Arxiv:2012.15102V2 [Hep-Ph] 13 May 2021 T > Tc

Home , Color confinement, Dyson (crater), Tachyonic field

Conﬁnement of Fermions in Tachyon Matter at Finite Temperature

Adamu Issifu,1, ∗ Julio C.M. Rocha,1, † and Francisco A. Brito1, 2, ‡ 1Departamento de F´ısica, Universidade Federal da Para´ıba, Caixa Postal 5008, 58051-970 JoãoPessoa, Para´ıba, Brazil 2Departamento de F´ısica, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande Caixa Postal 10071, 58429-900 Campina Grande, Para´ıba, Brazil We study a phenomenological model that mimics the characteristics of QCD theory at finite temperature. The model involves fermions coupled with a modified Abelian gauge field in a tachyon matter. It reproduces some important QCD features such as, confinement, deconfinement, chiral symmetry and quark-gluon-plasma (QGP) phase transitions. The study may shed light on both light and heavy quark potentials and their string tensions. Flux-tube and Cornell potentials are developed depending on the regime under consideration. Other confining properties such as scalar glueball mass, gluon mass, glueball-meson mixing states, gluon and chiral condensates are exploited as well. The study is focused on two possible regimes, the ultraviolet (UV) and the infrared (IR) regimes.

I. INTRODUCTION

Confinement of heavy quark states QQ¯ is an important subject in both theoretical and experimental study of high temperature QCD matter and quark-gluon-plasma phase (QGP) [1]. The production of heavy quarkonia such as the fundamental state ofcc ¯ in the Relativistic Heavy Iron Collider (RHIC) [2] and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [3] provides basics for the study of QGP. Lattice QCD simulations of quarkonium at finite temperature indicates that J/ψ may persists even at T = 1.5Tc [4] i.e. a temperature beyond the deconfinement temperature. However, in simple models such as the one under consideration, confinement is obtained at T < Tc, deconfinement and QGP phase at T ≥ Tc. Several approaches of finite temperature QCD has been studied over some period now, but the subject still remain opened because there is no proper understanding on how to consolidate the various different approaches [5–10]. Ever since the Debye screening of heavy QQ¯ potential was put forward [11], leading to the suppression of quarkonia states such as J/ψ. Attention has been directed to investigations to understand the behavior of QQ¯ at the deconfined phase by non relativistic calculations [12–16] of the effective potential or lattice QCD calculations [4–8, 17]. We will study the behavior of light quarks such as up (u), down (d) and strange (s) quarks and also heavy quarks such as charm (c), and other heavier ones with temperature (T ). We will elaborate on the net confining potential, vector potential, scalar potential energy, string tension, scalar glueball masses, glueball-meson mixing states and gluon condensate with temperature. Additionally, confinement of quarks at a finite temperature is an important phenomenon for understanding QGP phase. This phase of matter is believed to have formed few milliseconds after the Big Bang before binding to form protons and neutrons. Consequently, the study of this phase of matter is necessary in understanding the early universe. However, creating it in laboratory poses a great challenge to physicists. Because immensely high energy is needed to break the bond between hadrons to form free particles as it existed at the time. Also, the plasma, when formed, has a short lifetime, so they decay quickly to elude detection and analyses. Some theoretical work has been done in tracing the signature of plasma formation in series of heavy ion collisions. Nonetheless, a phenomenological model that throws light on the possible ways of creating this matter is necessary. In this model, the QGP is expected to be created at extremely high energy and density by regulating temperature, arXiv:2012.15102v2 [hep-ph] 13 May 2021 T > Tc. Aside, these specific motivations for this paper, all others pointed out in [18, 19] are also relevant to this continuation. This paper is meant to compliment the first two papers in this series [18, 19]. Particularly, it is a continuation of [18]. We will try as much as possible to maintain the notations in [18] in order to make it easy to connect the two. That notwithstanding, we will redefine some of the terms for better clarity to this paper when necessary. Generally, we will investigate how thermal fluctuations affect confinement of the fermions at various temperature distribution regimes. The Lagrangian adopted here has the same structure as the one used in [18], so we will not repeat the discussions.

∗Electronic address: [email protected] †Electronic address: [email protected] ‡Electronic address: [email protected] 2

Even though strong interactions are known to be born out of non-Abelian gauge field theory, no one has been able to compute confining potentials through this formalism. Therefore, several phenomenological models have been relied upon to describe this phenomenon. Common among which are linear and Cornell potential models. Bound states of heavy quarks form part of the most relevant parameters for understanding QCD in high-energy hadronic collisions together with the properties of QGP. As a results, several experimental groups such as CLEO, LEP, CDF, D0, Belle and NA5 have produced data and currently ongoing experiments at BaBar, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb are producing and are expected to produce more precise data in the near future [20–26]. The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.II we present the model and further calculate the associated potentials and string tensions in the ultraviolet (UV) and the infrared (IR) regimes. In Sec.III we present the technique for introducing temperature into the model. We divide sectionIV into three subsections where we elaborate on vector potential in Sec.IVA, scalar potential energy in Sec.IVB, the quark and gluon condensates in Sec.IVC and chiral condensate in Sec.IVD. In Sec.V we present our findings and conclusions.

II. THE MODEL

We start with the Lagrangian density 1 1 L = − G(φ)F F µν + ∂ φ∂µφ − V (φ) − ψ¯ (iγµ∂ + qγµA − m G(φ)) ψ, (1) 4 µν 2 µ µ µ q with a potential given as 1 V (φ) = [(αφ)2 − 1]2. (2) 2 The Lagrangian together with the potential and tachyon condensation governed by the color dielectric function G(φ) and dynamics of the scalar ﬁeld produces the required QCD characteristics. The equations of motion are

1 ∂G(φ) ∂V (φ) ∂G(φ) ∂ ∂µφ + F µν F + − ψm¯ ψ = 0, (3) µ 4 ∂φ µν ∂φ q ∂φ

µ µ − (iγ ∂µ + qγ Aµ)ψ + mqG(φ)ψ = 0 and (4)

µν ¯ ν ∂µ[G(φ)F ] = −ψqγ ψ. (5)

where µ, ν = 0, 1, 2, 3. We are interested in studying static confining potentials that confine the electric flux generated in the model framework, leaving out the magnetic flux which will not be necessary for the current study. With this µν j0 2 in mind, we choose magnetic field components Fij = 0, such that F Fµν = −F Fj0 = 2E and the current density jν = ψqγ¯ ν ψ restricted to charge density, i.e., jν = (ρ,~0), where ρ = q/((4/3)πR3). Thus, in spherical coordinates Eq.(5) becomes

λ E = , (6) r r2G(φ)

1 where λ = q/4πε0. Expanding Eq.(3) in spherical coordinates, we obtain

d2φ 2 dφ ∂ λ2 1 1 + = V (φ) + − ψm¯ ψV (φ) (7) dr2 r dr ∂φ 2 V (φ) r4 q

[1] It is important to state at this point that the color dielectric function and the potential are related as G(φ) = (2πα0)2V (φ)[27], where α0 is the Regge slop with dimension of length squared. So it absorbs the dimension of the potential rendering the G(φ) dimensionless. But we set (2πα0) = 1 throughout the paper for simplicity. 3 we set G(φ) = (2πα0)2V (φ) and ignore the term in the order λ2. Shifting the vacuum of the potential such that φ(r) → φ0 + η, where η(r) is a small perturbation about the vacuum φ0 = 1/α. We can express Eq.(7) as

2 2 ∇ η = 4α (1 − qmqδ(~r))η. (8) We can also determine the bosonic mass from the relation, ∂2V m2 = | = 4α2. (9) φ ∂φ2 φ0 Also, we deﬁne the Dirac Delta function such that,  1 3  lim , if r ≤ R δ(~r) = 4π R→0 R3 , (10) 0, r > R where R is the radius of the hadron and r is the inter particle separation distance between the quarks. Now developing the Laplacian in Eq.(8) for particles inside the hadron gives

2 2 2 ∇ η = (mφ − qmq)η, (11) here, we have set

1/3 3m2 (2πα0)2 ! R = φ . (12) 4mqπ

Similar expression can be seen in [28, 29], where√ the mass of the tachyonic mode is determined to be inversely related to 2 0 0 2 the Regge slope i.e. M ∝ 1/α and R ∝ α . Accordingly, mφ can be identified as the scalar glueball mass obtained from bound state of gluons (quenched approximation) through the tachyon potential V (φ). Thus, the tachyonic field φ determines the dynamics of the gluons. Expanding, Eq.(11) leads to 2 η00 + η0 + Kη = 0, (13) r 2 2 where K = qmq − mφ. This equation has two separate solutions representing two different regimes i.e. the infrared (IR) and the ultraviolet (UV) regimes, √ cosh(p2|K|r) sin( 2Kr) η(r) = and η(r) = √ for r ≤ R, (14) αrp2|K| αr 2K respectively. We can now determine the confinement potential from the electromagnetic potential Z Vc(r) = ∓ Erdr, (15) where Er is the electric field modified by the color dielectric function G(r). From Eq.(6) we can write, λ E = . (16) r r2G(r)

With the shift in the vacuum, φ → η + φ0, the tachyon potential and the color dielectric function takes the form 1 V (η) = G(η) = V (φ)| + V 0(φ)| η + V 00(φ)| η2 φ0 φ0 2 φ0 m2 = φ η2, (17) 2 and the net conﬁning potential becomes, h i q 2 2 q 2 2 (mφ + mq) tanh 2(mφ + mq)r Vc(r, mq) = −λ √ . (18) 2 4

Here, we choose the negative part of Eq.(15) corresponding to the potential of antiparticle, consequently, we choose q = −1 corresponding to an anti-color gluon charge. Besides, conﬁnement in this regime increases with inter quark separation r until a certain critical distance r = r∗, beyond r∗, hadronization sets in. Since λ depends on the charge q 2 2 q, we can choose λ = −1. Noting that 2(mφ + mq)r 1, the string tension can be determined from Eq.(18) as

