format: text

text:
# Higher order terms in the contraction of SO(3,2)

## I INTRODUCTION

The de Sitter group SO(3,2) has been used for a long time as the group of basic symmetry transformations within a model of the universe that is defined by the anti de Sitter space. The Poincaré group is then “in some sense, a limiting case” of the de Sitter group within a neighbourhood $`𝒩`$ of a given point $`P`$ of anti de Sitter space if the “de Sitter radius” $`R`$ approaches infinity. This limiting case has been mathematically formulated by E. Inönü and E. P. Wigner  in 1953 by the method of group contraction.

This paper takes up a result that has been obtained three decades ago by several authors , who studied the contraction of the de Sitter SO(3,2) group and applied it to a multiparticle system in a tangential space to the de Sitter space.

Let $`l_{ab}`$, $`a,b=0,1,2,3,4`$, be representations of the infinitesimal generators of SO(3,2) by operators in a quantum mechanical state space and let $`l_{\mu 4}`$ be those operators that in the contraction limit converge towards the momentum operators $`p_\mu `$ of the Poincaré group. Then $`l_{\mu \nu }`$ are the operators of the Lorentz subgroup with $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$. Group contraction assumes that the expectation values of $`l_{\mu 4}`$ become very large so that for the amplitudes between states $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ the following relation is valid

$$\varphi |l_{\mu 4}|\varphi ^{}\varphi |l_{\nu \rho }|\varphi ^{}.$$
(1)
As a consequence of the commutation relations of SO(3,2), the operators $`l_{\mu 4}`$ can then be approximated by the translation operators $`p_\mu `$ of the Poincaré group $`P(3,1)`$.

E. Inönü and E. P. Wigner (, see also F. Gürsey ) have performed the contraction process by rescaling the operators $`l_{\mu 4}`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =\frac{1}{R}l_{\mu 4}$$
(2)
and then defining Poincaré momenta by

$$p_\mu =\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu .$$
(3)
With these definitions the commutation relations of $`l_{\mu 4}`$ are

$$[\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ]=\frac{i}{R^2}l_{\mu \nu }$$
(4)
and, therefore,

$$[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]=0.$$
(5)
F. Gürsey  has formulated the analogue of eq. (2) for spin-1/2 representations

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =\frac{1}{R}l_{\mu 4}+\frac{1}{2R}\gamma _\mu $$
(6)
where $`\gamma _\mu `$ are the usual Dirac matrices. (See also C. Frønsdal et al.) The $`\gamma `$-term was named “momentum spin” by F. Gürsey. If we measure the momentum in units of $`1/R`$ we can drop this factor and rewrite (6) in the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =l_{\mu 4}+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _\mu .$$
(7)
For $`R\mathrm{}`$ $`l_{\mu 4}`$ will grow proportionally to $`R`$ and converge to $`p_\mu `$. $`\gamma _\mu `$ then becomes a second order term compared to $`l_{\mu 4}`$. In a more realistic application of anti de Sitter space as a physical model of spacetime, $`R`$ is large but nevertheless finite. In this situation $`p_\mu `$ can be used as an approximation to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ with $`\gamma _\mu `$ as a second order correction to $`p_\mu `$.

Assuming a large but finite $`R`$, the following analysis will be based on an approximative translation operator of the form

$$t_\mu =p_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\gamma _\mu .$$
(8)
We will deliberately ignore any other higher order contributions and determine the effect of the second order term $`\gamma _\mu `$ within the kinematics of a spin-1/2 particle system.

In the preceding lines, we have used the term of spacetime in order to establish the connection to the “historical” application of de Sitter symmetry. This does not imply that we will make any assumptions about the symmetry of spacetime in the large. In the following de Sitter symmetry is assumed only as a symmetry of (angular) momentum space.

## II AN INVARIANT OPERATOR OF A MULTIPARTICLE SYSTEM

We start from a system of spin-1/2 particles in a tangential spacetime with a Minkowski structure. The multiparticle state space is given by the direct product of one-particle state spaces, which in turn are defined by momentum eigenstates that satisfy the Dirac equation. We will call these particles for short Dirac particles and thereby mean massive, structure less, lepton-like particles.

It is obvious that we can describe our multiparticle state space without loss of generality equally well by the direct product of two-particle states that belong to irreducible representations of P(3,1) (assuming an even number of particles).

A well-known “invariant” operator of P(3,1) is the modulus $`p_\mu p^\mu `$ of the translation operator. It is invariant under all operations of P(3,1) and can, therefore, be represented by a fixed c-number within a given irreducible representation of P(3,1). A well-known consequence of this fact is, for example the Klein-Gordon equation. This property is not restricted to single particles but is also true for any isolated system of particles.

Consider now the operator $`j_{ab}j^{ab}`$, $`a,b=0,1,2,3,4`$ (summation over $`a,b`$), where $`j_{ab}`$ are spin-1/2 representations of the infinitesimal generators of SO(3,2). For an isolated system, which is described by an irreducible representation of SO(3,2), application of this operator again delivers a fixed c-number. We evaluate this operator for a multiparticle system by using (8) as an approximation for $`j_{\mu 4}`$ and taking (1) into account, collecting terms of the magnitude $`R^2`$ and $`R`$ and ignoring terms of lower magnitude. Our multiparticle state space in the tangential spacetime will serve as a 0th-order approximation in a perturbation expansion. We then obtain the expression

$`p_\mu p^\mu +2p_\mu p^\mu +p_\mu ^{}p^\mu `$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _\mu p^\mu +\gamma _\mu p^\mu +\gamma _\mu ^{}p^\mu +\gamma _\mu ^{}p^\mu )`$ (10)
$`+\mathrm{},`$ (11)
which is identical to the modulus of the total translation operator

$$T_\mu =t_\mu +t_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
in this approximation that we are considering.

For an irreducible system this operator must deliver a fixed c-number. In other words, the modulus of the total translation operator is a constant-of-motion:

$$T_\mu T^\mu =\text{const.}$$
(13)
Constants-of-motion are a useful means to study the internal kinematics of a physical system. So let us see.

Since the translation operator commutes with the total momentum $`P_\mu `$, its modulus $`P^\mu P_\mu `$ is also a constant. This enables us to separate the momentum terms that are quadratic in $`p_\mu `$ from (11). (Later we will find a more explicit justification for this step.) Therefore, we obtain another constant expression

$`\gamma _\mu (p^\mu +p^\mu +\mathrm{})`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\gamma _\mu ^{}(p^\mu +p^\mu +\mathrm{})`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\text{const.}.`$ (17)
Here we have terms that represent the operators of a Dirac equation of individual particles and other terms - like $`\gamma _\mu p^\mu `$ \- that provide for a connection between pairs of particles. Whereas the former belong to a Poincaré covariant description of a multiparticle system in Minkowski spacetime, the latter can be understood as a perturbation to the Poincaré covariant system. So we rearrange the terms

$`\gamma _\mu (p^\mu +a^\mu )`$ (18)
$`+`$ similar terms for the other particles (19)
$`=`$ const. (20)
with the perturbation term

$$a^\mu =p^\mu $$
(21)
(summation over all particles except the first). We will analyze the effect of the term $`a^\mu `$ within the framework of a perturbation approach.

## III STRUCTURE OF TWO-PARTICLE STATES

Since the perturbation term $`\gamma _\mu a^\mu `$ is basically a two-particle operator, we will have to make use of two-particle states. So let us spend a short look at its general structure (ignoring spin variables).

Let

$$|𝐏=\frac{d^3p}{p_0}\frac{d^3p^{}}{p_0^{}}C(𝐩,𝐩^{})|𝐩,𝐩^{}$$
(22)
be a two-particle state with momentum $`P`$ of a two-particle representation of P(3,1) with $`P^2=M^2`$ in a state space $`_M`$. The two-particle states $`|𝐩,𝐩^{}`$ belong to the direct product of one-particle states $`|𝐩`$.

With $`p=kq`$, $`p^{}=k+q`$, $`2k=P`$ we can rewrite

$$|𝐏=\frac{d^3q}{q_0}\stackrel{~}{C}(𝐪)|𝐤𝐪,𝐤+𝐪.$$
(23)
From

$$p^2=p^2=m^2,$$
(24)
where $`m`$ is the particle mass, and

$$P^2=(p+p^{})^2=M^2$$
(25)
we obtain

$$q^2=m^2\frac{1}{4}M^2,$$
(26)
$$q_0^2=m^2\frac{1}{4}M^2+𝐪^2$$
(27)
and

$$kq=0.$$
(28)
Conditions (26) to (28) express the fact that $`|𝐏`$ is a state of an two-particle representation characterized by the total mass $`M`$.

