text:
# Ground state properties of a one-dimensional condensate of hard core bosons in a harmonic trap

## I Introduction

Recent advances in atom de Broglie waveguide technology  and its potential applicability to atom interferometry  and integrated atom optics  create a need for accurate theoretical modelling of such systems in the low temperature, tight waveguide regime where transverse excitations are frozen out and the quantum dynamics becomes essentially one-dimensional (1D). It has been shown by Olshanii , and also recently by Petrov et al. , that at sufficiently low temperatures, densities and large positive scattering length, a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) in a thin cigar-shaped trap has dynamics which approach those of a 1D gas of hard core, or impenetrable, point bosons. This is a model for which the exact many-body energy eigensolutions were found in 1960 using an exact mapping from the Hilbert space of energy eigenstates of an ideal gas of fictitious spinless fermions to that of many-body eigenstates of hard core, and therefore strongly interacting, bosons . In this limit there are strong short-range pair correlations which are omitted in the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) approximation. In the absence of a trap potential it is known  that the occupation of the lowest orbital is of order $`\sqrt{N}`$ where $`N`$ is the total number of atoms, in contrast to $`N`$ for the ideal Bose gas and GP approximation. Nevertheless, this system exhibits some BEC-like behavior such as Talbot recurrences following an optical lattice pulse  and dark soliton-like behavior in response to a phase-imprinting pulse .

The case of harmonically trapped, hard core bosons in 1D is more relevant to recent atom waveguide experiments . The spatial density profile of the single-particle density is expressible in closed form, and has recently been shown  to be well approximated by a modified 1D effective field theory, although we have recently shown in a numerically accurate time-dependent calculation  that spatial interference of separated and recombined condensates is much weaker than that predicted by the corresponding time-dependent mean field theory . Although the Fermi-Bose mapping theorem  implies that all physical properties expressible in terms of spatial configurational probabilities are the same for the actual bosonic system and the fictitious ”spinless fermion” system used for the mapping, the momentum distribution of the bosonic system, or more generally its occupation distribution over the relevant orbitals for a given geometry, is very different in the bosonic system. It is known  that for a spatially uniform system of hard core bosons in 1D, the momentum distribution is strongly peaked in the neighborhood of zero momentum, whereas that of the corresponding Fermi system is merely a filled Fermi sea. In the case of hard core bosons in a 1D harmonic trap, it is an interesting and previously unanswered question whether the system undergoes true BEC or merely an attenuated one such as that in the uniform system. Ketterle and Van Druten  have shown that true BEC occurs for a finite number of atoms in a 1D harmonic oscillator (HO) for an ideal gas. We examine the question for hard core bosons in a 1D HO by using the Fermi-Bose mapping theorem to generate the exact many-body ground state. The most fundamental definition of BEC and the condensate orbital is based on the large distance behavior of the one-particle reduced density matrix $`\rho _1(x,x^{})`$. If off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) is present and hence the largest eigenvalue of $`\rho _1`$ is macroscopic (proportional to $`N`$) then the system is said to exhibit true BEC and the corresponding eigenfunction, the condensate orbital, plays the role of an order parameter . Although the precise definition of ODLRO requires a thermodynamic limit not strictly applicable to mesoscopic traps, the GP approximation assumes from the start that ODLRO and macroscopic occupation of a single orbital are good approximations in a trap, so examination of this assumption in the Olshanii limit  is important. In the remainder of this paper we shall determine the many-body ground state and its salient features, including the one-particle reduced density matrix and its eigenvalues (occupation number distribution function) and eigenfunctions (natural orbitals), as well as the momentum distribution function.

## II Exact ground state wave function

The Hamiltonian of N bosons in a 1D harmonic trap is

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2}{x_j^2}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2x_j^2\right].$$
(1)
We assume that the two-body interaction potential consists only of a hard core of 1D diameter $`a`$. This is conveniently treated as a constraint on allowed wave functions $`\psi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ such that

$$\psi =0\text{if}|x_jx_k|<a,1j<kN,$$
(2)
rather than as an infinite interaction potential. It follows from the Fermi-Bose mapping theorem  that the exact N-boson ground state $`\psi _{B0}`$ of the Hamiltonian (1) with the constraint (2) is

$$\psi _{B0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=|\psi _{F0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)|,$$
(3)
where $`\psi _{F0}`$ is the ground state of a fictitious system of $`N`$ spinless fermions with the same Hamiltonian (1) and constraint. At low densities it is sufficient  to consider the case of impenetrable point particles, the zero-range limit $`a0`$ of (2). Since wave functions of ”spinless fermions” are antisymmetric under coordinate exchanges, their wave functions vanish automatically whenever any $`x_j=x_k`$, the constraint has no effect, and the corresponding fermionic ground state is the ground state of the ideal gas of fermions, a Slater determinant of the lowest $`N`$ single-particle eigenfunctions $`\varphi _n`$ of the harmonic oscillator (HO)

$$\psi _{F0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}\underset{(n,j)=(0,1)}{\overset{(N1,N)}{det}}\varphi _n(x_j).$$
(4)
The HO orbitals are

$$\phi _n(x)=\frac{1}{\pi ^{1/4}x_{osc}^{1/2}\sqrt{2^nn!}}e^{Q^2/2}H_n(Q)$$
(5)
with $`H_n(Q)`$ the Hermite polynomials and $`Q=x/x_{osc},x_{osc}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega }`$ being the ground state width of the harmonic trap for a single atom. By factoring the Gaussians out of the determinant and carrying out elementary row and column operations, one can cancel all terms in each $`H_n`$ except the one of highest degree, with the result

$`\underset{(n,j)=(0,1)}{\overset{(N1,N)}{det}}H_n(x_j)`$ $`=`$ $`2^{N(N1)/2}\underset{(n,j)=(0,1)}{\overset{(N1,N)}{det}}(x_j)^n`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`2^{N(N1)/2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j<kN}{}}(x_kx_j)`$ (7)
Substitution into (3) then yields a simple but exact analytical expression of Bijl-Jastrow pair product form for the $`N`$-boson ground state:

$$\psi _{B0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=C_N\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{Q_i^2/2}\right]\underset{1j<kN}{}|x_kx_j|$$
(8)
with $`Q_i=x_i/x_{osc}`$ and normalization constant

$$C_N=2^{N(N1)/4}\left(\frac{1}{x_{osc}}\right)^{N/2}\left[N!\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}n!\sqrt{\pi }\right]^{1/2}.$$
(9)
It is interesting to note the strong similarity between this exact 1D $`N`$-boson wave function and the famous Laughlin variational wave function of the 2D ground state for the quantized fractional Hall effect , as well as the closely-related wave functions for bosons with weak repulsive delta-function interactions in a harmonic trap in 2D found recently by Smith and Wilkin .

## III Ground state properties

In this section we numerically evaluate the ground state properties of a 1D condensate of $`N`$ hard core bosons in a harmonic trap using the exact many-body wave function of the previous section.

### A Single particle density and pair distribution function

Both the single particle density and pair distribution function depend only on the absolute square of the many-body wave function, and since $`|\psi _{B0}|^2=|\psi _{F0}|^2`$ they reduce to standard ideal Fermi gas expressions. The single particle density, normalized to $`N`$, is

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle |\psi _{B0}(x,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)|^2𝑑x_2\mathrm{}𝑑x_N}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}|\phi _n(x)|^2`$ (11)
We shall not exhibit it here since it has recently been calculated by Kolomeisky et al. ; see also our recent discussion of the time-dependent case . The pair distribution function, normalized to $`N(N1)`$, is

$`D(x_1,x_2)=N(N1){\displaystyle |\psi _{B0}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)|^2𝑑x_3\mathrm{}𝑑x_N}`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{0n<n^{}N1}{}}|\phi _n(x_1)\phi _n^{}(x_2)\phi _n(x_2)\phi _n^{}(x_1)|^2`$ (13)
Physically, the pair distribution function is the joint probability density that if one atom is measured at $`x_1`$ then a second measurement immediately following the first finds an atom at $`x_2`$. Noting that terms with $`n=n^{}`$, which vanish by antisymmetry, can be formally added to the summation (9), one can rewrite the pair distribution function in terms of the single particle density and a correlation function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$`D(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (x_1)\rho (x_2)|\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1,x_2)|^2`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\phi _n^{}(x_1)\phi _n(x_2)`$ (15)
Although the Hermite polynomials have disappeared from the expression (7) for the many-body wave function, they reappear upon integrating $`|\psi _{B0}|^2`$ over $`(N1)`$ coordinates to get the single particle density $`\rho (x)`$ and over $`(N2)`$ to get the pair distribution function $`D(x_1,x_2)`$, and the expressions in terms of the HO orbitals $`\phi _n`$ are the most convenient for evaluation.

Figure 1 shows a gray scale plot of the dimensionless pair distribution function $`x_{osc}^2D(Q_1,Q_2)`$ versus the normalized coordinates $`Q_{1,2}=x_{1,2}/x_{osc}`$ for a) $`N=2`$, b) $`N=6`$, and c) $`N=10`$. Some qualitative features of the pair distribution function are apparent: In the first place it follows either from the original expression (9) or from Eqs. (8) and (10) that $`D(x_1,x_2)`$ vanishes at contact $`x_1=x_2`$, as it must because of impenetrability of the particles, and we see this to be true in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the correlation term $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1,x_2)`$ is a truncated closure sum and approaches the Dirac delta function $`\delta (x_1x_2)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, as is to be expected since the healing length in a spatially uniform 1D hard core Bose gas varies inversely with particle number . As a result the width of the null around the diagonal $`Q_1=Q_2`$ decreases with increasing $`N`$, and vanishes in the limit. Away from the diagonal along $`Q_2=Q_1`$ the pair distribution function rises, exhibits modulations for $`N>2`$, due to the oscillatory nature of the HO orbitals, before decreasing back to zero at large distances. For $`|x_1x_2|`$ much larger than the healing length, $`D`$ reduces to the uncorrelated density product $`\rho (x_1)\rho (x_2)`$, so the spatial extent of the pair distribution function is that of the density and varies as $`N^{1/2}`$ .

