format: text

text:
# Resolution-dependent quark masses from meson correlators

## I Introduction

The constituent quarks of the “naive”, nonrelativistic quark model are universal, i.e. hadron-channel independent degrees of freedom with a flavor-dependent but otherwise constant mass. This simple concept has been refined in several relativistic quark models. Usually, then, the quarks become “dressed” quasi-particles and their constituent mass turns into a momentum-dependent mean field or self-energy.

Constituent-quark masses with a different kind of momentum dependence have recently been employed for the description of diffractive vector-meson production processes in Ref. Dosch:1997nw . Guided by analogy with a nonrelativistic quark-model amplitude, the authors of Dosch:1997nw  model the vector polarization function in terms of a resolution-dependent quark mass (RDQM) $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$, similar to the cutoff-dependent quark masses generated during renormalization group (RG) evolution Wilson:1973jj  of chiral quark models Meyer:2001zp ; Berges:1997eu . Since this approach has proven quite successful in reproducing experimental data for the vector polarization amplitude, it seems worthwhile to explore its uses in a broader setting, i.e. in correlation functions of other important meson channels. This is the aim of the present note.

The specific implementation of the resolution-dependent quark mass in Ref. Dosch:1997nw , namely as a replacement of the constant quark mass in the otherwise noninteracting correlators, lets one suspect that not the whole variety of physics in other meson channels can be captured in such a minimal way. In this regard the spin-0 correlators hold a particular challenge since their behavior can be qualitatively altered by the underlying vacuum physics. The strength of the interaction in the pseudoscalar isovector correlator, for example, gets up to two orders of magnitude larger than in the vector channel, and it sets in at smaller distances nov81 ; Shuryak:kg . Of course, this behavior is naturally explained by the spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry in the QCD vacuum and reflects the exceptionally strong attraction needed to generate almost massless Goldstone pions.

The pronounced differences in the behavior of the various mesonic correlators raise the question to which extent they can be described by a universal  resolution (and flavor) dependent mass with an at least approximately channel-independent momentum dependence. Such a channel independence appears natural from the perspective of the naive quark model. Indeed, the spectroscopic successes of the latter suggest that important bulk features of most hadrons can be understood on the basis of universal constituent-quark properties, and especially without assuming their internal structure, as revealed by their momentum dependence, to depend on the hadron state considered.

Our strategy for exploring the virtues and limitations of the RDQM method beyond the vector channel will rely mainly on a comparison of the resulting meson correlators with those obtained from other, as far as possible model-independent sources. As such input sources we employ experimental data, phenomenological estimates, and lattice results on point-to-point correlators. The latter constitute our main input in the spin-0 channels, which are not directly accessible to experimental probes. After outlining our calculational setup, we discuss generic properties of the resulting RDQMs and then proceed to their quantitative analysis. Finally, we present our conclusions and offer a few speculations about improved implementations of resolution-dependent masses.

## II Mesonic correlators with resolution-dependent quark masses

QCD correlation functions of interpolating currents with hadronic quantum numbers link hadron properties rather directly to quark properties. Hence they provide a suitable framework for phenomenological studies of resolution-dependent quark masses. The first such investigation Dosch:1997nw  dealt with the correlator of two vector currents at spacelike momentum transfer and modeled several diffractive high-energy processes on its basis. Despite some motivation for this approach by an harmonic oscillator quark-model analogy for the photon wave function Dosch:1997nw , however, the physical foundations and the implementation of the method deserve further study.

As a step in this direction, we will generalize the RDQM approach below to the light meson correlators

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}\left(x\right)=0\left|TJ^{\left(i\right)}(x)J^{\left(i\right)}(0)\right|0$$
(1)
in those Lorentz channels for which phenomenological and lattice data exist. Hence we consider the isovector currents $`J^{\left(i\right)}=\overline{u}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\left(i\right)}d`$ in the channels $`i`$ specified by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\left(i\right)}\{1,i\gamma _5,\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\}`$. The Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}\left(x\right)`$ yields the polarization tensors

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\left(i\right)}(q)=d^4ze^{iqx}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}(q^2)K^{\left(i\right)}(q)$$
(2)
which we have factorized into an invariant amplitude $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}(q^2)`$ and a Lorentz tensor $`K^{\left(i\right)}(q)`$ with

$`K^{\left(s\right)}(q)`$ $`=K^{\left(p\right)}(q)=1,`$ (3)
$`K^{\left(v\right)}(q)`$ $`=K^{\left(at\right)}(q)=q^\mu q^\nu q^2g^{\mu \nu },`$ (4)
$`K^{\left(al\right)}(q)`$ $`=q^\mu q^\nu .`$ (5)
Here the superscripts denote the scalar (s), pseudoscalar (p), vector (v), as well as the longitudinal (al) and transverse (at) components of the axial-vector channel. The invariant amplitudes have the usual spectral representation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}(Q^2=q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}(s)}{s+Q^2}.$$
(6)
We do not write subtraction terms explicitly since they will not enter our determination of the resolution-dependent masses.

### II.1 Resolution-dependent quark masses

In this section we establish the basic formalism for obtaining resolution-dependent constituent masses $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(\nu ^2\right)`$ from data on the meson correlators. To this end, we generalize the procedure of Ref. Dosch:1997nw  where a model for the second $`Q^2`$-derivative of the physical vector correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(v\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$ was obtained by supplying the free quarks in the noninteracting vector correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(v\right)}`$ with a resolution-dependent mass and by identifying the resolution scale $`\nu `$ with the momentum transfer $`Q`$. The derivatives with respect to $`Q^2`$ were taken mainly in order to remove the UV singularity of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(v\right)}`$. A straightforward generalization of this procedure yields our model for the mesonic correlator amplitudes and their $`n`$-th derivative in the channel $`i`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{mod},n}^{\left(i\right)}(Q^2,m_{\text{eff}})=\frac{^n}{\left(Q^2\right)^n}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(i\right)}(Q^2,m_0)|_{m_0m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(i\right)}`$ are the invariant amplitudes of the free correlators

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^{\left(i\right)}(q^2,m_0)=iN_c\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\text{tr}[S(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\left(i\right)}S(k+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\left(i\right)}]$$
(8)
and $`S(k)=(\text{ / }km_0+iϵ)^1`$ denotes the noninteracting fermion propagator.

In dimensional regularization, the free correlator amplitudes at spacelike momenta $`Q^2q^2>0`$ read

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(s\right)}(Q^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}Q^2\left\{(1+\rho )^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\rho }+1}{\sqrt{1+\rho }1}}\right)2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\rho }{2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_0^2}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(p\right)}(Q^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}Q^2\left\{\sqrt{1+\rho }\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\rho }+1}{\sqrt{1+\rho }1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_0^2}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (10)
for the spin-0 channels and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(v\right)}(Q^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2}}\left\{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2}}\right)\sqrt{1+\rho }\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\rho }+1}{\sqrt{1+\rho }1}}\right)+\rho {\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_0^2}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(at\right)}(Q^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi ^2}}\left\{(1+\rho )^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\rho }+1}{\sqrt{1+\rho }1}}\right)2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\rho }{2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_0^2}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(al\right)}(Q^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}}\rho \left\{\sqrt{1+\rho }\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+\rho }+1}{\sqrt{1+\rho }1}}\right)2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\gamma +\mathrm{log}(4\pi )+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_0^2}}\right)\right]\right\}`$ (13)
for the spin-1 channels. Above, we have introduced the abbreviation $`\rho 4m_0^2/Q^2`$, the regulator $`ϵ4d`$, and its mass scale $`\mu `$. As anticipated, the divergent pieces (corresponding to subtraction terms in the dispersive representation) can be made to vanish by taking a sufficient number of derivatives with respect to $`Q^2`$. This will always be ensured below. Hence the above expressions, together with the prescription (7) for the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{mod},n}^{\left(i\right)}(Q^2,m_{\text{eff}})`$, uniquely define our model for the interacting meson correlators.

At this point, it might be useful to emphasize a crucial difference between the resolution-dependent quark masses $`m\left(\nu ^2\right)`$ defined above and the more conventional momentum-dependent self-energies which are encountered, e.g., in quark or instanton-vacuum models. In contrast to the latter, the RDQM does not depend on the loop momentum $`k`$ flowing through the quark propagators, but rather on the overall momentum transfer $`Q`$ which is assumed to set the resolution scale $`\nu `$ of the constituent quarks. This is analogous to the usual renormalization-group improvement of perturbation theory, where the running RG scale of coupling and mass parameters is similarly identified with the external momentum scale 111The RDQM approach is restricted to the spacelike momentum region of the correlators..

The identification of the scale $`\nu `$ with the overall momentum $`Q`$, i.e. with a variable not associated with the individual quarks but rather with the (channel-dependent) correlator as a whole, raises the crucial issue of channel dependence for the resolution-dependent quark mass.

### II.2 Representation of input data and matching procedure

Information from several independent sources, including dispersive fits to experimental data in the spin-1 channels, QCD sum rules and lattice simulations of point-to-point correlators, indicate that the detailed structure of the spectral functions $`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(i\right)}/\pi `$ is strongly channel-dependent Shuryak:kg . Nevertheless, most channels have two qualitative features in common: (i) only the lowest resonance in a given channel is clearly separated and fully resolved whereas the higher-lying ones increasingly merge with the multi-particle continuum, and (ii) local duality Shifman-Dual  implies that the hadronic continuum, when averaged over suitable invariant-mass intervals, can be approximated by the free-quark continuum in the same channel.

