\section{Introduction}

The production of resonances occurs both during the transition (at a critical temperature of \mbox{$\approx$~160 MeV}~\cite{Aoki_TC1,Aoki_TC2,Borsanyi_TC}) from the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) to the hadronic phase and in the hadronic phase itself due to regeneration~\cite{Bleicher_Stoecker,Markert_thermal,Vogel_Bleicher}.  Due to their short lifetimes (a few fm$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$), many resonances will decay during the hadronic phase; their decay products will tend to be re-scattered in the hadronic medium, making experimental reconstruction of the resonance impossible~\cite{Bliecher_Aichelin}.  The temperature evolution and lifetime of the hadronic phase affect the relative strengths of resonance-generating processes and re-scattering, and therefore ratios of resonance yields to non-resonance yields~\cite{Torrieri_thermal}.  Particle ratios have been predicted as functions of the chemical freeze-out temperature and the elapsed time between chemical and thermal freeze-out using thermal models~\cite{Andronic2009,PBM2011,AndronicQM2011,Torrieri_thermal,Markert_thermal}.  In principle, measurements of two different particle ratios are needed to tune the thermal models and determine uniquely the chemical freeze-out temperature and the lifetime of the hadronic medium; in practice, many measured ratios are used to obtain a best-fit value for these model parameters.

It is expected that chiral symmetry is restored at around the same critical temperature as the deconfinement phase transition~\cite{Petreczky}, with the quark-antiquark condensate decreasing towards 0 with increasing temperature~\cite{Rapp2009}.  Resonances that interact with the medium in the mixed or early hadronic phases, when chiral symmetry is at least partially restored, may be shifted off of their mass shells and exhibit broader widths than observed in vacuum~\cite{Rapp2009,Brown_Rho,Brodsky_chiral}.  For example, it has been predicted that the $\rho$ meson should ``melt" (its width approaches its mass) near the critical temperature~\cite{Rapp2009}, with a mass shift of a few tens of MeV at most~\cite{Eletsky}.  However, the modified resonance spectral functions will only be observable if a large fraction of resonances decay while the medium is chirally restored.  UrQMD~\cite{UrQMD} calculations indicate that regeneration (which adds resonances with vacuum properties) and re-scattering effects (which reduce the resonance signal) will be strongest for $\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace<2$~\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace.  It was argued in~\cite{Markert_corr}, accounting for the time dependence of the QGP temperature and the time dilation of resonance decays, that experimental searches at the LHC for the signatures of chiral symmetry restoration should focus on resonances with $\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace<10$~\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace.  It has been predicted that the majority of reconstructable resonances with $\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace>2$~\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace will be \textit{produced} when the density of the medium is high~\cite{Vogel_Aichelin_Bliecher}; however, estimating the fraction of reconstructable resonances that \textit{decay} in the chirally restored medium is a more complicated question and further input is needed from the theoretical community~\cite{Markert_corr}.  Resonances with shorter lifetimes (a few fm/$c$) are more likely to exhibit mass shifts or width broadening, meaning that the $\mathrm{K}^{*}(892)^{0}$ would be more likely than the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace(1020) to exhibit these signatures.

These proceedings present measurements of the \mbox{\ensuremath{\phi(1020)}\xspace}, \mbox{K$^{*}(892)^{0}$}, and \mbox{$\overline{\mathrm{K}^{*}}(892)^{0}$} resonances in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace using the ALICE detector at the LHC.  For the sake of brevity, \mbox{\ensuremath{\phi(1020)}\xspace} will be hereafter be denoted simply by \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace.  The \mbox{K$^{*}(892)^{0}$} and \mbox{$\overline{\mathrm{K}^{*}}(892)^{0}$} mesons will be collectively referred to as \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace and all results will be for the combination of the particle and antiparticle.  The ALICE detector will be described in Section~\ref{sec:alice}.  The method used to extract the masses, widths, and yields of the resonances as functions of \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace will be described in Section~\ref{sec:signal:extraction} and measurements of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace masses and widths as functions of \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace will be presented and discussed in Section~\ref{sec:signal:mass_width}.  The spectra for \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace$<$ 5 \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace are presented is Section~\ref{sec:spectra}.  Resonance-to-non-resonance ratios and measurements of the mean transverse momentum of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson are presented and discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ratios_mpt}.  The method of jet-resonance (or hadron-resonance) correlations has been proposed as a way of preferentially selecting for resonances (with $\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace\gtrsim 2\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace$) that originated in the mixed or partonic phases, when chiral symmetry was still at least partially restored.  The hadron-resonance correlation method will be described in Section~\ref{sec:correlations}.

\section{The ALICE Detector}
\label{sec:alice}

The ALICE detector~\cite{ALICE_detector} is the only detector at the LHC dedicated primarily to the study of heavy-ion collisions.  It was designed to operate at high particle multiplicities, which were expected to be up to three orders of magnitude greater than for pp collisions at the same energy and 2-5 times greater than the multiplicities seen in heavy-ion collision at RHIC.  The ALICE detector provides extensive particle tracking and identification at mid-rapidity \mbox{$(|\eta|\lesssim 0.9)$} as well as muon tracking and identification at forward rapidity \mbox{$(-2.5>\eta>-4)$}.  The components of the ALICE detector most directly related to the results presented in this article will be described below.

The Inner Tracking System (ITS) is a silicon detector that surrounds the interaction point, with six layers between radii 3.9~cm and 43~cm from the beam axis.  The ITS is used to reconstruct the collision vertex and provide hits used in particle tracking.  Particle tracking is mainly provided by the large (90~m$^{3}$) cylindrical Time Projection Chamber (TPC)~\cite{ALICE_TPC}.  The TPC also allows particles to be identified through their energy loss.  The Time-of-Flight Detector (TOF) is an array of multi-gap resistive-plate chambers that sits outside the TPC and measures particle speed.  The TOF allows for kaons to be distinguished from pions for \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}<2.5-3$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace} and for kaons to be separated from protons for \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}<3.5-4$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace} (by better than 3$\sigma$ in both cases~\cite{ALICE_PPR_Vol1,ALICE_TOF}).  In the present analysis, TOF information was not used to identify the decay daughters of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace, although it will be used in the future.  The V0 detector consists of two arrays of scintillator counters that sit at large pseudorapidities ($2.8<\eta<5.1$ and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$) on opposite sides of the interaction point; it provides minimum-bias triggers for the central barrel detectors.

\section{Resonance Signals}
\label{sec:signal}

\subsection{Signal Extraction}
\label{sec:signal:extraction}

\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{19pc}
\includegraphics[width=19pc]{2012-Aug-14-example_mass_fits_v4}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{-15pc}
(a)
\hspace{13pc}
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=19pc]{2012-Jun-15-KstarSignalFullpT}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{-15pc}
(b)
\caption{Invariant mass distributions after background subtraction of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace (a) and \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace (b) mesons in central \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.  For each particle, the residual background is described using a polynomial fit (dashed curves) and the peak is fit using Breit-Wigner function added to the residual background (solid curves).  For \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace: centrality 0-10\%, \mbox{0.5 \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace$<\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace<1$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace}, second-order polynomial residual background.  For \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace: centrality 0-20\%, \mbox{\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace$<10$\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace}, first-order polynomial residual background.}
\label{fig:signal:extraction:invmass_sub}
\end{figure}

The decays of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons to oppositely charged kaons (branching ratio = $0.489\pm 0.005$~\cite{PDG}) were reconstructed in 9.5 million \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions.  The kaons were identified by applying a cut to their measured energy loss in the ALICE TPC.  The measured energy loss was required to deviate from the expected mean value by $<2\sigma_{\mathrm{K}}$, where $\sigma_{\mathrm{K}}$ is the energy-loss resolution ($<5\%$ for isolated tracks~\cite{ALICE_TPC}).  An invariant-mass distribution of pairs (with $|y_{\mathrm{pair}}|<0.5$) of oppositely charged kaons from the same event was generated.  In order to remove the large number of random combinations, combinatorial backgrounds were generated using two different methods.  The like-charge\footnote{also known as ``like-sign"} combinatorial background was generated by pairing each kaon candidate with kaons from the same event with the same charge.  The like-charge combinatorial background is $2\sqrt{n_{--}n_{++}}$, where $n_{--}$ and $n_{++}$ are the numbers of K$^{-}$K$^{-}$ and K$^{+}$K$^{+}$ pairs, respectively, in each invariant mass bin.  A second combinatorial background was generated by mixing oppositely charged kaon tracks from different events.  The pairs of mixed events were required to differ by \mbox{$<5$ cm} in $z$ vertex position and $<10\%$ in centrality percentile; each identified kaon track was mixed into $\sim 5$ other events.  The mixed-event combinatorial background was scaled so that its integral in a region surrounding the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace peak\footnote{The exact boundaries of this normalization region ($B_{1}\;<\;m(\mathrm{KK})\;<\;B_{2}$ or $B_{3}\;<\;m(\mathrm{KK})\;<\;B_{4}$) were varied.  The following six sets of boundaries were used (units of \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace): $(B_{1},B_{2},B_{3},B_{4})$=(1,1.01,1.03,1.06), (1,1.006,1.04,1.06), (1,1.006,1.03,1.06), (1,1.01,1.035,1.06), (1,1.006,1.04,1.05), and (0.995,1.01,1.03,1.06).} was the same as the integral of the unlike-charge distribution in the same region.  The mixed-event combinatorial background was chosen as the primary method for this analysis due to its smaller statistical uncertainties and fluctuations.

After the subtraction of the combinatorial background, a \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace peak could be observed sitting on a residual background (See Figure~\ref{fig:signal:extraction:invmass_sub}a), which was present due to the fact that neither choice of combinatorial background could account for correlated sources of unlike-charge background.  A polynomial fit was performed on a region surrounding the peak in order to parametrize this residual background.  Second-order polynomials were used as the primary fitting functions.  To extract the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace yield, the unlike-charge invariant mass distribution was integrated and the integral of the residual background fit was subtracted.  The unlike-charge distribution was also fit with a relativistic Breit-Wigner function added to the residual background fit.  This provided a second method for extracting the particle yield and also allowed the mass and width of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson to be extracted.  The systematic uncertainties in the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace yield take into account variations in the yield due to different kaon identification (TPC energy loss) cuts, combinatorial backgrounds, normalization regions, residual background parameterizations\footnote{First- and third-order polynomial fits were also performed.}, residual background fit regions, and methods of extracting the yield from the peak (integrating the histogram vs. integrating the fit).  The systematic uncertainties also include contributions that arise from varying the track quality cuts, uncertainties in the amount of material used in simulations of the ALICE detector (in the efficiency calculation), and the uncertainty in centrality selection.

