This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Holographic Schwinger effect in a soft wall AdS/QCD model

Yue Ding School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China    Zi-qiang Zhang [email protected] School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
Abstract

We perform the potential analysis for the holographic Schwinger effect in a deformed AdS5AdS_{5} model with conformal invariance broken by a background dilaton. We evaluate the static potential by analyzing the classical action of a string attaching the rectangular Wilson loop on a probe D3 brane sitting at an intermediate position in the bulk AdS space. We observe that the inclusion of chemical potential tends to enhance the production rate, reverse to the effect of confining scale. Also, we calculate the critical electric field by Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action.

pacs:
11.25.Tq, 11.15.Tk, 11.25-w

I Introduction

Schwinger effect is an interesting phenomenon in quantum electrodynamics (QED): virtual electron-position pairs can be materialized and become real particles due to the presence of a strong electric field. The production rate Γ\Gamma (per unit time and unit volume) was first calculated by Schwinger for weak-coupling and weak-field in 1951 JS

Γexp(πm2eE),\Gamma\sim exp\Big{(}{\frac{-\pi m^{2}}{eE}}\Big{)}, (1)

where EE, mm and ee are the external electric field, electron mass and elementary electric charge, respectively. In this case, there is no critical field trivially. Thirty-one years later, Affleck et.al generalized it to the case for arbitrary-coupling and weak-field IK

Γexp(πm2eE+e24),\Gamma\sim exp\Big{(}{\frac{-\pi m^{2}}{eE}+\frac{e^{2}}{4}}\Big{)}, (2)

in this case, the exponential suppression vanishes when EE reaches Ec=(4π/e3)m2137m2/eE_{c}=(4\pi/e^{3})m^{2}\simeq 137m^{2}/e. Obviously, the critical field EcE_{c} does not satisfy the weak-field condition, i.e., eEm2eE\ll m^{2}. Thus, it seems that one could not find out EcE_{c} under the weak-field condition. One step further, one doesn’t know whether the catastrophic decay really occurs or not.

Actually, the Schwinger effect is not unique to QED, but a universal aspect of quantum field theories (QFTs) coupled to an U(1) gauge field. However, it remains difficult to study this effect in a QCD-like or confining theory using QFTs since the (original) Schwinger effect must be non-perturbative. Fortunately, the AdS/CFT correspondence Maldacena:1997re ; Gubser:1998bc ; MadalcenaReview may provide an alternative way. In 2011, Semenoff and Zarembo proposed GW a holographic set-up to study the Schwinger effect in the higgsed 𝒩=4\mathcal{N}=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory (SYM). They found that at large NN and large ’t Hooft coupling λ\lambda

Γexp[λ2(EcEEEc)2],Ec=2πm2λ,\Gamma\sim exp\Big{[}-\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}\Big{(}\sqrt{\frac{E_{c}}{E}}-\sqrt{\frac{E}{E_{c}}}\Big{)}^{2}\Big{]},\qquad E_{c}=\frac{2\pi m^{2}}{\sqrt{\lambda}}, (3)

interestingly, the value of EcE_{c} coincides with the one obtained from the DBI action YS0 . Subsequently, Sato and Yoshida argued that YS the Schwinger effect can be studied by potential analysis. Specifically, the pair production can be estimated by a static potential, consisting of static mass energies, an electric potential from an external electric-field, and the Coulomb potential between a particle-antiparticle pair. The shapes of the potential depend on the external field EE (see fig.1 ). When E<EcE<E_{c}, the potential barrier is present and the Schwinger effect could occur as a tunneling process. As EE increases, the barrier decreases and gradually disappears at E=EcE=E_{c}. When E>EcE>E_{c}, the vacuum becomes catastrophically unstable. Further studies of the Schwinger effect in this direction can be found, e.g., in YS1 ; YS2 ; SCH ; KB ; MG ; ZL ; ZQ ; ZQ1 ; LS ; WF ; ZR . On the other hand, the holographic Schwinger effect has been investigated from the imaginary part of a probe brane action KHA ; KHA1 ; XW ; KG . For a recent review on this topic, see DK .