Hence the available experimental and lattice data on the considered meson correlators are (within their partially substantial errors, see below) well described by a parametrization of the spectral functions in terms of a zero-width ground state pole and an effective continuum:

$$\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{data}^{\left(i\right)}(s)=\pi \lambda _i^2\delta (sm_i^2)+\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(i\right)}(s)\theta (ss_{0,i}).$$
(14)
This efficient and transparent parametrization, originally designed for QCD sum rules SVZ , has by now become fairly standard in hadron correlator phenomenology Shuryak:kg . It depends on only three parameters: the mass $`m_i`$ and coupling $`\lambda _i`$ of the lowest resonance in the meson channel $`i`$ and the corresponding threshold $`s_{0,i}`$. Note that local duality implies $`s_{0,i}>m_i^2`$. The required spectral functions Im$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(i\right)}`$ for noninteracting quarks are obtained by analytically continuing Eqs. (9) - (13):

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(s\right)}(s)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi }}\theta (s4m_0^2)s\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{s4m_0^2}{s}}\right)^3},`$ (15)
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(p\right)}(s)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi }}\theta (s4m_0^2)s\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s4m_0^2}{s}}},`$ (16)
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(v\right)}(s)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi }}\theta (s4m_0^2){\displaystyle \frac{s+2m_0^2}{s}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s4m_0^2}{s}}},`$ (17)
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(at\right)}(s)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{12\pi }}\theta (s4m_0^2)\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{s4m_0^2}{s}}\right)^3},`$ (18)
$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(al\right)}(s)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{8\pi }}\theta (s4m_0^2){\displaystyle \frac{4m_0^2}{s}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s4m_0^2}{s}}}\text{ }.`$ (19)
Although local duality approximately relates the effective thresholds $`s_{0,i}`$ to properties of the ground-state resonances via finite-energy sum rules, we prefer to keep them independent in order to achieve a less biased representation of the input data.

We can now determine $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$ \- independently in each channel $`i`$ \- by equating $`Q^2`$-derivatives of our model correlator amplitudes, given by Eq. (7), to different sets of input data in the above parametrization. Specifically, we will match the second derivatives $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(2\right)}`$ since $`n=2`$ is the minimal number which renders all free correlators UV-finite and since higher derivatives tend to increasingly impair the numerical analysis 222As in Dosch:1997nw , however, one should expect some $`n`$-dependence in the resulting $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$.. We will refer to this procedure as the (minimal) “RDQM approach”. To summarize the above discussion, our resolution-dependent quark masses $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$ are solutions of the equation

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(i\right)}(Q^2,m_0)}{\left(Q^2\right)^2}|_{m_0m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q^2\right)}=\frac{2\lambda _i^2}{\left(m_i^2+Q^2\right)^3}+\frac{2}{\pi }_{s_{0,i}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(i\right)}(s,m_0)}{\left(s+Q^2\right)^3}$$
(20)
in the channel $`i`$. In channels where $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}`$ reaches zero at a finite $`Q_c^2`$ it is assumed to remain zero for all $`Q^2>Q_c^2`$ (or, more precisely, for $`Q^2`$ larger than the smallest $`Q_c^2`$ if there should be more than one, see below).

It remains to fix the three hadronic input parameters on the right-hand side of Eq. (20). In the analysis of the vector correlator in Ref. Dosch:1997nw  the physical values of $`m_v`$ and $`\lambda _v`$ where used, while $`s_{0,v}`$ was obtained from a finite-energy sum rule 333The resulting $`m\left(Q^2\right)`$ of Ref. Dosch:1997nw  is to good accuracy (5%) given by the linear parametrization $`m\left(Q^2\right)\left(0.22\text{ GeV}\right)\left(1Q^2/Q_c^2\right)`$ with $`Q_c^2=1.05`$ GeV2.. Since direct experimental data on the momentum dependence of the meson correlators are available in the vector channel only, we have to resort to other sources for determining the parameters $`m_i`$, $`\lambda _i`$ and $`s_{0,i}`$ in the other channels. Those will include the phenomenological estimates by Shuryak Shuryak:kg  and two sets of lattice data on point-to-point correlators Chu:cn ; Hands:1994cj  (both extrapolated to the chiral and continuum limits) which are, at least in principle, free of uncontrolled model assumptions 444Initially, we had included the cooled lattice data of Ref. Chu:vi  in our analysis, in the hope to delineate information about the role of instantons in generating the hadronic input parameters. It turned out, however, that the RDQM method cannot resolve significant differences between the cooled and uncooled data.. The statistical and likely also the systematic errors of the lattice data 555We do not use the recent lattice data DeGrand  from overlap fermions since those are restricted to relatively short distances, lack small-mass extrapolation and might be subject to rather large finite-size corrections neg-priv-com . are still uncomfortably large, however.

The numerical values of $`m_i`$, $`\lambda _i`$ and $`s_{0,i}`$ resulting from the different data sets are listed in the left part of Table I. For later use, we note that the correlators calculated in the instanton liquid model (ILM) Shuryak:1992ke  are also well represented in the pole-duality parametrization, and their predictions for the meson parameters have been included in Table I for comparison. The spacetime correlators corresponding to our input data sets in the respective channels, normalized to the free correlators, are plotted in Fig. 1. Most data are available for the vector correlator which has been measured in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation experiments and is, at low momenta, dominated by the $`\rho `$-meson. The lowest resonance in the transverse axial-vector channel is the heavier $`a_1`$ meson. In both channels we use Shuryak’s phenomenological analysis of the experimental data Shuryak:kg  and the masses given by the Particle Data Group Groom:in . The scalar isovector channel is singled out by the absence of an established ground-state resonance. The pseudoscalar channel, on the other hand, is strongly dominated by the pion resonance with its exceptionally small mass and large coupling. For this reason, its ratio with the correponding free correlator exceeds those in the other meson channels by up to two orders of magnitude.

## III Qualitative behavior of the scale-dependent quark mass

Before embarking on the numerical solution of Eq. (20) it will be useful to establish several qualitative properties of the resulting resolution-dependent masses and their channel dependence. Besides providing useful checks and constraints for our subsequent numerical analysis, they will shed light on generic features of the RDQM approach.

### III.1 Constituent quark masses

To start with, let us consider the $`Q^20`$ limit of Eq. (20), which has the analytic solutions

$`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(s\right)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s_0}}{\sqrt{10}}},`$ $`\text{ }m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(p\right)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s_0}}{\sqrt{6\left(1+\frac{8}{3}\pi ^2\alpha _p^2\right)}}},`$ (21)
$`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(v\right)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s_0}}{\sqrt[4]{\frac{70}{3}\left(1+8\pi ^2\beta _v^2\right)}}},`$ $`\text{ }m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(at\right)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s_0}}{\sqrt[4]{70\left(1+8\pi ^2\beta _{at}^2\right)}}}.`$ (22)
The resonance parameters enter these expressions in the combinations

$$\alpha _i\frac{\sqrt{s_{0,i}}\lambda _i}{m_i^3}\text{ (spin-0), }\beta _i\frac{s_{0,i}\lambda _i}{m_i^3}\text{ (spin-1)}.$$
(23)
The numerical values of the $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}(0)`$, as obtained from the various input parameter sets, are listed in the fifth column of Table I. With $`\sqrt{10}3.2`$ and typical continuum threshold scales $`s_{0,i}1`$ GeV one obtains masses of the order $`m_{\text{eff}}(0)200350`$ MeV - i.e. in the range expected for constituent quarks - in all but the pseudoscalar channel. This holds even in the scalar channel where no resonance is resolved (i.e. $`\lambda _s=0`$) in any of the input data sets.

The qualitative behavior of the $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}(0)`$ can be understood by noting that the input values for couplings and continuum thresholds are of comparable size in all channels. Therefore, the resonance masses generate the main distinction between the channels. This is particularly obvious in the pseudoscalar channel where the mass of the resonance is exceptionally small. As a consequence, $`\alpha _p`$ dominates the denominator of (21) and the pseudoscalar constituent quark becomes unrealistically light, of the order of the light current masses: $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(p\right)}(0)m_p^2`$. We have thus found first evidence for a strong channel dependence of our RDQM procedure. It does not really come as a surprise, though, because the (quasi-) Goldstone pion cannot be consistently described in the constituent quark model, from which the RDQM approach draws part of its motivation. An artificially small constituent mass is also obtained from the longitudinal part of the axial-vector correlator since partial conservation of the axial-vector current (PCAC) Coleman  relates it to the pseudoscalar correlator as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(al\right)}\left(Q^2\right)=\frac{4m_0^2}{Q^4}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\left(p\right)}\left(Q^2\right).$$
(24)
We have therefore not given the corresponding mass formula separately.

### III.2 Chiral restoration

A characteristic property of resolution-dependent effective quark masses, expected on physical grounds and confirmed in Ref. Dosch:1997nw , is that they decrease with growing resolution $`Q^2`$. Moreover, the mass of Ref. Dosch:1997nw  was found to vanish (for $`m_0=0`$) at a critical scale $`Q_c1`$ GeV, in accord with the expectation that the massive “cloud” of a constituent quark disappears when probed hard enough to resolve the massless current quark. The vanishing of $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ has been interpreted as a signature of chiral restoration since constituent quarks owe their mass to spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and since the “critical momentum” $`Q_c1`$ GeV is compatible with the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 4\pi f_\pi 1.2`$ GeV around which one expects chiral symmetry to be restored. In the spin-1 channels chiral symmetry even becomes manifest since the noninteracting spin-1 correlators are chirally invariant in the zero-quark-mass limit.

Since chiral symmetry and its spontaneous breaking are determining features of hadron physics one would expect the restoration transition towards $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q_c^2\right)=0`$ to be a generic and robust property of resolution-dependent constituent masses. In particular, one would hope that the RDQM approach outlined above yields such a behavior in all correlator channels. Below we will establish the conditions under which this is possible. More specifically, we will obtain necessary and sufficient criteria for the existence and number of solutions of Eq. (20) at zero quark mass. To this end, we rewrite Eq. (20) in the chiral limit by isolating the pole piece on the right-hand side (and multiplying by $`\pi /2`$). This yields

$$_0^{s_0}𝑑s\frac{\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(s/p\right)}(s,m=0)}{\left(s+Q_c^2\right)^3}=\frac{N_c}{16\pi }\frac{s_0^2}{Q_c^2\left(s_0+Q_c^2\right)^2}=\frac{\pi \lambda _{s/p}^2}{\left(m_{s/p}^2+Q_c^2\right)^3}$$
(25)
for the spin-0 channels and

$$_0^{s_0}𝑑s\frac{\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{\left(v/at\right)}(s,m=0)}{\left(s+Q_c^2\right)^3}=\frac{N_c}{24\pi }\frac{s_0\left(s_0+2Q_c^2\right)}{Q_c^4\left(s_0+Q_c^2\right)^2}=\frac{\pi \lambda _{v/at}^2}{\left(m_{v/at}^2+Q_c^2\right)^3}$$
(26)
for the spin-1 channels 666For transparency of notation we have suppressed the channel labels of $`s_{0,i}`$ and $`Q_{c,i}`$.. If solutions $`Q_c`$ to these equations exist, the lowest one of them determines the transition point at which the RDQMs vanish. Due to the chiral symmetry of noninteracting, massless quarks the left-hand sides of the above equations are identical for both parities in the spin-0 as well as spin-1 channels.

