\widehat{A}(z_2)G(z_2y)>+$$
(20)
$$+(\xi \frac{1}{2})G(xy)<_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z_1)𝑑z_1^\mu _\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\nu (z_2)𝑑z_2^\mu >+(1\xi )𝑑𝐳_1<G(xz_1)\widehat{A}(z_1)G(z_1y)_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu (z_2)𝑑z_2^\mu >$$

The first term in the r.h.s. of (20) corresponds to the first order self-energy correction to the ordinary propagator which is given by the leading term of $`1/N`$ expansion of Eq.(14)

$$\delta _1G_\xi (xy)=𝑑𝐳_1𝑑𝐳_2G(xz_1)\gamma ^\mu D_{\mu \nu }(z_1z_2)\gamma ^\nu G(z_2y)=G(xy)\frac{4}{3\pi ^2N}(23\lambda )\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)$$
(21)
The second term in (20) originates from $`1/N`$ expansion of the Wilson line (15) inserted into the numerator and denominator of Eq.(12) with the prefactors $`(\xi 1)`$ and $`\xi `$, respectively

$$\delta _2G_\xi (xy)=(\xi \frac{1}{2})G(xy)_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_1^\mu _\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_2^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(z_1z_2)=G(xy)\frac{4}{\pi ^2N}(12\xi )(2\lambda )\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)$$
(22)
The third term in (20) stems from expanding both $`G(x,y|A)`$ and the Wilson line in the numerator of Eq.(12) to first order in $`A_\mu (z)`$

$$\delta _3G_\xi (xy)=(1\xi )𝑑𝐳_1G(xz_1)\gamma ^\mu G(z_1y)_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_2^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(z_1z_2)$$

$$(1\xi )𝑑𝐳_1[G(xy)\gamma ^\mu G(z_1y)+G(xz_1)\gamma ^\mu G(xy)]_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_2^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(z_1z_2)=$$

$$=\frac{2}{\pi ^3N}(1\xi )G(xy)\gamma ^\mu _\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z_2^\nu 𝑑𝐳_1\frac{(\widehat{z}_1\widehat{y})}{|z_1y|^3}\frac{1}{|z_1z_2|^2}[\lambda \delta _{\mu \nu }+2(1\lambda )\frac{(z_1^\mu z_2^\mu )(z_1^\nu z_2^\nu )}{|z_1z_2|^2}]=$$

$$=G(xy)\frac{8}{\pi ^2N}(1\xi )\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)$$
(23)
This result was obtained with logarithmic accuracy, and in the course of the calculation we used the coordinate space representation of the 3D propagators

$$G(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\widehat{x}}{x^3},D_{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{4}{\pi ^2N|x|^2}[\lambda \delta _{\mu \nu }+2(1\lambda )\frac{x^\mu x^\nu }{|x|^2}]$$
(24)
and the following $`d`$-dimensional integrals

$$𝑑𝐱\frac{x^\alpha }{|x|^d|xy|^{d1}}=\frac{2\pi ^{d/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}\frac{y^\alpha }{|y|^{d1}}$$
(25)
and

$$𝑑𝐱\frac{x^\alpha (x^\beta y^\beta )(x^\gamma y^\gamma )}{|x|^d|xy|^{d+1}}=\frac{2\pi ^{d/2}}{3(d1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}[\frac{2y^\alpha \delta ^{\beta \gamma }y^\beta \delta ^{\alpha \gamma }y^\gamma \delta ^{\alpha \beta }}{|y|^{d1}}+(d1)\frac{y^\alpha y^\beta y^\gamma }{|y|^{d+1}}]$$
(26)
The logarithmic dependence in Eqs.(21-23) results from taking the $`d3`$ limit of the line integral $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z^\mu (zy)^\mu /|zy|^{d1}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)^{3d}/(3d)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)`$.

Combining Eqs.(21-23) together we read off the overall UV anomalous dimension

$$\eta _\xi ^{3d}=\frac{16}{3\pi ^2N}(3\xi 2)$$
(27)
In particular, for $`\xi =1`$ we reproduce Eq.(16), while for $`\xi =0`$ one obtains

$$\eta _0^{3d}=\frac{32}{3\pi ^2N}$$
(28)
Thus, despite the fact that the gauge parameter $`\lambda `$ cancels out, as expected, the functions $`G_\xi (x)`$ are indeed different for different values of the parameter $`\xi `$.

At first sight, the non-trivial dependence of Eq.(27) on the parameter $`\xi `$ (which is linear to first order in $`1/N`$) may seem to be in conflict with the fact that all the functions $`G_\xi (x)`$ coincide with each other when computed in the axial gauge.

In fact, there would only be a contradiction, if Eq.(12) were truly gauge invariant. Instead, albeit invariant within the class of covariant gauges, the function $`G_\xi (x)`$ may take a different value in the axial gauge, for the latter does not belong to this class, for any $`\xi 0`$.

On the other hand, the unique property of the function $`G_0(xy)`$ which is given by a $`single`$ average instead of a $`ratio`$ of the two does guarantee its true gauge invariance and the possibility to obtain Eq.(28) in arbitrary gauge, including both the covariant and the axial ones. In fact, it was shown in Ref. that these two calculations do agree with each other, and yet another independent calculation employing the so-called ”radial” (Fock-Schwinger) gauge $`(xy)^\mu A_\mu (x)=0`$  provides further support for this conclusion.

However, the finding that the UV exponent $`\eta _0^{3d}`$ assumes the negative value suffices to disqualify the ”stringy ansatz” (2) from being a sound candidate for the physical electron propagator, since, in all of the $`QED`$-like models discussed so far, repulsive electron-electron interactions are expected to result in a suppression, rather than enhancement, of any amplitude describing propagation of physical electrons.

The above analysis can be easily extended to the case of the conventional weak coupling $`QED_4`$ which demonstrate that the situation in 3D is not at all exceptional. Instead of Eqs.(21-23) we now get

$$\delta _1G_\xi (xy)=G(xy)\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)$$
(29)
$$\delta _2G_\xi (xy)=G(xy)\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}(12\xi )(3\lambda )\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)$$
(30)
$$\delta _3G_\xi (xy)=G(xy)\frac{g^2}{4\pi ^2}(1\xi )\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|xy|)$$
(31)
and, instead of Eqs.(24-26) , we use the formulas

$$G(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{\widehat{x}}{x^4},D_{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{g^2}{4\pi ^2|x|^2}[\frac{1+\lambda }{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }+(1\lambda )\frac{x^\mu x^\nu }{|x|^2}]$$
(32)
$$𝑑𝐱\frac{x^\alpha }{|x|^d|xy|^{d2}}=\frac{\pi ^{d/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}\frac{y^\alpha }{|y|^{d2}}$$
(33)
$$𝑑𝐱\frac{x^\alpha (x^\beta y^\beta )(x^\gamma y^\gamma )}{|x|^d|xy|^d}=\frac{\pi ^{d/2}}{2(d2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}[\frac{y^\alpha \delta ^{\beta \gamma }y^\beta \delta ^{\alpha \gamma }y^\gamma \delta ^{\alpha \beta }}{|y|^{d2}}+(d2)\frac{y^\alpha y^\beta y^\gamma }{|y|^d}]$$
(34)
Combining Eqs.(29-31) together we obtain the UV anomalous dimension of $`G_\xi (x)`$ in the 4D case

$$\eta _\xi ^{4d}=\frac{3g^2}{8\pi ^2}(2\xi 1)$$
(35)
Interestingly enough, for $`\xi =0`$ and $`\xi =1`$ the values of Eq.(35) differ only in their sign, and the anomalous dimension $`\eta _0^{4d}=3g^2/8\pi ^2`$ is again negative.

## IV Alternate forms of physical electron propagator

The apparent problem with the unphysical decay of the conjectured form of the physical electron propagator (2) which appears to be slower than in the case of non-interacting electrons compels one to explore alternate proposals. To this end, one may be able to benefit from the previous studies of the conventional $`QED_4`$ where the problem of constructing gauge invariant asymptotical quantum states with quantum numbers of an electron (”dressed charges”) was long recognized, and attempts to explicitly solve it have long been under way.

A (non-local) composite operator creating such a state can be sought in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{exp}[i𝑑𝐲f^\mu (xy)A_\mu (y)]\psi (x)$$
(36)
where the vector function $`f^\mu (x)`$ is subject to the condition $`_\mu f^\mu (x)=\delta (x)`$ imposed by the requirement of gauge invariance.

In the original proposal which was put forward by Dirac in his pioneering work of the fifties, the physical electron was identified with the operator

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_D(x)=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{_iA_i}{^2})\psi (x)$$
(37)
Indeed, the expectation value $`<0|\mathrm{\Psi }_D(x)A_\mu (y)\mathrm{\Psi }_D^{}(x)|0>=\delta _{\mu 0}/4\pi |\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|`$ describes the Coulombic electrostatic field, thus suggesting that Eq.(37) provides a plausible representation of a $`\mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐}`$ charge.

Moreover, it was found that the Fourier transform of the gauge-invariant amplitude $`<0|\mathrm{\Psi }_D(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_D(y)|0>`$ is IR finite at the single point $`p_\mu =(m,\stackrel{}{0})`$ on the mass shell .