We can formulate the state (22) also in terms of wave functions

$$e^{iPx}=\frac{d^3q}{q_0}\stackrel{~}{C}(𝐪)e^{i(kq)x}e^{i(k+q)x},$$
(29)
which are obtained by formally multiplying the ket-states $`|𝐏`$, $`|𝐤𝐪`$ and $`|𝐤+𝐪`$ by its associated bra-states $`x|`$.

The momenta $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ of each term under the integral in (22) adds up to $`P`$. This “entanglement” of momenta within two-particle states in $`_M`$ will be essential for the results that we will obtain.

## IV FORMULATION IN FOCK SPACE

Let us now return to a multiparticle system. We formulate it with the help of standard Fock space methods. The “free” part of our system is easily converted into a Fock space formulation following the usual “quantization” of the Dirac field (see  or any text book on quantum field theory). The field operator of the Dirac field (taken from this reference) has the form

$$\psi (x)=(2\pi )^{3/2}d^3p\left(b_s(𝐩)u_s(𝐩)e^{ipx}+d_s(𝐩)^{}v_s(𝐩)e^{ipx}\right).$$
(30)
A similar expression defines the Dirac adjoint operator $`\overline{\psi }(x)`$. $`b_s^{}(𝐩),b_s(𝐩)`$ are electron emission and absorption operators, $`d_s^{}(𝐩),d_s(𝐩)`$ are the corresponding operators for positrons. They satisfy the usual anticommutation relations of the Dirac field.

As a first attempt we represent our two-particle perturbation terms $`\gamma _\mu p^\mu `$ in Fock space in the following form

$$d^3xd^3x^{}\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \psi (x)\overline{\psi }(x^{})p^\mu \psi (x^{}).$$
(31)
This Fock space operator is not yet adapted to its immediate insertion into a perturbation calculation. Remember that a quantum mechanical perturbation calculation requires the combination of a perturbation term with a projection operator onto the basic state space. Therefore, we still have to incorporate a suitable projection mechanism onto our two-particle basic.

We will achieve this by collecting only those terms of (31) that contribute if we evaluate this operator for two-particle states with momentum $`P`$ of a given (irreducible) two-particle state space $`_M`$.

Consider the following contribution to (31)

$$\mathrm{}\overline{b}(𝐩+𝐪)\gamma _\mu b(𝐩)\overline{b}(𝐩^{}𝐪^{})p^\mu b(𝐩^{})\mathrm{}.$$
(32)
If we evaluate this operator for a two-particle state, then only such terms with $`𝐪=𝐪^{}`$ will be involved, as a consequence of momentum entanglement within two-particle states.

This is true for every state of $`_M`$ with a given momentum $`P`$. And since every two-particle state of $`_M`$ can be represented by a superposition of two-particle momentum eigenstates, it is generally valid. So we can drop the restriction to a fixed $`P`$ and collect all contributions that belong to the same $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$. Hence, we can write

$$\mathrm{}\overline{b}(𝐩+𝐪)\gamma _\mu b(𝐩)\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)\mathrm{}$$
(33)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)=𝑑V(p^{})\overline{b}(𝐩^{}𝐪)p^\mu b(𝐩^{}),$$
(34)
where $`dV(p^{})`$ indicates a summation over all contributions that belong to the same $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$. An analogous consideration is valid for positron and mixed terms.

Let us analyze the meaning of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)`$ in more detail. If we evaluate (33) for a two-particle state, the second particle will contribute a complex amplitude given by the expectation value of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)`$ that acts as a multiplicative weight to the expectation value of the first particle term. This weight depends on $`𝐪`$ and fully describes the contribution of a second particle to the total expectation value. A long as our focus is on the first particle, then all we need to know about other particles are the complex weights that apply to the expectation values of particle one. This fact simplifies the treatment of a single particle within an ambient multiparticle system. To keep track of the weighting factors that apply to each “transition” $`pp+q`$ in (33) we need a suitable “bookkeeping” system.

We can establish such a bookkeeping system by introducing an auxiliary Fock space with operators that emit and absorb quanta with momentum $`𝐪`$. If we prepare a state in this Fock space by applying an emission operator multiplied by a complex amplitude onto the vacuum state, then a later application of an absorption operator will redeliver this amplitude. This is exactly what we need.

We have some freedom in doing this, as long as the system is able to keep track of the amplitudes of the momenta $`𝐪`$. So let us replace the operator $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)`$ of (34) by a new operator $`a^\mu (𝐪)`$ of our bookkeeping system

$$\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)ea^\mu (𝐪).$$
(35)
We have to insert a - so far unknown - normalization factor $`e`$, because the commutation relations that we will introduce below define a normalization of $`a^\mu `$, whereas (34) defines a different normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu `$. The determination of $`e`$ in the next section will involve a detailed examination of the integration volume in (34).

We define the following commutation relations between $`a_\mu `$ and its ajoint operator $`a_\mu ^{}`$

$$[a^\mu (𝐤),a^\nu (𝐤^{})^{}]=\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}).$$
(36)
Then $`a^\mu (𝐤)`$ are emission operators and $`a^\mu (𝐤)`$ absorption operators for quanta with momentum $`𝐤`$.

Following the usual procedure in the “quantization of the radiation field” (see e.g. ) we define the operators

$`A^j(x)=(2\pi )^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{k^0\sqrt{2}}\left(a^j(𝐤)e^{ikx}+a^j(𝐤)^{}e^{ikx}\right)},`$ (37)
$`j=1,2,3,`$ (38)
and

$$A^0(x)=(2\pi )^{3/2}\frac{d^3k}{k^0\sqrt{2}}i\left(a^0(𝐤)e^{ikx}+a^0(𝐤)^{}e^{ikx}\right).$$
(39)
$`k^0`$ shall be determined by condition (27) if these operators are evaluated within two-particle states. (In the ”free radiation field” $`k^0`$ is “on-shell”: $`k^0=|𝐤|`$.)

If we add the spacetime dependencies to the emission and absorption operators in (33), as prescribed by (29), we obtain

$$\mathrm{}\overline{b}(𝐩+𝐪)e^{i(p+q)x}\gamma _\mu b(𝐩)e^{ipx}a^\mu (𝐪)e^{iqx}\mathrm{}.$$
(40)
Note that the correct spacetime dependency of $`a^\mu `$ is obtained from (34).

After inserting the spin functions $`u_s(𝐩)`$ and $`v_s(𝐩)`$ these terms and the corresponding positron and mixed terms add up to a Fock operator in the form

$$ed^3x:\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \psi (x):A^\mu (x),$$
(41)
where $`::`$ stand for normal ordering of emission and absorption operators.

The bookkeeping system has enabled us to give our perturbation term the same structure as the interaction term of quantum electrodynamics (QED) with the constant $`e`$ acting as a coupling constant. Therefore, the full apparatus of QED is available to analyze the effect of this term in a perturbation calculation. The result of such an analysis is well-known and strongly suggests that a Dirac particle within our SO(3,2) model shows properties of an electrically charged particle.

Let us come back to the separation of the quadratic terms in (11) from those that are linear in $`p`$: Our perturbation term provides the exchange of momenta between two particles without changing the total momentum. Therefore, also the square of the total momentum is conserved. This justifies the separation. It also adds to our understanding why it is possible to observe small terms (linear in $`R`$) in the presence of large terms (quadratic in $`R`$).

The standard formulation of QED introduces the interaction term by the postulation of gauge invariance. The latter is achieved by adding a new ”gauge field” that couples to the electron field. Despite the great success of the gauge principle it does not really provide us with an insight into the interaction process itself. We, on the other hand, have explicitly constructed an interaction term from known elements of the electrons Fock space and also have defined the bookkeeping field in terms of these elements. This gives us a full understanding of the mathematical and physical nature of this interaction term.

Unlike the standard formulation, where the coupling constant enters as a free parameter that has to be determined by the experiment, our approach does not leave room for any free parameter. This means that the coupling constant $`e`$ is determined by the theory and, therefore, should be calculable.

## V ESTIMATE OF THE COUPLING CONSTANT

This coupling constant is defined by the normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)`$ in (34) relative to the operator $`a^\mu (𝐪)`$ whose normalization is given by (36). This ratio can - in principle - be determined by correctly “counting” all contributions to (34) - in other words: by a careful analysis of the volume element of the integral in (34).