Although the solutions of Eqs. (25) and (26) can be obtained analytically, they do not lend themselves easily to a transparent discussion. We therefore extract the required information on existence and number of solutions directly from the equations. Relegating details of the corresponding analysis to the appendix, we just list the main results here. The most general finding is that, independent of the channel, both equations (25) and (26) can have either zero, one or two solutions $`Q_c^2`$, depending on the values of the 3 hadronic parameters $`m^2`$, $`\lambda ^2`$ and $`s_0`$. If two solutions $`Q_c^2`$ exist, then by continuity the smaller is the physical one. In the absence of a pole (i.e. for $`\lambda _i^2=0`$), furthermore, the only positive solution is $`Q_c^2=\mathrm{}`$. In all other cases,$`Q_c^2`$ decreases with increasing resonance strength $`\lambda _i^2`$ and with decreasing pole mass $`m_i`$. This implies, in particular, that $`Q_c^2`$ will be smallest in the pion channel. Several additional properties of the solutions depend on the spin of the underlying correlator:

1. In the spin-0 channels, the further analysis of Eq. (25) requires to distinguish the two domains $`s_03m_{s/p}^2/2`$. For $`s_0>3m_{s/p}^2/2`$, which holds naturally in the Goldstone boson channel, and for $`s_0^2<16\pi ^2\lambda _{s/p}^2/N_c,`$ which is additionally satisfied by the pseudoscalar input parameter sets in Table I, we predict a single solution and find an upper bound on $`Q_c`$ 777A somewhat stronger bound, given in the appendix, can be established in the case of a unique solution. given by

$$Q_c^2\frac{s_0m_{s/p}^2}{2s_03m_{s/p}^2}.$$
(27)
(Note that this bound does not apply to our data sets in the scalar channel since $`m_s^2`$ cannot be resolved in this case, see below.) Moreover, we note that for the typical $`s_{0,p}1`$ GeV and $`m_p0.14`$ GeV found in Table I, the bound (27) becomes unrealistically small, $`Q_c<0.1`$GeV. In the scalar channel, on the other hand, no pole term can be extracted from the data, i.e. $`\lambda _s^2=0`$. Inspection of Eq. (25) immediately shows that the scale-dependent quark mass cannot vanish at any finite resolution in this case. This entails another channel-dependence of the RDQM procedure (if it is not simply a shortcoming of our input data in the scalar channel).
2. In the spin-1 channels, we have again to distinguish between two domains of $`s_0`$-values: for $`m_{v/at}^2<s_0<2m_{v/at}^2`$, which is satisfied by part of our input data in the vector channel and all of them in the axial-vector channel, we find a finite solution for $`24\pi ^2\lambda _{v/at}^2/N_c>2s_0`$ and none otherwise. For $`s_0>2m_{v/at}^2`$, which is satisfied by the remaining part of our input data in the vector channel, Eq. (26) can again have either one or no physical solution, depending on which parameter set in Table I is considered. For $`s_0>2m_{v/at}^2`$ there is an upper bound on $`Q_c^2`$ , given by

$$Q_c^2\frac{s_0}{6\left(2m_{v/at}^2s_0\right)}\left[s_06m_{v/at}^2\sqrt{\left(s_0+6m_{v/at}^2\right)^248m_{v/at}^4}\right],$$
(28)
which can be somewhat sharpened in case of a unique solution (see appendix).

Given an input data set for a correlator with the corresponding values for $`m`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`s_0`$, the above results instantly reveal whether the extracted $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ will vanish at some finite $`Q_c`$. With the data in Table I we predict a vanishing effective quark mass in the pseudoscalar channel as well as in the vector channel for the phenomenological, lattice I and II, but not for the ILM data, and no “chiral restoration” in the axial-vector channel (the ILM data in this channel are excluded from this consideration since they do not satisfy $`m_{at}^2<s_0`$). These predictions hold for the central values of the input parameter sets and are confirmed by our numerical analysis below. Inside the rather large error range of the input parameter space in the vector channel there are also regions, however, in which no solution for $`Q_c^2`$ exists.

Moreover, our above findings show that both the existence and the scale of the “critical momentum” $`Q_c`$ are rather sensitive to the values of the hadronic input parameters. For $`Q_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 1`$ GeV, this dependence becomes so strong that details of the input data inside their systematic and statistical error range would contaminate the results. However, critical momenta of such a magnitude well beyond typical hadronic and restoration scales would have to be excluded anyhow on physical grounds, and their occurrence is strongly restricted (for reasonable values of the hadronic parameters) by the bounds (27) and (28). Finally, the above analysis shows that the RDQM procedure yields a well-defined and, in conjunction with the monotonicity of the $`m_{\text{eff }}\left(Q^2\right)`$, a unique $`Q^2`$-dependence of the resolution-dependent quark masses once the input parameters are fixed.

### III.3 Generic limitations

A few additional limitations of the RDQM approach can be understood without numerical analysis. First and probably foremost, one should not expect this method to reproduce the exceptional properties of the pseudoscalar correlator, despite our observation that spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and restoration are to some extent incorporated. We have found above, for example, that the pion pole contribution can only be matched with almost vanishing, i.e. unacceptably small constituent quark masses (cf. Table 1). This is consistent with the fact that the RDQM approach derives its main motivation Dosch:1997nw  from an analogy with the nonrelativistic quark model. Indeed, the latter also fails to describe the pion because it cannot provide the strong binding required by Goldstone’s theorem. More generally, one might expect the RDQM approach to be overburdened in channels which contain exceptionally strongly bound states and to be more useful in channels where the lowest-lying resonances are quark-model states (including, e.g., the heavy-quark sector).

Another qualitative limitation of the RDQM approach is related to the channel-dependence of broken internal symmetries. Within the set of channels which we consider in this paper, this is most explicitly demonstrated for isospin symmetry. The underlying assumption of an isospin-symmetric effective mass, together with the isospin invariance of the free correlators, implies that the RDQM approach yields the same correlators in the scalar-isoscalar and scalar-isovector channels 888Note that isospin-violating disconnected contributions could provide an exception to this rule in channels which carry vacuum quantum numbers.. The physical correlators in those two channels, however, differ rather strongly 999In the vector channel, the differences between isoscalar and isovector correlators are less pronounced.. In fact, lattice and instanton-liquid simulations as well as phenomenological estimates even find them to have opposite signs, indicating a rather strong attraction in the isoscalar and a similarly strong repulsion in the isovector channel Shuryak:1992ke . This and other substantial differences cannot be captured by resolution-dependent quark masses alone. Even the introduction of an unrealistically large up/down constituent mass difference, at the price of a strong departure from universality and good isospin, would not be able to reproduce, e.g., the sign difference.

## IV Quantitative analysis

In the following section, we discuss the results of determining the resolution-dependent quark masses according to the procedure described in section II.2, i.e. by solving Eq. (20) numerically for $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$ in the channels $`i`$ under consideration. Of course, the exact solutions of Eq. (20) do constitute neither the most reliable nor the most exhaustive use of the information contained in the input data. In view of the considerable (both statistical and systematic) errors of the latter, an only approximate matching between data and model correlators inside some error margins should result in a better representation of the physics which they contain. Since the implementation of such a procedure would introduce additional ambiguity, however, we will instead just propagate the error ranges of the input data sets in order to get a measure for the errors of the resulting $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$.

The results of our quantiative analysis are collected in Table 1 and in Figs. 2-4. Besides the values of the critical momenta $`Q_c^2`$ (for the parameter sets where they exist) with their error bands, the numerical values of the quark masses at zero momentum transfer are listed in the right part of Table 1. As already mentioned, one finds typical constituent quark masses of the order 250 MeV $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ 350 MeV in all channels except the pseudoscalar one. The more detailed properties of the resulting $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(i\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$ turn out to be channel-specific:

1. In the pseudoscalar channel we encounter unrealistically small scales for $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(p\right)}`$ and $`Q_c^2`$, owing to the underrepresentation of Goldstone-mode physics. Even if one would insist on fitting the pseudoscalar correlators by tolerating the necessarily too small $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(p\right)}`$, however, the matching would still fail for all $`Q^2>Q_c^2`$ 5 MeV2 since the free, massless correlator cannot reproduce the strong rise found in the input data (cf. Fig. 1). This shortcoming acquires additional significance in view of the fact that this rise, and pionic physics in general, is probably underrepresented in the quenched lattice data of Chu:cn  and Hands:1994cj  (which yield rather large pion masses). As mentioned above, the relation between pseudoscalar and longitudinal axial-vector correlators (cf. Eq. (24)) implies that the latter is beyond the reach of the RDQM approach, too, and does not require independent discussion.
2. In the vector channel, the extracted, resolution-dependent quark masses interpolate monotonically between reasonable constituent mass values at $`Q=0`$ and zero 101010Note that the resolution-dependent mass extracted from the ILM data does not vanish at any $`Q^2`$. This might be related to the significantly larger constituent mass $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(v\right)}\left(0\right)`$ obtained in the ILM (cf. Table I). Similarly large constituent masses together with the absence of a chiral restoration transition are also found in the axial-vector channel (see below). at the “critical” scale $`Q_c`$. This general behavior is in accord with the findings of Ref. Dosch:1997nw  which were obtained in the same channel. The resulting $`Q`$-dependence of $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$ is closest to the scale dependence of constituent masses which one would expect on the basis of the qualitative arguments given above. It is plotted in Fig. 2. As a consequence of our different input data sets and their rather large errors, however, we find a similarly large range of values for $`Q_c`$. This is a further indication for the mostly qualitative character of the estimates for $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ which can be obtained from the RDQM approach.
3. The transverse axial-vector channel shares several common features with the vector channel. In particular, both noninteracting amplitudes become equal for zero quark mass. The main difference, at least in the duality-based continuum parametrization of the input data, is the about 60% larger resonance mass. It results in a much smaller (negative) slope of the $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(at\right)}\left(Q^2\right)`$, as can be seen from Fig. 3. This is the smallest slope found in all considered channels: $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$ drops from its “constituent” value of about $`380`$ MeV to about $`320`$ MeV at $`Q^23`$ GeV2 and saturates there. In particular, $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ does not vanish at any finite $`Q^2`$, i.e. there is no indication for chiral restoration in this channel. (In order to obtain a restoration transition, the coupling $`\lambda _{at}`$ would have to be about 3 times larger than the phenomenological estimate, i.e. $`\lambda _{at}3\lambda _{a_1}`$.) In view of the similarities and the chiral relation with the vector channel, this result might seem surprising. Perhaps it is an indication for the constituent-quark picture to fail at the rather large scales set by the mass of the $`a_1\left(1260\right)`$. In any case, the qualitative difference between the behavior of $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ in the vector and axial-vector channels supplies our probably least expected case of channel-dependence in the RDQM approach since, in contrast to the pseudoscalar correlator, both vector and axial-vector resonances are well described by the NRQM.
4. The scalar-isovector channel is singled out by the fact that neither in the lattice nor in the instanton-liquid and phenomenological 111111The $`a_0(980)`$ resonance is commonly interpreted as a 4-quark state and therefore not included in the phenomenological analysis of Ref. Shuryak:kg . data the pole of the lowest-lying resonance could be resolved. Our qualitative analysis in section III.2 established that in this case the effective quark mass cannot vanish, so that their exists no finite $`Q_c^2`$ in this channel. This is confirmed by the numerical analysis, as shown in Fig. 4. (Unfortunately, lattice data for the scalar-isoscalar point-to-point correlator do not yet exist. This prevents us from studying the isospin-dependence in the scalar channel and in the delineated effective quark masses (cf. section III.3) quantitatively.)