It was also argued in Ref. that, once created, the coherent state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_D^{}(x)|0>`$ remains stable, unlike that produced by the operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_T(x)=\mathrm{exp}(i_{\mathrm{}}^tA_0(t^{})𝑑t^{})\psi (x)`$ whose propagator $`<0|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_T(y)|0>`$ is given by Eq.(2) where $`(xy)_\mu \delta _{\mu 0}`$.

Furthermore, the amplitude $`<0|\mathrm{\Psi }_D(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_D(y)|0>`$ was found to undergo multiplicative UV renormalization, featuring a $`\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ UV exponent

$$\eta _D^{4d}=g^2/8\pi ^2$$
(38)
The authors of Ref. were also able to generalize the construction (37) onto the case of a moving charge

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_v(x)=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }(u+v)_\mu (uv)_\nu }{_\mu ^2(u_\mu _\mu )^2+(v_\nu _\nu )^2}_\mu A_\nu )\psi (x)$$
(39)
where $`u_\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{0})`$ is the time-like unit vector and $`v_\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v})`$ is the velocity of the charge. The formula (39) was obtained by requiring that, in accord with the anticipated physical interpretation of Eq.(39), the electromagnetic field $`<0|\mathrm{\Psi }_v(x)A_\mu (y)\mathrm{\Psi }_v^{}(x)|0>`$ associated with the coherent state created by this composite operator reproduces the classical Lienard-Wiechert potentials.

It was also found that the corresponding propagator

$$G_v(xy)=<0|\psi (x)\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{\delta ^{\mu \nu }(u^\mu +v^\mu )(u^\nu v^\nu )}{_\alpha ^2(u_\alpha _\alpha )^2+(v_\alpha _\alpha )^2}_\mu A_\nu ]\overline{\psi }(y)|0>$$
(40)
is both IR-finite at $`p_\mu =m(1,\stackrel{}{v})/\sqrt{1v^2}`$ and multiplicatively UV-renormalizable, its anomalous dimension being explicitly $`v`$-dependent

$$\eta _v^{4d}=\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}(3+2\frac{1}{v}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1v}{1+v}))$$
(41)
The combination of all the befomentioned properties makes Eq.(39) the best (up-to-date) available candidate for the physical electron operator in the conventional ($`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$) $`QED_4`$.

It is worth mentioning that Eq.(41) coincides with the UV dimension of the $`4D`$ ”stringy” amplitude (2) only in the unphysical limit $`v\mathrm{}`$, while its $`v=0`$ value yields Eq.(38).

By construction, Eq.(41) can not be applied directly to the $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠}`$, let alone the $`3D`$ massless, case which corresponds to the limit $`v1`$ where the UV dimension (41) increases towards infinitely high $`\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ values.

Albeit not being immediately applicable to the case of $`m=0`$, the calculation of $`G_v(x)`$ carried out in Ref. suggests that the logarithmic growth of (41) gets effectively cut off at $`max(|1v|,1/\mathrm{\Lambda }|x|)`$. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that the massless counterpart of Eq.(40) may exhibit a faster than a power-law decay

$$G_{phys}(x)\mathrm{exp}(const\mathrm{ln}^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }|x|)),$$
(42)
where the constant is proportional to either $`1/N`$ (3D) or $`g^2`$ (4D), thus placing the effective $`QED`$-like theories into the class of ”super-Luttinger” models, alongside the one-dimensional metals with unscreened Coulombic interactions where $`G_{phys}(x)\mathrm{exp}(const\mathrm{ln}^{3/2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }|x|))`$ .

In light of this possibility, the previous claims of discovering the Luttinger-like behavior in the framework of the $`QED_3`$-theory of the pseudogap phase  may need to be prepared to handle a potentially much stronger suppression of the physical amplitudes in order to reconcile such a behavior with the available photoemission, tunneling, and other experimental data.

## V Discussion

Evidently, one could escape the whole problem with the singular massless limit, if the Dirac fermions acquired a finite mass via the mechanism of chiral symmetry breaking . In the context of the $`QED_3`$ theory of the pseudogap phase, such an intrinsic instability is expected to result in the onset of a spin (SDW) and/or charge (CDW) density wave , provided that such a transition does occur for the physical number of fermion flavors ($`N=2`$).

Thus far, there have been only preliminary conclusions drawn on the role of the strong spatial anisotropy of the quasiparticle dispersion ($`ϵ=\sqrt{v_1^2q_1^2+v_2^2q_2^2}`$ with $`v_1/v_2>10`$) in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates.

Although, in accord with general physical expectations, this anisotropy was found to decrease upon IR renormalization,, there has been no consensus reached, regarding universality (or a lack thereof) of the critical number of flavors $`N_{cr}`$, much less regarding the possibility that the spatial anisotropy can drive this critical number to the values in excess of $`2`$.

To this end, it may be helpful to complement the renormalization group approach adopted in Refs. by a direct analysis of the strong coupling regime where the gauge field propagator (7) is dominated by the fermion polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q)`$. In the case of anisotropic fermion dispersion, the latter becomes a function of the spatial components of the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ multiplied by the corresponding velocities $`v_iq_i`$, thus allowing one to scale such factors out in the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the fermion mass  and suggesting that $`N_{cr}`$ may even remain the same as in the isotropic case.

In any event, the effect of the spatial anisotropy of the fermion dispersion may be rather different from that of the Lorentz non-invariant (e.g., pure Coulombic) couplings which can cause $`N_{cr}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒}`$ , as compared to the value obtained in the Lorentz-invarint case.

One should, however, be alerted by the fact that even in the perfectly Lorentz-invariant case the status of the analyses based on the Schwinger-Dyson equation (which, in this particular case, suggests $`N_{cr}>3`$) remains somewhat unclear. In this regard, it was pointed out in Ref. that the Schwinger-Dyson equation may systematically overestimate the actual critical number of flavors which might, in fact, be as low as $`3/2`$.

It is, therefore, quite remarkable that, as an alternate route, the intrinsic SDW instability of the pseudogap phase of the cuprates can instead manifest itself through a divergent staggered spin susceptibility

$$\chi _Q(q)(\sqrt{q^2})^{164/(3\pi ^2N)}$$
(43)
where the momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ corresponds to the deviation from the SDW ordering vector $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(\pi ,\pi )`$.

In order for this behavior to occur, the presence of $`\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠}`$ neutral fermions is rather necessary than problematic. Curiously enough, the susceptibility (43) displays the $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ anomalous dimension which is exactly twice the value (28).

Although this observation does not necessarily imply that the staggered spin susceptibility given by the average $`\chi _Q(xy)=<𝒢(x,y|A)𝒢(y,x|A)>`$ is directly related to the product of the two averages $`|G_0(xy)|^2<𝒢(x,y|A)\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\nu dz^\nu )><𝒢(y,x|A)\mathrm{exp}(i_\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu dz^\mu )>`$, it may help one to elucidate the real physical meaning of the negative anomalous dimensions exhibited by the gauge invariant amplitude (2).

It is possible that, albeit being unfit for the role of the physical electron propagator, the amplitude (2) may still bear some important information about the vertex functions which also determine the behavior of the gauge-invariant susceptibilities.

As far as the experimental status of the $`QED_3`$ theory of the cuprates is concerned, it is presently unclear whether it can accomodate the phenomenon of time reversal symmetry breaking, as suggested by the recent experiment , without generating the Chern-Simons term in the fermion polarization.

In contrast, broken time reversal symmetry seems to be an intrinsic feature of some alternate approaches to the pseudogap phase which, instead of the phase fluctuations of the local parent $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave order parameter , focus on other bosonic collective modes, such as emergent $`d`$-symmetrical CDW  or incipient secondary pairing ($`d_{x^2y^2}d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$) .

To this end, it is worth mentioning that the recent experimental reports of a genuine quantum-critical behavior in the $`Ca`$-doped cuprates  are in quantitative agreement with the predictions  based on the theory of Ref.. Notably, in this alternate (Higgs-Yukawa-type) theory of the cuprates the anomalous dimension of the electron propagator was found to be positive .

We conclude by stressing that, regardless of the status of the $`QED_3`$ theory of the cuprates itself, the problem of constructing the gauge invariant fermion propagator in the effective massless $`QED`$-like theories, thus far, has received a lesser attention than it, arguably, deserves.

This problem needs to be settled before one can start drawing solid, rather than wishful, conclusions about the true behavior in these as well as other gauge field models, including non-abelian and discrete symmetry (say, $`Z_n`$) ones.

In the present paper, we undertook an attempt to clarify this issue which may have already resulted in a widespread confusion, in particular, as far as the $`QED_3`$ theory of the pseudogap phase of the cuprates is concerned. We demonstrated that the previously proposed ansatz ehxibits a clearly unphysical behavior and, therefore, needs to be modified. In the course of this analysis we established an interesting property of ”partial gauge invariance” of the family of functions (12) with $`\xi 0`$ which, we believe, might have been partly responsible for the erroneous conclusions drawn in . We also conjectured an alternate form of the physical electron propagator which decays with distance faster than any power-law, thus challenging the interpretation of the experimental data based on the idea of the Luttinger-like behavior in the cuprates proposed in Refs..