### B Reduced single-particle density matrix

The reduced single-particle density matrix with normalization $`\rho _1(x,x)𝑑x=N`$ is given by

$`\rho _1(x,x^{})=N{\displaystyle \psi _{B0}(x,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)}`$ (16)
$`\times \psi _{B0}(x^{},x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)dx_2\mathrm{}dx_N`$ (17)
$`=𝒩_Ne^{Q^2/2}e^{(Q^{})^2/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}e^{Q_i^2}|Q_iQ||Q_iQ^{}|}`$ (18)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \underset{2j<kN}{}}(Q_kQ_j)^2]dQ_2\mathrm{}dQ_N,`$ (19)
with

$$𝒩_N=N2^{N(N1)/2}x_{osc}^1\left[N!\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}n!\sqrt{\pi }\right]^1.$$
(20)
Although the multi-dimensional integral (19) cannot be evaluated analytically, it can be evaluated numerically by Monte Carlo integration for not too large values of $`N`$ (the computing time scales as $`N^4`$). Figure 2 shows a gray scale plot of the dimensionless reduced single-particle density matrix $`x_{osc}\rho _1(Q,Q^{})`$ versus the normalized coordinates $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ for a) $`N=2`$, b) $`N=6`$, and c) $`N=10`$. We verified that along the diagonal $`\rho _1(Q,Q^{}=Q)=\rho (Q)`$ reproduced the single-particle density . The off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix relate to ODLRO, and it is clear that as $`N`$ increases the off-diagonal elements are decreasing in contrast to the diagonal. This is a first indication that ODLRO vanishes for a system of hard core bosons in a 1D HO in the thermodynamic limit.

### C ODLRO, natural orbitals and their occupation

In a macroscopic system, the presence or absence of BEC is determined by the behavior of $`\rho _1(x,x^{})`$ as $`|xx^{}|\mathrm{}`$. Off-diagonal long-range order is present if the largest eigenvalue of $`\rho _1`$ is macroscopic (proportional to $`N`$), in which case the system exhibits BEC and the corresponding eigenfunction, the condensate orbital, plays the role of an order parameter . Although this criterion is not strictly applicable to mesoscopic systems, if the largest eigenvalue of $`\rho _1`$ is much larger than one then it is reasonable to expect that the system will exhibit some BEC-like coherence effects. Thus we examine here the spectrum of eigenvalues $`\lambda _j`$ and associated eigenfunctions $`\varphi _j(x)`$ (“natural orbitals”) of $`\rho _1`$. Although natural orbitals are a much-used tool in theoretical chemistry, they have only recently been applied to mesoscopic atomic condensates . The relevant eigensystem equation is

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\rho _1(x,x^{})\varphi _j(x^{})𝑑x^{}=\lambda _j\varphi _j(x)$$
(21)
$`\lambda _j`$ represents the occupation of the orbital $`\varphi _j`$, and one has $`_j\lambda _j=N`$. Numerical evaluation of the integral (13) by discretization yields a readily-solved matrix eigensystem equation which yields accurate numerical results for the largest eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors. In Fig. 3(a) we show a log-log plot of the fractional occupation of the lowest orbital $`f_0=\lambda _0/N`$ versus the total particle number $`N`$ (solid line), along with a best fit power-law $`f_0N^{0.41}`$ (dashed line). This is to be contrasted with the case of a spatially uniform system of hard core bosons for which $`f_0N^{0.5}`$ . In both cases the fractional occupation decreases with increasing $`N`$, and thus do not correspond to true condensates for which $`f_0=1`$. Nevertheless, the occupation of the lowest orbital may still be large $`\lambda _0N^{0.59}`$, and is larger than the spatially uniform case $`\lambda _0N^{0.5}`$, so macroscopic quantum coherence effects reminiscent of BEC can still result .

Figure 3(b) shows the distribution of occupations $`\lambda _j`$ versus orbital number $`j`$ (the orbitals are ordered according to eigenvalue magnitude, the largest eigenvalue being $`j=0`$) for $`N=2`$ (circles), $`N=6`$ (stars), and $`N=10`$ (squares). This figure shows that as the lowest orbital occupation $`\lambda _0`$ increases with increasing $`N`$ so does the range of significantly occupied higher-order orbitals with $`j>0`$. This means that the dominance of the lowest orbital decreases with increasing $`N`$, so singling out $`\varphi _0(x)`$ as a macroscopic wave function for the whole system becomes more problematic with increasing $`N`$ .

The numerically computed lowest orbitals $`\varphi _0(Q)`$ are shown in Fig 4 for a) $`N=2`$, b) $`N=6`$, and c) $`N=10`$, and they show the expected broadening due to many-body repulsion as $`N`$ increases. We remark that these lowest orbitals are not simply the square root of the corresponding single-particle densities $`\rho (Q)`$  as would be the case for a true condensate. Figure 5 shows the higher order orbitals $`\varphi _j(Q)`$ versus $`Q`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$ and $`N=10`$. Although the higher-order orbitals differ in detail from the HO orbitals they share the features that the orbitals can be chosen real by removal of an overall phase, and that the $`j^{th}`$ orbital has $`j`$ zeros.

## IV Momentum distribution

For a spatially uniform system (no trap) the natural orbitals are plane waves, so the occupation distribution of the natural orbitals is the same as the momentum distribution. Although this is not the case here due to the effect of the harmonic trap potential, the momentum distribution is still physically important, so we study it here. In terms of the boson annihilation and creation operators in position representation (quantized Bose field operators) the one-particle reduced density matrix is

$$\rho _1(x,x^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_{B0}|\widehat{\psi }^{}(x^{})\widehat{\psi }(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{B0}$$
(22)
The momentum distribution function $`n(k)`$, normalized to $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}n(k)𝑑k=N`$ , is $`n(k)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{B0}|\widehat{a}^{}(k)\widehat{a}(k)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{B0}`$ where $`\widehat{a}(k)`$ is the annihilation operator for a boson with momentum $`\mathrm{}k`$. Then

$$n(k)=(2\pi )^1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^{}\rho _1(x,x^{})e^{ik(xx^{})}$$
(23)
The spectral representation of the density matrix then leads to $`n(k)=_j\lambda _j|\mu _j(k)|^2`$ where the $`\mu _j`$ are Fourier transforms of the natural orbitals: $`\mu _j(k)=(2\pi )^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _n(x)e^{ikx}𝑑x`$ . Figure 6 shows the numerically calculated dimensionless momentum spectrum $`k_{osc}n(\kappa )`$ versus normalized momentum $`\kappa =k/k_{osc}`$, with $`k_{osc}=2\pi /x_{osc}`$, for a) $`N=2`$, b) $`N=6`$, and c) $`N=10`$. The key features are that the momentum spectrum maintains the sharp peaked structure reminiscent of the spatially uniform case  for the 1D HO, and that the peak becomes sharper with increasing atom number $`N`$. This is to be expected since as the number of atoms increase the many-body repulsion causes the system to become more spatially uniform within the trap interior.

## V Summary and conclusions

In summary, we have investigated the ground state properties of a system of hard core bosons in a 1D HO using the exact many-body wave function obtained using the Fermi-Bose mapping theorem. Specifically, we have numerically evaluated the reduced single-particle density matrix for the system using Monte-Carlo integration for particle numbers up to $`N=10`$, and extracted several quantities of physical significance, including the natural orbitals and momentum spectrum. Our main finding is that the lowest orbital occupation scales as $`\lambda _0N^{0.59}`$, so that the system does not exhibit true BEC, counter to the case of an ideal gas in a 1D HO . Furthermore, this makes the introduction of an order-parameter or macroscopic wave function for the whole system more problematic for large $`N`$. We have started to seek analytic approaches to derive the observed scaling of the lowest orbital with particle with no success so far. We hope that these numerical results may motivate others to approach this challenging problem.

This work was supported by Office of Naval Research grant N00014-99-1-0806.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6


format: text

text:
# Quantum Dynamics of the Slow Rollover Transition in the Linear Delta Expansion

## 1 Introduction

Inflationary models of the early Universe rely on the slow evolution of an inflaton field $`\phi `$ from the initial unstable vacuum state in which $`\phi =0`$ to the final stable vacuum in which $`\phi =\pm a`$, say. The effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\phi _c)`$ giving rise to this transition has the generic form of a gentle hill centred at $`\phi _c=0`$ with minima at $`\phi _c=\pm a`$.

The transition can be discussed at various levels of sophistication. At the most naïve level one can think classically in terms of a ball rolling slowly down the slope of the potential. The corresponding quantum-mechanical problem, which is the subject of the present paper, is the time-development of a state whose wave function is initially concentrated around the position of the maximum of the potential. The full treatment of the problem must, of course, be formulated within the framework of quantum field theory.

