arxiv:hep-th/ v1 28 May 2001

Transcription

1 Chiba Univ. Preprint CHIBA-EP-128 hep-th/ May 2001 The Most General and Renormalizable Maximal Abelian Gauge arxiv:hep-th/ v1 28 May 2001 Toru Shinohara, 1, Takahito Imai 1, and Kei-Ichi Kondo 1,2, 1 Graduate School of Science and Technology, Chiba University, Chiba , Japan 2 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Chiba University, Chiba , Japan Abstract We have constructed the most general gauge fixing term for the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, which leaves the global U(1) gauge symmetry intact (i.e., the most general Maximal Abelian gauge). From the viewpoint of renormalizability, we point out the importance of an additional gauge fixing parameter that is not included in the ordinary gauge fixing term with the global SU(2) gauge symmetry. By requiring a number of symmetries without spoiling the renormalizability, we restrict the most general gauge to a minimum gauge which is considered to be the essential part of the maximal Abelian gauge. Then we demonstrate that a new parameter κ introduced in this gauge is very efficient in order to examine the renormalizability. In fact, we confirm the renormalizability of this gauge together with a new parameter κ by calculating explicitly the anomalous dimensions of all the parameters at one loop order. Key words: maximal Abelian gauge, Abelian dominance, renormalizability, non- Abelian gauge theory PACS: Aw, Lg sinohara@cuphd.nd.chiba-u.ac.jp takahito@physics.s.chiba-u.ac.jp kondo@cuphd.nd.chiba-u.ac.jp

2 1 Introduction The gauge fixing is an indispensable procedure in quantizing the continuum gauge theory. It is believed that the physically meaningful results do not depend on the gauge fixing condition. Therefore we can adopt any favorite gauge fixing condition for our purpose. The maximal Abelian (MA) gauge is one of the gauge fixing conditions which seems to be very useful to investigate the physics of the low energy sector of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The reason is as follows. In the low energy region of QCD, the Abelian projection procedure[1] or a hypothesis of Abelian dominance[2] has been justified by the recent research mainly based on numerical simulations[3]. Here the Abelian dominance has played an important role in the low energy phenomenon of QCD, for instance, quark confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. Especially, quark confinement can be explained by the dual superconductor picture[4] at least qualitatively. Dual superconductivity of QCD is expected to be described by the dual Ginzburg-Landau (DGL) theory. However, the DGL theory is an Abelian gauge theory, while QCD is an SU(3) non-abelian gauge theory. Therefore, in order to adopt the dual superconductor picture responsible for the low energy physics in QCD such as quark confinement, the Abelian projection procedure is necessary. Thus we expect that the maximal Abelian gauge [5] is the most useful gauge for describing the low energy region of QCD. In a series of papers[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], we have attempted to give an analytical framework which is able to explain the Abelian dominance in QCD in the MA gauge from the viewpoint of renormalizability. The MA gauge is a nonlinear gauge fixing condition, in sharp contrast with the conventional gauge fixing of the Lorentz type which is a linear gauge. Due to this non-linearity, we must introduce the quartic ghost anti-ghost self-interaction to maintain the renormalizability. The modified MA gauge fixing term[7, 9] was devised to incorporate such a self-interaction term in a natural way. We have pointed out a possibility of dynamical mass generation of offdiagonal gluons and off-diagonal ghosts due to the ghost anti-ghost condensation. The fact that the off-diagonal fields become massive while the diagonal fields remain massless gives an analytical explanation of Abelian dominance in the low energy region. In this paper, we investigate the SU(N) Yang-Mills theory in the maximal Abelian gauge from a viewpoint of renormalizability. Various phenomena supporting the Abelian dominance in the low-energy sector of QCD have been reported for the maximal Abelian gauge. The MA gauge partially fixes the non-abelian gauge symmetry leaving the residual U(1) N 1 gauge symmetry. In previous papers[7, 9], we have proposed a modified MA gauge fixing term that includes a quartic off-diagonal ghost self interaction term from the viewpoint of renormalizability. After the MA gauge fixing, there remains the residual U(1) N 1 gauge symmetry. Then we must fix the residual symmetry to completely fix the gauge degrees of freedom. The most naive choice of the gauge fixing condition for the residual U(1) N 1 gauge symmetry is the Lorentz gauge just as in the ordinary Abelian gauge theory. However, it is not clear whether this choice is available or not in our context. This is because we must consider more general gauge fixing term than that in the conven- 1

