text:
# The Born rule from a consistency requirement on hidden measurements in complex Hilbert space

## 1 Introduction

In , Aerts D. outlines a proposal to answer the question of the arisal of probabilities in quantum mechanics. The author argues that probability enters quantum mechanics because of a lack of knowledge about which measurement was conducted. Let us briefly outline the scheme as presented in the article to reproduce the probabilities related to the measurement of an observable $`𝒜`$ with $`n`$ possible alternative (and mutually exclusive) outcomes. The $`n`$ eigenvectors $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ of the operator $`A`$ that represents the observable $`𝒜`$ with $`n`$ possible outcomes, can serve as a basis for the state of the entity: $`q=_{i=1}^nq,e_ie_i`$. Orthodox quantum mechanics dictates that the probability $`p_q^𝒜(a_i)`$ of finding the result $`a_i`$ -one of the eigenvalues $`\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ of the eigenvector with same index- upon execution of the measurement that corresponds to the observable $`𝒜`$ when the entity is in the state $`q`$, equals

$$p_q^𝒜(a_i)p(𝒜=a_i|q)=|q,e_i|^2$$

This means that the n-tuple

$$\kappa =(p_q^𝒜(a_1),p_q^𝒜(a_2),\mathrm{},p_q^𝒜(a_n))$$

contains all statistical information we can derive from the entity with respect to the observable $`𝒜`$ and as such the author argues, we can use $`\kappa `$ as a representation of the statistical state. Because the $`p_q^𝒜(a_i)`$ are constrained by the requirement $`_{i=1}^np_q^𝒜(a_i)=1,`$ we see that the statistical state is an element of the $`(n1)`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$ in $`^n`$ spanned by the canonical base vectors $`e_i:`$ $`\kappa =_ip_q^𝒜(a_i)e_i`$ . The basic idea of the ”hidden measurement approach” is to associate with each measurement $`m`$ a set of sub-measurements $`m(\lambda )`$ such that the measurement $`m(\lambda )`$ consists of choosing at random one of the $`\lambda `$ and performing the measurement $`m(\lambda )`$ on the entity. The measurements are to be taken classically deterministic, in the sense that their operation on a fixed state always yields the same result. This is done as follows: take $`\lambda `$ to be an $`n`$ -tuple from the $`(n1)`$-simplex: $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n),\lambda _i=1,\lambda _i0`$. Call $`C_i`$ the convex closure of the set $`\{e_1,..,e_{i1},\kappa ,e_{i+1},\mathrm{},e_n\}.`$ The outcome of the measurement $`m(\lambda )`$ is determined by $`\lambda `$ in the following *ad hoc* way: if $`\lambda C_i`$ , then the outcome reads $`a_i.`$ We will not discuss the procedure when the variable $`\lambda `$ happens to be chosen on the boundary of one of the $`C_i`$ as this is a thin subset only and as such does not contribute to the final probabilities. The probability of choosing $`\lambda `$ in the simplex $`C_i`$ is calculated by assuming a uniform and normalized density for $`\lambda `$ over $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}.`$ Hence we obtain

$$p(\lambda C_i|q)=\mu (C_i)/\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1})$$

where $`\mu `$, because of the uniform measure, is simply the $`(n1)`$-dimensional volume of the respective simplex. This volume is proportional to both the measure of any of its $`(n2)`$-dimensional faces and to the length of the orthogonal projection of its ”height” onto this face. Hence we can easily see that the volumes of the simplices are proportional to the projections of the statistical state $`\kappa `$ onto the base vectors. It is a matter of straightforward determinant calculus to show that $`\mu (C_i)/\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1})=p_q^𝒜(a_i),`$ and hence we have:

$$p(𝒜=a_i|q)=p(\lambda C_i|q)$$

The result is deceivingly simple and it is difficult to imagine a shorter exposition of the well-known fact that there exist hidden variable models of quantum mechanics if one restricts the latter to measurements related to a single observable. This strength is immediately also a weakness of the exposition: the state of the entity is identified with the statistical state, or the set of probabilities related to a single observable, whereas in quantum mechanics we are able -at least in principle- to apply Dirac transformations to calculate the probabilities related to *all* observables we choose to measure. It is not obvious how to transform the state in the simplex when we want to measure a different observable. Is it possible to extend the procedure and make it work in Hilbert space rather than in the simplex? In the original article such an example is indeed given, but it relates only to a two-dimensional problem. However, the two dimensional case is in some sense a degenerate case: the possibility of sub-measurements is excluded and the Gleason theorem applies only from dimension three or higher. The latter fact has sometimes been related to the existence of hidden variable models for measurements with only two outcomes. To counter this objection, a three-dimensional model in a real Hilbert space  was constructed. However, this model is much more complicated and ad-hoc than the original model and did not give a hint as to how and if the scheme would work in complex Hilbert space. Although a model in complex Hilbert space was lacking, interesting results in other directions where obtained. For example, the question of the generality of the measure theoretic construct was adequately dealt with in a lattice-theoretic model for an experiment with possibly infinite outcomes . The two dimensional model easily allowed for parametrization of the lack of knowledge, engaging us to study the behavior of between quantum and classical descriptions by means of statistical polytopes and the violation of the axioms of quantum logic. We refer to    and the references found there.

The present article aims at resolving two issues. The first one, raised at the end of the 1986 paper, is how to characterize the measurements that occur in a hidden measurement scheme. Can we give a less ad-hoc description of the way a measurement selects an outcome when it interacts with a state? The second issue is concerned with the realization of such a scheme in complex Hilbert space. More precisely, we will put forward a principle that partitions the set of measurements such that the measure of the set of apparatus states that actualize a fixed outcome if in interaction with a system in a pure state, is shown to be equal to the modulus squared of the inner product of the state of the entity with the eigenstate belonging to that particular outcome.