The extraction of the \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace yields, mass, and width was performed in a similar fashion (See Figure~\ref{fig:signal:extraction:invmass_sub}b).  The decays of \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace mesons to $\pi^{\pm}\mathrm{K}^{\mp}$ pairs (branching ratio = $0.66601\pm0.00006$~\cite{PDG}) were reconstructed in 3.4 million \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions.  The kaons were again identified by applying a $2\sigma_{\mathrm{K}}$ cut on energy loss in the TPC, while the pions were identified by applying a $2\sigma_{\pi}$ cut on the energy loss.  As in the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace analysis, both like-charge and mixed-event combinatorial backgrounds were constructed.  A first-order polynomial was used as the primary fit function for the residual background.

\subsection{Masses and Widths}
\label{sec:signal:mass_width}

\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Aug-14-phi_mass_v7}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-16pc}\vspace{9pc}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Aug-14-phi_width_v6}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-16pc}\vspace{9pc}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Measured \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson mass (a) and width (b) in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.  Red circles: centrality 0-10\%; blue squares: centrality 70-80\%.  The dashed lines indicate the nominal values of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mass and width~\cite{PDG}.}
\label{fig:signal:mass_width:phi}

\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Aug-09-kstar_mass}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-16pc}\vspace{-6pc}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Aug-08-kstar_width}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-16pc}\vspace{-6pc}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Measured \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace meson mass (a) and width (b) in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace in four centrality bins, along with the results in pp collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace~\cite{Markert_SQM2011}.  The black lines indicate the nominal values of the \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace mass and width~\cite{PDG}.}
\label{fig:signal:mass_width:ks}
\end{figure}

The mass and width of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons are shown as functions of transverse momentum in Figure~\ref{fig:signal:mass_width:phi} for central and peripheral \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions.  The measured values of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mass are within 0.5~\mbox{\rm MeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace of the nominal value, while the measured values of the width are within 2 \mbox{\rm MeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace of the nominal value.  There is no obvious centrality dependence in either the mass or the width.  The mass and width of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons have also been extracted from simulated \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions, with particle production via HIJING and the ALICE detector simulated using GEANT3.  The deviations from the nominal mass and width observed in these simulations\footnote{The values of the simulated mass are observed to be within 0.5~\mbox{\rm MeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace of the vacuum value, while the values of the simulated width are observed to be within 1-2~\mbox{\rm MeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace of the vacuum value.  Studies of these simulated \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace peaks are ongoing.} are similar to the deviations observed for the real data, suggesting that the shifts in the mass and width can be explained purely by detector effects.

The mass and width of \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace are shown as functions of transverse momentum in Figure~\ref{fig:signal:mass_width:ks} for \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace in multiple centrality bins.  The measured values of the \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace mass are consistent with the values measured in pp collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace, which suggests that the deviation from the nominal value is an instrumental effect\footnote{The reconstructed masses and widths of simulated \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace peaks are being studied in order to confirm whether or not these deviations are detector effects.}.  The measured values of the width are generally consistent with the nominal value.  As with the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson, there is no apparent centrality dependence in the mass or width.

\section{Spectra}
\label{sec:spectra}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=18pc]{2012-Aug-15-phi_efficiency_v2}
\hspace{1pc}
\begin{minipage}[b]{14pc}
\caption{Efficiency $\times$ acceptance for the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson, calculated from simulated \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace events.  See the text for discussion.}
\label{fig:spectra:efficiency}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

The efficiency $\times$ acceptance for the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson was calculated from simulated 1.82 million \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace events; particles were generated using HIJING and their interactions with the ALICE detector were simulated using GEANT3.  The same event-selection and track-quality cuts were used in the analyses of the real and simulated data.  Figure~\ref{fig:spectra:efficiency} shows efficiency $\times$ acceptance for the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson.  While the energy-loss followed a Gaussian distribution in the real data, this behavior was not reproduced in the simulation.  For this reason, a separate factor $(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x})$ was applied to correct for the efficiency of the TPC energy-loss cuts used to identify kaons; for the default energy-loss cuts (a $2\sigma_{\mathrm{K}}$ cut) $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x}=91\%$.  More simulated events must be analyzed in order for the efficiency calculation to be extended to higher transverse momenta; it is for this reason that the spectra reported in this article are only for $\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace<5$~\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace.

Figure~\ref{fig:spectra:plots}a shows the corrected \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace spectra (d$^{2}N/$d$p_{\mathrm{T}}$d$y$) in multiple centrality bins; these spectra have been corrected for the efficiency $\times$ acceptance, energy-loss cut efficiency, and the branching ratios.  The \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace spectra were fit with Boltzmann-Gibbs Blast Wave functions~\cite{BoltzmannGibbsBlastWave}.  Figure~\ref{fig:spectra:plots}b shows the \textit{uncorrected} \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace yields; signals are observed for
\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace $<$ 10 \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace.

\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Aug-14-phi_spectra_10_v6}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\vspace{-10pc}
\hspace{-16pc}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{18pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Aug-28-rawSpectra_cen_peri_v1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\vspace{-10pc}
\hspace{-3pc}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Corrected spectra of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons (a) and uncorrected yields of \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace mesons (b) in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace in multiple centrality bins.  Blast Wave fits to the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace spectra are shown.  Statistical (systematic) uncertainties are represented by bars (boxes).}
\label{fig:spectra:plots}
\end{figure}

\section{Ratios and Mean $\boldsymbol{p_{\mathrm{T}}}$}
\label{sec:ratios_mpt}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Nov-07-phi2pi_energy_qm2012_v13}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-15.5pc}\vspace{-3pc}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{18pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Nov-07-phi2k_energy_qm2012_v13}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-15pc}\vspace{-3pc}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Ratios of resonance yields to non-resonance yields as functions of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ from SPS to LHC energies.~\cite{NA49,STAR_phi_2009,PHENIX_piKp_pp_2011,PHENIX_mesons_pp_2011,PHENIX_phi_AuAu_2005,ALICE_piKp_900GeV,ALICE_strange_900GeV,ALICE_KstarPhi_7TeV}  ALICE \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace data are for centrality 0-5\%.  (a) shows the $\phi/\pi$ ratios.  (b) shows the $\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratio.  The dashed lines indicate thermal model predictions~\cite{AndronicQM2011} for \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.}
\label{fig:ratios_mpt:phi_ratios_energy}

\begin{minipage}{18pc}
\includegraphics[width=18pc]{2012-Aug-14-ratios_npart_qm2012_v9}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-15.5pc}\vspace{9pc}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{18.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{2012-Nov-07-phi_mean_pt_v13}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-15.75pc}\vspace{-5pc}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a): The $\phi/\langle\pi^{\pm}\rangle$ and $\phi/\langle \mathrm{K}^{\pm}\rangle$ ratios as functions of \ensuremath{\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\rangle}\xspace in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.  (b):  Mean transverse momentum for \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons measured using the ALICE detector (in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace and pp collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace~\cite{ALICE_KstarPhi_7TeV}) and the STAR detector (in pp and Au--Au collisions at \mbox{$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200$ GeV}~\cite{STAR_phi_2009,STAR_phi_200GeV_2005}).}
\label{fig:ratios_mpt:npart}
\end{figure}

The total \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace-integrated yields \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}N\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em\mathrm{d}y}\xspace of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons are calculated by integrating the spectra and using the fits to estimate the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace yields for \mbox{$\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace < 0.5$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace} and \mbox{$\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace > 5$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace} (the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace yield in the extrapolation regions is $\approx 15\%$ of the total yield).  The total \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace-integrated yields of charged pions and kaons have been measured in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace using the ALICE detector; these integrated yields are used to calculate the $\phi/\pi$ and $\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratios.  Figure~\ref{fig:ratios_mpt:phi_ratios_energy} shows the $\phi/\pi$ and $\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratios as functions of collision energy from SPS energies to LHC energies.  Figure~\ref{fig:ratios_mpt:npart}a shows the \mbox{$\phi/\langle\pi^{\pm}\rangle=\phi/\tfrac{1}{2}(\pi^{-}+\pi^{+})$} and \mbox{$\phi/\langle\mathrm{K}^{\pm}\rangle=\phi/\tfrac{1}{2}(\mathrm{K}^{-}+\mathrm{K}^{+})$} ratios as functions of \ensuremath{\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\rangle}\xspace (the mean number of nucleons participating in collisions for a given centrality bin).

In \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions, the $\phi/\langle\pi^{\pm}\rangle$ and $\phi/\langle\mathrm{K}^{\pm}\rangle$ ratios do not depend on collisions centrality.  In hadron transport models such as RQMD and UrQMD~\cite{RQMD,UrQMD,RQMD_UrQMD_2006}, where the dominant production mechanism for \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons is kaon coalescence $(\mathrm{K\bar{K}}\rightarrow\phi\mathrm{X})$, the $\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratio is predicted to be larger for more central collisions (increasing roughly linearly with \ensuremath{\langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\rangle}\xspace)~\cite{Mohanty_Xu,STAR_phi_2009}.  The $\phi/\langle\mathrm{K}^{\pm}\rangle$ ratio observed in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace does not increase for more central events, suggesting that \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons are not produced dominantly through kaon coalescence.  Similar behavior was observed at RHIC~\cite{STAR_phi_200GeV_2005,STAR_phi_2009}.  The $\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratio does not exhibit a clear dependence on collision system or energy from RHIC to LHC energies.  The $\phi/\mathrm{K}^{-}$ ratio in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace is consistent with the thermal model prediction~\cite{AndronicQM2011}.

The $\phi/\pi$ ratios measured in pp and \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at LHC energies are consistent with each other; at RHIC energies, the $\phi/\pi$ ratios measured using the PHENIX detector are also consistent in pp and Au--Au collisions, but the ratio measured using the STAR detector is higher for Au--Au collisions.  The $\phi/\pi^{-}$ ratio in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace is below the thermal model prediction.

The mean transverse momentum \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons was calculated based on the data points (with the fits used to account for the low- and high-\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace extrapolation regions).  Figure~\ref{fig:ratios_mpt:npart}b shows \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace for the two resonances for pp and nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC and LHC energies.  For \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace, there may be a weak centrality dependence in \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace, although the \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace values in central and peripheral collisions are still consistent within uncertainties.  The \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace values at LHC energies are higher than the observed \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace at RHIC energies.  The \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace values in peripheral \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace are consistent with the values measured in pp collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.