## VI Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges valuable communications with V. P. Gusynin. This research was supported by the NSF under Grant No. DMR-0071362.

## VII References


format: text

text:
# Increase of the binding energy of an electron by coupling to a photon field

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) has proved one of the most successful theories in physics. Nevertheless the treatment by means of perturbation theory and the renormalization procedure has caused some uneasiness among mathematicians.

A couple of years ago Bach, Fröhlich, and Sigal initiated a rigorous non-perturbative study of non-relativistic QED. Among other results they proved in \[BFS\] the existence of a ground state for small values of the coupling parameter $`\alpha `$. At least for one particle Griesemer, Lieb, and Loss \[GLL\], which we refer to for an extensive list of references, succeeded in removing these restrictions, whereas for more particles the analogous result is shown under very reasonable conditions.

Based on this result in \[GLL\], the author, V. Vougalter, and S. Vugalter recently proved in \[HVV\] that coupling a charged boson to a radiation field enhances binding. Namely, for some short-ranged potential $`V`$ binding can occur although the operator $`p^2+V`$ does not have a negative eigenstate. Intuitively this phenomenon does not surprise, because the “photon cloud” surrounding the particle should increase its effective mass which lowers the ground state energy. The result in \[HVV\] is valid in the case the parameter $`\alpha `$, which measures the coupling to the field, is small enough. This restriction stems from the fact that we are only able to control the self-energy of a particle, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$, which is a complicated function on $`\alpha `$ and the ultraviolet cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (cf. \[LL2\]), for small values of $`\alpha `$.

In the present paper we study the ground state energy of one electron moving in an arbitrary external potential. The only requirements needed are the self-adjointness of $`p^2+V`$ and the existence of a ground state. We couple this operator to a quantized radiation field through the Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian, $`H_\alpha =T+V`$, with $`T=[\stackrel{}{\sigma }(p+\sqrt{\alpha }A)]^2+H_f`$. Our main theorem states that the binding energy,

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}T\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}H_\alpha ,$$

increases as soon as the radiation ($`\alpha >0`$) is turned on. Our result again holds for sufficiently small values of $`\alpha `$.

Although not necessary for our main result concerning the binding energy defined by (1.1), we assume the external potential $`V`$ to satisfy analogous conditions as in \[GLL\], which are physically very reasonable, in order to guarantee that the $`\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}H_\alpha `$ is a ground state eigenvalue.

Our considerations concerning the self-energy of an electron are based on \[H1\]. Nevertheless, referring to the calculations in \[H1, Theorem 1\], we generalize the notation and improve the error estimates in $`\alpha `$.

In Section 5 we evaluate the radiative correction in the case of a nucleus and we provide concrete numbers for $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for which enhanced binding can be guaranteed. Furthermore, we comment on non-perturbative mass renormalization.

## 2. DEFINITIONS AND MAIN RESULTS

The self-energy of an electron is described by the Pauli-Fierz operator

(2.1)
$$T=(p+\sqrt{\alpha }A(x))^2+\sqrt{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\sigma }B(x)+H_f.$$

The unit of energy is $`mc^2/2`$, where $`m`$ is the electron mass, the unit length is $`l_c=2\mathrm{}/mc`$, twice the Compton wavelength of the particle, and $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c`$ is the fine structure constant, where $`e`$ is the charge of the electron. The physical value of $`\alpha `$ is $`1/137`$. In the present paper $`\alpha `$ plays the role of a small, dimensionless number, which measures the strength of the coupling. Our results hold for sufficiently small values  of $`\alpha `$. $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the vector of Pauli matrices $`(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$. Recall, the $`\sigma _i`$ are hermitian $`2\times 2`$ matrices and fulfill the anti-commutation relations $`\sigma _i\sigma _j+\sigma _j\sigma _i=2I_^2\delta _{i,j}`$. The operator $`p=i`$, while $`A`$ is the magnetic vector potential. The magnetic field is $`B=\mathrm{curl}A`$. The unit of $`A(x)^2`$ is $`mc^2/2l_c`$. We fix the gauge $`\mathrm{div}A=0`$. The units are chosen as in \[GLL\].

The underlying Hilbert space is

$$=^2(^3;^2)$$

where $``$ is the Fock space for the photon field.

The vector potential is

$$A(x)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}_^3\frac{\chi (|k|)}{|k|^{1/2}}[\epsilon _\lambda (k)a_\lambda (k)e^{ikx}+\epsilon _\lambda (k)a_\lambda ^{}(k)e^{ikx}]𝑑k=D(x)+D^{}(x),$$

and the corresponding magnetic field reads

$`B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1,2}{}}{\displaystyle _^3}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi (|k|)}{|k|^{1/2}}}[(k\times i\epsilon _\lambda (k))a_\lambda (k)e^{ikx}+\overline{(k\times i\epsilon _\lambda (k))}a_\lambda ^{}(k)e^{ikx}]𝑑k`$
$`=`$ $`E(x)+E^{}(x),`$
where the operators $`a_\lambda `$ and $`a_\lambda ^{}`$ satisfy the usual commutation relations

$$[a_\nu (k),a_\lambda ^{}(q)]=\delta (kq)\delta _{\lambda ,\nu },[a_\lambda (k),a_\nu (q)]=0,\mathrm{etc}.$$

The vectors $`\epsilon _\lambda (k)^3`$ are any two possible orthonormal polarization vectors perpendicular to $`k`$.

The function $`\chi (|k|)`$ describes the ultraviolet cutoff on the wavenumbers $`k`$. We choose $`\chi `$ to be the Heaviside function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }|k|)`$. Throughout the paper we assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be an arbitrary but fixed positive number. The physical value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is expected to be less or equal $`2`$ which corresponds to the energy $`mc^2`$. This energy is a natural upper bound for the cut-off parameter since it is the maximum value that guarantees that no pair-production takes place.

The photon field energy $`H_f`$ is given by

$$H_f=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}_^3|k|a_\lambda ^{}(k)a_\lambda (k)𝑑k.$$

Our first theorem concerns the behavior of the self-energy of an electron

(2.2)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}T,$$

for fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and small $`\alpha `$. Although it is mainly based on \[H1, Theorem 1\], we give a slightly different proof including an improvement of the error estimate.

Analogously to \[H1, Theorem 1\] we first define the critical cut-off parameter

(2.3)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\text{Max}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }|(f,E𝒜^1E^{}f)f^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0f^2(^3)\},$$

where $`|0`$ is the vacuum in the Fock space $``$.

###### THEOREM 2.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Then

(2.4)
$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha 8\pi \alpha [\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]|C\alpha ^2,$$

for some constant $`C>0`$ depending on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (2.4) holds with an error $`𝒪(\alpha ^{5/4})`$.

###### REMARK 2.2.

Fortunately, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can be evaluated explicitly and is about $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}12.6`$.

We consider an electron in an arbitrary external potential, described by a real valued function $`V`$, independent of $`\alpha `$, which satisfies (1) that the negative part of $`V`$, $`V_{}`$, is dominated by the kinetic energy $`p^2=\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

(2.5)
$$V_{}\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }+C_\epsilon ,$$

for any $`\epsilon >0`$ and for some positive constant $`C_\epsilon `$, such that the self-adjointness and boundedness from below of $`p^2+V`$ is guaranteed. Additionally, since we want the essential spectrum to start at $`0`$, we require (2) that $`V_{}`$ tends to $`0`$ at infinity. Furthermore, we assume (3) that the operator $`p^2+V`$ has at least one negative energy bound state.

The corresponding operator with a quantized radiation field reads

(2.6)
$$𝐇_\alpha =T+V.$$

Recently, Griesemer, Lieb, and Loss \[GLL\] proved for all values of $`\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that $`𝐇_\alpha `$ has an eigenstate, as well as that the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha 𝐄_\alpha `$, with

(2.7)
$$𝐄_\alpha =\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}𝐇_\alpha ,$$

cannot decrease, i.e.

(2.8)
$$𝐄_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha e_0,$$

where $`e_0=\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}[p^2+V]`$. As the main result we show that at least for small values of the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ the binding energy increases, namely (2.8) holds with strict inequality.

###### THEOREM 2.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Let $`V`$ satisfy the conditions (1)-(3), and $`\varphi `$ be the ground state of $`p^2+V`$ with corresponding energy $`e_0`$. Then

(2.9)
$$𝐄_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha e_0\alpha (V,\mathrm{\Lambda })+𝒪(\alpha ^2)$$

for some positive number $`(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ depending on $`V`$ and the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover, there exists a number $`\rho >0`$, such that for all $`\alpha (0,\rho ]`$

(2.10)
$$𝐄_\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha <e_0.$$

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (2.9) holds with an error $`𝒪(\alpha ^{5/4})`$.

###### REMARK 2.4.

The equation (2.9) holds for all real $`V`$, such that $`p^2+V`$ is self-adjoint and has a ground state. But only for $`V`$ satisfying $`(1)(3)`$ we know that $`H_\alpha `$ has a ground state.

