Phenomenology of Strong Interactions — Towards an Effective Theory for Low

Energy QCD
Adamu Issifu1, 2, ∗ and Francisco A. Brito2, 3, †
1
Departamento de Fı́sica, CFM—Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Caixa Postal 476, 88040-900 Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
2
Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidade Federal da Paraı́ba,
Caixa Postal 5008, 58051-970 João Pessoa, Paraı́ba, Brazil
3
Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande
Caixa Postal 10071, 58429-900 Campina Grande, Paraı́ba, Brazil
In this paper, we develop models applicable to phenomenological particle physics by using the
string analogy of particles. These theories can be used to investigate the phenomenology of con-
finement, deconfinement, chiral condensate, QGP phase transitions, and even the evolution of the
early universe. Other confining properties such as scalar glueball mass, gluon mass, glueball-meson
arXiv:2212.00247v2 [hep-ph] 31 Jan 2023

mixing states, QCD vacuum, and color superconductivity can also be investigated in these model
frameworks. We use one of the models to describe the phenomenon of color confinement among
glueballs at the end of the paper. The models are built based on the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action
modified for open strings with their endpoints on a Dp-brane or brane-anti-brane at a tachyonic
vacuum.

I. INTRODUCTION

String theory was conceived in the late 1960s to provide an explanation for the behavior of nuclear matter such as
protons and neutrons [1, 2]. Even though the theory was not successful in explaining the characteristics of quarks and
gluons at its inception, it promised an interesting intervention in other areas of physics [3–7]. It showed capability
in giving an insight into cosmology, astrophysics, and unification of the fundamental forces of nature which has been
on the table of physicists for some time now. Consequently, the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) was
developed in the early 1970s to give a comprehensive explanation of nuclear matter [8, 9]. The QCD theory is now
accepted as the standard theory for strong interactions. Interestingly, recent development shows that string theory
and QCD describe the same physics.
The formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and QCD are almost the same. They are both formulated
from field theory based on gauge theory which forms the foundation of the highly acceptable Standard Model (SM).
The fundamental particles of these theories are studied based on the gauge boson they interchange: Photons for
electrodynamic force, W ± and Z 0 bosons for electroweak force and gluon for strong nuclear force [10–12]. Subsequently,
gravitational force does not fall under this category, so they are investigated under Einstein’s general theory of
relativity. Physicists have bunged their hope on string theory to unify all the fundamental forces, this will fall under
’physics beyond the SM’ [13–17]. Upon the similarities, quarks and gluons are color particles classified under three
conventional colors (red, blue, and green) whilst photons are color neural bosons that mediate electrically charged
leptons. Also, gluons self-interact due to their color charges but photons do not [10, 12].
Additionally, QCD falls short in explaining color-neutral particles such as bound states of gluons (glueballs) and
quarks (hadrons and mesons), so string theory can be resorted for further description. The string-like description of
hadrons arising from the quark model [18] is an important phenomenon in applying string theory. Under this picture,
when a quark and an antiquark are pulled apart, they behave as if they are connected by a rubber band (gluon) which
becomes increasingly difficult to separate when the separation distance between them keeps increasing. This analogy
gradually fails when the particles are brought closer and closer together. In this regime string theory fails and QCD
theory becomes viable. Now, looking at the particles in terms of fundamental strings, string theory describes hadrons
quite well and provides the background for the unification of the fundamental forces. In string theory, the strings
are treated as particles, where different particles are associated with different string oscillations. The masses of the
particles are also associated with the energy of the oscillating string. The intrinsic spin of the particle is associated
with the two perpendicular oscillations of the string with its endpoints fixed on D-branes, similar to the direction of
electric and magnetic fields in a photon. Hence, photons and gluons can be identified in terms of the open strings

∗ Electronic address: ai@[Link]

† Electronic address: fabrito@[Link]
 2

as spin-1 particles. The clockwise and anti-clockwise movement of the closed strings makes it possible to classify it
among spin-2 bosons such as graviton. Since, QCD involves color fields, to study it under string theory we assume
that the endpoints of the open strings on a D-brane serve as the source and sink of the color charge [20].
It has been conjectured that open bosonic strings studied at a tachyonic vacuum behave as if they are closed strings
with no D-branes. However, soliton solutions in this region point to the presence of lower dimensional branes [19, 21].
This projection is also corroborated in superstring theories [22, 23] and evident in the first [24–26] and second [27–34]
quantizations in string theories [35]. At the tachyonic vacuum, the negative energy density V (T0 ) of the tachyons in
the vacuum exactly cancels [36] the energy density of the D-branes εp i.e. V (T0 ) + εp = 0. In non-BPS D-branes
εp = τp where τp is the D-brane tension [37–39]. It should be noted that at |T | = T0 the total energy density of
the tachyons and the brane tension vanishes identically, signifying the absence of open strings at that point. In this
view, at a tachyonic vacuum, there will be no physical open string excitations because there are no D-branes. On
the contrary, the ’usual’ field theory gives an alternative explanation, because shifting the vacuum and expanding
around its ’true’ minimum can change a negative square mass of the tachyons to a positive one even though it does not
completely remove all the states. Since it will not cost any energy to adjust the fundamental strings on the worldvolme
of the D-branes at a tachyonic vacuum, it will be difficult to notice their presence. Hence, fluctuations around the
vacuum represent the presence of lower dimensional D-branes [19, 21]. These phenomena have been investigated in
references [27, 28, 30] using open string field theory [40].
In this paper, we modify the Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action, so that the associated open strings with their endpoints
on the remaining lower-dimensional branes at the tachyonic vacuum can be analyzed. The objective is to develop
models that can mimic QCD theory both in the UV and IR regions with UV safety. The models can be applied in
developing potential models such as the linear confining and Cornell potential models. In the analysis, we consider
that the string worldsheet falls inside the D-brane worldvolume making it easy for the endpoints of the strings to
be connected by the flux line on the worldvolume to form a close string suitable for modeling color confinement in
a flux-tube like picture. The dynamics of the strings tangential to the D-brane worldvolume is represented by the
gauge field Fµν and the component transverse to the worldvolume is represented by a massless scalar field X a . The
net flux involved is determined by the source and sink of the flux carried by the endpoints of the string on the lower
dimensional remnants of the original D-brane in the vacuum. Also, the condition for minimum energy warrants that
the flux does not spread because the source and sink of the flux emanate from a pointlike object on the D-brane
worldvolume.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II we review Tachyons and D-branes, divided into two subsections,
under Sec. II A we review Tachyons, and in Sec. II B we review D-branes. We present the Modification of the
Dirac-Born-Infeld Action which serves as the bases for the study in Sec. III. Also, in subsection III A we review the
Dimensional Reduced U(1) Yang-Mills theory and its intended consequences in relation to the Standard Model (SM)
of Particle Physics. Section IV and subsequent sections contain our original contributions to the subject. We present
the Bosonic String at Tachyonic Vacuum in Sec. IV, where we present the details of dimensional reduction from
10D Dirac-Born-Infeld action to 4D conducive for describing SM particles. We present Gauge Theories Modified
with G(φ), in Sec. V, this section was divided into two. We studied Fermions Coupled to Fundamental Strings at
Tachyonic Vacuum in Sec. V A and Non-Abelian Gauge Theory in Sec. V B. Section VI contains the Phenomenon
of Gluon Confinement, divided into four subsections. We present The Model in Sec. VI A, Confining Potentials in
Sec. VI B, Gluon Condensation in Sec. VI C and strong Running Coupling and QCD β-function in Sec. VI D. we
present our findings and Conclusions in Sec. VII.

II. REVIEW OF TACHYONS AND Dp-BRANES

A. Tachyons

Generally, tachyons are classified as particles that travel faster than light or weakly interacting superluminal
particles. Relativistically, single particle energy is expressed as E 2 = p2 c2 + m2 c4 , where p is the spatial momentum
and m is the mass of the particle. For a particle to be faster than light, the relativistic velocity β = pc/E > 1.
Hence, for tachyons with real p, m must necessarily be imaginary [41]. However, this analogy does not make a strong
and convincing case for the tachyons. Rather, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) provides some satisfactory explanation
to the dynamics of tachyons. QFT suggests that particles that travel faster than light does not exist in nature. So
tachyons are simply unstable particles that decay. Based on this understanding, we consider a scalar field, say φ,
with the usual kinetic term and a potential V (φ) whose extremum is at the origin. If one carries out perturbation
quantization about φ = 0 up to the quadratic term and ignores the higher order terms in the action, we obtain a
particle-like state at V 00 (0). These results have two interesting interpretations; if V 00 (0) > 0 we have a particle of mass
m2φ but for V 00 (0) < 0 we have a tachyonic state with a negative m2φ . In this case, tachyons can be given a physical
 3

meaning. So far, we know that the tachyons have negative m2φ and potential whose maximum is at the origin, thus
a small displacement of φ at the origin will cause it to grow exponentially with time towards the true minimum. By
the above description, tachyons can be represented by a potential such as
1
V (φ) = − m2φ φ2 + c3 φ3 + c4 φ4 · · · , (1)
2
where c3 and c4 are constants. Hence, tachyonic fields are associated with the ’usual’ Higgs fields where the Higgs
particles acquire negative square mass at the true minimum of their potential. Accordingly, tachyons in QFT are
related to instability that breaks down the perturbation theory in normal field theory. The usual quantization where
the cubic and higher order terms are considered small corrections to the quadratic term is no longer tenable. Since
V (φ) has its maximum at φ = 0, it renders it classically unstable at that point. So one cannot guarantee that the
fluctuation at that point is small. This behavior comes with an inbuilt solution i.e. one can expand the potential
about the true minima φ0 up to the quadratic term and proceed with the perturbation quantization about that point.
Thus, the cubic and higher-order terms in the expansion can be discarded. This process will lead to the creation
of a particle with a positive mass m2φ in the spectrum. This process removes the tachyonic modes in the spectrum.
Additionally, in Dp-brane systems, the theory must be invariant under Z2 symmetry, i.e. φ → −φ and in the presence
of brane-anti-brane, the theory must necessarily be invariant under phase symmetry φ → eiα φ. Indeed, there are
some benefits in working in tachyonic modes otherwise we can define a new field, η = φ − φ0 , and express the potential
in terms of the new field,

V (η) = V (η + φ0 ). (2)

Working with this potential from the onset will remove the tachyonic mode from the spectrum because V 00 (η = 0)
will be positive. However, there are some benefits to working with tachyonic fields, for instance, they possess high
symmetry. This symmetry might not be explicit in V (η) as it is in V (φ). The high symmetry in tachyonic fields
leads to the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, where the potential has more than one minima i.e.
V (φ) = V (−φ) corresponding to ±φ0 . This phenomenon is well known in elementary particle physics [39].

