text:
# References

KANAZAWA-00-02

March, 2000

Radiative symmetry breaking and Higgs mass bound in the NMSSM
Y. Daikoku 111e-mail: daikoku@hep.s.kanazawa-u.ac.jp and D. Suematsu 222e-mail: suematsu@hep.s.kanazawa-u.ac.jp

Institute for Theoretical Physics, Faculty of Science, Kanazawa University,
Kanazawa 920-1192, Japan

We study the upper mass bound of the lightest neutral Higgs scalar in the NMSSM using the RGE analysis. We require the successful occurence of the electroweak radiative symmetry breaking to restrict the parameter space. As a result the upper mass bound $`m_{h^0}`$ is largely restricted compared with the one estimated without imposing this condition. We point out some features of $`m_{h^0}`$ related to the initial value of $`h_t`$ and discuss why the models with more extra matters $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of SU(5) could bring the larger maximum value of $`m_{h^0}`$.

The existence of a rather light CP-even neutral Higgs scalar is a common feature of the supersymmetric extension of the standard model . It is an important evidence of this kind of models and it is very useful to know its possible upper bound for the judgement of the consistency of the models.

The next to the minimal supersymmetric standard model (NMSSM) is the simplest extension of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) . In this model a singlet chiral supermultiplet $`S`$ is introduced and a $`\mu `$ term in the MSSM is replaced by a Yukawa coupling $`\lambda SH_1H_2`$ with the usual Higgs doublet chiral superfields $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. The superpotential of the Higgs sector in this model is expressed as

$$W_{\mathrm{NMSSM}}=\lambda SH_1H_2+\frac{1}{3}\kappa S^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
If the scalar component $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ of $`S`$ gets a vacuum expectation value, the $`\mu `$ scale appears as $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{S}`$. In this model the $`\mu `$ problem in the MSSM is potentially solvable when the tree level $`\mu `$ term is forbidden due to a suitable symmetry .

An interesting feature of this model is the fact that the mass bound of the lightest neutral Higgs scalar can be estimated with no dependence on the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters at the tree level ,

$$m_{h^0}^{(0)2}m_Z^2\left[\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\frac{2\lambda ^2}{g_1^2+g_2^2}\mathrm{sin}^22\beta \right],$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2/H_1`$. This bound is mainly controled by the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the bound of $`\lambda `$. Its dependence on the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters appears through the loop correction to the effective potential as a result of the large top Yukawa coupling $`h_t`$ . All of these effects are related through the renormalization group equations (RGEs). Many works have been done on this aspect . In Ref. it has been suggested that the additional extra matters such as $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of SU(5) can heavily affect the mass bound by changing the running of gauge couplings, $`h_t`$ and $`\lambda `$ but not affecting the scale of the gauge coupling unification, which is a great success of the MSSM.

In the NMSSM the radiative generation of nonzero $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ or the $`\mu `$ scale is a very important aspect. From this point of view it seems to be rather crucial to study how the requirement of the successful occurence of the radiative symmetry breaking  affects on the upper mass bound of the lightest neutral Higgs scalar. In this note we investigate this problem by finding the radiatively induced minimum of the effective potential parameterized by $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{S})`$ in the models with extra matters $`n(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ of SU(5).

The one-loop effective potential due to the large top Yukawa coupling  is,

$$V_1=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\left[12m_t^4\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_t^2}{Q^2}\frac{3}{2}\right)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}6\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_i}^4\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_i}^2}{Q^2}\frac{3}{2}\right)\right],$$
(3)
where $`Q`$ is a renormalization point and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_i}^2`$ is the eigenvalue of the stop mass matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_t^2& m_t(A_t+\lambda \stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{cot}\beta )\\ m_t(A_t+\lambda \stackrel{~}{S}\mathrm{cot}\beta )& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{T}}^2+m_t^2\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
The correction to Eq. (1) due to this one-loop effective potential is expressed by using these mass eigenvalues as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{h^0}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{^2V_1}{v_1^2}\frac{1}{v_1}\frac{V_1}{v_1}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\beta +\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2V_1}{v_1v_2}\mathrm{sin}2\beta +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{^2V_1}{v_2^2}\frac{1}{v_2}\frac{V_1}{v_2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\beta .$$
(5)
Here we used the potential minimum condition to eliminate the soft scalar masses of Higgs fields and took a field basis which is used to derive Eq. (2). The mass matrix in Eq. (4) depends on $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{S})`$ other than the Yukawa couplings and the soft SUSY breaking parameters.

In order to fix this matrix we need to determine these values as the ones at the potential minimum. It is a nontrivial problem whether such values of $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{S})`$ can be radiatively realized starting from certain sets of the Yukawa couplings and the soft SUSY breaking parameters. Our task is to estimate $`m_{h^0}^2(m_{h^0}^{(0)2}+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{h^0}^2)`$ numerically for the parameter sets which can radiatively realize the phenomenologically acceptable potential minimum. We determine such parameter sets so as to satisfy the following conditions:
(i) starting from the suitable initial values of parameters, the radiative symmetry breaking occurs successfully and the following phenomenologically required condition is satisfied at the potential minimum,

$$H_1^2+H_2^2=(174\mathrm{GeV})^2,m_t=174\mathrm{GeV},$$
(6)
(ii) $`m_{h^0}^2`$ which corresponds to the one of diagonal elements of the $`3\times 3`$ neutral Higgs mass matrix should be smaller than other two diagonal components ,
(iii) the experimental mass bounds on the charged Higgs bosons $`m_{H^\pm }`$, charginos $`m_{\chi ^\pm }`$, stops $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_i}`$ and gluinos $`M_3`$ are satisfied. These masses, except for $`M_3`$, are dependent on $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. We require the following values for them:

$$m_{H^\pm }>65\mathrm{GeV},m_{\chi ^\pm }>72\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_2}>67\mathrm{GeV},M_3>173\mathrm{GeV},$$
(7)
(iv) the vacuum should be a color conserving one .

In this study we solve a set of RGEs which are composed of two-loop ones for dimensionless couplings and one-loop ones for dimensional SUSY breaking parameters, for simplicity. As the initial conditions for the SUSY breaking parameters we take

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{\varphi _i}^2=(\gamma _i\stackrel{~}{m})^2,M_a=M,A_t=A_\kappa =A_\lambda =A,$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the universal soft scalar mass. We introduce the nonuniversality represented by $`\gamma _i`$ only among soft scalar masses of $`H_1,H_2`$ and $`S`$ to make it easy to find the radiative symmetry breaking solutions. This will be taken as $`0.8\gamma _i1.2`$. These initial conditions are assumed to be applied at the scale $`M_X`$ where the coupling unification of SU(2)L and U(1)Y occurs. We donot require the regolous coupling unification of SU(3)C but only impose the realization of the low energy experimental value . The initial values of the parameters are surveyed through the following region,

$`0h_t1.2(0.1),2.0\kappa 0(0.2),0\lambda 3.0(0.2),`$
$`0M/M_S0.8(0.3),0\stackrel{~}{m}/M_S,|A|/M_S3.0(0.5),`$ (9)
where in the parentheses we give the interval which we use in the survey of these parameter regions.111 Since the sign of $`\kappa `$ and $`A`$ affects the scalar potential, we need to investigate both sign of them. However, a negative $`\kappa `$ seems to cover almost solutions for the positive $`\kappa `$. Here we give the only result in the case of the negative $`\kappa `$. We also assume that the RGEs of the model are changed from the supersymmetric ones to the nonsupersymmetric ones at a supersymmetry breaking scale $`M_S`$, for which we take $`M_S=1`$ TeV as a typical numerical value .

To estimate the one-loop effect Eq. (5), it is necessary to know the values of $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{S})`$ at the potential minimum. If we impose the radiative symmetry breakling condition, such a potential minimum has to be realized as a result of RGEs solution. In order to see the effect of the radiative symmetry breaking condition on the upper mass bound $`m_{h^0}`$ we calculate it under two situations. We impose the full condition of (i) in a case (I). On the other hand, in a case (II) we require only Eq. (6) but donot require that it is realized at the potential minimum222 In other words, this case corresponds to the situation that Eq. (6) may be satisfied at the minimum which is obtained from the unnatural initial soft scalar masses.. We take the number of extra matters as $`n=3`$. The perturbative unification of the gauge coupling requires $`n4`$. Later we will also discuss other cases.

At first, we show how the radiative symmetry breaking condition restricts the parameters strongly relevant to $`m_{h^0}`$. In Fig. 1 we give the plots of the solutions in $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{S})`$ and $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\lambda )`$ planes. Since we assume that only the top Yukawa coupling is large, the consistent $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ cannot be so large333To estimate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we take account of the translation of the pole mass to the running mass .. We take it as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 15.0`$. In the case (II), $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ can take the value in such a wide range as $`70\mathrm{GeV}{}_{}{}^{<}\stackrel{~}{S}{}_{}{}^{<}45\mathrm{TeV}`$, which is not plotted in Fig. 1(a). These show that the value of $`\lambda (m_t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ are heavily restricted in the case (I) compared with the case (II). We should remind that $`\lambda (m_t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ affect $`m_{h^0}`$ through Eqs. (2) and (4). As seen from Fig. 1, the $`\mu (\lambda \stackrel{~}{S})`$ scale can take a value in a rather wide range to cause the successful radiative symmetry breaking.