We actually check that $`(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is bounded from above by

(2.11)
$$(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })p\varphi ^2\frac{32\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }].$$

Moreover, we strongly conjecture that apart from errors of order $`o(\alpha )`$ Equation (2.9) holds with equality.

## 3. PROOF OF THEOREM 2.1

### 3.1. Upper bound for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$

We define the sequence of trial wave functions

(3.1)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\{f_n,\sqrt{\alpha }[p_{x\xi }^2+H_f]^1(\stackrel{}{\sigma })E^{}f_n,0,0,\mathrm{}\},$$

with $`f_n^2(^3)`$, $`f_n=1`$ and $`pf_n0`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$. Notice,

(3.2)
$$E^{}f_n(x,x\xi )f_n(x)[E^{}(x)|0](x\xi )$$

is a function depending on $`(x,x\xi )`$. The function $`[E^{}(x)|0](x\xi )`$ is intensively described in \[H1, Section 2\]. Recall, $``$ denotes the spin up vector, $`x`$ the position of the electron and $`\xi `$ is the photon variable. For convenience we introduce the relative variable $`\eta =x\xi `$, and we keep in mind

(3.3)
$$\left([p^2+H_f]E^{}f_n\right)(x,\eta )=([p_x+p_\eta ]^2+|p_\eta |)E^{}f_n(x,\eta ).$$

For our calculations we just need to know that the Fourier transform of $`E^{}|0`$ is

(3.4)
$$[E^{}|0(\eta )](k)H(k)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}H_\lambda (k)=i\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}(k\times \epsilon _\lambda (k))\frac{\chi (|k|)}{|k|^{1/2}}$$

(cf. \[H1\]). Denote the 1-photon part of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ as $`\psi _n^1`$. Notice,

(3.5)
$$(\psi _n^1,p^2\psi _n^1)=(\psi _n^1,[p_x+p_\eta ]^2\psi _n^1)=(\psi _n^1,p_\eta ^2\psi _n^1)+\text{ Error}(\psi _n^1),$$

where, due to our assumption that $`pf_n`$ tends to $`0`$, $`\mathrm{Error}(\psi _n^1)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Furthermore, we compute

$`(\psi _n^1,[p_\eta ^2+H_f]\psi _n^1)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}((\stackrel{}{\sigma })E^{}f_n,\psi _n^1)=`$
$`\alpha ((\stackrel{}{\sigma })E^{}f_n,[p_\eta ^2+H_f]^1(\stackrel{}{\sigma })E^{}f_n)=\alpha f_n^20|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0.`$
Evaluations analogously to \[H1, Section 3.1\] show

(3.6) $`0|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|H_\lambda (k)|^2}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k}`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{|k|\chi (|k|)}{|k|^2+|k|}𝑑k}=4\pi [\mathrm{\Lambda }^22[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]].`$
Therefore, we arrive at

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,T\mathrm{\Psi }_n)/(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,\mathrm{\Psi }_n)=4\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha 0|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0+𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$
$``$ $`8\pi \alpha [\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]+𝒪(\alpha ^2),`$
where

(3.7)
$$𝒪(\alpha ^2)\alpha ^20|E[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0[p^2+H_f]^1E^{}|0^2.$$

### 3.2. Lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$.

We take some $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ close to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$, i.e. $`(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }+O(\alpha ^2)`$, which is obviously possible and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=1`$. Since $`TH_f`$ we immediately get for those $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$’s

(3.8)
$$(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Therefore, by means of Schwarz’ inequality we obtain, as in \[H1\],

(3.9) $`2\sqrt{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi },pA\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $``$ $`ap\mathrm{\Psi }^2+4a^1\alpha D\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$
(3.10) $`\sqrt{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Psi },\stackrel{}{\sigma }B\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $``$ $`c\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^2+c^1(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)E\mathrm{\Psi }^2,`$
for any $`a,c>0`$. With \[GLL, Lemma A. 4\],

(3.11)
$$D^{}D8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }H_f,E^{}E\frac{8\pi }{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3H_f,$$

we infer

(3.12)
$$p\mathrm{\Psi }^2C_1\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^3+C_2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }$$

for some constants $`C_{1,2}>0`$. Equations (3.8) and (3.12) will be decisive to control our error estimates. Recall,

(3.13)
$$A^2=4\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2+2D^{}D+2\mathrm{}DD.$$

Thus,

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })4\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2+_0[\psi _0,\psi _1]+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]+2\alpha (\mathrm{\Psi },D^{}D\mathrm{\Psi }),$$

where

(3.14)
$$_0[\psi _0,\psi _1]=(\psi _1,𝒜\psi _1)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _0,\psi _1)$$

and

$`[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]=(\psi _{n+2},𝒜\psi _{n+2})+`$
(3.15) $`+2\mathrm{}([\sqrt{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}+2\sqrt{\alpha }D^{}p]\psi _{n+1}+\alpha D^{}D^{}\psi _n,\psi _{n+2}),`$
where

(3.16)
$$𝒜=p^2+H_f.$$

Next, we proceed analogously to \[H1\]. We denote a general $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by

(3.17)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\psi _0(x),\psi _1(x,\eta _1),\mathrm{}.,\psi _n(x,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n),\mathrm{}\},$$

with $`x\xi _i=\eta _i`$, where we omit for simplicity the photon polarization variables $`\lambda _i`$. For convenience we will work in momentum representation

(3.18)
$$[\psi _n(x,\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)](l,k)=\psi _n(l,k),$$

with $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)`$.

First of all, we follow \[H1, Section 4.2\] and decompose $`\psi _n`$ into a part where $`_{i=1}^n|k_i|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and into its complement. This can be done by an additional cut-off function $`\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)=\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i=1}^n|k_i|).`$ Respectively, we denote

$$\psi _n(l,k)\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)=\stackrel{~}{\psi _n}(l,k),\psi _n(l,k)[1\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)]=\overline{\psi _n}(l,k).$$

Therefore, we rewrite

$`[\psi _n,\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]=[\stackrel{~}{\psi _n},\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]`$
(3.19) $`+2\alpha [\mathrm{}(D^{}\overline{\psi _n},D\psi _{n+2})+(D\psi _{n+2},D\psi _{n+2})].`$
Using first Schwarz’ inequality and afterwards the relations (3.11) we derive

$`2\alpha [\mathrm{}(D^{}\overline{\psi _n},D\psi _{n+2})+(D\psi _{n+2},D\psi _{n+2})]{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(D^{}\overline{\psi _n},D^{}\overline{\psi _n})`$
(3.20) $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\overline{\psi _n}^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\psi _n},H_f\overline{\psi _n})]𝒪(\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\psi _n},H_f\overline{\psi _n}),`$
for, from the definition of $`\chi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$,

$$(\overline{\psi _n},H_f\overline{\psi _n})\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{\psi _n}(l,k)^2|k_i|\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\psi _n}^2.$$

Next, we regard the term $`[\stackrel{~}{\psi _n},\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]`$. By Schwarz’ inequality we easily compute

(3.21)
$$[\stackrel{~}{\psi _n},\psi _{n+1},\psi _{n+2}]\sqrt{\alpha }[𝒜^{1/2}\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}+𝒜^{1/2}D^{}p]\psi _{n+1}+\alpha 𝒜^{1/2}D^{}D^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi _n}^2.$$

Similarly,

(3.22)
$$_0[\psi _0,\psi _1]\alpha (\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _0,𝒜^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _0).$$

Now we are going to evaluate the r.h.s. of (3.21). First, we consider the diagonal terms. The most important one is

(3.23)
$$\alpha (\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _{n+1}),$$

which, due to the well known anti-commutation relations

(3.24)
$$\sigma _i\sigma _j+\sigma _j\sigma _i=2\delta _{i,j},$$

is equivalent to

(3.25)
$$\alpha (\psi _{n+1},E𝒜^1E^{}\psi _{n+1}).$$

Following \[H1, Section 3.2\] this term can be bounded from (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) below by

(3.26)
$$\alpha \psi _{n+1}^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0𝒪(\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1}),$$

which is also valid for (3.22); namely,

(3.27)
$$\alpha (\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _0,𝒜^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _0)\alpha \psi _0^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0.$$

Another diagonal term is

(3.28)
$$\alpha ^2(\stackrel{~}{\psi _n},DD𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi _n}),$$

which according to \[H1, Section 4.2\] is estimated by

$$(\text{3.28})\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{\psi _n}^20|DD𝒜^1D^{}D^{}|0𝒪(\alpha ^{9/4})\psi _{n+1}^2+𝒪(\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1}).$$

To evaluate the third diagonal term we first introduce the notation

(3.29)
$$[D^{}|0](k)G(k)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}G_\lambda (k)=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}\epsilon _\lambda (k)\frac{\chi (|k|)}{|k|^{1/2}}.$$

Thus,

(3.30) $`\alpha (pD^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1pD^{}\psi _{n+1})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1,2}{}}\alpha [{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\left[G_\lambda (p)K\right]^2|\psi _{n+1}(l,k)|^2}{|K|^2+|p|+_{i=1}^{n+1}|k_i|}}dldpdk+`$
$`n{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\left[G_\lambda (p)\overline{K}\right]\left[G_\lambda (q)\overline{K}\right]\overline{\psi _{n+1}(l,p,\overline{k})}\psi _{n+1}(l,q,\overline{k})}{|\overline{K}|^2+|p|+|q|+_{i=2}^{n+1}|k_i|}}dldpdqd\overline{k}],`$
with $`k=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})`$, $`\overline{k}=(k_2,\mathrm{},k_{n+1})`$, $`K=l+p+_{i=1}^{n+1}k_i`$ and $`\overline{K}=l+p+q+_{i=2}^{n+1}k_i`$. The first term in the r.h.s. is simply bounded from below by $`\alpha 8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }p\psi _{n+1}^2`$. Moreover, using

(3.31)
$$\frac{|\overline{K}|^2}{|\overline{K}|^2+|p|+|q|+_{i=2}^{n+1}|k_i|}1,$$

the second term is estimated by $`\alpha 8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1})`$.