B. Dp-branes

Recent advances in string theory have provided some explanations regarding nonperturbative features of QCD
theory, thanks to the discovery of Dp-branes. The study of Dp-branes gives insight into physically relevant systems
such as black holes, supersymmetric gauge theories, and the connection between Yang-Mills theories and quantum
gravity. Upon the numerous progress, a consistent nonperturbative background-independent construction of the
theory is yet to be developed. This poses a challenge in directly addressing cosmological problems. There are five
known ways for which supersymmetric closed strings can be quantized, i.e. IIA, IIB, I, heterotic SO(32) and heterotic
E8 × E8 superstring theories. Individually, they give a perturbative description of quantum gravity. However, they
are connected through duality symmetries [42, 43]. Indeed, some of these dualities are nonperturbative in nature
because the string coupling gs in one theory may have an inverse relation 1/gs with the other. The superstring
theories together with M-theory (a theory that unifies superstring theories) consist of an extended object of higher
dimensions, called Dp-branes. Each of these theories contains branes but in different complements. Particularly,
IIA/IIB superstring theories consist of even/odd Dp-brane dimensional configurations. Using the appropriate duality
transformations, one brane can be mapped onto the other even with the strings connecting them. Thus, none of the
branes are seen to be more fundamental to others. This process is commonly referred to as ’brane democracy’.
Before moving into the specific kind of strings set out for this study, we will shed light on the features of open and
closed strings. Closed strings are topologically the same as a circle S 1 , i.e. [0, 2π]. They give rise to a massless set
of spacetime fields, identified as graviton gµν , dilaton ϕ, antisymmetric two-form Bµν and an infinite set of massive
fields upon quantization. Supersymmetric closed strings are also related to massless fields identified with graviton
(p)
supermultiplets such as Ramond-Ramond p-form fields Aµ,··· ,µp and gravitino ψµα . Consequently, the quantum
theory of closed strings is naturally related to the theory of gravity in spacetime. On the other hand, open strings are
topologically similar to the interval [0, π]. They give rise to massless gauge field Aµ in spacetime upon quantization.
Supersymmetric open strings are also associated with massless gaugino ψα . Accordingly, open strings have their ends
on Dirichlet p-branes (Dp-brane) and the gauge field lives on the worldvolume of the Dp-brane. Upon these differences,
the physics of closed and open strings are related at the quantum level. Closed strings were first observed through
the one-loop process of an open string. Under this process, close strings appeared as poles in nonplanar one-loop
open string diagrams [44, 45]. The open strings have their endpoints on the Dp-branes whilst close strings have no
endpoints. The degree of freedom of the open strings is associated with standing wave modes on the fields while the
 4

close strings correspond to left-moving and right-moving waves. The boundary conditions for open strings on the
bosonic field X M are Neumann (freely moving endpoints) and Dirichlet boundary conditions (fixed endpoints). The
close string on the other hand corresponds to periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions.
Some Dp-branes have unstable configurations both in the supersymmetric or the nonsupersymmetric string theories.
The instability is attributed to tachyonic modes with negative square mass m2φ < 0 in the open string spectrum, we
are interested in investigating the effects of the tachyonic modes [27, 46]. Some Dp-brane configurations with open
strings containing tachyons are:
Brane-antibrane; it is a type IIA or IIB string theory with parallel Dp-branes separated by d < ls (ls is the
string length scale). They also carry tachyons in their open string spectrum. The difference in their orientation leads
to opposite Ramond-Ramond (R-R) charges [47]. So the brane and anti-brane pair can annihilate leaving a neutral
vacuum because the net R-R charge will be zero.
Wrong-dimension branes; the Dp-brane with wrong dimension for type IIA/IIB with odd/even spatial
dimension for p instead of even/odd dimensions carry no charges under classical IIA/IIB supergravity fields. They
have tachyons in their open string spectrum. Such branes can annihilate to form a vacuum without violating charge
conservation.
Bosonic Dp-branes; just as the wrong-dimension branes of type IIA/IIB string theory, the Dp-brane of any
particular dimension in the bosonic string theory have no conserve charge and has tachyons in their open string
spectrum. Also, they can annihilate to form a neutral vacuum without violating charge conservation.
Again, even though the non-BPS Dp-branes of type IIA/IIB string theory are unstable owing to the presence of
tachyonic modes on their worldvolume [23]. We can obtain stable non-BPS branes by taking orientifolds/orbifolds of
the theory which projects out the tachyonic modes [23, 24, 87].

III. MODIFICATION OF DIRAC-BORN-INFELD ACTION

We begin the study with the Born-Infeld action (BI) [48] sometimes referred to as Dirac-Born-Infeld action (DBI)
[49, 50]. The focus will be on Dp-branes [51, 52] which are nonperturbative states on which open strings live. They
are equally coupled with closed strings, Ramond-Ramond states and other massive fields. The nonperturbative nature
of the action makes it possible to describe low energy degrees of freedom of the Dp-branes [53] making it possible for
application in low energy QCD. The distinction between the DBI action, other p-branes and supermembrane theories
[47, 54, 55] is the presence of gauge field in the worldvolume of DBI. The gauge field is associated with virtual open
string states. Consequently, we obtain confinement of the fundamental strings with their endpoints fixed on the
branes. Generally, the action can be expressed as
Z q
S = −Tp dp+1 ξe−ϕ −det (Gµν + Bµν + (2πα0 )Fµν ) + SCS + fermions, (3)

where Gµν , Bµν and ϕ are the induced metric tensor, antisymmetric tensor, and dilaton field to the Dp-brane
worldvolume respectively. Also, Fµν = ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ is the worldvolume electromagnetic field strength of Aµ and SCS
is a set of Chern-Simon terms while
Tp 1
τp = = √ √ , (4)
gs gs α0 (2π α0 )p

is the brane tension and gs = ehϕi is the string coupling, with associated string tension
1
Tstring = . (5)
2πα0
In type IIA/IIB string theory with p even/odd are associated with quantum open strings containing massless
Aµ , µ = 0, 1, · · · , p and X M , M = p + 1, · · · , 9 fields. These fields are the consequence of the gauge field living on
the hypersurface and X µ (ξ) transverse excitations. The geometry of Dp-brane is not flat,Pso we generally define the
embedding X µ (ξ), where ξ α represent p + 1 coordinates on the Dp-brane worldvolume (p+1) , and X µ is the ten
functions mapping from (p+1) onto the spacetime manifold R9,1 . Introducing the scalar field into the action, it
P

becomes invariant under diffeomorphism and Abelian gauge transformations. So, a way of fixing the freedom of the
former is to adopt a ’static gauge’ such that

X µ ≡ ξµ for 0 ≤ µ ≤ p. (6)
 5

The remaining fields are

Xµ ≡ XM for (p + 1) ≤ M ≤ d − p, (7)
which are the transverse coordinates to the worldvolume [58–60] where d is a spatial dimension. Thus, one can choose
d = 9 for superstring theory and d = 25 for bosonic string theory. Under this gauge, the originally d + 1-dimensional
global poincaré symmetry spontaneously breaks down to a product of p + 1 dimensional poincaré group with d − p
dimensional rotational symmetry group i.e. SO(1, d) → SO(1, p) × SO(d − p). For a Dp-brane possessing p < d
extends over p-dimensional subspace of d-dimensional space. The focus will be on a Dp-branes with p-dimensional
hyperplanes in d-dimensional space. Again, according to the static gauge fixed above, there are two possible consistent
truncations;
• X M = 0; corresponds to pure BI theory [48] in Ep,1 and
• Fµν = 0; also corresponds to Dirac’s theory [50] of minimal timelike submanifolds of Ed,1 .
We can introduce the transverse scalar fluctuations by defining the induced metric as
Gµν ≈ ηµν + ηM N ∂µ X M ∂ν X N , (8)
that will approximate the Dp-brane worldvolume to near flat. In this study, we are interested in understanding the
dynamics of bosonic open strings with tachyonic modes in their spectrum, so we will proceed systematically toward
that objective. The worldvolume theory of non-BPS Dp-brane in IIA/IIB string theory corresponds to a massless
U(1) vector field, transverse oscillating scalar field X M and a tachyonic field T [61]. Accordingly, the leading order of
the action results in dimensional reduction 10-dimensional U(1) Yang-Mills theory. Besides, higher-order corrections,
α0 = ls2 , to the order of the string scale are also possible. Since we are proceeding with the assumption that the
massless fields are slowly varying compared to the string length ls , i.e. we discard the higher order derivatives and
write the DBI action [53, 56, 62] in a simple form without the explicit presence of the tachyons. Therefore, Eq.(3)
takes the form
Z q
S = −Tp dp+1 ξe−ϕ −det (ηµν + ηM N ∂µ X M ∂ν X N + Bµν + (2πα0 )Fµν ). (9)

Now we will express the extended form of the DBI by including the dynamics of the tachyons as studied in [56].
Accordingly,
Z q
S = −Tp dp+1 ξe−ϕ V (T ) −det (ηµν + ∂µ T ∂ν T + ηM N ∂µ X M ∂ν X N + Bµν + (2πα0 )Fµν ), (10)

where V (T ) is the tachyon potential and ∂µ T ∂ν T is, as usual, the kinetic energy of the tachyons [63]. Under this
conjuncture, the action vanishes at the minimum of the tachyon potential V (T0 ) = 0 [19, 22, 25]. We will now
continue the discussion by approximating that the Dp-branes are nearly flat, with constant dilaton, and vanishing
antisymmetric two-form term Bµν to remove the close string quanta in the system.

A. Dimensional Reduction U(1) Yang-Mills Theory

Studying Dp-branes under Yang-Mills theory enables us to understand the physics of Dp-branes without necessarily
applying any complex string theory artifacts. Detailed analyses show there is enough evidence that super Yang-Mills
theory carries a lot of information concerning string theory than one may possibly imagine [64]. Besides, recent
developments in high-energy physics investigations have shown that string theory gives insight into low-energy field
theories in the nonperturbative region [59]. This has been conjectured to be equivalent to QCD where confinement
can be realized in color fluxtube picture. From Eq.(9), in the limit of vanishing Bµν and further assuming that the
Dp-branes are almost flat, close to the hypersurface i.e. X M = 0, M > p. Again, we suppose that the fields are slowly
varying such that ∂µ X M ∂ µ XM and 2πα0 Fµν are in the same order. Therefore, the action can be expanded as
Z  
1 p+1 µν 2
S = −τp Vp − 2 d ξ Fµν F + ∂µ X ∂ XM + O((∂µ X M )4 , F 4 ).
M µ
(11)
4gY M (2πα0 )2
Here, Vp is the p-brane worldvolume and gY M is the Yang-Mills coupling given by,
1 g  √ 0 p−2
gY2 M = 0 2
=√ 2π α . (12)
(2πα ) τp α0
 6

The second term in Eq.(11) corresponds to U(1) gauge theory in p + 1 dimension coupled with 9 − p scalar fields.
Introducing fermions fields, as mentioned below Eq.(3) into the action, we recover the supersymmetric U(1) Yang-Mills
theory in 10 d N = 1 Super Yang-Mills action,
Z  
1 1 i
S= 2 d10 ξ − Fµν F µν + ψ̄Γµ ∂µ ψ . (13)
gY M 4 2
In the case of N parallel Dp-branes, the p-dimensional branes must be distinctively labeled from 1 to N. Subsequently,
the massless scalar fields living on the individual Dp-brane worldvolume are related to U(1)N gauge group. The
fields arising from the strings stretching from one brane to the other are labeled as Aµi,j , where i, j specifies the
individual branes that carry the endpoints of the strings. The strings are oriented such that they consist of N (N − 1)
fields, corresponding to Aα = (Aµ , X M ) individual fields. The mass of the strings is proportional to the separation
distances between the branes. So the strings become massless [36, 52] when the Dp-branes get very close to each
other. Hence, the open strings can transform under the adjoint representation U(N). Thus, the corresponding fields
can be decomposed similarly to adjoint supersymmetric gauge field U(N) = SU(N ) × U(1) in p + 1-dimensions. With
the stacks of Dp-branes crossing each other at some angles, one can also break the U(N) symmetry into SM particle
physics i.e. SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) [65]. In sum, the DBI action can be generalized into a non-Abelian gauge group by
considering stacks of Dp-branes instead of a Dp-brane.
A major motivation for string dual to QCD is derived from the ’t Hooft large Nc -limit [66, 67]. Though, SU(Nc )
and U(Nc ) have different representations, in the limit of Nc → ∞, the difference can be overlooked. Thus, the number
of gluons can be approximated as Nc2 . This is more than the quark degree of freedom Nf Nc , therefore, we expect
the dynamics of the gluons to dominate in this regime [68].