2 2 σc(mq) ' mφ + mq 2 ' mL, (19)

2 where mL can be identiﬁed as the glueball-meson mixing state obtained from unquenched approximation [30–33]. Now, using σ ∼ 1GeV/fm as adopted in [18, 19] and m2 = 0.99 GeV2 corresponding to m = 995 MeV, while √ c φ φ r∗ = 1/ 2σc [34]. This glueball mass is closer to the scalar glueball mass determined for isoscalar resonance of f0(980) reported in the PDG as (990 ± 20) MeV [35]. This choice of glueball mass was considered appropriate because we expect mq to be small but not negative or zero. This choice leads to mq = 100 MeV, this is also within the range of strange (s) quark mass. In the PDG reportm ¯ s = (92.03 ± 0.88) MeV but, much higher values up to 400 MeV are obtained using various ﬁt approaches [36] andm ¯ s(1 GeV) = (159.50 ± 8.8)MeV are obtained using various sum rules q 2 2 [37, 38]. In this model, the hadronization is expected to start when r∗ = 1/ 2(mφ + mq) = 0.71 fm, but for string models such as this, r r∗ [34]. On the other hand, the potential in the UV regime becomes " # 1 (m2 − m2 )r V (r, m ) ' − + q φ + O(r3) . (20) s q 2r 3

Here, we chose the positive part of the potential, i.e. a potential of a particle, so we set λ = q = 1. Also with the string tension

m2 − m2 σ = q φ s 3 m2 = s , (21) 3 in both cases we have set the integration constants (˜c) to zero (˜c = 0) for simplicity. Assuming that σs ∼ 1 GeV/fm as used in [18], we can determine ms = 1.73 GeV, precisely the same as the lightest scalar glueball mass of quantum PC ++ √ number J = 0 [35, √39–43] and the critical distance is r∗s = 1/ σs. The string tension σ is related to the glueball mass by m(0++)/ σ = const., where the magnitude of the constant is dependent on the approach adopted for the particular study. In this model framework, we have two different ratios, one in the IR regime and the other √ √ in the UV regime, i.e. mL/ σc = 1 and ms/ σs = 1.73 respectively. Hence, the ratio is dependant on the regime of interest. The string tension and the dimensionless ratio are precisely known physical quantities in QCD. Because their 2 corrections are known to be the leading order of O(1/Nc ) in SU(∞) limit. These quantities have been determined by lattice calculations, QCD sum rules, flux tube models and constituent glue models to be exact [44–46]. From the afore analyses, we can determine mq = 2 GeV, while a bound state of quark-anti-quark pair would be 2 2 mq = 4 GeV . This is compared with the mass of a charm quarkm ¯ c(m ¯ c) = (1.280 ± 0.025) GeV as reported by PDG [35] and a slightly higher values up to mc = 1.49 GeV in various fits [36]. Of cause, the model can take any quark mass greater than one (mq > 1) but less than some critical mass m. Hence, it could be used to successfully study chamonia and bottomonium properties. The only restriction here is that mφ < mq ≤ m in the UV regime for the model to work efficiently. In fact, the major results in this section, i.e. the potentials and the string tensions, were reached in [18] and thoroughly discussed at T = 0. So an interested reader can refer to it for step-by-step computations and justifications. In the model framework, we developed two different potentials, linear confining potential in the IR and a Cornell-like 2 potential in the UV regimes. The potentials obtained from the UV and the IR regimes have confining strengths, ms 2 and mL respectively. Linear confining models have been studied by several groups [47–53] and its outcome establishes a good agreement with an experimental data for quarkonium spectroscopy together with its decay properties. This potential is motivated by string model for hadron, where quark and an antiquark pair are seen to be connected by a string that keeps them together. In spite of the successes of this model, it fails to explain the partonic structure of the color particles as observed from deep-inelastic scattering experiments. Consequently, since the QCD theory has generally been accepted as the fundamental theory governing strong interactions, the linear confining model gives a comprehensive description of some sector of the theory, identified as the IR regime [54, 55]. The Cornell potential on 5 the other hand, calculated in the UV regime of the model is motivated by lattice QCD (LQCD) calculations [56–64]. Generally, it is represented as e V (r) = − + σr, (22) r where e and σ are positive constants which are determined through fits. It consists of Coulomb-like part with strength 2 e = 0.5 due to single gluon exchange and the linear confining part with strength σ = ms/3 in the model framework [34, 65, 66]. It is a useful potential in QCD theory because it accounts for the two most important features of the theory i.e., color confinement and asymptotic free nature of the theory. It reproduces the quarkonium spectrum as well. Also, e and σ can be determined in the framework of heavy quark systems through fitting to an experimental data [47, 67]. Moreover,√ the IR model takes in quark masses in the range of 0 to 1 GeV, while the UV model√ takes in masses greater than 3, consequently, there is an intermediate mass that can be exploited between 1 and 3 GeV. This mass range, is expected to show hadronization in the IR regime and an asymptotic free behaviour in the UV regime without a stable linear confining contribution (QGP). Likewise, the energy suitable for investigating the IR properties is 1.4 GeV and below, deducing from the critical distance r∗, while in the UV regime the maximum energy for confinement is 1 GeV and bellow judging from the magnitude of r∗s, but the process takes place at enormously high energy r → 0, where Coulomb potential contribution is dominant. As a result, the model does not account for the behaviour of the particles at the intermediate energy regime, apart from knowing that the particles are ’asymptotically free’ at r → 0 and confined at r → r∗s and beyond. How the particles behave at the intermediate energy regimes is beyond the scope of this paper. Additionally, perturbative QCD (PQCD) involves hard scattering contribution which requires higher energy and momentum transfer in order to take place. This is referred to as the ’asymptotic limit’, thus, the initial and final states of the processes are clearly distinct. Therefore, it has been widely argued that the current energy regime for exploring the QCD theory describes ’sub-asymptotic’ regime, calling for a revision in pure perturbation treatment of the theory. In this case, new mechanisms or models are required to investigate the dynamics of elastic scattering in the intermediate energy region [68–72]. One way to investigate this energy region (’soft’ behaviour) is to use dispersion relation together with Operator Product Expansion (quark-hadron duality) which are collectively referred to as the QCD sum rule [73–75]. Thus, we can study the IR behaviour at the lower-end of the intermediate-energy region while the UV regime lies within the upper-end of the intermediate energy region to infinity. The CEBAF, Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, at Jefferson LAB was initially built to experimentally investigate these intermediate energy region before it was recently upgraded to cover the high energy regime.

III. THERMAL FLUCTUATIONS

In this section we discuss and propose how temperature can be introduced into the model. Since we have determined in the previous section that the string tension which keeps the quark and antiquark pair in a confined state is dependant on the glueball-meson mixing states mL and ms [30, 33], we can determine the confining potentials at a finite temperature if we know exactly how the glueball-meson states fluctuate with temperature. We calculate the temperature fluctuating glueball-meson states directly from Eq.(1). Here, we will write the equations in terms of the glueball field η, redefined in dimensionless form such that χ = η/φ0 for mathematical convenience. The difference between the gluon field and the glueball fields η are that, the glueball fields are massive whilst the gluon fields are not. In this paper, the field φ that describes the dynamics of the gluons contains tachyonic mode, when the tachyons condense they transform into glueballs η with mass mφ. Accordingly,

∂2L m∗2φ2 = − = α2φ2(2πα0)2hF µν F i + 4α2φ2 − 4m (α2φ2)(2πα0)2hψψ¯ i (23) φ 0 ∂χ2 0 µν 0 q 0

[77] where the factor (2πα0)2 was introduced to absorb the dimensionality of V (η) and render G(η) dimensionless as explained above. Besides, the theory of gluodynamics is classically invariant under conformal transformation µν giving rise to vanishing gluon condensation hFµν F i = 0 [18, 19]. However, when the scale invariance is broken by µν introducing quantum correction, say −|v|, the gluon condensate becomes non vanishing i.e. hFµν F i= 6 0. This µ phenomenon is referred to as the QCD energy-momentum tensor trace (θµ) anomaly [78]. In this paper, if one disregard the fermions and consider only the gluon dynamics in Eq.(1), the potential V (φ) breaks the scale symmetry and brings about gluon condensation. This phenomenon bas been elaborated bellow in Sec.IVC. To determine the thermal fluctuations, we need to define the field quanta distribution of the mean gauge field µν 2 ¯ ∗2 hF Fµν i, h∆ i with χ =χ ¯ + ∆ and the spinor fields hψψi. We find that the fluctuating scalar glueball mass mφ do not directly depend on the glueball field χ hence, no correction to the scalar field will be required. The field quanta 6

distribution of the ﬁelds are2,

Z ∞ 4 Z ∞ 2 µν ν p dp ¯ νq mqp dp hF Fµν i = − 2 nB(EA) and hψψi = 2 nF (Eψ) (24) 2π 0 EA 2π 0 Eψ

βEA −1 βE −1 where nB(EB) = (e −1) is the Bose-Einstein distribution function and nF (Eψ) = (1+e ψ ) is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. Also, ν and νq are the degeneracies of the gluons and the quarks, respectively and β = 1/T . We can now analytically solve these integrals by imposing some few restrictions. We assume high energy limit, such that, E ≈ p for c = 1 = ~ corresponding to a single particle energy E2 = m∗2 + p2 therefore, we ﬁnd [79] Z ∞ 4 µν ν p 1 hF Fµν i = − dp 2 βEA 2π 0 EA e − 1 T 4ν Z ∞ x3dx = − 2 x 2π 0 e − 1 4 4 νπT T µν = − = − 4 hF Fµν i0, (25) 30 TcA which results3 4 µν µν T hF Fµν i = hF Fµν i0 1 − 4 , (26) TcA and from Z ∞ 2 ¯ mqνq p hψψi = 2 dp nF (Eψ) 2π 0 Eψ 2 Z ∞ νqmqT xdx = 2 x 2π 0 e + 1 2 T ¯ = 2 hψψi0 (27) 4Tcψ

we ﬁnd the quark condensate4,

¯ " 2 # ¯ hψψi0 T hψψi = − 1 − 2 (28) 4 Tcψ

Here, we used the transformation x = E/T and the critical temperatures,

µν 1/4 ¯ 1/2 30hF Fµν i0 6hψψi0 TcA = 2 and Tcψ = . (29) νπ νqmq

[2] This follows the Matsubara formalism of field theory at finite temperature where space time becomes topological. Here, one makes use of the Euclidean imaginary time and solve the path integral by imposing a periodic condition on the gauge field, ωn = 2nπT , and an antiperiodic condition, ωn = (2n + 1)πT , for the fermion fields for n ∈ Z. The imaginary time [76, 80] transforms as β = 1/T , where T is temperature. [3] We used the standard integrals Z ∞ x3dx π4 = x 0 e − 1 15 and Z ∞ xdx π2 = . x 0 e − 1 6 [4] Here, we used Z ∞ xdx π2 = . x 0 e + 1 12 7