3 tional Lorentz gauge, since the MA gauge fixes partially not only the local SU(N) gauge symmetry but also the global SU(N) gauge symmetry. In the most general MA gauge, therefore, we can not require the global SU(N) gauge symmetry for the gauge fixing term, but require only the global U(1) N 1 gauge symmetry. A detailed consideration of such a gauge fixing term in the case of SU(2) has already been attempted by Min, Lee and Pac[12] or Hata and Niigata[13]. However, in this paper, we point out that an introduction of one more parameter is more efficient for discussing the total renormalizability of the theory by keeping various symmetries which we want to require for the renormalized theory. In fact, we demonstrate its usefulness by a perturbative calculation at one-loop level by making use of the dimensional regularization. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we give a general consideration on the renormalizable gauge fixing term respecting the global U(1) gauge symmetry in the SU(2) non-abelian gauge theory. By taking account of the symmetries, we can fix some of the parameters without spoiling the renormalizability. Then we restrict our consideration to a fixed parameter subspace. It is possible to choose a minimum set of the maximal Abelian gauge by restricting the parameter space to three independent parameters. In section 3, we determine all the remaining parameter in the minimum choice of the most general MA gauge, although some of the anomalous dimensions have already been obtained in the previous papers[10, 11]. By a thorough treatment of a new parameter κ, the renormalizability of the modified MA gauge is confirmed. We give the conclusion and discussion in the final section. 2 The most general gauge fixing terms In this section, we construct the most general gauge fixing term for the Maximal Abelian gauge in the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. Note that we require only the global U(1) symmetry to the gauge fixing term, not the global SU(2) gauge symmetry. The most general gauge fixing term is obtained in the BRST exact form, S GF+FP = i d 4 xδ B G, (1) where G is a functional of gluons A A µ = (Aa µ, a µ), ghosts C A = (C a, C 3 ), anti-ghosts C A = ( C a, C 3 ) and Nakanishi-Lautrup fields B A = (B a, B 3 ) with a = 1, 2. First, the functional G must satisfy the following requirements. 1) The functional G must be of mass dimension 3. Since A A µ = (Aa µ, a µ), C A = (C a, C 3 ), C A = ( C a, C 3 ) and B A = (B a, B 3 ) has respectively the mass dimension 1, 1, 1 and 2, a monomial in the functional G consists of at most three fields. 2) The functional G must has the global U(1) symmetry. 3) The functional G must has the ghost number 1. A A µ = (Aa µ, a µ), C A = (C a, C 3 ), CA = ( C a, C 3 ) and B A = (B a, B 3 ) has respectively the ghost numer 0, 1, -1 and 0. 2

4 From the above requirements 1) and 2), the possible form of the monomials in G can be classified into seven groups: δ ab X a Y b Z 3, ǫ ab3 X a Y b Z 3, X 3 Y 3 Z 3, (2) δ ab X a Y a, ǫ ab X a Y b, X 3 Y 3, (3) X 3. (4) Taking account of the fact that the functional G is of the form, G = CΦ, (5) apart from the index, we find that one of X, Y and Z must be an anti-ghost C A = ( C a, C 3 ) and that Φ must be of dimension 2 and of ghost number zero from the requirement 3). Second, we consider the global SU(2) symmetry which is broken by the MA gauge fixing. The invariants under the global SU(2) rotation are ǫ ABC X A Y B Z C, δ AB X A X B. (6) Therefore, the three groups of the seven groups belong to this type: The remaining four groups, ǫ ab3 X a Y b Z 3, δ ab X a Y b, X 3 Y 3. (7) δ ab X a Y b Z 3, X 3 Y 3 Z 3, ǫ ab X a Y b, X 3, (8) are incompatible with the global SU(2) symmetry if they exist in the functional G. They are called the exceptional terms. Thus, the possible form of the functional is rewritten as ( S GF+FP = i d 4 xδ B G (a) + G (i) + G ex), (9) where we have decomposed the terms belonging to the first group (7) into two functionals G (a) and G (i) according to their forms, and G ex denotes the exceptional terms of the form, G (a) = C a Φ a, G (i) = C 3 Ψ 3, (10) G ex = C a Φ a + C 3 Ψ 3. (11) The first functional G (a) plays the role of partially fixing the SU(2) gauge symmetry to U(1). The possible form of monomials in G (a) is either ǫ ab3 Ca Y b Z 3 or δ ab Ca Y b. It is easy to see that the possible choices are given as ǫ ab3 Ca Y b Z 3 ǫ ab3 Ca (C b C3, C b C 3, A b µa µ ) and δ ab Ca Y b δ ab Ca (B b, µ A b µ). Thus the most general form of G (a) is given by [ G (a) := C a ( µ δ ab ξgǫ ab a µ )A b µ + α 2 Ba i ζ ] 2 g2 ǫ ab Cb C 3 + iηg 2 ǫ ab C3 C b. (12) 3