IV. BOSONIC STRINGS AT TACHYONIC VACUUM

Generally, there are two known boundary conditions associated with open strings. The Dirichlet (fixed) boundary
condition is where the coordinates are normal to the brane, and under Neumann (free) boundary condition is where
the coordinates are parallel to the brane [53, 69, 70]. It has been established [71] that a small disturbance normal
to the string and the brane are likely to reflect back with a phase shift of π, corresponding to a Dirichlet boundary
condition. Some study in this regard has been carried out in [72, 73] using Nambu-Goto action for strings with their
endpoints on a supergravity background of D3-branes. Since the strings attached to the 3-branes manifest themselves
as electric charges, the Neumann boundary condition where the endpoints of the strings are freely oscillating will lead
to the production of electromagnetic dipole radiation at the asymptotic outer area of the brane.
In this section, we will consider Eq.(10) which includes the dynamics of tachyons on open strings. Accordingly,
we will keep all the arguments made for the 10-dimensional DBI action, but we will reduce the spacetime dimension
from 10 to 4. One of the major differences between superstring theory and particle theory is that the former lives
on 10-dimensional spacetime and the latter on 4-dimensional spacetime. Nonetheless, this discrepancy can be dealt
with using compactification scheme [74–76], where the spacetime is divided into an external non-compact spacetime
M10−d and an internal compact spacetime Md . We can combine these two phenomena into a single expression as
M10 = M10−d × Md . (14)
We adopt a physically realistic phenomenon where d = 6. Additionally, we can set a compact scale Mc = 1/R,
where R is the radius of the internally compact spacetime, smaller than the string mass Ms = 1/ls [15, 77]. As a
result, the energy E required for this work must lie in the range E  Mc  Ms . So, the worldvolume coordinate
becomes ξ = (xµ , x6 ), where µ = 0, 1, 2, 3. Consequently, we will reduce the dimension to 1 + 3-dimension with
ηµν = diag(+, −, −, −) metric signature. We will also decouple the 6 available transverse fluctuating scalar fields and
the antisymmetric tensor i.e., X M = Bµν = 0. Keeping the dilaton field constant, we get
Z q
S = −τp d4 xV (T ) −det (ηµν + ∂µ T ∂ν T + (2πα0 )Fµν )
Z r
4 1
= −τp d xV (T ) 1 − η µν ∂µ T ∂ν T + (2πα0 )2 Fµν F µν + · · ·
2
Z  
4 1 µ 1 0 2 µν
= −τp d xV (T ) 1 − ∂µ T ∂ T + (2πα ) Fµν F + · · · . (15)
2 4
In the above expression we calculate the determinant up to the second-order derivative discarding higher-order
corrections. In view of field theory at tachyonic vacuum, the D-branes do not vanish completely rather, there are lower
 7

dimensional D-branes present. So, the endpoints of the strings sitting on the low dimensional D-branes behave like
point-like particles which serve as the source and sink of the flux carrying the color particles. For instance, expanding
around the ’true’ minimum of the potential gets rid of the tachyons leading to a particle with a positive square mass.
We consider a field configuration such that T (r) = f (φ(r)), in this case, the potential can be expressed as
 2
∂φ
V (T (φ)) = , (16)
∂T
so
 2
1 1 ∂φ ∂T 1
V (T )∂µ T ∂ µ T = = ∂ µ φ∂µ φ. (17)
2 2 ∂T ∂x 2
As a result, the Lagrangian of the system becomes,
1 1
τp−1 L = ∂µ φ∂ µ φ − V (φ) − G(φ)Fµν F µν , (18)
2 4
here, we have introduced a dimensionless quantity G(φ) = (2πα0 )2 V (φ) which will be referred to as a color dielectric
function, subsequently. If we set (2πα0 ) = 1 the string tension becomes Tstring = 1 and G(φ) = V (φ) [78–82]. It
is important to mention at this point that the potential of the field, φ, follows the same discussion as contained in
Sec. II A. It has its minimum at V (φ = hφi0 ) = 0, where hφi0 is the ’true’ vacuum of the potential. To apply this
theory to asymptotically free systems, the potential must satisfy additional conditions,
∂V ∂V
V (φ = hφi0 ) = 0 , |φ=hφi0 = 0 and |φ=0 = 0, (19)
∂φ ∂φ
necessary for stabilizing its vacuum [81, 83, 84]. These restrictions make it possible to apply Eq.(18) in investigating
asymptotically free particles such as gluons in a QCD-like fashion. Here, the modified Abelian gauge mimics the role of
the non-Abelian gauge in the ’usual’ QCD theory. We treat the endpoints of the open string on the lower dimensional
branes as the source of quark and an anti-quark (if fermions are present) or valence gluons and the string connecting
them as gluons that mediate the interactions. Also, the potential V (φ) plays a similar role as a quantum correction
in gluodynamics theory that breaks the conformal symmetry to bring about gluon condensation [80, 84, 86]. This
model has been used to study the color confinement of glueballs at a finite temperature in Ref.[79].
Considering brane-anti-brane systems, we note that the model must be invariant under the global rotation φ → eiα φ.
This warrants an introduction of a complex scalar field φ with potential V (|φ|) [88]. So, we can redefine the scalar
field in a form,
φ1 + iφ2
φ= √ , (20)
2
to incorporate the Dp-brane and anti-Dp-brane dynamics. Supposing that the original gauge field Fµν is on the
worldvolume of the Dp-brane represented by a complex scalar field φ, we will have a dual gauge field F̃µν also on the
wordvolume of the anti-Dp-brane represented by the conjugate field φ∗ . Therefore, the string here has its endpoints
on remnants of Dp-brane and the anti-Dp-brane parallel to each other. Imposing gauge invariance on the scalar sector,
we can define an Abelian covariant derivative
∂µ → Dµ ≡ ∂µ − iq õ , (21)
where õ is a gauge field which is dual to Aµ . Accordingly, the Lagrangian in Eq.(18), can be extended as
1 1
τp−1 L = Dµ φDµ φ∗ − V (|φ|) − G(|φ|)Fµν F µν − F̃µν F̃ µν , (22)
4 4
where Fµν = ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ and F̃µν = ∂µ Ãν − ∂ν õ are two independent Abelian field strengths. Aside from the
original U(1) gauge invariance of the Lagrangian, it is also invariant under the Ũ(1) gauge transformation,
φ(x) → φ0 (x) = e−iqα(x) φ and õ (x) → Ã0µ (x) = õ (x) − ∂µ α(x). (23)
This Lagrangian can undergo a spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) process (when we choose an appropriate
potential) similar to the usual Abelian Higgs mechanism [10, 12]. In this case, φ plays a role similar to the ’usual’
Higgs field in the standard model of particle physics. This process will also lead to the observation of Goldston
boson (most likely π 0 due to the Ũ(1)) corresponding to the number of unbroken symmetries signaling confinement
as well [79, 91]. This model has been exploited in detail to study glueballs and color superconductivity in [82]. It is
important to mention that (22) is valid when we consider Dp-brane and an anti-Dp-brane system in the framework
of DBI action [89, 90]. It is suitable for describing massless particles such as glueballs or gluon confinement.
 8

V. GAUGE THEORIES MODIFIED WITH G(φ)

A. Fermions Coupled To Fundamental Strings at Tachyonic Vacuum

In this section, we introduce Dirac’s Lagrangian for free particles adopted by Maxwell in the unification of electric
and magnetic field interactions. We introduce the dynamics of the fermions which were dropped in the previous
discussions as stated below Sec. III. However, it will be introduced here through Dirac’s equation modified by G(φ)
while taking into consideration all gauge invariance properties. We start with the well-known Dirac’s Lagrangian for
free particles
L0 = ψ̄ (iγ µ ∂µ − m) ψ. (24)
Even though this Lagrangian is well known in QED, it is also used to describe free nucleons in terms of their composite
fermions; protons, and neutrons in strong interaction. It is invariant under global phase rotation,
ψ → ψ 0 = eiα ψ. (25)
Noticing that the fields in the Lagrangian are color neutral in nature, to apply them in studying color particles such
as the ones considered here, we need to modify the fields. Hence, we will modify the bispinors with the G(φ) in order
to give them some color features. Thus, we perform the transformations
ψ → ψ 0 ≡ G1/2 ψ and ψ̄ → ψ̄ 0 ≡ ψ̄G1/2 , (26)
where G is a function therefore, the gradient in Dirac’s equation will transform as
h i
∂µ ψ → ∂µ ψ 0 = (∂µ G1/2 ) + G1/2 ∂µ ψ, (27)

and Lagrangian (24) becomes

L = ψ̄ 0 [iγ µ ∂µ − m] ψ 0
h i
= ψ̄ iγ µ G∂µ + iγ µ G1/2 (∂µ G1/2 ) − mG ψ. (28)

The local gauge invariance is violated by G(φ) and the gradient function (∂µ G1/2 ). To ensure local gauge invariance is
satisfied, we modify all variables involving derivatives, and color neutral fields such as the Dirac γ-matrix with G(φ)
and also introduce the electromagnetic field Aµ (x) in other to make the equation gauge invariant. Consequently, we
will adopt the transformations,
γ µ → γ 0µ = G−1 γ µ and ∂µ → Dµ ≡ ∂µ − iqAµ , (29)
where Dµ is the gauge-covariant derivative and q is the electric charge. This type of derivative corresponds to
momentum transformation, pµ → pµ − qAµ . By this transformation, the gauge field also gets modified and enters the
Lagrangian as GAµ . It also introduces a coupling between the electromagnetic field and matter in a form Dµ ψ. So
Eq.(28) becomes
h i
L = ψ̄ iγ µ ∂µ + iγ µ ∂µ (ln G1/2 ) + qAµ γ µ − mG ψ
= ψ̄ [iγ µ ∂µ + qγ µ Aµ − mG] ψ, (30)
consequently, the electromagnetic field transforms as
i
Aµ → A0µ ≡ Aµ + ∂µ (ln G1/2 ). (31)
q
Equation (30) looks similar to Dirac’s Lagrangian with interaction term that couples the gauge field Aµ (x) to the
conserve current j µ = q ψ̄γ µ ψ with a modified mass term M (r) = mG(φ). Also, ψ̄Dµ ψ becomes invariant under local
phase rotation, granting interaction between ψ̄, ψ and Aµ with momentum pµ → i∂µ . In this way, the Lagrangian
has been modified, but we ensure that all conservation laws are duly respected.
Now, to derive a complete Lagrangian that can mimic QCD theory, we include the kinetic energy term of the gauge
field which has been derived in Eq.(18), thus,
1 1
L = ψ̄ (iγ µ ∂µ + qγ µ Aµ − mG(φ)) ψ + ∂µ φ∂ µ φ − V (φ) − G(φ)Fµν F µν . (32)
2 4
 9