Next we consider the off-diagonal terms. Notice,

$`\alpha \mathrm{}(pD^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _{n+1})=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1,2}{}}\alpha [\mathrm{}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\left[G_\lambda (p)K\right]H_\lambda (p)\psi _{n+1},\stackrel{}{\sigma }\psi _{n+1}_^2(l,k)}{|K|^2+|p|+_{i=1}^{n+1}|k_i|}}dldpdk`$
$`+n\mathrm{}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\left[G_\lambda (p)\overline{K}\right]H_\lambda (q)\psi _{n+1}(l,p,\overline{k}),\stackrel{}{\sigma }\psi _{n+1}(l,q,\overline{k})_^2}{|\overline{K}|^2+|p|+|q|+_{i=2}^{n+1}|k_i|}}dldpdqd\overline{k}].`$
The first term in the r.h.s. vanishes, because the integral is purely imaginary. For the second term we use $`\frac{|a|}{a^2+b}\frac{1}{2}b^{1/2}`$ and bound it by

$``$ $`\alpha n{\displaystyle \frac{|G(p)||H(q)|}{(|p|+|q|)^{1/2}|p|^{1/2}|q|^{1/2}}\sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(p)|p|}\sqrt{\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(q)|q|}𝑑p𝑑q}`$
$``$ $`𝒪(\alpha )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1}),`$
with

(3.32)
$$\rho _{\psi _{n+1}}(p)=|\psi _{n+1}(l,p,\overline{k})|^2𝑑l𝑑\overline{k}.$$

Obviously, the term $`2\alpha ^{3/2}\mathrm{}(pD^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi _n})`$ is dominated by

(3.33)
$$\alpha 𝒜^{1/2}pD^{}\psi _{n+1}^2+\alpha ^2(\stackrel{~}{\psi _n},DD𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi _n}),$$

where we can apply above estimates.

Finally, it is possible to bound $`\alpha ^{3/2}\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\psi _{n+1},𝒜^1D^{}D^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi _n})`$ from above by

$$𝒪(\alpha ^{3/2})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}\left[(\psi _{n+1},H_f\psi _{n+1})+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\psi _n,H_f\psi _n)\right].$$

Collecting above estimates and summing over all $`n`$ we arrive at

(3.34) $`(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $``$ $`4\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^20|EA^1E^{}|0`$
$`𝒪(\alpha )(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })𝒪(\alpha )p\mathrm{\Psi }^2𝒪(\alpha ^2)\mathrm{\Psi }^2.`$
By our a priori estimates (3.8) and (3.12) we prove the Theorem.

The second part follows immediately from \[H1, Theorem 1\].

## 4. PROOF OF THEOREM 2.3

It suffices to use a cleverly chosen trial wave function. We furthermore conjecture that our choice is optimal in the sense that (2.9) holds as equality apart from errors of order $`𝒪(\alpha ^{3/2})`$. We assume that $`\varphi (x)^2(^3)`$ is the ground state of $`p^2+V`$, i.e.

(4.1)
$$(p^2+V)\varphi =e_0\varphi .$$

Recall,

$$E^{}\varphi (x,\eta )=\varphi (x)[E^{}(x)|0](\eta ),D^{}p\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_i\varphi (x)[D_i^{}|0](\eta )$$

are 1-photon functions depending on $`x`$ and the relative coordinates $`x\xi =\eta `$ (cf. \[H1\]). Therefore, in configuration space, where $`\psi (x,\eta )`$ denotes one of these functions, we have (cf. the previous section)

(4.2)
$$[(p^2+H_f)\psi ](x,\eta )=([p_x+p_\eta ]^2+|p_\eta |)\psi (x,\eta ).$$

For sake of convenience we define the operator

(4.3)
$$A_V=p_x^2+p_\eta ^2+H_f+V+e_0=(p_x^2+V+e_0)𝕀+𝕀(p_\eta ^2+H_f),$$

which acts on $`^2\left((^3;^2)(^3;^2)\right)`$ and is obviously positive and invertible.

Now, we choose our trial wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$

(4.4)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\overline{\varphi },2\sqrt{\alpha }A_V^1D^{}p\overline{\varphi }\sqrt{\alpha }A_V^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi },0,0,\mathrm{}\},$$

where $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$. We assume $`\varphi =1`$ and for simplicity we denote the 1-photon part as $`\psi _1`$. Notice, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi }=\varphi (\stackrel{}{\sigma })E^{}|0`$.

First, observe that $`A_V\overline{\varphi }=0`$ yields

(4.5)
$$A_V\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi }=(p_\eta ^2+H_f)\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi }.$$

Therefore, since $`A_V`$ and $`p_\eta +H_f`$ commute by definition, we infer

(4.6)
$$A_V^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi }=(p_\eta ^2+H_f)^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi },$$

and

(4.7)
$$(\overline{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\sigma }EA_V^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi })=\varphi ^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0,$$

with $`𝒜=p_\eta ^2+H_f`$. Thus, we evaluate

(4.8) $`(\mathrm{\Psi },𝐇_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Psi }^2e_0\mathrm{\Psi }^2+(\psi _1,A_V\psi _1)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}((\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}+2D^{}p)\overline{\varphi },\psi _1)`$
$`+2\alpha (\psi _1,D^{}D\psi _1)+2(\psi _1,p_xp_\eta \psi _1).`$
Notice, the cross term

(4.9)
$$\mathrm{}(\overline{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\sigma }EA_V^1D^{}p\overline{\varphi })=\mathrm{}(\overline{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\sigma }E𝒜^1D^{}p\overline{\varphi })$$

vanishes as in the previous section, because it is purely imaginary. Therefore, by our choice of $`\psi _1`$ we get

$`(\psi _1,A_V\psi _1)+2\sqrt{\alpha }\mathrm{}((\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}+2D^{}p)\overline{\varphi },\psi _1)=`$
(4.10) $`=4\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )\alpha \varphi ^20|E𝒜^1E^{}|0,`$
which indicates that our choice of $`\psi _1`$ is optimal. Moreover, we have

$`(\psi _1,p_xp_\eta \psi _1)=\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1p_xp_\eta A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )`$
$`\alpha (\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi },𝒜^1p_xp_\eta 𝒜^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi })+2\alpha \mathrm{}(D^{}p_x\overline{\varphi },A_V^1p_xp_\eta A_V^1\stackrel{}{\sigma }E^{}\overline{\varphi }).`$
The first term in the r.h.s. vanishes by integrating over the $`\eta `$-variable (the best way to see it is using the representation in momentum space). The second term vanishes when integrating over the $`x`$-variable (notice, $`(\varphi ,p_x\varphi )=0`$), and the third term vanishes, because it is again purely imaginary.

Using above considerations and the fact that

(4.11)
$$4\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha 0|E𝒜^1E^{}|0=8\pi \alpha [\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]$$

we infer

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },𝐇_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi })/(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })=e_0+8\pi \alpha [\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]4\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )+𝒪(\alpha ^2),$$

which proves the first statement of the Theorem with

(4.12)
$$(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })=4\alpha (D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi ).$$

The second statement follows by the observation that $`(D^{}p_x\varphi ,A_V^1D^{}p_x\varphi )`$ is strictly larger than $`0`$, which is a consequence of the fact that $`D^{}p_x\varphi `$ is a not identically vanishing function $`^2(^3(^3,^2))`$ and $`A_V`$ an invertible operator.

The statement for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ follows from \[H1, Theorem 2.1\] and above estimates.

## 5. Computation of concrete numbers

### 5.1. Error for the self-energy

We are going to calculate the error $`rr`$ of the self-energy,

(5.1)
$$|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha 8\pi \alpha [\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })]|rr(\alpha ^2).$$

For sake of convenience, we treat only the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The most important part is to estimate the kinetic energy term $`p\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ close to the ground state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$.