5 It turns out that the off-diagonal component of the Nakanishi-Lautrup field B a is generated from this functional after performing the BRST transformation explicitly. By making use of the anti-brst transformation, this functional is recast into ] G (a) δ B [ 1 2 Aµa A a µ ζ 2 ica Ca where we have introduced a new parameter + C a [ i(1 ξ)gǫ ab a µ A a µ + λ 2 Ba + iηg 2 ǫ ab C3 C b ], (13) λ := α ζ. (14) The first term of the right hand side of (13) is both BRST and anti-brst exact, and give rise to the modified MA gauge fixing term proposed in the previous papers[7, 9]. After performing the BRST transformation, we obtain S (a) := i d 4 xδ B G (a) { α = d 4 x 2 Ba B a + B a D ξµ A a µ igζǫab B a Cb C 3 + igηǫ ab B a C3 C b igηǫ ab B 3 Ca C b + i C a D ξµ D µ C a +igǫ ab Ca D ξµ A b µ C3 + g(1 ξ)ǫ ab Ca A b µ µ C 3 igǫ ad ǫ cb Ca C b A c µ Aµd +g 2ζ 4 ǫab ǫ cd Ca Cb C c C d + g 2 η C 3 C 3 Ca C a }, (15) where we have defined a covariant derivative D ξ µ in terms of the Abelian gluon a µ as wchich is abbreviated in the special case of ξ = 1 as D ξ µ Φa := ( µ δ ab ξgǫ ab a µ )Φ b, (16) D µ Φ a := D ξ=1 µ Φ a = ( µ δ ab gǫ ab a µ )Φ b. (17) The second functional G (i) is used to fix the residual U(1) gauge symmetry. The possible monomials are of two types: ǫ ab3 C3 Y a Z b and δ 33 C3 Y 3. Therefore, we obtain ǫ ab3 C3 Y a Z b ǫ ab3 C3 ( C a C b, A a µ Aµb = 0) and δ 33 C3 Y 3 δ 33 C3 (B 3, µ a µ ). It should be remarked that the term proportional to C 3 ǫ ab Ca C b is a candidate for the terms in this functional. However, such a term has already been included in Eq. (12) as the last term. Thus the general form of G (i) is given by [ G (i) := C 3 κ µ a µ + β ] 2 B3. (18) After performing the BRST transformation, we obtain S (i) := i d 4 xδ B G (i) { β = d 4 x 2 B3 B 3 + κb 3 µ a µ + iκ C 3 2 C 3 + igκ C } 3 ǫ ab µ (A a µc b ). (19) 4

6 The last functional G ex in Eq. (9) includes exceptional terms. The possible forms are classified into δ ab X a Y b Z 3, X 3 Y 3 Z 3, ǫ ab X a Y b and X 3. The trilinear monomials are δ ab Ca Y b Z 3 δ ab Ca (A b µa µ, C b C 3 = 0, C b C3 ) and δ ab C3 X a Y b C 3 δ ab (A a µa µb, C a C b ). Moreover, X 3 Y 3 Z 3 C 3 (a µ a µ, C 3 C 3 = 0). The bilinear terms are ǫ ab X a Y b ǫ ab Ca (B b, µ A b µ ). The linear term is X3 C 3 (Λ 2, 2 ) with a parameter Λ of mass dimension one. Thus G ex is given by G ex := g C [ χ 3 2 aµ a µ + 2 Aµa A a µ + iς C ] a C a + gω(λ ) C 3 + C a ǫ ab (ϑ µ δ bc gǫ bc a µ )A c µ, (20) where we have ommitted the bilinear term ǫ ab Ca B b, since it gives a vanishing contribution after the BRST transformation, δ B (ǫ ab Ca B b ) = 0. Now we require only the global U(1) gauge symmetry for the gauge fixing terms so that the terms included in Eq. (20) are not forbidden in spite of the fact that the diagonal index is not contracted. The second term in the right hand side of (20) becomes a linear term in B 3 after carrying out the BRST transformation. We make use of the dimensional regularization in this paper so that the divergence coming from the tadpole of B 3 does not appear as a result of perturbative loop expansions. Therefore we can set the parameter ω = 0 without spoiling the renormalizability. After performing the BRST transformation, we obtain S ex := i d 4 xδ B G ex { = d 4 x igςb a C3 C a + ϑǫ ab B a µ A b µ + g B a a µ A µa g 2 B3 A a µ Aµa g χ 2 B3 a µ a µ + igςb 3 Ca C a +iϑǫ ab Ca D µ D µ C b + ig( ϑ) C a a µ D µ C a igϑ C a D µ A a µ C3 + ig( ϑ) C a µ C 3 A a µ ig2 ( ϑ)ǫ ab Ca C 3 a µ A µb +ig C 3 A a µ Dµ C a + igχǫ ba C3 a µ A µb C a +igχ C 3 a µ µ C 3 + ig 2 ǫ bc Ca A b µ Cc A µa g 2 ςǫ ab C3 Ca C b C 3 }. (21) Summing up three functionals and integrating out the Nakanishi-Lautrup fields, we obtain the most general form of the gauge fixing term with global U(1) symmetry as { S GF+FP = d 4 x + i C a D µξ D µ C a + iϑǫ ab Ca D µ D µ C b + iκ C 3 2 C 3 ig κ β (ηǫab + ςδ ab ) C a C b µ a µ + i( ϑ) C a a µ D µ C a i g2 χ β (ηǫab + ςδ ab ) C a C b a µ a µ +ig λ α ǫab Ca D ξµ A b µc 3 + g(1 ξ)ǫ ab Ca A b µ µ C 3 ig λ α ϑ C a D µ A a µc 3 +ig( ϑ) C a µ C 3 A a µ 5