## 2 Lack of Knowledge in an Interactive set-up

We will first recast the hidden measurement idea into the more general and abstract notion of an interactive system. In essence, we assume the observer is in a state $`aM`$, and the thing he observes is in a state $`q\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ Furthermore we assume the existence of a rule of interaction $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}i\mathrm{"}`$ that gives us the outcome $`xX`$ as a result of the interaction between the two states $`q`$ and $`a`$:

$$i:\mathrm{\Sigma }\times MX,i(q,a)=x$$

We want this model to be deterministic, hence the mapping $`i`$ is a function. Furthermore, we want every possible outcome $`x`$ to be the result of an interaction between an entity and a measurement apparatus, hence we also require $`i`$ to be surjective. Of course, surjectivity implies the possibility that different couples $`(q,a)`$ lead to the same outcome: $`i^1(x)=\{(q,a)\mathrm{\Sigma }\times M:i(q,a)=x\}`$

Suppose now that we have a lack of knowledge about the precise state of the system and apparatus. With $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (and $`(M)`$) the Borel field of $`\sigma `$-additive subsets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (and $`M`$), our experiment is characterized by two probability measures: $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a probability measure from $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })[0,1]`$ and $`\mu _M`$ as probability measure $`(M)[0,1]`$:

$`𝒫_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma })`$
$`𝒫_M`$ $`=`$ $`(M,(M),\mu _M)`$
The way the system and the apparatus interact is goverened solely by the function $`i`$: the measures themselves are independent. To define the probability of the occurrence of an outcome, we assume $`i`$ is a measurable function and as such, the interaction $`i`$ becomes an independent random variable from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times M`$ onto $`X`$. First we need a few definitions (all sets are assumed to be non-empty):

###### Definition 1

An *interactive probability model* is a quadruple $`(𝒫_\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒫_M,X,i)`$ with:

$`𝒫_\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\mathrm{\Sigma },(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, a probability space of a set of entity-states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$,

$`𝒫_M=(M,(M),\mu _M)`$, a probability space of a set of apparatus-states $`M`$,

a non-empty set $`X`$ called the outcome space, and

a random variable $`i:\mathrm{\Sigma }\times MX`$, called the interaction.

###### Definition 2

A *preparation* $`\pi =(\psi _q,\psi _a)`$ is an ensemble of entity states $`\psi _q(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and an ensemble of apparatus states $`\psi _a(M)`$.

The odds of picking a certain system state out of the ensemble $`\psi _q`$ and picking one apparatus state out of $`\psi _a,`$ is determined independently by the measures $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ , resp. $`\mu _M.`$

Following standard probability theory, we construct the product space $`𝒫_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\times M}=(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times M,(\mathrm{\Sigma })\times (M),\rho )`$. The measures $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mu _M`$ induce the unique product probability measure $`\rho :`$ $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })\times (M)[0,1]`$, such that $`\rho (\psi _q,\psi _a)=\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }(\psi _q)\mu _M(\psi _a)`$. This leads to the following definition:

###### Definition 3

Given an interactive probability model $`(𝒫_\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒫_M,X,i)`$ and a preparation $`\pi =(\psi _q,\psi _a)(\mathrm{\Sigma })\times (M)`$ The *interactive probability* of the occurrence of the outcome $`x`$:

$$p(x|\pi )=\frac{1}{\rho (\psi _q,\psi _a)}_{i^1(x)}𝑑\rho $$

We stress that this definition of the probability allows for a completely natural lack of knowledge interpretation: any arising probability in the occurrence of outcomes, is a consequence of the inability to prepare identical states for either the system, the apparatus, or both. This point is crucial. If we have an irreducible uncertainty about the way we study nature, it will be impossible to give a direct operational meaning to both $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`(M,(M),\mu _M)`$. We have to derive $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },(\mathrm{\Sigma }),\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`(M,(M),\mu _M)`$ indirectly from the interpretation of $`p(x|\pi )`$ as comming from an interactive probability model $`(𝒫_\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒫_M,X,i)`$. The absence of an operational definition can then be justified on principle grounds, but only if the interactive probabilistic scheme we propose is considered plausible.

## 3 Hidden measurements in Hilbert space

We now turn our attention to the measurement of observables with $`n`$ distinct outcomes, such as the observables related to a spin-n model, or to an array of $`n`$ distinct detectors in a position measurement scheme. We will assume that the state space of both the entity and the apparatus is complex Hilbert space. We start by ascribing a state vector $`a_A`$ to the measurement apparatus $`A`$ and a state vector $`q_S`$ to the system $`S`$. Next assume there exists a deterministic interaction $`i`$ that decides which outcome $`x_k`$ from an outcomeset $`X=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ occurs as a result of an interaction between the states of the system and the apparatus:

$$i:_S\times _AX,i(q,a)=x$$

The state of the apparatus, having much more degrees of freedom than the system it is made to measure, lives in a much bigger Hilbert space, so it is natural to assume $`dim(_A)>>dim(_S)`$. However, all results presented in this article follow if the density of the apparatus states is proportional to the area of the subset an n-dimensional subspace where we impose the principle of consistent interaction. In the conclusion we briefly touch upon the fact that this assumption is a necessity following from an unbiasedness of the apparatus. Hence for the purpose of the present derivation we need only assume $`dim(_A)`$ equals $`dim(_S)`$. Having said this, let $`_n`$ denote the set of unit-norm members of an $`n`$-dimensional Hilbertspace over the field of complex numbers, and let $`q`$ and $`a`$ belong to this space. Hence $`i`$ is a function: $`i:`$ $`_n\times _nX`$. Next we connect states to outcomes by means of the concept of an eigenvector.

###### Definition 4

A set $`E=\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ $`_n`$ of $`n`$ orthogonal vectors is called a set of *eigenvectors* iff $`e_k,e_lE`$:

$`e_k,e_l`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{k,l}`$
$`i(e_k,a)`$ $`=`$ $`x_k,a_n`$
The vectors $`e_k`$ play the role of eigenstates for the observable that corresponds to the measurement being made in the sense that, if the entity happens to be in one of the states $`e_k`$, it does not matter with which apparatus state it interacts; it will always yield the same result and this result depends only on the eigenstate of the entity. We know from quantum mechanics the vectors with the desired property ($`i(e_k,a)=x_k,a`$ ) *are* indeed simply the eigenvectors of the self-adjoint operator corresponding to the relevant observable, but as we did not assume that a self-adjoint operator represents the measurement of an observable, we have imposed this separately. Troughout the rest of the article, indices can take natural values up to $`n`$ only.