In Fig. 2 we show the allowed region of $`m_{h^0}`$ in both cases for the corresponding parameter sets to the ones of Fig. 1. This shows that the imposition of the consistent occurence of the radiative symmetry breaking can strongly affect the estimation of $`m_{h^0}`$. The boundary value of $`m_{h^0}`$ can be changed by a few percent to ten percent. We can also find some parameter dependences of $`m_{h^0}`$ in these figures. In Fig. 2(b) we restrict the initial soft scalar mass as $`\stackrel{~}{m}=1`$ TeV. The larger values of soft scalar mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ tend to realize the larger value of $`m_{h^0}`$. The value of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ determines the off-diagonal component of the stop mass matrix (4). This shows that the larger stop mixing tends to make $`m_{h^0}`$ larger.

It is useful to comment on the existence of two branches of the solutions which show a very different behavior in Figs. 1 and 2. This is a common feature in both case (I) and (II) and also in the models with a different $`n`$. For simplicity, we take the case (II) as an example to discuss this feature here. We refer the one of the smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as a branch B1 and the one of the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as a branch B2. They are divided by an initial value of $`h_t`$ as shown in Table 1. The interesting feature of two branches can be clearly seen in Fig. 1(b) and Table 1. The branch B2 corresponds to the smoothly extending solutions of $`\lambda (m_t)`$ to the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region and the branch B1 comes from the ones which are confied in the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The branch B2 has a similar lower bound of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the similar maximum value of $`m_{h^0}143`$GeV at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta {}_{}{}^{>}9`$ for the different $`n`$ values. If we note that at the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region the second term of Eq. (2) can be neglected and Eq. (2) reduces to the one of the MSSM, this behavior can be understood. On the other hand, the branch B1 strongly depends on $`n`$. There are solutions with a little bit larger maximum value of $`\lambda `$ at the smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ according to the increase of $`n`$. This results in the larger maximum value of $`m_{h^0}`$ for the larger $`n`$. The reason can be mainly found in the $`\beta `$ dependence of Eq. (2). Decreasing $`n`$, the maximum value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ of the branch B1 increases, where the maximum value of $`\lambda (m_t)`$ is realized. The branch B1 disappears finally at $`n=0`$ since it is difficult to realize $`0.95{}_{}{}^{<}h_{t}^{}(m_t){}_{}{}^{<}1.35`$ corresponding to $`1{}_{}{}^{<}\mathrm{tan}\beta {}_{}{}^{<}15`$ starting from the initial value of $`h_t`$ used here. We should remind that the value of $`h_t(m_t)`$ is strictly restricted by Eq. (6). In the case (I) we also find the similar qualitative feature discussed here in the case (II).

Finally we want to present one comment. There is a rather big difference of the density of the radiative symmetry breaking solutions in the models with the different $`n`$. For example, in the present parameter setting the number of solutions in $`n=4`$ is very smaller than the ones in $`n=3`$. The finer tuning of marameters seems to be necessary to find the solution in the $`n=4`$ case compared with the $`n=3`$ case.

In summary we studied the upper bound $`m_{h^0}`$ of the lightest neutral Higgs scalar mass in the NMSSM using the RGE analysis. We required the successful occurence of the electroweak radiative symmetry breaking starting from the suitable initial values of parameters. This condition substantially constrains the allowable parameter space and as a result the mass bound $`m_{h^0}`$ is heavily restricted compared with the one obtained without imposing this condition. We discussed the typical feature related to the initial value of $`h_t`$ and also why the larger $`n`$ models could bring the larger maximum value of $`m_{h^0}`$.

This work has been partly supported by the a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture(#11640267 and #11127206).


format: text

text:
# FROM CONSTITUENT QUARK TO HADRON STRUCTURE IN THE NEXT-to-LEADING ORDER: NUCLEON AND PION

## I INTRODUCTION

Our knowledge of hadronic structure is based on the hadronic spectroscopy and the Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS) data. In the former picture quarks are massive particles and their bound states describe the static properties of hadrons; while the interpretation of DIS data relies upon the quarks of QCD Lagrangian with very small mass. The hadronic structure in this picture is intimately connected with the presence of a large number of partons(quarks and gluons). The two types of quarks not only differ in mass, but also on other important properties. for example, the color charge of quark field in QCD Lagrangian is ill-defined and is not gauge invariant, reflecting the color of gluons in an interacting theory. On the other hand, color associated with a Constituent Quark (CQ) is a well defined entity. It has been recently shown that  one can perturbatively dress a QCD Lagrangian field to all orders and construct a CQ in conformity with the color confinement. From this point of view a CQ is defined as a quasi-particle emerging from the dressing of valence quark with gluons and $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs in QCD.
Of course, the concept of CQ as an intermediate step between the quarks of QCD Lagrangian and hadrons is not new. In fact, in the context of $`SU(6)XO(3)`$ long before Altarelli and Cabibo  have used them. R.C. Hwa in his elaborated work termed them as valon, extended it and showed its application to many physical processes . In Ref. it is suggested that the concept of dressed quark and gluon might be useful in the area of jet physics and heavy quark effective theory. Despite the ever presence of CQ no one has calculated its content and partonic structure without resorting to hadronic data and the process of deconvolution. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (a) we will evaluate the structure of a CQ in the Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) in QCD. (b) we will verify its conformity with the structure function data of nucleon and pion for which there are ample data available. (c) In the process, however, we will notice that additional refinements are needed to account for the violation of Gottfried Sum Rule (GSR) and the effect of binding of CQ’s to form a physical hadron.

## II FORMALISM

By definition, a CQ is a universal building block for every hadron, that is, its structure is common to all hadrons and generated perturbatively. Once its structure is evaluated, in principle it would permit to calculate the structure of any hadron. In doing so we will follow the philosophy that in a DIS experiment at high enough $`Q^2`$ it is the structure of a CQ which is being probed and at sufficiently low value of $`Q^2`$ this structure cannot be resolved thus, a CQ behaves as valence quark and hadron is viewed as the bound state of its CQ’s. Under these criteria partons of DIS experiments are components of CQ and at high $`Q^2`$ one can write for a U-type CQ its structure as follows:

$$F_2^U(z,Q^2)=\frac{4}{9}z(G_{\frac{u}{U}}+G_{\frac{\overline{u}}{U}})+\frac{1}{9}z(G_{\frac{d}{U}}+G_{\frac{\overline{d}}{U}}+G_{\frac{s}{U}}+G_{\frac{\overline{s}}{U}})+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
where all the functions on the right-hand side are the probability functions for quarks having momentum fraction $`z`$ of a U-type constituent quark at $`Q^2`$. Similar expression can be written for a D-type CQ. Defining the singlet (S) and nonsinglet (NS) CQ distribution functions as:

$$G^S=\underset{i=1}{\overset{f}{}}(G_{\frac{q_i}{CQ}}+G_{\frac{\overline{q}_i}{CQ}})=G_f+(2f1)G_{uf}$$
(2)
$$G^{NS}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{f}{}}(G_{\frac{q_i}{CQ}}G_{\frac{\overline{q}_i}{CQ}})=G_fG_{uf}$$
(3)
where $`G_f`$ is the favored distribution describing the structure function of a quark within a CQ of the same flavor while unfavored distribution $`G_{uf}`$ describes the structure function of any quark of different flavor within the CQ. $`f`$ is the number of active flavors. In terms of singlet and nonsinglet distributions they are as follows:

$$G_f=\frac{1}{2f}(G^S+(2f1)G^{NS})$$
(4)
$$G_{uf}=\frac{1}{2f}(G^SG^{NS})$$
(5)
Having expressed all the structure functions of CQ’s in terms of $`G_f`$ and $`G_{uf}`$ we now go to the moment space and define the moments of these distributions as:

$$M(n,Q^2)=_0^1x^{n2}F(x,Q^2)𝑑x$$
(6)
$$M_i(n,Q^2)=_0^1x^{n1}G_i(n,Q^2)𝑑x$$
(7)
the subscription $`i`$ stands for S, NS. Using charge symmetry, in the following we will refer to CQ distribution only in proton.
In the NLO approximation the dependence of the running coupling constant, $`\alpha `$ on $`Q^2`$ is given by:

$$\alpha (Q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0ln(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}\left(1\frac{\beta _1lnln(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}{\beta _0^2ln(\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}\right)$$
(8)
with $`\beta _0=\frac{1}{3}(332f)`$ and $`\beta _1=102\frac{38f}{3}`$. The moments of NS and S in the NLO are:

$$M^{NS}(n,Q^2)=[1+\frac{\alpha (Q^2)\alpha (Q_0^2)}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\gamma _{NS}^{(1)N}}{2\beta _0}\frac{\beta _1\gamma _{qq}^{(0)N}}{2\beta _0^2}\right)](\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)})^{\gamma _{qq}^{(0)N/2\beta _0}}$$
(9)
$`M^S(n,Q^2)=\{({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)}})^{\frac{\lambda _{}^N}{2\beta _0}}[p_{}^N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)\alpha _s(Q^2)}{4\pi }}p_{}^N\gamma ^Np_{}^N({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{4\pi }})^{\frac{\lambda _+^N\lambda _{}^n}{2\beta _0}})`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^N\gamma ^Np_{}^N}{2\beta _0^2+\lambda _+^N\lambda _{}^N}}]+(+)\}`$ (11)
where $`\gamma ^N=\gamma ^{(1)N}\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0}\gamma ^{(0)N}`$ and $`\gamma ^{(0)N}`$ and $`\gamma ^{(1)N}`$ are anomalous dimension metrices and $`\lambda _\pm ^N`$ denote the eigenvalues of one-loop anomalous dimension matrix $`\gamma ^{(0)N}`$.