The first treatment of the quantum mechanical problem was given by Guth and Pi , who solved exactly the equation of motion for an initial Gaussian wave-function in an upside-down harmonic oscillator potential $`V=\frac{1}{2}kx^2`$. This was followed by a paper by Cooper et al. , who used a Gaussian ansatz in the Dirac time-dependent variational principle for the standard symmetry-breaking potential $`V=\lambda (x^2a^2)^2/24`$. The resulting “Hartree-Fock” solution tracks the exact solution for a short time, but departs from it before the time at which $`x^2`$ reaches its first maximum. Several years later Cheetham and Copeland  went beyond the Gaussian approximation by using an ansatz which included a second-order Hermite polynomial. This represented an improvement on the Hartree-Fock approximation, but still did not reproduce the first maximum in $`x^2`$ of the exact wave-function.

In the present paper we tackle this problem afresh using the linear delta expansion. This is a method akin to perturbation theory, but with the crucial difference that the form of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is not fixed once and for all, but varied at each order in the expansion by some well-defined criterion. The role of the formal parameter $`\delta `$ is simply to keep track of the order of the expansion. The method has the great advantage that its generalization to field theory is straightforward. We are motivated to apply it to this dynamical problem by its success with the static properties of the anharmonic oscillator, where it can be proved rigorously that it converges to the exact result when applied to the finite-temperature partition function and the energy levels.

The relevant Hamiltonian ($`\mathrm{}=1`$) is

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+\lambda (x^2a^2)^2/24+const.`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2x^2+gx^4,`$ (3)
with $`m^2=\lambda a^2/6`$ and $`g=\lambda /24`$, which we split according to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{x^2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\mu ^2x^2+\delta g(x^4\rho x^2),$$
(4)
where $`2g\rho =m^2\mu ^2`$. That is, we choose as bare mass term $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\mu ^2x^2`$. The sign of the term as well as the value of $`\mu `$ will be determined as functions of $`t`$ after the perturbative expansion has been carried out to a given order (at which stage $`\delta `$ is set equal to 1) by the criterion of minimal sensitivity (PMS) , namely that

$$\frac{x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\mu }=0.$$
(5)
Note that for either sign of the new mass term, $`\mu `$ has a limited range. In case (i), when the mass term is $`\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2`$, we have $`2g\rho =m^2\mu ^2`$. The essence of the delta expansion is that the extra term $`g\rho x^2`$ in the interaction should compensate as far as possible the original term $`gx^4`$, which means that $`\rho `$ should be positive. Hence we require that $`\mu ^2<m^2`$. In case (ii), when the mass term is $`+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2`$, the same restriction will arise from the form of the zeroth-order solution and the initial wave-function.

## 2 Delta Expansion

The two cases need to be treated separately. Which of them is relevant at a given value of $`t`$ is determined by the PMS criterion.

### 2.1 Case (i)

In this case the bare Hamiltonian is

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{x^2}\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2x^2$$
(6)
It is useful to scale $`x`$ according to $`x=y/\sqrt{\mu }`$, so that

$$H_0=\frac{\mu }{2}\left(\frac{^2}{y^2}+y^2\right).$$
(7)
Given that the initial wave-function is a Gaussian of the form $`\psi (t=0)=A\mathrm{exp}(By^2)`$, the zeroth-order equation of motion $`H_0\psi _0=i\psi _0/t`$ can be solved exactly by a wave-function of the same form with $`A`$ and $`B`$ becoming functions of $`t`$. The equations they have to satisfy are

$`i\dot{B}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2B^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (8)
$`i\dot{A}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`AB,`$ (9)
with solutions

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tan}(\eta _0i\mu t)`$ (10)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩\left(\mathrm{cos}(\eta _0i\mu t)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (11)
where $`\eta _0`$ is determined by $`B(t=0)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}\eta _0`$ and the normalization constant $`𝒩`$ by $`A(t=0)=𝒩\left(\mathrm{cos}\eta _0\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. This is precisely the solution of Guth and Pi for the upside-down oscillator, with $`m`$ replaced by $`\mu `$.

To obtain a systematic perturbative expansion in powers of $`\delta `$ it is useful to write $`\psi =\phi \mathrm{exp}(B(t)y^2)`$. The equation for $`\phi `$ is then

$$i\dot{\phi }=\mu \left[B\phi +2By\phi ^{}\frac{1}{2}\phi ^{\prime \prime }+\delta \stackrel{~}{g}(y^4\stackrel{~}{\rho }y^2)\right],$$
(12)
where we have scaled $`g`$ and $`\rho `$ according to $`g=\mu ^3\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{\rho }/\mu `$.

A general feature of perturbative expansions for a polynomial potential of degree $`p`$ is that $`\phi `$ is also a polynomial, of degree $`Np`$ in $`N`$th order of the expansion. Thus in the present case, expanding $`\phi `$ as $`\phi =\delta ^n\phi _n`$, the first-order part $`\phi _1`$ is an (even) polynomial of degree 4, which we write as $`\phi _1=a+by^2+cy^4`$. The equations of motion for the coefficients $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are

$`i\dot{a}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`Bab`$ (13)
$`i\dot{b}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`5Bb6c\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{g}A`$ (14)
$`i\dot{c}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`9Bc+\stackrel{~}{g}A,`$ (15)
which can be solved successively in reverse order, using the solutions for $`A`$ and $`B`$ previously determined. The initial conditions at $`t=0`$ are $`a=b=c=0`$. Thus $`c`$ is given by

$$c=\frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}𝒩/8}{(\mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{\theta })^{9/2}}\left\{3\stackrel{~}{\theta }+2\mathrm{sinh}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sinh}4\stackrel{~}{\theta }c_0\right\},$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\mu t+i\eta _0`$ and $`c_0=3i\eta _0+2i\mathrm{sin}2\eta _0+(i/4)\mathrm{sin}4\eta _0.`$

Using this solution in the equation for $`b`$ we obtain

$$b=\frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}𝒩}{(\mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{\theta })^{5/2}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sinh}2\stackrel{~}{\theta })+b_0+\frac{3i}{4}\left[3\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{tanh}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\mathrm{cosh}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }c_0\mathrm{tanh}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\right]\right\},$$
(17)
where

$$b_0=\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\eta _0+\frac{i}{4}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\mathrm{sin}2\eta _0+\frac{9i}{4}\eta _0\mathrm{tan}\eta _0\frac{3}{4}c_0\mathrm{tan}\eta _0\frac{3i}{4}\mathrm{cos}^2\eta _0.$$

Finally, using this solution in the equation for $`a`$ we obtain

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}𝒩}{(\mathrm{cosh}\stackrel{~}{\theta })^{1/2}}}\{`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{tanh}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+b_0\mathrm{tanh}\stackrel{~}{\theta }a_0`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4}}[3({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{sech}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}\stackrel{~}{\theta })+\stackrel{~}{\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_0\mathrm{sech}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }]\},`$ (19)
where

$$a_0=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\eta _0\mathrm{tan}\eta _0+ib_0\mathrm{tan}\eta _0+\frac{3}{4}i\left[\frac{3}{2}\left(i\eta _0\mathrm{sec}^2\eta _0+i\mathrm{tan}\eta _0\right)+i\eta _0+\frac{1}{2}c_0\mathrm{sec}^2\eta _0\right].$$

### 2.2 Case (ii)

The zeroth-order equations in this case are

$`i\dot{B}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2B^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (20)
$`i\dot{A}/\mu `$ $`=`$ $`AB,`$ (21)
with solutions

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{coth}(\eta _0+i\mu t)`$ (22)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩(\mathrm{sinh}(\eta _0+i\mu t))^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (23)
As mentioned in the Introduction, the restriction on $`\mu `$ in this case comes from the form of $`B(t=0)`$ and the form of the initial wave-function, which, in all the papers quoted, is taken as a minimal wave-packet appropriate to a positive mass term $`+\frac{1}{2}m^2x^2`$. In the present formulation this means that $`B(t=0)=(1/2)(m/\mu )`$. But since $`B(t=0)=(1/2)\mathrm{coth}\eta _0<1/2`$, we have the same restriction on $`\mu `$, namely $`\mu <m`$, as in Case (i).

The first-order equations for $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are identical in form to Eq. (13), but the driving terms $`A`$ and $`B`$ are now different.

The solution for $`c`$ is now

$$c=\frac{i\stackrel{~}{g}𝒩/8}{(i\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta })^{9/2}}\left\{3\stackrel{~}{\theta }2\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}4\stackrel{~}{\theta }c_0\right\}$$
(24)
where $`c_0=3i\eta _0+2i\mathrm{sinh}2\eta _0(i/4)\mathrm{sinh}4\eta _0`$ and in this case $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\mu ti\eta _0`$.

Using this solution in the equation for $`b`$ we obtain

$$b=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}𝒩}{(i\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta })^{5/2}}\left\{\frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{\theta }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta })+b_0\frac{3}{4}\left[3\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+\mathrm{cos}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }+c_0\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\right]\right\},$$
(25)
where

$$b_0=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\eta _0\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\mathrm{sinh}2\eta _0\frac{9}{4}\eta _0\mathrm{coth}\eta _0+\frac{3i}{4}c_0\mathrm{coth}\eta _0+\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{cosh}^2\eta _0.$$

Finally, using this solution in the equation for $`a`$ we obtain

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}𝒩}{(i\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta })^{1/2}}}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+ib_0\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\theta }+a_0`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\mathrm{cosec}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_0\mathrm{cosec}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }]\},`$ (27)
where

$$a_0=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\eta _0\mathrm{coth}\eta _0b_0\mathrm{coth}\eta _0\frac{3}{4}\left[\frac{3}{2}\eta _0\mathrm{cosech}^2\eta _0+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}\eta _0+\eta _0\frac{i}{2}c_0\mathrm{cosech}^2\eta _0\right].$$

We have checked these solutions by numerical integration using the Runge-Kutta method. This reveals that in Case (ii) care needs to be taken to ensure that we are on the appropriate branch of the square roots. At values of $`t`$ where $`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }=1`$, a naïve numerical evaluation will stay on the first sheet, thus giving rise to a discontinuity, whereas the true solution is, of course, continuous.