### 3.1 The Principle of Consistent Interaction

To determine the action of $`i`$, we first define an important set of vectors that we (in absence of a better name), call a “modulus great circle segment”:

$`e_k`$ $``$ $`a\{c_n:|c_j|=\sqrt{s}|a_j|,jk,`$
$`|c_k|`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(1s)+s|a_k|^2},0<s<1\}`$
So the set of vectors $`e_ka`$ are those unit vectors in $`_n`$ for which the modulus of each component equals the downscaled modulus of each component of $`c`$ (except for $`c_j`$ ) by a factor $`\sqrt{s}`$. The last remaining component $`c_j`$ simply follows from the normalization requirement on $`c`$. It is easy to see this is indeed a segment of a great circle in the positive $`2^n`$-tant of $`^n`$, obtained by taking the modulus of each component of a vector on the unit sphere in $`^n,`$ hence the name “modulus great circle segment”.

###### Definition 5

We say the interaction $`i:_n\times _nX`$ obeys the  *principle of consistent interaction* (PCI) iff $`x_kX;q,a,a^{}_n,e_r,e_kE`$:

$$i(q,a)=x_ki(q,a^{})=x_k,a^{}e_ra,e_ke_r$$

In words, the principle of consistent interaction says that, for a fixed state $`q`$ of the entity, if the interaction with an apparatus state $`a`$ gives rise to an outcome $`x_k`$, then so does the interaction with any other apparatus state $`a^{}`$ that belongs to the modulus great circle segments between the apparatus state $`a`$ and any eigenvector belonging to another outcome than $`x_k`$. We will first discuss some mathematical consequences of this principle and postpone a possible interpretation to the concluding section of this paper. The sets $`e_ra`$ constitute only a thin subset of the state space $`_n`$ of the apparatus. Nevertheless, it is evident that the principle poses a severe constraint on the set of possible partitions of this space. To see just how constraining the PCI is, let us investigate it by means of the component-wise product of a complex vector with its complex conjugate, that sends elements of the complex unit-sphere $`S_n=\{z^n:_{i=1}^nz_iz_i^{}=1\}`$ onto the $`(n1)`$ -simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}=\{x_+^n:_{i=1}^nx_i=1\}:`$

$`\tau `$ $`:`$ $`S_n\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$
$`\tau (z)`$ $`=`$ $`(z_1z_1^{},z_2z_2^{},\mathrm{},z_nz_n^{})`$
Let us translate the PCI to the simplex by means of $`\tau `$. A simple calculation shows that $`\tau (e_ra)=]\tau (e_r),\tau (a)[`$, that is, $`\tau `$ maps “modulus great circle segments” to open line-segments in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$. The translation of the PCI to the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$ then reads:

$$i(\tau (q),\tau (a))=x_ki(\tau (q),\tau (a^{}))=x_k,\tau (a^{})]\tau (e_r),\tau (a)[,\tau (e_k)\tau (e_r)$$

It is not difficult to define a partition in the simplex that is consistent with the PCI. We denote by $`]A[`$ the relative interior of the convex closure of $`A,`$ and define (with slight abuse of the notation $`C_k^q`$ rather than $`C_k^{\tau (q)}`$) the sets

$$C_k^q=]x_1,\mathrm{},x_{k1},\tau (q),x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_n[$$

This division of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$ into separate sets $`C_k^q`$ takes the form of a special type of triangulation, which is in a sense a simple generalization of a barycentric division, and is in fact affinely isomorphic to it. We have encountered this particular partition in the introduction. Just as was the case there, assume now that the interaction $`i`$ in the simplex is defined as follows

$$\tau (a)C_k^qi(\tau (q),\tau (a))=x_k$$

It is easy to see that for every mapped apparatus state $`\tau (a)C_k^q`$ we indeed have that $`]\tau (e_k),\tau (a)[C_k^q`$ hence elements of $`]\tau (e_k),\tau (a)[`$ also give rise to an outcome $`x_k,`$ and as such are in accordance with the PCI. Likewise, we can see that for every $`a\tau ^1(C_k^q)`$, we have that $`e_ra\tau ^1(C_k^q)`$ leading to the same conclusion. One can easily convince oneself intuitively that no other partition of the set of apparatus states can satisfy the PCI, and refer the interested reader to , where a full proof, utilising mainly elementary convex geometry, can be found. Note that $`_k\tau ^1(C_k^q)=_n\backslash M_0,`$ where $`M_0=_k[\tau ^1(C_k^q)]`$ 222It was pointed out to me by T. Durt that the set $`M_0`$ and the set of points of unstable equilibrium in the Bohm-Bub hidden variable model  coincide, showing there is a definite and close relation between the two approaches is the set of boundaries of the closure of the sets $`\tau ^1(C_k^q).`$ Clearly $`M_0`$ is a null set with respect to an $`n`$-measure. Hence, for probabilistic purposes, the $`\tau ^1(C_k^q),k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ constitute what one might call an “effective partition” or a “partition modulo null-sets” of the complex unit sphere.

## 4 The Born rule

What constitutes a good measurement? Well, to be sure, a measurement setup is supposed to give maximal information about the state of the entity it is observing and minimal information about the state of the apparatus. For the probability space $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ related to the entity, this means that $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ becomes a point measure and hence the ensemble $`\psi _q`$ reduces to a singleton. By a well-known theorem in information theory we have that, minimization of the information in the probability space $`𝒫_M`$ related to the apparatus, $`\mu _M`$ becomes a uniform measure and the ensemble $`\psi _a`$ the whole Hilbert space $`_n`$. It turns out that under these two assumptions, together with the PCI, we recover the Born rule.