## V Discussion and conclusions

In our above analysis we have investigated several aspects of resolution-dependent quark masses in hadronic current-current correlation functions. To this end, we have generalized the recently proposed RDQM description Dosch:1997nw , based on noninteracting mesonic correlators with a resolution-dependent constituent quark mass $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$, beyond the vector channel. We have then determined the resolution-dependent masses by matching the RDQM correlators to the available experimental and lattice data in the light meson channels. This enables us to clarify several virtues and limitations of the RDQM approach by comparison with a larger body of physical information. While the stringency of such comparative tests is limited by the rather large errors of our input data, it is on the other hand enhanced by the rich variety of physics in the different spin-0 and spin-1 meson channels.

Despite this diversity, we find the small-$`Q^2`$ behavior of the effective masses to be relatively channel-independent: in all but the pseudoscalar channel we obtain values in the expected range of about 250 - 350 MeV for $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(0\right)`$. The overall description of mesonic correlators in terms of noninteracting correlators with a unique $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$ and a restoration scale $`Q_c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2`$, however, does not generalize beyond the vector-meson channel. In fact, we do not find an even approximately universal effective mass: first of all, and as expected, the RDQM method cannot reproduce the pseudoscalar correlator with a physically reasonable constituent mass. Secondly, it also fails to generalize to channels like the axial-vector one whose ground-state resonances are quark-model states. This is more surprising since the approach was conceived in a nonrelativistic quark model setting. Furthermore, nonperturbative enhancements of flavor-symmetry breaking, as they manifest themselves e.g. in the substantial differences between the isoscalar and isovector $`0^{++}`$ correlators, are not captured. Even the vanishing of $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ at a finite $`Q_c^2`$, related to chiral symmetry restoration and thus expected to be a rather robust feature, is realized only in the vector correlator.

The above shortcomings can be traced to essentially one common root: the various correlator channels differ only in the Dirac and flavor structure of their interpolating fields, and consequently all channel dependence of the RDQM correlators is contained exclusively in the weights of chirally even and odd combinations of the free Dirac propagators in the spin and flavor traces. The differences between those weights are of order unity and hence cannot generate the pronounced channel patterns found in the input data for the interacting correlators. If one nevertheless insists on matching free correlators with $`Q^2`$-dependent quark masses to those input data, one is bound to obtain strongly channel-dependent effective masses. Thus the RDQM parametrization is inconsistent with the assumption of the constituent-quark picture that the basic properties of constituent quarks do not depend on the hadron channel in which they are probed. This finding strongly suggests that the minimal RDQM approach, describing all correlators by just a free quark loop with resolution-dependent masses, overburdens those masses with the task of mocking up dynamics which should play itself out elsewhere.

From a microscopic point of view this is not surprising. A consistent RG-treatment of any quark dynamics would generate, besides the explicit interactions, a resolution dependence not only for the quark mass but also for the couplings and interpolating currents. As an illustrative example, consider the qualitative distinction between vector and axial-vector channels which comes about because only the non-conserved axial-vector interpolator gets renormalized. The lack of this effect in the RDQM approach might at least partially explain the absence of a restoration transition in the axial-vector channel.

Since the free quark loop is the leading contribution to the correlators in relativistic chiral quark models, it is suggestive to consult such models in search for a systematic improvement of the minimal RDQM approach. Additional incentive for the use of this framework derives from the fact that a resolution dependence of the quark mass emerges naturally as a cutoff-scale dependence in the RG flow of chiral quark models Meyer:2001zp ; Berges:1997eu , and that chiral symmetry breaking and restoration arise dynamically.

To low orders in the quark-meson interactions, typical corrections due to the exchange of $`\sigma `$\- and $`\pi `$-mesons in such models are shown diagrammatically in Fig. 5.

It is tempting to speculate about their qualitative impact and about whether the absence of such contributions in the minimal RDQM approach might explain some of its shortcomings. The pole diagram (a) contributes only in the pseudoscalar and longitudinal axial-vector channels 121212Recall that we only consider isovector interpolators. where a pion is exchanged. Since this contribution is very strongly attractive, it is likely that its neglect prevents a minimal RDQM description of the corresponding correlators with a constituent mass of the typical size. Diagram (b) contributes in the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial-vector channels through vertices with the meson content$`\stackrel{}{\pi }\times \stackrel{}{\pi }`$, $`\sigma \stackrel{}{\pi }`$, $`\stackrel{}{\pi }\times _\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }`$ and $`\sigma _\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }`$, respectively. The contribution to the vector correlator is therefore mediated solely by Goldstone bosons. Hence the ensuing corrections set in at very low $`Q^2`$. In the minimal RDQM correlator, on the other hand, the absence of the corresponding strength can only be compensated by a smaller constituent quark mass $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(v\right)}\left(Q^20\right)`$. This might explain why we indeed find $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(v\right)}\left(0\right)`$ to be somewhat lower than the typical constituent mass scale. The lighter constituent mass might also facilitate the restoration transition in the vector relative to the transverse axial-vector channel.

In contrast, the corrections of type (b) to the axial-vector channel set in at higher $`Q^2`$ since the more massive $`\sigma `$-meson participates. These contributions should be negligible at small $`Q^2`$, rendering $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(at\right)}\left(0\right)`$ our perhaps most reliable estimate for the constituent mass. Moreover, since corrections of type (b) with a $`\sigma `$-$`\pi `$ pair exchanged can contribute strongly at momenta $`Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2`$ close to the typical restoration scale, their neglect may be partially responsible for the absence of a chiral-restoration transition in the transverse axial-vector RDQM correlator. In the scalar channel the situation is less conclusive. Since a pion pair can be exchanged in this channel, too, it is not a priori clear why we obtain a reasonable constituent mass value for $`m_{\text{eff}}^{\left(s\right)}\left(0\right)`$ although this correction is neglected in the RDQM approach.

The above qualitative arguments, although tentative, give some hints as to why the minimal RDQM treatment does not generalize, with an approximately universal $`m_{\text{eff}}\left(Q^2\right)`$, beyond the vector channel. It remains an interesting and open question to which extent a more sophisticated dynamical treatment, e.g. in the context of chiral quark models, could achieve a unified description of the variety among hadron correlators on the basis of universal, resolution-dependent quark masses.

## VI Appendix

In this appendix, we analyze the two equations (25, 26) in detail and derive conditions for the existence, general properties and channel dependence of the critical scale $`Q_c^2`$ defined in section III.2. Since the involved hadronic scales are mutually too close to allow for useful approximations and since the exact solutions are less than transparent, we resort to an indirect approach.

For the spin-0 channels, we start by rearranging Eq. (25) into

$$L_{s/p}(Q_c^2;m_{s/p}^2,s_0)\frac{s_0^2\left(m_{s/p}^2+Q_c^2\right)^3}{Q_c^2\left(s_0+Q_c^2\right)^2}=\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2,$$
(29)
whose left-hand side has the derivative

$$\frac{L_{s/p}(Q_c^2;m_{s/p}^2,s_0)}{Q_c^2}=\frac{s_0^2\left(m_{s/p}^2+Q_c^2\right)^2\left[m_{s/p}^2\left(3Q_c^2+s_0\right)2Q_c^2s_0\right]}{Q_c^4\left(s_0+Q_c^2\right)^3}.$$
(30)
1. For $`s_0<3m_{s/p}^2/2`$ we read off 131313More precisely, $`s_0`$ lies in the interval $`m_{s/p}^2<s_0<3m_{s/p}^2/2`$ since the resonance-continuum parametrization (14) additionally requires $`s_0>m_{s/p}^2`$. from (30) that $`L_{s/p}`$ decreases monotonically with $`Q_c^2`$ towards its limiting value $`s_0^2`$ at $`Q_c^2\mathrm{}`$. Thus there is no solution if $`L_{s/p}\left(Q^2\right)`$ does not cross the horizontal line corresponding to the right-hand side of (29), i.e. if $`16\pi ^2\lambda _{s/p}^2/N_c`$ $`<s_0^2`$. Hence one (finite) solution exists for $`s_0^2<16\pi \lambda _{s/p}^2/N_c`$, otherwise there is none.
2. For $`s_0>3m_{s/p}^2/2`$, which holds for our input data (in the pseudoscalar channel), $`L_{s/p}\left(Q^2\right)`$ is monotonically decreasing in the range $`0<Q_c^2<s_0m_{s/p}^2/\left(2s_03m_{s/p}^2\right)`$ towards its minimum

$$L_{s/p}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{s/p}^2,s_0)\frac{27}{4}\frac{m_{s/p}^4}{s_0}\left(s_0m_{s/p}^2\right)$$
(31)
and monotonically increasing for $`Q_c^2>s_0m_{s/p}^2/\left(2s_03m_{s/p}^2\right)`$ towards its limiting value $`s_0^2`$ at $`Q_c^2\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, there are three cases to distinguish for the solutions of Eq. (25), corresponding to the number of intersections between $`L_{s/p}\left(Q_c^2\right)`$ and the right-hand side of (29):

1. no solution for

    $$L_{s/p}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{s/p}^2,s_0)>\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2,$$
    (32)
    2. one solution for

    $$L_{s/p}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{s/p}^2,s_0)=\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2\text{ and for }s_0^2<\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2,$$
    (33)
    3. two solutions for

    $$L_{s/p}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{s/p}^2,s_0)<\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2s_0^2.$$
    (34)

The above analysis implies that there is a bound on the smallest, i.e. physical solution (if there are two) given by the $`Q_c^2`$ where $`L_{s/p}`$ has its minimum,

$$Q_c^2<\frac{s_0m_{s/p}^2}{2s_03m_{s/p}^2}.$$
(35)
A somewhat stronger bound, namely the finite and positive solution of $`L_{s/p}(Q_c^2;m_{s/p}^2,s_0)=s_0^2`$, applies in the case of one unique solution.