Refer to caption
Figure 1: V(x)V(x) versus xx with V(x)=2meExαsxV(x)=2m-eEx-\frac{\alpha_{s}}{x}, where αs\alpha_{s} denotes the fine-structure constant.

Here we present an alternative holographic approach to study the Schiwinger effect using potential analysis. The motivation is that holographic QCD models, like hard wall H1 ; H2 , soft wall AKE and some improved AdS/QCD models JP ; AST ; DL ; DL1 ; SH ; SH1 ; RRO have achieved considerable success in describing various aspects of hadron physics. In particular, we will adopt the SWT,μ model PCO which is defined by the AdS with a charged black hole to describe finite temperature and density multiplied by a warp factor to generate confinement. It turns out that such a model can provide a good phenomenological description of quark-antiquark interaction. Also, the resulting deconfinement line in μT\mu-T plane is similar to that obtained by lattice and effective models of QCD (for further studies of models of this type, see CPA ; PCO1 ; PCO2 ; YH ; XCH ; zq ). Motivated by this, in this paper we study the Schwinger effect in the SWT,μ model. Specifically, we want to understand how the Schwinger effect is affected by chemical potential and confining scale. Also, this work could be considered as an extension of YS to the case with chemical potential and confining scale.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we briefly review the SWT,μ model given in PCO . In section 3, we perform the potential analysis for the Schwinger effect in the SWT,μ model and investigate how chemical potential and confining scale affect the production rate. Also, we calculate the critical field from DBI action. Finally, we conclude our results in section 4.

II Setup

This section is devoted to a short introduction of the SWT,μ model proposed in PCO . The metric of the model in the string frame takes the form

ds2=R2z2h(z)(f(z)dt2+dx2+dz2f(z)),ds^{2}=\frac{R^{2}}{z^{2}}h(z)(-f(z)dt^{2}+d\vec{x}^{2}+\frac{dz^{2}}{f(z)}), (4)

with

f(z)=1(1+Q2)(zzh)4+Q2(zzh)6,h(z)=ec2z2,f(z)=1-(1+Q^{2})(\frac{z}{z_{h}})^{4}+Q^{2}(\frac{z}{z_{h}})^{6},\qquad h(z)=e^{c^{2}z^{2}}, (5)

where RR is the AdS radius. QQ represents the charge of black hole. zz denotes the fifth coordinate with z=zhz=z_{h} the horizon, defined by f(zh)=0f(z_{h})=0. The warp factor h(z)h(z), characterizing the soft wall model, distorts the metric and brings the confining scale cc (see JP for a anatlytical way to introduce the warp factor by potential reconstruction approach).

The temperature of the black hole is

T=1πzh(1Q22),0Q2.T=\frac{1}{\pi z_{h}}(1-\frac{Q^{2}}{2}),\qquad 0\leq Q\leq\sqrt{2}. (6)

The chemical potential is

μ=3Q/zh.\mu=\sqrt{3}Q/z_{h}. (7)

Note that for Q=0Q=0, the SWT,μ model reduces to the Andreev model OA . For c=0c=0, it becomes the AdS-Reissner Nordstrom black hole CV:1999 ; DT:2006 . For Q=c=0Q=c=0, it returns to AdS black hole.

III Potential analysis in (holographic) Schwinger effect

In this section, we follow the argument in YS to study the behavior of the Schwinger effect in the SWT,μ model. Since the calculations of YS were performed using the radial coordinate r=R2/zr=R^{2}/z. For contrast, we use coordinate rr as well.