\section{Jet-Resonance Correlations}
\label{sec:correlations}

\subsection{Method}
\label{sec:correlations:method}

The jet-resonance correlation method has been proposed~\cite{Markert_corr} as a way to preferentially select for resonances that interacted with the partonic medium or the mixed phase (and which would therefore be more likely to exhibit the signatures of chiral symmetry restoration).  While the ideal implementation of this method involves full jet reconstruction for use as a trigger, the current results use high-\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace hadrons as triggers (serving as proxies for jets).  The difference in azimuthal angle \ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace between a resonance and the trigger hadron is computed.  As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:correlations:diagram}, a nucleus-nucleus collision can be divided into three regions in \ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace.  For the ``near side," ($\ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace\approx 0$), both the jet and the resonance should be surface-biased.  It is argued that the resonance has a lower probability of interacting with the medium and therefore a lower probability of exhibiting a mass shift or width broadening.  In the ``transverse region," ($\ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace\approx\pi/2$) resonances are expected to come predominantly from thermal production in the hadronic medium, meaning the resonances would be less likely to interact with the chirally restored medium.  In contrast, on the ``away side" from the (surface-biased) jet, for $\ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace\approx\pi$, the probability that the resonance interacted with the medium is expected to be greater.  At low \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace, the resonance signal (even on the away side) would be affected by interactions in the hadronic phase (re-scattering and regeneration).  At high \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace on the away side, the resonances would be more likely both to interact with the medium when chiral symmetry was restored and to have decay products with enough momentum to escape the hadronic phase with minimal interaction.  Therefore, it was proposed that resonances with high transverse momentum ($\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace>2$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace) on the away side, opposite a trigger jet or hadron, would be more likely to exhibit a shift in mass or an increase in width, expected signatures of chiral symmetry restoration.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=21pc]{JetResCorr3}
\hspace{1pc}
\begin{minipage}[b]{14pc}
\caption{Diagram of the jet-resonance (or hadron-resonance) correlation method.  Resonances at high \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace ($\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace>2$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace) on the away side from the trigger axis have a greater probability of interacting with the chirally restored medium.  This illustration is adapted from~\cite{Markert_corr}.}
\label{fig:correlations:diagram}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Results}
\label{sec:correlations:results}

Using the ALICE detector, \ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace has been measured~\cite{Markert_SQM2011}, using leading trigger hadrons with \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{leading}}>3$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace} and \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons with \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\phi}>1.5$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace}.  Figure~\ref{fig:correlations:results} shows the mass (upper row) and width (lower row) of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons (divided by the mean of the measured values) as functions of \ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace in pp collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace (left column) and \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace (right column).  The behavior of this distribution is similar for pp and \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions.  Furthermore, there is no clear difference in the mass and width measured in the away side ($\ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace\approx\pi$) in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions in comparison to the near side ($\ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace\approx 0$).

\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{16pc}
\includegraphics[width=16pc]{2012-Sep-02-HadronPhiCorr_mass_pp_v1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-13pc}\vspace{8.5pc}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{16pc}
\includegraphics[width=16pc]{2012-Sep-02-HadronPhiCorr_mass_PbPb_v1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-13pc}\vspace{8.5pc}
(b)
\end{minipage}

\begin{minipage}{16pc}
\includegraphics[width=16pc]{2012-Sep-02-HadronPhiCorr_width_pp_v1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-13pc}\vspace{8.5pc}
(c)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{16pc}
\includegraphics[width=16pc]{2012-Sep-02-HadronPhiCorr_width_PbPb_v1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0pc}
\hspace{-13pc}\vspace{8.5pc}
(d)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Mass (a, b) and width (c, d) of \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons vs. \ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace, the angular correlation with a leading trigger hadron.  (a, c): pp collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.  (b, d): \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.  The leading trigger hadrons and the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons have transverse-momentum lower limits of \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{leading}}>3$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace} and \mbox{$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\phi}>1.5$ \mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace}.  The mass and width values have been divided by the mean of the measured values in each plot.}
\label{fig:correlations:results}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}

The spectra (for $\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace<5$~\mbox{\rm GeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c$}\xspace), total yields, mean transverse momenta, mass, and width of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson and the mass and width of the \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace meson have been measured in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions at \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace using the ALICE detector.  No centrality dependence has been observed in the masses or widths of either resonance.  The \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace mass values are not consistent with the nominal value at low \ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T}}}\xspace, but are consistent with the mass measured in pp collisions (indicating that the observed deviation is likely an instrumental effect).  The \ensuremath{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}\xspace width is consistent with the nominal value.  The mass of the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace meson is within 0.5 \mbox{\rm MeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace of the nominal value, while the width is within 1-2 \mbox{\rm MeV$\kern-0.15em /\kern-0.12em c^2$}\xspace of its nominal value; similar deviations are observed when simulated \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons are analyzed using the same methods.  The $\phi/\pi$ and $\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratios in \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions do not depend on collision centrality, indicating that \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons are not produced predominantly through kaon coalescence.  These ratios are consistent with the values measured in pp collisions at \mbox{$\sqrt{s}=900$ GeV} and \mbox{\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}=7\;\mathrm{TeV}}}\xspace.  The \ensuremath{\langle p_{\mathrm{T}}\rangle}\xspace values for \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons at LHC energies are higher than the values measured at RHIC energies.  The angular correlations \ensuremath{\mathit{\Delta}\varphi}\xspace between leading trigger hadrons and \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons have been measured in pp and \mbox{Pb--Pb}\xspace collisions, but no difference in the resonance mass or width between the near and away sides (relative to the trigger axis) has been observed.  However, it may be necessary to increase the transverse-momentum limits on the trigger particles and the \ensuremath{\phi}\xspace mesons in order to obtain a sample of resonances that exhibit the signatures of chiral symmetry restoration.

\section*{References}


\section{Introduction}

The behavior of the ultra-soft regime of massless field theories
presents a serious challenge which, on the other hand, is crucial for
understanding of the most, physically relevant theories. The soft
nature of the excitations perturbatively leads to infrared (IR)
divergences in various physical quantities such as the self-energy
near the mass shell. To have reliable results, one has to resum the
most sensitive part of the IR physics. The identification of the
sources of these divergences, the elaboration of the appropriate
mathematical tools and finally the realisation of the resummation
itself is a formidable task. Moreover, the details can depend on the
environment, that is the resummation in deep inelastic scattering and
at finite temperature equilibrium may require different approaches. It
is not a surprise, therefore, that so many resummation methods exist,
working at different circumstances.

In this sensitive field, where the physical reliability of a
resummation may crucially depend on the correct identification of the
relevant sources of the IR divergences, it is quite valuable to find a
model which is physically motivated and exactly solvable. This is the
reason why so many two-dimensional conformal and integrable theories
have relevance. In four dimensions, however, exactly solvable models
are much rarer.

A physically well-motivated model is the Bloch-Nordsieck (BN) model
\cite{BN}. In its long history it became a text-book material
\cite{BogoljubovShirkov,Fried}. Physically it corresponds to the deep
IR limit of QED, where the photons have no energy even for a fermion
spin-flip. In particular it can be used to prove QED theorems in this
energy regime \cite{Weldon:1991eg}. The BN model can be solved
exactly, the photon contributions can be fully summed up. The fermion
propagator has been calculated at zero temperature both based on
functional methods \cite{BogoljubovShirkov,Fried}, and with help of
Dyson-Schwinger equations \cite{Alekseev:1982dk,Jakovac:2011aa}, where
also a detailed renormalization analysis is possible. The spectral
function of the model at zero temperature reads in Feynman gauge as
\begin{equation}
  \varrho(w,T=0) \sim w^{-1-\frac\alpha\pi}, \qquad\mathrm{where}\quad
  w=u_\mu p^\mu-m,\quad  \alpha=\frac{e^2}{4\pi}.
\end{equation}
Here $u$ is a 4-vector parameter of the model, loosely identifiable
with the four-velocity of the fermion. This function, however, has a
singular behavior: it is not normalizable, therefore the sum rule
$\int \rho=2\pi$ can be satisfied only with zero wave function
renormalization factor. Moreover, the naive inverse Fourier transform
of this function is $\sim t^{\alpha/\pi}$ describing growth of
correlation in time. The correct physical interpretation of these
results requires some IR regulator, which can be, for example, the
temperature.

At finite temperature the model is much less studied. In the seminal
papers of Blaizot and Iancu \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2} the
authors studied the large time behavior of the fermion propagator with
the Hard Thermal Loop (HTL) improved photon propagator. Using this
result, Weldon worked out a spectral function which is valid in the
vicinity of the mass shell \cite{Weldon:2003wp}. With a different
approach, Fried \emph{et. al.} studied the time dependence of the
momentum loss of a hard incoming fermionic particle
\cite{Fried:2008tb}.

We have several goals in this paper. The main goal is to work out the
complete spectral function of the BN model for all momenta, and see
how the short time dynamics, resembling the $T\to 0$ limit, goes over
to the long time damping. Because of the relative simplicity of the
model we can even give analytic solutions for certain parameters,
while for other, analytically not reachable parameter values we used a
well controlled numerical procedure. Another goal is to extend our
Dyson-Schwinger formalism combined with Ward identities
\cite{Jakovac:2011aa}, which works excellently at zero temperature, to
finite temperatures. With the help of it, the complete renormalization
process remains fully controlled.

Our paper will be organized as follows. First, we define the
Bloch-Nordsieck model in Section \ref{sec:BNdef}. We review the
Dyson-Schwinger equations and Ward identities in finite temperature
real time formalism, and apply them to the Bloch-Nordsieck model. In
Section \ref{sec:solve} we solve these equations. At zero velocity
(Subsection \ref{sec:u0}) we provide an analytic formula for the
fermion propagator, supported by a numerical verification. At nonzero
velocity (Subsection \ref{sec:ufin}) we solve them numerically. In
Subsection \ref{sec:disc} we compare our results with previous works
in the literature. In Section \ref{sec:concl} we give the conclusions
of the paper.

\section{The Bloch Nordsieck model at finite temperature}
\label{sec:BNdef}

The Bloch-Nordsieck model is the low energy limit of QED, where we
take into account only a single spin orientation. Its Lagrangian is
related to the QED Lagrangian by changing the Dirac matrices
$\gamma^\mu$ for a four-vector $u^\mu$:
\begin{equation}
  {\cal L} = -\frac14 F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} + \Psi^\dagger(iu_\mu D^\mu
  - m)\Psi,\qquad iD_\mu = i\d_\mu -eA_\mu,\quad F_{\mu\nu}=\d_\mu
  A_\nu - \d_\nu A_\mu.
\end{equation}
We can choose $u$ to be a four-velocity, or it can be
$u=(1,\mathbf{v})$: the two are related by a simple field and mass
rescaling, since by replacing $\Psi\to \Psi/\sqrt{u_0}$ and $m\to m
u_0$, we can reach the $u_0=1$ scenario. The quantity $\mathbf{v}
=\mathbf{u}/u_0$ can be interpreted as the velocity of the fermion.