In fact, as we shall see, the coefficient $`a`$ is not needed in the calculation of $`x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ to first order in $`\delta `$, though it would, of course, be needed in higher order.

## 3 Variational Aspect

The expressions we have obtained all depend on the parameter $`\mu `$ introduced in Eq. (4). The other essential aspect of the delta expansion is that such a parameter is determined by some non-perturbative criterion, most frequently the principle of minimal sensitivity, Eq. (5).

To that end we need an expression for $`x^2`$, which, given that the wave-function is a (complex) Gaussian with polynomial corrections, can be written down in closed form in terms of the coefficients $`A,B,a,b,c`$. Thus to order $`\delta `$,

$$|\psi |^2=\left[|A|^2+2\delta \mathrm{Re}\left\{A^{}(a+by^2+cy^4)\right\}\right]\mathrm{e}^{\alpha y^2},$$
(28)
where $`\alpha =2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}B`$, so that

$`y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(2\delta /|A^2|)\mathrm{Re}\left\{A^{}(a+3b/(2\alpha )+15c/(4\alpha ^2))\right\}}{1+(2\delta /|A^2|)\mathrm{Re}\left\{A^{}(a+b/(2\alpha )+3c/(4\alpha ^2))\right\}}}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{|A^2|}}\mathrm{Re}\left\{A^{}({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{3c}{\alpha ^2}})\right\}\right].`$ (31)
It is an interesting feature of the structure of the perturbative equations that the wave-function is automatically normalized to the order we are working. That is, $`\phi _0^{}\phi _1=0`$. Thus the second equation is identical to the first, and not merely an O($`\delta `$) approximation to it. The expectation value we seek is obtained on scaling by $`\mu `$, i.e. $`x^2=y^2/\mu `$.

At this stage we set $`\delta =1`$ and apply Eq. (5). This has to be done for each time $`t`$, and the result is that the chosen value $`\overline{\mu }`$ of $`\mu `$ now becomes a function of $`t`$, even though $`\mu `$ was treated as a constant in the equations of motion. In the present case, since we are unable to go to very high orders in the expansion this is a more important property than the $`N`$-dependence of $`\overline{\mu }`$. The O($`\delta ^0`$) calculation does not have such a stationary point.

In Fig. 1 we show graphs of $`x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ for various values of $`t`$. The parameters chosen are those used in Refs.  and , namely $`a=5`$ and $`\lambda =0.01`$ (which corresponds to a “large” dimensionless coupling contant). We include both cases by plotting $`x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ as a function of $`\sigma \mu `$, where $`\sigma =1`$ for case (i) and +1 for case (ii). There is a well-defined maximum which moves steadily to the right as $`t`$ increases, crossing over from case (i) to case (ii) at about $`t=11`$. From these and similar graphs we extract the value of $`\overline{\mu }(t)`$, which is plotted in Fig. 2.

Using these values of $`\overline{\mu }(t)`$ we can then calculate $`x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\mu }(t),t)`$ from Eq. (29) as a function of $`t`$. This is plotted in Fig. 3 along with the results obtained using the “Hartree-Fock” method of Ref. , the improved variational method of Ref. , the exact value of $`x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)`$, obtained by Fourier transform and numerical integration, and finally the result of first-order perturbation theory. The latter corresponds to O($`\delta `$) of the delta expansion, but with $`\mu `$ fixed at $`m`$ in case (i), and exemplifies the importance of the $`t`$-dependence of $`\overline{\mu }`$.

As can be seen, the delta-expansion result tracks the exact result for longer than either of the other variational calculations, essentially up to the point where $`x^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ reaches its maximum, but then overshoots. A similar degree of accuracy in quantum field theory would mean that, to this order of the expansion, the inflationary period would be very well described, but the reheating process less so. To extend the range of the approximation to longer times a higher-order calculation would presumably be needed

## 4 Discussion

Figure 3 is our main result, but it is also of interest to enquire how closely the calculated wave-function agrees with the exact result, since a well-known feature of variational methods is that quite reasonable values for expectation values such as $`x^2`$ can be obtained with rather inaccurate wave-functions. In fact our wave-function agrees rather well with the true wave-function up to $`t6`$, but begins to diverge from it thereafter, even though still giving good values for $`x^2`$. In Fig. 4 we plot the two values of $`|\psi |^2`$ versus $`x`$ for $`t=6`$ and 8.

Various extensions of the present treatment are possible. Given the simplicity of the first-order equations resulting from the method it seems that the extension to $`\mathrm{O}(\delta ^2)`$ should be relatively straightforward, certainly if the integrations are performed numerically, and it would be interesting to see the improvement thereby achieved. As mentioned earlier, the wave-function would involve an even polynomial of order 8 multiplying the lowest-order Gaussian. Another possibility is the use of the original delta expansion, whereby the $`x^4`$ term in the potential is written as $`x^{2(1+\delta )}`$ and expanded as $`x^2(1+\delta \mathrm{ln}x^2+\mathrm{})`$. This expansion is known to converge for the energy levels of the anharmonic oscillator, and the $`\mathrm{O}(\delta )`$ calculation for the present problem should be tractable. However, the disadvantage of this method is that its extension to field theory beyond first order becomes extremely difficult.

The most important extension is clearly to attempt to apply the methodology of the linear delta expansion to the quantum field theory problem. The importance of going beyond the Gaussian approximation has been emphasized in refs.  and , and technically the linear delta expansion is essentially a modified perturbation theory, modulo the crucial variational aspect.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to F. Lombardo for extremely useful discussions, and D. Monteoliva for making available the code for the exact solution. P. Parkin and D. Winder gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Yang–Mills theory has become the  candidate theory of strong interactions in the seventies. This confidence is based on asymptotic freedom and the validity of perturbation theory at short distances. The long distance/strong coupling regime of this theory, however, defies a sufficient understanding until now. More precisely, there are now several competing models well established on the lattice to incorporate the low energy properties of this theory. In particular, the origin of such an distinguishing feature of strong interactions like quark confinement is still under debate. One of the mechanisms, the center vortex picture will play a prominent rôle in this paper. Our main concern, however, is the intermediate region where the operator product expansion (OPE) is a reliable scheme to describe the onset of non–perturbative physics. We will point out the existence, in $`SU(2)`$ lattice gluon dynamics, of an alternative center vortex structure which has a good chance to explain the nature of the gluon condensate, the most important parameter of the OPE.

Relatively early in the history of QCD, ’t Hooft  has pointed out that choosing a particular gauge might be useful to identify the agents of confinement. In certain Abelian gauges , which allow for a residual $`U(1)`$ gauge degree of freedom, the Yang–Mills ground state appears as a dual superconductor  where color–magnetic monopoles of quantized charge play a rôle analogous to Cooper pairs in a superconductor. After the search for monopole excitations in the lattice vacua of non–Abelian gauge theory (via Abelian projection) has started in the late eighties , the demonstration of monopole condensation, necessary to generate confinement through a dual Meissner effect, followed in the nineties  (for a caveat see ). This was demonstrated by evaluating the “disorder parameter” of confinement. Monopole condensation was observed for different Abelian gauges .

The idea that vortex free energies might serve as an order parameter for confinement was born at the end of the seventies. It dates back to another pioneering work by ’t Hooft  and simultaneous work by Aharonov et al.  and was recently confirmed by a numerical investigation . Yoneya  and Mack al.  were the first to construct $`Z(N)`$ topological degrees of freedom from gauge invariant variables and pointed out that the so–called center vortices play an important role for the confinement of quarks. Basically, these vortices are defined by the property that they contribute a non–trivial center element $`z_\alpha 1`$ (among the $`N_{\mathrm{color}}`$–th roots of unity) to the Wilson loop if they are non–trivially linked to the latter. Random fluctuations of the vortices provide the area law for the Wilson loop, the signature of confinement .

A revival of the vortex picture arose with the construction of the $`P`$–vortices on the lattice which could be defined after choosing the so–called maximal center gauge (MCG)  and separating out the center elements from the other lattice degrees of freedom, in this case by center projection. For the acceptance of the $`P`$–vortices as physical objects, it was essential that evidence could be presented that they are sensible degrees of freedom in the continuum limit : the area density of the $`P`$–vortices as well as their binary interactions properly extrapolate to the continuum . Moreover, the $`P`$–vortex picture of the Yang–Mills ground state also gives an appealing explanation for the finite temperature deconfinement phase transition of Yang–Mills theory  as the breakdown of vortex percolation.

Subsequently, it turned out that center projection even without previous gauge fixing reproduces the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ potential, also at short distances, a finding which has somewhat obscured the relevance of the $`P`$–vortices for forming the string tension . Moreover, in this case it was observed that other properties of the corresponding vortices (rather than the purely topological features) strongly depend on the bare lattice coupling constant (i.e. the lattice spacing), in a way that made it cumbersome to give a continuum interpretation of the apparent vortex degrees of freedom . Thus, center projection without appropriate gauge fixing seems not to be the right way to avoid the apparent deficiency of the need to find an appropriate gauge, to fight with the corresponding technical Gribov problem etc.