By means of (3.9), (3.10) and then applying (3.11) we obtain

$`8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })(1a)p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })`$
$`4a^1\alpha D\mathrm{\Psi }^2c\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^31/(c\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)E\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$
$``$ $`(1a)p\mathrm{\Psi }^2c\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^3+\left[1a^132\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }c^1{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\right](\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi }),`$
where $`1>a>0`$. We require the last term $`[..]`$ to be $`0`$. For simplicity, we choose $`c=8\pi `$, then our first condition on $`\alpha `$ reads

(5.2)
$$\alpha \frac{a}{16\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}$$

and additionally

(5.3)
$$p\mathrm{\Psi }^2\frac{8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{1a}.$$

It is not difficult to see that the main contribution to $`rr`$ stems from (3.26) and (3.30). When we take that value twice we obtain a rather accurate upper bound for $`rr`$. From the Section 3.2 we know that (3.30) is bounded by

$$8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi }).$$

From the proof of Theorem 1 in \[H1\] we infer

$$(\text{3.26})6\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi }),$$

which implies, after doubling the value,

$`rr`$ $``$ $`16\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }p\mathrm{\Psi }^2+28\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Psi },H_f\mathrm{\Psi })`$
$``$ $`\alpha ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(16\pi )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{1a}}+1416\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right]`$
where we used (5.3) and (3.8).

### 5.2. Electromagnetic Energy-shift

We consider an electron in the field of a nucleus with charge $`Z`$, i.e.

$$V=\frac{Z\beta }{|x|},$$

where $`\beta `$ is the “real” fine structure constant $`\beta =1/137`$. The ground state energy of the corresponding Schrödinger operator $`p^2+V`$ is known to be

$$\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}[p^2+V]=e_0=\frac{1}{4}(\beta Z)^2$$

measured in units $`[\frac{m_ec^2}{2}]`$ with $`m_e`$ the electron mass. The corresponding radiative correction, obtained in (4.12), is given by

(5.4)
$$(V,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\alpha 4(\varphi ,pDA_V^1pD^{}\varphi ),$$

where $`\varphi =\varphi (|x|)`$ denotes the ground state of $`p^2+V`$. We know

(5.5)
$$\varphi (|x|)=_r\varphi (r)\stackrel{}{e}_r(\theta ,\phi )=e_0^{1/2}\varphi (r)\stackrel{}{e}_r(\theta ,\phi )$$

when using polar coordinates. Denote with $`\varphi _i`$ the eigenstate of $`p^2+V`$ with corresponding eigenvalue $`e_i`$. Then, by means of (5.5), we obtain, by straightforward computations,

(5.6)
$$(\varphi ,pDA_V^1pD^{}\varphi )=4\pi e_0\underset{i1}{}|c_i|^2_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{p\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)}{e_0e_i+p^2+p}𝑑pe_0F(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

where

$$c_i=\overline{\varphi _i(r,\theta ,\phi )}\varphi (r)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )r^2𝑑r𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },$$

with $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=sin\theta d\theta d\phi `$. Notice, $`|c_i|^2=2/3`$ and

$$\frac{8\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]/F(\mathrm{\Lambda })1$$

as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. That is why, for simplicity, we take $`\frac{8\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ instead of $`F(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and obtain an approximative radiative correction

(5.7)
$$R_C=\alpha e_0\frac{32\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]$$

for the binding energy. (Indeed, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ these two functions perfectly coincide, but still for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=e_0`$, $`F(\mathrm{\Lambda })/\frac{8\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]0.3`$.)

Notice that in contrary to Bethe’s formula in \[Be\], where the energy shift grows with $`Z^4`$, our correction term only increases as $`Z^2`$.

Consider a hydrogen or helium atom and take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2`$ then (5.7) turns out to be much too large compared with experiment, whereas setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e_0`$ yields a correction $`R_C\beta (\beta Z)^4\beta ^3Z^4`$Ry, which agrees with Bethe’s prediction (if $`\beta Z1`$) and ranges within experimental data.

### 5.3. Calculating concrete values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

We search for values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that guarantee the error of the self energy $`rr`$ being smaller than the radiative correction $`R_C`$. This leads to the condition:

$$\alpha \mathrm{Min}\{\frac{\frac{2}{3}e_0\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{\frac{16\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2]}{1a}+14\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2},\frac{a}{16\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\}.$$

Set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=e_01`$ $`(Z1)`$ and take into account $`\mathrm{ln}(1+e_0)e_0`$ then for

$$\alpha 1/45\pi $$

enhanced binding is guaranteed. (Recall, this bound is by far not optimal, since for small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we are able to work with much better a priori estimates, $`(\mathrm{\Psi },T\mathrm{\Psi })8\pi \alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, from the beginning, which would imply an $`\alpha 1/e_045\pi 100`$.)

Now we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and $`a=1/4`$. Then

$$\alpha \mathrm{Min}\{e_0/21,1/200\}.$$

For $`Z\beta =1`$ the $`\alpha `$ required is $`1/200`$, which still coincides quite well with the physical value, whereas for $`Z=2`$ we need $`\alpha 1/(410^5)`$ to dominate $`rr`$ by $`R_C`$.

We conclude that in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e_0`$, which seems to be reasonable, we obtain
(1) an energy shift comparable to experiment,
and
(2) the error of the self-energy, in the case of $`\alpha =1/137`$, is (much) less than $`R_C`$.

### 5.4. A comment on mass renormalization

Lets re-introduce for the moment the electron mass in the definition of $`T`$ and $`p^2`$. One way of defining the renormalized mass (cf. \[LL2\]) is to set the binding energy equal to the physical binding energy, i.e.

$$\frac{1}{2}m_{\mathrm{phys}}(Z\beta )^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha E_\alpha ,$$

which, in the case of small $`\alpha `$ and assuming that (2.9) holds with equality, implies

$$m_{\mathrm{phys}}=m\left[1+\alpha 4F(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m)\right].$$

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m1`$ this perfectly agrees with

$$m_{\mathrm{phys}}=m\left[1+\alpha \frac{32\pi }{3}\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }/m)\right],$$

which is exactly what we obtain (for $`\alpha 0`$), when defining the renormalized mass by means of the ground state energy of a free electron with fixed total (electron + photon) momentum $`P`$.


text:
# Real-time thermal field theory analyses of 2D Gross-Neveu model This work was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China and by Grant No. LWTZ-1298 of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

## 1 Introduction

In 4D model of NJL-form  and 3D Gross-Neveu (GN) model , by means of analyses of dynamical fermion mass in the real-time thermal field theory in the fermion bubble approximation, we have acquired a quite clear understanding of restorations of the spontaneously broken symmetries at high temperature and their second-order phase transition feature . A natural idea is to extend the same analysis to 2D GN model. However, once entering one-space dimension, one will find some special features. By the Mermin-Wagner-Coleman Theorem , a continuous symmetry can never be spontaneously broken in 2 dimensions. Consequently we will have to confine ourselves to possible spontaneous breaking of only some discrete symmetries. The 2D GN model is perturbatively renormalizable and asymptotically free and this is apparently different from the perturbatively non-renormalizable 4D NJL model and 3D GN model. Based on the auxialiary scalar field approach, many researches on the behavior of 2D GN model at finite temperature have been made , though all of them in the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field theory. Considering the above facts, in this paper, we will analysed 2D GN model in the real-time thermal field theory in the fermion bubble approximation. Through comparison between the results obtained by our approach and the known ones, we will be able to check the equivalence of the real-time and the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field theory in this problem, find the advantages of the real-time formalism and the limitations of the fermion bubble approximation and , in the meantime, get deeper insight into the 2D GN model itself as well.
The paper is arranged as follows. In Sect.2 we will analyse the symmetries of 2D GN model, mainly its discrete symmetries and their possible spontaneous breaking induced by dynamical fermion mass. In Sect. 3 the behavior of the model at temperature $`T=0`$ will be outlined. This includes derivation of the renormalized gap equation and the running coupling constant in dimension regularization scheme and the proof of that scalar bound state could not exist in this model. In Sect. 4 we extend the gap equation to the case of $`T0`$, determine the critical temperature of symmetry restoration and derive the critical behavior of the dynamical fermion mass. Finally in Sect. 5 we indicate the advantages and the limitations of our approach through the comparison with the known results and reach corresponding conclusions.

## 2 Symmetry analysis of the model

The Lagrangian of 2D GN model is expressed by

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{\psi }^ki\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi _k+\frac{g}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k]^2.$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`\psi \psi _k(t,x)`$ are the spinor fields with $`N`$ ”color” components. In 2 dimesions, the four-fermion coupling constant $`g`$ is dimensionless thus the theory is perturbatively renormalizable. The $`\gamma ^\mu (\mu =0,1)`$ and $`\gamma _5=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1`$ are $`2\times 2`$ matrices which are related to the Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^i(i=1,2,3)`$ by

$$\gamma ^0=\sigma ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma ^1=i\sigma ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\gamma _5=\sigma ^3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(2.2)`$
i.e. we take the ”Weyl” representation. In this representation, $`\psi _k`$ will be two-component complex spinors. We will concern only the discrete symmetries of the model, since continuous symmetries can not be spontaneously broken in 2 dimensions. It is easy to see that the Lagrangian (2.1) is invariant under the discrete transformation $`R`$,

$$\psi (t,x)\stackrel{R}{}\psi (t,x)$$
$`(2.3)`$
and the ordinary parity $`𝒫`$ and the time reversal $`𝒯`$,

$$\psi (t,x)\stackrel{𝒫}{}\gamma ^0\psi (t,x),$$

$$\psi (t,x)\stackrel{𝒯}{}\gamma ^0\psi (t,x).$$
$`(2.4)`$
In addition, it is also invariant under the discrete chiral transformation $`\chi _D`$,

$$\psi (t,x)\stackrel{\chi _D}{}\gamma _5\psi (t,x)$$
$`(2.5)`$
and the special parity $`𝒫_1`$,

$$\psi (t,x)\stackrel{𝒫_1}{}\gamma ^1\psi (t,x)$$
$`(2.6)`$
We indicate that the fermion mass term $`m\overline{\psi }\psi `$ will keep $`R`$, $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒯`$ invariant but not $`\chi _D`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ invariant. Therefore, the dynamical generation of the fermion mass will imply spontaneous breaking of the discrete chiral symmetry $`\chi _D`$ and the special parity $`𝒫_1`$. The spontaneous breaking of $`\chi _D`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ and their possible restoration at finite temperature $`T`$ is just the problem we will discussed.