$$\lambda _\pm ^N=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _{qq}^{(0)N}+\gamma _{gg}^{(0)N}\pm \sqrt{(\gamma _{gg}^{(0)N}\gamma _{qq}^{(0)N})^2+4\gamma _{qg}^{(0)N}\gamma _{gq}^{(0)N}}]$$
(12)
and $`p_\pm ^N`$ is given by:

$$p_\pm ^N=\pm (\gamma ^{(0)N}\gamma _\pm ^N)/(\lambda _+^N\lambda _{}^N)$$
(13)
The quantities $`d_\pm ^{(0)}`$, the leading order anomalous dimentions, given in Ref., are related to $`\lambda _\pm `$ in our notations. $`t`$ is the evolution parameter defined as:

$$t=\mathrm{𝑙𝑛}\frac{\mathrm{𝑙𝑛}\frac{Q^\mathit{2}}{\Lambda ^\mathit{2}}}{\mathrm{𝑙𝑛}\frac{Q_\mathit{0}^\mathit{2}}{\Lambda ^\mathit{2}}}$$
(14)
The coefficients $`\gamma _{kl}^{(1,0)N}`$ and can be found in .
We have taken our initial scale $`Q_0^2=0.283`$ $`GeV^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.22`$ GeV. It seems that evolution of parton distributions from such a low value of $`Q_0^2`$ is not justified theoretically. The above value of $`Q_0`$ corresponds to a distance of 0.36 fm which is roughly equal to or slightly less than the radius of a CQ. It may be objected that such a distances are probably too large for a meaningful pure perturbative treatment. We note that $`F_2^{CQ}(z,Q^2)`$ has the property that it becomes $`\delta (z1)`$ as $`Q^2`$ is extrapolated to $`Q_0^2`$, which is beyond the region of validity. This mathematical boundary condition signifies that the internal structure of a CQ cannot be resolved at $`Q_0`$ in the NLO approximation. Consequently, when this property is applied to Eq.(19) bellow, the structure function of the nucleon becomes directly related to $`xG_{\frac{CQ}{P}}(x)`$ at those values of $`Q_0`$, that is, $`Q_0`$ is the leading order effective value at which the hadron can be considered as consisting only of three (two) CQ’s, for baryons (mesons). In fact our results are only meaningful for $`Q_0^20.4`$ $`GeV^2`$. As it is stated above, the moments of the CQ structure function, $`F_2^{CQ}(z,Q^2)`$ are expressed completely in terms of the evolution parameter, $`t`$, of Eq. (13). From the theoretical standpoint, both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`Q_0`$ depend on the order of the moments $`n`$. In this work we have assumed that they are independent of $`n`$, hence introducing some degrees of approximation to the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the valence and sea quarks. However, on one hand there are other contributions like target-mass effects, which add uncertainties to the theoretical predictions of perturbative QCD, while on the other hand since we are dealing with the CQ, there is no experimental data to invalidate an $`n`$ independent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ assumption. The moments of valence and sea quarks in a CQ are:

$$M_{\frac{valence}{CQ}}=M^{NS}(n,Q^2)$$
(15)
$$M_{\frac{sea}{CQ}}=\frac{1}{2f}(M^SM^{NS})$$
(16)
where $`M^{S,NS}`$ are given above. Evaluating $`M_{\frac{valence}{CQ}}`$ and $`M_{\frac{sea}{CQ}}`$ at any $`Q^2`$ or $`t`$ is now straight forward. Using Inverse Mellin Transform techniques, following forms for the valence and sea quark distributions inside a CQ is obtained in the NLO:

$$zq_{\frac{val.}{CQ}}(z,Q^2)=az^b(1z)^c$$
(17)
$$zq_{\frac{sea}{CQ}}(z,Q^2)=\alpha z^\beta (1z)^\gamma [1+\eta z+\xi z^{0.5}]$$
(18)
The parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ , $`\alpha `$, etc. are functions of $`Q^2`$ through the evolution parameter $`t`$. The same form as in Eq.(17) is obtained for Gluon distribution in a CQ but only with different parameters. Functional form of them is a polynomial of order three in $`t`$ and are given in the appendix. We notice that the following sum rule reflecting the fact that each CQ contains only one valence quark is satisfied for all values of $`Q^2`$:

$$_0^1q_{\frac{val.}{CQ}}(z,Q^2)𝑑z=1.$$
(19)
Substituting these results in Eq.(1) completes the evaluation of a constituent quark structure function in NLO. In Figure (1) various parton distributions inside a CQ is plotted.

## III HADRONIC STRUCTURE

In previous section we calculated the NLO structure of a CQ. In this section we will use the convolution theorem to calculate the structure function of proton, $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$, and that of a pion. Let us denote the structure function of a CQ by $`F_2^{CQ}(z,Q^2)`$ and the probability of finding a CQ carrying momentum fraction $`y`$ of the hadron by $`G_{\frac{CQ}{h}}(y)`$. The corresponding structure function of the hadron, using the convolution theorem is as follows:

$$F_2^h(x,Q^2)=\underset{CQ}{}_x^1\frac{dy}{y}G_{\frac{CQ}{h}}(y)F_2^{CQ}(\frac{x}{y},Q^2)$$
(20)
where summation runs over the number of CQ’s in a particular hadron. Also notice that $`G_{\frac{CQ}{h}}(y)`$ is independent of the nature of the probe and its $`Q^2`$ value. $`G_{\frac{CQ}{h}}(y)`$ in effect, describes the wave function of hadron in CQ representation containing all the complications due to confinement. From the theoretical point of view this function cannot be evaluated accurately. To facilitate phenomenological analysis, following Ref. we assume a simple form for the exclusive CQ distribution in proton and pion as follows:

$$G_{UUD/p}(y_1,y_2,y_3)=l(y_1y_2)^my_3^n\delta (y_1+y_2+y_31)$$
(21)
$$G_{\overline{U}D/\pi ^{}}(y_1,y_2)=qy_1^\mu y_2^\nu \delta (y_1+y_21)$$
(22)
Integrating over unwanted momenta, we can arrive at inclusive distribution of individual CQ:

$$G_{U/p}(y)=\frac{1}{B(a+1,b+a+2)}y^a(1y)^b$$
(23)
$$G_{D/p}(y)=\frac{1}{B(b+1,2a+2)}y^b(1y)^{2a+1}$$
(24)
$$G_{\overline{U}/\pi ^{}}(y)=\frac{1}{B(\mu +1,\nu +1)}y^\mu (1y)^\nu $$
(25)
similarly expression for $`G_{D/\pi ^{}}`$ with the interchange of $`\mu \nu `$. In the above equations $`B(i,j)`$ is Euler Beta function and its arguments are fixed using the sum rule:

$$_0^1G_{\frac{CQ}{h}}(y)𝑑y=1$$
(26)
where $`CQ=U,D,\overline{U}`$ and $`h=p,\pi ^{}`$. Numerical values are: $`\mu =0.01`$, $`\nu =0.06`$, $`a=0.65`$ and $`b=0.35`$. In Figure (2) the CQ distributions in proton and $`\pi ^{}`$ are shown. We stress that CQ distributions in hadrons are independent of $`Q^2`$ and the nature of probe being used. Now it is possible to determine various parton distributions in a hadron. For proton we can write:

$$q_{val./p}(x,Q^2)=2_x^1\frac{dy}{y}G_{U/p}(y)q_{val./U}(x,Q^2)+_x^1\frac{dy}{y}G_{D/p}(y)q_{val./D}(x,Q^2)=u_{val./p}(x,Q^2)+d_{val./p}(x,Q^2)$$
(27)
$$q_{sea/p}(x,Q^2)=2_x^1\frac{dy}{y}G_{U/p}(y)q_{sea/U}(x,Q^2)+_x^1\frac{dy}{y}G_{D/p}(y)q_{sea/D}(x,Q^2)$$
(28)
The above equation represents the contribution of constituent quarks to the nucleon sea. Comparing with data on proton structure functions shows that the results fall short of representing the experimental data by a 3-5 percent. This is due in our opinion, to the fact that CQ is not free in a hadron but they interact with each other in forming the bound states. That means, there are some soft gluons in the nucleon besides the CQ’s. In the process of formation of bound state, a CQ emits gluon which in turn decays into $`\overline{q}q`$ pairs which gives a residual component to the partons in a hadron. In our picture there is no room in the CQ structure for breaking the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry of the sea but after creation of $`\overline{q}q`$ pair from the emitted gluon , these quarks can recombine with CQ to fluctuate into meson-nucleon state which breaks the symmetry of the nucleon see. In what follows we will compute this component, its contribution to the nucleon structure function and violation of Gottfried sum rule following the preswcription used in  . In order to distinguish these partons from those confined inside the CQ, we will term them as inherent partons. Although this component is intimately related to the bound state problem, and hence it has a non-perturbative origin, for not so small values of $`Q^2`$ we will calculate it perturbatively for the process of $`CQCQ+\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑢𝑜𝑛}\overline{q}q`$ at an initial value of $`Q^2=0.65GeV^2`$ where $`\alpha _s`$ is still small enough. The corresponding splitting functions are as follows:

$$P_{gq}(z)=\frac{4}{3}\frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}$$
(29)
$$P_{qg}(z)=\frac{1}{2}(z^2+(1+z)^2)$$
(30)
For the joint probability distribution of the process at hand, we get:

$$q_{inh.}(x,Q^2)=\overline{q}_{inh}(x,Q^2)=N\frac{\alpha _s^2}{(2\pi )^2}_x^1\frac{dy}{y}P_{qg}(\frac{x}{y})_y^1\frac{dz}{z}P_{gq}(\frac{y}{z})G_{CQ}(z)$$
(31)
The splitting functions and the $`q_{inh}(x,Q^2)=\overline{q}_{inh}(x,Q^2)`$, above are that of the leading order rather than NLO. We do not expect it should make much of a difference since, its contribution to the whole structure function is only a few percent as can be seen in Figure (3). In the above equation $`N`$ is a factor depending on $`Q^2`$ and $`G_{CQ}`$ is the constituent quark distribution in the proton given previously. The same process, however, also can be a source of $`SU(2)`$ symmetry breaking of nucleon sea and resulting in $`u_{sea}d_{sea}`$, and hence the violation of Gottfried sum rule (GSR). There are several explanations forthis observation such as flavor asymmetry of the nucleon sea  , isospin symmetry breaking between proton and neutron, Pauli blocking, etc. One of these explanations fits well within our model. It was proposed by Eichten, Inchliffe and Quigg  that valence quark fluctuates into quark and a pion. In other words a nucleon can fluctuate into a meson-nucleon state. This idea is appealing in our model and can be calculated rather easily. In our model after a pair of inherent $`q\overline{q}`$ created a $`\overline{u}`$ can couple to a D-type CQ to form an intermediate $`\pi ^{}=D\overline{u}`$ while the $`u`$ quark combines with the other two U-type CQ’s to form a $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$. This is the lowest $`u\overline{u}`$ fluctuation. Similarly a $`d\overline{d}`$ can fluctuate into the $`\pi ^+n`$ state. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ state is more massive than $`n`$ state, then the probability of $`d\overline{d}`$ fluctuation will dominate over $`u\overline{u}`$ fluctuation which naturally leads to an excess of $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs over $`u\overline{u}`$ in the proton sea. This process is depicted in Figure (4). Probability of formation of a meson-barion state can be written as in Ref. :

$$P_{MB}(x)=_0^1\frac{dy}{y}_0^1\frac{dz}{z}F(y,z)R(y,z;x)$$
(32)
where $`F(y,z)`$ is the joint probability of finding a CQ with momentum fraction $`y`$ and an inherent quark or anti-quark of momentum fraction $`z`$ in the proton. $`R(y,z;x)`$ is the probability of recombining a CQ of momentum $`y`$ with an inherent quark of momentum $`z`$ to form a meson of momentum fraction $`x`$ in the proton. The evaluation of both of these probability functions are discussed in  for a more general case and an earlier, but pioneering, version also proposed in . In the present case these functions are much simpler. Guided by works done in Ref.  we can write :

$$F(y,z)=\mathrm{\Omega }yG_{\frac{CQ}{p}}(y)z\overline{q}_{inh.}(z)(1yz)^\delta $$
(33)
$$R(y,z;x)=\rho y^az^b\delta (y+z1)$$
(34)
Here we take $`a=b=1`$ reflecting that two CQ’s in meson almost equally share its momentum. The exponent $`\delta `$ is fixed for the $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ states using the data from E866 experiment and the mass ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`n`$. They turn out to be approximately 18 and 13 respectively. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\rho `$ are the normalization constants also fixed by data. It is now possible to evaluate $`\overline{u}_M`$ and $`\overline{d}_M`$ quarks associated with the formation of meson states:

$$\overline{d}_M(x,Q^2)=_x^1\frac{dy}{y}[P_{\pi n}(y)+\frac{1}{6}P_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}(y)]d_\pi (\frac{x}{y},Q^2)$$
(35)
$$\overline{u}_M(x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{2}_x^1\frac{dy}{y}P_{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}(y)u_\pi (\frac{x}{y},Q^2)$$
(36)
where $`u_\pi `$ and $`d_\pi `$ are the valence quark probability densities in the pion at scale $`Q_0^2`$. The coefficients $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{6}`$ are due to Isospin consideration. Using Eqs. (16, 17, 24) we can calculate various parton distributions in a the pion. Those pertinent to Eqs. (34, 35) are:

$$\overline{u}_{val.}^\pi ^{}(x,Q^2)=_x^1G_{\overline{U}/\pi ^{}}(y)\overline{u}_{val./\overline{U}}(\frac{x}{y},Q^2)\frac{dy}{y}$$
(37)
$$d_{val.}^\pi ^{}(x,Q^2)=_x^1G_{D/\pi ^{}}(y)d_{val./D}(\frac{x}{y},Q^2)\frac{dy}{y}$$
(38)
$$\overline{u}_{val./\overline{U}}=u_{val./U}$$
(39)
There are some data on the valence structure function of $`\pi ^{}`$ . Defining valence structure function of $`\pi ^{}`$ as:

$$F_{val.}^\pi ^{}=x\overline{u}_{val.}^\pi ^{}=xd_{val.}^\pi ^{}$$
(40)
we present the results of our calculation for $`F_{val.}^\pi ^{}`$ in Figure (5) along with the experimental data at $`Q^2`$ around 6 $`Gev^2`$. Returning to the $`\overline{d}`$ excess over $`\overline{u}`$ in proton we can write all the contributions as:

$$(\frac{\overline{d}}{\overline{u}})_{proton}=\frac{\overline{d}_M+\overline{d}_{inh.+CQ}}{\overline{u}_M+\overline{u}_{inh.+CQ}}$$
(41)
NuSea collaboration at FermiLab E866 experiment has published their results  for integral of $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ and $`\frac{\overline{d}}{\overline{u}}`$ at $`Q=7.35`$ $`GeV`$. With the procedure described, we have calculated these values at the same $`Q`$ and for the range of $`x`$ as experimentally measured: $`x=[0.02,0.35]`$. The results of the model is:

$$_{0.02}^{0.345}𝑑x(\overline{d}\overline{u})=0.085$$
(42)
to be compared with the experimental value of $`0.068\pm 0.0106`$. We get for the entire range in $`x`$: $`_0^1𝑑x(\overline{d}\overline{u})=0.103`$ while the experimentally extrapolated value is $`0.1\pm 0.018`$ which are in excellent agreement with our calculations. This gives a value for the Gottfried sum rule of:

$$S_G=_0^1[F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)]\frac{dx}{x}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{2}{3}_0^1𝑑x[\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)]=0.264.$$
(43)
at $`Q=7.35`$ $`GeV`$. The NMC result  is $`S_G=0.235\pm 0.026`$ which is at much lower value of $`Q^2=4`$ $`GeV^2`$. In Figure (6), $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ and $`\frac{\overline{d}}{\overline{u}}`$ in proton are shown as a function of $`x`$ at $`Q=7.35`$ $`GeV`$ along with the measured results.
We are now in a position to present the results for the proton structure function, $`F_2^p`$. In Eqs.(16,17) we presented the form of parton distributions in a CQ. Using those relations with the numerical values given in appendix then from Eq.(1) the structure function of CQ is obtained. In Eqs. (22, 23) the shape of CQ distributions in proton is given. With the help of Eq. (19) now all the ingredients are in place to calculate $`F_2^p`$. In Figure (7) the results are shown at many values of $`Q^2`$. As it is evident they fall a few percent short of representing the data. However, as mentioned earlier, there is an additional contribution from the inherent partons to $`F_2^p`$ which is calculated in Eq. (30). Adding this component represents the data rather well and can be seen from Figure (7). The data points are from . For the purpose of comparing our results with other calculations, we have also included in Figure (7), the GRV’s NLO results  as well as the prediction of CTEQ4M . Notice that we have taken the number of active flavors to be three for $`Q^25GeV^2`$ and four flavors elsewhere. In Figure (8) the gluon distribution predicted by the model is presented along with those from Ref..

## IV summary and conclusion

In this paper we have used the notion of constituent quark as a well defined entity being common to all hadrons. Its structure can be calculated in QCD perturbatively to all orders. A CQ receives its own structure by dressing a valence quark with gluon and $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs in QCD. We have calculated its structure function in the Next-to-Leading order for the first time. Considering a hadron as the bound states of these CQs we have used the convolution theorem to extract the hadronic structure functions for proton and pion. Besides the CQ structure contribution to the hadrons, there is also a nonperturbative component while contributing only a few percent to the overall structure of hadrons becomes crucial in explaining the violation of Gottfried sum rule and the excess of $`\overline{d}`$ over $`\overline{u}`$ in the nucleon sea. A mechanism is devised for this purpose and necessary calculations are outlined. We have presented the results and compared them with all available relevant data and with the work of others. We found that our results are in good agreement with the data.