The Nambu-Goto action is

S=TF𝑑τ𝑑σ=TF𝑑τ𝑑σg,TF=12πα,S=T_{F}\int d\tau d\sigma\mathcal{L}=T_{F}\int d\tau d\sigma\sqrt{g},\qquad T_{F}=\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha^{\prime}}, (8)

where α\alpha^{\prime} is related to λ\lambda by R2α=λ\frac{R^{2}}{\alpha^{\prime}}=\sqrt{\lambda}. gg represents the determinant of the induced metric

gαβ=gμνXμσαXνσβ,g_{\alpha\beta}=g_{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial X^{\mu}}{\partial\sigma^{\alpha}}\frac{\partial X^{\nu}}{\partial\sigma^{\beta}}, (9)

with gμνg_{\mu\nu} the metric and XμX^{\mu} the target space coordinate.

Supposing the pair axis is aligned in one direction, e.g., x1x_{1} direction,

t=τ,x1=σ,x2=0,x3=0,r=r(σ).t=\tau,\qquad x_{1}=\sigma,\qquad x_{2}=0,\qquad x_{3}=0,\qquad r=r(\sigma). (10)

Under this ansatz, the induced metric reads

g00=r2h(r)f(r)R2,g01=g10=0,g11=r2h(r)R2+R2h(r)r2f(r)(drdσ)2,g_{00}=\frac{r^{2}h(r)f(r)}{R^{2}},\qquad g_{01}=g_{10}=0,\qquad g_{11}=\frac{r^{2}h(r)}{R^{2}}+\frac{R^{2}h(r)}{r^{2}f(r)}(\frac{dr}{d\sigma})^{2}, (11)

then the Lagrangian density becomes

=M(r)+N(r)(drdσ)2,\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{M(r)+N(r)(\frac{dr}{d\sigma})^{2}}, (12)

with

M(r)=r4h2(r)f(r)R4,N(r)=h2(r).M(r)=\frac{r^{4}h^{2}(r)f(r)}{R^{4}},\qquad N(r)=h^{2}(r). (13)

As \mathcal{L} does not depend on σ\sigma explicitly, the Hamiltonian is conserved,

(drdσ)(drdσ)=Constant.\mathcal{L}-\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial(\frac{dr}{d\sigma})}(\frac{dr}{d\sigma})=Constant. (14)

Imposing the boundary condition at the tip of the minimal surface,

drdσ=0,r=rc(rt<rc<r0),\frac{dr}{d\sigma}=0,\qquad r=r_{c}\qquad(r_{t}<r_{c}<r_{0}), (15)

one gets

drdσ=M2(r)M(r)M(rc)M(rc)N(r),\frac{dr}{d\sigma}=\sqrt{\frac{M^{2}(r)-M(r)M(r_{c})}{M(r_{c})N(r)}}, (16)

with M(rc)=M(r)|r=rcM(r_{c})=M(r)|_{r=r_{c}}. Here r=rtr=r_{t} is the horizon. r=r0r=r_{0} is an intermediate position, which can yield a finite mass GW . The configuration of the string world-sheet is depicted in fig.2.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The configuration of the string world-sheet.

Integrating (16) with the boundary condition (15), the inter-distance of the particle pair is obtained

x=2rcr0dσdr𝑑r=2rcr0𝑑rM(rc)N(r)M2(r)M(r)M(rc).x=2\int_{r_{c}}^{r_{0}}\frac{d\sigma}{dr}dr=2\int_{r_{c}}^{r_{0}}dr\sqrt{\frac{M(r_{c})N(r)}{M^{2}(r)-M(r)M(r_{c})}}. (17)

On the other hand, plugging (12) into (8), the sum of Coulomb potential and static energy is given by

VCP+E=2TFrcr0𝑑rM(r)N(r)M(r)M(rc).V_{CP+E}=2T_{F}\int_{r_{c}}^{r_{0}}dr\sqrt{\frac{M(r)N(r)}{M(r)-M(r_{c})}}. (18)

The next task is to calculate the critical field. The DBI action is

SDBI=TD3d4xdet(Gμν+μν),S_{DBI}=-T_{D3}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-det(G_{\mu\nu}+\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu})}, (19)

with

TD3=1gs(2π)3α2,μν=2παFμν,T_{D3}=\frac{1}{g_{s}(2\pi)^{3}\alpha^{\prime^{2}}},\qquad\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}=2\pi\alpha^{\prime}F_{\mu\nu}, (20)

where TD3T_{D3} is the D3-brane tension.