###### Theorem 1

: Given an Interactive Probability Model in complex Hilbert space $`(𝒫__n,𝒫__n,X,i)`$ with $`i`$ satisfying the PCI. Assume the preparation $`(\mathrm{\Sigma })\times (M)\pi =(q,_n)`$ where $`q`$ is a singleton. With $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ a set of eigenvectors and $`e_k`$ the eigenvector corresponding to the outcome $`x_kX,`$ we have:

$$p(x_k|\pi )=|q,e_k|^2$$

Proof: We start with the definition of the interactive probability under the assumptions of the theorem:

$`p(x_k|\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (q,_n)}}{\displaystyle _{i^1(x_k)}}𝑑\rho `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)}{\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }(q)\mu _M(_n)}}{\displaystyle _{\tau ^1(C_k^q)}}𝑑\mu _M`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _M(\tau ^1(C_k^q))}{\mu _M(_n)}}`$
This last equation simply tells us that the probability of getting the outcome $`x_k`$ equals the ratio of the apparatus states that result in that outcome to the total of all possible apparatus states. The calculation of the quantity $`\mu _M(\tau ^1(C_k^q))`$ is greatly facilitated by realizing $`\tau `$ preserves probability measures. In virtue of a lemma presented after this argument, the last expression becomes:

$$\frac{\nu (C_k^q)}{\nu (\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1})}$$

The calculation of this last quantity was outlined in the introduction of this article and demonstrated explicitely in .

$`=`$ $`\tau (q)\tau (e_k)=q_kq_k^{}`$
$`=`$ $`|q,e_k|^2`$
###### Lemma 1

Let $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1},(\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}),\mu )`$ and $`(S_n,(S_n),\nu )`$ be two measure spaces. Then for $`A`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1})`$ and $`\tau ^1(A)(S_n)`$, we have:

$$\nu (\tau ^1(A))=\frac{2\pi ^n}{\sqrt{n}}\mu (A)$$

Proof: Let $`A`$ be an arbitrary open convex set in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$: $`A=\{(x_1,x_2):a<x_1<b,x_2=1x_1\}`$. Evidently, $`\mu (A)=\sqrt{2}(ba)`$. Let $`B`$ be the pull-back of $`A`$ under $`\tau :`$

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\{(z_1,z_2)Z_1\times Z_2^2:Z_1=\{z_1:a<|z_1|^2<b\},`$
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{z_2:z_2=\sqrt{1|z_1|^2}e^{i\theta },\theta [0,2\pi [\}\}`$
Clearly,

$$\nu (B)=\nu (Z_1)\nu (Z_2)=\pi (ba).2\pi =\frac{2\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}}\mu (A)$$

Hence the theorem holds for convex sets if $`n=2`$. This conclusion can readily be extended to an arbitrary $`(n1)`$-dimensional rectangleset $`A`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}:`$

$$A=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}x_i):i=1,\mathrm{},n1:a_i<x_i<b_i;a_i,b_i[0,1]\}$$

Its measure factorizes into:

$$\mu (A)=\sqrt{n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(b_ia_i)$$

Next consider n-tuples of complex numbers:

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\{(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_n)Z_1\times \mathrm{}\times Z_n\}`$
$`Z_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{z_i:a_i<|z_i|^2<b_i,in\},`$
$`z_n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1|z_1|^2\mathrm{}|z_{n1}|^2}e^{i\theta _n},\theta _n[0,2\pi [\}\}`$
Clearly $`\tau (B)=A`$. The measure of $`B`$ can be factorized as:

$`\nu (B)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu (Z_1)\nu (Z_2)\mathrm{}\nu (Z_n)`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\pi (b_ia_i)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^n}{\sqrt{n}}}\mu (A)`$
Hence the theorem holds for an arbitrary rectangleset $`A`$. But every open set in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$ can be written as a pairwise disjoint countable union of rectangular sets. It follows that $`\nu (\tau ^1())=\frac{2\pi ^n}{\sqrt{n}}\mu ()`$ for all open sets in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$. Both $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ are finite Borel measures because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}`$ and $`S_n`$ are both compact subsets of a vectorspace of countable dimension. Therefore they must be regular measures. But a regular measure is completely defined by its behavior on open sets. Hence the theorem holds for Borel sets.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

Besides the fact that the PCI defines the partition of the set of apparatus states, it is also interpretable as some sort of “proposal-consistent-answer-game”. To see this, make the comparison with the well-known game of “warm” and “cold”. The object of the game is to guess the location of an unknown object in a room, using the cluess “warmer” and “colder” given by someone who knows the location of the object. The equivalent of the PCI for this game would be that if the guesser his next guess is *further* from the object than a former guess, his reply has to be “colder”. Imagine now a straightforward multi-dimensional generalization of the game played in the $`(n1)`$-simplex, and with as possible answers the $`n`$ vertices of the simplex. The state vector $`a`$ then, represents the measurement apparatus and is a “proposal” both *to* the state and *for* the state, as if the measurement asks the question: can you give me a clue about your true location if my guess would be that it is somewhere here you are residing? Now the entity, in response to that proposal has to give a hint about its true location by giving the unique outcome that is in accordance with the PCI. This answer can only be one of the $`n`$ outcomes corresponding to the eigenvectors and, seen from the point of view of the guesser (the apparatus), it gives $`n`$ alternative directions to choose from. The PCI does not tell what happens when the next guess is closer to the eigenvector corresponding to the outcome given to the former guess. It doesn’t need to. What the PCI requires, is that the response of the entity is such that if the answer was “vertex $`x_i`$” and the guesser chooses to ignore that directional hint and places his guess closer in the direction of another vertex (rather than closer to vertex $`x_i`$) the answer will still have to be $`x_i`$. Once you think of it this way, the PCI indeed expresses a very basic form of consistency, and it is nice to see that this condition alone partitions the set of apparatus states. As such the PCI seems to show a relationship between the geometry of Hilbert space and the probabilistic inferences made therein. The model we propose in the case of quantum mechanics differs from the game of warm and cold in that each new interaction forgets the outcome that was given in response to interaction with a former apparatus state. This is connected to the minimization of the information regarding the interactional part of the apparatus state and the corresponding uniform density of states. It is also essentially a matter of the apparatus being unbiased: the apparatus should not be more sensitive to some states than to others, nor should it know in advance which entity state is going to be presented to it. Together, these assumptions led us to the Born rule. Mathematically speaking, Gleason’s theorem gives you more for less, apparently rendering the result redundant. However, we have gained an interpretation. If there is in nature something like ”the observer and the observed together producing the phenomenon”, then we believe the scheme outlined here is sensible and, as we hope to have shown, not too dificult to translate to complex Hilbert space to recover the Born rule by an integration over unknown observer states, in accordance with the original hidden measurement proposal.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Nowadays, the interest in the lattice Abelian Higgs model with compact gauge field (cAHM) in three dimensions has grown because of its relation to high energy physics  and its applications in condensed matter physics .