More than 30 years ago A. Wyler  discovered that the fine-structure constant $`\alpha `$ can be expressed by volumes of certain symmetric spaces. Being a mathematician he was not able to put his observation into a convincing physical context. Therefore, his work was criticized as fruitless numerology .

Wyler’s idea was picked up later by F. D. Smith, Jr.  who extended Wyler’s heuristic approach into a general scheme based on a fundamental Spin(8) symmetry. Smith was then able to express coupling constants and relations of particle masses by characteristic volumes with a remarkable degree of precision.

Let us see how far our model will lead us and whether we possibly can find a physical explanation for these authors’ observations.

Consider the S-matrix element of electron-electron scattering (Møller scattering) (see e.g. ). In the conventional formulation of QED this term involves two vertices and two $`a^\mu `$-operators. The latter result in an intermediate photon. It defines those intermediate states that contribute to the calculation of the scattering amplitude. In our formulation we have two $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu `$-operators given by the integral (34) instead. Whereas, by definition, there is one and only one $`a^\mu (𝐪)`$ for each $`𝐪`$, the multiplicity of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)`$ with respect to $`𝐪`$ may be different. Our task will be to determine the multiplicity of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^\mu (𝐪)`$ relative to $`a^\mu (𝐪)`$ by “counting” the intermediate states that our approach allows for.

We already have parameterized the contributions to the interaction term by the parameters $`q`$ and $`p^{}`$. The way in which the parameters $`q`$ are used in the perturbation calculation defines the parameter space of $`q`$ as (a subspace of) the euclidean $`R^3`$. If we split off the $`q`$-dependency we are left with the integral over $`p^{}`$ and our task will be to determine the multiplicity, or the integration volume respectively, of the contributions with respect to $`p^{}`$.

The basis for the evaluation of the integration volume is the particle momenta and the homogeneous Lorentz group acting on the particle momenta. The SO(3,1) acts transitively on a particles mass shell

$$p_0^2p_1^2p_2^2p_3^2=m^2.$$
(42)
The independent parameters $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ span a 3-dimensional parameter space. For a two-particle state of a representation with mass $`M`$ we have instead

$$(p_0+p_0^{})^2(p_1+p_1^{})^2(p_2+p_2^{})^2(p_3+p_3^{})^2=M^2.$$
(43)
We can convert this into

$`p_0^2+p_0^{}_{}{}^{}2p_1^2p_1^{}_{}{}^{}2p_2^2p_2^{}_{}{}^{}2p_3^2p_3^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ (44)
$`+2p_0p_0^{}2p_1p_1^{}2p_2p_2^{}2p_3p_3^{}=M^2.`$ (45)
From (42) and (43) follows that

$$p_0p_0^{}2p_1p_1^{}2p_2p_2^{}2p_3p_3^{}=\kappa ^2$$
(46)
must be invariant. Therefore,

$`p_0^2+p_0^{}_{}{}^{}2p_1^2p_1^{}_{}{}^{}2p_2^2p_2^{}_{}{}^{}2p_3^2p_3^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ (47)
$`=M^2\kappa ^2.`$ (48)
The symmetry group of this quadratic form is SO(6,2). Relation (46) reduces the number of independent parameters from 6 to 5 and thereby SO(6,2) to SO(5,2). SO(5,2) acts transitively on this 5-dimensional parameter space. Each point in this parameter space corresponds to a state in the two-particle state space $`_M`$. Therefore, the volume of the parameter space delivers a measure for the number of states that can contribute to the interaction term.

Given a point $`Q`$ in this parameter space, then other points can be reached by applying a linear transformation of SO(5,2) to $`Q`$. There are certain transformations that do not change the point $`Q`$. These transformations form the subgroup S(O(5) x O(2)). This is the isotropy subgroup or stabilizer of $`Q`$. Therefore, to obtain the multiplicity of states, we have to start from the coset space $`D_5`$ = SO(5,2)/S(O(5) x O(2)) rather than from SO(5,2).

$`D_5`$ is a symmetric space. By construction $`D_5`$ is isomorphic to $`_M`$. It is known from the work of Hua and Lu  that $`D_5`$ can be represented by matrices; that is, this symmetric space is isomorphic to the real hyperball

$$_R(5,2)=\{XR^{5\times 2}|IXX^{}>0\}.$$
(49)
(See  for a modern introduction to symmetric spaces.) Hua  has calculated volumes of $`_R(5,2)`$ and other domains. In contrast to $`_R(5,2)`$ $`D_5`$ has an infinite volume.

Consider now a two-particle state $`|𝐏`$ with momentum $`P`$. Then there is another volume associated with $`D_5`$. This is the subspace of all points that correspond to a situation where for one of the particles $`p_0=m`$ and the other particle has reached its maximum value of $`p_0^{}=P_0m`$. For reasons of symmetry this volume is spherical symmetric and isomorphic to the border sphere $`C_5`$ of $`D_5`$. $`C_5`$ has 4 dimensions. Then all states with given $`P_0`$ are confined to a volume $`\overline{D}_5`$ inside of $`C_5`$ and including $`C_5`$. The subspace $`\overline{D}_5`$ of $`D_5`$ is finite and can be mapped onto $`_R(5,2)`$ by an isometric mapping.

If $`Q=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_5)`$ is a point of $`\overline{D}_5`$ that is mapped into a point $`S=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_5)`$ of $`_R(5,2)`$, then we can establish a one-to-one relationship such that

$$q_i=rs_i,$$
(50)
where $`r`$ is a properly chosen scaling factor. This gives us the choice to use either $`q_i`$ in $`\overline{D}_5`$ or $`s_i`$ in $`_R(5,2)`$ as integration parameters.

To be consistent with Smith’s terminology we will calculate all volumes in $`_R(5,2)`$. We will use the notation $`V(D_5)`$ for the volume that corresponds to $`\overline{D}_5`$ but is calculated in $`_R(5,2)`$ and will remember that we have to apply the correct number of scaling factors $`r`$.

$`C_5`$ has another important property: If particle 1 is initially at rest and a second particle with a given momentum $`p^{}`$ is added to form a two-particle state, then this state corresponds to a point on $`C_5`$ as described before. Other states can be generated from this “initial” state by the exchange of momentum. Therefore, to determine all states that are eventually involved we have first to collate all initial states. This means, we have to perform an integration over $`C_5`$ with a volume element $`d^4s/V(C_5)`$. This delivers a first volume factor of $`1/V(C_5)`$.

To collect all possible momentum changes of particle 1 we have to integrate over $`\overline{D}_5`$. From condition (28) it follows that for a given $`|𝐏`$ only momentum exchanges in the subspace perpendicular to $`P`$ have to be considered. Since the direction of the total momentum is undetermined (when we are constructing the interaction operator), we have to keep the integration over $`D_5`$. We compensate for this by a volume factor of $`1/V(S_4)`$ where $`S_4=SO(5,2)/SO(4,2)=SO(5)/SO(4)`$ is the unit sphere in 4 dimensions. This reduces the number of independent parameters to 4. Let $`(s_1,..,s_4)`$ be a new set of independent parameters corresponding to a new set $`(q_1,..,q_4)`$.

If we integrate over $`\overline{D}_5`$ using this new parameter set, each $`s_i`$ will be responsible for a contribution of $`V(D_5)^{1/4}`$ to the volume of $`\overline{D}_5`$ . Three of these parameters can now be mapped onto the transferred momentum $`q`$. The fourth parameter $`s_4`$, obviously, corresponds to a momentum transfer within each of the particle momenta, without any momentum transfer between the particles. Such transitions contribute to the volume of $`C_5`$. We can perform the integration over $`s_4`$ and obtain a correcting factor to the already calculated volume $`V(C_5)`$ of $`V(D_5)^{1/4}`$.

There are two more factors that contribute to the multiplicity of momentum states. One is related to the spin components of the particle states, which give each momentum state a multiplicity of $`4\pi `$ because of the periodicity of spin states. The other factor is related to the (relative) phases of the momentum states within multiparticle states. By adding another factor of $`2\pi `$ we take into account this degree-of-freedom.

After extracting these constant factors from the integral we are left with an integration over the $`p^{}`$ parameter space where now the integrand should enter with a multiplicity of one within the $`p^{}`$-parameter space - provided that we have correctly captured all factors that determine any multiplicities. Collecting these factors we end up with

$$8\pi ^2V(D_5)^{1/4}/(V(S_4)V(C_5)).$$
(51)
This is essentially Wyler’s formula.