The induced metric is

G00=r2h(r)f(r)R2,G11=G22=G33=r2h(r)R2.G_{00}=-\frac{r^{2}h(r)f(r)}{R^{2}},\qquad G_{11}=G_{22}=G_{33}=\frac{r^{2}h(r)}{R^{2}}. (21)

Supposing the electric field is turned on along x1x_{1} direction YS , then

Gμν+μν=(r2h(r)f(r)R22παE002παEr2h(r)R20000r2h(r)R20000r2h(r)R2),G_{\mu\nu}+\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}=\left(\begin{array}[]{cccc}-\frac{r^{2}h(r)f(r)}{R^{2}}&2\pi\alpha^{\prime}E&0&0\\ -2\pi\alpha^{\prime}E&\frac{r^{2}h(r)}{R^{2}}&0&0\\ 0&0&\frac{r^{2}h(r)}{R^{2}}&0\\ 0&0&0&\frac{r^{2}h(r)}{R^{2}}\end{array}\right), (22)

results in

det(Gμν+μν)=r4h2(r)R4[(2πα)2E2r4h2(r)f(r)R4].det(G_{\mu\nu}+\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu})=\frac{r^{4}h^{2}(r)}{R^{4}}[(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{2}E^{2}-\frac{r^{4}h^{2}(r)f(r)}{R^{4}}]. (23)

Substituting (23) into (19) and making the probe D3-brane located at r=r0r=r_{0}, one finds

SDBI=TD3r02h(r0)R2d4xr04h2(r0)f(r0)R4(2πα)2E2,S_{DBI}=-T_{D3}\frac{r_{0}^{2}h(r_{0})}{R^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{\frac{r_{0}^{4}h^{2}(r_{0})f(r_{0})}{R^{4}}-(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{2}E^{2}}, (24)

with f(r0)=f(r)|r=r0f(r_{0})=f(r)|_{r=r_{0}}, h(r0)=h(r)|r=r0h(r_{0})=h(r)|_{r=r_{0}}.

To avoid (24) being ill-defined, one gets

r04h2(r0)f(r0)R4(2πα)2E20,\frac{r_{0}^{4}h^{2}(r_{0})f(r_{0})}{R^{4}}-(2\pi\alpha^{\prime})^{2}E^{2}\geq 0, (25)

yielding

ETFr02h(r0)R2f(r0).E\leq T_{F}\frac{r_{0}^{2}h(r_{0})}{R^{2}}\sqrt{f(r_{0})}. (26)

As a result, the critical field is

Ec=TFr02h(r0)R2f(r0),E_{c}=T_{F}\frac{r_{0}^{2}h(r_{0})}{R^{2}}\sqrt{f(r_{0})}, (27)

one can see that EcE_{c} depends on TT, μ\mu and cc.

Next, we calculate the total potential. For the sake of notation simplicity, we introduce the following dimensionless parameters

αEEc,yrrc,arcr0,brtr0.\alpha\equiv\frac{E}{E_{c}},\qquad y\equiv\frac{r}{r_{c}},\qquad a\equiv\frac{r_{c}}{r_{0}},\qquad b\equiv\frac{r_{t}}{r_{0}}. (28)