The analogous analysis for the spin-1 channels is slightly more involved. We start from Eq. (26) in the form

$$L_{v/at}(Q_c^2;m_{v/at}^2,s_0)\frac{s_0\left(s_0+2Q_c^2\right)\left(m_{v/at}^2+Q_c^2\right)^3}{Q_c^4\left(s_0+Q_c^2\right)^2}=\frac{24\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^2.$$
(36)
Its derivative

$$\frac{L_{v/at}(Q_c^2;m_{v/at}^2,s_0)}{Q_c^2}=\frac{s_0\left(m_{v/at}^2+Q_c^2\right)^2\left[2m_{v/at}^2\left(3Q_c^4+3Q_c^2s_0+s_0^2\right)Q_c^2s_0\left(3Q_c^2+s_0\right)\right]}{Q_c^6\left(s_0+Q_c^2\right)^3}$$
(37)
is (for $`Q_c^2,s_0>0`$) positive/negative if

$$3\left(2m_{v/at}^2s_0\right)Q_c^4+s_0\left(6m_{v/at}^2s_0\right)Q_c^2+2s_0^2m_{v/at}^20.$$
(38)
The associated quadratic equation has the solutions

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c1,2}^2=\frac{s_0}{6\left(2m_{v/at}^2s_0\right)}\left[s_06m_{v/at}^2\pm \sqrt{\left(s_0+6m_{v/at}^2\right)^248m_{v/at}^4}\right]$$
(39)
(where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c1}^2`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$) corresponds to the + (-) sign in front of the square root) which determine the boundaries of the monotonicity intervals of $`L_{v/at}\left(Q_c^2\right)`$. As above, the duality parametrization of the spectral functions requires $`s_0>m^2`$ so that the square root in Eq. (39) is real and larger than $`m_{v/at}^2`$. To proceed further, we have again to distinguish between two alternative, more restrictive conditions on $`s_0`$:

1. For $`m_{v/at}^2<s_0<2m_{v/at}^2`$, which is satisfied by part of our input data in the vector channel and all of those in the axial-vector channel, we have $`m_{v/at}^2<\sqrt{\left(s_0+6m_{v/at}^2\right)^248m_{v/at}^4}<4m_{v/at}^2`$, and positive solutions $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_c^2`$ require the square bracket in Eq. (39) to be positive. This is easily seen to be impossible (for $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c1}^2`$ it takes values in $`[4,0]\times m_{v/at}^2`$ and for $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$ in $`[8,6]\times m_{v/at}^2`$). Thus both solutions of Eq. (39) are negative and $`L_{v/at}\left(Q_c^2\right)`$ is monotonically decreasing for all $`Q^2>0`$, down to its limiting value $`2s_0`$ at $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, we have one (finite) solution for

$$\frac{24\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^2>2s_0$$
(40)
and none otherwise.
2. For $`s_0>2m_{v/at}^2`$, which is satisfied by part of our input data in the vector channel and implies $`\sqrt{\left(s_0+6m_{v/at}^2\right)^248m_{v/at}^4}>4m_{v/at}^2`$, positive solutions $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_c^2`$ require the square bracket in Eq. (39) to be negative. For the solution $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c1}^2`$ this is impossible while it generally holds for $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$. The desired solution is thus $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$, and $`L_{v/at}\left(Q_c^2\right)`$ is monotonically decreasing for $`0<Q_c^2<\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$ down to its minimum

$$L_{v/at}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{v/at}^2,s_0)\frac{\left(s_0^2+12m_{v/at}^2s_012m_{v/at}^4\right)^{3/2}s_0\left(s_0^236m_{v/at}^2s_0+36m_{v/at}^4\right)}{8s_0^2}$$
(41)
at $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$, and monotonically increasing for $`Q_c^2>\stackrel{~}{Q}_c^2`$ up to its limiting value $`2s_0`$ for $`Q_c^2\mathrm{}`$. Again, the solutions of Eq. (36) are obtained by the intersections of $`L_{v/at}\left(Q_c^2\right)`$ with its right-hand side, and we find three cases:

1. no solution for

    $$L_{v/at}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{v/at}^2,s_0)>\frac{24\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^2\text{ ,}$$
    (42)
    2. one solution for

    $$L_{v/at}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{v/at}^2,s_0)=\frac{24\pi }{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^2\text{ and for }2s_0<\frac{24\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^2,$$
    (43)
    3. two solutions for

    $$L_{v/at}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{v/at}^2,s_0)<\frac{24\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^22s_0.$$
    (44)

Again, there is a bound on the physical $`Q_c^2`$ (i.e. the smaller one if there are two), namely $`Q_c^2<\stackrel{~}{Q}_{c2}^2`$, which can be sharpened in case of a unique $`Q_c^2`$ where it becomes the positive and finite solution of $`L_{v/at}(Q_c^2;m_{v/at}^2,s_0)=2s_0`$.

To summarize: a “chiral restoration” transition to a vanishing quark mass with a unique solution $`Q_c^2`$ (for $`s_0>m_{v/at}^2`$) requires

$$s_{0,s/p}^2<\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2,s_{0,v/at}<\frac{12\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^2$$
(45)
(note that these conditions are independent of the resonance mass) while under the more restrictive conditions $`s_{0,s/p}>3m_{s/p}^2/2`$ and $`s_{0,v/at}>2m_{v/at}^2`$ (which are satisfied by several of our input parameter sets) also two solutions are possible (with the lower one being physical) if

$$L_{s/p}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{s/p}^2,s_0)<\frac{16\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{s/p}^2s_0^2,\text{ }L_{v/at}^{\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}(m_{v/at}^2,s_0)<\frac{24\pi ^2}{N_c}\lambda _{v/at}^22s_0.$$
(46)
Given any input data set for a correlator with the corresponding values for $`m`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`s_0`$, the above results instantly reveal whether the extracted $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ will vanish at some finite $`Q_c`$.

With the data in Table I (taking the central values) we predict a vanishing effective quark mass in the pseudoscalar channel (with a unique solution for $`Q_c`$) as well as in the vector channel for the phenomenological, lattice I and II (with the lower of two solutions for $`Q_c`$), but not for the ILM data, and no “chiral restoration” in the axial-vector channel (the ILM data in this channel are excluded since they do not satisfy $`m_{at}^2<s_0`$).

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Hans-Jürgen Pirner for interesting discussions. This work was partially supported by the Kovalevskaja Program of the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation, the German Research Council (DFG), and the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF).


text:
# Photon fields in a fluctuating spacetime

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Two views on quantum spacetime

At the heart of quantum mechanics are the dual concepts of states and observables. One way to describe quantum spacetime is by means of a non-abelian algebra of functions of position, or by introduction of non-commuting position-time observables. Proposals for the latter go back to the early days of quantum mechanics . This kind of approach is also the basis for application of non-commutative geometry . The alternative, studied in the present paper, assumes that quantum spacetime has a state which is described by a vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in some Hilbert space $``$. This assumption implies that empty spacetime has some structure, made up by fluctuations imposed on top of Minkowski space. This structure is often referred to as the spacetime foam. The concept of a fluctuating spacetime goes back to the work of Wheeler .

Let us assume that a shift of frame of the observer by a vector $`q`$ in Minkowski space is implemented by a unitary operator $`U(q)`$. The shift modifies the state vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the new vector $`U(q)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. One immediately expects non-trivial autocorrelations of the form

$$w(q)=\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{U}(q)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(1)
However, since we cannot measure properties of spacetime without putting particles in it, $`w(q)`$ is not directly observable. In the standard concept of spacetime the vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ equals the vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. The latter is invariant under translations. Hence, in that case $`w(q)`$ is constant equal to 1. If on the other hand a spacetime structure exists on the scale of Planck’s length, or some other relevant length scale $`l`$, then $`w(q)`$ is non-trivial. It equals 1 for $`q=0`$ and vanishes for displacements, large compared to $`l`$. In Fourier space, these short-distance correlations lead to a cutoff at high momenta.

### 1.2 Discussion

As is well known, the presence of a high-momentum cutoff implies breaking of Poincaré invariance of the field theory. In the present case any Poincaré transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ maps the state $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of spacetime onto another state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This means that Poincaré covariance is maintained. Poincaré invariance is restored at distances large compared to $`l`$ by the assumption $`w(q)0`$. Experimental evidence for breaking of Poincaré invariance has been analysed using standard theory . If such a symmetry breaking exists it should be extremely small, because a very small symmetry violation can produce dramatic observable effects.

The presence of a spacetime structure on short length scales has effects similar to those of noncommuting position-time operators. Indeed, a high-momentum cutoff implies difficulties for measurements at short length scales. However, here, as in most quantum field theories, it is not meaningful to define position operators $`Q_\mu `$. Instead, one can determine field strengths at positions $`q`$ in Minkowsk space (see below). Quantum expectations of these field strengths are affected by spacetime fluctuations. But it is difficult to conclude from inspection of these measurable quantities that spacetime should be noncommutative.