The compactness of the gauge field leads to the presence of monopoles which are instanton–like excitations in three space–time dimensions. Being in the plasma state the monopoles and antimonopoles of this theory guarantee linear confinement of electrically charged test particles . They are forming an oppositely charged double sheet along the minimal surface spanned by the Wilson loop (i.e. the trajectories of the heavy charges). Due to screening, the free energy of the surface increases proportionally to the area of the surface such that an area law for the Wilson loop emerges.

Within the confinement region of cAHM corresponding to small couplings of matter fields to gauge fields the monopole–antimonopole plasma state is still realized. As the hopping parameter increases, the system enters the Higgs region where monopoles and antimonopoles become bound into magnetically neutral dipoles. This scenario has been demonstrated in a preceding paper  and it has been related to the phenomenon of string breaking. Indeed, when monopole pair formation occurs, this results in the breakdown of linear confinement at large distances. Usually this is interpreted in an alternative way saying that dynamical matter fields in the same representation as the external test charges break the confining string by screening the charge of the latter. This argument is applied, irrespective whether the dynamical matter field is fermionic (the quarks in QCD) or bosonic (the Higgs particles in our case). Let us stress here the other point of view, according to which the monopole mechanism of confinement is changed in a way to produce a different form of the inter–particle potential. At large separations $`R`$ of the charges the string tension should be absent. However, if $`RR_{\mathrm{br}}`$ (where $`R_{\mathrm{br}}`$ is the characteristic string breaking distance) the test charges are able to recognize individual monopoles even if they are bound in dipoles. Therefore, the monopole and antimonopole fields may induce a piecewise linearly rising potential. These simple considerations can be made more rigorous by analytical calculations  for a gas of dipoles with small magnetic moments.

In order to destroy the linearly rising potential within cAHM3, the coupling between Higgs and gauge fields must be sufficiently strong. It would be tempting to associate the onset of string breaking with a phase transition between confinement and Higgs phases. However, it was numerically shown  that in the London limit of cAHM3 the string breaking happens in a region of the phase diagram where a first or second order phase transition can definitely be excluded. In the present paper we will call this the “string breaking crossover”, but one should keep in mind that a thorough reconstruction of the monopole configurations is accompanying this. However, the possibility  that string breaking (and monopole pairing) is associated with a Berezinsky–Kosterlitz–Thouless (BKT) type transition  is not ruled out.

Recently, it was found that the matter fields in the Abelian Higgs model lead to a logarithmic attraction between monopoles and antimonopoles  which would explain the formation of monopole–antimonopole bound states and string breaking. Adding massless quarks also forces the Abelian monopoles and antimonopoles to form bound states . Note that the origin of monopole binding in the zero temperature case of the cAHM3 is physically different from the monopole binding observed at the finite temperature phase transition in compact ($`2+1`$)–dimensional pure QED .

We have recently studied the effect of finite temperature deconfinement of ($`2+1`$)–dimensional cQED on the photon propagator in Refs. .We could demonstrate that the momentum behaviour of the photon propagator in this theory is described, rather similar to gluodynamics, by a Debye mass and by an anomalous dimension which both vanish at the deconfinement transition. This mechanism could be clearly attributed to pairing of magnetic monopoles. The monopole–antimonopole plasma contribution is relatively easy to exhibit by explicit calculation and can be eliminated by monopole subtractionfrom the ensemble of gauge fields.

As for gluodynamics, which motivated our study of the cAHM3, numerical lattice results show that the propagator for all these gauges in momentum space is less singular than $`1/p^2`$ in the immediate vicinity of $`p^2=0`$. Recent investigations in the Landau gauge and in the Laplacian gauge111In order to avoid the problem of Gribov copies , the alternative Laplacian gauge has also been used recently  in Yang–Mills theory. However, principal questions of renormalizability and transversality are yet unsolved in this case. show that, beside the suppression at $`p^20`$, the propagator is enhanced at intermediate momenta which can be characterized by an anomalous dimension . This enhancement of the Landau gauge propagator in $`SU(2)`$ gluodynamics has been interpreted  by focusing on $`P`$-vortices appearing in the maximal center gauge. Subtracting the vortices removes the enhancement at intermediate momenta. The results for the propagator at zero momentum are ranging from a finite  (Laplacian gauge) to a strictly vanishing  (Coulomb gauge) value. The vanishing of the Landau gauge propagator at $`p^2=0`$, suggested by considering the Faddeev–Popov mechanism, remains obscured so far in the results, probably because the lattices are still too small.

In this paper we are going to investigate in which way the photon propagator within cAHM3 changes at the string breaking crossover, turning from confinement to the symmetry–broken Higgs region. As in our previous work we have chosen the propagator in the minimal Landau gauge because this is the covariant gauge which has been adopted in most of the investigations of the gauge boson propagators in QCD  and QED . For the behaviour at the string breaking crossover of cAHM3 we anticipate that a confining propagator will change into a Yukawa–like propagator corresponding to the onset of the Higgs mechanism.

The present paper is structured as follows. Next, in Section 2, we will recall the model and the definition of the photon propagator. The form of the fitting function and the method of monopole subtraction are also introduced there. In Section 3 we will report the numerical results of the present study and discuss the sensitivity with respect to the Gribov copy problem. We conclude in Section 4.