We are interested in the finite temperature fermion propagator. To
determine it, we use the real time formalism (for details, see
\cite{LeBellac}). Here the time variable runs over a contour
containing forward and backward running sections ($C_1$ and
$C_2$). The propagators are subject to boundary conditions which can
be expressed as the KMS (Kubo-Martin-Schwinger) relations. The
physical time can be expressed through the contour time $t={\cal
  T}(\tau)$. This makes possible to work with fields living on a
definite branch of the contour, $\Psi_a(t,{\bf x}) = \Psi(\tau_a,{\bf x})$ where
${\cal T}(\tau_a)=t$, and $\tau_a\in C_a$ for $a=1,2$; and similarly
for the gauge fields. The propagators are matrices in this notation:
\begin{equation}
  i{\cal G}_{ab}(x)=\exv{T_C \Psi_a(x) \Psi_b^\dagger (0)}\qquad
  \mathrm{and}\qquad iG_{\mu\nu,ab}(x)=\exv{T_C A_{\mu a}(x) A_{\nu b} (0)},
\end{equation}
where $T_C$ denotes ordering with respect to the contour variable
(contour time ordering). $G_{11}$ corresponds to the Feynman
propagator, and, since the $C_2$ contour times are always larger than
the $C_1$ contour times, $G_{21}=G^>$ and $G_{12}=G^<$ are the
Wightman functions. The KMS relation for a bosonic/fermionic
propagator reads $G_{12}(t,{\bf x})= \pm G_{21}(t-i\beta,{\bf x})$ which has the
following solution in Fourier space
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:id1}
  iG_{12}(k) = \pm n_\pm(k_0) \varrho(k),\qquad iG_{21}(k) = (1\pm
  n_\pm)(k_0) \varrho(k),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
  n_\pm(k_0) = \frac1{e^{\beta k_0}\mp 1}\quad \mathrm{and}\quad \varrho(k)
  = iG_{21}(k)-iG_{12}(k)
\end{equation}
are the distribution functions (Bose-Einstein (+) and Fermi-Dirac (-)
statistics), and the spectral function, respectively. It is sometimes
advantageous to change to the R/A formalism with field assignment
$\Psi_{1,2} = \Psi_r\pm\Psi_a/2$. Then one has $G_{aa}=0$ for both the
fermion and the photon propagators. The relation between the $1\,2$
and the R/A propagators reads
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:id2}
  G_{rr}=\frac{G_{21}+G_{12}}2,\quad G_{11} = G_{ra} + G_{12},\quad
  \varrho=i G_{ra}-iG_{ar}.
\end{equation}
The $G_{ra}$ propagator is the retarded, the $G_{ar}$ is the advanced
propagator, $G_{rr}$ is usually called the Keldysh propagator.

At zero temperature the fermionic Feynman-propagator reads:
\begin{equation}
  {\cal G}_0(p) = \frac1{u_\mu p^\mu -m +i\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
It has a single pole which means that there is no antiparticles in the
model. Consequently, all closed fermion loops are zero, thus there is
no self-energy correction to the photon propagator at zero
temperature. Physically this means that the energy is not enough to
excite the antiparticles. In fact, if we interpret the $u$ parameter
as the four-velocity of the fermion, the Bloch-Nordsieck model
describes that regime where the soft photon fields do not have energy
even for changing the velocity of the fermion (no fermion
recoil). This leads to the interpretation that the fermion is a hard
probe of the soft photon fields, and as such it is not part of the
thermal medium \cite{IancuBlaizot2}. So we will set ${\cal G}_{12}=0$,
therefore the closed fermion loops as well as the photon self energy
remain zero even at finite temperature. Another, mathematical reason,
why we must not consider dynamical fermions -- which could show up in
fermion loops -- is that the spin-statistics theorem
\cite{PeshkinSchroeder} forbids a one-component dynamical fermion
field.

This means that now the \emph{exact} photon propagator reads in
Feynman gauge
\begin{equation}
  G_{ab,\mu\nu}(k) = -g_{\mu\nu} G_{ab}(k),\qquad G_{ra} =
  \frac1{k^2}\biggr|_{k_0\to k_0+i\varepsilon},\quad \varrho(k)= 2\pi\mathop{\textrm{sgn}}(k_0) \delta(k^2),
\end{equation}
all other propagators can be expressed using identities \eqref{eq:id1}
and \eqref{eq:id2}.

\subsection{Dyson-Schwinger equations}

The operator equations of motion give relations of the different
Green's functions, formulated as the Dyson-Schwinger equations. These
equations are \emph{local}, and so they are valid in generic
non-equilibrium situations, and, of course, in a thermal medium, too.

The generating form of the Dyson-Schwinger equations for generic
fields $\Phi_i$ reads \cite{Collins}
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:SDgen}
  \exv{\frac{\delta S}{\delta \Phi_i(y)} \Phi_{a_1}(x_1)\dots
    \Phi_{a_n}(x_n)} = i \sum\limits_{k=1}^n
  \delta_{ia_k}\delta(y-x_k) \exv{\Phi_{a_1}(x_1)\dots
    \Phi_{a_{k-1}}(x_{k-1})\Phi_{a_{k+1}}(x_{k+1})\dots \Phi_{a_n}(x_n)}.
\end{equation}
In real time formalism the time variable is the contour time (usually
it is the variable of the path integral). We define the fermionic self
energy in the usual way
\begin{equation}
  {\cal G}(x,y) ={\cal G}^{(0)}(x,y) + \int_C\! d^4x' d^4y'\, {\cal
    G}^{(0)}(x,x') \Sigma(x',y'){\cal G}(y',y),
\end{equation}
where the symbol $\int_C$ means time integration over the
contour. Then we find in the Bloch-Nordsieck model
\begin{equation}
  \Sigma(x,y) = i\alpha(x_0) e^2u_\mu \int_C\! d^4w d^4z\, {\cal G}(x,w)
  G^{\mu\nu}(x,z) \Gamma_\nu(z;w,y),
\end{equation}
where the tree level vertex is $eu_\mu$, the proper vertex is denoted
by $e\Gamma_\mu$, and $\alpha(x_0)$ is 1 if $x_0\in C_1$ and $-1$ if
$x_0\in C_2$. This factor appears because we expressed the functional
derivative $\frac{\delta S}{\delta \Phi_i(y)}$ through the derivatives
of the Lagrangian, which, however, changes sign on $C_2$.

We can also express this equation with the two-component notation as
it can be seen on Fig.~\ref{fig:DS}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{sdi}
  \caption{The Dyson-Schwinger equations in real time formalism}
  \label{fig:DS}
\end{figure}
In terms of analytic formulas it reads:
\begin{equation}
  \Sigma_{ab}(x,y) = i\alpha_a e^2u_\mu \sum_{c,d=1}^2 \int\! d^4w
  d^4z\, {\cal G}_{ac}(x,w) G^{\mu\nu}_{ad}(x,z) \Gamma_{\nu;dcb}(z;w,y),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_a=(-1)^{a+1}$. In Fourier space it reads:
\begin{equation}
  \Sigma_{ab}(p) = i\alpha_a e^2u_\mu \sum_{c,d=1}^2 \pint 4k {\cal
    G}_{ac}(p-k) G^{\mu\nu}_{ad}(k) \Gamma_{\nu;dcb}(k;p-k,p).
\end{equation}

\subsection{The vertex function in the Bloch-Nordsieck model}

The second use of the Dyson-Schwinger equation is to have a form for
the vertex function. From \eqref{eq:SDgen} we find for any gauge
theories
\begin{equation}
  \exv{\frac{\delta S}{\delta A^\mu(x)} O(\bar\Psi,\Psi)} =0,
\end{equation}
where $O$ is any local operator containing $\bar\Psi$ and
$\Psi$. This implies, in particular
\begin{equation}
  \exv{A_\mu(x) \Psi(y) \bar\Psi(z)} = \int_C d^4x'
  G_{\mu\nu}(x,x') \exv{ j^\nu(x') \Psi(y)\bar\Psi(z)},
\end{equation}
where $j_\mu$ is the conserved current. The vertex function shows up
in the $A\Psi\Psi^\dagger$ correlator as
\begin{equation}
  \exv{A_\mu(x)\Psi(y)\bar\Psi(z)} = \int_C\! d^4x' d^4y'd^4z'\,
  iG_{\mu\nu}(x,x') i{\cal G}(y,y')( -ie) \Gamma^\nu(x',y',z') i{\cal
    G}(z',z).
\end{equation}
From here we find
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:vfunandj}
  \int_C d^4y'd^4z' \,i{\cal G}(y,u)\, e\Gamma^\mu(x;u,v) i{\cal
    G}(v,z) = \exv{j^\mu(x) \Psi(y) \bar\Psi(z)}.
\end{equation}
In the BN model the fermion propagator is a scalar, moreover $j_\mu =
eu_\mu \Psi^\dagger\Psi$ is proportional to $u_\mu$. Therefore the
vertex function is proportional to $u^\mu$, too. This is written in
the Fourier space as
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:vertexu}
  \Gamma^\mu(k;p,q) = u^\mu \Gamma(k;p,q)\, (2\pi)^4 \delta(k+p-q),
\end{equation}
where we also used the energy-momentum conservation.