7 ig 2 λ α ( ϑ)ǫab Ca C 3 a µ A µb igκǫ ab µ C3 A a µc b + ig C 3 A a µd µ C a i g α (ηǫab + ςδ ab ) C 3 C b D ξµ A a µ igϑ α (ηδab + ςǫ ab ) C 3 C b D µ A a µ +igχǫ ab C3 a µ A µa C b i g2 α ( ϑ)(ηǫab + ςδ ab ) C 3 C b a µ A µa +igχ C 3 a µ µ C 3 ( +ig 2 ( ǫ ad + δ ad )ǫ cb ) β (ηǫab + ςδ ab )δ cd C a C b A c µ Aµd +g 2 ( ( η2 2β + ζ 4 )ǫab ǫ cd + ης β ǫab δ cd + ς2 2β δab δ cd g 2 λ α (ηδab + ςǫ ab ) C 3 Ca C b C 3 ) C a Cb C c C d 1 ( D ξµ A a µ + ϑǫ ab D µ A b µ + g( ϑ)a µ A µa) 2 2α 1 ( κ µ a µ + g A a µ 2β Aµa + gχa µ a µ) 2 }. (22) The GF term S GF has eleven independent (gauge fixing) parameters ξ, α, ζ, η, κ, β, χ,, ς, ϑ and. We can investigate the fixed points through the renormalization group flow in the parameter space. However, we expect some fixed points to exist from the viewpoint of symmetries. For instance, there is a fixed subspace in the parameter space protected by the following symmetries. 1 Charge conjugation: The exceptional part (20) breaks the charge conjugation symmetry[13] under the discrete transformation: Φ 1 Φ 1, Φ 2 Φ 2, Φ 3 Φ 3, (23) where Φ A denotes all fields. Any term belongs to the group (8) is not invariant under this charge conjugation, while Any term belongs to the group (7) is invariant under the charge conjugation. Therefore, by setting the parameter χ = = ς = ω = ϑ = = 0, the charge conjugation symmetry is recovered. However, once we consider the non-perturbative effect, for instance ghost antighost condensation proposed in the previous paper[9], it is not expected that there is the charge conjugation invariance. 2 Translational invariance for C 3 : By setting the parameter to η = 0 and χ = = ς = ω = 0, the GF term respects a global symmetry under the translation of the diagonal anti-ghost C 3 (x) as C 3 (x) C 3 (x) + θ 3 where θ 3 is a constant 1 Some of these symmetries were first pointed out by Hata and Niigata in Ref. [13]. 2 There are two types ghost anti-ghost condensation, C a Ca = C 1 C1 + C 2 C2 and ǫ ab Ca C b = C 1 C2 C 2 C1. The charge conjugation invariance is broken by the latter one. (See Ref. [9] for more details.) 6

8 Grassmann variable. This is because the diagonal anti-ghost C 3 appears only in the differentiated form µ C3 for this choice of the parameters. Then the translational symmetry of C 3 exist in the theory. Translational invariance for C 3 : By setting the parameter to α = ζ, the action has a global symmetry under the translation of the diagonal ghost as C 3 (x) C 3 (x)+θ 3 where θ 3 is a constant Grassmann variable. In the similar manner to the previous case, we can confirm that the translational symmetry of C 3 exists in this case. Implicit residual U(1) invariance: By setting the parameter to ξ = 1, χ = = ς = ω = 0 and = ϑ, the action has the residual U(1) gauge symmetry mentioned in the previous paper[10], although the gauge fixing for the residual U(1) gauge symmetry has already been accomplished. As we have mentioned in the previous paper[10], there is the U(1) gauge symmetry if the diagonal gluon does not appear in the action after replacing all the derivatives with the Abelian covariant derivative defined by (17) except for a quadratic term as ( µ a µ ) 2. In the view of the background field method[14], there is a gauge symmetry with respect to the background diagonal field. Anti-BRST symmetry: By setting the parameter to χ = = ς = ω = 0, ϑ = = 0, 1 ξ κ = 0 and α β +η ζ = 0, the action has the anti-brst invariance. Then the action is given by S GF { [ 1 d 4 x iδ B δb 2 Aµa A a µ i 2 (η + ζ)ca Ca + κ ] 2 aµ a µ ηic 3 C (α η ζ)ba B A }. (24) Here, the second term in the integrand of the right hand side of the Eq. (24) is not exact in the combined BRST and anti-brst transformations, δ B δb, differently from the fisrt term. However, the second term is both BRST and anti-brst invariant since B A B A = iδ B ( C A B A ) = i δ B (C A B A ). FP conjugation invariance: After setting the parameter to χ = = ς = ω = 0, ϑ = = 0, ξ = 0, κ = 1, β = 2η and α = ζ + η, the action has the invariance under the FP ghost conjugation: C A ± C A, CA C A, B A B A, BA B A, A A µ A A µ. (25) Global SU(2) invariance: After setting the parameter to χ = = ς = ω = 0, ϑ = = 0, ξ = 0, κ = 1, α = β and ζ = η, the action has the global SU(2) invariance. Then the action is given by S GF { d 4 xiδ B CA [ µ A Aµ + α 2 BA ζ ]} 2 ǫabc CB C C. (26) 7