In early attempts to quantize gravity the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is treated as a potential, analoguous to the vector potential of eletromagnetism. The gravitons resulting from second quantization are then treated in the same way as other field particles. In particular, gravitons are expected to interact with all other particles. In the present model the interplay between spacetime fluctuations and field particles is more fundamental and cannot be described in terms of interactions. Field particles like photons or electrons cannot exist without spacetime fluctuations. The structure of the total system is far from the usual tensor product description of independent subsystems, which are brought into interaction via lagrangian or hamiltonian constraints.

Another line of reasoning predicts fluctuations in the speed of light due to quantum uncertainties of matter fields. This has been worked out in detail by Ford et al . Here, speed of light is constant equal to 1. However, we still have to investigate the effect of an inhomogeneous state of spacetime on the effective propagation of electromagnetic radiation.

### 1.3 Czachor’s noncanonical photon theory

As noted by several authors, there is some inconsistency between a description of the electromagnetic field by means of state vectors in a bosonic Fock space, with a trivial vacuum state, and the regression to wavefunctions that are ground states of the harmonic oscillator. Czachor et al  have proposed to solve this discord by modifying the link between harmonic oscillators and photons. As a first step, they replace all harmonic oscillators by a single oscillator with quantized frequency, the eigenvalues of which are the photon frequencies. In the next step, several copies of this quantized oscillator are introduced. Photons become collective excitations of a spacetime filled with oscillators.

Features of Czachor’s theory are that creation and annihilation operators satisfy generalized commutation relations, and that the vacuum state is not any longer unique. The present paper starts from rather different assumptions to arrive at the same theory, and hence, the same physics. In particular, we know from Czachor’s work that the standard theory of quantized free electromagnetic fields is a limiting case of the present theory. Another property of this theory is that field operators $`\widehat{A}(q)`$ for photons or electrons exist as genuine operators in Fock space, and not as operator valued distributions, as is the case in the conventional theory. The latter is important for locality of the electron-photon interaction. In the present formalism, the interaction term

$$_^4\text{ d}q\widehat{J}^\mu (q)\widehat{A}_\mu (q),$$
(2)
with $`J_\mu (q)`$ the electron current, exists as an operator in Hilbert space.

### 1.4 Structure of the paper

In the next section we formulate our model guided by symmetry considerations. In section 3 a state of this model is described by means of its correlation functions. Some of its properties are discussed. In section 4 the link is made with the work of Czachor. The appendices contain a definition of covariance systems and some technical proofs.

## 2 A model of quantum spacetime

### 2.1 Symmetry considerations

An important symmetry of quantum fields is additivity of the fields. This symmetry is central to the Weyl approach. Let $`H,+`$ denote the additive group of single-particle wavefunctions. Then Fock space is a projective representation of this group. Indeed, the Weyl operators $`\widehat{W}(\psi )`$ satisfy the Weyl form of the canonical commutation relations

$$\widehat{W}(\varphi )\widehat{W}(\psi )=\widehat{W}(\varphi +\psi )\zeta (\varphi ,\psi )$$
(3)
with cocycle $`\zeta `$ given by

$$\zeta (\varphi ,\psi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{Im}\varphi |\psi \right),$$
(4)
and

$$\varphi |\psi =_^3\text{ d}𝐤\frac{1}{2|𝐤|}\overline{\varphi (𝐤)}\psi (𝐤).$$
(5)
The field operator $`\widehat{A}(\psi )`$ is now the generator of $`\widehat{W}(\psi )`$

$$\widehat{W}(\psi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\widehat{A}(\psi )\right).$$
(6)
The creation and annihilation operators are expressed in terms of the field operators in the usual way

$$\widehat{A}_\pm (\psi )=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{A}(\psi )\pm \frac{i}{2}\widehat{A}(i\psi ).$$
(7)
In the theory, presented below, additivity of the field of spacetime fluctuations is a broken symmetry, as a consequence of the presence of additional particle fields. Hence, the Weyl approach is not very well suited to describe fields of spacetime fluctuations. This problem refrains us from formulating a theory system based on the product of two additive groups, the group of fields of spacetime fluctuations, and the group of additional particle fields. Instead, we are forced to describe spacetime fluctuations by means of an algebra of observables $`𝒜`$. Its choice will be discussed later on. For the description of the electromagnetic field we can continue to use the Weyl operator approach as discussed above.

We do not include the Poincaré group in the initial formulation of the theory. But this implies that Poincaré covariance has to be checked later on a per state basis.

### 2.2 Covariance systems

It is obvious to assume that the fluctuations of spacetime have to be second-quantized, and that they form a scalar boson field. Alternatively, a vector or tensor field can be postulated. But this would complicate the theory. For the moment we prefer to keep the model as simple as possible.

We use the correlation function approach of . It starts from a covariance system, also known as $`C^{}`$-dynamical system. States of this system are determined by correlation functions. By means of a generalized G.N.S.-theorem they determine a Hilbert space representation. See Appendix A. The approach is rather analoguous to that of Wightman functions . It has been tested in a number of cases . In particular, it has been used to give a clean treatment of the theory of free photons .

As discussed earlier, the spacetime fluctuations will be described by an algebra $`𝒜`$ of observables, the electromagnetic field by an additive group $`G`$ of classical fields, or equivalently (see ), of test functions. This two components can be combined into a covariance system by letting $`G`$ act on $`𝒜`$ in a trivial manner. Hence, the covariance system of choice is of the form $`(𝒜,G,𝕀)`$.

An obvious choice of algebra $`𝒜`$ would be the algebra of bounded operators in the Fock space of a scalar boson. However, for technical reasons we are forced to take the abelian subalgebra of functions of momenta. A consequence is that in the present model the spacetime fluctuations are still described in a semi-classical way.

More precisely, the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ consists of functions $`f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{}𝐤_n)`$ which depend on the number of particles $`n`$, and, for a given $`n`$, on wavevectors $`𝐤_m`$, $`m=1,2,\mathrm{}n`$ in $`^3`$. Because the particles are indistinguishable, invariance under permutation of the arguments $`𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{}𝐤_n`$ is assumed. Each function $`f`$ of $`𝒜`$ is represented as an operator $`\widehat{f}`$ in the Fock space of the scalar boson given by

$`\widehat{f}\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{}𝐤_n)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_2,\mathrm{}𝐤_n)\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{}𝐤_n).`$ (8)
The norm $`f`$ of $`f`$ is then equal to the operator norm $`\widehat{f}`$.

The symmetry group $`G`$ is the additive group of test functions of the electromagnetic field. It consists of complex continuous functions $`\varphi _\mu (𝐤)`$, with compact support, depending on wavevectors in $`^3`$, and labeled with an index running from 0 to 3. They satisfy the gauge condition

$$|𝐤|\varphi _0(𝐤)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}𝐤_\alpha \varphi _\alpha (𝐤).$$
(9)
This group is locally compact in the discrete topology.

## 3 States of the model system

When describing interactions between particles it is tradition to start from product states and then, to formulate lagrangian or hamiltonian interactions between the particles. However, for the states studied below the interaction is so strong that it seems unlikely that a hamiltonian or lagrangian description should exist.

### 3.1 Product states

The vacuum-to-vacuum correlation functions of the free electromagnetic field define a state of the covariance system $`(,G,𝕀)`$ by (see )

$`(\varphi ;\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{Im}\psi |\varphi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \varphi |\psi \varphi \right)`$ (10)
with the (degenerate) scalar product given by

$$\psi |\varphi =_^3\text{ d}𝐤\frac{1}{2|𝐤|}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤)0.$$
(11)
On the other hand, if $`\chi `$ a state vector in the Fock space of a scalar boson field then a state of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ is defined by $`_\chi (f)=\chi |\widehat{f}\chi `$. In the special case that $`\chi `$ is of the form

$$\chi =\chi ^{(0)}\chi ^{(1)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2!}}\chi ^{(2)}\chi ^{(2)}\mathrm{},$$
(12)
then the state on $`𝒜`$ is given by

$`_\chi (f)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{(0)}|\chi ^{(0)}|^2`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2\right]f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n).`$
The product of (10) and (LABEL:corfluct) defines a state of the covariance system $`(𝒜,G,𝕀)`$. However, we are not interested in this product state. In what follows another way of combining (10) and (LABEL:corfluct) is investigated.

### 3.2 Interacting states

An alternative way of combining (10) and (LABEL:corfluct) is obtained by first bringing the integrations in the exponential of (10) in front of the whole expression

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{Im}\psi |\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi \varphi |\psi \varphi \right)`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤)\varphi _\mu (𝐤))\right)`$ (17)
and next modifying all integrations in (LABEL:corfluct) so as to include the exponential integrand of the above expression. As a final modification we introduce real constants $`c_n`$ which multiply the test functions $`\varphi `$ in $`G`$, and make their amplitude dependend on the number of spacetime fluctuations. All together, the result is

$`_\chi (f;\varphi ;\psi )=f^{(0)}|\chi ^{(0)}|^2`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2\mathrm{exp}\left(ic_n^2\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j)\right)`$ (20)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{2}}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_j))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j))\right)]`$ (21)
$`\times f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n).`$ (22)
(23)
Covariance of the correlation functions can be checked easily. See Appendix B. The multiplier $`\zeta `$ appearing in the Weyl commutation relations (3) for the electromagnetic field is modified into an operator $`\widehat{\zeta }`$, which represents the function

$$\zeta (\varphi ;\psi )^{(n)}(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)=\mathrm{exp}\left(ic_n^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j)\right).$$
(24)
### 3.3 Hilbert space representation

The generalized GNS-theorem of  implies the existence of a representation of the algebra $`𝒜`$ as bounded operators of a Hilbert space $``$. The operator corresponding with the function $`f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)`$ is denoted $`\widehat{f}`$, as before. Note however that the Hilbert space has changed so that $`\widehat{f}`$ is not any longer defined by (8). There exist also unitary operators $`\widehat{W}(\varphi )`$ in $``$, one for each element of the group $`G`$, with the property that

$$\widehat{W}(\varphi )\widehat{W}(\psi )=\widehat{W}(\varphi +\psi )\widehat{\zeta }(\varphi ;\psi )$$
(25)
Finally there exists in $``$ a vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, such that

$`_\chi (f;\varphi ;\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (26)
holds for all choices of the fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$.