Above, vortices and the center degrees of freedom were discussed exclusively under the aspect of confinement. There is a general opinion that the true confiners are random magnetic fluxes which have some transversal extendedness (thick vortices) . The maximal center projection (after MCG fixing) however, ends up with a type of $`Z(2)`$ gauge field configuration whose vortices (thin or $`P`$–vortices) live on the lattice scale $`a`$ and are meant to localize the thick vortices.

In the present paper we are going to identify another vortex structure related to the underlying $`Z(2)`$ degrees of freedom which is connected with the non–perturbative dynamics at short distances. In a loose sense, the $`SO(3)`$ cooling method we are proposing serves to separate, among the $`P`$–vortices exhibited by center projection, those $`P`$–vortices which in fact represent extended vortices of small non–Abelian action (supported by the $`SO(3)`$ part of the gauge field) referred to as $`SO(3)`$ vortices, from the real scale $`a`$ vortices residing in the $`Z(2)`$ part of the gauge group. Only the first ones are in the position to condense and are relevant for confinement. Restricting cooling to a finite ratio of $`SO(3)`$ action density to the string tension $`\sigma ^2`$, a residual confining force can be defined in a lattice–scale independent way such that the string tension is conserved only outside a certain cooling radius and $`SO(3)`$ vortices with a thickness smaller than this radius are wiped out. Infinite cooling leaves us with the scale $`a`$ (thin) $`Z(2)`$ vortex component alone.

This seems to be a good starting point to establish a connection between the $`Z(2)`$ gauge field content of $`SU(2)`$ lattice gluon dynamics and the gluon condensate which (at least in the real world of $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory) is an important parameter of particle phenomenology. A large body of knowledge on low energy properties (resonance physics) and high energy scattering is incorporated in the gluon condensate and its short range, non–local structure. In the case of the hadronic spectral function approaching intermediate distances the operator product expansion (OPE)  for the current–current correlators was the first systematic framework to take into account the non–trivial structure of the vacuum. In this approach, non–perturbative properties of the Yang–Mills (or QCD) vacuum are parameterized by so–called condensates the values of which are fitted to the experimental hadron correlators .

In this paper, we will demonstrate the viability of a new, gauge independent method to separate low from high energy $`SO(3)`$ degrees of freedom and to suppress high energy gluons. This method exhibits a gauge independent $`Z(2)`$ center vortex content of the $`SU(2)`$ vacuum, different from the well–known $`P`$–vortex structure discovered by center projection. We propose that the gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex component accounts for the average energy density after the gluon radiation is subtracted. For this purpose, we will propose cooling with respect to the $`SO(3)\widehat{=}SU(2)/Z(2)`$ action. This kind of cooling eliminates the $`SO(3)`$ part of the links which we will refer to in the following as gluons. We find that the $`SU(2)`$ configurations, asymptotically emerging from the $`SO(3)`$ cooling procedure can be considered as configurations of an effective $`Z(2)`$ gauge model embedded into $`SU(2)`$. These configurations possess an $`SU(2)`$ action density which properly extrapolates to the continuum limit. We will argue that this action density acquires immediate importance as the mass dimension four condensate figuring in the OPE as gluon condensate.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section we define the new cooling procedure which is based on the $`SU(2)/Z(2)`$ decomposition of the links. Section 3 contains numerical results characterizing the emerging gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture. We show there that these vortices do not contribute to the string tension. However, they do account for the gluon condensate as will be shown in section 4. There we also briefly review the operator product approach to hadronic correlators with a special emphasis on Yang–Mills condensates. The $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture contribution to the gluon condensate is obtained there. We consider the positive plaquette model in section 5 focusing on the gluon condensate $`O_4`$ and find that the latter is suppressed by one order of magnitude. Our conclusions are summarized in the final section 6.

## 2 The gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex vacuum texture

### 2.1 Vortices and gluons

Although the problem could be posed also for $`SU(3)`$ gluon dynamics, in this paper, we will concentrate on 4–dimensional pure $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge theory. The partition function

$$Z=𝒟U\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta \underset{p}{}s_p^W\right\},$$
(1)
is a high–dimensional integral over $`SU(2)`$ matrices $`U_l=U_{x,\mu }`$ associated with the links $`l=\{x,\mu \}`$ of the $`L^4`$ lattice. The inverse bare lattice coupling constant $`\beta =4/g^2`$ 111The bare lattice coupling $`\beta `$ should not be confused with the renormalization group $`\beta `$–function $`\overline{\beta }(g)`$. is considered to be running with the lattice spacing $`a`$. Thereby, with $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, convergence can be achieved towards the continuum limit for dimensionful physical quantities, such as masses, temperatures, string tension, condensates (all given in powers of $`a^1`$) which are extracted from expectation values with respect to the measure (1). We use the Wilson action with a density given by

$$s_p^W=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}U_p,$$
(2)
while the full action in (1) is a sum over all plaquettes $`p`$. $`U_p`$ is the usual ordered product $`U_p=𝒫_{lp}U_l`$.

For the following considerations it is useful to introduce, besides the link variable $`U_{x,\mu }SU(2)`$, the adjoint link variable

$$O_{x,\mu }^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left\{U_{x,\mu }\tau ^aU_{x,\mu }^{}\tau ^b\right\}=O^{ab}[A_\mu ^b],\text{ }O_{x,\mu }^{ab}SO(3),$$
(3)
which do not feel the center degrees of freedom of the links. These adjoint links transform under gauge transformations according

$$O_{x,\mu }^\omega =\omega _xO_{x,\mu }\omega _{x+\widehat{\mu }}^T,\text{ }\omega _x^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Omega }_x\tau ^a\mathrm{\Omega }_x^{}\tau ^b\right\}.$$
(4)
Comparing this transformation property with the one of continuum gluon fields, i.e.

$$A_\mu ^a(x)=\omega ^{ab}(x)A_\mu ^b(x)+ϵ^{aef}\omega ^{ec}(x)_\mu \omega ^{fc}(x),$$
(5)
we are led to the identification of the gluon fields as the algebra fields of the adjoint representation, i.e.

$$O_{x,\mu }^{ab}=:\left[\mathrm{exp}\left\{ϵ^fA_\mu ^f(x)a\right\}\right]^{ab},\text{ }\left(ϵ^f\right)^{ac}:=ϵ^{afc},$$
(6)
where $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. Here we here propose to distinguish between the gluon fields which span the SO(3) subgroup and the residual $`Z_2`$ vortex degrees of freedom.

### 2.2 Revealing the $`Z(2)`$–vortex vacuum structure

In order to detect the inherent effective $`Z(2)`$ gauge model structure, we will remove the gluonic (coset) degrees of freedom from $`SU(2)`$ configurations by an appropriate cooling procedure. For this purpose, we define a gluonic action density per link by

$$s_{x,\mu }^{gl}=\underset{\overline{\nu }\pm \mu }{}\left\{1\frac{1}{3}\text{tr}_AO_{x,\mu \overline{\nu }}\right\}=\frac{1}{3}\underset{\overline{\nu }\pm \mu }{}F_{\mu \overline{\nu }}^a[A]F_{\mu \overline{\nu }}^a[A]a^4+𝒪(a^6),$$
(7)
where $`O_{x,\mu \nu }`$ is the plaquette calculated in terms of the $`SO(3)`$ link elements $`O_{x,\mu }`$ (3). The sum over $`\overline{\nu }`$ runs over all forward and backward directions orthogonal to $`\mu `$. $`F_{\mu \nu }^a[A]`$ is the (continuum) field strength of the (continuum) gluon fields $`A_\mu (x)`$ and $`a`$ is the lattice spacing.

The new cooling is performed by reducing the gluonic action, i.e. by minimization of $`s_{x,\mu }^{gl}`$ (7) with respect to the fields $`O_{x,\mu }`$. Inspired by Ref. , we include a kind of self–restriction in our method. Further cooling of the adjoint link $`O_{x\mu }`$ is rejected iff the gluonic action is smaller than some threshold value

$$s_{x,\mu }^{gl}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}\kappa ^4a^4.$$
(8)
Thereby $`\kappa `$ is a gauge invariant cooling scale of mass dimension one. For $`\kappa =0`$, the cooling procedure completely removes the gluon fields from the $`SU(2)`$ lattice configurations leaving only gauge equivalents of $`O_{x,\mu }=1`$. Notice that the standard cooling method (self–restricted or not) minimizes the full $`SU(2)`$ action, thereby affecting center as well as coset degrees of freedom. Another crucial difference to the method in  is that the cooling scale there measures the distance of the lattice configurations from classical solutions (instantons) while in our case the cooling scale constrains the action of the gluon fields.