## 3 The behavior of the model at $`T=0`$

The renormalization operation will be conducted in the dimension regularization approach . For this purpose, we change the time-space dimension from 2 into

$$D=22\epsilon $$
$`(3.1)`$
and the Lagrangian $``$ in Eq.(2.1) into

$$_D=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{\psi }^ki\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi _k+\frac{g}{2}M^{2D}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k]^2,$$
$`(3.2)`$
where $`M`$ is a scale parameter with mass dimension, the mass dimensions $`[g]=0`$, $`[\psi _k]=[\overline{\psi }^k]=(D1)/2`$ and the dimension of the representation of the matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$ becomes $`2^{D/2}`$. The Feynman rule of the four-fermion vertex will be $`igM^{2D}`$.
Assuming that the four-fermion interactions will lead to the condensates $`_{k=1}^N\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k0`$, then the non-zero dynamical mass

$$m(0)=gM^{2D}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k$$
$`(3.3)`$
will be generated and the discrete symmetries $`\chi _D`$ and $`𝒫_1`$ will be spontaneously broken. After the Wick rotation and introduction of the denotations $`\overline{l}^0=il^0,\overline{l}^i=l^i`$, we obtain from Eq.(3.3) the gap equation

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`gN2^{D/2}M^{2D}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^D\overline{l}}{(2\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{l}^2+m^2(0)}}`$
$`=`$ $`gN2^{D/2}M^{2D}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1D/2)}{(4\pi )^{D/2}[m^2(0)]^{1D/2}}},`$
$`(3.4)`$
where we have used the integral formula

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^D\overline{l}}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{[\overline{l}^2+m^2(0)]^A}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(AD/2)}{(4\pi )^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)[m^2(0)]^{AD/2}}.$$
$`(3.5)`$
Considering Eq. (3.1), the gap equation can be reduced to

$$1=\frac{gN}{2\pi }\left[\frac{1}{\epsilon }\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi M^2}{m^2(0)}+𝒪(\epsilon )\right]$$
$`(3.6)`$
where $`\gamma =0.5772`$ is the Euler constant. The divergent $`1/\epsilon `$ term can be removed by introduction of the counter-term of the four-fermion interactions

$$_{c.t.}=\frac{g}{2}M^{2D}(Z_41)\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k)^2.$$
$`(3.7)`$
The renormalization constant $`Z_4`$ is defined by the minimal subtraction scheme , i.e., to one-loop order,

$$Z_4=1\frac{gN}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\epsilon },$$
$`(3.8)`$
then the renormalized gap equation will take the form

$$1=\frac{gN}{2\pi }\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi M^2}{m^2(0)}\gamma \right]$$
$`(3.9)`$
Eq. (3.9) gives that

$$m^2(0)=2\pi M^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2\pi }{gN}\gamma ]$$
$`(3.10)`$
Since 2D GN model is an asymptotically free theory, as will be argued immediately, the $`g`$ in Eq. (3.10) should be replaced by corresponding running coupling constant. The running coupling can be derived by the general renormalization group method. In fact, after introducing the counter-term $`_{c.t.}`$, we can define the bare four-fermion coupling constant

$$g_0=gM^{2D}Z_4$$
$`(3.11)`$
which should be independent of the renormalization scale parameter M, i.e.

$$\frac{dg_0}{dM}=0$$
$`(3.12)`$
Considering Eq. (3.8), Eq. (3.12) will lead to

$$M\frac{g}{M}=\frac{N}{\pi }g^2$$
$`(3.13)`$
and furthermore,

$$\frac{1}{g(M)}=\frac{N}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{M_0}+\frac{1}{g(M_0)}$$
$`(3.14)`$
Eq. (3.14) indicates that the running coupling $`g(M)0`$ when $`M\mathrm{}`$, i.e. the theory is ultraviolet stable and asymptotically free. Now we replace the coupling constant $`g`$ in Eq. (3.10) by the running coupling $`g(M)`$, then by means of Eq. (3.14), can prove that

$$m^2(0)=2\pi M^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2\pi }{g(M)N}\gamma ]=2\pi M_0^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2\pi }{g(M_0)N}\gamma ]$$
$`(3.15)`$
i.e. the dynamical fermion mass $`m(0)`$ is scale-indepedent, we will obtain the same $`m(0)`$ in the scales $`M`$ and $`M_0`$. On the other words, the order parameter $`m(0)`$ of the discrete symmetry breaking will be independent of the size of the system.
We can also calculate the renormalized fermionic four-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^R(p)`$ in scalar channel by the methods used in Ref. . The result is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^R(p)=i/[p^24m^2(0)+i\epsilon ]K_0(p),$$
$`(3.16)`$
$$K_0(p)=\frac{N}{4\pi }_0^1\frac{dx}{m^2(0)p^2x(1x)}=\frac{N}{\pi p^2\sqrt{4m^2(0)/p^21}}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{1}{\sqrt{4m^2(0)/p^21}},$$
$`(3.17)`$
where we have made the assumption that $`0<p^2<4m^2(0)`$. To examine if $`p^2=4m^2(0)`$ could be a simple pole of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^R(p)`$, we may calculate the residual of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^R(p)`$ at $`p^2=4m^2(0)`$ and obtain

$$\underset{p^24m^2(0)}{lim}\left[\frac{4m^2(0)}{p^2}1\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^R(p)=0$$
$`(3.18)`$
which implies that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^R(p)`$ does not represent a propogator for any scalar bound state with the mass $`2m(0)`$. Hence, the scalar bound state does not exist at $`T=0`$ in this model. In fact, this conclusion can be generalized to the case of $`T0`$, as will be showed in the next Section.

## 4 Symmetry restoration and phase transition at finite temperature

We will take the real-time formalism of thermal field theory  to research the temperature behavior of the dynamical fermion mass. This means that, corresponding to the vacuum expectation value $`_k\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k`$ replaced by the thermal expectation value $`_k\overline{\psi }^k\psi _k_T`$, we should make the substitution of the fermion propagator

$$\frac{i}{\overline{)}lm+i\epsilon }\frac{i}{\overline{)}lm+i\epsilon }2\pi \delta (l^2m^2)(\overline{)}l+m)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu ),$$

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu )=\frac{\theta (l^0)}{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (l^0\mu )]+1}+\frac{\theta (l^0)}{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (l^0+\mu )]+1},$$
$`(4.1)`$
where $`\mu `$ is chemical potential and $`\beta =1/T`$. Let $`mm(T,\mu )`$ is the dynamical fermion mass at finite temperature $`T`$ and finite chemical potential $`\mu `$, then similar to the derivation at $`T=0`$, we may obtain the gap equation at $`T0`$

$$1=Z_4\frac{gN}{2\pi }\left[\frac{1}{\epsilon }\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi M^2}{m^2}2d^2l\delta (l^2m^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu )\right]$$
$`(4.2)`$
Notice that the integral related to $`T`$ is convergent and the UV divergence appears only in the zero temperature sector. Therefore, by the definition (3.8) of $`Z_4`$ at $`T=0`$, we can remove the $`1/\epsilon `$ divergence to the one-loop order and obtain the renormalized gap equation at $`T0`$

$$1=\frac{gN}{2\pi }\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi M^2}{m^2}\gamma 2[I_1(y,r)+I_1(y,r)]\right\}$$
$`(4.3)`$
where

$$I_1(y,r)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{x^2+y^2}r)+1}$$
$`(4.4)`$
with the denotations $`y=m/T`$ and $`r=\mu /T`$. By the same argument as the one leading to Eq. (3.15), it can be proven that the dynamical fermion mass $`m`$ at finite temperature and chemical potential is also scale-independent. This implies that in the bubble fermion diagram approximation, the order parameter is always size-independent.
Substitute the gap equation (3.9) at $`T=0`$ into Eq. (4.3), we will obtain