This expression looks similar to the usual QED Lagrangian with φ as intermediate field/particle and a mass term
modified by color dielectric function, G(φ). As a result, this expression approximates the non-Abelian QCD theory
with an Abelian one. This was motivated by the projection that the confining regime of QCD is mostly Abelian
dominated [92–96]. The spinor fields ψ and ψ̄ represent the quarks and antiquarks and the modified gauge field
Aµ also describes gluons. All the long-distance behavior of the gluons is absorbed in G(φ). The observed mass of
the system M (r) = mG(φ) is expected to have a fixed value at the beginning of the interaction r → r0 and at the
end of the interaction r → r∗ , so it can be measured precisely. That is, the dielectric function should be such that
G(φ(r → r0 )) = G(φ(r → r∗ )) = constant, where 1/r0 is the energy at the beginning of the interaction and 1/r∗ is
the energy at the end of the interaction. Thus, M (r) = mG(φ) is the constituent quark mass function of the system.
We have presented a detailed study of this theory in Refs.[80, 81]
Since the renormalization theory remains the systematic approach for which UV divergences can be resolved [97], we
will compare the result with the renormalized QED Lagrangian to properly identify the nature of the dielectric function
in the context of renormalization factor Z(µ), where µ is a scale that comes from the dimensional regularization scheme
[98, 99]. The objective is to ensure that the result obtained in Eq.(32) does not pose any UV divergences. When the
real QED Lagrangian is written in terms of the renormalized factors, it takes the form,
ZA µν
LQED = Zψ ψ̄(iγµ ∂ µ − m0 )ψ − F Fµν − Z1 eψ̄γµ Aµ ψ, (33)
4
where
1/2 1/2 Zψ0 Zψ 1/2
ψ0 = Zψ ψ , Aµ0 = ZA Aµ , m0 = m and e = Z e0 , (34)
Zψ Z1 A
the two equations bear some resemblance, so we can compare them. With Z3 the gluon propagator renormalization
factor, Z1 the quark-quark-gluon vertex renormalization, and Z2 the quark self-energy renormalization factor.
Additionally, the covariant derivative can be expressed in terms of the renormalized factors as Dµren = ∂µ −
ie(Z1 /Zψ )Aµ , gauge invariance requires that Z1 = Zψ . We have substituted the ’conventional’ representation of
1/2
the renormalization factors Z2 and Z3 with Zψ and ZA respectively, and Z1 = Zψ ZA to make the distinction
more obvious relative to fermions and the gauge field. The renormalized fields are without subscript ’0’ [100–106].
Comparing the results in Eqs.(32) and (33), we identify ZA = Zψ = G and the gauge invariance warrant that,
ZA = 1. Thus, in addition to the color properties carried by the color dielectric function, it also absorbs the UV
divergences. Consequently, the dielectric function follows the restrictions,
(
1 for r → 0, deconfinement/Coulombian regime
G (φ(r)) → . (35)
0 for r → r∗ , confinement regime

From the gauge conditions adopted above, a gluon mass term,

1 2
Lγ = M (r)Aµ Aµ , (36)
2
will not be invariant under the local gauge transformation in Eq.(31) because
  
i i
Aµ Aµ → A0µ A0µ ≡ Aµ + ∂µ (ln G1/2 ) Aµ + ∂ µ (ln G1/2 ) 6= Aµ Aµ . (37)
q q
Consequently, local gauge invariance accounts for the existence of massless photons [10].

B. Non-Abelian Gauge Theory

In this section, we will focus on constructing a non-Abelian gauge theory traditionally used for describing the strong
nuclear force. Additionally, we buy into the projection that proton and neutron have the same mass and are charge
independent due to the strong nuclear force. Therefore, there is an agreement that isospin is conserved in strong
interactions. As in the case of QED theory, we will base the discussions on SU(2)-isospin gauge theory introduced
by Yang and Mills [107], elaborated by Shaw [11]. Here, we will consider Eq.(24) as the Lagrangian for free nucleons
with composite fermions, protons (p), and neutrons (n)
 
p
ψ≡ . (38)
n
 10

The Lagrangian is invariant under global spin rotation

ψ → ψ 0 = ei~τ ·~α/2 ψ, (39)

also, isospin current, j µ = ψ̄γ µ (τ /2)ψ, is conserved therefore, proton and neutron can be treated symmetrically in
the absence of electromagnetic interactions. In that case, the distinction between proton and neutron is arbitrary and
conventional under this representation.
To maintain the differences between the Abelian theory treated in Sec. V A and the non-Abelian theory intended for
this section, we will replace Aµ from the Abelian covariant derivative, Dµ , expressed in Eq.(29) with its non-Abelian
counterpart Bµ i.e.,

Dµ ≡ ∂µ − igBµ . (40)

We have also replaced q with g, the strong coupling constant to make the analysis distinct from Sec. V A and befitting
for describing strong interactions. Despite the similar global gauge invariance satisfied by both theories, they also
exhibit some major differences; the algebra of the non-Abelian group is more complex and the associated gauge bosons
self-interact due to the structure of the non-Abelian group. Accordingly, the field can be expressed as,
√ +
b3µ b1µ − ib2µ b3µ
  
1 ~ 1 a a 1 1 2 bµ
Bµ = ~τ · bµ = τ bµ = = √ , (41)
2 2 2 b1µ + ib2µ −b3µ 2 2 b−
µ −b 3
µ

where the three non-Abelian gauge fields are ~bµ = (b1µ , b2µ , b3µ ). The generators τ a (a = 1, 2 and 3) are associated with
√
Pauli’s matrices, b± 1 2
µ = (bµ ∓ ibµ )/ 2 are the charged gauge bosons and the isospin step-up and step-down operators
1/2(τ1 ± iτ2 ) exchange p ↔ n following the absorption of b± µ boson. The gradient in Eq.(24) will then transform as,

Dµ ψ → Dψ 0 = G1/2 ∂µ ψ + (∂µ G1/2 )ψ − igBµ (G1/2 ψ)

= G1/2 ∂µ − igBµ0 ψ,


(42)

thus,

−igG1/2 Bµ0 = −igBµ G1/2 + (∂µ G1/2 ) →

i
Bµ0 = G1/2 Bµ G−1/2 + (∂µ G1/2 )G−1/2
g
 
i −1/2
=G 1/2
Bµ + G (∂µ G ) G−1/2 .
1/2
(43)
g

Again, following similar procedure as adopted for Eq.(30) using the necessary transformations, we obtain

L0 = ψ̄ [iγ µ ∂µ + gBµ γ µ − mG] ψ, (44)

with gauge invariant transformation similar to Eq.(31),

i
Bµ → Bµ0 ≡ Bµ + (∂µ ln G1/2 ). (45)
g
By comparing Eq.(43) and Eq.(45) we can deduce,

Bµ → Bµ0 = G1/2 Bµ G−1/2 . (46)

The SU(2)-isospin generators can be expressed in terms of commutator relation,

 j k
τ , τ = 2iεjkl τ l . (47)

Conventionally, τi do not commute with others in different spatial directions, so only one component can be measured
at a time and this is taken to be the third component T3 = 1/2τ3 , generally in z-direction.
We will now develop the field strength tensor that will form the kinetic term of the gauge field. Starting with the
electromagnetism gauge, we can construct,
1 1 a a
tr τ a τ b = 2δ ab .


Fµν = Fµν · τ = Fµν τ where (48)
2 2
 11

From these transformations, we can develop a gauge invariant field,

1 1
L0gauge = − Fµν · Fµν = − tr (Fµν F µν ) , (49)
4 2
where the field strength tensor transforms under the dielectric function as
0
Fµν → Fµν ≡ G1/2 Fµν G−1/2 . (50)

We know from the QED relation constructed in Sec. V A that the field strength can be expressed as
   
0 i i
Fµν = ∂ν Bµ0 − ∂µ Bν0 = ∂ν G1/2 Bµ G−1/2 + (∂µ G1/2 )G−1/2 − ∂µ G1/2 Bν G−1/2 + (∂ν G1/2 )G−1/2
g g
 i
i h
= (∂ν G1/2 )Bµ G−1/2 + G1/2 (∂ν Bµ )G−1/2 + G1/2 Bµ (∂ν G−1/2 ) + ∂ν (∂µ G1/2 )G−1/2 + (∂µ G1/2 )(∂ν G−1/2 )
g
 i
ih
− (∂µ G1/2 )Bν G−1/2 + G1/2 (∂µ Bν )G−1/2 + G1/2 Bν (∂µ G−1/2 ) + ∂µ (∂ν G1/2 )G−1/2 + (∂ν G1/2 )(∂µ G−1/2 ) .
g
(51)

We adopted the expression for Bµ0 defined in Eq.(43), regrouping the terms in the above equation yields,
h i h i
0
Fµν = G1/2 [∂ν Bµ − ∂µ Bν ] G−1/2 + (∂ν G1/2 )Bµ − (∂µ G1/2 )Bν G−1/2 + G1/2 Bµ (∂ν G−1/2 ) − Bν (∂µ G−1/2 )
ih i
+ (∂µ G1/2 )(∂ν G−1/2 ) − (∂ν G1/2 )(∂µ G−1/2 )
g
6= G1/2 [∂ν Bµ − ∂µ Bν ] G−1/2 , (52)

higher derivative terms were discarded. We can cast this result in a slightly symmetric form by using the identity
G1/2 G−1/2 = I, so

∂µ (G1/2 G−1/2 ) = (∂µ G1/2 )G−1/2 + G1/2 (∂µ G−1/2 ) = 0 →

G1/2 (∂µ G−1/2 ) = −(∂µ G1/2 )G−1/2 . (53)

Using this identity appropriately leads to,

   
0
Fµν = G1/2 (∂ν Bµ − ∂µ Bν ) G−1/2 + (∂ν G1/2 )Bµ − Bµ (∂ν G1/2 ) G−1/2 + Bν (∂µ G1/2 ) − (∂µ G1/2 )Bν G−1/2
i 
+ (∂ν G1/2 )G−1/2 (∂µ G1/2 ) − (∂µ G1/2 )G−1/2 (∂ν G1/2 ) G−1/2
g
nh i h io
= G1/2 (∂ν Bµ − ∂µ Bν ) G−1/2 + G1/2 G−1/2 (∂ν G1/2 ), Bµ − G−1/2 (∂µ G1/2 ), Bν G−1/2
i h i
+ G1/2 G−1/2 (∂ν G1/2 ), G−1/2 (∂µ G1/2 ) G−1/2 . (54)
g
This equation shows the additional terms that come from the non-vanishing commutators due to the non-Abelian
group structure. By this expression, we deduce that a term can be added to ∂ν Bµ − ∂µ Bν to modify Fµν to achieve
the desired transformation property we require. With this inspiration, the observed electromagnetic field strength
tensor can be modified to read,
1
Fµν = [Dν , Dµ ] . (55)
iq

Substituting the definition for Dµ in Eq.(29) into the above expression, we obtain

Fµν = ∂µ Aν − ∂ν Aµ + iq [Aν , Aµ ] . (56)

The commutator vanishes for Abelian theories. Applying this transformation to Eq.(50) yields,
0
= ∂ν Bµ0 − ∂µ Bν0 + ig Bν0 , Bµ0 .
 