Given that, the total potential reads

Vtot(x)\displaystyle V_{tot}(x) =\displaystyle= VCP+EEx\displaystyle V_{CP+E}-Ex (29)
=\displaystyle= 2ar0TF11/a𝑑yA(y)B(y)A(y)A(yc)\displaystyle 2ar_{0}T_{F}\int_{1}^{1/a}dy\sqrt{\frac{A(y)B(y)}{A(y)-A(y_{c})}}
\displaystyle- 2ar0TFαr02h(y0)R2f(y0)11/a𝑑yA(yc)B(y)A2(y)A(y)A(yc),\displaystyle 2ar_{0}T_{F}\alpha\frac{r_{0}^{2}h(y_{0})}{R^{2}}\sqrt{f(y_{0})}\int_{1}^{1/a}dy\sqrt{\frac{A(y_{c})B(y)}{A^{2}(y)-A(y)A(y_{c})}},

with

A(y)\displaystyle A(y) =\displaystyle= (ar0y)4h2(y)f(y)R4,A(yc)=(ar0)4h2(yc)f(yc)R4,B(y)=h2(y),\displaystyle\frac{(ar_{0}y)^{4}h^{2}(y)f(y)}{R^{4}},\qquad A(y_{c})=\frac{(ar_{0})^{4}h^{2}(y_{c})f(y_{c})}{R^{4}},\qquad B(y)=h^{2}(y),
h(y)\displaystyle h(y) =\displaystyle= ec2R4(ar0y)2,f(y)=1(1+μ2R43rt2)(bay)4+μ2R43rt2(bay)6,\displaystyle e^{\frac{c^{2}R^{4}}{(ar_{0}y)^{2}}},\qquad f(y)=1-(1+\frac{\mu^{2}R^{4}}{3r_{t}^{2}})(\frac{b}{ay})^{4}+\frac{\mu^{2}R^{4}}{3r_{t}^{2}}(\frac{b}{ay})^{6},
h(yc)\displaystyle h(y_{c}) =\displaystyle= ec2R4(ar0)2,f(yc)=1(1+μ2R43rt2)(ba)4+μ2R43rt2(ba)6,\displaystyle e^{\frac{c^{2}R^{4}}{(ar_{0})^{2}}},\qquad f(y_{c})=1-(1+\frac{\mu^{2}R^{4}}{3r_{t}^{2}})(\frac{b}{a})^{4}+\frac{\mu^{2}R^{4}}{3r_{t}^{2}}(\frac{b}{a})^{6},
h(y0)\displaystyle h(y_{0}) =\displaystyle= ec2R4r02,f(y0)=1(1+μ2R43rt2)b4+μ2R43rt2b6,\displaystyle e^{\frac{c^{2}R^{4}}{r_{0}^{2}}},\qquad f(y_{0})=1-(1+\frac{\mu^{2}R^{4}}{3r_{t}^{2}})b^{4}+\frac{\mu^{2}R^{4}}{3r_{t}^{2}}b^{6}, (30)

we have checked that by taking c=μ=0c=\mu=0 in (29), the result of 𝒩=4\mathcal{N}=4 SYM YS is regained.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Vtot(x)V_{tot}(x) versus xx with μ/T=1\mu/T=1, c/T=0.1c/T=0.1. In the plots from top to bottom α=0.8,0.9,1.0,1.1\alpha=0.8,0.9,1.0,1.1, respectively.

Before going further, we discuss the value of cc. In this work we tend to study the behavior of the holographic Schwinger effect in a class of models parametrized by cc. To that end, we make cc dimensionless by normalizing it at fixed temperatures and express other quantities, e.g, μ\mu, in units of it. In HLL , the authors found that the range of 0c/T2.50\leq c/T\leq 2.5 is most relevant for a comparison with QCD. We use that range.

In fig.3, we plot Vtot(x)V_{tot}(x) as a function of xx for μ/T=1\mu/T=1 and c/T=0.1c/T=0.1 (other cases with different values of μ/T\mu/T and c/Tc/T have similar picture), where we have set b=0.5b=0.5 and TFr0=R2/r0=1T_{F}r_{0}=R^{2}/r_{0}=1, as follows from YS . From these figures, one can see that there exists a critical electric field at α=1\alpha=1 (E=EcE=E_{c}), and for α<1\alpha<1 (E<EcE<E_{c}), the potential barrier is present, in agreement with YS .