2 2 0 2 2 However, from Eq.(23) we can define the dimensionless quantity α φ0(2πα ) =g ˜ , as a result, ∗2 2 2 µν 2 2 2 ¯ mφ φ0 =g ˜ hF Fµν i + 4α φ0 − 4mqg˜ hψψi. (30) Now, substituting the thermal averages in Eqs.(26) and (28) of the fields into the above equation while we absorb the second term derived from the potential into the definition of the first and the third terms at their ground states, thus,

4 " 2 # ∗2 2 2 µν T 2 ¯ T mφ φ0 =g ˜ hF Fµν i0 1 − 4 +g ˜ mqhψψi0 1 − 2 . (31) TcA Tcψ To proceed, we use the standard deﬁnition for determining QCD vacuum, dV θµ = 4V − φ . (32) µ dφ Using this expression and Eq.(2) we obtain

µ 4 2 4 2 θµ = 2[(αφ) − 2(αφ) + 1] − [2(αφ) − 2(αφ) ] = 2 − 2(αφ)2, (33)

2 2 maintaining the term with dependence on φ and discarding the constant, the vacuum becomes B0 = mφφ0/2 [77]. µν Noting that hF Fµν i0 = B0 represents the vacuum gluon condensate, we can express

4 " 2 # ∗2 2 T 2 T mφ = mφ 1 − 4 + mq 1 − 2 , (34) TcA Tcψ

2 µν 2 2 ¯ 2 here, we setg ˜ = 2, hF Fµν i0/φ0 ≈ mφ/2 and hψψi0/φ0 ≈ mq/2. The string tension is determined by QCD lattice calculations to reduce sharply with T , vanishes at T = Tc representing melting of hadrons [81–83]. At T = 0 we 2 retrieve the result for glueball-meson mixing state mL in Eq.(19) i.e., ∗2 2 2 2 mφ (0) = mL = mφ + mq. (35)

2 2 2 We can also retrieve the result in the UV regime ms if we set mφ → −mφ in Eq.(34) at T = 0. The nonperturbative feature of QGP is accompanied by change in the characteristics of the scalar or the isoscalar glueballs and the gluon condensate [84]. This is evident in lattice QCD calculation of pure SU(3)c theory, pointing to sign changes [79]. Using Eqs.(17) and (34), the glueball potential can be expressed as √ ∗ !2 cosh[ 2mφr] G(r, T ) = ∗ mφr  v 2 u 4 " 2 #! u 2 T 2 T cosh t2 mφ 1 − 4 + mq 1 − 2 r  T T   cA cψ  =  v  . (36)  u 4 " 2 #   u 2 T 2 T   tmφ 1 − 4 + mq 1 − 2 r  TcA Tcψ

Accordingly, we can express Eqs.(18), (19), (20) and (21) in terms of temperature as √ ∗ ∗ mφ tanh[ 2mφr] Vc(r, T, mq) = √ , (37) 2 with string tension

∗2 σc(mq,T ) = mφ , (38) and

" 2 # 4 ! 2 T 2 T mq 1 − 2 − mφ 1 − 4 r 1 Tcψ TcA V (r, m ,T ) = − + , (39) s q 2r 3 8 with string tension

" 2 # 4 ! 2 T 2 T mq 1 − 2 − mφ 1 − 4 Tcψ TcA σ (m ,T ) = . (40) s q 3

As the temperature is increasing, the conﬁning part shows some saturation near T ≈ Tcψ ≈ TcA ≈ Tc and vanishes completely at T = Tc indicating the commencement of deconﬁnement and the initiation of QGP phase. This weakens the interaction of the particles such that the string tension that bind the Q¯ and Q reduces and eventually becomes asymptotically free at T = Tc. Beyond the critical temperature T > Tc we have the QGP state where the quarks behave freely and in a disorderly manner [85, 86]. The possibility of studying the QGP state in detail with this model exists, but that is beyond the scope of this paper. When we set σc(mq,T ) = 0 and calculate for a common critical 2 2 temperature by assuming Tcψ = TcA = 1 and mφ = σc − mq we will have

4 " 2 # 2 T 2 T mφ 1 − 4 + mq 1 − 2 = 0 TcA Tcψ 2 4 2 2 σc − (σc − mq)T − mqT = 0, (41)

2 2 where in the last step we substitute mφ = σc(0)−mq, and in solving the equation we bear in mind that σc ' 1 GeV/fm. Therefore, 1 Tc1 = , (42) q 2 −1 + mq consequently,

  4    2  1 T 4 1 T 2 2   2   σc(T ) = mφ 1 −   4 + mφ 1 −   2 . (43)  q 2 T   q 2 T  −1 + mq c1 −1 + mq c1

On the other hand, the common critical temperature in the UV regime can be calculated from,

m2 − m2 m2T 2 m2 T 4 q φ − q + φ = 0 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 m T (m − 3σs(0))T σ − q + q = 0. (44) s 3 3

Substituting σs ' 1 GeV/fm and solving the equation, √ 3 Tc2 = , (45) q 2 −3 + mq accordingly,

  √ 2    √ 4  3 T 2 3 T 4 2   2   mq 1 −   2 − mφ 1 −   4  q 2 T   q 2 T  −3 + mq c2 −3 + mq c2 σ (T ) = . (46) s 3

It has been found that the bound state of charm-anti-charm state dissolve at T = 1.1Tc [87]. However, the question as to whether heavier quark bound states dissolve at T = Tc [88–90] or temperatures higher than deconfinement temperature T > Tc [4,6, 10] still remain opened. These two separate pictures has informed different phenomenological models based on confinement and deconfinement transitions to QGP states to explain the observed suppression of J/ψ produced in the RHIC. We present a simple model based on the projection that the QQ¯ bound state melt at T = Tc. 9

IV. VECTOR AND SCALAR POTENTIALS, GLUON AND CHIRAL CONDENSATES

A. Vector Potential

To determine the vector potential, we solve Eq.(11) outside the hadron, i.e. δ(~r) = 0, so 2 η00 + η0 + K η = 0, (47) r 0 2 where K0 = −mφ. The solutions of this equation are cosh p2|K |r √ 0 sin 2K0r η(r) = p and η(r) = √ , (48) αr 2|K0| αr 2K0 for IR and UV regimes respectively, these solutions are equivalent to the solutions in Eq.(14) at mq = 0. Now, substituting the solution at the left side of Eq.(48) into (16) and into (15), we can determine the vector potential to be √ mφ tanh 2mφr Vv(r) = ∓λ √ , (49) 2 with string tension

2 σv ' ∓λmφ. (50) In terms of temperature ﬂuctuations, the potential can be expressed as √ ∗ ∗ mφA tanh 2mφAr Vv(T, r) = ∓λ √ , (51) 2 bearing in mind that,

4 ∗2 2 T mφA = mφ 1 − 4 , (52) TcA the corresponding temperature ﬂuctuating string tension [91] becomes

∗2 σv(T ) ' ∓λmφA. (53)

These results can also be derived from Eq.(34) for mq = 0.

B. Scalar Potential Energy

The scalar potential energy [92–94] for conﬁnement is calculated by comparing Eq.(4) with the Dirac equation

ˆ 2 [cαˆpˆ + βm0c + S(r)]ψ = 0, (54) whereα ˆ and βˆ are Dirac matrices and S(r), which is well deﬁned inside and on the surface of the hadron and zero otherwise is the scalar potential (for detailed explanations see [18]). Hence, the scalar potential obtained by comparing Eqs.(4) and (54) can be expressed as " # q 2 2 mq 2 2 2 S(r) = mqG(r) = 2α mqη = 2 2 2 cosh 2(mφ − qmq)r . (55) (mφ − qmq)r

For an antiparticle we set q = −1, so we can rewrite the scalar potential in terms of the temperature as

" √ # mq 2 ∗ S(r, mq,T ) = ∗2 2 cosh 2mφr . (56) mφ r 10

We can now write the net potential energy by adding the vector potential energy and the scalar potential energy, hence, √ " # q2m tanh 2m r m √ φ √ φ q 2 ∗ Vnet(r) = ∓ + 2 2 cosh 2mφ(0)r , (57) 4 2π mφr

[95, 96] and in terms of temperature, we can express, √ 2 ∗ ∗ " # q mφA tanh 2mφAr m √ √ q 2 ∗ Vnet(r, mq,T ) = ∓ + ∗2 2 cosh 2mφr . (58) 4 2π mφ r

C. Gluon Condensates

µ We calculate the energy momentum tensor trace, θµ, from the relation µ θµ = 4V (η) + ηη. (59) Substituting the equation of motion Eq.(3) into the above equation yields, ∂V η ∂G ∂G θµ = 4V (η) − η − F µν F + qδ(~r)m η µ ∂η 4 ∂η µν q ∂η µν = 4V˜ + GF˜ Fµν − 4qδ(~r)mqG˜ µν = 4V˜eff + GF˜ µν F , (60) where η ∂V η ∂G V˜ = V − , G˜ = − and V˜ = V˜ − qδ(~r)m G.˜ (61) 4 ∂η 4 ∂η eff q