## 2 The Model and the Definition of the Propagator

We consider the three–dimensional Abelian gauge model with compact gauge fields $`\theta _{x,\mu }`$ living on links and a fundamentally charged Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ on sites. For simplicity we consider the London limit of the model, which corresponds to an infinitely deep potential for the Higgs field. Consequently, the radial part of the Higgs field, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_x|`$, gets frozen. With $`\phi _x=\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ we define the model by the action

$`S[\theta ]=\beta {\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{x,\mu }+\phi _{x+\widehat{\mu }}\phi _x),`$ (1)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse gauge coupling squared, $`\kappa `$ is the hopping parameter, and $`\theta _P`$ is the plaquette angle representing the curl of the link field $`\theta _{x,\mu }`$.

For the simulations we use a Monte Carlo algorithm similar to the one described in Refs. . The Higgs field angles have been updated in alternating order with the gauge field angles. In both cases, one $`5`$–hit Metropolis sweep together with $`2`$ microcanonical sweeps constitute a total gauge or Higgs update. Global updates of the gauge field have a negligible acceptance rate for $`\kappa 0`$. They have been discarded at all. The numerical calculations have been carried out for fixed gauge coupling, $`\beta =2.0`$, on lattices of size $`32^3`$, as in Ref. . For these parameters, the low–$`\kappa `$ region (“confinement region”) and the high–$`\kappa `$ region (“Higgs region”) of the phase diagram are separated by a crossover. The crossover point — observed as a position of the peak of the susceptibility of the hopping term $`S_{GH}=_{x,\mu }\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{x,\mu }+\phi _{x+\widehat{\mu }}\phi _x)`$ — is located at $`\kappa _c=0.526(1)`$. We have considered from $`O(200)`$ to $`O(400)`$ independent configurations (obtained after 10 subsequent updates) to measure the propagator.

The discussion of the photon propagator (and its various parts) is given in lattice momentum space. Being always defined in the context of a specified gauge, in our case the minimal Landau gauge

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{x,\mu }^G)\mathrm{max}`$ (2)
with respect to gauge transformations $`G`$, the propagator is written in terms of the Fourier transformed gauge potential,

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{L^3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\nu (n_\nu +\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\nu \mu })}{L_\nu }}\right)A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu },`$ (3)
which is a sum over a set of points $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu }`$, the midpoints of the links in $`\mu `$ direction, which form the support of $`A_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$ on the lattice. $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ denotes the lattice sites (nodes) with integer Cartesian coordinates. The propagator is the gauge–fixed ensemble average of the following bilinear in $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$,

$`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\mu }\stackrel{~}{A}_{\stackrel{}{k},\nu },`$ (4)
where the lattice momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ on the left hand side of (4) are related to the integer valued Fourier momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ by the expression ($`a`$ is the lattice spacing):

$`p_\mu (k_\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_\mu }{L_\mu }},k_\mu =0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{L_\mu }{2}}.`$ (5)
The lattice equivalent of $`p^2=\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ is in $`3`$ dimensions

$`p^2(\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{4}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_\mu }{L_\mu }}\right)^2.`$ (6)
For this paper, we decided to identify the gauge field $`A_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$ in terms of the sine function of the link angle (with $`g_3^2=1/(a\beta )`$)

$`A_{\stackrel{}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\mu },\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_3a}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{}{n},\mu }.`$ (7)
The corresponding propagator, called $`D_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{sin}}`$ in Ref. , will be called simply $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ for brevity. The extraction of the Fourier transformed gauge field (and of its regular and singular components) has to be performed after the original gauge field configuration has been put into the minimal Landau gauge. The procedures employed for gauge fixing in the present context have been described at length in Ref. .

At zero temperature, for perfect Euclidean rotational invariance, the continuum propagator would be expressible by functions of $`p^2`$. The most general tensor structure is then the following one including two scalar functions of $`p^2`$,

$`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})D(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F(p^2)}{p^2}}`$ (8)
with the three–dimensional transverse projection operator

$`P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})=\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}.`$ (9)
The two structure functions $`D(p^2)`$ and $`F(p^2)`$ can be extracted by projection, on the lattice from $`D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})`$ according to (4), as

$`F(p^2)={\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}p_\mu D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})p_\nu `$ (10)
and

$`p^2D(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{3}{}}}P_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p})D_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (11)
They are approximately rotationally invariant, i.e. individual momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ might slightly differ in the function values $`D`$ or $`F`$ they provide, even if they have the same $`p^2`$. Dense, in $`p^2`$ nearby data points may scatter rather than be forming a smooth function of $`p^2`$.

In practice, using these definitions, we extract at first the function $`F(p^2)`$ from Eq. (10). In the sum the imaginary parts of non-diagonal $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ cancel. Then, $`D(p^2)`$ is obtained through

$`D(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left[D_{11}(\stackrel{}{p})+D_{22}(\stackrel{}{p})+D_{33}(\stackrel{}{p})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{F(p^2)}{p^2}}\right\}.`$ (12)
For exactly fulfilled Landau gauge $`F(p^2)0`$. On the lattice, in the case of the sine–definition used for $`A_{\stackrel{}{x},\mu }`$ \[Eq. (7)\], this is actually the case as soon as one of the local maxima of (2) (Gribov copies) is reached, with an accuracy which directly reflects the precision at stopping of the gauge fixing iterations.

The effect of monopoles (singular fields) can be distinguished from that of the regular (“photon”) fields using the splitting of the gauge field angles $`\theta _{x,\mu }`$ into a regular and a monopole part following Refs. . In the notation of lattice differential forms this can be written as:

$`\theta =\theta ^{\mathrm{reg}}+\theta ^{\mathrm{mon}},\theta ^{\mathrm{mon}}=2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta p[j],`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$ is the inverse lattice Laplacian and the 0-form $`^{}jZZ`$ is nonvanishing on the sites of the dual lattice occupied by monopoles and antimonopoles. The 1-form $`^{}p[j]`$ corresponds to Dirac strings (living on the links of the dual lattice) which connect monopoles with antimonopoles, $`\delta ^{}p[j]=^{}j`$. For any Monte Carlo configuration, we have fixed the gauge, then located the Dirac strings, $`p[j]0`$, and constructed the monopole part $`\theta ^{\mathrm{mon}}`$ of the gauge field according to the last equation in (13). The regular photon field222In principle, the regular part of the links could have been reconstructed as well, without recurrence to the singular part. In this case the regular propagator would become completely independent of the number of Gribov copies $`N_G`$ (see the discussion below). is taken just as the complement to the monopole part according to the first equation of (13).