In practice, the cooling procedure works as follows in the $`SU(2)`$ manifold. The gluonic action density $`s^{gl}`$ (7) can be written in terms of the $`SU(2)`$ fundamental plaquette $`U_{x,\mu \nu }`$, i.e.

$$s_{x,\mu }^{gl}=\frac{4}{3}\underset{\overline{\nu }\pm \mu }{}\left\{1\left(\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}U_{x,\mu \overline{\nu }}\right)^2\right\}.$$
(9)
A local (maximal) cooling step amounts to a replacement of the link $`U_{x\mu }`$ by the cooled variable $`U_{x,\mu }^c`$

$`U_{x,\mu }^c`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\nu }\pm \mu }{}}B_{x,\overline{\nu }\mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{tr}U_{x,\mu \overline{\nu }}\right),`$ (10)
$`B_{x,\overline{\nu }\mu }`$ $`:=`$ $`U_{x,\overline{\nu }}U_{x+\widehat{\overline{\nu }},\mu }U_{x+\widehat{\mu },\overline{\nu }}^{}`$ (11)
where $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier ensuring $`U_{x,\mu }^cU_{x,\mu }^c=1`$. This local cooling step is disregarded iff

$$1\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left[U_{x,\mu }\left(U_{x,\mu }^c\right)^{}\right]<\kappa ^4a^4.$$
(12)
The equations (10-12) define the cooling procedure to be applied in our investigations reported below. Taking into account that the normalization $`\lambda `$ is given by $`\lambda =1/6+𝒪(a^4)`$, the condition (12) agrees with (8) up to order $`𝒪(a^6)`$. One cooling sweep consists of updating once all links of the lattice in sequential order according (10), i.e. $`U_{x,\mu }U_{x,\mu }^c`$. After a finite number of cooling sweeps, the local constraint (12) is satisfied all over the lattice implying that there is no change in the link variables $`U_{x,\mu }^c`$ by further cooling steps. This is how the cooling procedure stops.

### 2.3 Gauge invariance of the texture

This cooling procedure amounts to a minimization of the $`SO(3)`$ action density as far as tolerated by the parameter $`\kappa `$, and brings the $`SU(2)`$ plaquettes as close as possible to $`\pm 1`$. In the limit $`\kappa 0`$, this cooling eliminates the $`SO(3)`$ part of the link variables completely. Hence, the remaining field configuration can be viewed as if generated by an underlying effective $`Z(2)`$ gauge theory. The field configurations of the latter are thin center vortices. Thus, the above cooling procedure extracts, in the limit $`\kappa 0`$, a structure that we call the $`Z(2)`$ center vortex content (“vortex texture”) of a given $`SU(2)`$ lattice configuration. These vortices are given by co–closed manifolds of plaquettes equal to $`1`$ and carry large Wilson action. The standard Wilson action density can be used as a detector for the $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture, even at finite $`\kappa `$. Although the quantity which will be used for identifying the vortices is gauge invariant, one has to make sure that the same vortex structure is obtained by the cooling procedure of subsection 2.2 when two different but gauge equivalent link configurations $`\{U_{x,\mu }^\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$, $`\{U_{x,\mu }\}`$, are analyzed. In order to see this, one firstly notes that the staples $`B_{x,\widehat{\nu }\mu }`$ (11) transform homogeneously, i.e.

$$U_{x,\mu }U_{x,\mu }^\mathrm{\Omega }:\text{ }B_{x,\widehat{\nu }\mu }B_{x,\widehat{\nu }\mu }^\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_xB_{x,\widehat{\nu }\mu }\mathrm{\Omega }_{x+\widehat{\mu }}^{}.$$
(13)
Since the trace of the plaquette is gauge invariant, one finds that the cooled configurations obtained from $`\{U_{x,\mu }^\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$ and $`\{U_{x,\mu }\}`$, respectively, differ by the same gauge transformation

$$U_{x,\mu }U_{x,\mu }^c,\text{ }U_{x,\mu }^\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_xU_{x,\mu }^c\mathrm{\Omega }_{x+\widehat{\mu }}^{}.$$
(14)
The cooling procedure is thus gauge covariant and the distribution of gauge invariant quantities calculated on cooled configurations is independent of which gauge copy of the initial field configuration cooling is applied to.

In summary, the above introduced $`SO(3)`$ cooling facilitates a gauge invariant detection of the $`Z(2)`$ center vortex content of (embedded in) a $`SU(2)`$ lattice configuration. As will become clear in the following, this vortex structure does not coincide with the $`P`$–vortices extracted by center projecting links after MCG fixing. If there is coincidence with part of the latter, this part becomes insignificant in the continuum limit. We mentioned in the Introduction, that in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ the number of (dual plaquettes forming) $`P`$–vortices scales like $`a^2`$ while we will find here that the corresponding number for gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortices scales like $`a^4`$ (for fixed $`\kappa /\sqrt{\sigma }=O(1)`$ and in the limit $`\kappa 0`$). This is because our cooling method also removes thick vortices which have a proper support within the $`SO(3)`$ subgroup. One may speculate that under cooling with respect to the $`SO(3)`$ part of the action, thick vortices disappear by growing in transversal extension. Opposite to this, center projection (after MCG) converts thick vortices into thin ones which can then be detected by a large $`Z(2)`$ action density at single plaquettes. This is the reason why in the following we will call thick, confining vortices also $`SO(3)`$ vortices.

## 3 Numerical results

### 3.1 Clustering of $`SU(2)`$ action

Generally, the results of $`SO(3)`$ cooling depend on the cooling scale $`\kappa `$, given in units of the lattice spacing. In order to express the cooling scale in physical units, we will relate it to the string tension, given also in lattice units. To get this dimensionless ratio, we will adopt the asymptotic scaling law in the 1–loop form

$$\sigma a^2(\beta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.12}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{6\pi ^2}{11}\left(\beta 2.3\right)\right\},\text{ }\beta 2.1,$$
(15)
which fixes the lattice spacing $`a`$ in units of the string tension $`\sigma `$ for large enough $`\beta `$.

In the following, we will employ the trace of the energy momentum tensor $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ to exhibit the vortex structure of the vacuum. In the present case of a $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills theory, this tensor is proportional to the Wilson action density $`s_p^W`$ (2) (see e.g. (25)). We denote the Wilson action carried by an arbitrary plaquette by $`f_2=1\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}U_{x,\mu \nu }`$. Let $`P(f_2)`$ be the corresponding $`1`$–plaquette probability distribution. This distribution is shown in figure 1 where the data come from a simulation on a $`12^4`$ lattice at $`\beta =2.3`$. The peak at small values near $`f_20`$ can be attributed to gluon radiation, which would be eliminated by cooling completely only in the limit $`\kappa /\sqrt{\sigma }0`$. This shows how the constraint (12) allows to control the action contained in the form of gluon radiation. As expected, it decreases with stronger cooling (decreasing energy scale $`\kappa `$). On the other hand, the peak at $`f_22`$ also grows with increasing cooling. This shows that the contribution of the emerging gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture to the total action density becomes more and more important with stronger and stronger cooling. As expected, the $`SU(2)`$ action density concentrates on single plaquettes in the limit $`\kappa 0`$ which are forming the singular vortex vacuum skeleton. Figure 2 shows the space–time distribution of the $`SU(2)`$ action density on a 2–dimensional hypersurface of a generic configuration generated on a $`20^4`$ lattice at $`\beta =2.3`$. In this plot, the black spots correspond to the maximum value of the action density found on this 2–dimensional hypersurface. One clearly observes how $`SO(3)`$ cooling leads to the clustering of action density at points where the $`Z(2)`$ vortices pierce the considered hypersurface.

### 3.2 Does the gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture
contribute to the string tension ?

Let us now investigate the relation between the center vortices of the MCG projection ($`P`$–vortices)  and the gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture which is defined by the $`Z(2)`$ gauge fields remaining after the $`SO(3)`$ cooling described above. The contribution of these $`Z(2)`$ vortices to the string tension is useful to look at. It was established that configurations the links of which were projected onto center elements after MCG fixing – the $`P`$–vortex configurations – reproduce the full string tension $`\sigma `$ to good accuracy (for most recent results, which also cover a discussion of the practical Gribov problem see ).

For comparison, we investigate the static $`Q\overline{Q}`$ attractive force and contrast the result from cooled configurations (at different cooling scales representing the remaining $`SO(3)`$ action) to the result obtained in full $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills theory. In each case, we used $`\beta `$–values ranging from $`2.1`$ to $`2.6`$ to check for scaling of the force as a function of the distance. Our results for a $`12^4`$ lattice are shown in figure 3. We find that the data points (for no cooling and a given cooling scale) obtained at different $`\beta `$ fall on top of the same curve, respectively, thus establishing proper scaling also for the potential gained from cooled configurations. This shows the advantage to have a renormalization group invariant formulation for restricted cooling. We find that the cooling procedure strongly affects the force in a range of distances growing with decreasing cooling scale $`\kappa /\sqrt{\sigma }`$. At short distance this was expected since the behavior at small $`r`$ is dominated by the exchange of gluons, which is already partially (cf. figure 1) eliminated by cooling. Moreover, for stronger cooling (smaller cooling scale $`\kappa `$) the value of the full string tension is approached only asymptotically, such that lowering the cooling scale $`\kappa /\sqrt{\sigma }`$ shifts the asymptotic region to larger distances $`r`$. The explanation is that $`SO(3)`$ cooling washes out the $`SO(3)`$ vortices. We conclude that the gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture (which survives in the limit $`\kappa 0`$ of unrestricted cooling) is not related to the confinement property of the $`SU(2)`$ vacuum. In particular, it is not identical with the $`P`$–vortex ensembles constructed by means of center projection.

After the major part of the confining vortices is removed by cooling, it remains to be clarified which specific physical significance could be assigned to the exposed $`Z(2)`$ vortex ensembles. Following the original version of this paper, it was observed in  that the masses of the low-lying glueballs, $`O^+`$ and $`2^+`$, are rather insensitive against the here proposed cooling. Below, we will give further arguments supporting the idea that these configurations are not just lattice artefacts but play an important rôle in the non–perturbative physics at intermediate distances dealt with in the OPE.