\subsection{Ward identities}

The local equations expressing current conservation can be used in a
similar manner. The generating form reads
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\d}{\d x^\mu} \exv{j^\mu(x) \Phi_{a_1}(x_1)\dots
    \Phi_{a_n}(x_n)} = -i \sum\limits_{k=1}^n
  \delta_{ia_k}\delta(x-x_k) \exv{\Phi_{a_1}(x_1)\dots
    \Phi_{a_{k-1}}(x_{k-1})\Delta \Phi_i(y) \Phi_{a_{k+1}}(x_{k+1})\dots
    \Phi_{a_n}(x_n)},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta \Phi_i$ is the transformation of the $i$th field
generated by the conserved charge $Q=\int d^3{\bf x} j^0(t,{\bf x})$. This
means, in particular
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\d}{\d x^\mu} \exv{j^\mu(x) \Psi(y)\bar\Psi(z)} = e
  \delta(x-z) {\cal G}(y,z) - e \delta(x-y) {\cal G}(y,z).
\end{equation}
We can write the corresponding equation for the vertex function, using
\eqref{eq:vfunandj}:
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\d}{\d x^\mu} \int_C d^4ud^4v\, i{\cal G}(y,u)
  \Gamma^\mu(x;u,v) i{\cal G}(v,z) =  \delta(x-z) {\cal G}(y-z) -
  \delta(x-y) {\cal G}(y-z).
\end{equation}
This form is easy to rewrite in the two-component formalism, taking
into account that to satisfy the delta function the time arguments
must be on the same contour. One finds in Fourier space
\begin{equation}
  k_\mu \Gamma^\mu_{abc}(k;p,q) = \left[ \delta_{ab} {\cal
      G}_{bc}^{-1}(q) - \delta_{ac} {\cal G}_{bc}^{-1}(p) \right] \,
  (2\pi)^4 \delta(k+p-q).
\end{equation}

In the Bloch-Nordsieck model, because of the special property of the
vertex function expressed in \eqref{eq:vertexu}, the vertex function
is \emph{completely} determined by the fermion propagator:
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:vertex}
  \Gamma_{abc}(k;p,q) = \frac1{uk}\left[  \delta_{ab} {\cal
      G}_{bc}^{-1}(q) - \delta_{ac} {\cal G}_{bc}^{-1}(p)\right]
  \biggr|_{p=q-k}.
\end{equation}

\section{Solution of the Dyson-Schwinger equations}
\label{sec:solve}

Since the vertex function in the Bloch-Nordsieck model can be
expressed with the fermion propagator, the Dyson-Schwinger equations
for the fermion propagator become closed. At zero temperature it can
be shown \cite{Alekseev:1982dk,Jakovac:2011aa} that the solution of
this equation yields the same result as the functional techniques,
moreover, renormalization can be fully controlled here.  In this
Section we discuss the solution at finite temperature.

We will use Feynman gauge, and denote the photon propagator as
$G_{\mu\nu}=-g_{\mu\nu} G$. Then this closed equation can be written
as
\begin{eqnarray}
  \Sigma_{ac}(p) &&= -ie^2U^2 \alpha_a \sum_{a',b'=1}^2\pint4k
  \frac1{uk} G_{aa'}(k) {\cal G}_{ab'}(p-k) \biggl[ \delta_{a'b'}
  ({\cal G}^{-1})_{b'c}(p) - \delta_{a'c} ({\cal G}^{-1})_{b'c}(p-k)\biggr]
  =\nonumber\\&&= -ie^2U^2 \alpha_a \left[\sum_{a'=1}^2 ({\cal G}^{-1})_{a'c}(p)
    \pint4k \frac1{uk} G_{aa'}(k) {\cal G}_{aa'}(p-k) -
    \delta_{ac} \pint4k \frac1{uk} G_{aa}(k)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $U^2=u_0^2-\mathbf{u}^2$. In particular
\begin{eqnarray}
  \label{eq:12formalismsigma}
  \Sigma_{11}(p) &&= -ie^2U^2 \left[ \sum_{a'=1}^2 ({\cal G}^{-1})_{a'1}(p)
    \pint4k \frac1{uk} G_{1a'}(k) {\cal G}_{1a'}(p-k) - \pint4k
    \frac{G_{11}(k)}{uk} \right]\nonumber\\
  \Sigma_{12}(p) &&= -ie^2U^2 \sum_{a'=1}^2 ({\cal G}^{-1})_{a'2}(p) \pint4k
  \frac1{uk} G_{1a'}(k) {\cal G}_{1a'}(p-k).
\end{eqnarray}

Instead of $G_{11}$ and $G_{22}$ it is more aesthetic to work with the
retarded and advanced propagators (the relations are given in
\eqref{eq:id2}). Since in the R/A formalism $G_{aa}=0$, the retarded
propagator satisfies a homogeneous self-energy relation
\begin{equation}
  G_{ra}(p) = G_{ra}^{(0)}(p) + G_{ra}^{(0)}(p) \Sigma_{ar}(p) G_{ra}(p),
\end{equation}
while the propagators in the $1,2$ components mix. From the
definitions we easily find
\begin{equation}
  \Sigma_{ar} = \Sigma_{11}+\Sigma_{12},\qquad {\cal G}_{11} - {\cal G}_{12} = {\cal G}_{ar}.
\end{equation}
Therefore we have, using \eqref{eq:12formalismsigma} and \eqref{eq:id2}
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:sigmaandJ}
  \Sigma_{ar}(p) = {\cal J}(p) {\cal G}^{-1}_{ra}(p) - \Delta M,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
  \label{eq:JJ1}
  && {\cal J}(p) = -ie^2U^2 \pint4k \frac1{uk} \left(G_{21}(k) {\cal G}_{ra}(p-k) -
    G_{ra}(k) {\cal G}_{12}(p-k) \right),\nonumber\\
  && \Delta M = -ie^2U^2 \pint4k \frac{G_{11}(k)}{uk}.
\end{eqnarray}

It is easy to see that $\Delta M=0$. The $11$ photon propagator
$G_{11}$ is even for $k\to-k$, which is true in general, but now we
can prove by inspecting the free propagator which is exact in our case
\begin{equation}
  iG_{11}(k) = \frac{i}{k^2+i\varepsilon} + (n(k_0)+\Theta(-k_0))
  2\pi\mathop{\textrm{sgn}}(k_0)\, \delta(k^2).
\end{equation}
For the first term the $k\to-k$ symmetry is evident, in the second we
should use the identity $n(k_0) + n(-k_0)+1=0$. Therefore with the
change $k\to-k$ of the integration variable, the $G_{11}$ propagator
remains the same while $uk$ changes sign, so $\Delta M$ changes sign,
too. As a consequence $\Delta M=0$.

The Bloch-Nordsieck model, as all 4D interacting quantum field
theories, contains divergences. To obtain finite result, we need wave
function, mass and coupling constant renormalization. Since the above
expressions have contained the original parameters of the Lagrangian,
we should rewrite them in terms of the renormalized quantities. From
now on the parameters $m$ and $e$ will denote the renormalized ones,
while $m_0$ and $e_0$ are the bare quantities. Renormalization goes
like in the zero temperature case \cite{Jakovac:2011aa}: assuming that
the renormalized mass $m=Zm_0$ where $Z$ is the fermion wave function
renormalization constant (this is ensured by the Ward identities) we
can write ${\cal G}^{-1}_{ra} = Z(up-m) -\Sigma_{ar}$, and from
\eqref{eq:sigmaandJ} we find
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:master}
  {\cal G}_{ra}(p) = \frac{\zeta(p)}{up-m},\qquad\mathrm{where}\qquad
  \zeta(p)=\frac{1+{\cal J}(p)}Z.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Calculation of ${\cal J}$}
\label{sec:zeta}

In the expression of ${\cal J}$ in eq. \eqref{eq:JJ1} there appears
${\cal G}_{12}(k)$. As we discussed earlier, for the sake of physical and
mathematical consistency of the model, we must assume that the fermion
describes a hard probe, itself is not a dynamical field, which means
that we must set ${\cal G}_{12}(k)=0$. Then from \eqref{eq:JJ1} we can
easily recover the zero temperature result \cite{Jakovac:2011aa}. At
finite temperature we have
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:JJ}
  {\cal J}(p) = -ie^2U^2 \pint4k \frac1{uk} G_{21}(k) {\cal G}_{ra}(p-k).
\end{equation}

Next we prove by recursion that the solution for ${\cal G}_{ra}$ depends
solely on $w=up-m$. It is true at tree level where ${\cal G}^{-1}_{ra}=
up-m$. So let us assume that ${\cal G}_{ra}(p)=\bar{\cal G}_{ra}(up-m)$. Then
\begin{equation}
  {\cal J}(p) = -ie^2U^2 \pint4k \frac1{uk} G_{21}(k) \bar{\cal G}_{ra}(up-m-uk),
\end{equation}
implying ${\cal J}(p)=\bar{\cal J}(up-m)$. Equation \eqref{eq:master} tells us that
if ${\cal J}$ depends only on $up-m$, then ${\cal G}_{ra}$ also depends only on
$up-m$. With this statement the recursion is closed.

Since in the BN model the free photon propagator is exact, we shall
write it into eq. \eqref{eq:JJ}. Using \eqref{eq:id1} for the $G_{21}$
propagator, and applying the Landau prescription ($w\to w+i\varepsilon$) we
find
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:JJ2}
  \bar{\cal J}(w) = e^2U^2 \pint4k \frac1{uk}\, (1+n(k_0)) \frac{2\pi}{2k}
  (\delta(k_0-k) - \delta(k_0+k))\, \bar{\cal G}_{ra}(w-uk).
\end{equation}
This result, as we shall show in Section \ref{sec:disc}, is consistent
with the results of \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}.

The $k$ integration can be performed, apart from the single component
$q=ku$. We find after a straightforward calculation:
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:bJJ}
  \bar{\cal J}(w) = \frac{-\alpha}{\pi} \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty
  \!dq\,f(q,u)\, \bar{\cal G}_{ra}(w-q),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = e^2/(4\pi)$ and
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:fqu}
  f(q,u) = \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}
  \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)}\!\frac{ds}{us^2}\, (1+n(\frac qs))
  = \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2vq\beta} \ln\frac {e^{\beta q/(u_0(1-v))}-1}
  {e^{\beta q/(u_0(1+v))}-1},
\end{equation}
where $u=u_0(1,\mathbf{v})$ and $v=|\mathbf{v}|$ (i.e. $\mathbf{v}$ is
the velocity $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{u}/u_0$).

At zero temperature $f(q)=\Theta(q)$. At $v=0$ we find
\begin{equation}
  f(q,\bm u=0) = 1+n(q).
\end{equation}

\subsection{Renormalization}
\label{sec:ren}

In \eqref{eq:bJJ} we find ultraviolet (UV) divergences. From the
expression of $f(q,u)$ (eq. \eqref{eq:fqu}) we see that for large
momenta the thermal distribution functions always decrease
exponentially, thus yielding UV finite result. So all the UV
singularity is in the $T=0$ part, discussed already in
\cite{Jakovac:2011aa}.

To apply the renormalized treatment at finite temperature, we recall
some results from \cite{Jakovac:2011aa}. At $T=0$ \eqref{eq:bJJ} can
be written in spectral representation and with dimensional
regularization as
\begin{equation}
  \bar{\cal J}_0(w) = \frac{-\alpha}\pi \int\limits_0^\infty
  \!dq\,\bar{\cal G}_{ra}(w-q) = \frac{\alpha}\pi
  \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\! \frac{d w'}{2\pi}\, \bar\rh( w')
  \int\limits_0^\infty \!dq\,\frac1{q+ w'-w-i\varepsilon} =
  \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\!
  \frac{d w'}{2\pi}\, \bar\rh( w') \left[{\cal D}_\varepsilon
    -\ln\frac{ w'-w-i\varepsilon}{\mu} \right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
  {\cal D}_\varepsilon =\frac1{2\varepsilon} + \frac12\ln(4\pi) +\frac12 P_{1/2}
\end{equation}
($P_{1/2}=-1.96351$ is the value of the polygamma function with
$0,1/2$ arguments).