To see how chemical potential modifies the Schwinger effect, we plot Vtot(x)V_{tot}(x) versus xx with fixed c/Tc/T for different values of μ/T\mu/T in fig.4. The left panel is for c/T=0.1c/T=0.1 and the right c/T=2.5c/T=2.5. In both panels from top to bottom μ/T=0,1,5\mu/T=0,1,5, respectively. One can see that at fixed c/Tc/T, as μ/T\mu/T increases, the height and width of the potential barrier both decrease. As we know, the higher or the wider the potential barrier, the harder the produced pairs escape to infinity. Thus, one concludes that the inclusion of chemical potential decrease the potential barrier thus enhancing the Schwinger effect, in accordance with the findings of ZL .

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Vtot(x)V_{tot}(x) versus xx with α=0.8\alpha=0.8 and fixed c/Tc/T for different values of μ/T\mu/T. In both plots from top to bottom μ/T=0,1,5\mu/T=0,1,5, respectively.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Vtot(x)V_{tot}(x) versus xx with α=0.8\alpha=0.8 and fixed μ/T\mu/T for different values of c/Tc/T. In both plots from top to bottom c/T=2.5,1,0c/T=2.5,1,0, respectively.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 6: Left: Ec/Ec0E_{c}/E_{c0} versus μ/T\mu/T, from top to bottom c/T=2.5,1,0c/T=2.5,1,0, respectively. Right: Ec/Ec0E_{c}/E_{c0} versus c/Tc/T, from top to bottom μ/T=0,1,5\mu/T=0,1,5, respectively.

Also, we plot Vtot(x)V_{tot}(x) against xx with fixed μ/T\mu/T for different values of c/Tc/T in fig.5. One finds at fixed μ/T\mu/T, the height and width of the potential barrier both increase as c/Tc/T increases, implying the presence of confining scale reduces the Schwinger effect, reverse to the effect of chemical potential.

Finally, to understand how chemical potential and confining scale affect the critical electric field, we plot Ec/Ec0E_{c}/E_{c0} versus μ/T\mu/T (c/Tc/T) in the left (right) panel of fig.6, where Ec0E_{c0} denotes the critical electric field of SYM. One can see that Ec/Ec0E_{c}/E_{c0} decreases as μ/T\mu/T increases, indicating the chemical potential decreases EcE_{c} thus enhancing the Schwinger effect. Meanwhile, the confining scale has an opposite effect, consistently with the potential analysis. Furthermore, it can be seen that Ec/Ec0E_{c}/E_{c0} can be larger or smaller than one, which means that the SWT,μ model may provide a wider range of the Schwinger effect in comparison to SYM.

IV conclusion

The study of Schwinger effect in non-conformal plasma under the influence of chemical potential may shed some light on heavy ion collisions. In this paper, we investigated the effect of chemical potential and confining scale on the holographic Schwinger effect in a soft wall AdS/QCD model. We analyzed the electrostatic potentials by evaluating the classical action of a string attaching the rectangular Wilson loop on a probe D3 brane sitting at an intermediate position in the bulk AdS and calculated the critical electric field from DBI action. We found that the inclusion of chemical potential tends to decrease the potential barrier thus enhancing the production rate, reverse to the effect of confining scale. Moreover, we observed with some chosen values of μ/T\mu/T and c/Tc/T, EcE_{c} can be larger or smaller than it counterpart of SYM, implying the SWT,μ model may provide theoretically a wider range of the Schwinger effect in comparison to SYM.

However, there are some questions need to be studied further. First, the potential analysis are basically within the Coulomb branch, related to the leading exponent corresponding to the on-shell action of the instanton, not the full decay rate. Also, the SWT,μ model is not a consistent model since it does not solve the full set of equations of motion. Performing such analysis in some consistent models, e.g. JP ; AST ; DL ; DL1 ; SH ; SH1 ; RRO would be instructive (usually the metrics of those models are only known numerically, so the calculations are more challenging).

V Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the NSFC under Grant No. 11705166 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (No. CUGL180402).