9 There might be the other fixed subspace of parameters protected by the other symmetries, for example, Sp(2) symmetry for the multiplet of ghost and anti-ghost (C, C), see e.g. Ref. [9]. A remarkable difference between our gauge fixing procedure and that of the previous works (Min, Lee and Pac [12] and Hata and Niigata[13]) is the existence of a new parameter κ. If we do not require the recovery of global SU(2) gauge symmetry in our gauge fixing, then there is no need to set the parameter κ to 1 against Ref. [13]. Of course, if the parameter κ is not affected by renormalization or there is a fixed point at κ = 1, the special choice of κ = 1 is allowed. However, as we shall see later, neither the anomalous dimension of κ is a non-renormalized parameter nor there is a fixed point at κ = 1. In the work [12], the introduction of an extra parameter was avoided by introducing different renormalization factors for the ghost and antighost. It may seem that the parameter κ can be absorbed by rescaling the diagonal ghost C 3 and diagonal anti-ghost C 3. However, such a rescaling varies the BRST transformation and hence the renormalized BRST transformation fails to absorb the divergences due to the absence of renormalization of κ. This is a reason why we have introduced an extra parameter by keeping the same renormalization factors for the ghost and anti-ghost. Another advantage of this procedure is that the symmetry of the renormalized theory under the FP conjugation (i.e., the symmetry of the renormalized theory under the exchange of the ghost and anti-ghost) is easily examined for the renormalized theory, since the renormalized ghost and anti-ghost fields are defined through the same renormalization factor. 3 The minimum choice of the gauge fixing terms By requiring some of the symmetries listed in the previous section, that is, charge conjugation, translational invariance of the diagonal ghost C 3 or anti-ghost C 3 and implicit U(1) gauge symmetry, we obtain the minimum choice of the renormalizable MA gauge. Setting parameters as α = ζ, ξ = 1, and η = χ = = ς = ω = ϑ = = 0, (27) we arrive at the gauge fixing terms with three parameters α, β and κ. [ 1 := i d 4 xδ B δb 2 Aµa A a µ α ] { [ 2 ica Ca i d 4 xδ B C 3 κ µ a µ + β ]} 2 B3 S GF = { d 4 x B a D µ A b µ + α 2 Ba B a + i C a D 2 C b ig 2 ǫ ad ǫ cb Ca C b A µc A d µ +igǫ ab Ca (D µ A b µ )C3 iαgǫ ab B a Cb C 3 + α 4 g2 ǫ ab ǫ cd Ca Cb C c C d +κb 3 µ a µ + β 2 B3 B 3 + iκ C 3 2 C 3 + iκ C } 3 µ (gǫ bc A b µc c ). (28) By integrating out B 3 and B a, we obtain { S GF = d 4 x 1 2α (Dµ A a µ )2 1 2ˆβ ( µ a µ ) 2 8

10 +i C a D 2 C b ig 2 ǫ ad ǫ cb Ca C b A µc A d µ + α 4 g2 ǫ ab ǫ cd Ca Cb C c C d +iκ C 3 2 C 3 + iκ C } 3 µ (gǫ bc A b µc c ), (29) where we have defined ˆβ := β/(κ 2 ), (30) for later convenience. We notice that the diagonal ghost C 3 does not appear in the interaction terms in (29). Therefore we do not need to take account of the internal diagonal ghost in the calculation of perturbative loop expansions. The anomalous dimensions of the diagonal gluon a µ, off-diagonal gluon A a µ, coupling constant g and gauge fixing parameters α and ˆβ have already been obtained in previous papers[10, 11]. In this paper, we determine the anomalous dimension of a remaining parameter κ, the ghost field C and anti-ghost field C by making use of the dimensional regularization at the one-loop level. From the total action: S := S YM + S GF, (31) with the Yang-Mills action S YM = we obtain the following Feynman rules. 3.1 Feynman rules Propagators (a) diagonal gluon propagator: (b) off-diagonal gluon propagator: d 4 x 1 4 F A µν F µνa, (32) id µν = i [ g p 2 µν ( 1 ˆβ ) ] p µ p ν. (33) p 2 idµν ab = i [ g p 2 µν (1 α) p ] µp ν δ ab. (34) p 2 (c) diagonal ghost propagator: i = 1 κp2. (35) (d) off-diagonal ghost propagator: i ab = 1 p 2δab. (36) 9