Fµν (57)
 12

Expanding the commutator using the transformation Eq.(43) to enable us to compare the outcome to the nonvanishing
commutator relations in Eq.(54) leads to,
   
 0 0 1/2 −1/2 i 1/2 −1/2 1/2 −1/2 i 1/2 −1/2
ig Bν , Bµ = ig G Bν G + (∂ν G )G , G Bµ G + (∂µ G )G
g g
nh i h io
= igG1/2 [Bν , Bµ ] G−1/2 − G1/2 G−1/2 (∂ν G1/2 ), Bµ − G−1/2 (∂µ G1/2 ), Bν G−1/2
i h i
− G1/2 G−1/2 (∂ν G1/2 ), G−1/2 (∂µ G/2 ) G−1/2 . (58)
g
The commutator relations that come after the first term in the last step are the exact terms required to cancel the
extra terms in Eq.(54). Therefore, the field strength tensor expressed in Eq.(57) has the required structure under
local gauge transformation. Combining Eqs.(44) and (49) gives rise to modified Yang-Mills Lagrangian [10, 107],
1
LYM = ψ̄ (iγ µ ∂µ + gγ µ Bµ − mG) ψ − tr (Fµν F µν ) , (59)
2
where M (r) = mG(φ) is the modified nucleon mass. This Lagrangian is also invariant under local gauge
transformations and does not permit the existence of mass term M 2 (r)Bµ B µ . It should also be noted that introducing
the non-Abelian gauge leads to the automatic cancellation of the color dielectric function. Hence, we can infer that
the color dielectric function attached to the Abelian gauge induces strong interaction properties. Using the expression
in Eq.(41) and the commutator relation in Eq.(47), we can rewrite the transformed version of Eq.(57) as

Fµν = ∂µ Bν − ∂ν Bµ + ig [Bµ , Bν ] →
l 1
ig
∂µ (τ l blν ) − ∂ν (τ l blµ ) + −2iεjkl (bjν bkµ τ l )


Fµν =
2 4
= ∂µ blν − ∂ν blµ + gεjkl bjν bkµ , (60)

in the last step we have dropped the three isospin generators τ l of the gauge field because they are linearly independent.
Generally, non-Abelian gauge groups that do not fall under SU(2), the Levi-Civitá symbol εjkl is replaced with the
antisymmetric structure constant fjkl .
The introduction of the SU(2)-isospin symmetry by Heisenberg [118] preceded the development of the quark model.
That notwithstanding, the only known fundamental components of the nucleon describing strong interactions are
up-quark (u) and down-quark (d). While the proton is composed of two u-quarks and a d-quark, the neutron is also
composed of two d-quarks and an u-quark. Indeed, these particles remain the only known constituents of proton and
neutron with almost the same mass and coupling force. Hence, Eq.(59) can be used to study the behavior of quarks
and gluons inside hadrons. In that case, the up/down quarks are treated as having the same mass and 0-charge,
so they are seen as similar particles with different isospin states, I3u/d = ±1/2, same as the nucleon. Interestingly,
the spin addition of the quark constituents of proton and neutron agree with I3 = 1/2 and I3 = −1/2 respectively.
Similar to the isospin representation of the nucleon field ψ in Eq.(38) the quark field can be represented as
 
u
ψq ≡ . (61)
d

Nevertheless, the mathematical structure of this theory is the same as QCD, the theory that describes the
characteristics of quarks and gluons inside the hadrons.
Again, the strong interaction is well known for its invariance under quark color permutations, so we can express
the quark wave function for color triplet representation as
 
R
ψq ≡  G  , (62)
B

where R ≡ red, G ≡ green and B ≡ blue. This is invariant under SU(3) transformation of the form
 
1
ψ → ψ 0 ≡ exp i λj αj ψ, (63)
2
where αj , j = 1, 2, 3, · · · , 8 are the eight phase angles and λj is a 3×3 matrix representing eight independent traceless
Hermitian generators of the group. Ignoring the differences in quark masses, it can also be applied in studying u, d
 13

and s quark systems,

 
u
ψq ≡  d  . (64)
s
The generators are fundamentally equivalent to Pauli’s matrices for the SU(2) representation and they satisfy the Lie
algebra,
[λi , λj ] = 2ifijk λk , (65)
similar to Eq.(47), fijk is the structure constant. Consequently, to generalize the relation in Eq.(60) for QCD under
the SU(3) color symmetry, we substitute the antisymmetric tensor εijk for the antisymmetric structure constant fijk
[12].
Finally, the models exhibit the expected asymptotic free [8, 9] behavior at high energy regions while at low energies
color confinement and hadronization sets in. Here, M (r) represents constituent quark mass function [119] while m is
the bare quark mass. As analyzed in Sec. V A, the constituent mass of the quarks in the asymptotically free region
can be determined as M (r → r0 ) = M0 , while the constituent mass at the nonperturbative (low energy) region where
color confinement is expected, will be M (r → r∗ ) = M∗ . Hence, it is possible to have the same constituent quark
mass in both the UV (r → r0 ) and the IR (r → r∗ ) regimes, if indeed the bare quark mass m in both regimes are the
same [81, 120], because the G(φ) behaves as, G(φ(r → r0 )) = G(φ(r → r∗ )) = constant. However, there is evidence
that m is small in the IR regime and large in the UV regime [80, 81]. Accordingly, if we require color confinement in
both regions, M0 > M∗ because higher bare quark mass m is required to obtain confinement in the UV region than
it is required in the IR region.

VI. PHENOMENOLOGY OF GLUEBALL CONFINEMENT

In this section we will use one of the models built in Sec. IV specifically, Eq.(18) to build a model that describes
the features of confining glueballs. Apart from the insight into the behavior of the glueballs in both the IR and
the UV regions, it will serve as a test to the models developed earlier. The model will be based on electric field
confinement, commonly referred to as the chromoelectric flux confinement. In that light, we will define the indices of
the gauge field such that the chromomagnetic flux is eliminated from the system (i.e. j ν = (ρ, ~0)) and only the static
sector of the scalar field, i.e. µ = j, is available for analysis. This ensures that the color particles that generate the
gluons are static. This section will enable us to see how the Abelian gauge can be used to approximate a non-Abelian
theory. Additionally, the color dielectric function G(φ) absorbs the long-distance dynamics of the gluons such that the
photon propagator emanating from the Abelian gauge field does not decouple at longer wavelengths. We will further
demonstrate that the G(φ) is directly related to the QCD β-function and the strong running coupling constantly.

A. The Model

The equations of motion for Eq.(18) are,

1 ∂G(φ) ∂V
∂µ ∂ µ φ + Fµν F µν + = 0, (66)
4 ∂φ ∂φ
and
∂µ [G(φ)F µν ] = 0. (67)
Expressing the above equations in spherical coordinates,
 
1 d 2 dφ 1 ∂G(φ) 2 ∂V (φ)
r =− E + , (68)
r2 dr dr 2 ∂φ ∂φ
where, F µν Fµν = F 0j F0j + F i0 Fi0 = −2E 2 (only electric field components are considered) and V = G as discussed
in Sec. IV. Accordingly,
∂ λ2 1 1
   
1 d 2 dφ
r = + V →
r2 dr dr ∂φ 2 V (φ) r4
∂ λ2 1 1
 
2
∇ φ= +V , (69)
∂φ 2 V (φ) r4
 14

where
λ
E= , (70)
r2 G(φ)
and
q
λ= , (71)
4π
λ is an integration constant, we also substituted ε0 = 1 to achieve the desired objective. Now we choose a potential
that satisfies all the conditions expressed in Sec. IV thus,
ρ
V (φ) = [(αφ)2 − a2 ]2 , (72)
4
where ρ and α = 1/fα are dimensionless constants, fα is the tachyon decay constant. This potential contains tachyonic
mode at V 00 (0), so the fields cannot be quantized around this point — see Sec. II A for detailed discussions. However,
we can remove the tachyonic modes by shifting the vacuum φ → φ0 + η and quantizing around the true minimum,
φ0 = ±a/α. Consequently,

∂2V
m2φ = = 2ρα2 a2 , (73)
∂φ2 φ=φ0

and the potential can be expanded for the small perturbation η, which will be referred to as a glueball field with a
real square mass, m2φ , hence,

∂V 1 ∂2V
V (η) = G(η) = V (φ) + η+ η2
φ0 ∂φ φ0 2 ∂φ2 φ0
1
= m2φ η 2 . (74)
2
Considering that the particles are sufficiently separated such that color confinement can be observed, we ignore the
1/r4 term in Eq.(69) and simplify it as

∂V ∂2V
∇2 (η) = + η→
∂φ φ0 ∂φ2 φ0
∂2V
∇2 η = η, (75)
∂φ2 φ0

leading to
2
η 00 (r) + η 0 (r) − m2φ η = 0. (76)
r
This equation has several solutions but we choose two of such solutions suitable for the analysis,
a cosh(mφ r) a sin(mφ r)
η(r) = and η(r) = . (77)
αmφ r αmφ r
Each solution corresponds to the characteristics of the particle in a particular regime i.e., IR and UV regimes
respectively. The solution at the IR regime will give rise to a linear confining potential and the UV solution will
lead to a Cornell-like potential.

B. Confining Potentials

In this section we will present the confining potentials derived from the model by considering the electrodynamic
potential,
Z
V = ∓ Edr. (78)
 15

Substituting the equation at the left side of the solution Eq.(77) and Eq.(70) into Eq.(78) leads to

2λα2 tanh(mφ r)
Vc (r) = +c
a2 mφ
= mφ λ tanh(mφ r) for a4 ρ = 1 (79)

where c is an integration constant that is set to zero in the last step. Considering that mφ r  1, c = 0 and λ = 1
corresponding to the positive part of the potential V , we can deduce the QCD string tension σ to be,

σL = m2φ . (80)

Here, we can infer that confinement is occasioned by the magnitude of the glueball mass, in the limit of vanishing
glueball mass there will be no confinement. Furthermore, this potential leads to linear growth in r, and at some
√
critical distance, r∗ = 1/ σL [108] the potential begins to flatten up leading to hadronization. It is known from the
flux tube models for confining color particles that, r  r∗ [108].

FIG. 1: Flux tube-like potential

Vc

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

r
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Increase in distance r increases the strength of confinement until r ≥ r∗ where the curve is expected to start flattening, signaling
hadronization.