The regular and the singular parts of the gauge field contribute to the propagator as follows: the total propagator decomposes like $`D=D^{\mathrm{reg}}+D^{\mathrm{mon}}+D^{\mathrm{mix}}`$, where $`D^{\mathrm{mix}}`$ represents the mixed contribution from regular and singular fields. An analogous decomposition is valid for the longitudinal structure function $`F`$ which vanishes to a good accuracy for the total propagator. In this paper we are interested mainly in the regular part and in the total photon propagator. To describe the propagators quantitatively we have fitted the total propagator using the following function:

$`D(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Zm^{2\alpha }}{\beta (p^{2(1+\alpha )}+m^{2(1+\alpha )})}}+C,`$ (14)
where $`Z`$, $`\alpha `$, $`m`$ and $`C`$ are the fitting parameters. This fit has been successfully used to describe the propagators of the finite and zero–temperature compact U(1) gauge model  in $`2+1`$ or $`3`$ dimensions, respectively. The form is similar to some of Refs.  where the propagator in gluodynamics has been studied. The meaning of the fitting parameters in Eq. (14) is as follows: $`Z`$ is the renormalization of the photon wavefunction, $`\alpha `$ is the anomalous dimension, $`m`$ is a mass parameter. As shown in Ref. , in cQED3 this mass parameter coincides with the Polyakov prediction  for the Debye mass, generated by the monopole–antimonopole plasma. The parameter $`C`$ corresponds to a $`\delta `$–like interaction in the coordinate space and, consequently, is irrelevant for long–range physics.

The regular (or “photon”) part of the propagator, $`D^{\mathrm{reg}}`$, has been fitted by the Yukawa form (with an additional contact term):

$`D^{\mathrm{reg}}(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{reg}}}{\beta (p^2+m_{\mathrm{reg}}^2)}}+C_{\mathrm{reg}}.`$ (15)
The fits together with the appropriate propagator data will be presented in the next section.

## 3 Numerical Results

We begin with the typical shape of the total photon propagator and its regular part, respectively, at fixed $`\beta =2.0`$. The total photon propagator $`D`$, multiplied by $`p^2`$, is shown in Figure 1(a)

for various values of $`\kappa `$ as a function of $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$. We also present the fits of the data by the function (14). One clearly observes that the total propagator is well described by the fitting function in each particular case. The “infrared” enhancement at intermediate momenta disappears with increasing $`\kappa `$. In contrast, the suppression at very small $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ remains at all $`\kappa `$ values. We can conclude that the total photon propagator is less singular in the infrared than a free one. According to our fitting function (14) the propagator is finite at $`p^2=0`$.

For comparison, the regular photon propagator part $`D^{\mathrm{reg}}`$, multiplied by $`p^2`$, is shown in Figure 1(b) for various values of $`\kappa `$. One can see that the behaviour of $`D^{\mathrm{reg}}1/p^2`$ is only observed in the confinement region; in the Higgs region the propagator becomes massive. The fits using function (15) work very well everywhere except for smallest non–zero momenta in the closest vicinity of the crossover point.

Note that the data for both the total propagator and the regular part have been averaged over lattice momenta corresponding to the same $`p^2`$ before fitting (as in Refs. ).

From the fits we have obtained the characterizing fit parameters for the transverse photon propagator $`D`$ in gauge fixed ensembles with various numbers ($`N_G100`$) of Gribov copies. This means that, after applying the gauge fixing algorithm to $`N_G`$ random gauge copies of the original Monte Carlo gauge field, only the configuration with the maximal value of the gauge fixing functional (2) is kept for evaluation. In Fig. 2

we show the dependence of the fit parameters for the total photon propagator on the number of Gribov gauge copies. Three typical $`\kappa `$ values are used: $`\kappa =0.3`$ in the confinement region, $`\kappa =0.535`$ very near the crossover and $`\kappa =0.7`$ in the Higgs region. While a moderate number $`N_G30`$ seems to be sufficient for convergence of all parameters at all $`\kappa `$ values, there is no clear tendency between different $`\kappa `$’s. The parameters describing the regular propagator $`D^{\mathrm{reg}}`$ converge within the first few ($`N_G5`$) copies.

To keep the influence of $`N_G`$ on the propagator negligible we have used in the final measurements $`N_G=60`$. The resulting fit parameters of interest are presented in Fig. 3 as functions of $`\kappa `$.

Fig. 3(a) depicts the mass taken from the fit (15) for the regular part of the propagator (”regular mass” $`m_{\mathrm{reg}}`$), and from the fit (14) for the total propagator (”total mass”, $`m`$). The dashed line represents the expected behaviour of the mass in the limit of large $`\kappa `$ and $`\beta `$ couplings:

$`m_{\mathrm{th}}(\beta ,\kappa )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _V(\kappa )}{\beta _V(\beta )}}},`$ (16)
where $`\beta _V`$ and $`\kappa _V`$ are the Villain couplings corresponding to the Wilson couplings $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$. This parameterization is analogous to Ref. , with

$`\beta _V(\beta )=\left[2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{I_0(\beta )}{I_1(\beta )}}\right]^1,\kappa _V(\kappa )=\left[2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{I_0(\kappa )}{I_1(\kappa )}}\right]^1.`$ (17)
Note, that although $`\beta =2.0`$ (used in our calculations) is not very large, the first relation in Eq. (17) works with an accuracy of a few percent already at $`\beta 1`$ according to the calculation  of the critical coupling in $`4D`$ cQED.