The application of (34) to a state $`|𝐩`$ now describes a transition to $`|𝐩𝐪`$ with a weight given by the square root of (51). (Remember that in our estimation (34) has entered twice.) This demonstrates that the weight factor has the property of a coupling constant.

The volumes $`V(D_5)`$ and $`V(C_5)`$ have been calculated by L. K. Hua . $`V(S_4)`$ is the volume of the unit sphere $`S_4`$ in 4 dimensions. With

$$V(C_5)=\frac{8\pi ^3}{3},$$
(52)
$$V(D_5)=\frac{\pi ^5}{2^4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}!},$$
(53)
$$V(S_4)=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}$$
(54)
we obtain

$$\frac{9}{8\pi ^3}\left(\frac{\pi ^5}{2^4\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}!}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(55)
If we identify this value with the coupling constant $`e^2/(2\pi )^2=\alpha /\pi `$ in the S-matrix element for Møller scattering we obtain a value for $`\alpha `$

$$\alpha =1/137.03608245.$$
(56)
Although intended only as an estimate, this result is in agreement with experimental values like 1 : 1.0000005. (A value of 137.035 999 93(52) has been determined from the magnetic moment of the electron .)

We can easily convince ourselves that the scaling factors $`r`$ either cancel or are absorbed in the volume element $`d^3q`$.

## VI CONCLUSION

A perturbational analysis of Gürsey’s momentum spin has led us to a mathematical structure that is identical to the perturbation theoretical formulation of quantum electrodynamics. We have found an estimate of the coupling constant that is in excellent agreement with the experimental values of the electromagnetic coupling constant.

It is, therefore, very tempting to identify Gürsey’s momentum spin with the current of quantum electrodynamics. This opens a new and simple access to the electromagnetic interaction in terms of standard quantum mechanics of multiparticle systems:

Electromagnetic interaction: Effects of a quantum mechanical operator term that takes care of the momentum spin in a perturbation treatment. It connects states of different momenta and, thus, causes transitions between these states.

Coupling constant: A constant that results from counting the possible intermediate states if we evaluate the interaction operator for two-particle states. It delivers a kind of mathematical signature for our construction of the interaction term.

Photon: Not a real physical particle but a mathematical bookkeeping item that keeps track of exchanged momenta, with “off-shell” behaviour.

Radiation field: Those photons that are exchanged over long distances. For such distances, the formalism of QED tells us that the exchanged momentum will be placed on the mass zero shell.

Off-shell particles: Off-shell behaviour of Dirac particles shows up very clearly as a property of the anti-commutation functions, rather then of particle states.

Quantized fields: There is no quality that goes beyond the properties of plain Fock space operators that are used to describe the multiparticle system of electrons and to build up a bookkeeping system for the exchanged momenta.

Vacuum polarization: A pictorial description of certain Feynman graphs without any real physical background. There is no “vacuum” other than the bare vacuum state of the Fock space representation.

Pair creation: Not really a creation process, but rather a transition from an anti-particle state (moving backward in time) to a particle state (moving forward in time).

Locality: Locality in the sense of interaction at a single point: the construction process of the interaction operator shows us how this follows directly from the structure of two-particle states which we have used as a basis.

Causality: Although our SO(3,2) model can be understood as an action-at-a-distance theory we know very well that the formalism of QED is in agreement with relativistic causality.

Gauge invariance: Gauge invariance appears as a consequence of the existence of a charged current rather than vice versa.

Poincaré invariance: An approximation to a basic SO(3,2) symmetry that is observed when the contributions of momentum spin compensate in systems with an equal amount of positive and negative electrical charges. Because of this compensation the Poincaré invariance is usually realized better than the translation operator (8) suggests.

We have been led to a theory of interacting fields by a “slight” modification of the basic symmetry: we have replaced the Poincaré group P(3,1) by a de Sitter group SO(3,2) and used the Poincaré symmetry as an approximation to the de Sitter symmetry. No additional assumptions - except basic principles of quantum mechanics - have been employed.

In contrast to the standard model, the coupling constant is uniquely determined by the theory.

We have deliberately ignored contributions of other higher order terms. Such terms still deserve more attention. They may lead to the formulation of different types of interaction.


text:
# GLUON CONFINEMENT CRITERION IN QCD

## I Introduction

To say today that QCD is a nonperturbative (NP) theory is almost a tautology. The problem is how to define it exactly, since we know for sure that QCD has a perturbative (PT) phase as well because of asymptotic freedom (AF) 1 . In order to define exactly the NP phase in QCD, let us start with one of the main objects in the Yang-Mills (YM) sector. The two-point Green’s function, describing the full gluon propagator, is (using Euclidean signature here and everywhere below)

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=i\left\{T_{\mu \nu }(q)d(q^2,\xi )+\xi L_{\mu \nu }(q)\right\}\frac{1}{q^2},$$
(1)
where $`\xi `$ is the gauge fixing parameter ($`\xi =0`$ – Landau gauge, $`\xi =1`$ – Feynman gauge) and $`T_{\mu \nu }(q)=g_{\mu \nu }(q_\mu q_\nu /q^2)=g_{\mu \nu }L_{\mu \nu }(q)`$. Evidently, $`T_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ is the transverse (physical) component of the full gluon propagator, while $`L_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ is its longitudinal (unphysical) one. The free gluon propagator is obtained by simply setting the full gluon form factor $`d(q^2,\xi )=1`$ in Eq. (1.1). The dynamical equation of motion for the full gluon propagator is the so-called gluon Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equation, which is part of the whole SD system of dynamical equations of motion 1 . The solutions of the gluon SD equation are supposed to reflect the complexity of the quantum structure of the QCD ground state. Precisely this determines one of the central roles of the full gluon propagator in the SD system of equations. The SD equation for the full gluon propagator is a highly nonlinear system of four-dimensional integrals, containing many different, unknown in general, propagators and vertices, which, in their turn, satisfy too complicated integral equations, containing different scattering amplitudes and kernels, so there is no hope for exact solution(s). However, in any case the solutions of this equation can be distinguished from each other by their behavior in the infrared (IR) limit, describing thus many (several) different types of quantum excitations and fluctuations of gluon field configurations in the QCD vacuum. The ultraviolet (UV) limit of these solutions is uniquely fixed by AF.

The IR asymptotics of the full gluon propagator can be either singular or smooth. However, the smooth behavior of the full gluon propagator (1.1) is possible only in one exceptional covariant gauge - the Landau gauge ($`\xi =0`$) 2 , i.e., it is a gauge artifact solution in this case. Being thus a gauge artifact, it can be related to none of the physical phenomena such as quark and gluon confinement or dynamical breakdown of chiral symmetry (DBCS), which are, by definition, manifestly gauge-invariant. To our best knowledge, beyond the covariant gauges, other than the Landau gauge, the smooth behavior is not known. Anyway, nobody knows how to relate the smooth asymptotics in any covariant gauge to color confinement phenomenon, DBCS, etc. For example, it does not provide a linearly rising potential between heavy quarks ”seen” by lattice QCD simulations 3 . Hence we will not discuss it in what follows, though a solution with smooth asymptotics may exist as a formal one to the gluon SD equation.

Thus we are left with the IR singular behavior of the full gluon propagator only, which is possible in any gauge (in principle, the free gluon propagator can be also used in any gauge. The Feynman gauge free gluon propagator in the IR has been used by Gribov 4  in order to investigate quark confinement within precisely the SD system of equations approach). The only problem is to decide which type of the IR singularities is to be accounted for. The free gluon propagator (see Eq. (1.1) with $`d(q^2)=1`$) has an exact power-type $`1/q^2`$ IR singularity. So the IR singularities as much singular as $`1/q^2`$ as $`q^20`$ will be called PT IR singularities. The IR singularities which are more severe than the above-mentioned exact power-type IR singularity of the free gluon propagator will be called NP IR singularities, i.e., they are more severe than $`1/q^2`$ as $`q^20`$. They should be summarized (accumulated) into the full gluon propagator and described effectively correctly by its structure in the deep IR domain. Let us remind that for a long time from the very beginning of QCD it has been already well known that the QCD vacuum is really beset with the severe (or equivalently NP) IR singularities if standard PT is applied 1 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12 . ”But it is to just this violent IR behavior that we must look for the key to the low energy and large distance hadron phenomena. In particular, the absence of quarks and other colored objects can only be understood in terms of the IR divergences in the self-energy of a color bearing objects” 10 . It is worth emphasizing that in Ref. 13  it is explicitly shown how the severe IR singularities inevitably appear in the QCD vacuum, providing thus the basis for the zero momentum modes enhancement (ZMME) effect there. So it is intrinsically peculiar to the true QCD ground state due to the self-interaction of massless gluons. Precisely this effect is reflected by the appearance of the severe IR singularities in the gluon propagator.