On the other hand, taking the solution at the right side of Eq.(77) and following the same process as followed above,
we get

2λα2 cot(mφ r)
Vs (r) = − +c
a2 mφ
2λα2
 
1 mφ r
'− 2 − − O(r3 ) + c
a mφ mφ r 3
" #
2λρα2 a2 1 m2φ r
' − + , (81)
ρa4 m2φ r 3

in the last step, we set the integration constant c = 0, also choosing the positive part of the potential corresponding
to λ = 1 and ρa4 = 1, we arrive at the Cornell-like potential for confining heavy quarks i.e.,

1 m2φ r
Vs (r) = − + , (82)
r 3
corresponding to a string tension

m2φ
σs = . (83)
3
√
It is important to recognize that the critical distance, r∗s = 1/ σs , in this regime marks the transition from the
asymptotic freedom region to the confining region.
 16

FIG. 2: A graph of Cornell-like potential

Vs

10

r
2 4 6 8 10

-5

An increase in the distance also leads to an increase in the strength of confinement.

We know from Sec. III that the string tension Tstring ∼ σL ∼ σs ∼ 1 GeV/fm, hence the glueball mass in the IR
regime becomes mL ≈ 1 GeV corresponding to glueball mass of isoscalar resonance f0 (980) [109]. The commonly
√
known ratio of m(0++ )/ σL in QCD theory in SU(∞) limit [110–112], at this regime, can be determined as
√
mL / σL ≈ 1. Likewise in the UV regime, we have a glueball of mass ms ≈ 1.73 GeV corresponding to the lightest
scalar glueball mass of resonance f0 (1710). The result obtained here is precisely the same as the results obtained
√
from QCD lattice calculations [109, 113–117] also, ms / σs ≈ 1.73. The critical distances become r∗s = r∗ = 1 fm for
both the IR and the UV regimes. While critical distance in the IR regime r∗ refers to the transition from confinement
to hadronization regions, critical distance in the UV regime r∗s refers to the transition from the asymptotically free
region to the confining region.

C. Gluon Condensation

Classical theory for gluodynamics is invariant under the scale transformation x → λx, this leads to a scale current
sµ which is related to the energy momentum tensor trace θµµ (x) as
∂ µ sµ = θµµ . (84)
In the absence of quantum corrections, θµµ = 0, the theory remains conformally invariant. This will lead to a vanishing
a
gluon condensation hFµν F aµν i = 0. On the other hand, when quantum correction, −|εv |, is introduced, the conformal
a
symmetry is broken leading to non-vanishing gluon condensate hFµν F aµν i =
6 0 and energy-momentum trace anomaly
comes to play
β(g) a aµν
θµµ = F F , (85)
2g µν
with vacuum expectation,
hθµµ i = −4|εv |. (86)
The leading term of the QCD β-function is known to be,
11g 3
β=− . (87)
(4π)2
Now, calculating the energy-momentum tensor trace of Eq.(18) for the glueball field η using the relation,
θµµ = 4V (η) + ηη, (88)
we get,
∂G µν ∂V
θµµ = 4V (η) − η F Fµν − η
∂η ∂η
= 4Ṽ − ηG0 (η)F µν Fµν , (89)
 17

where G0 and V 0 represent first derivative with respect to η and Ṽ (η) = V (η) − ηV 0 (η)/4. Also, rescaling Ṽ (η) with
the energy density −|εv | i.e. Ṽ (η) → −|εv |Ṽ (η) together with the vacuum expectation value in Eq.(86) we get,

hηG0 (η)Fµν F µν i = 4|εv |h1 − Ṽ i, (90)

with this equation, we recover the classical result in the limit |εv | → 0 i.e. hFµν F µν i = 0. Using the potential
expressed in Eq.(74) we can determine,
ηV 0
Ṽ = V −
4
m2φ η 2
= , (91)
4
as a result, Eq.(90) can be expressed as
* +
µν
m2φ η 2
h2G(η)Fµν F i = 4|εv | 1 − , (92)
4

we can identify the gluon mass [82],

m2φ
m2A = . (93)
4
Furthermore, taking the expectation value of Eq.(66) in terms of the glueball field η, we can express
* +
m2φ η µν
F Fµν − m2φ η = 0, (94)
4

consequently, the mean glueball field η̄ has two possible solution i.e. η̄ = 0 and η̄ = 1. Higher glueball condensate
corresponds to η̄ = 0 whilst lower glueball condensate corresponds to η̄ = 1 [121].

FIG. 3: Gluon condensation

2 GF2 

4 ϵv

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

η
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
An increase in the mean glueball field η̄ decreases the gluon condensate until it vanishes at maximum η̄.

D. Strong Running Coupling αs and QCD β-Function

Comparing Eqs.(85) and (89), we can relate

β(g)
= −ηG0 (η) →
2g
β(1/r2 ) = −2gηG0 (η). (95)
 18

We can also extract the strong running coupling αs using the renormalization group theory [122],

dαs
β(Q2 ) = Q2 , (96)
dQ2
comparatively;

d(G)
β(η) ' −η = −m2φ η 2 (r) = β(1/r2 ) we set g = 1. (97)
dη

Therefore, the strong coupling can be identified as αs (η) = G(η) = αs (1/r2 ). QCD β-function is naturally a negative
quantity showing the asymptomatic freedom nature of the strong coupling. It also reveals the anti-screening behavior
of the theory at higher energies. The strong running coupling, on the other hand, gives an insight into the growing
precision of hadron scattering experiments at high energy limits. And at low energy limits, within the scale of hadron
mass, it enhances understanding of hadron structure, color confinement, and hadronization. Now, substituting the
solution of the glueball field η and expanding it for r → 0 we obtain,
" #
2
m2φ r2
αs (1/r ) = 1 − . (98)
3

Also, we can associate the spacelike momentum Q with Q ≡ 1/r, then

" #
2
m φ
αs (Q2 ) = 1 − . (99)
3Q2

In terms of the four-vector momentum i.e. Q2 ≡ −q 2 , the strong coupling becomes

" #
2
m2φ
αs (q ) = 1 + 2 , (100)
3q

and the β-function becomes,

" #
2
m2φ
β(q ) = −2 1 + 2 . (101)
3q

We observe that in the limit q 2 → 0 the strong coupling shows a singularity, generally referred to as the Landau
singularity. It marks the failure of perturbative QCD. The singularity is attributed to the self-interacting gluons with
hadron degrees of freedom in the IR regime leading to color confinement [123]. In that case, the gluons dynamically
acquire mass at q 2 → 0 i.e. q 2 ∼
= m2A [124, 125] which increases the coupling infinitely. Hence, the singularity can be
removed by fixing a freezing point [124, 126] to the strong running coupling at q 2 ∼= m2A i.e.,
" #
2
m2φ
αs (q ) = 1 + , (102)
3(q 2 + m2A )

and
" #
2
m2φ
β(q ) = −2 1 + . (103)
3(q 2 + m2A )

Thus, the ’so called’ gluon mass is more pronounced at q 2 → 0 and its effect gradually fades off in the limit where
q 2 → ∞ [127]. A recent analysis of this subject is contained in [122].
 19

FIG. 4: Strong Running Couple αs (left) and β-Function (right) against q, with a Landau Ghost Pole

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

αs
-2

4.0 -3

3.5 -4

3.0 -5

β
2.5 -6

-7
2.0

-8
1.5

q 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
q

The graphs show an unphysical behavior at q → 0, this is due to the presence of dynamically generated gluon mass. The self-interacting
gluons and the strong force that exist between them are capable of creating bound states with hadron degrees of freedom. These graphs
depict the behavior of αs and β observed from pQCD.

FIG. 5: Strong Running Coupling αs (left) and β-Function (right) against q with a freezing point at q → 0

(a) Left Panel (b) Right Panel

αs -2.0
2.4

-2.5
2.2

2.0 -3.0
β

1.8 -3.5

1.6
-4.0

1.4
-4.5
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5
q
1 2 3 4 5 q

Here, the Landau singularity has been fixed by introducing the gluon mass mA . The presence of the gluon mass is more pronounced at
q → 0 and gradually vanishes in the limit q → ∞. Consequently, α(0) ' 2.3 and β(0) ' −4.7 from the graphs.

VII. CONCLUSION

We modified the DBI action to develop models that are capable of mimicking the phenomenon of QCD theory using
an Abelian gauge field. The models were based on the behavior of opened string with its endpoints on the Dp-brane.
In studying color particles, the endpoints of the string serve as the source and sink of the color charges. Additionally,
the models are efficient in investigating glueballs when the tachyons condense and transform into glueballs with real
square masses that keep them confined. Without fermions, the models are suitable for studying the bound states of
gluons and the dynamics of glueballs. To study the dynamics of quarks, we showed how the model can be coupled
with standard model fermions systematically. Here, the particles involved are glueball-fermion-mix in a confined state.
Moreover, we demonstrated that the color dielectric function coupled with the Abelian gauge capable of causing color
confinement vanishes automatically when we introduced the non-Abelian gauge field in Sec. V B. Consequently, the
presence of G(φ) coupled with the Abelian gauge field was to induce non-Abelian characteristics.
We also developed one of the models to demonstrate its ability to explain some basic characteristics of strong
interactions. We derived the linear and Cornell-like potentials that are used to describe color particles in
phenomenological QCD. The linear potential is motivated by the string model of hadrons whilst the Cornell potential is
motivated by Lattice QCD calculations. The Cornell potential is particularly important in QCD because it shows both
the asymptotic freedom and color-confining behavior exhibited by the model. We also calculated the strong running
 20

αs coupling and the QCD β-function and compared their behavior with the traditional QCD theory. However, in
the model framework, we are able to fix the non-physical Landau ghost pole that occurs at the low energy region of
the model by assuming the existence of gluon mass mA at low momentum region, q 2 ∼ m2A . The model leads to the
determination of gluon condensate and how the glueball fields contribute to the condensate.
Furthermore, the models can be discretized using path integral formalism and investigated under lattice field theory
with the availability of the required computational artifacts. As observed in the model developed in Sec. VI, the linear
and the Cornell-like potentials can be used to study hadron and quarkonia spectra. Other hadron properties can also be
studied from these models when the appropriate spin contributions to the potential are added. Extending the models
to study the characteristics of particles at a finite temperature will pave way for understanding, chiral symmetry
breaking and restoration, confinement/deconfinement, and quark-gluon-plasma phase transitions. Finally, the models
can be applied in investigating physical systems such as pions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı́fico e Tecnológico (CNPq) project No.:
168546/2021-3, Brazil. F.A.B. would like to thank CNPq, CAPES and CNPq/PRONEX/FAPESQ-PB (Grant No.
165/2018), for partial financial support. F.A.B. also acknowledges support from CNPq (Grant No. 312104/2018-9),
Brazil.