µ Moreover, the energy momentum tensor trace θµ for the classical QCD chiral eﬀective Lagrangian [86, 97] is given as

X bαs θµ = m q q¯ − F aµν F a , (62) µ f f f 8π µν f where β(g) = −bαs/(4π)(b = 11 depicts pure gluodynamics) is the QCD β-function, mf current quark mass matrix and qf is the quark field. Simplifying V˜eff in Eq.(60) we find ! 1 m2 V˜ (η) = m2 η2 − qm δ(r) − φ η2 eff 4 φ q 4 1 = m2 η2 for q = 1, (63) 4 L so 1 G(η) m2 η2 θµ = m2 η2 − F F µν where G(η) = V (η) = φ . (64) µ 4 L 2 µν 2 P 2 P 2 Accordingly, comparing this with (62), we can identify f mf = mL (glueball-meson mixing mass), f qf q¯f = η 2 (glueball field) and bαs/(4π) = G(η) = −β(1/r ) QCD β-function. To determine the strong running coupling, we note that G(η) = ηG0(η)/2, so using the renormalization group theory [98]

dα (Q2) β(Q2) = Q2 s , (65) dQ2 we can deduce d 1 β(1/r2) = −η G(η) , (66) dη 2 11

2 consequently, the strong running coupling becomes αs(1/r ) = G(η)/2, where we can relate Q → 1/r. Using the solution at the right side of Eq.(14), we can express

2Kr2 α (1/r2) = 1 − s 3 " 2(m2 + m2)r2 # = 1 + φ q for q = −1 → 3 2 m2 α (q2) = 1 − L . (67) s 3 q2

Notting that Q2 ≡ −q2, where Q2 is the space-like momentum and q2 is the four-vector momentum. To eliminate the Landau ghost pole that occur at q2 → 0 we assume that there is dynamically generated ‘gluon mass’ at q2 → 0 2 ∼ 2 i.e. q = mA [99, 100]. Now relating the results in Eq.(60) with the standard vacuum expectation value of QCD energy-momentum tensor trace,

µ hθµi = −4|v|, (68) [18, 19] we can write,

µν hG˜(φ)F Fµν i = −4h|v| + V˜eff (η)i. (69)

˜ 2 2 2 2 2 here, we used Veff = 1/4(mφ + qmq)η = (mL/4)η for q = 1. Also, at the classical limit v → 0 we have vanishing µν gluon condensate hFµν F i = 0. The vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the gluon condensate was determined in [101, 102] using Yang Mills theory with an auxiliary ﬁeld φ, where the ﬂuctuations around φ gives rise to the glueball ++ mass, m(0 ). It was observed that in the non-vanishing VEV, the gluon acquire a common mass, mA, and the ratio ++ m(0 )/mA in the leading order is

m(0++) √ =∼ 6. (71) mA The non-vanishing condensate was attributed to the pair condensate of transverse gluons. Juxtaposing that to the results in Eq.(70) we can identify

m2 m2 = L . (72) A 4 Other calculations based on QCD theory [105] also shows that the non-vanishing gluon condensate in the absence of fermions can be expressed in terms of the gluon mass as

34Nπ2 α 1/2 m2 = h s Gµν G i , (73) g 9(N 2 − 1) π µν where N is the number of colors and αs is the strong coupling constant. This relation also show a proportionality between gluon mass and the non-vanishing condensate—more discussions relating to this subject can also be found in µν 2 µν [103, 104]. Again, from the left side of Eq.(70) we can deduce the expression h(G(η)/2)F Fµν i = hαs(1/r )F Fµν i hence, the expression in the angle brackets at the right side of Eq.(70) is equivalent to Eq.(67). Following the discussions at the latter part of Sec.II, mL = 1 GeV so we can determine the gluon mass as mA = 500 MeV. This can be compared to the result determined from QCD lattice simulation, projecting the gluon mass to be mA = 600 ∼ 700 MeV [106–108]. Some heavier gluon masses have also been determined closed to ∼ 1 GeV using phenomenological analysis [109, 110] and some QCD lattice studies [111]. Quark and gluon condensates are responsible for confinement, glueball formation and hadron mass formation [72, 97, 112]. QCD vacuum at the ground state enable us to study the characteristics of the QGP, dynamics of phase transitions and hadronization. All these properties 12 are as a results of nonperturbave nature of QCD theory in some regime (IR) and can not be studied using the usual perturbative QCD theory. To determine the temperature fluctuations in the gluon mass mA and the gluon condensate, we need to correct the temperature in the glueball field χ. The gluon mass is formed due to screening of the gluons in the vacuum or at a temperature where the constituent quarks dissolve into gluons [113]. The temperature can be introduced by defining the glueball field such that χ =χ ¯ + ∆, so η = φ0(¯χ + ∆), with the restriction h∆i = 0 to avoid the occurrence of cross terms in the thermal average. Again,χ ¯ represents the mean glueball field and the angle brackets represent thermal average. We express the fluctuation h∆2i in terms of field quanta distribution as defined for the gauge and the fermion fields in Eqs.(26) and (27) respectively i.e.

1 Z ∞ k2 1 h∆2i = dk 2 2 βEη 2φ0π 0 Eη e − 1 T 2 Z ∞ xdx = 2 2 x 2φ0π 0 e − 1 T 2 = 2 . (74) 12φ0

Reverting to Eq.(3) and the deﬁnition η = φ0(¯χ+∆) we can determine the thermal average directly from the equation of motion to be 1 ∂G ∂V (η) F µν F = (qm δ(r) − 1) 4 ∂η µν ∂η q *m2 η + φ F µν F = −h(m2 − qm2)ηi, (75) 4 µν φ q

2 2 2 clearlyη ¯ =χ ¯ = 0 is a solution, hence, hη i = φ0h∆ i. Moreover, substituting Eq.(74) for temperature fluctuations in η2 into Eq.(70), the gluon condensate becomes * + m2 η2 2 2 2 φ µν mLφ0 T F Fµν = 4|v| 1 − 2 4 4 12φ0 2 T 2 48 = 4|v| 1 − 2 where Tcη = 2 . (76) Tcη mL The QCD vacuum at an extremely high temperature and density has an important significance in both elementary particle physics and cosmology. In cosmology, it can be used to explain the evolution of the universe at extremely higher temperatures when matter becomes super dense and hadrons dissolve into a ‘soup’ of their constituents — quarks and gluons. At such superdense matter regimes the quarks become very close and asymptotically free so, the quarks are no longer confined into hadrons. It is important to note that the energy density is related to temperature as ρ ∝ T 4, so the density increases with temperature. This phase of matter was proposed [114, 115] after the asymptotic free [116, 117] nature of the QCD theory [118] was determined. Currently, almost all the accepted models for the cooling of the universe are based on phase transitions, either first or second order of spontaneous symmetry breaking of fundamental interactions [119–121]. On the other hand, the standard model (SM) of elementary particle physics suggests two of such phase transitions [121]. It shows an electroweak symmetry (EW) breaking at temperatures in the order of T ∼ 100 GeV which generates mass to elementary particles such as quarks. It is also associated with the observed baryon-number-violation of the universe [122]. This transition is determined to be an analytical crossover in lattice simulations [123]. Again, spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking is next, it is known to occur at temperatures in the order of T ∼ 200 GeV. Nevertheless, we have hadronic matter bellow this temperature and above it we have an expected transit into the QGP phase. This phase is also important in understanding the evolution of the early universe. Some references on this subject using nonperturbative lattice QCD models can be found in [124, 125]. Particularly, knowing that the baryon chemical potential µ is expected to be smaller than the usual hadron mass, µ ≈ 45 MeV √ B B at sNN = 200 GeV [126], and almost vanishing µB ≈ 0 GeV in the early universe. It is suitable to model inflation of the early universe at high temperatures and low baryon densities. There is strong evidence that confinement of quarks into hadrons is a low energy phenomena [124, 127, 128], but it strongly suggests that QCD phase transition is a crossover. Numerically, it has been established that at µB = 0 GeV the two phase transitions possibly coincide i.e., deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration rendering the chiral effective theory invalid [130]. From our model 13 framework, Eq.(76), we obtain confinement at T < Tc, deconfinement and restoration of chiral symmetry at T = Tc and QGP phase at T > Tc. Deducing from Eq.(76) the thermal fluctuating gluon mass becomes

2 ∗2 mL 2 mA = 2 T 48φ0 = g2T 2 (77)

2 2 2 where g = mL/48φ0 is a dimensionless coupling constant [113, 129]. This results looks similar to the Debye mass obtained from the leading order of QCD coupling expansion at higher temperatures and zero chemical potential, mD = gT [131]. This mass is obtained from the lowest order perturbation QCD theory [137] but it is known to be resulting from the IR behavior of the theory [138]. This mass occur at temperatures greater than the deconfinement temperature Tc due to the melting of QQ¯ bound states [11, 131] generally, it is referred to as Debye screening mass of color charges. Furthermore, the experimental evidence of QCD vacuum condensates dates back from the pre-QCD era 1950−1973 to post-QCD after 1974 and it still remains an issue of interest. The QCD vacuum condensate informs color confinement and chiral symmetry breaking which are fundamentals of strong interactions. The condensate is a very dense nonperturbative state of matter consisting non-vanishing gluon and quark condensates, in theories containing effective quarks, interacting in a haphazard manner [72]. Since quarks and gluons are not observed directly in nature, these characteristics are difficult to observe experimentally, only colorless (baryons) or color neutral (mesons) hadrons are observed. However, much is known about the QCD vacuum, credit to fast evolving QCD sum rule which explore the gauge invariant formalism to explain the nonperturbative nature of the condensates [132, 133]. That notwithstanding, the QCD sum rule gives good results at the intermediate energy region and poses some short falls at large distance regime where color confinement and chiral symmetry breaking are more pronounced. So a resort is made to Vacuum Correlator Method (VCM) to give a comprehensive description of all the possible QCD phenomena involved [134–136]. The VCM is based on gauge invariant Green’s function of colorless or color neutral objects expressed in path integral formalism using field correlators instead of propagators.