It is clear also that any deviation of the full gluon propagator from the free one in the IR, automatically requires an introduction of the corresponding mass scale parameter, responsible for the nontrivial dynamics in the IR region, the so-called mass gap (see below). This is important, since there is none explicitly present in the QCD Lagrangian (current quark mass cannot be considered as a mass gap, since it is not the renormalization group invariant). Of course, such gluon field configurations, which are to be described by the severely IR structure of the full gluon propagator, can be only of dynamical origin. The only dynamical mechanism in QCD which can produce such configurations in the vacuum, is the self-interaction of massless gluons. So the above-mentioned mass gap appears on dynamical ground. Let us remind that precisely this self-interaction in the UV limit leads to AF.

The main purpose of this Letter is to establish exactly the deep IR structure of the full gluon propagator, not solving the gluon SD equation directly, which is a formidable task, anyway. On this basis we will be able to derive the gluon confinement criterion in a manifestly gauge-invariant way. However, it is convenient first to emphasize the distribution nature of the severe (i.e., NP) IR singularities. For this purpose, in the next section we will explicitly introduce a few useful formulae from the distribution theory (DT) 14 , complemented by the dimensional regularization (DR) method 15 , which are crucial in our investigation.

## II  IR dimensional regularization within the distribution theory

In general, all the Green’s functions in QCD are generalized functions, i.e., they are distributions. This is true especially for the NP IR singularities due to the self-interaction of massless gluons in the QCD vacuum. They present a rather broad and important class of functions with algebraic singularities, i.e., functions with nonsummable singularities at isolated points 14  (at zero in our case). Roughly speaking, this means that all relations involving distributions should be considered under corresponding integrals, taking into account the smoothness properties of the corresponding class of test functions (for example, $`\phi (q)`$ below). In principle, any regularization scheme (i.e., how to parameterize the severe IR singularities and thereby to put them under control) can be used; it should, however, be compatible with DT 14 .

Let us consider the positive definite ($`P>0`$) squared (quadratic) Euclidean form $`P(q)=q_0^2+q_1^2+q_2^2+\mathrm{}+q_{n1}^2=q^2`$, where $`n`$ is the number of the components. The generalized function (distribution) $`P^\lambda (q)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is, in general, an arbitrary complex number, is defined as $`(P^\lambda ,\phi )=_{P>0}P^\lambda (q)\phi (q)d^nq`$. At $`Re\lambda 0`$ this integral is convergent and is an analytic function of $`\lambda `$. Analytical continuation to the region $`Re\lambda <0`$ shows that it has a simple pole at points 14

$$\lambda =\frac{n}{2}k,k=0,1,2,3\mathrm{}$$
(2)
In order to actually define the system of the SD equations in the deep IR domain, it is necessary to introduce the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, defined as $`D=n+2ϵ,ϵ0^+`$ within a gauge-invariant DR method 15 . As a result, all the Green’s functions and ”bare” parameters should be regularized with respect to $`ϵ`$ (see next sections), which is to be set to zero at the end of the computations. The structure of the NP IR singularities is then determined (when $`n`$ is even number) as follows 14 :

$$(q^2)^\lambda =\frac{C_1^{(k)}}{\lambda +(D/2)+k}+finiteterms,$$
(3)
where the residue is

$$C_1^{(k)}=\frac{\pi ^{n/2}}{2^{2k}k!\mathrm{\Gamma }((n/2)+k)}\times L^k\delta ^n(q)$$
(4)
with $`L=(^2/q_0^2)+(^2/q_1^2)+\mathrm{}+(^2/q_{n1}^2)`$.

Thus the regularization of the NP IR singularities (2.2) is nothing but the so-called Laurent expansion that is dimensionally regularized. Let us underline its most remarkable feature. The order of singularity does not depend on $`\lambda `$, $`n`$ and $`k`$. In terms of the IR regularization parameter $`ϵ`$, it is always a simple pole $`1/ϵ`$. This means that all power terms in Eq. (2.2) will have the same singularity, i.e.,

$$(q^2)^{\frac{n}{2}k}=\frac{1}{ϵ}C_1^{(k)}+finiteterms,ϵ0^+,$$
(5)
where we can put $`D=n`$ now (i.e., after introducing this expansion). By ”$`finiteterms`$” here and everywhere a number of necessary subtractions under corresponding integrals is understood. However, the residue at a pole will be drastically changed from one power singularity to another. This means different solutions to the whole system of the SD equations for different set of numbers $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$. Different solutions mean, in turn, different vacua. Thus in this picture different vacua are to be labelled by two independent numbers: the exponent $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$. At given number of $`D(=n)`$ the exponent $`\lambda `$ is always negative being integer if $`D(=n)`$ is an even number or fractional if $`D(=n)`$ is an odd number. The number $`k`$ is always integer and positive and precisely it determines the corresponding residue at the pole, see Eq. (2.3). It would be not surprising if these numbers were somehow related to the nontrivial topology of the nD QCD vacuum.

Concluding, let us note that the structure of the severe IR singularities in Euclidean space is much simpler than in Minkowski space, where kinematical (unphysical) singularities due to the light cone also exist 1 ; 14 . In this case it is rather difficult to untangle them correctly from the dynamical singularities, the only ones which are important for the calculation of any physical observable. Also the consideration is much more complicated in configuration space 14 . That is why we always prefer to work in momentum space (where propagators do not depend explicitly on the number of dimensions) with Euclidean signature. We also prefer to work in covariant gauges in order to avoid peculiarities of the noncovariant gauges 1 ; 16 , for example how to untangle the gauge pole from the dynamical one.

## III The general structure of the full gluon propagator

For the above-mentioned purpose, namely, how to define the NP phase in QCD, it is convenient to begin with the exact decomposition of the full gluon form factor in Eq. (1.1) as follows:

$$d(q^2)=d(q^2)d^{PT}(q^2)+d^{PT}(q^2)=d^{NP}(q^2)+d^{PT}(q^2),$$
(6)
where, for simplicity, the dependence on the gauge fixing parameter is omitted. In fact, this formal equation represents one unknown function (the full gluon form factor) as an exact sum of the two other unknown functions, which can be always done. So at this stage there is no approximation made (only exact algebraic manipulations). We would like to let the PT part of this exact decomposition to be responsible for the known UV asymptotics (since it is fixed by AF) of the full gluon propagator, while the NP part is chosen to be responsible for its unknown yet IR asymptotics. It is worth emphasizing that in realistic models of the full gluon propagator, the NP part usually correctly reproduces its deep IR asymptotics, determining thus the strong intrinsic influence of the IR properties of the theory on its NP dynamics. Evidently, the decomposition (3.1) represents an exact subtraction of the PT contribution at the fundamental gluon level, and consequently both terms in the right-hand-side of Eq. (3.1) are determined in the whole momentum range, $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Let us emphasize that the exact gluon form factor $`d(q^2)`$ being also NP, nevertheless, is ”contaminated” by the PT contributions, while $`d^{NP}(q^2)`$ due to the subtraction (3.1) is free of them, i.e., it is truly NP.

Substituting the exact decomposition (3.1) into the full gluon propagator (1.1), one obtains

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q)+D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q),$$
(7)
where

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q)=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{NP}(q^2)\frac{1}{q^2}=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{INP}(q^2),$$
(8)
$$D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q)=i\{T_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{PT}(q^2)+\xi L_{\mu \nu }(q)\}\frac{1}{q^2}.$$
(9)
Here the superscript ”INP” is the short-hand notation for intrinsically NP. Its definition will given below. The exact decomposition (3.2) has a remarkable feature. The explicit gauge dependence of the full gluon propagator is exactly shifted from its INP part to its PT part. In other words, we want the INP part to be always transverse, while leaving the PT part to be of arbitrary gauge. This exact separation will have also a dynamical ground. It is clear also that the PT part of the full gluon propagator is, by definition, as much singular as the free gluon propagator’s exact power-type IR singularity. This is the first reason why the longitudinal part of the full gluon propagator, which has the same exact IR singularity, has been shifted to its PT part, and the existence of which is determined by AF.