[1] J. H. Schwarz, The Early Years of String Theory: A Personal Perspective, arXiv:0708.1917 [hep-th].
[2] J. H. Schwarz, Superstring theory, Phys. Rep. 89, 223 322 (1982).
[3] M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring Theory. Vol. I & II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1987.
[4] J. Polchinski, An Introduction to the Bosonic String, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011.
[5] C. V. Johnson, D-Brane Primer,arXiv:hep-th/0007170.
[6] B. Zwiebach, A First Course in String Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
[7] K. Becker, Melanie Becker and J. H. Schwarz, String Theory and M-Theory: A Modern Introduction, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2006.
[8] D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet behavior of non-abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 1346 (1973).
[9] H. D. Politzer, Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions? Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 1349 (1973).
[10] C. Quigg, Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic Interactions, Princeton University Press, USA, 2013.
[11] L. O’Raifeartaigh, The dawning of gauge theory, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1997.
[12] P. D. B. Collins, A. D. Martin and E. J. Squires, particle Physics and Cosmology, A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., (1989)
Canada.
[13] O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, Large N Field Theories, String Theory and Gravity, Phys.
Rept. 323, 183 386 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/9905111.
[14] J. M. Maldacena, The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231
252 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9711200.
[15] M. Graña and H. Triendl, String Theory Compactifications, SpringerBriefs in Physics (2017);
M. Graña, Flux compactifications in string theory: a comprehensive review, Phys. Rept. 423 91 158 (2006) arXiv:hep-
th/0509003.
[16] J. Polchinski, Introduction to Gauge/Gravity Duality, arXiv:1010.6134 [hep-th].
[17] S. De Haro, D. R. Mayerson and J. N. Butterfield, Conceptual Aspects of Gauge/Gravity Duality, Foundations of Physics,
46, 1381 1425 (2016) arXiv:1509.09231 [[Link]-ph].
[18] C. Amsler, The Quark Structure of Hadrons, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2018.
[19] A. Sen, Descent Relations Among Bosonic D-branes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 4061 4078 (1999) arXiv:hep-th/9902105.
[20] F. Bigazzi and A. L. Cotrone, String theory meets QCD, Frascati Phys. Ser. 54, 378 385 (2012).
[21] K. Bardakci, Dual models and spontaneous symmetry breaking, Nucl. Phys. B 68, 331 348 (1974);
K. Bardakci and M. B. Halpern, Explicit Spontaneous Breakdown in a Dual Model, Phys. Rev. D 10, 4230 (1974);
K. Bardakci and M.B. Halpern, Explicit Spontaneous Breakdown in a Dual Model. 2. N Point Functions, Nucl. Phys. B
96, 285 306 (1975);
K. Bardakci, Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown in the Standard Dual String Model, Nucl. Phys. B 133, 297 314 (1978).
[22] A. Sen, Stable Non-BPS Bound States of BPS D-branes, JHEP 9808, 010 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9805019.
[23] A. Sen, BPS D-branes on Non-supersymmetric Cycles, JHEP 9812 021 (1998);
Tachyon Condensation on the Brane Antibrane System, JHEP 9808, 012 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9805170;
Type I D-particle and its Interactions, JHEP 9810, 021 (1998).
[24] A. Sen, SO(32) Spinors of Type I and Other Solitons on Brane-Antibrane Pair, JHEP 9809 023(1998).
 21

[25] A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus, Boundary Deformation Theory and Moduli Spaces of D-Branes, Nucl. Phys. B 545, 233
282 (1999) arXiv:hep-th/9811237;
C. G. Callan, I. R. Klebanov, A. W. W. Ludwig and J. M. Maldacena, Exact Solution of a Boundary Conformal Field
Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 422, 417 448 (1994) arXiv:hep-th/9402113;
J. Polchinski and L. Thorlacius, Free Fermion Representation of a Boundary Conformal Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D 50,
622 626 (1994) arXiv:hep-th/9404008.
[26] J. A. Harvey, D. Kutasov and E. J. Martinec, On the relevance of tachyons, arXiv:hep-th/0003101;
P. Fendley, H. Saleur and N.P. Warner, Exact solution of a massless scalar field with a relevant boundary interaction,
Nucl. Phys. B 430, 577 596 (1994) arXiv:hep-th/9406125;
J. Majumder and A. Sen, Vortex Pair Creation on Brane-Antibrane Pair via Marginal Deformation, JHEP 0006, 010
(2000) arXiv:hep-th/0003124.
[27] A. Sen, Universality of the Tachyon Potential, JHEP 9912, 027 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9911116.
[28] A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, Tachyon condensation in string field theory, JHEP 0003, 002 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/9912249.
[29] A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, Expectation Values, Lorentz Invariance, and CPT in the Open Bosonic String, Phys. Lett.
B 381, 89 96 (1996) arXiv:hep-th/9605088;
N. Berkovits, The Tachyon Potential in Open Neveu-Schwarz String Field Theory, JHEP 0004, 022 (2000) arXiv:hep-
th/0001084;
W. Taylor, D-brane effective field theory from string field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 171 192 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0001201;
N. Moeller and W. Taylor, Level truncation and the tachyon in open bosonic string field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 583, 105
144 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0002237;
J. A. Harvey and P. Kraus, D-Branes as Unstable Lumps in Bosonic Open String Field Theory, JHEP 0004, 012 (2000)
arXiv:hep-th/0002117;
R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu and R. Tatar, Lumps and P-branes in Open String Field Theory; Phys. Lett.
B 482, 249 254 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0003031;
N. Moeller, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, D-branes as Tachyon Lumps in String Field Theory; JHEP 0008, 039 (2000)
arXiv:hep-th/0005036.
[30] V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, The Static Tachyon Potential in the Open Bosonic String Theory, Phys. Lett. B 207,
169 173 (1988).
[31] N. Berkovits, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, Tachyon condensation in superstring field theory, Nuc. Phys. B 587, 147 178
(2000).
[32] J. A. Harvey, Per Kraus, F. Larsen and E. J. Martinec, D-branes and Strings as Non-commutative Solitons, JHEP 0007,
042 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0005031.
[33] R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, Noncommutative Solitons, JHEP 0005, 020 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0003160;
K. Dasgupta, S. Mukhi and G. Rajesh, Noncommutative Tachyons, JHEP 0006, 022 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0005006;
J. A. Harvey, P. Kraus and F. Larsen, Exact Noncommutative Solitons, JHEP 0012, 024 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0010060.
[34] A. A. Gerasimov and S. L. Shatashvili, On Exact Tachyon Potential in Open String Field Theory, JHEP 0010, 034 (2000)
arXiv:hep-th/0009103;
D. Kutasov, M. Marino and G. Moore, Some Exact Results on Tachyon Condensation in String Field Theory, JHEP
0010, 045 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0009148;
D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, Normalization of the Background Independent Open String Field Theory Action, JHEP 0011,
021 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0009191;
J. A. Minahan and B. Zwiebach, Field theory models for tachyon and gauge field string dynamics, JHEP 0009, 029
(2000) arXiv:hep-th/0008231; Effective Tachyon Dynamics in Superstring Theory, JHEP 0103, 038 (2001) arXiv:hep-
th/0009246.
[35] A. Sen, Fundamental Strings in Open String Theory at the Tachyonic Vacuum, J. Math. Phys. 42, 2844 2853 (2001)
arXiv:hep-th/0010240.
[36] E. Witten, Bound States Of Strings And p-Branes, Nucl. Phys. B 460,335 350 (1996) arXiv:hep-th/9510135.
[37] U. Lindström and R. von Unge, A Picture of D-branes at Strong Coupling, Phys. Lett. B 403, 233 238 (1997) arXiv:hep-
th/9704051;
U. Lindström, M. Zabzine and A. Zheltukhin, Limits of the D-brane action, JHEP 9912, 016 (1999) arXiv:hep-th/9910159;
U. Lindström and M. Zabzine, Strings at the Tachyonic Vacuum, JHEP 0103, 014 (2001) arXiv:hep-th/0101213.
[38] H. Gustafsson and U. Lindstrom, A Picture of D-branes at Strong Coupling II. Spinning Partons, Phys. Lett. B 440 43
49 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9807064.
[39] A. Sen, Tachyon Dynamics in Open String Theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20,5513 5656 (2005) arXiv:hep-th/0410103;
Tachyons in String Theory, Ann. Henri Poincaré 4, Suppl. 1, S31 S42 (2003).
[40] E. Witten, Non-commutative geometry and string field theory, Nuc. Phys. B 268, 253 294 (1986);
N. Seiberg and E. Witten, String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry, JHEP 9909, 032, (1999) arXiv:hep-th/9908142.
[41] O. M. P. Bilaniuk, V. K. Deshpande, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Meta” Relativity, Am. J. Phys. 30, 718 (1962);
O. M. P. Bilaniuk and E.C.G. Sudarshan, Particles beyond the light barrier, Phys. Today 22N5, 43 51 (1969).
[42] C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, Unity of Superstring Dualities, Nucl. Phys. B 438, 109 137 (1995) arXiv:hep-th/9410167.
[43] E. Witten, String Theory Dynamics In Various Dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B 443, 85 126 (1995) arXiv:hep-th/9503124.
[44] D. J. Gross, A. Neveu, J. Scherk, and J. H. Schwarz, Renormalization and Unitarity in the Dual-Resonance Model, Phys.
Rev. D 2, 697 (1970).
[45] C. Lovelace, Pomeron form-factors and dual Regge cuts, Phys. Lett. B 34, 500 506 (1971).
 22