11 (a) µ p ν (b) a, µ p b, ν (c) p (d) a p b (e) 3, µ q a, ρ (f) 3, µ p a (g) c, µ p 3 (h) 3, µ a, ρ p b, σ r b q b q 3, ν b, σ (i) a, µ c, ρ (j) 3, µ a (k) c, µ a (l) a b b, ν d, σ 3, ν b d, ν b c d Figure 1: The wavy line corresponds to the gluon, and the broken line corresponds to the ghost or anti-ghost. The graphs in (a) and (b) represent respectively diagonal and off-diagonal gluons while the graphs in (c) and (d) represent respectively diagonal and off-diagonal ghosts. The graphs in (e), (f) and (g) represent the three-point vertex and the graphs in (h), (i), (j), (k) and (l) represent the four-point vertex Three-point vertices (e) One diagonal and two off-diagonal gluons: i a µ (p)a a ρ (q)ab σ (r) bare = gǫ [(q ab r) µ g ρσ + { } r p + q g α σµ + { } ] p q r g ρ α µρ. (37) σ (f) One diagonal gluon, one off-diagonal ghost and one anti-ghost: i Ca (p)c b (q)a µ bare = i(p + q) µgǫ ab. (38) (g) One off-diagonal gluon, one off-diagonal ghost and one anti-ghost: i C3 (p)c b (q)a c µ = bare iκgǫcb p µ. (39) Four-point vertices (h) Two diagonal gluons and two off-diagonal gluons: i [ ( A 3 µ A3 ν Aa ρ Ab σ = bare ig2 δ ab 2g µν g ρσ 1 1 ) ] (g µρ g νσ + g µσ g νρ ). (40) α (i) Four off-diagonal gluons: i A a µ Ab ν Ac ρ Ad σ bare = i2g 2 [f Eab f Ecd I µν,ρσ + f Eac f Ebd I µρ,νσ + f Ead f Ebc I µσ,νρ ], (41) 10

12 where I µν,ρσ := (g µρ g νσ g µσ g νρ )/2 and the capital E runs over the diagonal and off-diagonal indices.. (j) Two diagonal gluons, one off-diagonal ghost and one anti-ghost: i Ca C b A 3 µ A3 ν bare = 2g2 δ ab g µν. (42) (k) Two diagonal gluons, one off-diagonal ghost and one anti-ghost: i Ca C b A c µa d ν bare = g2 [ ǫ ad ǫ cb + ǫ ac ǫ db] g µν. (43) (l) Two diagonal gluons, one off-diagonal ghost and one anti-ghost: Counterterms i Ca Cb C c C d bare = ig2 ζǫ ab ǫ cd. (44) In order to construct the renormalized theory, we define the following renormalized fields 3 and parameters: a µ = Za 1/2 a Rµ, C 3 = Zc 1/2 CR, 3 C3 = Zc 1/2 C R, 3 A a µ = Z 1/2 A A a Rµ, C a = Z 1/2 C C a R, Ca = Z 1/2 C C a R, g = Z g g R, α = Z α α R, ˆβ = Zˆβ ˆβR, κ = Z κ κ R. (45) By substituting the above renormalization relations (45) into the action (31), we obtain S = S R + S gauge + S ghost. (46) Here S R is the renormalized action obtained from the bare action (31) by replacing all the fields and parameters with the renormalized ones, while S ghost and S gauge are counterterms with and without ghost fields respectively. In this paper we focus on the renormalizability of the terms with ghost fields S ghost. This is explicitly given by { S ghost = d 4 x iδ a Ca R DR 2 Ca R + iδ bκ R C3 R 2 CR 3 iδ c gr 2 ǫad ǫ cb Ca R CR b Aµc R Ad Rµ + δ α R d 4 g2 R ǫab ǫ cd Ca R Cb R CR c Cd R +iδ e κ R C3 R µ (g R ǫ bc A b Rµ Cc R ) }, (47) where we have defined the renormalized Abelian covariant derivative D R by D Rµ Φ a := ( µ δ ab g R ǫ ab a Rµ ) Φ b. (48) 3 More generally, the renormalization factors Z C and Z C of C and C are not necessarily identical to each other, as adoopted as in Ref. [12]. However, in our case, it is possible to take Z C = Z C, since we have introduced an extra parameter κ. 11