## V APPENDIX

In this appendix we will give the functional form of parameters of Eqs. (16, 17) in terms of the evolution parameter, $`t`$. This will completely determines partonic structure of CQ and their evolution. The results are valid for three and four flavors, although the flavor number is not explicitly present but they have entered in through the calculation of moments. As we explained in the text, we have taken the number of flavors to be three for $`Q^25GeV^2`$ and four for higher $`Q^2`$ values.
I) Valence quark in CQ (Eq. 16):
$`a=0.1512+1.785t1.145t^2+0.2168t^3`$
$`b=1.4601.137t+0.471t^20.089t^3`$
$`c=1.031+1.037t0.023t^2+0.0075t^3`$
II) Sea quark in CQ (Eq. 17):
$`\alpha =0.0700.213t+0.247t^20.080t^3`$
$`\beta =0.3361.703t+1.495t^20.455t^3`$
$`\gamma =20.526+57.495t46.892t^2+12.057t^3`$
$`\eta =3.1879.141t+10.000t^23.306t^3`$
$`\xi =7.914+19.177t18.023t^2+5.279t^3`$
$`N=1.023+0.124t2.306t^2+1.965t^3`$
III) Gluon in CQ (Eq. 17)
$`\alpha =0.8261.643t+1.856t^20.564t^3`$
$`\beta =0.3281.363t+0.950t^20.242t^3`$
$`\gamma =0.482+1.528t0.223t^20.023t^3`$
$`\eta =0.4803.386t+4.616t^21.441t^3`$
$`\xi =2.375+6.873t7.458t^2+2.161t^3`$
$`N=2.2476.903t+6.879t^21.876t^3`$

## VI Figure Caption

Figure-1. Moments of partons in a CQ at $`Q^2=20`$ $`GeV^2`$ as a function of $`z`$.
Figure-2. Parton distributions in proton and $`\pi ^{}`$ at $`Q^2=20`$ $`GeV^2`$ as a function of $`x`$.
Figure-3. Contribution of inherent component to a sea parton distribution. The dashed-dotted line is that of CQ and the solid line represents the sum of the two components.
Figure-4. Processes responsible to $`SU(2)`$ symmetry breaking in the nucleon sea and violation of Gottfried sum rule.
Figure-5. Pion valence structure function as a functuon of $`x`$ at $`Q^2=5.5`$ $`(Gev/c)^2`$. Solid curve is the result of the model calculations and the data points are from Ref..
Figure-6. The ratio $`\frac{\overline{d}}{\overline{u}}`$ and the difference $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ as a function of $`X`$. The solid line in the model calculation and the dotted line is the prediction of CTEQ4M. Data are from Ref. .
Figure-7. Proton structure function $`F_2^p`$ as a function of $`x`$ calculated using the model and compared with the data from Ref.  for different $`Q^2`$ values. The thin line is the prediction of GRV Ref. and the dashed line is that of CTEQ4M Ref..
Figure-8. The gluon distribution in proton as a function of $`x`$ at $`Q^2=20`$ $`GeV^2`$. We have also shown the prediction of GRV (dashed-dotted line) and CTEQ4M (dashed line). The data points are from H1 collaboration.


text:
# Vacuum structure in QCD and Correlation functions*footnote **footnote * Talk prepared for DAE Nuclear Physics Symposium, December 27th–31st, 1999,Chandigarh, India

## I Introduction

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is now accepted to be the theory of strong interaction in terms of quarks and gluons, and, at a secondary level, of hadrons. It is a nonabelian gauge theory with $`SU(3)`$ as the gauge group. This nonabelianess of the interaction leads to two important consequences. Firstly, the interaction become weak at high momentum (above several GeV) transfer processes where perturbation theory is applicable. At low energies and momenta, relevant to most of nuclear physics, the quark gluon coupling strength becomes large and an expansion in powers of this coupling is not useful. The basic difficulty appears to be an understanding of the ground state properties of QCD or its vacuum structure which plays an important role for the related physics .

Conceptually, low energy QCD has many common feature with condensed matter physics. The vacuum here appear to be consisting of having fluctuating quarks and gluon fields with average properties being described by condensates of quarks and gluons. The quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$, i.e. expectation value of quark scalar densities, plays an important role in the context of strong interactions. It displays the breaking of chiral symmetry. This symmetry is crucial to our understanding of nucleons,nuclei and dense matter. The other quantity that charcterise the QCD vacuum is the gluon condensate. The energy density of vacuum is lowered by presence of electric and magnetic gluon fields in the ground state. These condensates were introduced in the context of QCD sumrules and the values are estimated from the charmonia spectroscopy as $`\alpha _s/\pi GG=2\alpha _s/\pi ^2(𝐄^2𝐁^2)=0.012GeV^4`$ and $`\overline{q}q=(250MeV)^3`$ .

Thus QCD vacuum poses a rich complicated many body problem. As in other many body system ground state correlation functions give an insight to the ground state structure. One might be interested in asking questions like what happens to a meson pair when placed in such a condensate medium or what happens to interquark interaction as a function of their spatial separation. We might remind ourselves that nucleon scattering phase shifts gives information regading inter-nucleon forces complementary to that infered from their bound state namely from the properties of deuteron. N-N scattering allows one to study different components of nuclear forces (spin-spin, tensor,$`\mathrm{}`$) at different spatial separation in much more detail than deuteron observables which is an composite effects of all channels. In QCD we however do not have free quarks or gluons due to confinement. None the less, one can infer about inter-quark interaction as a function of their separation in different channels by studying propagators and correlation functions of hadron currents in a more detailed manner than the composite effects reflected in hadron bound state. The correlation functions that we shall consider here are spacelike separated correlation functions. To be precise we shall take the correlation functions to be defined at equal time so that their separation is purely spatial. Such correlation functions have several appealing features. They describe different physics at different spatial separations; they can be calculated in some channels phenomenologically from $`e^+e^{}`$hadrons data or from $`\tau `$ decay experimental data. Moreover they can be evaluated in lattice simulations  or in some model for vacuum.

Our appraoch here shall be assuming a structure for the vacuum and then examining its consequences regarding correlator phenomenology. More precisely, we shall use phenomenological results of correlation functions of hadronic currents  to guide us towards a “true” structure of QCD vacuum. We organise this note as follows. In section II, we shall discuss a construct for the vacuum in terms of quark and gluon condensates , and the resulting correlation functions . It appears that condensates alone do not give rise to correct phenomenology of correlators unless one includes fluctuations of such condensates . Inclusion of the fluctuation fields yields correlation functions consistent with the phenomenology of correlation functions. Such a structure of vacuum of zero temeperature is then generalised to finite temperature in section III. Here we shall also compute the finite temperature correlators to determine temperature dependent hadron properties . In section IV, we shall discuss the vacuum structure at high density and the QCD vacuum with diquark condensate giving rise to color superconductivity. Finally, we summarize our results with some remarks and discussions in section V.

## II An ansatz for the QCD vacuum and correlation functions

A variational ansatz was considered in Ref. for the QCD vacuum with an explicit construct involving quark antiquark pairs and gluon pairs. The trial ansatz was given as

$$|vac=\mathrm{exp}(B_F^{}B_F)(B_G^{}B_G)|0$$
(1)
where, the Bogoliubov pair creation operators for the quarks and the gluons are given respectively as

$$B_F^{}=q_I^0(𝐤)^{}(𝝈𝐤)h(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{q}_I^0(𝐤)𝑑𝐤,$$
(3)
and,

$$B_G^{}=a_i^a(𝐤)^{}g(𝐤)a_i^a(𝐤)𝑑𝐤.$$
(4)
In the above $`q_I^0,\stackrel{~}{q}_I^0`$ are two component quark and antiquark annihilation operators respectively. The subscript $`0`$ indicates that they annihilate the peruturbative vacuum $`|0`$ i.e. $`q_I^0|0=0=\stackrel{~}{q}^{}|0`$. $`a_i^a`$ is the gluon annihilation operator. The operators satisfy the quantum algebra given in Coulomb gauge as

$$[q_{Ir}^{i0}(𝐤),q_{Is}^{0j}(𝐤^{})^{}]_+=\delta ^{ij}\delta _{rs}\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}),$$
(6)
and,

$$[a_i^a(𝐤),a_j^b(𝐤^{})]=\delta ^{ab}\left(\delta _{ij}𝐤_i𝐤_j/𝐤^2\right)\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}).$$
(7)
Finally, $`h(𝐤)`$ and $`g(𝐤)`$ are two trial functions associated with the quark antiquark condensates and gluon pairs respectively. Clearly, a construct as in Eq.(1)has an obvious parallel to BCS theory of superconductivity. Such a structure for vacuum eventually reduces to Bogoliubov transformation for the operators. Then one can calculate the, energy functional–the expectation value of the Hamiltonian which is a functional of the condensate functions. Since the functions cannot be determined through functional minimisations one can parametrise the condensate functions with some trial functions simple enough to manipulate numerically as well as reasonable enough to simulate correct physical behaviour. In Ref., the following choices were made (with $`k=|𝐤|`$)

$$\mathrm{tan}2h(𝐤)=\frac{A^{}}{(\mathrm{exp}(R^2k^2)1)^{1/2}}$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{sinh}g(𝐤)=A\mathrm{exp}(bk^2)$$
(10)
In Ref. the energy density was minimised with respect to the condensate parameters subjected to the constraint that the pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$ and the gluon condensate value $`(\alpha _s/\pi )GG`$ turns out to be the experimental values of 93 MeV and $`0.012GeV^4`$ respectively. The result of such a minimisation then leads to instabilty of perturbative vacuum to condensate formation beyond a critical coupling of $`\alpha _s^c=0.6`$. For $`\alpha _s=1.28`$, the charge radius of pion comes out correctly. The values of $`A^{}`$ and $`R`$ turns out to be $`A^{}1`$ and $`R0.96fm.`$ Further some of the baryonic properties like charge radius of proton, magnetic moments of proton and neutron turns out to be close to their corresponding experimental values. Further, the bag constant– the energy difference between the perturbative and the nonperturbative vacuum turns out to be $`ϵ_0=(140MeV)^4`$which appears to be in general agreement with the phenomenological value of this parameter.