[46] B. Zwiebach, Oriented Open-Closed String Theory Revisited, Ann. Phys. 267 193 248 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9705241.
[47] J. Hughes, J. Liu and J. Polchinski, Supermembranes, Phys. Lett. B 180, 370 (1986).
[48] M. Born and L. Infeld, Foundations of the new field theory, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A A 144, 425 451 (1934).
[49] G. W. Gibbons, Born-Infeld particles and Dirichlet p-branes, Nucl. Phys. B 514, 603 639 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9709027.
[50] P. A. M. Dirac, An Extensible model of the electron, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 268, 57 67 (1962).
[51] J. Polchinski, S. Chaudhuri and C. V. Johnson, Notes on D-Branes, arXiv:hep-th/9602052;
J. Polchinski, TASI Lectures on D-Branes, arXiv:hep-th/9611050.
[52] W. Taylor, Lectures on D-branes, Gauge Theory and M(atrices), arXiv:hep-th/9801182.
[53] R. G. Leigh, Dirac-Born-Infeld Action from Dirichlet Sigma Model, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4, 2767 (1989).
[54] E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, P.K. Townsend, Supermembranes and Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity, Phys. Lett. B 189, 75
78 (1987).
[55] P. K. Townsend, The eleven-dimensional supermembrane revisited, Phys. Lett. B 350, 184 187 (1995) arXiv:hep-
th/9501068.
[56] M. R. Garousi, Tachyon couplings on non-BPS D-branes and Dirac-Born-Infeld action, Nucl. Phys. B 584, 284 299
(2000) arXiv:hep-th/0003122.
[57] J. Kluson, Proposal for non-BPS D-brane action, Phys. Rev. D 62 126003 (2000) arXiv:hep-th/0004106.
[58] A. A. Tseytlin, Born-Infeld action, supersymmetry and string theory, hep-th/9908105 [hep-th].
[59] W. Taylor, Lectures on D-branes, tachyon condensation, and string field theory, arXiv:hep-th/0301094.
[60] W. Taylor and B. Zwiebach, D-Branes, Tachyons, and String Field Theory, arXiv:hep-th/0311017.
[61] A. Sen, Non-BPS States and Branes in String Theory, arXiv:hep-th/9904207.
[62] C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi, and S. A. Yost, Loop corrections to superstring equations of motion, Nucl. Phys.
B 308, 221 284 (1988).
A. Abouelsaood, C. G. Callan, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Open strings in background gauge fields, Nucl. Phys. B 280,
599 624 (1987).
[63] M. R. Garousi, Slowly varying tachyon and tachyon potential, JHEP 0305 05 (2003) arXiv:hep-th/0304145.
[64] T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, M Theory As A Matrix Model: A Conjecture, Phys. Rev. D 55,
5112 5128 (1997) arXiv:hep-th/9610043.
[65] D. Lust, Intersecting Brane Worlds — A Path to the Standard Model?, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, S1399 1424 (2004)
arXiv:hep-th/0401156;
I. Antoniadis, E. Kiritsis, J. Rizos and T. N. Tomaras, D-branes and the Standard Model, Nucl. Phys. B 660, 81 115
(2003) arXiv:hep-th/0210263;
L. E. Ibanez, F. Marchesano and R. Rabadan, Getting just the Standard Model at Intersecting Branes, JHEP 0111, 002
(2001) arXiv:hep-th/0105155;
A. Chatzistavrakidis, H. Steinacker and G. Zoupanos, Intersecting branes and a standard model realization in matrix
models, arXiv:1107.0265 [hep-th].
[66] G. ’t Hooft, A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974).
[67] E. Witten, Baryons in the 1/Nc Expansion, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 57 115 (1979).
[68] D. Mateos, String Theory and Quantum Chromodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, S713 S740 (2007) arXiv:0709.1523
[hep-th].
[69] J. Dai, R. G. Leigh and J. Polchinski, New Connections Between String Theories, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4, 2073 2083
(1989).
[70] J. Polchinski, Dirichlet-Branes and Ramond-Ramond Charges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4724 4727 (1995) arXiv:hep-
th/9510017.
[71] C. G. Callan Jr. and J. M. Maldacena, Brane Dynamics From the Born-Infeld Action, Nucl. Phys. B 513, 198 212 (1998)
arXiv:hep-th/9708147.
[72] S. -J. Rey, J.-T. Yee, Macroscopic strings as heavy quarks: Large-N gauge theory and anti-de Sitter supergravity, Eur.
Phys. J. C 22, 379 394 (2001) arXiv:hep-th/9803001.
[73] S. Lee, A. Peet and L. Thorlacius, Brane-Waves and Strings, Nucl. Phys. B 514, 161 176 (1998) arXiv:hep-th/9710097.
[74] E. Guendelman, A. Kaganovich, E. Nissimov and S. Pacheva, Space-Time Compactification/Decompactification
Transitions Via Lightlike Branes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 43, 1487 1513 (2011) arXiv:1007.4893 [hep-th].
[75] M. Gell-Mann and B. Zwiebach, Spacetime compactification induced by scalars. Phys. Lett. B 141, 333 (1984).
[76] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, An Alternative to Compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 4693 (1999) arXiv:hep-
th/9906064.
[77] K. Shiraishi, Compactification of spacetime in SU (∞) Yang-Mills theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 6, 2029 2034
(1989) arXiv:1301.6213 [hep-th].
[78] F. A. Brito, M.L.F. Freire, W. Serafim, Confinement and screening in tachyonic matter, [Link].J. C 74, 12 3202
(2014).
[79] A. Issifu and F. A. Brito, The (De)confinement Transition in Tachyonic Matter at Finite Temperature, Adv. Hig. Ener.
Phys. 2019, 9450367 (2019).
[80] Adamu Issifu, Julio C.M. Rocha, Francisco A. Brito, Confinement of Fermions in Tachyon Matter at Finite Temperature,
Adv. High. Ener. Phys. 2021, 6645678 (2021), arXiv:2012.15102 [hep-ph].
[81] A. Issifu and F. A. Brito, Confinement of Fermions in Tachyon Matter, Adv. High. Ener. Phys. 2020, 1852841 (2020).
[82] A. Issifu and F. A. Brito, An Effective Model for Glueballs and Dual Superconductivity at Finite Temperature, Adv. High.
Ener. Phys. 2021, 5658568 (2021), arXiv:2105.01013 [hep-ph].
 23

[83] M. Rosina, A. Schuh and H. J. Pirner, Lattice QCD and the soliton bag model, Nucl. Phys. A 448, 557 566 (1986).
[84] D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and K. Tuchin, Classical gluodynamics in curved space–time and the soft pomeron, Phys. lett. B
547, 21 30 (2002).
[85] R. Dick, Vector and scalar confinement in gauge theory with a dilaton, Phys. Lett. B 409, 321 324 (1997).
[86] P. Gaete and E. Spallucci, Confinement from gluodynamics in curved space-time, Phys. Rev. D 77, 027702 (2008)
arXiv:0707.2738 [hep-th].
[87] O. Bergman and M. R. Gaberdiel, Stable non-BPS D-particles, Phys. Lett. B 441 133 140 (1998);
Non-BPS States in Heterotic - Type IIA Duality, JHEP 9903 013(1999).
[88] A. Sen, Field Theory of Tachyon Matter, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 171797 1804 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0204143.
[89] D. Erkal, D. Kutasov, and O. Lunin, Brane-Antibrane Dynamics From the Tachyon DBI Action, arXiv:0901.4368 [hep-th].
[90] A. Sen, Dirac-Born-Infeld Action on the Tachyon Kink and Vortex, Phys. Rev. D 68, 066008 (2003), arXiv:hep-
th/0303057.
[91] H. Bech Nielsen and S. Chadha, On How to Count Goldstone Bosons, Nucl. Phys. B 105, 445 453 (1976).
[92] G. ’t Hooft, Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys.
B 190, 455 478 (1981).
[93] Z. F. Ezawa and A. Iwazaki, Abelian dominance and quark confinement in Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2681
(1982).
[94] H. Shiba and T. Suzuki, Monopoles and string tension in SU(2) QCD, Phys. Lett. B 333, 461 466 (1994) arXiv:hep-
lat/9404015.
[95] T. Suzuki and I. Yotsuyanagi, Possible evidence for Abelian dominance in quark confinement, Phys. Rev. D 42, 4257
(1990);
J. D. Stack, W. W. Tucker and R. J. Wensley, Confinement in SU(3): Simple and generalized maximal Abelian gauge,
arXiv:hep-lat/0205006;
V. G. Bornyakov, H. Ichie, Y. Mori, D. Pleiter, M. I. Polikarpov, G. Schierholz, T. Streuer, H. Stüben, and T. Suzuki
(DIK collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 70, 054506 (2004);
V. G. Bornyakov, E. -M. Ilgenfritz and M. Muller-Preussker, Universality check of Abelian monopoles, Phys. Rev. D 72,
054511 (2005) hep-lat/0507021 [hep-lat];
G. S. Bali, V. Bornyakov, M. Müller-Preussker, and K. Schilling, Dual superconductor scenario of confinement: A
systematic study of Gribov copy effects, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2863 (1996).
[96] N. Sakumichi and H. Suganuma, Perfect Abelian dominance of quark confinement in SU(3) QCD, Phys. Rev. D 90,
111501 (2014);
Three-quark potential and Abelian dominance of confinement in SU(3) QCD, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034511 (2015).
[97] M. Neubert, Les Houches Lectures on Renormalization Theory and Effective Field Theories, arXiv:1901.06573 [hep-ph].
[98] C. G. Bollini and J. J. Giambiagi, Dimensional Renormalization: The Number of Dimensions as a Regularizing Parameter,
Nuovo Cim. B 12, 20 26 (1972)
[99] Gerard ’t Hooft and M.J.G. Veltman, Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields, Nucl. Phys. B 44 189 213
(1972).
[100] C. Itzykson and J.B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA, 1980.
[101] P. Pascual and R. Tarrach, QCD: Renormalization for the Practitioners, Lect. Notes Phys. 194 1 27 (1984).
[102] M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory, Addison-Wesley (1995).
[103] J. Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 32 1 624 (2011).
[104] S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[105] S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[106] M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
[107] C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isotopic Gauge Invariance, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954).
[108] G. S. Bali, QCD forces and heavy quark bound states, Phys. Rept. 343, 1 136 (2001) arXiv:hep-ph/0001312.
[109] M. Tanabashi et al., (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and 2019 updated.
[110] M. Albanese et al. [APE Collaboration], Glueball Masses and String Tension in Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 192, 163 169
(1987).
[111] P. Bacilieri et al. [APE Collaboration], Scaling in Lattice (QCD): Glueball Masses and String Tension, Phys. Lett. B 205,
535-539 (1988).
[112] M. Teper, Glueballs, strings and topology in SU(N) gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 109 A, 134 140 (2002)
arXiv:hep-lat/0112019.
[113] C. J. Morningstar and M. Peardon, Glueball spectrum from an anisotropic lattice study, Phys. Rev. D 60, 034509 (1999).
[114] M. Loan, X.-Q. Luo, Z.-H. Luo,Monte Carlo study of glueball masses in the Hamiltonian limit of SU(3) lattice gauge
theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 2905 2936 (2006).
[115] Y. Chen, et al.,Glueball spectrum and matrix elements on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006).
[116] W. Lee and D. Weingarten, Scalar Quarkonium Masses and Mixing with the Lightest Scalar Glueball, Phys. Rev. D 61,
014015 (2000) arXiv:hep-lat/9910008.
[117] G. S. Bali et al., (UKQCD), A comprehensive lattice study of SU(3) glueballs, Phys. Lett. B 309, 378 384 (1993) arXiv:hep-
lat/9304012.
[118] W. Heisenberg, Über den Bau der Atomkerne. I. Zeitschr. f. Phys. 77, 1 (1932); English translation in D. M. Brink,
Nuclear Forces, Pergamon, Oxford, 1965, pp. 144 154.
 24

[119] D. Atkinson and P. W. Johnson, Current and constituent quark masses: Beyond chiral-symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D
41, 1661 1666 (1990).
[120] E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan,Charmonium: The model, Phys. Rev. D 17, 3090
3117 (1978).
[121] G .W. Carter, O. Scavenius, I.N. Mishustin and P.J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. C 61, 045206 (2000).
[122] A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond, The QCD Running Coupling, Prog. Part. Nuc. Phys. 90 1 (2016)
arXiv:1604.08082 [hep-ph].
[123] K. A. Olive et al., [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014);
G. M. Prosperi, M. Raciti and C. Simolo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58,387 438 (2007);
G. Altarelli, PoS Corfu2012 002, (2013) 1303.6065 [hep-ph].
[124] A. M. Badalian, A. I. Veselov and B. L. G. Bakker, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 1367 1377 (2004) hep-ph/0311010 [hep-ph];
Phys. Rev. D 70, 016007 (2004);
A. M. Badalian and V. L. Morgunov, Phys. Rev. D 60, 116008 (1999);
A .M. Badalian and D. S. Kuzmenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 561 563 (2004).
[125] Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 74, 1223 (2011) 1011.5386 [hep-ph].
[126] A. M. Badalian and D. S. Kuzmenko, Phys. Rev. D 65, 016004 (2001);
A. M. Badalian, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 63, 2173 2183 (2000).
[127] J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1453 (1982).