4.7 Article

Analytic structure of the Landau gauge quark propagator from Pade acute accent analysis

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 106, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114022

关键词

-

资金

  1. FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e aTecnologia, I. P. [UIDB/04564/2020, UIDP/04564/2020]
  2. Trond Mohn Foundation [BFS2018REK01]
  3. University of Bergen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analytic structure of two flavorful QCD lattice Landau gauge quark propagators is examined using Pade approximants, which indicate the absence of complex momentum poles for the propagator. However, a real on-axis negative Euclidean momentum pole is observed, indicative of an effective quark mass. This pole is consistent with phenomenological effective quark models and shows a correlation with the pion mass. Slight differences between the poles for the two quark form factors suggest either a limitation of the method or the absence of a spectral representation for the quark propagator.
The analytic structure of the two flavorful QCD lattice Landau gauge quark propagator is investigated with Pade ' approximants applied to its vector and scalar form factors. No poles at complex momentum are observed for the propagator. Moreover, there is clear evidence of a pole at real on-axis negative Euclidean momentum, i.e., for a Minkowski type of momentum. This pole occurs at Euclidean momenta p similar to -300 MeV and it reproduces typical quark mass values used in phenomenological effective quark models. The Pade ' approximant analysis also gives hints on the presence of a branch cut. Our results also show a clear correlation between the position of this pole, understood as an effective quark mass, and the pion mass that is compatible with partial conservation of the axial current. Slightly differences between the poles for the two quark form factors are observed which can be viewed either as a limitation of the method or as a suggestion that the quark propagator has no spectral representation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据