With such a description of the vacuum in terms of condensates let us look at the correlation functions and propagators in a condensed medium. The equal time propagator is given as

$`S_{\alpha \beta }(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[q_\alpha (𝐱),\overline{q}_\beta (\mathrm{𝟎})]`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle e^{i𝐤𝐱}\left[\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)𝜸𝐤\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)\right]}`$ (12)
Clearly, free massless propagator corresponds to $`h(𝐤)0`$ limit of above equation and is given as $`S_0=(i/2\pi ^2)(𝜸𝐱/x^4)`$. Different components of the propagator given in Eq.(LABEL:prop) can be analysed and it turns out to be qualitatively similar to those obtained from other nonperturbative calculations like an instanton liquid model for QCD vacuum. Further, a small x expansion of Eq.(LABEL:prop) yields the propagtor as that one would get in the operator product expansion in the vacuum saturation approximation.

We shall next consider the correlation functions of mesonic currents of generic form $`J(𝐱)=\overline{q}_\alpha (𝐱)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }q_\beta (𝐱)`$, where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are spinor indices and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a 4$`\times `$4 matrix in Dirac space $`(1,\gamma _5,\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)`$. The equal time correlation function is defined as

$$R(𝐱)=\frac{1}{2}vac|J(𝐱)\overline{J}(\mathrm{𝟎})|vac+vac|\overline{J}(\mathrm{𝟎})J(𝐱)|vac$$
(14)
With the definition of condensate vacuum as in Eq.(1) and the propagator given in Eq.(LABEL:prop), Eq.(14) reduces to

$$R(x)=Tr[S(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}S(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }]$$
(15)
where, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\gamma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\gamma _0`$. We shall be normalising the correlation functions with that of free massless correlation function which is given as parallel to Eq(15) as

$$R_0(x)=Tr[S_0(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}S_0(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }]$$
(16)
The ratio $`R(x)/R_0(x)`$ can then be evaluated for different channels. It turns out that correlation function so obtained has similar qualitative behaviour as one can obtain from phenomenology in all chnnels except for the pseudoscalar channel . Phenomenologically, in this channel there is a strong attraction with the ratio becoming about 100 at a separation of about a fermi. The calculated value however turns out to be as low as 1.2 around that value. All these results depend very weakly on the functional form of $`h(𝐤)`$.

In view of this outcome, it is obvious that some crucial physics is missing from the model of vacuum considered in Eq.(1) and has to be supplemented by additional effects. In the present framework this means that quark propagators alone do not describe the correlation functions and there has to be contributions from irreducible four point structure of the vacuum. This can be thought of as a manifestation of fluctuation of the condensates. Thus we have

$`T\overline{q}_\alpha (𝐱)q_\beta (𝐱)q_\gamma (\mathrm{𝟎})q_\delta (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\beta \gamma }(𝐱)S_{\delta \alpha }(𝐱)+:\overline{q}_\alpha (𝐱)q_\beta (𝐱)q_\gamma (\mathrm{𝟎})q_\delta (\mathrm{𝟎}):`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`S_{\beta \gamma }(𝐱)S_{\delta \alpha }(𝐱)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\beta \gamma }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\delta \alpha }(zbfx)`$ (18)
where, we have introduced the composite fields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to include the effects of fluctuation with $`vac|\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }|vac=0`$ but $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }|\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, where, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$is the “new improved” QCD vacuum including the condensate fluctuations. The correlation function then takes the form

$$R(x)=[Tr[S(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}S(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }]+Tr[\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐱))\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }]]$$
(20)
The structure of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field should be such that it contributes mostly to the pseudoscalar channel and should not affect the other channels very much. Such a condition restricts the composite field to be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }(𝐱)=\mu _1^2(\gamma ^i\gamma ^jϵ_{ijk}\varphi ^k(𝐱)+\mu _2^2\delta _{\alpha \beta }\varphi (𝐱)$$
(21)
where, we have introduced the scalar and vector fileds $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^k`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi ^i(𝐱)\varphi ^j(\mathrm{𝟎})|\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta ^{ij}g_V(𝐱)$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\varphi (𝐱)\varphi (\mathrm{𝟎})|\mathrm{\Omega }=g_S(𝐱)$$
(24)
From general considerations, we may write down the functions $`g_V(𝐱),g_S(𝐱)`$ as

$$g_V(𝐱)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2x}\left[\mu _1K_1(\mu _1x)\mu _3K_1(\mu _3x)\right]$$
(26)
$$g_S(𝐱)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2x}\left[\mu _2K_1(\mu _4x)\mu _5K_1(\mu _6x)\right]$$
(27)
Using Eq.s(20,21,26,27) one can have the expression for the correlation functions in different channels. Explicitly different currents in different channels and the contributions from the propagator and the fluctuation fields are shown separately in Table I. We have also included here the currents for the baryons. The resulting correlation functions normalised to correlation functions obtained by treating the quarks as massless and noninteracting are plotted in Fig.1.

To get the hadron parameters from the correlation functions one relates the correlation function through a dispersion relation to a spectral density function. For example in the vector channel the dispersion relation for the correlation function reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \mu }(x)\mathrm{\Omega }|T(J_\mu (x)\overline{J}_\mu (0))|\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sR_i(s)D(s^{1/2},x)$$
(28)
with, the function $`D(m,x)=(m/4\pi ^2x)K_1(mx)`$ is a propagator of a particle of mass $`m`$. The function $`R_i(x)`$ is the normalised spectral density function related to the cross section of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation to hadrons. In presence of interaction, in general we do not know how to calculate the spectral density function . However we do know their qualitative behaviour based on experimental information. To extract hadron parameters one parametrises the spectral function and then determine the parameters. A useful parametrisation valid at zero temperature is in terms of a Dirac delta function at the pole mass of the hadron accompanied by a step function continuum at higher energy. Specifically, for $`\rho `$ meson the spectral density function is parametrised by

$$R_\rho (s)=3\lambda ^2\delta (sM^2)+\frac{3s}{4\pi ^2}\theta (ss_0).$$
(29)
where, M is the bound state mass, $`\lambda `$ is the coupling of the current to the bound state and $`s_0`$ is the threshold for continuum contribution. The fitted parametrs to the correlation functions obatined by us (solid curve in Fig.1 are given in Table II

As may be evident from this the results are comparable with that of lattice calculation  and instanton liquid model calculations . Thus to be consistent with the data QCD vacuum must not only have condensates but also have their fluctuations.

## III QCD vacuum and correlation functions at finite temperature

As is well known  the QCD vacuum state changes with temperature. Lattice Monte Carlo simulations suggest that chiral symmetry is restored around 150 MeV. Thus it is interesting to look at correlation functions at finite temperature in the context of behaviour of hadrons around the chiral phase transition . It may be noted that there is little phenomenological information in this regime but there are several theoretical studies  using operator product expansion (OPE) and sum rule methods as well as using instanton liquid model for QCD ground state . In particular, we shall generalise the method considerd in the previous section to include temperature effects. The zero temperature vacuum defined in Eq.(1) can be generalised to finite temperature using the methodology of thermofield dynamics. Here the thermal average of an operator is obtained as an expectation value of the operator over the thermal vacuum. The thermal vacuum is obtained from the zero temperature vacuum by a thermal Bogoliubov transformation in an extended Hilbert space involving extra field operators (thermal doubling of operators). Explicitly, the thermal vacuum is given as

$$|vac,\beta =\mathrm{exp}(d𝐤\theta (𝐤,\beta )(q_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐤)\underset{¯}{q_I}^{}(𝐤)+\stackrel{~}{q}_I(𝐤)\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{q}}_I(𝐤))h.c.)|vac$$
(30)
where, the underlined oprators are the operators corresponding to extra of Hilbert space. Further, the $`q_I^{}s`$ are the opeartors refers to the fact that they are the quasi paricle operators corresponding to basis defined by the vacuum of Eq.(1) i.e. $`q_I|vac=0=\stackrel{~}{q}_I^{}|vac`$ and finally $`\theta (k,\beta )`$ is the function for the thermal Bogoliubov transformation and is related to the number density function given as

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (𝐤,\beta )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ)+1}$$
(31)
where, $`ϵ(𝐤)`$ is the single particle energy given as $`ϵ(𝐤)=\sqrt{𝐤^2+m(k)^2}`$. In the presence of condensate the dynamical mass is given as $`m(k)=k\mathrm{tan}2h(k)`$ . As before the equal time propagator can be calculated including the temperature effects as

$`S_{\alpha \beta }(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`vac,\beta |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[q_\alpha (𝐱),\overline{q}_\beta (\mathrm{𝟎})]|vac,\beta `$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle e^{i𝐤𝐱}\mathrm{cos}2\theta (𝐤,\beta )\left[\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)\gamma 𝐤\mathrm{cos}2h(𝐤)\right]}`$ (33)
As in Section III, we shall take a gaussian ansatz for the condensate function $`\mathrm{sin}2h(𝐤)=\mathrm{exp}(R(T)^2𝐤^2/2`$, with the condensate scale parameter $`R`$, now being temperature dependent. In order to determine $`R(T)`$ or equivalently the ratio $`S(T)=R(T=0)/R(T)`$, we first evaluate our expression of the order parameter (the condensate value) at finite temperature. In terms of the dimensionless variable $`\eta =Rk`$, this is given as

$$\frac{\overline{q}q_T}{\overline{q}q_{T=0}}=S(T)^3\left[12\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}e^{\eta ^2/2}\mathrm{sin}^2(z,\eta )\eta ^2𝑑\eta \right],$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (z,\eta )=1/(\mathrm{exp}(zϵ(\eta ))+1))`$, with $`z=\beta /R(T)`$ and $`ϵ(\eta )=\eta /\mathrm{cos}2h(\eta )`$.