13 Indeed, substituting the renormalized relations (45) into the definition of the bare Abelian covariant derivative (17) and using the relation Z g = Za 1/2 due to the implicit residual U(1) gauge symmetry pointed out in the previous paper[10], we obtain D µ Φ a = ( µ δ ab gǫ ab a µ ) Φ b = ( ) µ δ AB Z g Za 1/2 g R ǫ ab a Rµ Φ b = ( µ δ AB g R ǫ ab a Rµ ) Φ b = D Rµ Φ a. (49) Thus Abelian covariant derivative itself does not change under the renormalization. The coefficients δ = (δ a, δ b, δ c, δ d, δ e ) in the counter terms (47) are related to the renormalization factors Z X = (Z c, Z C, Z κ ) as δ a = Z C 1, δ b = Z c Z κ 1, δ c = Z 2 gz C Z A 1, δ d = Z α Z 2 gz 2 C 1, δ e = Z κ Z 1/2 c Z g Z 1/2 A Z 1/2 C 1. (50) Therefore we can determine the renormalization factors Zs by calculating δs. 3.2 Anomalous dimensions In this subsection, we determine the renormalization factors and anomalous dimensions of the fields and parameters. The renormalization factor Z X is expanded order by order of the loop expansion as Z X = 1 + Z (1) X + Z (2) X +, (51) where Z (n) X is the nth order contribution. The anomalous dimension of the respective field X = Z X X R is defined by γ X := 1 2 µ µ ln Z X := 1 2 µ µ Z(1) X +, (52) and the anomalous dimension of the respective parameter Y = Z Y Y R is defined by γ Y := µ µ Y R := Y R µ µ Z(1) Y +. (53) The anomalous dimension of the diagonal gluon a µ can be determined by requiring the renormalizability for the transverse part of the propagator of the diagonal gluon. On the other hand, the anomalous dimension of the Abelian gauge fixing parameter ˆβ can be determined by requiring the renormalizability for the longitudinal part of the propagator of the diagonal gluon. Similarly, the anomalous dimensions of the off-diagonal gluons A a µ and the gauge fixing parameter α can be respectively determined by considering the transverse and longitudinal part of the propagators of 12

14 (a1) (a2) 3 (a3) (a4) Figure 2: The graphs corresponding to one-loop radiative corrections for the propagator of the off-diagonal ghost. The wavy line labeled by 3 represents the diagonal gluon while the wavy line without any label represents the off-diagonal gluon. Similarly the broken line with no label represents the off-diagonal ghost or anti-ghost. off-diagonal gluons. Then we can obtain the renormalization factors Z a, Zˆβ, Z A and Z α by calculating the counterterms S gauge. Moreover, from the counterterms S gauge we can calculate also the anomalous dimension of the QCD coupling constant g, that is, the β-function. These renormalization parameters have already been calculated in Ref. [10, 11]. According to the results of Ref. [10, 11], the renormalization factors are given as Z a (1) = Z (1) = 22 (µ ǫ g R ) 2 ˆβ 3 (4π) 2 ǫ, (54) Z (1) A = (g Rµ ǫ ) 2 [ 17 (4π) 2 ǫ 6 α R 2 ˆβ ] R, (55) Z α (1) = (g Rµ ǫ ) 2 [ 4 (4π) 2 ǫ 3 α R 3 ], (56) Z (1) g = 1 2 Z(1) A = 11 3 α R (µ ǫ g R ) 2 (4π) 2 ǫ. (57) In this paper, we determine the remaining renormalization factors, Z c, Z C and Z κ, by making use of the dimensional regularization. In order to determine these three factors, we must calculate three independent coefficients δs in Eqs. (50). For instance, Z C is obtained by calculating δ a in Eq. (50). By calculating δ b, we obtain a relation of Z c and Z κ. One more relation is obtained by calculating δ e. In the actual calculations, it is useful to remember the fact that the diagonal ghost does not appear in the internal line. First, we consider the quantum correction to the propagator of the diagonal ghost. There is no divergent graph for the diagonal ghost propagator in the dimensional regularization, so that we immediately obtain a relation between Z c (1) and Z κ (1) : δ b = Z (1) c + Z (1) κ = 0. (58) Next, we consider the quantum correction to propagators of the off-diagonal ghosts. The divergent graphs for the propagator of the off-diagonal ghost are enumerated in Fig. 2. Non-trivial contribution is given by only one graph (a1). Thus, by 13

15 (b1) 3 (b2) 3 (b3) 3 3 (b4) 3 3 Figure 3: The graphs corresponding to one-loop radiative corrections for the three point vertex of one diagonal anti-ghost, one off-diagonal ghost and one off-diagonal gluon. The wavy line and the broken line labeled by 3 represent the diagonal gluon and diagonal ghost respectively, while the line without any label represents the offdiagonal gluon or off-diagonal ghost. making use of the dimensional regularization, δ a or Z (1) C is obtained as δ a = Z (1) C = (g Rµ ǫ ) 2 (4π) 2 ǫ (3 ˆβ R ), (59) where ǫ is defined as ǫ := (4 d)/2. In order to determine δ e we calculate the quantum correction to the three point vertex of one diagonal anti-ghost, one off-diagonal ghost and one off-diagonal gluon. The divergent graphs for this vertex are collected in Fig. 3. Then we obtain δ e = Z (1) κ = (g Rµ ǫ ) 2 (4π) 2 ǫ Z(1) c + Z g (1) or, by solving with respect to Z κ (1), we also obtain Z(1) A Z(1) C [ˆβR α R], (60) Z (1) κ = Z (1) c = (3 + α R ) (g Rµ ǫ ) 2 (4π) 2 ǫ, (61) where we have made use of Eqs. (58), (55), (57) and (59). Substituting one loop renormalization factors Z (1) X and Z (1) Y into the definitions of the anomalous dimension (52) or (53), we obtain the following anomalous dimensions: γ a (g R ) = 22 3 g 2 R (4π) 2, (62) [ γ A (g R ) = g2 R 1 17 (4π) α R 2 ˆβ ] R, (63) g 2 R γˆβ(g R ) = 44 3 ˆβ R (4π) 2, (64) 14