D. Chiral Condensate

Chiral symmetry breaking is one of the known physical properties of the non perturbation regime of QCD theory aside the famous color confinement. Mass splitting of chiral partner observed in hadron spectrum and Goldstone bosons (π± and π0) which appear due to spontaneous symmetry breaking leading to color confinement are strong evidence of chiral symmetry breaking [139–141] in QCD vacuum [142]. The presence of quark mass breaks the chiral symmetry explicitly. With these background and other theoretical considerations, it is believed that there is chiral condensate in the vacuum which is proportional to the expectation value of the fermionic operator or the quark condensate hψψ¯ i. However, increasing temperature augments the thermal excitations of the hadrons due to an increase in the density (ρ ∝ T 4) of their quark constituents. This decreases the vacuum condensate until it eventually vanishes at a critical temperature Tcq resulting into restoration of the chiral symmetry. At this temperature the hadrons undergo phase transition to deconfinement and quark-gluon plasma (QGP) phase. Increasing baryon density have the same consequences on the QGP phase and chiral condensate similar to temperature increase [143, 144]. To begin the calculation of the chiral condensate one needs to take into account the dependence of the hadron masses on the current quark mass mq. Some known first principle approach to this subject that give a consistent account of hadrons and their quark mass dependant are; Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) [145], lattice QCD (lQCD) [146] and Dyson-Schwinger Equation (DSE) [147, 148]. However, the dominant degrees of freedom for QCD at low energies are hadrons [149, 150]. Particularly, pions and kaons which interact weakly according to Goldstone theory, hence, they can be treated as free particles. Consequently, the standard relation for calculating the chiral condensate, hqq¯ i, can be derived from Eq.(1) as ∂L hqq¯ i = − , (78) ∂mq [145] where hqq¯ i is significant for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking (SχSB) and the angle brackets represent thermal average. Subtracting the fundamental vacuum condensate hqq¯ i0 to ensure that the condensate has its maximum T = 0 [151], we can express the above relation as ∂L hqq¯ i = hqq¯ i0 − , (79) ∂mq 14 here, details of the vacuum condensate hqq¯ i0 [152, 153] is of no importance to the analyses. All the information needed to study the contributions of the hadrons are contained in the medium dependant term. From Eq.(1) and using the expression in Eq.(17) derived from φ(r) → φ0 + η, we obtain

∂L = hG(η)ψψ¯ i ∂mq *m2 η2 + = φ ψψ¯ . (80) 2

Thus, the chiral condensate is proportional to the glueball potential G(η) which has its maximum condensate at G(η) → 0 [18, 19]. The quark density hψψ¯ i is a measure of the strength of the condensate and SχSB. At hψψ¯ i = 0 we have an exact chiral symmetry, deconfinement and QGP phase, whilst nonvanishing quark condensate, hψψ¯ i 6= 0, is the regime with SχSB and color confinement [154, 155]. Therefore, hψψ¯ i serves as an order parameter that determines the phase transitions. Since the explicit pion degrees of freedom is significant for studying chiral symmetry restoration at low temperature and quark densities, hψψ¯ i is constituted with up (u) and down (d) quarks. Eventually, protons and neutrons are also composed of similar quark constituents hence, in QCD with two flavour constituents, ¯ ¯ hψψi = hq¯iqii = huu¯ i + hddi. (81)

Additionally, in terms of temperature " # m2 T 2 m ν T 2 hqq¯ i = hqq¯ i − φ q q 0 2 12 24

" 2 # m mqνq = hqq¯ i − φ T 4 0 576 T 4 = hqq¯ i0 1 − 4 , (82) Tcq

2 2 2 where in the ﬁrst step, we used the results in Eqs.(27) and (74), bearing in mind that hη i ' φ0h∆ i and !1/4 576 Tcq = 2 hqq¯ i0 . (83) mφmqνq

Thus, at T = Tcq the chiral symmetry gets restored in the model framework. If one intends to investigate the behavior of the chiral condensation with varying quark mass mq, we can deﬁne the critical temperature as

!1/4 576 Tcq = 2 hqq¯ i0 , (84) mφνq corresponding to a condensate

T 4 hqq¯ i = hqq¯ i0 1 − mq 4 . (85) Tcq Also, an evidence from lQCD confirm that at the confinement phase the chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken down [155, 156] to flavour group i.e.

SU(2)R × SU(2)L → SU(2)V , (86) with associated three Goldstone bosons (π± and π0) which spontaneously break the chiral symmetry. For three quark ﬂavors we have

SU(3)R × SU(3)L → SU(3)V , (87) here, there are eight Goldstone bosons (π±, π0,K±,K0, K¯ 0 and η) involved (see references [157, 158]). 15

Again, a highly excited states in high energy hadronic collisions leads to the formation of disoriented chiral condensate which can latter decay into ordinary vacuum through coherent emission of low momentum pions. This process is theoretically synonymous to the Higgs mechanism that leads to the release of Goldstone bosons. This leaves a signature of color conﬁnement eventually [159]. Even though the idea of chiral condensate was speculative at its inception in 1990’s [160–163] it has attracted several theoretical and experimental attention subsequently. Aside its simplicity, it is also motivated by the discovery of the ’so called’ Centauro events in cosmic-ray [164–166] where clusters consisting charged and neutral pions were observed. The chiral condensate has also been studied theoretically in the light of high energy heavy ion collisions [167] due to the high energies involved at the collision zone, a hot chirally symmetric state (QGP) is formed in the process. Because of the fast expanding nature of the system at the early stages, it is quenched down to a low temperature where chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken down. Several experiments have since been set up to investigate this phenomena, key among them are the cosmic-ray experiment [164, 165], nucleon-nucleon collisions at CERN [168–170], Fermi LAB [171] particularly, MiniMAX experiment [172], nucleon-nucleon collisions at CERN SPS [173, 174], and the RHIC [175, 176]. It also forms part of the heavy ion collision programme carried out with the multi purpose detector ALICE, at LHC [177, 178].

V. CONCLUSION

Following the discussions in [18] for the constituent quark masses, we can deduce that the constituent quark masses of this model are M(r → r∗) = 2mq = 200 MeV and M(r → 0) = 2mq = 4 GeV for the IR and the UV regimes respectively. Thus, the potential in the IR and the UV regimes can take masses within the ranges 0 ≤ mq ≤ 200 MeV and 2 ≤ mq ≤ 4 GeV respectively. Hadronization is expected to set in, in the IR and the UV regimes for mq > 200 and mq > 4 respectively. Since we have adopted the lattice simulation results for the string tension σ ∼ 1 GeV/fm, and noticing that σ = 1/(2πα0) as shown in many confining string models [29, 179]. The choice (2πα0)2 = 1 used throughout the paper is in order. In the framework of the model, the glueball field χ do not contribute to the ∗2 fluctuations in the scalar glueball mass mφ . While the only candidate that contribute to the fluctuating gluon ∗2 mass mA is the glueball field. On the other hand, the gauge fields, the spinor fields and the glueball fields, all 2 2 µν contribute to the gluon condensate h(mφη /4)F Fµν i and chiral condensate. Thus, the condensates are important in understanding QCD theory but difficult to study experimentally due to the haphazard nature of interactions among these fields in the vacuum. Also, νq and ν are the degeneracies of quarks and gluons and they take in the values, 6 and 16 for SU(2) and SU(3) representations respectively. These degeneracies are important in determining the critical temperatures of the model. The critical temperatures are small when the degeneracies are infinitely large and when there is no degeneracies at all (ν, νq → 0) the critical temperature becomes infinitely large, same is true for quarks and gluons as presented in Eqs.(86) and (29). The model produces two forms of temperature corrections to the string tension, −T 2 coming from the spinors (quarks) and −T 4 from the gauge fields (gluons). The −T 2 correction to the string tension has been corroborated by some QCD lattice calculations [82, 180, 181] and some phenomenological models [19]. That notwithstanding, −T 4 correction to the string tension has also been proposed by some phenomenological models [29]. Both corrections give the correct behavior of the string tension, i.e. it should reduce sharply with temperature and break or vanish at T = Tc for simple models such as the one discussed here. For simplicity, we used TcA = Tcψ for some of the analyses —particularly, the potentials— but there is no evidence that these two critical temperatures have the same magnitude. In any case, such assumption is informed and does not affect the results or the analyses. However, there is a discussion in [184] suggesting that Tcψ > TcA (Tcψ ∼ 270 MeV and TcA ∼ 170 MeV), or at least a discrepancy of about 3% reported in [185]. Using the magnitude of the string tension and the scalar glueball mass mφ calculated above, we obtained two different glueball-meson states corresponding to mL = 1 GeV and ms = 1.73 GeV for the IR and UV regimes respectively. The gluon mass was also determined as mA = 500 MeV. The critical distance for confinement in the IR regime has been determined to be r = 0.71 fm, and its corresponding value in the UV regime √ ∗ is r∗s = 1/ σs = 1 fm. Similarly, r∗ and r∗s can be expressed as a function of temperature like the string tensions. Some of the major results obtained are displayed on a graph to make it easy to see their behavior. Since we have extensively studied and discussed the corresponding results for T = 0 in [18], we will concentrate on the results with temperature fluctuations. We plot the glueball potential Eq.(36) and its behavior with temperature in Fig.1. The confining potential Eq.(37) in IR regime for finite and infinite mq are plotted in Fig.2 and its string tension Eqs.(38) plotted in Fig.3. The potential in UV regime Eq.(39) is plotted in Fig.4 displaying how Cornell-like potential obtained varies with temperature for finite and infinite quark mass limits and their string tension in Eq.(40) displayed in Fig.5. The gluon mass Eq.(77) which possess all the characteristics of Debye mass is displayed in Fig.6. The vector potential Eq.(51) which represents chromoelectric flux confinement is displayed in Fig.7. The scalar potential energy Eq.(55) and the corresponding net potential energy Eq.(58) for finite and infinite mq are plotted in Figs.8 and9 respectively. The gluon condensates calculated in Eqs.(70) and (76) are also displayed in Figs. 10 and 11 respectively. 16

The color dielectric function in Eq.(17) represents the glueball potential. We have higher glueball condensation when G(r) → 0, so it follows the same discussions as Figs.8 and9. Also, increase in quark mass mq will lead to increase in glueball condensation [186]. We explored a phase transition from the low energy IR regime to the high energy UV regime by studying the characteristics of Tc1 and Tc2 in Eqs.(42) and (45) displayed in Fig. 12. We find that the critical temperatures decrease with an increase in quark mass thereby increasing the strength of confinement. We observed that the light quarks that are confined√ in the IR regime 0 ≤ mq ≤ 1 are relegated to the QGP phase in the UV regime which confines quarks with mq > 3. Finally, the chiral condensate hqq¯ i was calculated in Eq.(85) and displayed in Fig. 13.