We can obtain $`S(T)=R(T=0)/R(T)`$ if we know the temperature dependence of the order parameter on the left hand side of Eq.(35). As there are no phenomenological inputs for this, we shall proceed in the following manner to take the temperature dependence of the quark condensate. For low temperatures we shall take the results from chiral perturbation theory (CHPT) which is expected to be valid at least for small temperatures. For higher temperatures near the critical temperature, lattice simulations seem to yield the universal behaviour with a large correlation length associated with a second order phase transition for two flavor massless QCD. We shall use such a critical behaviour to consider the temperature dependence of the order parameter near the critical temperature.

For intermediate regime we shall take a smooth interpolation between the two. The resulting behaviour of the temperature dependance of the quark condensate and the ratio $`R(0)/R(T)`$ determined using Eq.(35) are shown in Fig.s 2.

With the temperature dependence of $`R(T)`$ known as above, the propagator function of eq.(LABEL:propt) now completely defined. The finite temperature correlation function is now given as, parallel to Eq.(20)

$$R(𝐱,T)=[Tr[S(𝐱,T)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}S(𝐱,T)\mathrm{\Gamma }]+Tr[\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐱))\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐱)\mathrm{\Gamma }]]_T.$$
(36)
The second term in the above corresponds to contributions from the fluctuations at finite temperature that can be written interms of the functions $`g_S(𝐱,T),g_V(𝐱,T)`$ as earlier but now being temperature dependent. We do not know how to calculate it except for a general property that the effect of the four point structure should decrease with temperature. We take here a simple ansatz for the temperature dependence of $`g_V`$ and $`g_S`$,

$$g_{S,V}(𝐱,T)=\left(\frac{\overline{q}q_T}{\overline{q}q_{T=0}}\right)^2g_{S,V}(𝐱,T=0)$$
(37)
The parameters $`\mu _i`$ are choosen to have the same values as of zero temperature while fitting the mesonic and baryonic correlation function. The normalised correlation functions $`R(𝐱,T)/R_0(𝐱,T=0)`$ are plotted in Fig.4a and Fig 4b respectively.

As expected (on physical grounds) the amplitude of the correlator decreases with increasing temperature. The peak of the vector correlator shifts towards the right after $`T=0.9T_c`$. We might remind ourselves that the position of the peak of the correlator is inversely proportional to the mass of the particle in the relevant channel.

To extract hadronic properties at finite temperature, the correlators are parametrised in terms of a spectral density function. This is a generalisation of eq.(29) to finite temperature and is given as ,

$$\rho ^V(s)=3\lambda _\rho ^2\delta (sM_\rho ^2)+\frac{3s}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{\sqrt{s}}{4T}\right]\theta (ss_o)+T^2S_\rho \delta (s)$$
(38)
$$\rho ^P(s)=\lambda _\pi ^2\delta (sM_\pi ^2)+\frac{3s}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\frac{\sqrt{s}}{4T}\right]\theta (ss_o)$$
(39)
Eq.(39) corresponds to spectral density function for pseudoscalar channel. The last term in Eq.(38) The last term in Eq. (38) is the scattering term for soft thermal dissociations (mainly through pions), which exists only at finite temperature and can be taken as $`S_\rho \frac{T^2}{9}`$.

The mass, threshold and coupling are then extracted and the results are plotted in Fig. 4 for the vector and in the pseudoscalar channel. As can be seen from Fig.s3, with increase in temperature, the correlation functions have a lower peak indicating lack of correlations with temperature. In the vector channel the mass of the $`\rho `$ meson appears to decrease for temperatures beyond 120 MeV. The threshold for the continuum also decreases around the same temperature. The behaviour with temperature of these quantities is qualitatively similar to that found by Hatsuda et al. We have also plotted the temperature dependence of the coupling of the bound state to the current which decreases with temperature but rather slowly as compared to mass or the threshold for the continuum. The temperature dependence of these parameters can be used to calculate the lepton pair production rate from $`\rho `$ in the context of ultra relativistic heavy ion collision experiments to estimate vector meson mass shift in the medium.

In the pseudoscalar channel the mass remains almost constant till the critical temperature whereas the thershold and the coupling decrase with the temparature. We have found that in the pseudoscalar channel, the contribution to the correlation function mostly comes from the fluctuating fields. Further, the temperature behaviour as taken in Eq.(37) essentially does not shift the position of the peak whereas the magnitude of the correlator decreases. That is reflected in the above behaviour of the parameters in the pseudoscalar channel. We may note here that similar behaviour of pion mass becoming almost insensitive to temperature below the critical temperature was also observed in Ref. where correlation functions were calculated in a QCD motivated effective theory namely the Nambu- Jona Lasinio model.

## IV QCD vacuum at finite densities

Let us now go over to explore the ground state structure in high density QCD. Unlike high temperatures, rather little is known about QCD at finite baryon densities from first principles like lattice QCD simulation due to technical problems. However, different low energy models of QCD seem to indicate a rich phase structure in this domain. In particular the color superconductivity phase at high density has attracted much attention. Although it was known for quite sometime , recent studies  indicated that the superconducting gap could be as large as 100 MeV and that has lead to an extensive literature on this subject in recent past regarding its consequences in neutron stars as well as for heavy ion collisions.

As per BCS theorem, an arbitrarily weak attractive interaction makes the fermi sea of quarks unsatble at high densities. In deed, the color current current interaction is attractive in the scalar $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ and axial vector channel. This can lead to formation of Cooper pairs and associated superconductivity in the color space. To discuss it in a nonperturbative manner, we take the trial ansatz over the chiral condensed vacuum of Eq.(1) as

$$|\omega =\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}[q_r^{ia}(𝐤)^{}f(𝐤)q_r^{jb}(𝐤)^{}ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{3ab}+\stackrel{~}{q}_r^{ia}(𝐤)f_1(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{q}_r^{jb}(𝐤)ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{3ab}]d𝐤.]|vac$$
(40)
In the above, $`i,j`$ are flavor indices, $`a,b`$ are the color indices and $`r(=\pm 1/2)`$ is the spin index. We shall consider here two flavor and SU(3) color. Here we have also introduced two trial functions $`f(𝐤)`$ and $`f_1(𝐤)`$ respectively for the diquark and diantiquark channel. As may be noted the state constructed in Eq.(40) is spin singlet and is antisymmetric in color and flavor.

Next, to include the effect of temperature and density, we obtain the state at finite temperature and density $`|\omega (\beta ,\mu )`$ by a thermal Bogoliubov transformation over the state $`|\omega `$ using thermofield dynamics as in Eq.(30),

$$|\omega (\beta ,\mu )=\mathrm{exp}(q_I(𝐤)^{}\theta _{}(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\underset{¯}{q}_I(𝐤)^{}+\stackrel{~}{q}_I(𝐤)\theta _+(𝐤,\beta ,\mu )\underset{¯}{\overset{~}{q}}_I(𝐤)d𝐤h.c.)|\omega $$
(41)
In the above, the ansatz functions $`\theta _\pm (𝐤,\beta ,\mu )`$, as before, will be related to quark and antiquark distributions. We might note here that the trial ansatz given in Eq.(41) actually invloves five functions - $`h(𝐤)`$, for the quark anti quark condensates, $`f(𝐤)`$ and $`f_1(𝐤)`$ describing respectively the diquark and diantiquark condensates and $`\theta _\pm (𝐤,\beta ,\mu )`$ to include the temperature and density effects. All these functions are to be obtained by minimising the thermodynamic potential. This will involve an assumption about the effective hamiltonian . For the purpose of illustration we shall consider a hamiltonian of Nambu-Jonalasinio type given as

$$=\psi ^{}(i𝜶\mathbf{})\psi +\frac{g^2}{2}J_\mu ^aJ^{\mu a}.$$
(42)
with $`J_\mu ^a=\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu T^aq`$. One can then calculate the energy functional $`ϵ=\omega (\beta ,\mu )||\omega (\beta ,\mu )`$ and the thermodynamic potential $`=ϵ(1/\beta )S\mu N`$, using the Bogoliubov technique. The details are given in Ref. . The free energy is a functional of all the five functions $`h,f,f_1,\theta _\pm `$. However with the point interaction of the the Hamiltonian of eq.(42) one can determine them. This results in two coupled gap equations to be solved in a self consistent manner and are given as