As we discussed in \cite{Jakovac:2011aa}, the divergent term is
necessary for the coupling constant and wave function
renormalization. We can write, assuming normalizability of $\bar\rh$
\begin{equation}
  \bar\zeta(w) = \frac{1+\bar{\cal J}(w)}Z = \frac{\displaystyle
    \frac{4\pi^2}{e_0^2}+ {\cal D}_\varepsilon +\bar{\cal J}_{fin}(w)}{\displaystyle
    \frac{4\pi^2Z}{e_0^2}},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\cal J}_{fin}(w)$ is finite. We introduce
\begin{equation}
  \frac{4\pi^2}{e_0^2} + {\cal D}_\varepsilon= \frac{4\pi^2}{e^2},\qquad
  \frac{4\pi^2Z}{e_0^2} = \frac{4\pi^2z_r}{e^2},
\end{equation}
where $z_r$ and $e$ now are finite (renormalized) values. Using
renormalization group invariance we can write for the complete finite
temperature contribution
\begin{equation}
  \bar\zeta(w) = \frac{\bar e^2}{4\pi^2}
  \left[\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\! \frac{d w'}{2\pi}\,
    \bar\rh( w') \ln\frac\Lambda{ w'-w-i\varepsilon} -
    \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \!dq\,(f(q,u)-\Theta(q))\,
    \bar{\cal G}_{ra}(w-q) \right],
\end{equation}
where $\bar e$ is a RG invariant coupling,
$\Lambda=\mu\exp(\frac{4\pi^2}{e^2})$ is the momentum scale of the
Landau-pole. The derivative of the first term reads
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:Iw}
  I(w)=\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\! \frac{d w'}{2\pi}\,
    \bar\rh( w') \ln\frac\Lambda{ w'-w-i\varepsilon},\quad
  I'(w)=-\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\! \frac{d w'}{2\pi}\,
  \frac{\bar\rh( w')}{w- w'+i\varepsilon} = -\bar{\cal G}_{ra}(w).
\end{equation}
The imaginary part of $I(w)$ term is zero for $w<0$, moreover for
$w=0$ it is negative (at least for large $\Lambda$), while for
$w\to-\infty$ it is positive. So there exists a value $w=-M$ for which
it is zero. Then we can write:
\begin{equation}
  I(w) =-\int\limits_{-M}^w \!dq\, \bar{\cal G}_{ra}(q).
\end{equation}
The scale $M$ replaces the scale $\Lambda$. Assuming that $M\gg T$ we
can change the integration limits to $-M\to M$ in the second part,
too. Then we find
\begin{equation}
  \bar\zeta(w) = -\frac{\bar e^2}{4\pi^2} \int \!dq\,f(q,u)\, \bar{\cal G}(w-q),
\end{equation}
where the integral symbol means $\int=\int_{-M}^M$. If it does not cause
problem, we will send $M\to\infty$. The zero temperature part is the
same as in our earlier publication \cite{Jakovac:2011aa}.

Summarizing, the renormalized equation reads now:
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:renbG}
  w \bar{\cal G}(w) = -\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int \!dq\,f(q,u)\, \bar{\cal G}(w-q),
\end{equation}
where $f(q,u)$ is given by \eqref{eq:fqu}. Since this equation is
linear, the same will be true for the spectral function (with
different normalization conditions)
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:renbrh}
  w \bar\rh(w) = -\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int \!dq\,f(q,u)\, \bar\rh(w-q),
\end{equation}

\subsection{Zero velocity case}
\label{sec:u0}

For $v=0,\, u_0=1$ we find for \eqref{eq:renbrh}
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:unullcase}
  w \bar\rh(w) = -\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int \!dq\, (1+n(q)) \bar\rh(w-q).
\end{equation}
By sending the limits of the integration to infinity, we realize that
the right hand side is a convolution. Therefore we change to Fourier
space where it becomes a product, and the left hand side will be
$i\d_ t\bar\rh(t)$. Using the Fourier transform of $1+n(q)$
\begin{equation}
  \pintz w e^{-iw  t} \frac{e^{\beta w}}{e^{\beta w}-1} =
  \frac{-iT}{2\tanh(\pi  t T)}
\end{equation}
we obtain the differential equation
\begin{equation}
  i\d_ t \bar\rh( t) = \frac{iT\alpha}{\tanh(\pi  t T)}\bar\rh( t).
\end{equation}
This has the following solution:
\begin{equation}\label{u0}
  \bar\rh( t) = \bar\rh_0 \left(\sinh\pi t T \right)^{\alpha/\pi}.
\end{equation}

Before we proceed, we shall discuss this result. First we can easily
recover the $T=0$ result, since for $t\ll \frac1T$ the $\sinh$
function can be approximated linearly, and we get $\bar\rh(t)\sim
t^{\alpha/\pi}$. On the other hand this result is rather weird, it
describes forever increasing correlation instead the physically
sensible loss of correlation. Since this happens also at zero
temperature, this is not an artifact of the finite temperature
calculation. In accordance with Blaizot and Iancu
\cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}, we should not consider this
expression as the physical response function. Mathematically we can
argue that we are not in the physically sensible analytic domain, the
time dependent spectral function is not square-integrable for a real
$\alpha$ value, as it should. We must therefore go over to the
physical analytic domain, where the Fourier-transformation is well
defined.

For the analytic continuation we think equation \eqref{u0} valid as
long as it yields sensible formulae, which is the case of
\emph{imaginary} $\alpha$ values. With this assumption the spectral
function in the Fourier space will be an analytic function in
$\alpha$. For real $\alpha$ values the spectral function will be
interpreted as an analytic continuation. We will see that it indeed
provides sensible results.

To perform the inverse Fourier transformation we apply Laplace
transformation. With $s_\pm=\pm iw$ we find
\begin{equation}
  \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \!dt\, e^{iw t} \bar\rh(t) =
  \int\limits_0^\infty \!dt\, e^{-s_- t} \bar\rh(t) +
  \int\limits_0^\infty \!dt\, e^{-s_+ t} \bar\rh(-t) = \bar\rh_+(s_-) +
  (-1)^{\alpha/\pi}\bar\rh_+(s_+),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
  \bar\rh_+(s) = \int\limits_0^\infty \!dt\, e^{-st} \left(\sinh\pi t T
  \right)^{\alpha/\pi} = \frac{\displaystyle \Gamma\left(1+
      \frac\alpha\pi \right)}{\displaystyle 2^{1+\alpha/\pi}\pi T}\; \frac
  {\displaystyle \Gamma\left(\frac {\beta s}{2\pi}
      -\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\right)} {\displaystyle \Gamma\left(1+\frac
      {\beta s}{2\pi} +\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Since the $\Gamma$-function satisfies
$\Gamma(1-z)\Gamma(z)=\pi/{\sin\pi z}$, we can write with $s=\pm iw$:
\begin{equation}
  \left.\frac{\displaystyle \Gamma\left(\frac {\beta s}{2\pi}
      -\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\right)} {\displaystyle \Gamma\left(1+\frac
      {\beta s}{2\pi} +\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\right)}\right|_{s=\pm i w} =
  \frac {-\pi} {\displaystyle \left|\Gamma\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} +
        i\frac {\beta w}{2\pi}\right)\right|^2
    \sin\left(\frac{\alpha}{2} \mp i \frac {\beta w}{2}\right) }.
\end{equation}
Then we get for the spectral function
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:exactsol}
  \bar\rh(w) = \frac{\displaystyle N_\alpha \beta \sin\alpha\,e^{\beta w/2}}
  {\displaystyle\cosh(\beta w)-\cos\alpha}\, \frac 1{\displaystyle
    \left|\Gamma\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} + i\frac {\beta
          w}{2\pi}\right)\right|^2},
\end{equation}
where $N_\alpha$ is a numerically determined normalization constant
required by the sum rule
\begin{equation}
  \pintz w \bar\rh(w)=1
\end{equation}
to be satisfied. On Fig.~\ref{fig:exactsol} we can see the shape of
the spectral function for different $\alpha$ values and for different
temperatures.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \hspace*{-2em}
  \hbox to \hsize{
    \hfill\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{exact_alphadep}
    \hspace*{2em}
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{exact_Tdep}
    \hfill}
  \hbox to \hsize{\hspace*{0.27\textwidth} a.) \hspace*{0.43\textwidth}b.)\hfill}
  \caption{a.) The exact, normalized spectral function at $v=0$. Common
    features are the dominantly exponential decrease for
    $w\to-\infty$, power-law decrease $\sim w^{-1-\alpha/\pi}$ for
    $w\to\infty$ and at the peak a finite curvature $\sim \alpha$. b.)
    Temperature dependence of the spectral function at $v=0$. In the
    limit $T\to0$ it is singular at $w=0$ point.}
  \label{fig:exactsol}
\end{figure}

To discuss this result we make the following observations:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bar\rh(w)$ is a function of $\beta w$ only, which is
  understandable, since there is no other scale in the system which
  could form a dimensionless combination.
\item For $\alpha\to 0$, we find
  \begin{equation}
    \frac{\displaystyle e^{\beta w/2} \sin\alpha}
    {\displaystyle\cosh(\beta w)-\cos\alpha}\to 2\pi\delta(w),
  \end{equation}
  so we recover the free case. It is interesting, that this
  behavior periodically returns for $\alpha=2\pi n$.
\item For large values of $w$ which is equivalent to the small
  temperature case we can use the asymptotic form of the $\Gamma$
  function for complex arguments with large absolute value:
  \begin{equation}
    \Gamma(x) =e^{-x}x^x \left(x^{-1/2} +{\cal O}(x^{-3/2})\right).
  \end{equation}
  Then we find, up to normalization factors
  \begin{equation}
    \bar\rh(\beta w\gg1) \sim \frac{\displaystyle e^{\beta w}}
    {\cosh(\beta w)}\, \frac 1{w^{1+\frac\alpha\pi}}\;
    \stackrel{T\to0}{\longrightarrow}\; \Theta(w) w^{-1-\frac\alpha\pi}.
  \end{equation}
  This is the well-known exact solution by Bloch and Nordsieck at zero
  temperature. Note that the $\Theta$ function came out correctly from
  the formula. At finite but small temperatures, for negative
  arguments we observe exponential decrease.