FIG. 1: A graph of glueball potential G(r, T ), against r, T for mq = 0.1 (left) and mq → ∞ (right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel G 2.0×10 13

80 1.5×10 13

60 1.0×10 13 T = 0

12 40 5.0×10

T = 0.5Tc

20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 T = 0.9Tc r 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

The glueball condensation increases with increase in depth of the curve. Hence the condensate increases from T = 0.9Tc(black), T = 0.5(red) to T = 0(blue).

FIG. 2: A graph of net conﬁning potential, Vc(r, T ), against r, T for mq = 0.1 (left) and mq → ∞ (right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

4.5

0.8 T = 0 4.0 T = 0.5T c 0.6 3.5

0.4 3.0 T = 0.9T c 0.2 2.5

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

As it is shown on the left panel, the gradient of the graph increases with decreasing temperature from T = 0.9Tc(black), T = 0.5(red) to T = 0(blue) [26, 86]. Within this temperature range, there is confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. In the right panel, we show how increase in mq → ∞ affects the behavior of the potential and confinement of the particles. As mq is increasing, the potential increases and the confinement becomes stronger. 17

FIG. 3: A graph of string tension, σc(T )/σ0, against T/Tc1 for diﬀerent values of mq (left) and mq → ∞ (right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

σc σc

σ0 σ0

1.0 1.0 mq= 0.4 mq= 0 0.8 0.8 mq= 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

T T T 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tc1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 c1

Here, we show the behavior of the string tension in the IR regime with varying temperature. The string breaks quickly for light quarks while the heavier quarks have relatively longer life time even though they all vanish at T = Tc1. A regime where all the bond states are expected to dissolve into a ‘soup’ of their constituents. It also gives an insight into the behavior of the string tension for chiral limit mq = 0 and chiral eﬀective mq 6= 0 regimes.

FIG. 4: A graph of net potential in the UV regime, Vs(r, T ), against (r, T ) for mq = 2 (left) and mq → ∞ (right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

10 Vs (r,T) 30 000 T = 0 20 000 5 T = 0.5 Tc 10 000 T = 0.9 Tc

2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 r,T 8 T = Tc 10 -10 000

-5 -20 000

From the left panel the gradient of the curves decreases with increasing T from T = 0 (blue), T = 0.5Tc (red) to T = 0.9Tc (black), indicating a decrease in binding of the quarks as the energy of the system is increasing. At T = Tc (dashed) we have a deconﬁnement phase and restoration of the chiral symmetry [182, 183]. 18

FIG. 5: A graph of string tension, σs(T )/σ0, in the UV regime against T/Tc2 for diﬀerent values of mq (left) and mq → ∞ (right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

σs σs

σ0 σ0

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

mq= 1.8 mq= 2.2 mq= 4 0.2 0.2

T T T 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tc2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 c2

This graph follows the same behavior as discussed in Fig.3. However, in this regime the string breaking is explicit as the curves intercept the T/Tc2 axis at diﬀerent points. That notwithstanding, the bond states of the light and the heavy quarks will dissolve at T = Tc2. Also, 2 p the ﬂuctuating glueball mass ms(T ) in this regime is related to the string tension by ms(T ) = 3σs(T ).

∗ FIG. 6: A graph of ﬂuctuating gluon mass mA/g with temperature T .

* (mA) g

T 2 4 6 8 10 Increase in temperature increases the screening mass. 19

FIG. 7: A graph of vector potential Vv(T, r) against T, r for speciﬁc values of T .

0.8 T = 0

T = 0.5Tc 0.6

0.4

T = 0.9 Tc 0.2

r 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 This graph is similar to Fig.2 for mq = 0, T = 0(blue), T = 0.5Tc(red) and T = 0.9Tc (black). This means that the gluons remain confined even if the quark mass is ‘removed’ (mq = 0) after confinement. This is known as chromoelectric flux confinement.

FIG. 8: A graph of scalar potential energy, S(r, T ), against r, T for mq = 0.1(left) and mq → ∞(right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

60 8×10 8

50 6×10 8

40 4×10 8 30 T=0

8 T=0.5T c 2×10 20

T = 0.9T c 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Conﬁnement is stronger with increasing depth of the curves [18, 34]. Thus, the smaller the minima of the curves the more condensed the glueballs and stronger the conﬁnement. The minima increases from T = 0(blue), T = 0.5Tc(red) to T = 0.9Tc(black).

FIG. 9: A graph of net potential energy, Vnet(r, T ), against r, T for mq = 0.1 and an inﬁnite mq.

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

Vnet

60 6×10 8

4×10 8 40

T = 0 30 2×10 8

20 T = 0.9Tc T = 0.5 Tc 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 r 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

The magnitude of the net potential decreases with increasing temperature, from T = 0 (blue), T = 0.7Tc(red) to T = 0.9Tc(black). 20

2 2 µν FIG. 10: A graph of gluon condensate h(mφη )F Fµν i/(16|v|) againstη ¯.

F2 2 m2  η ϕ 16 ϵv 

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

η 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 The condensation has its maximum value atη ¯ = 0 and reduces steadily with increasingη ¯ until it vanishes.

2 2 µν FIG. 11: A graph of gluon condensate h(mφη )F Fµν i/(16|v|) against T/Tcη.

F2 2 m2  η ϕ 16 ϵv 

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tcη The condensate reduces sharply with increasing temperature until it vanishes at T = Tcη. 21

FIG. 12: A phase diagram for Tc1 and Tc2 against quark mass mq.

( Tc1 Tc2 )

Tc1 1.5

1.0

0.5 Tc2

mq 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 We show a transition between the IR regime corresponding to lighter quark masses to the UV regime corresponding to heavier quark masses. The non-physical behavior of Tc1 at masses mq ≤ 1 is the regime where conﬁnement of light quarks are observed in the IR regime. The curve becomes constant near Tc1 ' 1, the point where the string tension in the IR regime gets saturated and begins to degenerate. Consequently, the IR regime can take masses within 0 ≤ mq ≤ 1, beyond this threshold hadronization√ sets in and the string tension starts decaying. On√ the other hand, the UV regime takes in heavier quark masses (green curve), mq > 3. The non-physical behavior observed for mq ≤ 3 corresponds to the QGP regime with negative and constantly decaying σs. As mq increases, Tc2 decreases and the conﬁnement becomes stronger.

FIG. 13: A graph of chiral condensate against T/Tcq for diﬀerent values of mq (left) and mq → ∞ (right).

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

q q q q

q q0 q q0 1.0 1.00

0.98 0.8

0.96 mq= 0.1 0.6 mq= 0.5 mq= 1 0.94 0.4

0.92 0.2 T T 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tcq 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Tcq

An increase in quark mass courses the condensate to reduce sharply and eventually vanish at T/Tcq [143, 152]. This behavior is opposite that of the string tension in Figs.3 and5 as expected in QCD lattice simulations [187]. Consequently, conﬁnement increases with increasing quark mass while the chiral condensate decreases with increasing quark mass.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank CNPq, CAPES and CNPq/PRONEX/FAPESQ-PB (Grant no. 165/2018), for partial ﬁnancial support. FAB also acknowledges support from CNPq (Grant no. 312104/2018-9).

[1] S. Sarkar, H. Satz and Bikash Sinha, Lect. Notes Phys. 785, 1 369 (2010). [2] A. Adare et al., arXiv:1103.6269 [nucl-ex]. [3] G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B 697, 294 (2011). [4] M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 012001 (2004). [5] T. Umeda, K. Nomura and H.Matsufuru, Eur. Phys. J. C 39 9 26(2005). 22