16 γ α (g R ) = [ ] g2 R 8 (4π) 2 3 α R 2αR 2 6, (65) β(g R ) = γ g (g R ) = 22 3 gr 3 (4π) 2, (66) γ c (g R ) = (3 + α R ) g2 R (4π) 2, (67) γ C (g R ) = g2 R (4π) 2(3 ˆβ R ), (68) g 2 R γ κ (g R ) = 2(3 + α R )κ R (4π) 2. (69) Thus we obtain anomalous dimensions of all the fields and parameters at the one-loop level of perturbative expansion based on the dimensional regularization. From the anomalous dimensions just calculated, we find a remarkable feature that the parameter κ R is necessary, although it does appear only in γ κ. By the explicit calculations given above, it turns out that there is no fixed point of κ except for at κ = 0 where the gauge fixing term for residual U(1) gauge symmetry is not well-defined. Therefore the necessity of the existence of the parameter κ has been overlooked so far, except for the work [12] where the different renormalization factors are introduced for the ghost and anti-ghost as another option of avoiding this issue. 4 Conclusion and discussion In this paper, we have pointed out the necessity of a new parameter κ in the MA gauge from the viewpoint of renormalizability. By including this parameter κ, the Yang- Mills theory in the modified MA gauge (proposed in the previous paper[7, 9]) becomes renormalizable in the exact sense. Making use of the dimensional regularization, we have calculated the anomalous dimension of κ and the other parameters at the oneloop level in the minimum case. Then, we have confirmed that the renormalizability of the theory is maintained. By the reason that κ R does not appear in the anomalous dimensions other than γ κ, the investigations so far missed a possibility of introducing an extra parameter κ. We have required several symmetries in order to restrict the parameter space and to make clear the efficiency of introducing κ. One of purposes of this paper is the confirmation of the meaning of κ. We can expect that the renormalizability is not spoiled in a subspace of the parameters protected by some symmetries. Thus we have required some symmetries to simplify the theory. However we do not know any symmetry which forces the value of a parameter κ to be 1 without spoiling the renormalizability. Indeed, by this restriction of the parameter space, we have found that at least three independent parameters α, ˆβ and κ are necessary and sufficient to maintain the renormalizability. It should be remarked that the partially gauge fixing part for off-diagonal gluons is identical to the modified MA gauge. 15

17 However we should not impose so many restrictions. For instance, the ordinary Faddeev-Popov term i µ CA D µ C A is not invariant under the translation of the diagonal ghost, while it is invariant under the translation of the diagonal anti-ghost. Thus, if we would like to compare the MA gauge with the ordinary Lorentz gauge, we should not require the translational symmetry for the diagonal ghost. Similarly, in the low-energy region of QCD in the modified MA gauge, we expect that the ghost anti-ghost composite operators ǫ ab C a Cb and C a Ca have non-trivial expectation values due to the condensation and hence the charge conjugation symmetry breaks down.[9, 15] Therefore we must not require the charge conjugation symmetry from this viewpoint. The results of investigations to remedy these shortcomings will be reported elsewhere. 5 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Takeharu Murakami for helpful discussion. References [1] G. t Hooft, Nucl.Phys. B 190 [FS3], (1981). [2] Z.F. Ezawa and A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D 25, (1982). [3] T. Suzuki and I. Yotsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. D 42, (1990). [4] Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974), G. t Hooft, in High Energy Physics, ed. A. Zichichi (Editorice Compositori, Bologna, 1975). S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rep. 23 (1976), 245. [5] M. Quandt and H. Reinhardt, hep-th/ , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13 (1998), [6] K.-I. Kondo, hep-th/ , Phys. Rev. D57 (1998), [7] K.-I. Kondo, hep-th/ , Phys. Rev. D58 (1998), [8] K.-I. Kondo, hep-th/ , Phys. Rev. D58 (1998), [9] K.-I. Kondo and T. Shinohara, hep-th/ , Phys. Lett. B491 (2000), 263. [10] K.-I. Kondo and T. Shinohara, hep-th/ , Prog. Theor. Phys. 105 (2001), 649. [11] T. Shinohara, hep-th/ , CHIBA-EP-127. [12] H. Min, T. Lee and P. Y. Pac, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985), 440. [13] H. Hata and I. Niigata, Nucl. Phys. B389 (1993),

18 [14] L. F. Abbott, Acta Phys. Polon. B13 (1982), 33. L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185 (1981), 189. L. F. Abbott, M. T. Grisaru and R. K. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. B229 (1983), 372. [15] M. Schaden, hep-th/ , revised version 3. 17