Note that the operators $`\widehat{f}`$ commute with all operators $`\widehat{W}(\varphi )`$. This is a consequence of the fact that the action of the group $`G`$ on the algebra $`𝒜`$ is trivial. In other words, the algebra of operators $`\widehat{f}`$ belongs to the center of the representation. The representation is reducible, which can be understood because the present model treats the spacetime fluctuations in a semi-classical manner.

From (25) follows that

$$\widehat{W}(\varphi )\widehat{W}(\psi )=\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{W}(\varphi )\widehat{\zeta }(\psi ,\varphi )^{}\widehat{\zeta }(\varphi ,\psi ).$$
(27)
Combining this expression with the definition of the field operators (6) one obtains the commutation relations

$$[\widehat{A}(\psi ),\widehat{A}(\varphi )]_{}=i\widehat{s}(\psi ,\varphi ),$$
(28)
with

$$\widehat{\zeta }(\varphi ,\psi )=\mathrm{exp}((i/2)\widehat{s}(\psi ,\varphi )),$$
(29)
where $`\widehat{s}(\psi ,\varphi )`$ is the operator corresponding with the function

$$s^{(n)}(\psi ,\varphi )(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)=2c_n^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j).$$
(30)
The commutation relations (28) differ from the traditional result

$$[\widehat{A}(\psi ),\widehat{A}(\varphi )]_{}=2i\mathrm{Im}\psi |\varphi $$
(31)
because the r.h.s. of the commutator is not a multiple of the identity operator, but is an operator in the center of the representation. This kind of commutation relations has been studied before, in the context of generalized free fields — see e.g. section 12.5 of .

The operator $`\widehat{A}(\varphi )`$ is a real linear function of its argument $`\varphi `$ — see Appendix C. It is also shown there that

$$\widehat{A}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }=i\widehat{A}(i\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(32)
holds for all $`\varphi `$. An immediate consequence is that the annihilation operator $`\widehat{A}_{}(\varphi )`$, defined by (7), annihilates the state vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence the latter acts as a vacuum for the photon field. But notice that it is not a vacuum for the field of spacetime fluctuations.

### 3.4 Poincaré covariance

A shift by a vector $`q`$ of Minkowski space leaves functions of momentum invariant and maps the state vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the vector $`\widehat{u}_q\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\widehat{u}_q`$ is the representation of the function

$`u_q^{(n)}(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)=e^{iq_0_{j=1}^n|𝐤_j|}e^{i𝐪_{j=1}^n𝐤_j}.`$ (33)
However, a shift in Minkowski space affects also the electromagnetic field. Test functions $`\varphi `$ in $`G`$ transform according to

$$\tau _q\varphi _\mu (𝐤)=\varphi _\mu (𝐤)\mathrm{exp}(iq_0|𝐤|)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐤).$$
(34)
Therefore, the unitary operator $`\widehat{U}(q)`$, implementing a shift by $`q`$ in Minkowski space, is defined by

$$\widehat{U}(q)\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }=\widehat{f}\widehat{u}_q\widehat{W}(\tau _q\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(35)
It is straightforward to verify that these operators $`\widehat{U}(q)`$ form a unitary representation of $`^4,+`$.

Calculate now

$`w(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{U}(q)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`_\chi (u_q;0;0)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`|\chi ^{(0)}|^2`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤)|^2\mathrm{exp}(iq_0|𝐤|)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐤)\right]^n.`$
From this expression it is clear that for large values of $`q`$ the correlation function $`w(q)`$ tends to $`|\chi ^{(0)}|^2`$, while for $`q=0`$ one has $`w(0)=1`$.

The generators of the group of unitary shift operators are the momentum operators $`\widehat{K}_\mu `$, defined by

$$\widehat{U}(q)=\mathrm{exp}(iq^\mu \widehat{K}_\mu ).$$
(41)
In particular, $`\widehat{K}_0`$ is the energy operator. A short calculation gives

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{f}\widehat{U}(q)\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`_\chi (fu_q;\tau _q\varphi ;\psi ).`$ (42)
Linearization in $`q_0`$ gives

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{f}\widehat{K}_0\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\left[{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|𝐤_l|\left(1c_n^2\overline{\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_l)}\psi _\mu (𝐤_l)\right)\right]\right]_n`$ (43)
with

$`\left[\left[X\right]\right]_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2`$ (47)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(ic_n^2\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j)\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{2}}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_j))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j))\right)]`$
$`\times f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)X.`$
This result can be used to show that $`\widehat{K}_0`$ is a positive operator. It has two contributions, the energy of the spacetime fluctuations, and that of the electromagnetic field. A similar calculation shows that also the momenta $`\widehat{K}_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3`$ have two contributions, one of the spacetime fluctuations, the other of the electromagnetic field. Further calculations show that the squared mass operator satisfies $`\widehat{K}^\mu \widehat{K}_\mu 0`$. We omit these calculations here.

Under a Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a 3-dimensional wave vector $`𝐤`$ transforms into the vector $`𝐤^{}`$ with components

$$𝐤_\alpha ^{}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}|𝐤|+\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)_\alpha ^\beta 𝐤_\beta .$$
(49)
The state with state vector $`\chi `$ and correlation functions (23) transforms into a state described by the statevector $`\chi ^{}`$ with components

$$\chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(n)}(𝐤)=\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤^{}).$$
(50)
The Lorentz transformations are not necessarily unitarily implemented in the present representation.

### 3.5 Infinite number of spacetime fluctuations

Take now $`c_n=1/\sqrt{n}`$ and consider a state vector $`\chi `$ of the form (12), with $`\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤)=\delta _{n,N}(N!)^{1/2N}Z(𝐤)^{1/2}`$, and with $`Z(𝐤)`$ a normalized density function

$$_^3\text{ d}𝐤\frac{1}{2|𝐤|}Z(𝐤)=1.$$
(51)
Then one calculates

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}_\chi (1;\varphi ;\psi )`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤|}}Z(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}\left((i/N)\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤)\right)`$ (54)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤)\varphi _\mu (𝐤))\right)]^N`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤|}}Z(𝐤)\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤)\right)`$ (56)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤|}}Z(𝐤)\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤)\varphi _\mu (𝐤))\right).`$
This expression coincides with result (10) of the standard photon theory, except for the appearance of the function $`Z(𝐤)`$, which acts as a cutoff for large $`𝐤`$-values.

## 4 Explicit construction à la Czachor

### 4.1 A single spacetime fluctuation

In the approach of  photons in presence of a single spacetime fluctuation are described by a pair of harmonic oscillators, the frequency of which has been quantized and has become an operator. The excitations of the oscillators are the photons. Two oscillators are needed because of the two polarizations of the photon. The frequency of the photon can equal any of the eigenvalues of the frequency operator.

Let $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ be the annihilation and creation operators of the standard harmonic oscillator. They satisfy the commutation relations

$$[\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{}]=1.$$
(58)
The Hilbert space of wavefunctions consists of functions of the form $`\chi (𝐤,m,n)`$, where $`𝐤`$ is a wavevector and $`m`$ and $`n`$ are quantum numbers of the two harmonic oscillators. Normalization is such that

$$\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}_^3\text{ d}𝐤\frac{1}{2|𝐤|}|\chi (𝐤,m,n)|^2=1.$$
(59)
Any wavefunction of the form

$$\chi (𝐤,m,n)=\chi (𝐤)\delta _{m,0}\delta _{n,0}$$
(60)
is a vacuum vector for the photons and will be denoted

$$|\chi |0|0.$$
(61)
For any bispinor

$$\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right),$$
(62)
consisting of two test functions $`\varphi _1(𝐤)`$ and $`\varphi _2(𝐤)`$, one defines an annihilation operator $`\widehat{A}_{}(\varphi )`$ by

$$\widehat{A}_{}(\varphi )=\widehat{\varphi }_1\widehat{a}𝕀+\widehat{\varphi }_2𝕀\widehat{a}$$
(63)
(the operators $`\widehat{\varphi }_1,\widehat{\varphi }_2`$ are defined as multiplication operators). The creation operator $`\widehat{A}_+(\varphi )`$ is the conjugate of the annihilation operator, as usual. These creation and annihilation operators satisfy the commutation relations

$$[\widehat{A}_{}(\psi ),\widehat{A}_+(\varphi )]=\left(\widehat{\psi }_1\widehat{\varphi }_1^{}+\widehat{\psi }_2\widehat{\varphi }_2^{}\right)𝕀𝕀.$$
(64)
The field operators $`\widehat{A}(\varphi )=\widehat{A}_{}(\varphi )+\widehat{A}_+(\varphi )`$ satisfy

$`[\widehat{A}(\psi ),\widehat{A}(\varphi )]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{\psi }_1\widehat{\varphi }_1^{}+\widehat{\psi }_2\widehat{\varphi }_2^{}\widehat{\varphi }_1\widehat{\psi }_1^{}\widehat{\varphi }_2\widehat{\psi }_2^{}\right)𝕀𝕀.`$ (65)
Comparison of (65) with (28) is not immediately possible because here two-component spinors are used instead of four-component test functions.

### 4.2 Localized field operators

Following , momentum operators $`\widehat{K}_\mu `$ are defined by

$`\widehat{K}_0\varphi (𝐤,m,n)`$ $`=`$ $`|𝐤|\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+m\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+n\right)\varphi (𝐤,m,n)`$ (66)
$`\widehat{K}_\alpha \varphi (𝐤,m,n)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐤_\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+m\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+n\right)\varphi (𝐤,m,n).`$ (67)
They define unitary shift operators $`\widehat{U}(q)`$ by (41).

It is now immedately clear from (63) that the localized annihilation operators $`\widehat{A}_{}^{(\mathrm{l})}(q)`$ and $`\widehat{A}_{}^{(\mathrm{r})}(q)`$, one for each of the two polarizations of the photon, are given by

$`\widehat{A}_{}^{(\mathrm{l})}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iq^\mu \widehat{K}_\mu }\widehat{a}𝕀,`$ (68)
$`\widehat{A}_{}^{(\mathrm{r})}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iq^\mu \widehat{K}_\mu }𝕀\widehat{a}.`$ (69)
### 4.3 Correlation functions

The field operators $`\widehat{A}(\varphi )`$ are used to define unitary operators $`\widehat{W}(\varphi )`$ by

$`\widehat{W}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\widehat{A}(\varphi )\right).`$ (70)
The Weyl operators $`\widehat{W}(\varphi )`$ satisfy the product rule

$$\widehat{W}(\varphi )\widehat{W}(\psi )=\left(e^{(i/2)\widehat{s}(\varphi ,\psi )}𝕀𝕀\right)\widehat{W}(\varphi +\psi )$$
(71)
with

$$s(\varphi ,\psi )=2\mathrm{Im}\left(\varphi _1\overline{\psi _1}+\varphi _2\overline{\psi _2}\right).$$
(72)
The latter result is obtained by means of the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i(A+B)\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(iA\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(iB\right)\mathrm{exp}\left((1/2)[A,B]\right),$$
(73)
which is valid when $`B`$ commutes with $`[A,B]`$.