[6] S. Datta, F. Karsch, P. Petreczky and I. Wetzorke, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094507 (2004). [7] A. Jakovác,P. Petreczky, K. Petrov and A. Velytsky, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014506 (2007). [8] G. Aarts et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 094513 (2007). [9] H. -T. Ding et al. PoS LAT2010, 180, (2010). [10] H. Ohno et al. [WHOT-QCD Coll.], Phys. Rev. D 84, 094504 (2011). [11] T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 178, 416 (1986). [12] S. Digal, P. Petreczky and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 514, 57 62 (2001) arXiv:hep-ph/0105234; Phys. Rev. D 64, 094015 (2001). [13] E. V. Shuryak and I. Zahed,Phys. Rev. D 70, 054507 (2004). [14] D. Cabrera and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114506 (2007). [15] W. M. Alberico, A. Beraudo, A. De Pace, and A. Molinari, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074009 (2007). [16] A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014501 (2008) arXiv:0705.2559 [hep-ph]. [17] H. Iida, T. Doi, N. Ishii, H. Suganuma, and K. Tsumura,Phys. Rev. D 74, 074502 (2006). [18] A. Issifu and F. A. Brito, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2020, 1852841 (2020), doi:10.1155/2020/1852841 [arXiv:1904.02687 [hep-th]]. [19] A. Issifu and F. A. Brito, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019, 9450367 (2019) doi:10.1155/2019/9450367 [arXiv:1706.09013 [hep-th]]. [20] N. R. Soni, B. R. Joshi, R. P. Shah, H. R. Chauhan and J. N. Pandya, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 7 592 (2018) arXiv:1707.07144 [hep-ph]. [21] E. Eichten, S. Godfrey, H. Mahlke, and J. L. Rosner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1161 (2008). [22] S. Godfrey and S. L. Olsen Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 51 73 (2008) arXiv:0801.3867 [hep-ph]. [23] T. Barnes and S. L. Olsen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24S1 305 325 (2009). [24] N. Brambilla et al, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2981 1 (2014) arXiv:1404.3723 [hep-ph]. [25] A. Andronic et al, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 3 107 (2016) 1506.03981 [nucl-ex]. [26] N. Brambilla et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011) arXiv:1010.5827 [hep-ph]. [27] M. R. Garousi, Nucl. Phys. B 584, 284 299 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0003122. [28] A. Sen, JHEP 9808, 010 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9805019. [29] H. Boschi-Filho, N.R. F. Braga and Cristine N. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 74, 086001 (2006) arXiv:hep-th/0607038. [30] V. Vento, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 1 (2016). [31] L. Burakovsky, P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014022 (1999) arXiv:hep-ph/9807400. [32] H. Genz, M. Nowakowski and D. Woitschitzky, Phys. Lett. B 250, 143 150 (1990). [33] Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 64, 1876 1886 (2001) arXiv:hep-ph/0110033. [34] G. S. Bali, Phys. Rept. 343, 1 136 (2001) arXiv:hep-ph/0001312. [35] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and 2019 updated. [36] J. Sonnenschein and D. Weissman, JHEP 1408, 013 (2014); JHEP 1502, 147 (2015); Nucl. Phys. B 927, 368 454 (2018). [37] S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 216, 191 197 (1989). [38] T. Hatsuda, T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. 247, 221 367 (1994). [39] C. J. Morningstar and M. Peardon,Phys. Rev. D 60, 034509 (1999). [40] M. Loan, X.-Q. Luo, Z.-H. Luo,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 2905 2936 (2006). [41] Y. Chen, et al.,Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006). [42] W. Lee and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. D 61, 014015 (2000) arXiv:hep-lat/9910008. [43] G. S. Bali et al., (UKQCD), Phys. Lett. B 309, 378 384 (1993) arXiv:hep-lat/9304012. [44] M. Albanese et al. [APE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 192, 163 169 (1987). [45] P. Bacilieri et al. [APE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 205, 535-539 (1988). [46] M. Teper, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 109 A, 134 140 (2002) arXiv:hep-lat/0112019. [47] E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, J. Kogut, K. D. Lane, and T. -M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 369 (1975), [Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1276 (1976)]; E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 21, 203 (1980); Phys. Rev. D 17, 3090 (1978), [Erratum Phys. Rev. D 21, 313 (1980)]; E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2724 (1981). [48] C. Quigg and Jonathan L. Rosner, Phys. Rept. 56, 167 235 (1979). [49] T. Barnes, S. Godfrey and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005) arXiv:hep-ph/0505002. [50] V. Sauli, Phys. Rev. D 86, 096004 (2012) arXiv:1112.1865 [hep-ph]. [51] S. Leitão,A. Stadler, M. T. Peñaand E. P. Biernat, Phys. Rev. D 90, 9 096003 (2014) 1408.1834 [hep-ph]. [52] S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985); S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. D 70, 054017 (2004) arXiv:hep-ph/0406228; S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054034 (2015) arXiv:1507.00024 [hep-ph]. [53] W.-J. Deng, H. Liu, L.-C. Gui, X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034026 (2017) arXiv:1608.00287 [hep-ph]; Phys. Rev. D 95, 074002 (2017) arXiv:1607.04696 [hep-ph]. [54] A. P. Trawiński,S. D. G lazek,S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Téramond,and H. G. Dosch, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074017 (2014). [55] R. Sundrum, Hadronic String from Confinement, arXiv:hep-ph/9702306. [56] J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur and D. G. Richards, Phys. Rev. D 77, 034501 (2008) arXiv:0707.4162 [hep-lat]. [57] S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094501 (2009) arXiv:0903.3224 [hep-lat]. [58] T. Burch, C. DeTar, M. Di Pierro, A. X. El-Khadra, E.D. Freeland, Steven Gottlieb, A. S. Kronfeld, L. Levkova, P. B. 23

Mackenzie, J. N. Simone, Phys. Rev. D 81, 034508 (2010) arXiv:0912.2701 [hep-lat]. [59] L. Liu, G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas, P. Vilaseca, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Joóand D. G. Richards, JHEP 07, 126 (2012) arXiv:1204.5425 [hep-ph]. [60] C. McNeile, C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, K. Hornbostel and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074503 (2012) 1207.0994 [hep-lat]. [61] J. O. Daldrop, C. T. H. Davies and R. J. Dowdall [HPQCD Collaboration], Phys.Rev.Lett. 108, 102003 (2012) 1112.2590 [hep-lat]. [62] T. Kawanai and S. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054507 (2014) arXiv:1311.1253 [hep-lat]; Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 091601 (2011) arXiv:1102.3246 [hep-lat]. [63] Y. Burnier, O. Kaczmarek and A. Rothkopf, JHEP 12, 101 (2015) arXiv:1509.07366 [hep-ph]; JHEP 10, 032 (2016) arXiv:1606.06211 [hep-ph]. [64] M. Kalinowski and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094508 (2015) arXiv:1509.02396 [hep-lat]. [65] G. S. Bali, B. Bolder, N. Eicker, T. Lippert, B. Orth, P. Ueberholz, K. Schilling and T. Struckmann, Phys. Rev. D 62, 054503 (2000) arXiv:hep-lat/0003012. [66] C. Alexandrou, P. de Forcrand and Oliver Jahn Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 119, 667 669 (2003) hep-lat/0209062 [hep-lat]. [67] D. B. Lichtenberg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2, 1669 (1987). [68] C. Corianóand H.-n. Li, Nucl. Phys. B 434, 535 564 (1995) arXiv:hep-ph/9405295. [69] C. Corianó,H.-n. Li and C. Savkli, JHEP 9807, 008 (1998) arXiv:hep-ph/9805406. [70] V. A. Nesterenko and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B 115, 410 414 (1982); JETP Lett. 35 488 492 (1982). [71] B. L. Ioffe and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Lett. B 114, 353 358 (1982); Nucl. Phys. B 216, 373 407 (1983). [72] M. A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385 447 (1979); Nucl. Phys. B 147, 448 518 (1979). [73] C. Corianóand H.-n. Li, Phys. Lett. B 324, 98 104, (1994). [74] L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127, 1 97 (1985). [75] P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, QCD Sum Rules, a Modern Perspective, arXiv:hep-ph/0010175. [76] N. P. Landsman and C. G. van Weert,Phys. Rep. 145, 141 (1987). [77] G .W. Carter, O. Scavenius, I.N. Mishustin and P.J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. C 61, 045206 (2000). [78] D. E. Miller, Gluon condensates at finite temperature, arXiv:hep-ph/0008031. [79] D. E. Miller, Lattice QCD Calculation for the Physical Equation of State, Phys. Rept. 443 55 96 (2007); D.-P. Min and N. Kochelev, Glueball-Induced Partonic Energy Loss in Quark-Gluon Plasma, Phys. Rev. C 77, 014901 (2008) arXiv:0705.3493 [hep-ph]. [80] E. Meg´ıas,E. Ruiz Arriola, and L. L. Salcedo,Phys. Rev. D 74, 065005 (2006). [81] P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, O. Oliveira and P. J. Silva PoS LATTICE2011, 300 (2011) arXiv:1111.0336 [hep-lat]. [82] O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann and M. Lutgemeier Phys. Rev. D 62, 034021 (2000) arXiv:hep-lat/9908010. [83] P. Petreczky, Eur. Phys. J. C 43, 51 (2005). [84] N. Kochelev and D.-P. Min, Role of glueballs in non-perturbative quark–gluon plasma, Phys. Lett. B 650, 239 243 (2007). [85] K. Yagi, T. Hatsuda and Y. Miake, Quark-gluon plasma: From big bang to little bang, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 23 1 446 (2005); Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, (2005), (Cambridge monographs on particle physics, nuclear physics and cosmology). [86] R. Pasechnik and M. Sumbera,ˇ Universe 3, 7 (2017) arXiv:1611.01533 [hep-ph]. [87] S. H. Lee, K. Morita, T. Song and C. M. Ko Phys. Rev. D 89, 094015 (2014) arXiv:1304.4092 [nucl-th]. [88] A. Mocsy and Peter Petreczky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 211602 (2007) arXiv:0706.2183 [hep-ph]. [89] P. Gubler, K. Morita, and M Oka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 092003 (2011). [90] H.-T. Ding, A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, H. Satz, and W. Soeldner, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014509 (2012). [91] T. J. Allen, T. Coleman, M. G. Olsson and S. Veseli, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054016(2003) arXiv:hep-ph/0207141. [92] J. Franklin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 2409 (1999) hep-ph/9812464 [hep-ph]. [93] A. S. d. Castro and J. Franklin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15, 4355 4360 (2000) arXiv:hep-ph/0002093. [94] H. W. Crater, J.-H. Yoon, and C.-Y. Wong Phys. Rev. D 79, 034011 (2009) arXiv:0811.0732 [hep-ph]. [95] R. Dick, Phys. Lett. B 409, 321 324 (1997) arXiv:hep-ph/9706278. [96] L. Cao, Y.-C. Yang and H. Chen Few-Body Syst. 53, 327 342 (2012) arXiv:1206.3008 [hep-ph]. [97] T. Schaefer and E. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 323 426 (1998) arXiv:hep-ph/9610451. [98] A. Deur, Study of spin sum rules (and the strong coupling constant at large distances), arXiv:0907.3385 [nucl-ex]. [99] V. I. Zakharov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 4865 4880 (1999) arXiv:hep-ph/9906264. [100] H. -B. Tang and R. J. Furnstahl, The Gluon Condensate and Running Coupling of QCD, arXiv:hep-ph/9502326. [101] K.-I. Kondo, Vacuum condensates, effective gluon mass and color confinement in a new reformulation of QCD, arXiv:hep- th/0307270. [102] K. -I. Kondo, arXiv:hep-th/0311033; J. M. Cornwall and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B 120, 431 435 (1983). [103] R. Fukuda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 67, 648 (1982). [104] H. Kohyama, Effective model based on QCD with gluon condensate, arXiv:1606.00673 [hep-ph]. [105] E. V. Gorbar and A. A. Natale, Phys. Rev. D 61, 054012 (2000) arXiv:hep-ph/9906299. [106] D. B. Leinweber, J. I. Skullerud, A. G. Williams and C.Parrinello,Phys. Rev. D 60, 094507 (1999); Erratum-ibid. D 61, 24