As was mentioned above, we want the INP gluon form factor $`d^{INP}(q^2)`$ to be responsible for the deep IR structure of the full gluon propagator, which is saturated by the severe IR singularities. So there is a problem how to take them into account analytically in terms of the full gluon propagator. For this aim, it is convenient to introduce the auxiliary INP gluon form factor as follows:

$$d_{\lambda _k}^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{\lambda _k1}(q^2)^{\lambda _k}f_{\lambda _k}(q^2),$$
(10)
where the exponent $`\lambda _k`$ is, in general, an arbitrary complex number with $`Re\lambda _k<0`$ (see below). The mass squared parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ (the above-mentioned mass gap) is responsible for the scale of NP dynamics in the IR region in our approach. The functions $`f_{\lambda _k}(q^2)`$ are, by definition, dimensionless, regular at zero, and otherwise remaining arbitrary, but preserving AF in the UV limit. And finally the number $`k`$ is a positive integer, i.e., $`k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}.`$ (see above). Evidently, a real INP gluon form factor $`d^{INP}(q^2)`$, which now should depend on the mass gap as well, i.e., $`d^{INP}(q^2)d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$, is a sum over all $`d_{\lambda _k}^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$.

However, this is not the whole story yet. Since we are especially interested in the deep IR structure of the full gluon propagator, the arbitrary functions $`f_{\lambda _k}(q^2)`$ should be also expanded around zero in the form of the Taylor series in powers of $`q^2`$, i.e,

$$f_{\lambda _k}(q^2)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{[\lambda _k](n/2)}{}}\frac{(q^2)^m}{m!}f_{\lambda _k}^{(m)}(0)+\underset{m=[\lambda _k](n/2)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(q^2)^m}{m!}f_{\lambda _k}^{(m)}(0),$$
(11)
where $`[\lambda _k]`$ denotes its integer number and $`n`$ is a number of the components in the Euclidean squared form $`q^2`$ (see above). Also

$$f_{\lambda _k}^{(m)}(0)=\left(\frac{d^mf_{\lambda _k}(q^2)}{d(q^2)^m}\right)_{q^2=0}.$$
(12)
As a result, we will be left with the finite sum of power terms with an exponent decreasing by unity starting from $`\lambda _k`$. All other remaining terms from the Taylor expansion (3.6), starting from the term having already a PT IR singularity (the second sum in Eq. (3.6)), should be shifted to the PT part of the full gluon propagator in Eq. (3.2). So the INP part of the full gluon form factor becomes

$$d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\underset{\lambda _k}{}d_{\lambda _k}^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\underset{\lambda _k}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{\lambda _k1}(q^2)^{\lambda _k}\underset{m=0}{\overset{[\lambda _k](n/2)}{}}\frac{(q^2)^m}{m!}f_{\lambda _k}^{(m)}(0),$$
(13)
while the piece which is to be shifted to the PT part (3.4) of the full gluon propagator (3.2) can be shown to have only PT IR singularities with respect to the gluon momentum, indeed 13 .

## IV 4D QCD

We are particulary interested in 4D QCD (i.e., $`n=4`$), which is a realistic dynamical theory of strong interactions not only at the fundamental quark-gluon level, but at the hadronic level as well. Let us discuss the gluon propagator (3.2) in more detail for 4D QCD, i.e., QCD itself. On account of the expansion (3.8) and Eq. (2.1) at $`n=4`$ with the obvious identification $`\lambda _k\lambda `$, its INP part becomes

$$d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_k^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1+k}(q^2)^{2k}\underset{m=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(q^2)^m}{m!}f_k^{(m)}(0),$$
(14)
and $`f_k^{(0)}(0)f_k(0)`$. Obviously, in this case the subscript ”$`\lambda _k`$” should be replaced by the subscript ”$`k`$”, since $`\lambda _k=2k,k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Thus $`d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ describes the true (physical) NP vacuum of QCD, while $`d_k^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ describe the auxiliary ones, and the former is an infinite sum of the latter ones. The expansion (4.1) is obviously the Laurent expansion in the inverse powers of the gluon momentum squared, which every term ends at the simplest NP IR singularity $`(q^2)^2`$. The only physical quantity (apart from the mass gap, of course) which can appear in this expansion is the coupling constant squared in the corresponding powers. In QCD it is dimensionless and is evidently included into the $`f_k`$ functions. Let us note in advance that all the finite numerical factors and constants (for example, the coupling constant) play no independent role in the presence of a mass gap.

It is instructive to show explicitly expansions for a few first different $`d_k^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$, namely

$`d_0^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2f_0(0)(q^2)^2,`$
$`d_1^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2f_1(0)(q^2)^3+(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2f_1^{(1)}(0)(q^2)^2,`$
$`d_2^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^3f_2(0)(q^2)^4+(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^3f_2^{(1)}(0)(q^2)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^3f_2^{(2)}(0)(q^2)^2,`$
$`d_3^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^4f_3(0)(q^2)^5+(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^4f_3^{(1)}(0)(q^2)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^4f_3^{(2)}(0)(q^2)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^4f_3^{(3)}(0)(q^2)^2,`$
and so on. Apparently, there is no way that such kind of an infinite series (as it is present in expansion (4.1), on account of the relations (4.2)) could be summed up into the finite functions, i.e., functions which could be regular at zero. That is why the above-mentioned smooth gluon propagator is, in general, very unlikely to exist. Let also note in advance that the simplest NP IR singularity $`(q^2)^2`$ is present in each expansion, which emphasizes its special and important role (see below).

The expansion (4.1), on account of the relations (4.2), can be equivalently written down as follows:

$$d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q^2)^{2k}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m!}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{k+m+1}f_{k+m}^{(m)}(0)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q^2)^{2k}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{k+1}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\phi _{k,m}(0),$$
(16)
where we use the relation

$$f_{k+m}^{(m)}(0)=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^m\phi _{k,m}(0),$$
(17)
which obviously follows from the relation (3.7), since all $`f_k^{(m)}(0)`$ have the dimensions of the inverse mass squared in powers of $`m`$, i.e., $`[f_k^{(m)}(0)]=[\mathrm{\Delta }^2]^m=[\mathrm{\Delta }^2]^m`$. Here $`\phi _{k,m}(0)`$ are dimensionless quantities, by definition. This expansion explicitly shows that the coefficient at each NP IR singularity is an infinite series itself. It also shows that we can analyze the IR properties of the INP part of the full gluon form factor in terms of the mass gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and the dimensionless quantities $`\phi _{k,m}(0)`$ only, which is very convenient from a technical point of view (see below). This form of the Laurent expansion shows also clearly the dynamical context of the INP part of the full gluon propagator.

The regularization of the NP IR singularities in QCD is determined by the Laurent expansion (2.4) at $`n=4`$ as follows:

$$(q^2)^{2k}=\frac{1}{ϵ}a(k)[\delta ^4(q)]^{(k)}+f.t.,ϵ0^+,$$
(18)
where $`a(k)`$ is a finite constant depending only on $`k`$ and $`[\delta ^4(q)]^{(k)}`$ represents the $`k`$th derivative of the $`\delta `$-function (see Eq. (2.3)). We point out that after introducing this expansion everywhere one can fix the number of dimensions, indeed, i.e., put $`D=n=4`$ for QCD without any further problems, since there will be no other severe IR singularities with respect to $`ϵ`$ as it goes to zero, but those explicitly shown in this expansion. Thus, as it follows from the Laurent expansion (4.5), any power-type NP IR singularity, including the simplest one, scales as $`1/ϵ`$ as it goes to zero. Just this plays a crucial role in the IR renormalization of the theory within our approach.

## V IR renormalization of a mass gap

In the presence of such severe IR singularities (4.5), all the ”bare” parameters (dimensional or not, does not matter) should, in principle, depend on $`ϵ`$ as well, i.e., they become IR regularized. Let us thus introduce the following relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=X_\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2,ϵ0^+,$$
(19)
where $`X_\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ)`$ is the corresponding IR multiplicative renormalization (IRMR) constant. Here and below, the quantities with an overbar are, by definition, IR renormalized, i.e., they exist as $`ϵ`$ goes to zero. However, in the above-mentioned paper 13  it has been proven that neither the QCD coupling constant squared nor the gauge fixing parameter are to be IR renormalized, i.e., they are IR finite from the very beginning. As was mentioned above, they can appear only in $`f_k^{(m)}(0)`$ quantities, i.e., in $`\phi _{k,m}(0)`$ ones. So these quantities also are IR finite from the very beginning, which means that we can put $`\phi _{k,m}(0)\overline{\phi }_{k,m}(0)`$. This is so indeed, since the rest in these quantities is simply the product of the numerical factors like $`\pi `$’s in negative powers, eigenvalues of the color group generators (we are not considering the numbers of different colors and flavors as free parameters of the theory), etc.