  This form also shows how at zero temperature we obtain zero wave
  function renormalization factor. The normalization factor
  (c.f. \eqref{eq:exactsol}) is proportional to $\beta$, while the
  asymptotic form is $(\beta w)^{-1-\frac\alpha\pi}$. Then approaching
  zero temperature we obtain $T^{\frac\alpha\pi}
  w^{-1-\frac\alpha\pi}$, which means a renormalization factor
  vanishing as $\sim T^{\frac\alpha\pi}$ for $T\to0$.

\item Now let us consider the $w\to0$ limit, i.e. the vicinity of the
  mass shell. We can expand $\bar\rh$ into power series
  \begin{equation}
     \bar\rh(w) = \frac{4\bar\rh(0)C T^2}{\displaystyle(w-CT)^2 +
       \left(\frac4C-1\right) C^2T^2 +{\cal O}(w^3)},
  \end{equation}
  where
  \begin{equation}
    \frac1C=\frac12 + \frac{2}{1-\cos\alpha} + \frac1{\pi^2}
    \Psi^2(1+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}),
  \end{equation}
  and $\Psi(a)$ is the digamma function. The maximum of this function
  is at $CT$, the width is $CT \sqrt{4C^{-1}-1}$. Since, however, the
  function is not symmetric, these parameters cannot be interpreted as
  a thermal mass and thermal width. For that we need to examine the
  real time dependence.

\item For the real time dependence we use the fact that, according to
  \eqref{eq:exactsol}, $\varrho(p) = \beta f_0(\beta (p_0-m))$, which
  means that $\varrho(t) = e^{-i m t} \tilde f_0(Tt)$. Omitting the
  oscillating phase (i.e. if we consider the envelope of $\varrho(t)$),
  we recover the Fourier transform of $f_0$.

  The real time dependence obtained from the inverse Fourier
  transformation of \eqref{eq:exactsol} differs from \eqref{u0}. This
  is because we performed an analytic continuation to the physically
  sensible analytic domain. The numerical inverse Fourier
  transform of the normalized spectral function (and, because
  $iG_{ra}(t)=\Theta(t)\varrho(t)$, for $t>0$ this is also the real time
  dependence of the retarded Green's function) can be seen on
  Fig.~\ref{fig:timedep}.
  \begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{timedep_all}
    \caption{Time dependence of the (envelope of the) retarded Green's
      function (or, equivalently, the spectral function) for $v=0$ at
      $\alpha=0.5$ on a logarithmic y-scale. For small times we find
      $1-A(Tt)^{\alpha/\pi}$, corresponding to the zero temperature time
      dependence. For large times it turns into an exponential
      $\exp(-\alpha Tt)$ damping.}
    \label{fig:timedep}
  \end{figure}

  At small times we expect to recover the zero temperature
  result. Indeed, we observe $\bar\rh(t) =
  (1-A(Tt)^{\alpha/\pi})e^{-imt}$ asymptotic form (for $\alpha=0.5$
  this is valid up to $Tt<0.4$), the power law time dependence is
  characteristic to the zero temperature result. At $t=0$ the value of
  the spectral function is 1, this is because of normalization. Note
  however, that naively at zero temperature we would obtain $\sim
  t^{\alpha/\pi}e^{-imt}$ time dependence, describing growth of
  correlation and violating the normalization condition. Interpreting
  the zero temperature result as $T\to 0$ limit, we could cure this
  apparent inconsistency of the model. At strictly $T=0$ we get back
  the physically sensible oscillating solution $\varrho(t) = e^{-imt}$.

  For large times (for $tT>1$) the time dependence is $\sim e^{-\alpha
    Tt}$, which agrees with
  \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}. Comparing it to \eqref{u0} we
  see that instead of an exponential rise we found an exponential
  decay, but with the same coefficient. This can be understood by
  noting that if we have a pole at $w=w_0$ in the momentum space,
  meaning $e^{-iw_0 t}$ exponential time dependence, this pole is
  present in the spectral function in position $w_0^*$, too. The
  physical retarded Green's function can have poles in the lower half
  plane, therefore we find in our case only the $w_0=-i\alpha T$ pole,
  giving exponential damping.
\end{itemize}

For the justification of the analytic continuation we also used a
different method. We expanded the $t$-dependent result \eqref{u0} into
power series using
\begin{equation}
  (\sinh x)^{\alpha/\pi} = \left(\frac12\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{\pi}}
  \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \left[ \Theta(x) (-1)^k {\frac{\alpha}{\pi}
      \choose k} e^{x(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}-k)} e^{-xk} + \Theta(-x)
    (-1)^{\frac{\alpha}{\pi}-k} {\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \choose k}
    e^{-x(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}-k)} e^{xk}\right]
\end{equation}
Now the inverse Fourier transformation acts on a pure exponential
function. We use the formula
\begin{equation}
  \int\limits_0^\infty\!dt\,e^{\pm iw t - s t} =
  \frac1{s\mp iw}
\end{equation}
which is true, of course, if $s>0$, but this is the formula for the
analytic continuation, too. Then the result of the Fourier
transformation, with appropriate normalization to ensure reality of
$\varrho$:
\begin{equation}
  \varrho(w) \sim \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} (-1)^k
  {\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \choose k} \left[
    \frac{(-1)^{-\alpha/2\pi}}{s_k+iw} +
    \frac{(-1)^{\alpha/2\pi}}{s_k-iw}\right],
\end{equation}
where $s_k=\pi T(2k-\alpha/\pi)$. Using the $(-1)^{\alpha/2\pi} =
\cos\frac\alpha2 + i \sin\frac\alpha2$ definition we find after a
simple calculation
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:spectseries}
  \varrho(w) \sim \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} (-1)^k
  {\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \choose k} \frac{s_k (1+\cos\alpha) -
    w\sin\alpha}{s_k^2+w^2},\qquad s_k=\pi
  T(2k-\frac\alpha\pi).
\end{equation}
The sum converges fast, and we can compare the result of the two
calculations on Fig.~\ref{fig:u0spect}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{comp_alph05}
  \caption{Comparison of the logarithm spectral function at $\alpha=0.5$
    calculated from eq. \eqref{eq:exactsol} and from
    eq. \eqref{eq:spectseries}. The two results agree well.}
  \label{fig:u0spect}
\end{figure}
We can see that the two methods of analytic continuation yield
consistent result in the central peak regime. To understand the small
deviations at the edges, we remark that if $\alpha$ is real then
$\bar\rh(t=0)=0$ (c.f. \eqref{u0}). In Fourier space this means $\int dw
\bar\rh(w)=0$, therefore it can not be positive for all momenta. Using
the second method, the position where the spectral function turns into
negative values is, fortunately, at large $|w/T|$ values, therefore
the peak is unaffected. The only precursor of the sign changing is the
slight decrease at the edges of the plot. In our first method we
started from imaginary $\alpha$ values, where
$\lim\limits_{t\to0}\bar\rh(t)=\bar\rh_0\neq0$, then the normalization does
not require negative values for $\bar\rh(w)$.

\subsection{Finite velocity case}
\label{sec:ufin}

If $v\neq0$ we find for eq. \eqref{eq:renbrh} using \eqref{eq:fqu} the
following formula
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:finu0}
  w \bar\rh(w) = -\frac{\alpha}{\pi}  \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}\!\!\!
  \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)}\!\!\!\frac{ds}{s^2}\, \int \!dq\,
  (1+n(\frac qs)) \,\bar\rh(w-q).
\end{equation}
The right hand side is again a convolution, and formally we can use
the same method as in the $v=0$ case. We find
\begin{equation}
  \d_ t \bar\rh( t) = \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}\!\!\!
  \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)} \!\!\! \frac{ds}{s^2}\,
  \frac{Ts}{\tanh(\pi  t Ts)}\bar\rh( t)
\end{equation}
which has the solution
\begin{equation}
  \label{u1}
  {\bar\rh( t)} = \bar\rh(0)\exp\left[ \frac{\alpha}{\pi}
    \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}\!\!\! \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)}
    \!\!\! \frac{ds}{s^2}\, \ln(\sinh\pi t Ts)\right].
\end{equation}
We cannot perform analytically neither the integral, nor its Fourier
transform. But we can determine many features by investigating the
$t\to0$ and $t\to\infty$ limits.

\begin{subsubsection}{The limit $t\rightarrow 0 $}

Since $\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow 0} \sinh\pi t Ts=\pi tTs$:
\begin{equation}
  \lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}\!\!\!
  \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)} \!\!\! \frac{ds}{s^2}\,
  \ln(\sinh\pi t Ts) = \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}\!\!\!
  \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)} \!\!\!\frac{ds}{s}\, \ln
  \pi tTs= \ln \pi Tt+\text{const.},
\end{equation}
where the constant comes from the integral of $s^{-2}\ln s$. Being a
finite quantity, it goes into the normalization. After exponentiation
we find
\begin{equation}
  \bar\rh( t)\sim (Tt)^{\alpha/\pi},
\end{equation}
which is the zero temperature result. So, as we expected the short
time or large frequency regime reproduces the zero temperature case,
and thus it is velocity-independent.

\end{subsubsection}

\begin{subsubsection}{The limit $t\rightarrow \infty $}

Here the $\sinh$ can be approximated by the exponential, and so
\begin{equation}
  \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\ln \sinh\pi Tts =\pi Tts-\ln2
\end{equation}
The $\ln2$ yields a constant factor which goes into the
normalization. The rest gives, including the prefactors
\begin{equation}
  \alpha T t \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v}\!\!\! \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)}
  \!\!\!\frac{ds}s  =  \alpha_{eff}(u) Tt,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:alphaeff}
  \alpha_{eff}(u)=\alpha \frac{u_0(1-v^2)}{2v} \ln
  \left(\frac{1+v}{1-v}\right).
\end{equation}
From this form we obtain for the spectral function in the asymptotic limit:
\begin{equation}
  \bar\rh( t)=Ce^{\alpha_{eff}(u)Tt}.
\end{equation}
We can easily check that $\lim\limits_{v\to0} \alpha_{eff}(u)=\alpha$.
Therefore the $v\to0$ limit is analytic.