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{m(0)}{m}=I_1(y,r)+I_1(y,r)$$
$`(4.5)`$
We may assume that there is a critical temperature $`T_c0`$ so that when $`TT_c`$, $`m0`$. It is easy to see that this assumption is consistent with Eq. (4.5). In fact, when $`m0`$, in the left-handed side of Eq. (4.5) there will appear $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}`$ divergence and in the right-handed side, the integral at $`x0`$ will approach $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}`$ and has the same $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}`$ behavior. Thus the assumption $`T_c0`$ is plausible, at least in the bubble diagram approximation.
Since when $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c0`$, $`m0`$, i.e. $`y1`$, we can use the high temperature expansion of $`I_1(y,r)`$  and obtain from Eq. (4.5)

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{m(0)}{T\pi }+\gamma =\frac{7}{2}\zeta (3)(\frac{y}{2\pi })^2+\left[7\zeta (3)93\zeta (5)(\frac{y}{2\pi })^2\right](\frac{r}{2\pi })^2$$

$$+\left[31\zeta (5)+\frac{1905}{2}\zeta (7)(\frac{y}{2\pi })^2\right](\frac{r}{2\pi })^4+127\zeta (7)(\frac{r}{2\pi })^6+𝒪\left[(\frac{y}{2\pi })^4\right]$$
$`(4.6)`$
where $`\zeta (3)=1.202,\zeta (5)=1.037,\mathrm{}`$ and $`r/2\pi <1`$ is also assumed. We find that the $`\mathrm{ln}m`$ terms in both sides of Eq. (4.6) have cancelled each other. Taking $`y=0`$ i.e. $`m=0`$, we will obtain the equation of $`T_c`$ and the critical chemical potential $`\mu _c`$

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{m(0)}{T_c\pi }+\gamma =7\zeta (3)(\frac{r_c}{2\pi })^231\zeta (5)(\frac{r_c}{2\pi })^4+127\zeta (7)(\frac{r_c}{2\pi })^6+\mathrm{}$$
$`(4.7)`$
with the denotation $`r_c=\mu _c/T_c`$. When chemical potential is zero, Eq. (4.7) gives

$$T_c=(e^\gamma /\pi )m(0)=0.567m(0)$$
$`(4.8)`$
This result is identical to the one obtained in the mean field approximation of the auxialiary scalar field approach in the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field theory \[6-8\]. When the chemical potential is not equal to zero, Eq. (4.7) will be able to determine a $`\mu _cT_c`$ criticality curve at $`r_c/2\pi <1`$. This shows an advantage of the real-time thermal field theory approach. Besides this, we may further give the critical behavior of the dynamical fermion mass $`m`$ i.e. the order parameter of symmetry breaking at $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c`$. Since $`y1`$ when $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c`$, it is reasonable to keep only the terms of the order $`𝒪(y^2)`$ in Eq. (4.6). Then, considering the equation (4.7) of $`\mu _cT_c`$ curve (in which $`\mu _c`$ is redenoted by $`\mu `$), we may derive the expression for the squared dynamical fermion mass

$$m^2=4\pi ^2T^2[\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_c}{T}+7\zeta (3)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\pi }\right)^2(\frac{1}{T_c^2}\frac{1}{T^2})31\zeta (5)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\pi }\right)^4(\frac{1}{T_c^4}\frac{1}{T^4})$$

$$+127\zeta (7)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\pi }\right)^6(\frac{1}{T_c^6}\frac{1}{T^6})]/[\frac{7}{2}\zeta (3)93\zeta (5)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\pi }\right)^2\frac{1}{T^2}+\frac{1905}{2}\zeta (7)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\pi }\right)^4\frac{1}{T^4}],$$

$$\mathrm{when}T\stackrel{<}{}T_c.$$
$`(4.9)`$
If the chemical potential is zero, then Eq. (4.9) gives

$$m^2=\frac{8\pi ^2}{7\zeta (3)}T^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_c}{T},\mathrm{when}T\stackrel{<}{}T_c.$$
$`(4.10)`$
The logrithmic behavior of $`m^2`$ for $`T_c`$ can be compared with the temperature behaviors of $`m^2`$ at $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c`$ in 4D NJL model and 3D GN model. The latters are

$$m^2=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\frac{T_c^2T^2}{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/T\pi )+\gamma 1/2},\mathrm{for}4\mathrm{D}\mathrm{NJL}\mathrm{model}$$
$`(4.11)`$
$$m^2=8(\mathrm{ln}2)T(T_cT),\mathrm{for}3\mathrm{D}\mathrm{GN}\mathrm{model}$$
$`(4.12)`$
In both cases we have $`m(T_cT)^{1/2}`$ at $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c`$ and it means that the relevant symmetry restorations are the second-order phase transitions. In the case of 2D GN model, based on a similar argument to the one given in Ref. , we can reach the same conclusion, i.e. the discrete symmetry restoration at $`T>T_c`$ is also the second-order phase transition.
Based the method used in Ref. , we can obtain the renormalized fermionic four-point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ST}^R(p)`$ in scalar channel at finite temperature $`T`$ which is expressed by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ST}^R(p)=i/(p^24m^2+i\epsilon )\left\{K(p)+H(p)iS(p)R^2(p)/[K(p)+H(p)+iS(p)]\right\},$$
$`(4.13)`$
where $`K(p)`$ has the same form as $`K_0(p)`$ in Eq. (3.17), except that $`m(0)`$ must be replaced by m, and

$$H(p)=\frac{N}{2\pi }d^2l\left[\frac{p^22lp}{(p^22lp)^2+\epsilon ^2}+\frac{p^2+2lp}{(p^2+2lp)^2+\epsilon ^2}\right]\delta (l^2m^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu ),$$
$`(4.14)`$
$$S(p)=\frac{N}{2}d^2l\delta (l^2m^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m^2][\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0,\mu )\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu )+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (l^0,\mu )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu )],$$
$`(4.15)`$
$$R(p)=\frac{N}{4}d^2l\delta (l^2m^2)\delta [(l+p)^2m^2]\mathrm{sin}2\theta (l^0,\mu )\mathrm{sin}2\theta (l^0+p^0,\mu ).$$
$`(4.16)`$
The form (4.13) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ST}^R(p)`$ ensures mutual cancellation of the pinch singularities contained in $`S(p)`$ and $`R(p)`$. It is easy to confirm that when $`p^2m^2`$, $`H(p)`$ is finite but $`S(p)`$ and $`R(p)`$ are sigular. The latter comes from the feature of the product of the two $`\delta `$-functions. Since $`K(p)`$ is divergent when $`p^2m^2`$, we will still have the residual of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ST}^R(p)`$ at $`p^2=4m^2`$

$$\underset{p^24m^2}{lim}\left(\frac{4m^2}{p^2}1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ST}^R(p)=0$$
$`(4.17)`$
Hence, the conclusion that there is no scalar bound state in the model will be maintained at finite temperature.
Our results about finite temperature behavior of the model are obtained by the real-time thermal field theory in the fermion bubble diagram approximation. It should be pointed that the fermion bubble diagram approximation has already been able to reflect physical essentiality in 4D and 3D case. However, it has great limitations in 2D case. As illustrated in Ref. , where the auxialiary scalar field approach was used, for an infinite one-space system and a finite $`N`$, in fact there is not symmetry restoration at $`T0`$ owing to the special kink effects when the minimal configuration $`\sigma _c(x)`$ of the effective thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma _c(x),\beta )`$ could be a function of space. Only if $`\sigma _c(x)=`$ constant is assumed, i.e. in so called the mean field approximation, one could obtain symmetry restoration at $`T0`$ and this is just the result obtained in Refs.  and in this paper. It may be indicated that the scale-independece, or the size-independence of the order parameter $`m(T,\mu )`$ proved in this paper is just consistent with the assumption $`\sigma _c(x)=`$ constant in the mean field approximation. Hence we can say that the fermion bubble approximation is indeed the mean field approximation named in Ref. . Since the mean field approximation is valid only if $`N\mathrm{}`$ or if $`N`$ is large and one consider only a finite segment of one-space dimension system, the results about finite temperature obtained in this paper are applicable only in the above conditions.

## 5 Conclusions

We have analysed spontaneous breaking and restoration of the discrete chiral symmetry $`\chi _D`$ and the special parity $`𝒫_1`$ induced by dynamical fermion mass in renormalizable and asymptotically free 2D Gross-Neveu model by means of the real-time thermal field theory in the fermion bubble diagram approximation. We have proven that the dynamical fermion mass, both $`m(0)`$ at zero-temperature and $`m`$ at finite temperature, are scale-independent, consistent with the fundamental assumption of the mean field approximation in the auxialiary scalar field approach. Hence, the fermion bubble diagram approximation is equivalent to the mean field approximation and must submit to the same applicable conditions. All the results, especially reproducing of the non-zero symmetry restoration temperature $`T_c=0.567m(0)`$, show the equivalence between the real-time and the imaginay-time formalism of thermal field theory in this problem. However, in the real-time formalism, one can further prove that there is no scalar bound state in the model, easily obtain the equation of criticality curve of chemical potential and temperature and the $`\mathrm{ln}(T_c/T)`$ behavior of the dynamical squared fermion mass $`m^2`$ at $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_c`$. The last one clearly indicates the second-order phase transition feature of the symmetry restorations.