## 4 Hadronic correlation functions and OPE

### 4.1 The operator product expansion

In this section, we will briefly review the operator product expansion (OPE), which is the framework to discuss the properties of hadronic resonances , and the inherent ambiguities. To be specific, consider the hadronic current correlation function in the vector meson channel,

$$M^{\mu \nu }(q)=id^4xe^{iqx}\mathrm{\Omega }|Tj^\mu (x)j^\nu (0)|\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(16)
where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the true ground state of Yang–Mills theory. Current conservation implies

$$M^{\mu \nu }(q)=\left(q^\mu q^\nu q^2g^{\mu \nu }\right)M(q^2).$$
(17)
According to Wilson , the bilocal, time–ordered product of two operators at short distance can be written in terms of local operators

$$Tj^\mu (x)j^\nu (0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n(x)\widehat{O}_n(0),\text{ }\widehat{O}_0=1,$$
(18)
where $`n`$ labels the canonical mass dimension of the local operators $`\widehat{O}_n`$. The Wilson coefficients $`C_n(x)`$ contain the singular behavior occurring when the point splitting is removed as $`x0`$. The vacuum expectation values of the operators $`\widehat{O}_n`$ correspond to physical observables, which are called condensates. Hence, sandwiching (18) with an arbitrary trial state $`|\psi `$ and resorting to a dimensional analysis, one finds

$$M(q^2)=C_0^\psi (q^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^\psi +\frac{O_2^\psi }{q^2}+\frac{O_4^\psi }{q^4}+𝒪\left(1/q^6\right),\text{ }O_n^\psi :=\psi |\widehat{O}_n|\psi .$$
(19)
Since an infinite number of degrees of freedom is encoded in the wave function $`|\psi `$, the matrix element of the unit operator, $`1^\psi =\psi |\widehat{1}|\psi `$ is generically depending on the state under discussion. Usually this is included in the coefficient function. Therefore the function $`C_0^\psi (q^2)`$ in (19) does depend on the state (see below and  for an illustration). This fact is just a reflection of the scale anomaly . The other Wilson coefficient functions are defined in (18) without reference to a particular state. Note also that a logarithmic dependence of $`C_0^\psi (q^2)`$ on $`q^2`$ is not excluded by the dimensional analysis. In particular, choosing $`|\psi =|0`$, the perturbative vacuum satisfying $`O_n^0=0`$ for $`n>0`$, yields

$$C_0^0(q^2)=M_{\mathrm{per}}(q^2),$$
(20)
where $`M_{pert}`$ is the correlator (17) calculated by summing perturbative diagrams up to a finite order using tree–level propagators and vertices. In this case, one finds up to second order in the gauge coupling constant $`g`$

$$C_0^0(q^2)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(1+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\nu ^2}+𝒪\left(\alpha _s^2\right),$$
(21)
where $`\nu `$ is the renormalization point and $`\alpha _s=g^2/4\pi `$.

It has been known for some time that the condensates are ambiguous since a splitting like (19) into a so–called perturbative part and contributions from the OPE corrections is not well–defined (see e.g. ). This conclusion is based on the observation that a partial re–summation of perturbative diagrams to all orders can generate, after renormalization, contributions $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{g^2})`$ to correlators. Containing essential singularities in the coupling constant, these contributions are imitating OPE condensate corrections (see e.g. ). These results do not invalidate the considerations above since the re–summation of perturbative diagrams to all orders bears the potential to change the properties of the reference state $`|\psi `$ under discussion. This has been illustrated for the two–dimensional Gross–Neveu model in Ref. . The model is solvable in the large $`N_f`$ limit where $`N_f`$ is the number of fermion flavors. In leading order of the $`1/N_f`$–expansion, the ladder re–summation of perturbative diagrams results in an exact, non–perturbative gap equation which admits a non–trivial solution corresponding to the true ground state for $`N_f\mathrm{}`$, which we call $`|BCS`$. Doing this re–summation of all perturbative diagrams which contribute in the large $`N_f`$ limit yields

$$M(q^2)=C_0^{BCS}(q^2)+\frac{O_2^{BCS}}{q^2}+\frac{O_4^{BCS}}{q^4}+𝒪\left(1/q^6\right).$$
(22)
In this example, the numbers $`O_n^{BCS}`$, which vanish in the infinite $`N_f`$ limit, account for correlations which are not present in the wave function $`|BCS`$ and which become non–negligible at finite $`N_f`$. Moreover, $`C_0^{BCS}(q^2)`$ contains already the power–like OPE corrections. If one does not perform the summation over an infinite number of diagrams, one obtains from the OPE

$$M(q^2)=C_0^0(q^2)+\frac{O_2^0}{q^2}+\frac{O_4^0}{q^4}+𝒪\left(1/q^6\right),$$
(23)
where $`C_0^0(q^2)`$ is calculated from a large but finite  number of perturbative diagrams (see (20)). The superscript $`0`$ signals that the condensates $`O_n^0`$ carry all the information on the true vacuum state, since contributions which could imitate a condensate are lacking in $`C_0^0(q^2)`$. In particular, the parameter $`O_2^0`$ reflects the dynamical generated fermion mass which is present in the true vacuum of the infinite $`N_f`$ limit but goes beyond perturbation theory.

Both (23) and (22), respectively, represent the unique answer for $`M(q^2)`$ at large values of $`q^2`$. The example of the Gross–Neveu model demonstrates that choosing for $`|\psi `$ the true ground state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not necessarily imply a unique definition of the condensates $`O_n^\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In addition, usually one demands that, with $`M_{\mathrm{per}}`$ given in (21),

$$C_0^\mathrm{\Omega }(q^2)=M_{\mathrm{per}}(q^2).$$
(24)
which is indeed satisfied in the case of (23). The summation of a finite (even large) number of perturbative diagrams cannot imitate the renormalization group invariant dependence of the condensates on the coupling $`g`$. Therefore, the choice (24) is specific in as far it shifts the maximum content of information on the non–trivial properties of the true vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the condensates $`O_n^\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

### 4.2 The Yang–Mills condensate on the lattice

The local condensates $`O_n`$ entering the OPE (18) are required to be physical observables. Hence, in the case of Yang–Mills theory, they consist of gauge invariant and renormalization group invariant quantities. In the present paper, we will concentrate onto the condensate $`O_4`$ of canonical mass dimension four.

Using the trace of the energy momentum tensor $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ for the operator $`\widehat{O}_4`$ meets the gauge invariance condition. However, it has been known for a long time that the contribution from gluon radiation yields divergent results for the expectation value $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$, hence, violating the second criterion of renormalization group invariance. For later convenience, we illustrate this observation for the case of lattice regularization. Calculating $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ by studying scale variations, one finds

$$\theta _\mu ^\mu =\frac{1}{a^4}\frac{d\beta (a)}{d\mathrm{ln}a}1\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}U_p,$$
(25)
where $`\beta (a)`$ is the running bare lattice coupling. Using (lattice) perturbation theory one finds that

$$1\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}U_p=\frac{3}{4\beta }+𝒪(1/\beta ^2).$$

Given (15), this implies that $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ strongly diverges in the continuum limit $`a0`$.

In order to arrive at a sensible (i.e. gauge and RG invariant) definition of $`O_4`$, one closely follows the perturbative approach augmented by OPE corrections  and defines

$$O_4^{\mathrm{sub}}:=:\theta _\mu ^\mu ::=\theta _\mu ^\mu _{\mathrm{sub}}$$
(26)
where $`\theta _\mu ^\mu _{\mathrm{sub}}`$ denotes the expectation value from which the contribution from gluon radiation is subtracted. A technique subtracting perturbative contributions was firstly employed in lattice calculations in the early eighties , and was pursued to high order in a recent study of the OPE corrections .

By subtracting perturbative gluonic parts, both, the continuum approach which distinguishes between perturbative gluon radiation and non–perturbative vacuum properties as well as the lattice approach, have the shortcoming that they do not specify the remnants of the vacuum which form the gluon condensate once gluonic contributions have been subtracted to all orders.

Here, we define the condensate through the subtraction of the contribution of the gluons (i.e. subtracting the $`SO(3)`$ coset fields) by means of the above cooling procedure rather than by subtracting perturbation theory, i.e.,

$`O_4`$ $`:=`$ $`\underset{\kappa 0}{lim}O_4(\kappa ),`$ (27)
$`O_4(\kappa )a^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24}{\pi ^2}}1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{tr}U_p_{SO(3)\mathrm{cooled}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{scale}\kappa }.`$
This definition amounts to the choice - in the sense of eq. (24) -

$$C_0^\mathrm{\Omega }(q^2)=M_{\mathrm{SO}(3)}(q^2).$$
(28)
We point out that $`M_{\mathrm{SO}(3)}`$ not necessarily contains only perturbative gluon contributions. Hence, in general, $`M_{\mathrm{SO}(3)}M_{\mathrm{per}}`$.

This identification offers the appealing feature that the condensate of mass dimension four, $`O_4`$, could be given by the vacuum energy density of the $`Z_2`$ gauge system which remains after suppressing the contribution of the coset fields by the $`SO(3)`$ cooling method. It remains to show that the condensate $`O_4`$ (4.2) properly extrapolates to the continuum limit $`a0`$, which will be done in the next subsection.