We already know that all the NP IR singularities, which can appear in the full gluon propagator scale as $`1/ϵ`$ with respect to $`ϵ`$ (see Eq. (4.5)). So let us introduce the so-called IR convergence condition as follows:

$$X_\mathrm{\Delta }^{1+k}(ϵ)=ϵ\stackrel{~}{A}_k,ϵ0^+,$$
(20)
where we put $`\stackrel{~}{A}_k=\overline{A}_k/_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1/m!)\overline{\phi }_{k,m}(0)`$, for convenience. The cancellation of the NP IR singularities with respect to $`ϵ`$ then will be guaranteed in Eq. (4.3), and one obtains the finite (nonzero) result in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit for every $`k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Here $`\overline{A}_k`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_k`$ are some arbitrary, but finite constants, not depending on $`ϵ`$ as it goes to zero.

It makes sense to emphasize now that this IR convergence condition should be valid at any $`k`$, in particular at $`k=0`$, so it follows $`X_\mathrm{\Delta }(ϵ)=ϵ\stackrel{~}{A}_0,ϵ0^+`$, which means that in this case one is able to establish an explicit solution for the mass gap’s IRMR constant. Thus the mass gap is IR renormalized as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=ϵ\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2,ϵ0^+,$$
(21)
where we include an arbitrary but finite constant $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$ into the IR renormalized mass gap $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2`$, and retaining the same notation, for simplicity. This means that in what follows we can put it to unity, not losing generality, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0=1`$.

It is instructive to rewrite the expansion (4.3) as follows:

$$d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q^2)^2\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\overline{\phi }_{0,m}(0)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(q^2)^{2k}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{k+1}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\overline{\phi }_{k,m}(0).$$
(22)
Taking into account now the above-described scaling with respect to $`ϵ`$, the INP part of the full gluon form factor effectively becomes

$$d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q^2)^2\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\overline{\phi }_{0,m}(0),$$
(23)
where finite dimensionless quantities $`\overline{\phi }_{0,m}(0)`$ contain the IR finite coupling constant squared (in different powers, of course, so the whole expansion in $`m`$ includes all powers in the coupling constant squared). It also contains the different combinations of the finite numerical factors only. Evidently, no other terms, explicitly shown in the expansion (5.4) as the second sum, will survive in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit. They become terms of the order of $`ϵ`$, at least, in this limit (they start from $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2ϵ^2`$, while $`(q^2)^{2k}`$ always scales as $`1/ϵ`$). In other words, in the Laurent expansion (5.4) only the terms which contain the simplest NP IR singularity with respect to the gluon momentum $`(q^2)^2`$ will survive as $`ϵ0^+`$. In this case all terms (apart from the simplest NP IR singularity) will be additionally suppressed in positive powers of $`ϵ`$. The IR renormalization of the mass gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ in accordance with Eq. (5.3) cancels $`1/ϵ`$, which comes from the regularization of $`(q^2)^2`$. The so-called ”f.t.” terms in the Laurent expansion (4.5) become terms of the order of $`ϵ`$, at least, so here and everywhere they vanish in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit.

## VI ZMME quantum model of the QCD ground state

The true QCD ground state is a very complicated confining medium, containing many types of gluon field configurations, components, ingredients and objects of different nature. Its dynamical and topological complexity means that its structure can be organized at both the quantum and classical levels 1 ; 17 . Our quantum, dynamical model of the true QCD true vacuum is based on the existence and the importance of such kind of the NP excitations and fluctuations of gluon field configurations which are due to the self-interaction of massless gluons only, without explicitly involving some extra degrees of freedom. They are to be summarized (accumulated) into the INP part of the full gluon propagator, and are to be effectively correctly described by its strongly singular structure in the deep IR domain (for simplicity, we will call them as singular gluon field configurations). At this stage, it is difficult to identify actually which type of gauge field configurations can be behind the singular gluon field configurations in the QCD ground state (i.e., to identify relevant field configurations: chromomagnetic, self-dual, stochastic, etc.). However, if these gauge field configurations can be absorbed into the gluon propagator (i.e., if they can be considered as solutions to the corresponding SD equation), then its severe IR singular behavior is a common feature for all of them. Being thus a general phenomenon, the existence and the importance of quantum excitations and fluctuations of the severely IR degrees of freedom inevitably lead to the ZMME effect in the QCD ground state. That is why we call our model of the QCD ground state as the ZMME quantum model, or simply zero modes enhancement (ZME, since we work always in the momentum space). For preliminary investigation of this model see our papers 18 ; 19  and references therein.

Our approach to the QCD true ground state, based on the ZMME phenomenon there, in terms of the gluon propagator, can be analytically formulated as follows:

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })+D_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q),$$
(24)
where the INP part of the full gluon propagator before the IR renormalization is

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)\times \left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2\overline{A}_0(q^2)^2+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^{1+k}a_k(q^2)^{2k}\right],$$
(25)
where $`a_k=(\overline{A}_k/\stackrel{~}{A}_k)`$ and we used Eq. (5.4), on account of the relation (5.2) for the coefficients. In fact, Eq. (6.2) is already partially IR renormalized with respect to the coefficients, but not with respect to the mass gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and the NP IR singularities $`(q^2)^{2k}`$. After the IR renormalization it effectively becomes

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\mathrm{\Delta })=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)d^{INP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Delta }^2)=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q^2)^2,$$
(26)
since only the first term in Eq.(6.2) survives in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit, as was explained above. An arbitrary but finite constant $`\overline{A}_0`$ has been included into the mass gap with retaining the same notation, for convenience. The PT part of the full gluon propagator in any case remains undetermined (see remaks below).

### VI.1 Confinement criterion for gluons

It is worth discussing the properties of the obtained solution for the full gluon propagator in more detail. It is already clear that by the IR renormalization of the mass gap only, we can render the full gluon propagator IR finite from the very beginning, t.e., to put $`D(q)\overline{D}(q)=\overline{D}^{INP}(q)+\overline{D}^{PT}(q)`$ (this has been rigorously proven in Ref. 13 ). In principle, two different cases should be considered due to the distribution nature of the simplest NP IR singularity$`(q^2)^2`$, which saturates its INP part in Eq. (6.3).

I. If there is the explicit integration over the gluon momentum, then from Eq. (6.3) it follows

$$\overline{D}^{INP}(q)\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})=iT_{\mu \nu }(q)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\pi ^2\delta ^4(q),$$
(27)
i.e., in this case we have to replace the NP IR singularity $`(q^2)^2`$ in Eq. (6.3) by its $`\delta `$-type regularization (4.5) at $`k=0`$. We also always should take into account the relation (5.3) for the IR renormalization of the mass gap in order to express all relations in terms of the IR renormalized quantities. The $`\delta `$-type regularization is valid even for the multi-loop skeleton diagrams, where the number of independent loops is equal to the number of the gluon propagators. In the multi-loop skeleton diagrams, where these numbers do not coincide (for example, in the diagrams containing three or four-gluon proper vertices), the general regularization (4.5) should be used (i.e., derivatives of the $`\delta `$-functions), and not the product of the $`\delta `$-functions at the same point, which has no mathematical meaning in the DT sense 14 .

II. If there is no explicit integration over the gluon momentum, then the full gluon propagator is reduced to $`D(q)\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }(q)=\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{PT}(q)`$ in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit, since in this case the function $`(q^2)^2`$ in Eq. (6.3) cannot be treated as the distribution. Only the relation (5.3) again comes out into the play. So the INP part of the full gluon propagator (6.3) in this case disappears as $`ϵ`$ as $`ϵ0^+`$, namely

$$\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }^{INP}(q,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2)ϵ,ϵ0^+.$$
(28)
This means that any amplitude (more precisely its INP part, see below) for any number of soft-gluon emissions (no integration over their momenta) will vanish in the IR limit in our picture. In other words, there are no transverse gluons in the IR, i.e., at large distances (small momenta) there is no possibility to observe gluons experimentally as free particles. So this behavior can be treated as the gluon confinement criterion (see also Ref. 12 ), and it supports the consistency of the exact solution (6.3) for the INP part of the full gluon propagator. Evidently, this behavior does not explicitly depend on the gauge choice in the full gluon propagator, i.e., it is a manifestly gauge-invariant as it should be, in principle. Concluding this Sect., it is worth underlining that the gluon confinement criterion (6.5) is valid in the general case as well, i.e., before explicitly showing that the QCD coupling constant squared and the gauge fixing parameter are IR finite 13 .

subsectionINP phase in QCD

For the sake of self-consistency and transparency of our approach to low-energy QCD, it is convenient to discuss in more detail what we mean by the INP phase in QCD. The INP part of the full gluon propagator is, in general, given in Eqs. (6.4) and (6.5) for the above-discussed two different cases. Let us remind that within our approach all the severe IR singularities of the dynamical origin possible in QCD are to be incorporated into the full gluon propagator and are to be effectively correctly described by its INP part. So all other QCD Green’s functions can be considered as regular functions with respect to all the gluon momenta involved. If, nevertheless, they might be singular, then it would require a completely different investigation, anyway.