Since in the asymptotic time regime we simply get the substitution
rule $\alpha\to\alpha_{eff}(u)$ as compared to the $v=0$ case, the
analysis of the vicinity of the peak of the spectral function, and the
large time dependence will remain valid in the finite velocity case,
too, with a modified value of the coupling. In particular, since
$\alpha_{eff}(u)<\alpha$, we obtain a smaller damping, larger lifetime
for $v>0$ cases. Physically this property is the consequence of the
decreasing cross section at larger energies.
\end{subsubsection}

\begin{subsubsection}{Solution for $t\in(0,\infty)$}

  For intermediate times we could not work out analytically the
  integral. Nevertheless, we have a well-controlled numerical method
  to find the spectral function, once the analytic behavior for large
  $t$ is identified. We express the wanted $\bar\rh_u(t)$ as a product of
  the known $\bar\rh_{u=0}(t;\alpha_{eff})$ and a correction factor
\begin{equation}
  \bar\rh(t)\sim Z(t)\bar\rh_{u=0}(t;\alpha_{eff}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
  Z(t)\equiv \frac{\displaystyle \exp\left[\frac{\alpha
          u_0(1-v^2)}{2\pi v}\!\!\! \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)}
        \!\!\! \frac{ds}{s^2} \ln(\sinh\pi t Ts)\right]
    }{\displaystyle (\sinh\pi T t)^{\frac{\alpha_{eff}(u)}{\pi}}}.
\end{equation}
After a short algebra we find
\begin{equation}
  Z(t)=\exp\left\{  \frac{\alpha u_0(1-v^2)}{2\pi v}\!\!\!
    \int\limits_{u_0(1-v)}^{u_0(1+v)} \!\!\!\frac{ds}{s^2}
    \ln\frac{\sinh\pi Tts}{(\sinh\pi Tt)^s}\right\}.
\end{equation}
The so-defined ratio is symmetric $Z(t)=Z(-t)$. For small $t$
arguments it behaves as $Z(t)\sim
(Tt)^{\frac{\alpha-\alpha_{eff}(u)}{\pi}}$ and, since
$\alpha\geqq\alpha_{eff}(u)$, we also know $Z(t=0)=0$. At large $t$ we
find $\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}Z(t)=1$. We can determine it
numerically, for a specific $v$ it can be seen on Fig.~\ref{fig:Zfunct}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Zfunct}
  \caption{The $Z(t)$ function on a logarithmic plot. For small times
    it is a power, for larger times it flattens out.}
  \label{fig:Zfunct}
\end{figure}

We can numerically Fourier transform $Z(t)$, and perform a convolution
in the Fourier space with the $\bar\rh_{v=0}(w)$ function
\eqref{u0}. This ensures that we use the same analytic continuation
for the different velocity cases. As a result we obtain
Fig.~\ref{fig:vdep}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \hbox to \hsize{
    \hfill\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{vdep}
    \hspace*{2em}
    \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{vdep_log}
    \hfill}
  \hbox to \hsize{\hspace*{0.27\textwidth} a.)
    \hspace*{0.43\textwidth}b.)\hfill}
  \caption{Velocity dependence of the spectral function for
    $\alpha=0.5$. The $\eta$ values are rapidities, $v=\tanh\eta$. a.)
  is a linear-linear plot to show that the peak region becomes more
  and more peaked with increasing $\eta$ ($v$). The log-log plot
  demonstrates that the asymptotics remain the same.}
  \label{fig:vdep}
\end{figure}
We can observe that the peak becomes narrower for larger velocities,
corresponding to the decreasing $\alpha_{eff}$ value. At large
momentum the asymptotics is the same for all velocities (for a given
$\alpha$), because the zero temperature result is insensitive
to the value of $v$.

Here again we can work out the real time dependence. We now write
$\varrho_u(p)= u_0 \beta f_u(\beta(p_0 u_0-\mathbf{pu}-m))$ and find
\begin{equation}
  \varrho_u(t)= e^{-i \mathbf{vp}t - imt/u_0} \tilde f_u(\frac{tT}{u_0}).
\end{equation}
The result of the numerical inverse Fourier transform can be seen on
Fig.~\ref{fig:timedepv}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{timedep_v}
  \caption{Comparison of the real time dependence of the retarded
    Green's function (or, equivalently, the spectral function) for zero
    and finite velocity at $\alpha=0.5$ on logarithmic y scale. The
    small time behavior does not change, at large times the
    exponential damping turns to $\exp(-\alpha_{eff}(u) Tt)$.}
  \label{fig:timedepv}
\end{figure}
At small times the spectral function (retarded Green's function) is
velocity independent, this is the zero temperature asymptotics. For
large times (for $Tt>1$) the time dependence turns into $\sim
e^{-\alpha_{eff}(u) Tt}$.
\end{subsubsection}

\subsection{Discussion of earlier results}
\label{sec:disc}

We can compare our results to the earlier results in the literature.
The long time asymptotics of the finite temperature solution of the
Bloch-Nordsieck model was already discussed in
\cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}. They followed a different,
functional approach. Still, the two methods lead to the same
intermediate result. Neglecting renormalization effects (which is
treated later in Ref.\ \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}), our
eq. \eqref{eq:master} together with \eqref{eq:JJ2} yields, using the
notation $w=up-m$
\begin{equation}
  w {\cal G}_{ra}(w) = e^2U^2 \pint4k \frac1{uk}\, (1+n(k_0)) \bar\varrho(k)\,
  \bar{\cal G}_{ra}(w-uk),
\end{equation}
where $\bar\varrho(k)=\frac{2\pi}{2k} (\delta(k_0-k) - \delta(k_0+k))$ is
the photon spectral function. After Fourier-transformation we find
exponentiation of the real time contributions
\begin{equation}
  {\cal G}_{ra}(t) = {\cal G}_{ra}(t=0) e^{F(t)},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
  F(t) = -e^2U^2 \pint4k (1+n(k_0)) \bar\varrho(k)\,\frac{1-e^{-iukt}}
  {(uk)^2} = -it\Phi_0 + it\Phi(t) + \ln\Delta(t),
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_0$, $\Phi(t)$ and $\ln\Delta(t)$ are real quantities,
corresponding to the notation of \cite{IancuBlaizot2}. Using $U^2=1$
this means
\begin{eqnarray}
  && \Phi(t) = -e^2 \pint4k \frac{\bar\varrho(k)}{uk} \left[ 1- \frac{\sin
      ukt}{ukt}\right] \nonumber\\
  && \Phi_0 = -e^2 \pint4k \frac{\bar\varrho(k)}{uk} \nonumber\\
  && \Delta = \exp\left\{-e^2 \pint4k n(k_0) \bar\varrho(k)\,\frac{1-\cos ukt}
  {(uk)^2}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
These expressions agree with the equations (2.24) and (2.25) of
\cite{IancuBlaizot2} (the constant phase $\Phi_0$ has no physical
meaning).

The analysis of this formula, however, differs in our case and in
\cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}. We strictly restrict ourselves to
the original Bloch-Nordsieck model, and used the free photon spectral
function. In Ref.\ \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2} the authors used
HTL-improved photon spectral function (cf. their eq. (3.1) and
(3.2)). As it turns out, the most important contribution comes from
the small frequency limit of the continuum (Landau damping) part. This
explains why the asymptotic time behavior differs in our case and in
the case of Ref.\ \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2} (
$\exp(-\alpha_{eff}(v)Tt)$ vs. $\exp(-C t \log t)$ ).

In Ref.\ \cite{Fried:2008tb} Fried \emph{et.\@ al.\@} use again a
different formalism. Since they examine a different physical
situation, the comparison is much more difficult. What is clear,
however, that they also use the original version of the model, and
also find exponentially damping solution.

It is very interesting that in \cite{Wang:2000via} the authors found
the same $\exp(-\alpha T t \log t)$ like solution as was the case in
Ref.\ \cite{IancuBlaizot1,IancuBlaizot2}, although with a different
line of thought. They use the dynamical renormalization group idea
\cite{Boyanovsky:1999cy}, where the secular terms are melted into
finite time dependence of the renormalized parameters. Clearly they
cannot consider all photonic diagrams, just those which contribute to
the renormalization group (RG) equations. The logarithmic enhancement
of the damping there can be interpreted physically as an eternally
growing cross section of the incoming hard particle which collects
more and more soft photons around itself. The analysis of the pure
Bloch-Nordsieck model results in a finite damping, which means that in
this model the initial growth of the cross section eventually stops,
the soft photon cloud saturates. The physical interpretation of the
saturation probably is that the multi-photon contributions arriving
from different spacetime points become incoherent.

The two scenarios, one with ever growing photon cloud, the other with
saturation, are both approximations of the real QED (RG, HTL and free
photon approximations, respectively). The question that which one is
finally manifested in QED, can be answered only after a full analysis
of the complete QED where all these effects are present.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:concl}

In this paper we studied the Bloch-Nordsieck model at finite
temperature, in particular we studied the fermionic spectral
function. We used the strategy introduced in \cite{Jakovac:2011aa}
which is based on the Dyson-Schwinger equations, where the infinite
hierarchy is closed by using the Ward identities for the vertex
function. We worked out the corresponding equations at finite
temperature in the real time formalism, and solved them. This
procedure is exact in the Bloch-Nordsieck model.

At zero velocity we were able to obtain fully analytic results for the
spectral function. For large momenta and/or zero temperature this
formula agrees with the zero temperature result. At finite temperature
there appears an asymmetric peak which decreases exponentially below
the mass shell ($u^\mu p_\mu <m$) and as a power law above the mass
shell ($u^\mu p_\mu >m$).

We also worked out the real time dependence which has two
characteristic regime. For small times, starting from its initial
value, it behaves as a power law $\bar\rh(t) =
(1-A(Tt)^{\alpha/\pi})e^{-imt}$, where $A$ depends on $\alpha$. The
naive zero temperature calculation yields $\sim
t^{\alpha/\pi}e^{-imt}$ time dependence which is not normalizable and
corresponds to a physically hardly interpretable forever growing
retarded response function. With the finite temperature as a regulator,
we could interpret the zero temperature result, and we got a
physically sensible purely oscillating response function.

For large times we find exponential damping. The damping rate is
$\alpha_{eff}(u)T$, where the effective coupling $\alpha_{eff}(u)$ is
given in \eqref{eq:alphaeff}. The damping is smaller, the lifetime is
longer for larger velocities, which physically can be interpreted as
the consequence of decreasing cross sections. We remark that the
damping in the pure Bloch-Nordsieck model differs from the one with
HTL-improved photon propagator; in this latter case one finds a
faster-than-exponential damping with an exponent $\sim-t\ln t$.

We expect that the method we worked out for the Bloch-Nordsieck model
can be applied, as an approximation scheme, also for the full
QED. Hopefully the renormalizability of the resummation will remain
true, too.

\begin{acknowledgments}
  The authors acknowledge useful discussions with K. Homma,
  M. Horv\'ath, G. Mark\'o, A. Patk\'os, U. Reinosa and
  Zs. Sz\'ep. The project was supported by the Hungarian National Fund
  OTKA-K68108 and OTKA-K104292 and the New Sz\'echenyi Plan (Project
  no. T\'AMOP-4.2.2.B-10/1--2010-0009). Feynman diagrams were drawn by
  JaxoDraw program.
\end{acknowledgments}