References

  • (1) J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664.
  • (2) I. K. Affleck and N. S. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B 194 (1982) 38.
  • (3) J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998).
  • (4) S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998).
  • (5) O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000).
  • (6) G. W. Semenoff and K. Zarembo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 171601.
  • (7) Y. Sato and K. Yoshida, JHEP 04 (2013) 111.
  • (8) Y. Sato and K. Yoshida, JHEP 08 (2013) 002.
  • (9) Y. Sato and K. Yoshida, JHEP 09 (2013) 134.
  • (10) Y. Sato and K. Yoshida, JHEP 12 (2013) 051.
  • (11) S. Chakrabortty and B.Sathiapalan, Nucl. Phys. B 890 (2014) 241.
  • (12) K. B. Fadafan and F. Saiedi, Eur. Phys. J. C (2015) 75:612.
  • (13) M. Ghodrati, Phys. Rev. D 92, 065015 (2015).
  • (14) L. Zhang, D. f. Hou and J. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A (2018) 54:94.
  • (15) Z.-q. Zhang, X. R. Zhu and D. f. Hou, Phys. Rev. D 101, 026017 (2020).
  • (16) Z.-q. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 935 (2018) 377.
  • (17) L. Shahkarami, M. Dehghani, P. Dehghani, Phys. Rev. D 97, 046013 (2018).
  • (18) W. Fischler, P. H. Nguyen, J. F. Pedraza, W. Tangarife, Phys. Rev. D 91, 086015 (2015).
  • (19) Z. R. Zhu, D. f. Hou, Xun Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:550.
  • (20) K. Hashimoto and T. Oka, JHEP 10 (2013) 116.
  • (21) K. Hashimoto, T. Oka, and A. Sonoda, JHEP 06 (2014) 085.
  • (22) X. Wu, JHEP 09 (2015) 044.
  • (23) K. Ghoroku, M. Ishihara, JHEP 09 (2016) 011.
  • (24) D. Kawai, Y. Sato, K. Yoshida, Internat. J. Modern Phys. A 30 (2015) 1530026.
  • (25) J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261602 (2005).
  • (26) J. Polchinski, M. J. Strassler, JHEP 05 (2003) 012.
  • (27) A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 015005 (2006).
  • (28) J. P. Shock, F. Wu, Y-L. Wu and Z-F. Xie, JHEP 03 (2007) 064.
  • (29) A. Stoffers and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 83, (2011) 055016.
  • (30) D. n. Li and M. Huang, JHEP 11 (2013) 088.
  • (31) D. n. Li, S. He, M. Huang and Q. S. Yan, JHEP 09 (2011) 041.
  • (32) S. He, M. Huang and Q. S. Yan, JHEP, Phys. Rev. D 83, 045034 (2011).
  • (33) S. He, S. Y. Wu, Y. Yang and P. H. Yuan, JHEP 04 (2013) 093.
  • (34) R. Rougemont, A. Ficnar, S. Finazzo and J. Noronha, JHEP 04 (2016) 102.
  • (35) P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D 83, (2011) 035015.
  • (36) C. Park, D.-Y. Gwak, B.-H. Lee, Y. Ko and S. Shin, Phys. Rev. D 84, (2011) 046007.
  • (37) P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi and S. Nicotri, JHEP 05 (2012) 076.
  • (38) P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi, S. Nicotri and F. Zuo, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 115011.
  • (39) Y. Xiong, X. Tang, and Z. Luo, Chin. Phys. C 43, 113103 (2019).
  • (40) X. Chen, S.-Q. Feng, Y.-F. Shi, Y. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 97, 066015 (2018).
  • (41) Z.-q. Zhang and X. R. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 200.
  • (42) O. Andreev and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 025023 (2006).
  • (43) M. Cvetic, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 558 (1999) 96.
  • (44) D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, JHEP 03 (2006) 052.
  • (45) H. Liu, K. Rajagopal and Y. Shi, JHEP 08 (2008) 048.