In principle, all other fundamental quantities in QCD could be formally decomposed similar to the decomposition (6.1) for the full gluon propagator. Evidently, this should be done for quantities, which explicitly depend on the gluon momenta, i.e., proper vertices. The decomposition does not make any sense for the coupling constant, quark and ghost propagators, since they do not depend on the gluon momentum. This is also true for the quark- and ghost-gluon proper vertices, since they depend on the quark and ghost momenta, which are completely independent from the gluon momentum, playing the role of the momentum transfer in these vertices. So the only proper vertices which makes sense to decompose are the pure gluon vertices, since they crucially depend on all the gluon momenta involved.

However, we define the INP phase in QCD in more general terms, which includes the decomposition of the full gluon propagator only as follows:

(i) It is always transverse, i.e., it depends only on physical degrees of freedom of gauge bosons.

(ii) Before the IR renormalization, the presence of the NP IR singularities $`(q^2)^{2k},k=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ is only possible.

(iii). After the IR renormalization, the INP part of the full gluon propagator is fully saturated by the simplest NP IR singularity and all other NP IR singularities will be additionally suppressed in the $`ϵ0^+`$ limit.

(iv). There is an inevitable dependence on the mass gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, so that when it formally goes to zero, then the INP phase vanishes, while the PT phase survives.

This definition implies that the INP part of any multi-loop skeleton diagram in QCD should contain only the INP parts of all the corresponding gluon propagators. At the same time, the PT part of any multi-loop skeleton diagram always remains of arbitrary gauge. It may even contain the terms, where the NP IR singularities are present along with the PT IR ones as well (the so-called general PT term). Let us also remind, that at the level of a single full gluon propagator, its PT part is defined as to be of arbitrary gauge and is as much singular as $`1/q^2`$. The difference between the NP IR singularities $`(q^2)^{2k}`$ and the PT IR singularity $`(q^2)^1`$ is that the latter is not defined by its own Laurent expansion (4.5) that is dimensionally regularized like the former ones. That is why it does not require the IR renormalization program itself.

## VII Discussion

Evidently, the ZMME mechanism for quark confinement is nothing but the well forgotten IR slavery (IRS) one, which can be equivalently referred to as a strong coupling regime 1 . Indeed, at the very beginning of QCD it was expressed a general idea 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12  that the quantum excitations of the IR degrees of freedom, because of self-interaction of massless gluons in the QCD vacuum, made it only possible to understand confinement, DCSB and other NP effects. In other words, the importance of the deep IR structure of the true QCD vacuum has been emphasized as well as its relevance to quark confinement, DCSB, etc., and the other way around. This development was stopped by the wide-spread wrong opinion that the severe IR singularities cannot be put under control. We have explicitly shown that the correct mathematical theory of quantum YM physical theory is the theory of distributions (theory of generalized functions) 14 , complemented by the DR method 15 . They provide a correct treatment of these severe IR singularities without any problems. Thus we come back to the old idea but on a new basis that is why it becomes new (”new is well forgotten old”). In other words, we only put the IRS mechanism of quark confinement on a firm mathematical ground provided by DT.

There are a lot of direct and indirect evidences in favor of this behavior, Eq. (6.3) 13 . Let us note only that as a possible IR asymptotics of the full gluon propagator in different covariant and non-covariant gauges, it has been already successfully investigated in Refs. 20 ; 21 ; 22 ; 23 ; 24 ; 25 . Following the pioneering paper of Pagels 12 , we always used it in our preliminary investigation of the quark confinement problem (see Refs. 18 ; 19  and references therein). It is worth emphasizing, however, that Eq. (6.3) is an exact result, and expresses not only the deep IR asymptotics of the full gluon propagator. Just this behavior (6.3) in the continuous theory provides the linear rising potential (indicative of confinement) between heavy quarks ”seen” by lattice simulations 3 .

## VIII Conclusions

Emphasizing the highly nontrivial structure of the true QCD ground state in the deep IR region, one can conclude:

1). The self-interaction of massless gluons is only responsible for the ZMME effect in the true QCD vacuum, which in its turn, is to be taken into account by the deep IR structure of the full gluon propagator.

2). The full gluon propagator thus is inevitably more singular in the IR than its free counterpart.

3). This requires the existence of a mass gap, which is responsible for the NP dynamics in the QCD vacuum. It appears on dynamical ground due to the self-interaction of massless gluons only.

4). We decompose algebraically (i.e., exactly) the full gluon propagator as a sum of its INP and PT parts. We additionally distinguish between them dynamically by the different character of the IR singularities in each part.

5). We have exactly established the general IR structure of the full gluon propagator in QCD as an infinite sum over all possible NP IR singularities (see the expansion (4.1) or equivalently (4.3)).

6). The next step is to regularize them correctly, i.e., to use the Laurent expansion (4.5) that is dimensionally regularized.

7). We emphasize once more that the IR renormalization program is based on an important observation that the NP IR singularities $`(q^2)^{2k}`$, being distributions, always scale as $`1/ϵ`$, not depending on the power of the singularity $`k`$, i.e., $`(q^2)^{2k}1/ϵ`$. It is easy to understand that otherwise none of the IR renormalization program in the INP phase of QCD and QCD itself would be possible.

8). The IR renormalization of the initial mass gap (Eq. (5.3)) is only needed in order to fix uniquely and exactly the IR structure of the full gluon propagator in QCD. It is saturated by the simplest NP IR singularity, the famous $`(q^2)^2`$, Eq. (6.3). The mass gap gains contributions from all orders of PT in the QCD coupling constant squared, which remains IR finite.

9). On this basis, we have formulated the ZMME model of the true QCD ground state. Due to the distribution nature of the NP IR singularities, two different types of the IR renormalization of the INP part of the full gluon propagator are required, preserving, nevertheless, its IR finiteness.

10). This makes it possible to establish the gluon confinement criterion in a manifestly gauge-invariant way in Eq. (6.5).

11). In the same way, we define exactly the INP phase in QCD at the fundamental gluon level. The corresponding decomposition of the full gluon propagator is only needed in order to firmly control the IR region in QCD within our approach (only it contains explicitly the mass gap).

Our general conclusions are:

I. The NP structure of the true QCD ground state is to be described by the IR structure of the full gluon propagator.

II. In its turn, it is an infinite sum over all possible NP IR singularities. Due to their distribution nature, any solution to the gluon SD equation has to be always present in the form of the corresponding Laurent expansion. It makes it possible to control both, the whole expansion as well as its each term, by the correct use of DT.

III. The mass gap responsible for the NP dynamics in the true QCD ground state is required. This is important, since there is none in the QCD Lagrangian.

IV. Complemented by the DR method, DT puts the treatment of the NP IR singularities on a firm mathematical ground. So there is no place for theoretical uncertainties. The wide-spread opinion that they cannot be controlled is not justified.

V. This makes it possible to fix uniquely the IR structure of the full gluon propagator in QCD, not solving directly the corresponding SD equation itself. Thus we have exactly established the interaction between quarks (concerning its pure gluon (i.e., nonlinear) contribution up to its unimportant PT part).

VI. This somehow astonishingly radical result has been achieved at the expense of the PT part of the full gluon propagator. It remains of arbitrary covariant gauge and its functional dependence cannot be determined.

However, let us note in advance that our theory (which we call INP QCD) will be additionally defined by the subtraction of all types of the PT contributions in order to completely decouple it from QCD as a whole (the first step in these subtractions has been already done in Eq. (3.1)). To discuss this point and many other interesting features of our approach in detail 13  is, of course, beyond the scope of this Letter.

A financial support from HAS-JINR Scientific Collaboration Fund (P. Levai) and Hungarian Scientific Fund OTKA T30171 (K. Toth) is to be acknowledged.