079901 (2000) arXiv:hep-lat/9811027. [107] K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt and J. Gattnar, Nucl. Phys. B 621, 131 156 (2002) arXiv:hep-ph/0107141. [108] C. Alexandrou, Ph. de Forcrand and E. Follana, Phys. Rev. D 65, 114508 (2002) arXiv:hep-lat/0112043. [109] J. H. Field,Phys. Rev. D 66, 013013 (2002) arXiv:hep-ph/0101158. [110] M. Consoli and J.H. Field, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1293 1301 (1994). [111] I. I. Kogan and A. Kovner,Phys. Rev. D 52, 3719 3734 (1995) arXiv:hep-th/9408081. [112] D. Diakonov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 173 222 (2003) arXiv:hep-ph/0212026, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 195, 5 45 (2009) arXiv:0906.2456 [hep-ph]. [113] P. J. Silva, O. Oliveira, P. Bicudo and N. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074503 (2014) arXiv:1310.5629 [hep-lat]. [114] J. C. Collins and M.J. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1353 (1975). [115] N. Cabibbo and G. Parisi, Phys. Lett. B 59, 67 69 (1975). [116] D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973). [117] H. D. Politzer Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973). [118] H. Fritzsch and M. Gell-Mann and H. Leutwyler Phys. Lett. B 47, 365 36 (1973). [119] A. D. Linde, Rept. Prog. Phys. 42, 389 (1979). [120] D. Bailin and A. Love, Cosmology in gauge field theory and string theory, Bristol, UK, IOP (2004). [121] D. Boyanovsky, H.J. de Vega and D.J. Schwarz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 56 441 500 (2006) hep-ph/0602002 [hep-ph]. [122] M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1463 (1999) arXiv:hep-ph/9803479. [123] K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2887 2890 (1996) arXiv:hep- ph/9605288. [124] L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2610 (1979). [125] P. Petreczky, J. Phys. G 39, 093002 (2012) 1203.5320 [hep-lat]. [126] STAR Collaboration: J. Adams et al., Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 183 (2005) arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009. [127] Y. Aoki, G. Endr˝odi,Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and K. K. Szabó,Nature, 443, 675 678 (2006). [128] T. Bhattacharya et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 082001 (2014) arXiv:1402.5175 [hep-lat]. [129] J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu and A. Rebhan, Thermodynamics of the high-temperature quark-gluon plasma, arXiv:hep- ph/0303185. [130] M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 014511 (2008) arXiv:0710.0354 [hep-lat]. [131] K. Kajantie, M. Laine, J. Peisa, A. Rajantie, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3130 3133 (1997) arXiv:hep-ph/9708207. [132] D. S. Kuzmenko, V. I. Shevchenko and Yu. A. Simonov, The QCD vacuum, confinement and strings in the Vacuum Correlator Method, arXiv:hep-ph/0310190. [133] Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Usp. 39, 313 336 (1996). [134] H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. B 190, 177 181 (1987); H. G. Dosch and Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Lett. B 205, 339 344 (1988). [135] Yu. A. Simonov, Nucl. Phys. B 307, 512 530 (1988). [136] A. D. Giacomo, H. G. Dosch, V. I. Shevchenko and Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Rept. 372, 319 368 (2002) arXiv:hep- ph/0007223. [137] S. Nadkarni, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3738 (1986). [138] E. Manousakis and J. Polonyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 847 (1987). [139] P. Bicudo and G. M. Marques, Phys. Rev. D 70, 094047 (2004). [140] R. Kitano, Hidden local symmetry and color confinement, arXiv:1109.6158 [hep-th]. [141] H. Suganuma, S. Sasaki and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. B 435, 207 240 (1995). [142] S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications, Cambridge University Press (1996). [143] S. Borsanyi et al, JHEP 1009, 073 (2010) arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]. [144] A. Bazavov et al, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014504 (2009). [145] B. Borasoy and Ulf-G. Meissner, Annals Phys. 254, 192 232 (1997) hep-ph/9607432 [hep-ph]. [146] S. Dürr et al, Science 322, 1224 1227 (2008) arXiv:0906.3599 [hep-lat]. [147] A. Höll,P. Maris, C. D. Roberts and S. V. Wright, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 161, 87 94 (2006) arXiv:nucl-th/0512048. [148] V. V. Flambaum, A. Höll,P. Jaikumar, C. D. Roberts and S. V. Wright, Few Body Syst.a 38 31 51 (2006) arXiv:nucl- th/0510075. [149] H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 235 165 203 (1994) arXiv:hep-ph/9311274. [150] J. J. M. Verbaarschot and T. Wettig, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50 343 410 (2000) arXiv:hep-ph/0003017. [151] V. Koch, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6, 203 250 (1997) arXiv:nucl-th/9706075. [152] J. Jankowski, D. Blaschke and M. Spalinski, Chiral condensate in hadronic matter, arXiv:1212.5521 [hep-ph]. [153] R. Dashen, S. Ma and H. J. Bernstein, Phys. Rev. A 6, 851 (1972). [154] G. ’t Hooft, C. Itzykson, A. Jaffe, H. Lehmann, P.K. Mitter, I.M. Singer and R. Stora, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 1 438 (1980). [155] Sidney R. Coleman, Secret Symmetry: An Introduction to Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown and Gauge Fields, Subnucl. Ser. 11 139(1975). [156] S. Fiorilla, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Thermodynamics of the in-medium chiral condensate, 1104.2819 [nucl-th]. [157] J. T. Lenaghan, D .H. Rischke and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 62, 085008 (2000) arXiv:nucl-th/0004006. [158] P. D. B. Collins, A. D. Martin, E. J. Squires, Particle Physics and Cosmology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Canada (1989). [159] B. Mohanty and J. Serreau, Phys. Rept. 414, 263 358 (2005) arXiv:hep-ph/0504154. 25

[160] J. D. Bjorken, SLAC-PUB-5673 (1991). [161] J.-P. Blaizot and Andr´eKrzywicki, Phys. Rev. D 46, 246 (1992). [162] A. E. Nelson and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B 192, (1987) 193. [163] A. A. Anselm, Phys. Lett. B 217, 169 172 (1989); A. A. Anselm and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Lett. B 266, 482 484 (1991). [164] C.M.G. Lattes and Y. Fujimoto, Phys. Rept. 65, 151 (1980). [165] C. R. A. Augusto, S. L. C. Barroso, V. Kopenkin, M. Moriya, C. E. Navia and E. H. Shibuya, Phys. Rev. D 59, 054001 (1999). [166] E. G.-Dziadus, Phys. Part. Nucl. 34, 285 347 (2003); (Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra 34, 565 678,(2003)) arXiv:hep- ph/0111163. [167] K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 395 425 (1993) arXiv:hep-ph/9210253; Nucl. Phys. B 404, 577 589 (1993) arXiv:hep-ph/9303281. [168] [UAl Collaboration], G. Arnison et al, Phys. Lett. B 122, 189 196 (1983). [169] [UA5 Collaboration], K. Alpgard et al, Phys. Lett. B 115, 71 76 (1982). [170] [UA5 Collaboration], G. J. Alner et al, Phys. Lett. B 180, 415 422 (1986). [171] [CDF Collaboration], P. L. Melese et al, Abano Terme (Padova), Italy, (1996). [172] [MiniMax Collaboration], T. C. Brooks et al, Phys. Rev. D 61, 032003 (2000) arXiv:hep-ex/9906026. [173] [WA98 Collaboration], M. M. Aggarwal et al, Phys. Lett. B 420, 169 179 (1998) arXiv:hep-ex/9710015; Phys. Rev. C 64, 011901 (2001) arXiv:nucl-ex/0012004; Phys. Rev. C 67, 044901 (2003) arXiv:nucl-ex/0206017. [174] [NA49 collaboration], H. Appelsh¨auser et al, Phys. Lett. B 459, 679 686 (1999) arXiv:hep-ex/9904014. [175] T. Nakamura and K. Homma, [PHENIX Collaboration], Study of Isospin Fluctuations at RHIC-PHENIX, at Quark Matter 2002, Nantes, France, 2002. [176] [STAR Collaboration], K. H. Ackermann, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499, 624 632 (2003). [177] ALICE Collaboration, Technical proposal for a large ion collider experiment at the CERN LHC, CERN-LHCC-95-71, CERN-LHCC-P-3 (1995). [178] A. L. S. Angelis et al, Nucl. Phys. B 122, 205 208 (2003). [179] H. Boschi-Filho, N. R. F. Braga and C. N. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 73, 106006 (2006); Erratum-ibid. D74, 089903 (2006) arXiv:hep-th/0512295. [180] R. D. Pisarski and O. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 26, 3735 (1982). [181] P. De Forcrand, G. Schierholz, H. Schneider and M. Teper, Phys. Lett. B 160, 137 143 (1985). [182] R. Gupta, G. Guralnik, G. W. Kilcup, A. Patel, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2621 (1986). [183] S. Gottlieb, W. Liu, D. Toussaint, R. L. Renken, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3972 (1987). [184] K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B 591, 277 284 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310121. [185] M. Cheng et al, Phys. Rev. D 74, 054507 (2006) arXiv:hep-lat/0608013. [186] A. Sen, JHEP 0207, 065 (2002) arXiv:hep-th/0203265; JHEP 0204, 048 (2002) arXiv:hep-th/0203211. [187] C. Schmidt and T. Umeda [for the RBC-Bielefeld Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A 785, 274 277(2007)