The action of $`\widehat{W}(\varphi )`$ on a vacuum vector is given by

$$\widehat{W}(\varphi )|\chi |0|0(𝐤)=\chi (𝐤)e^{i(\varphi _1(𝐤)\widehat{a}+\overline{\varphi _1(𝐤)}\widehat{a}^{})}|0e^{i(\varphi _2(𝐤)\widehat{a}+\overline{\varphi _2(𝐤)}\widehat{a}^{})}|0.$$
(74)
Using the relation

$$e^{\lambda \widehat{a}+\mu \widehat{a}^{}}|0=e^{(1/2)\lambda \mu }\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}\mu ^n|n,$$
(75)
the above expression can be rewritten as

$`\widehat{W}(\varphi )|\chi |0|0(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (𝐤)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\varphi _1(𝐤)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\varphi _2(𝐤)|^2\right)`$ (77)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{i^{m+n}}{\sqrt{m!n!}}}\overline{\varphi _1(𝐤)^m\varphi _2(𝐤)^n}|m|n.`$
The correlation functions are now calculated as follows.

$`_\chi (f;\varphi ;\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\chi |0|0|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\chi |0|0`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤|}}f(𝐤)|\chi (𝐤)|^2`$ (79)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1,2}{}}\mathrm{exp}((1/2)|\varphi _s(𝐤)|^2(1/2)|\psi _s(𝐤)|^2\psi _s(𝐤)\overline{\varphi _s(𝐤)}).`$ (80)
Again, this formula does not compare directly with (23) because here two-component spinors are used instead of four-component classical wavefunctions.

### 4.4 Multiple fluctuations

The transition from the one-oscillator to the multi-oscillator formalism is straightforward. Starting from the Hilbert space $``$ of wave functions $`\chi (𝐤,m,n)`$ a Fock space $`\underset{¯}{}`$ is constructed in the usual way. The $`n`$-th component of $`\underset{¯}{}`$ is the space $`_\mathrm{s}^n`$ of these elements of $`^n`$ which are symmetric under permutations. The field operator $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{A}}(\varphi )`$, acting on $`\underset{¯}{}`$, is defined by

$`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{A}}(\varphi )=0\widehat{A}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\widehat{A}(\varphi )𝕀+𝕀\widehat{A}(\varphi )\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (82)
Consider now a vacuum vector in $``$ of the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=|\chi |0|0.$$
(83)
Fix a discrete probability distribution $`p`$ i.e., positive numbers $`p_n`$ satisfying $`_np_n=1`$. Then a vacuum vector $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of $`\underset{¯}{}`$ is defined by

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{p_0}\sqrt{p_1}\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{p_2}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}.`$ (84)
Correlation functions can now be calculated as follows.

$`_\chi (f;\varphi ;\psi )`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}|\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{W}}(\psi )\widehat{f}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{W}}(\varphi )^{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`p_0f^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_n[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi (𝐤_j)|^2`$ (87)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1,2}{}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}(|\varphi _s(𝐤_j)|^2+|\psi _s(𝐤_j)|^2+2\psi _s(𝐤_j)\overline{\varphi _s(𝐤_j)}))]`$ (89)
$`\times f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n).`$
Comparison with (23) shows that here the constants $`c_n`$ equal $`1/\sqrt{n}`$. The state vector $`\chi `$ in the Fock space of the scalar boson is of the special form (12), with $`\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤)=n!p_n\chi (𝐤)`$. In , the special choice

$$p_n=e^\alpha \frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}$$
(90)
is discussed. It is argued that it restores Poisson statistics of the photons in the limit of an infinite number of spacetime fluctuations.

## Appendix A

The covariance system $`(𝒜,G,\sigma )`$ consists of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$, a locally compact group $`G`$, and an action $`\sigma `$ of $`G`$ as automorphisms of $`𝒜`$. It is assumed that the map $`gG\sigma _gf`$ is continuous for each $`f`$ in $`𝒜`$. A state of the covariance system is determined by correlation functions $`(f;g;g^{})`$ with $`f`$ in $`𝒜`$ and $`g,g^{}`$ in $`G`$. They should satisfy the following conditions (for simplicity we assume that $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra with unit)

(positivity) For all $`n>0`$ and for all possible choices of complex $`\lambda _j`$, $`g_jG`$, and $`f_j𝒜`$, is

$$\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j\overline{\lambda _k}(f_k^{}f_j;g_j;g_k)0;$$
(91)
(normalization) $`(1;e;e)=1`$, where $`1`$ is the unit of $`𝒜`$, and $`e`$ is the neutral element of $`G`$;

(covariance) there exists a right multiplier $`\zeta `$ with values in $`𝒜`$ such that

$$(\sigma _{g^{\prime \prime }}f;g;g^{})=(\zeta (g^{},g^{\prime \prime })f\zeta (g,g^{\prime \prime })^{};gg^{\prime \prime };g^{}g^{\prime \prime });$$
(92)
(continuity) for each $`f`$ in $`𝒜`$ the map $`g,g^{}(f;g;g^{})`$ is continuous in a neighborhood of the neutral element $`e,e`$.

The first two conditions imply that the map $`f𝒜(f;e;e)`$ defines a state of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$.

## Appendix B

Here we show that the correlation functions(23) define a state of the covariance system $`(𝒜,G,𝕀)`$.

#### Positivity

One calculates

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m,l}{}}\lambda _m\overline{\lambda _l}_\chi (f_l^{}f_m;\varphi _m;\varphi _l)`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\lambda _mf_m^{(0)}|^2|\omega ^{(0)}|^2`$ (96)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m,l}{}}\mu _m(𝐤_1,\mathrm{}𝐤_n)\overline{\mu _l}(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)\mathrm{exp}(c_n^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{\varphi _m^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _{l,\mu }(𝐤_j))`$
with

$$\mu _m^{(n)}(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)=\lambda _mf_m^{(n)}(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{c_n^2}{2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{\varphi _m^\mu (𝐤_m)}\varphi _{m,\mu }(𝐤_m)\right).$$
(98)
Note that the matrix $`M`$ with elements

$$M_{j,l}=c_n^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{\varphi _m^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _{l,\mu }(𝐤_j)$$
(99)
is positive definite because the test functions $`\varphi _m(𝐤)`$ satisfy (9). Hence, by Schur’s lemma, also the matrix with elements $`\mathrm{exp}(M_{j,l})`$ is positive One concludes that (LABEL:appa1) is positive.

#### Normalization

is trivially satisfied provided that the vector $`\chi `$ in Fock space is properly normalized.

#### Covariance

One calculates

$`(f;\varphi +\xi ;\psi +\xi )=f^{(0)}|\chi ^{(0)}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2`$ (103)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(ic_n^2\mathrm{Im}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)+\xi ^\mu (𝐤_j))}(\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j)+\xi _\mu (𝐤_j))\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{2}}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_j))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j))\right)]`$
$`\times f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)`$
$`=`$ $`(\overline{\zeta (\psi ,\xi )}f\zeta (\varphi ,\xi );\varphi ;\psi ).`$ (104)
This proves covariance of the correlation functions.

#### Continuity

The continuity requirement is empty because of the discrete topology of the group $`G`$.

One concludes that the correlation functions (23) define a state of the covariance system $`(𝒜,G,𝕀)`$.

## Appendix C

Here we show that the field operator $`\widehat{A}(\varphi )`$ is a real linear function of its argument $`\varphi `$. We also show that (32) holds.

One calculates

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{W}(\xi )\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (105)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi +\xi )\widehat{\zeta }(\psi ,\xi )\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`_\chi (\zeta (\psi ,\xi )f;\varphi ;\psi +\xi ).`$ (107)
First note that the map

$$\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{W}(\lambda \xi )\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(108)
is continuous. This suffices, together with

$$\widehat{W}(\lambda \xi )\widehat{W}(\mu \xi )=\widehat{W}((\lambda +\mu )\xi ),$$
(109)
to apply Stone’s theorem and to conclude the existence of self-adjoint operators $`\widehat{A}(\xi )`$ satisfying $`\widehat{A}(\lambda \xi )=\lambda \widehat{A}(\xi )`$ for all real $`\lambda `$.

Next, linearize (107) in $`\xi `$, using (23). One obtains

$`i\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{W}(\psi )\widehat{A}(\xi )\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=f^{(0)}|\chi ^{(0)}|^2`$ (110)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{n!}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2\mathrm{exp}\left(ic_n^2\mathrm{Im}\overline{\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j)\right)`$ (111)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{2}}\overline{(\psi ^\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_j))}(\psi _\mu (𝐤_j)\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j))\right)]`$ (112)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[\overline{\xi ^\mu (𝐤_l)}\psi _\mu (𝐤_l)\overline{\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_l)}\xi _\mu (𝐤_l)]`$ (113)
$`\times f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n).`$ (114)
(115)
This result shows that $`\widehat{A}(\xi )`$ is a real linear function of $`\xi `$.

Finally, let us show (32). Take $`\psi =0`$ in (115). This gives

$`i\widehat{A}(\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{f}\widehat{W}(\varphi )^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=f^{(0)}|\chi ^{(0)}|^2`$ (116)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _^3}\text{ d}𝐤_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|𝐤_j|}}|\chi ^{(n)}(𝐤_j)|^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{2}}\overline{\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_j)}\varphi _\mu (𝐤_j)\right)\right]`$ (117)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{\varphi ^\mu (𝐤_l)}\xi _\mu (𝐤_l)f^{(n)}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,\mathrm{},𝐤_n).`$ (118)
(119)
This implies (32)