### 4.3 Numerical results for the $`Z(2)`$ vortex induced
gluon condensate

In section 3, we have demonstrated a string like clustering of $`SU(2)`$ action density which corresponds to a gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex vacuum texture. In this subsection, we will show that, in addition to gauge invariance, this action density, which is carried exclusively by the $`Z(2)`$ gauge fields, possesses the correct renormalization group dependence on the $`SU(2)`$ inverse coupling $`\beta `$ inherited from the full $`SU(2)`$ lattice gluon dynamics. Hence, this action density can be considered as a physical observable and can be used to define the mass dimension four condensate $`O_4`$ as outlined in the previous subsection.

Recalling (4.2), $`O_4`$ should be compared with what is defined in the literature as the gluon condensate

$$\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}:F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a:,$$
(29)
which is obtained from fits to the hadronic spectral function . We emphasize, however, that there is abuse of notation in (29) since the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is defined in terms of the coset (gluon) fields which do not contribute to the above defined condensate $`O_4`$ by construction. First results which employ the Wilson loop for extracting the gluon condensate were obtained in the early eighties from lattice gauge theories . The most recent value for the non–natural case of the pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory is given by

$$O_4\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.15}\mathrm{GeV}^4$$
(30)
and was calculated from field strength correlation functions (for a recent review of the method see e.g. ).

In order to assign a physical meaning to the quantity (4.2), it is important to check whether this yields a finite and non–vanishing value in the continuum limit $`a0`$. We have calculated $`f_2a^4=\pi ^2G_2a^4/24`$ as function of $`\beta `$ for cooled configurations, fixing the cooling scale $`\kappa ^2=0.5\sigma `$. The result is shown in figure 5. Our results nicely meets with the expectation from perturbative scaling (dashed line) for $`\beta >2.2`$. This observation only tells us that we can safely extract a signal for the desired expectation value which remains valid in the continuum limit. Again, it turns out advantageous to have the self–restriction of the cooling in a scale independent way.

In order to show the stripping off of the gluonic contributions from the OPE parameter $`O_4`$ (4.2), we can follow the limit $`\kappa 0`$. The result for $`O_4(\kappa )`$ (4.2) as function of $`\kappa `$ given in physical units is presented in figure 6. Data from various $`\beta `$ in the scaling region $`\beta >2.2`$ fall on the same curve. For $`\kappa >\sqrt{\sigma }`$, a significant contribution of the gluon radiation to the ”gluon condensate” is still present, and one asymptotically expects $`O_4(\kappa )\kappa ^4`$. This behavior is confirmed by our lattice data (see figure 6). Roughly at the confining scale, set by $`\kappa \sigma ^{1/2}`$, the contribution of the gluons to $`O_4(\kappa )`$ becomes comparable with the gluon condensate carried by the $`Z(2)`$ vortex vacuum texture. For clearly displaying the contribution of the texture, we compare the lattice data with the model fits

$`O_4/\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`a_0+a_1\kappa ^4,\text{ (fit A)}`$
$`O_4/\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`b_1\kappa ^4,\text{ (fit B)}.`$
In both cases, the terms proportional to $`\kappa ^4`$ parameterize the gluonic contribution while the $`a_0`$ term of fit A specifies the $`Z_2`$ vortex content. The lattice data clearly favorites fit A. We find it convincing that the “gluon condensate” $`O_4(\kappa )`$ approaches a finite value in the limit $`\kappa 0`$ which is roughly consistent with the known value (30) (dash–dotted line in figure 6).

## 5 The positive plaquette model (PPM)

The numerical results presented above were obtained with the $`SU(2)`$ Wilson action, which includes a definite prescription of the interaction between center and coset fields. The question arises how the residual action density which is carried by the $`Z(2)`$ gauge fields after $`SO(3)`$ cooling does depend on the choice of the lattice action used in the simulation. In order to get some information on this dependence, we adopt an extreme point of view in this section and repeat the analysis of the previous section using the positive plaquette model (PPM). This model is defined by the partition function

$$Z_{\mathrm{ppm}}=𝒟U\underset{x\mu \nu }{}\theta \left(\text{tr}U_{x,\mu \nu }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta }{2}\text{tr}U_{x,\mu \nu }\right\}.$$
(31)
The Gibbs weight is that of the Wilson action up to the fact that link configurations which would lead to negative plaquettes are rejected. One expects that the latter constraint strongly influences the asymptotic $`Z(2)`$ gauge field configurations remaining after cooling.

A set of low energy quantities – the string tension, the glueball masses and the topological susceptibility – have been studied in great detail within the PPM in . It was found that such observables in units of the string tension become independent of the lattice regulator $`a`$ when the continuum limit is approached within a certain scaling window $`\beta [1.3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.1}]`$. Moreover, the values of the above observables quantitatively agree with the values obtained with Wilson action. However, the renormalization group scaling of the lattice spacing with $`\beta `$ does not match with the expectations from continuum perturbation theory in the investigated scaling window of the PPM. In fact, a scaling

$$\sqrt{\sigma }a(\beta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.36}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.3}\left(\beta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.3}\right),\text{ }\beta [1.3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.1}]$$
(32)
is consistent with the numerical data presented in . In order to test our algorithm for simulations of the PPM, we have re–calculated the quark–antiquark force in physical units using $`a(\beta )`$ (32) as input. We could verify that the data points obtained for several values of the lattice spacing fall on top of the same curve (see fig. 7).

The continuum limit, however, is problematic to assess. Notice that we cannot assume that (32) is valid upto $`a=0`$, otherwise the equation suggests a strong coupling UV fix point at

$$g_{\mathrm{fix}}:=g(a0)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.26},\text{ }(\beta =4/g^2)$$
(33)
and a renormalization group $`\beta `$–function of

$$\overline{\beta }(g)\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{dg}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.25}\frac{2}{g^2},$$
(34)
where we have defined the UV cutoff by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pi /a`$. Such a fix point contradicts asymptotic freedom. The equations (33,34) are based on extrapolation of numerical data to the continuum limit. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the onset of perturbative physics is postponed to the region $`\beta >2.1`$. Note, however, that at $`\beta =2.1`$ the UV cutoff is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }11`$GeV (if we take the reference scale $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$MeV), where perturbative scaling should dominate.

Cooling (as well as gauge fixing) is a non–local procedure on the link configurations. Therefore, it is not excluded that we obtain negative plaquettes after $`SO(3)`$ cooling although we started from a configuration with positive plaquettes only222The same $`SO(3)`$ action is used for the cooling, the positive plaquette constraint is ignored during the cooling.. Formally repeating the analysis of the previous section for the PPM, we present our result for the “gluon condensate” as function of the cooling scale in figure 8 (left panel), compared with the corresponding result obtained with Wilson action in a double–logarithmic plot. Again the condensate value for each cooling scale does not depend on the bare inverse coupling $`\beta `$ of the PPM as long as the scaling (32) is applied. We find in the case of the PPM that the asymptotic value (for $`\kappa 0`$) is non–vanishing, but significantly smaller than in the case of the Wilson action. In fact, we find that our data for $`O_4(\kappa )`$ are well reproduced by the fit (see the semi–logarithmic plot in figure 8, right panel)

$$O_4(\kappa )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.45}\sigma ^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{2.63\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{\sigma }}\right\}.$$
(35)
Extrapolating (35) to $`\kappa =0`$, we find that the gluon condensate of the PPM is non–vanishing, but one order of magnitude smaller than the gluon condensate if the Wilson action is used.

The fact that we have obtained a renormalization group invariant and non–vanishing gluon condensate also in the PPM, in which the plaquettes are constrained to be positive, stirs the hope that our above defined gluon condensate gets physical significance independent of the choice of the lattice action. We attribute the fact that we don’t find the same value of the condensate in the case of Wilson action and in the PPM to the deficiency of the latter to match with perturbative scaling at very short distance. This is because the gluon condensate appears as the first correction to a perturbative calculation.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, we have separated the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field degrees of freedom into thin $`Z(2)`$ center vortices and $`SO(3)`$ coset fields. Since the $`SO(3)`$ coset fields are isomorphic to algebra valued fields, these degrees of freedom have been identified with the gluonic ones.

A new self–restricted cooling algorithm which reduces the $`SO(3)`$ action of the coset fields facilitates the gradual removal of the gluon fields from the lattice configurations while preserving the center degrees of freedom. This $`SO(3)`$ cooling procedure is gauge covariant. Hence, the remaining $`SU(2)`$ Wilson action density reveals the gauge invariant $`Z(2)`$ vortex texture of the $`SU(2)`$ vacuum.

Extracting the string tension for several values of the gauge invariant cooling scale $`\kappa /\sqrt{\sigma }`$, we have found that the string tension vanishes in the limit of unlimited cooling. This shows that the $`Z(2)`$ vortex ensembles remaining after $`SO(3)`$ cooling cannot be identified with the confining $`P`$–vortices found in the MCG.

The operator product expansion (OPE) does not offer an unambiguous prescription for identifying the condensates. We have suggested here an appealing picture: the mass dimension four condensate is given by the action density of the effective $`Z(2)`$ gauge model configurations which remain after the $`SO(3)`$ cooling procedure.

This proposal gets support from the following numerical observations: first, the $`SU(2)`$ action density for a given cooling scale properly scales towards the continuum limit; second, this action density approaches a renormalization group invariant constant in the limit of infinite cooling, when the $`SU(2)`$ field is reduced to its $`Z(2)`$ (vortex) content. This quantity gets immediate importance as the gluon condensate figuring in the OPE approach.

Acknowledgments:

We thank M. Engelhardt for critical discussions. K. L. gratefully acknowledges discussions with G. Burgio and F. Di Renzo.