$$\frac{4g^2}{3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝐤^2+M^2}}\left(\frac{\xi _{}}{\omega _{}}tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _{}}{2})+\frac{\xi _+}{\omega _+}tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _+}{2})\right)=1$$
(44)
$$\frac{4g^2}{3}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑𝐤\left(\frac{tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _{}}{2})}{\omega _{}}+\frac{tanh(\frac{\beta \omega _+}{2})}{\omega _+}\right)=1$$
(45)
where, $`\omega _\pm =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\xi _\pm ^2}`$ and $`\xi _\pm =(E\pm \nu )`$. Here, $`E`$ is the energy of the quasi paricles given as $`E=\sqrt{(k^2+M^2)}`$, and,$`\nu `$ is the chemical potential in presence of interaction given as $`\nu =\mu (4g^2/3)(N/12)`$, $`N`$ being the quark number density. Eq.(44) is the mass gap equation in presence of diquark condensates and Eq.(45) is the superconducting gap equation which is a relativistic generalisation of BCS gap equation . In the limit of no diquark condensates Eq.(44) reduces to that obtained in Ref. except for the numerical factors before the integrand. This is due to the fact that the approximation the the later case has been a mean field approximation  unlike the case here where approximation lies only with the ansatz for the ground state. Eq.(44) without the diquark condensate contributions is also have the same structure as in Ref. in the limit of the formfactors intoduced in the later case reduces to a sharp cutoff in the momentum. Similarly in the limit of chiral condensate going to zero, the super conducting gap equation (45) is similar to that obtained in Ref. or Ref..

The solution of these equation at zero temperature is shown in Fig.(5) for the mass gap and in Fig.(6) for the superconducting gap. For the sake of comparision we have also plotted the mass gap without the diquark condensates. The coupling here taken as $`g^256GeV^2`$ and the cutoff$`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.67GeV`$. these values are taken so as to give the same transition temperature as in ref. With these couplings, the mass gap at zero temperature and density is about 490 MeV and the mass gap vanishes at fermi momentum $`k_f=\sqrt{\nu ^2M^2}=400MeV`$. The corresponding critical quark number density is about $`1.7/fm^3`$.

Presence of diquark condensate does not change these values very much. The diquark condensate increases with number density and becomes maximum of about 90 MeV beyond which the effect of the cutoff is felt and it vanishes for fermi momentum around 600 MeV. We also plot the equation of state (EOS) in Fig.7.

While plotting the EOS, we have added the bag constant $`ϵ_0`$, which is the difference in energy density of the perturbative vacuum and the nonperturbative vacuum with condensate at zero temperature and density, to the pressure. With the present parameters the bag constant turns out to be $`(200MeV)^4`$. The pressure has a cusp like structure and becomes negative at finite densities. The portion of the curve that goes down with $`k_f`$ corresponds to the nontrivial solution to the mass gap and the portion that increases with density correspond to zero mass solution. The negative pressure indicates mechanical instability and can have the interpretation that uniform nonzero density matter will break up in to droplets of finite density in which chiral symmetry is restored surrounded by empty space with zero pressure and density . It is tempting to identify the droplets of quark matter with nucleons within which density is nozero and $`\overline{q}q=0`$ – a fact reminscent of bag models . Nothing in the model however says that the droplets have quark number three. The equation of state does not change much in presence of diquark condensates. This should be expected because the effect of diquark condensate is small in the region where chiral condensate is non vanishing. Thus gross structural properties of the neutron stars are not likely to be affected by diquark condensates. However, cooling of neutron stars shall be expected to be very much affected by such a gap of about 100 MeV.

## V summary and discussions

We have looked into the structure of QCD vacuum in a nonperturbative manner with a variational ansatz. This has been done for zero temperature as well as finite temperature and densities. The input has been equal time algebra for the field operators and the ansatz for the ground state. At zero temperature, the Bogoliubov type pairing ansatz involving both quark and gluon condensates becomes energetically favourable beyond a critical coupling. It also gave some of the low energy hadronic properties like pion and proton charge raddi, proton,neutron magnetic moments and the bag constant to be around their phenomenological values for the coupling value of $`1.28`$. Thus $`\alpha _s=1.28`$ effectively corresponds to the QCD coupling constant for the vacuum configuration. With optimized renormalisation group equations, it has been seen that  $`\alpha _s(Q)`$ does not  go to infinity as $`Q`$ decreases below 300 MeV, but freezes to a constant value around unity. Our analysis seems to remind us of a similar situation.

We next evaluated the correlation functions of hadronic currents in such a condensed medium. However it appears that to have quantitative agreement with correlator phenomenology, particularly in the pseudoscalar channel, these cannot be described by the propagators alone but must of necessity have the fluctuations of the condensates. This may be looked upon as combination of two effects –(i) an effective way of incorporating gluon condensate effects and (ii)the existance of explicit four point structure in QCD vacuum. In some ways these fluctuations may be related to the “hidden contributions” discussed by Suryak .

It is worthwhile pointing out that OPE and our approach are based on intrinsically different assumptions. The former is an expansion which separates short distance (Wilson coefficients) and long distance (condensates) physics. In our method we assume an explicit vacuum structure in terms of quark condensate (two point function) plus an irreducible four point function. Having made an ansatz for the vacuum, we do not make any further approximation in the evaluation of the correlators. The approach is phenomenological in the sense that the values of the parameters in the four point function  are chosen to reproduce the behaviour of the correlators. As emphasized by Shuryak  and Sch$`\ddot{a}`$fer and Shuryak  OPE is able to quantitatively describe the zero temperature pion correlation functions for small x (upto 0.25 fm) but underpredicts it for large x. In our work the agreement is quantitative with experimentally deduced mesonic correlation function and lattice results  for the whole range. This covers the small x values, resonance region and large x domain where the correlator vanishes. We have however more parameters. To the extent that the large x behaviour of the pionic correlator depends on gluon condensates in OPE our parametrization would imply an effective way of including gluon condensate effects.

For studying the correlators at finite temperature, we assume that the two point as well as the four point function vanish at $`T=T_C`$. The parameters in the four point function are assumed constant at their $`T=0`$ values – no additional T dependence is given to them. We see that our results are broadly in agreement with those of Hatsuda etal . All the same, it is not possible to carry out a term by term comparison of our results with OPE results. This is because the assumptions are different in the two approaches. We recall that Hatsuda etal  attribute the decrease in the $`\rho `$ mass to contributions coming from four point function. They also find variation in the gluon condensates to be less than 5% over the temperature region that is considered. In our work we do not include the gluon condensates and the four point structure vanishes as $`TT_C`$. This is not the case for gluon condensate ($`GG`$) in lattice calculations or in the dilute pion gas model of Ref. . Consequently, we may be tempted to infer that the decrease in rho mass in our model is due to “genuine” four point function effects (as in Hatsuda etal ) and not from the “effective” gluon condensate contribution. One, however, has to be very cautious. This is because in the present work the parameters in the four point function were kept constant at their $`T=0`$ values. It should be recalled that these values were determined so as to correctly describe the behaviour of the correlators (in particular pion) at T=0. Hence the parameters do reflect some effective gluon condensate effects. The results at finite temperature would certainly be modified if these parameters are given significant T dependence. Our parametrization is such that if the parameters decrease with T then the contribution to the correlator will decrease. The crucial question however still remains as to the behaviour of $`GG`$ for $`T<T_C`$. If it varies very little in this range then our assumption of the parameters remaining constant would be reasonable.

We would like to add here that the present analysis will be valid for temperatures below the critical temperature. Above the critical temperature there have been calculations essentially using finite temperature perturbative QCD in random phase approximations (RPA) . However, in the region above $`T_C`$, nonperurbative features have been known to exist from studies in lattice QCD simulations. In view of this, one may have to carry out a hard thermal loop calculation where a partial resummation is done. Alternatively, one may use other nonperturbative approaches such as QCD sum rules at finite temperature  or RPA approach in an instanton liquid model for the QCD vacuum .

The vacuum structure at finite densities was looked into taking into account the possibility of diquark condensates in a Nambu-Jonalasinio model. As earlier, the approximation lies here only in the ansatz. The resulting gap equation for the superconducting gap is a relativistic generalisation of the BCS gap equation. The mass gap equation in the presence of superconducting gap is a new feature of the present calculation. Because of the point interaction as in $`_{int}`$ of Eq.(42)we could solve for the gap functions explicitly. In the presence of realistic potentials as in Ref.or Ref. one will have to solve an integral equation for the gap functions. Such a calculation is in progress . It will be interesting to see how the results for the superconducting gap would be affected in presence of quark antiquark condensates as compared to the resummed perturbative QCD calculations at finite densities . The equation of state here did not change very much. Thus the global properties of neutron stars shall not be affected in an appreciable manner. However, a gap of about 100 MeV can have its implications on neutron star cooloing , magnetic fields of pulsars and their thermal evolution . Future theoretical studies of QCD at finite baryon densities may reveal to which extent these newly established features of quark matter considered in effective models shall have their correspondence in a more complete treatment of QCD at finite baryonic density and shed light on whether one may expect any distinguishing feature in the global properties of neutron/quark stars.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank S.P. Misra, Amruta Mishra, J.C. Parikh and Varun Sheel for an enjoyble and fruitful collaboration over the years.