We observe that both the total and regular masses coincide with each other on the Higgs side of the crossover, and there they are very close to the prediction (16,17), the immediate vicinity of the crossover point excluded. This observation can be easily understood. Two different sources contribute to the gauge boson mass: one is arising nonperturbatively from the monopoles (the Debye screening mass) while the other is due to the explicit presence of the mass term in the action (1) of the model. The Debye mass generation works in the case of the monopole–antimonopole plasma  and it is obviously absent in the magnetic dipole gas . Since at large $`\kappa `$ monopoles and antimonopoles are bound into dipoles , the Debye contribution to the mass disappears, and the gauge boson mass is exclusively given by Eq. (16). As can be seen from Fig. 3(a), at small $`\kappa `$ values the total mass $`m`$ is close to the Debye mass of pure cQED3 (i.e. to the mass value at $`\kappa =0`$) because the effects of the mass term in the action (1) are small. Moreover, in accordance with our expectations, the regular mass $`m_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ vanishes.

In the region very close to the crossover, $`\kappa \kappa _c`$, the mass $`m`$ shows a minimum caused, as one could guess, by the interference between perturbative mass and Debye mass effects. Indeed, as $`\kappa `$ tends to $`\kappa _c`$, the Debye mass gets smaller since the density of the monopole–antimonopole plasma drops rapidly. One the other hand, the perturbative mass term becomes more significant. The interplay of these two tendencies results in the noticed minimum at $`\kappa \kappa _c`$.

In Fig. 3(b) we show the anomalous dimension $`\alpha `$ for the total propagator333Recall, that the anomalous dimension for the regular part of the propagator is zero, Eq. (15). as a function of the hopping parameter $`\kappa `$. The anomalous dimension is non–vanishing in the confined region and it turns to trivial values at the crossover444The 4-parameter fits lead even to small negative $`\alpha `$ in the region $`\kappa 1`$. However, fitting there the propagators with fixed $`\alpha =0`$, the obtained masses coincide within errors with those of the unconstrained fits. So we associate this behaviour with statistical fluctuations., $`\alpha 0`$. This behaviour can be compared with our studies of compact QED2+1 at finite temperature : in the monopole–antimonopole plasma phase (corresponding to the confinement side) $`\alpha >0`$ while in the magnetic dipole phase (corresponding to the Higgs side) $`\alpha =0`$. Thus, in cAHM the effect of the monopole pairing on the propagator is the same as in cQED: the anomalous dimension gets close to zero in the Higgs phase dominated by the magnetic dipole gas.

Similarly to the anomalous dimension, the effect of the monopole pairing on the renormalization parameter $`Z`$ of the photon wavefunction in cAHM, shown in Figure 3(c), is remarkably similar to the cQED case observed555 Due to an error, the $`Z`$ factors in Figs. 5c and 7c of Ref.  need to be corrected by a factor $`m^\alpha `$ before they can be compared with the $`Z`$ given here at $`\kappa =0`$. in Refs. . The total photon factor $`Z`$ suddenly drops at the crossover point, $`\kappa =\kappa _c`$ while the regular factor, $`Z_{\mathrm{reg}}`$, is almost insensitive with respect to the crossover ($`ZZ_{\mathrm{reg}}1`$ for all $`\kappa `$ values). The small contact term parameter of the total propagator, $`C`$, changes its sign at the crossover, Figure 3(d). The small and negative contribution of $`C_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ in the confinement is responsible for the tiny decrease of the massless $`p^2D^{\mathrm{reg}}`$ with $`p^2`$ \[seen at zero and small $`\kappa `$ in Fig. 1(b)\] .

A zoom to the crossover region is shown in Fig. 4, where all effects described above for $`m`$, $`m_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ and $`\alpha `$ are seen more clearly together.

## 4 Conclusions

In our numerical studies we found that the gauge boson propagator in the London limit of the three–dimensional compact Abelian Higgs model possesses a non–zero anomalous dimension below the string breaking crossover. The effects of the matter fields on the propagator are remarkably similar to the finite–temperature deconfining effects in the pure gauge compact $`U(1)`$ model. Both in the Higgs (deconfinement) region of cAHM and in the deconfinement (high temperature) phase of cQED the anomalous dimension of the propagator vanishes. In the confining regions of both models the anomalous dimension is non–vanishing. The positive anomalous dimension is due to presence of the monopole–antimonopole gas in the plasma state . As we move towards the deconfinement phase $`\alpha `$ decreases and becomes zero when the monopole–antimonopole plasma turns into a magnetic dipole gas. However, the origin of the pairing phenomenon in both models is different: in cAHM the monopole pairing is caused by the matter fields  while in cQED the monopoles form the bound states due to temperature effects in the monopole–antimonopole interaction.

For the limit of cAHM with frozen radial Higgs degrees of freedom we have found that the anomalous dimension for the gauge field does not become clearly negative together with the onset of string breaking. However, if radial fluctuations of the Higgs field would be allowed, the emergence of a negative anomalous dimension cannot be ruled out .

The mass in the gauge boson propagator closely follows the tree level expectations on the Higgs side of the transition and simply corresponds to a massive Yukawa propagator practically unaffected by remaining dipoles in the vacuum. In the confinement region the mass related to the total gauge field is of Debye type while the mass of the regular or photon part of the gauge field degrees of freedom remains massless.

## Acknowledgements

M. N. Ch. is supported by the JSPS Grant No. P01023. E.–M. I. acknowledges useful discussions with L. von Smekal.


text:
# Slow dynamics in a 2D Ising model with competing interactions

## I INTRODUCTION

In the last years a strong effort has been devoted to understand both the equilibrium and out-of equilibrium properties of ultrathin magnetic films Debell . These materials have attracted much attention mainly due to their potential applications, such as information storage Sampaio . Ultra-thin films find also many important applications both in biotechnology and pharmacology. It is today a well established experimental fact that the magnetization processes in ultra-thin magnetic films are ruled by the microscopic competition between short range ferromagnetic couplings and long-range frustrated antiferromagnetic dipolar interactions, which give place to very novel dynamical and static behaviors Debell .

It is worth mentioning that both the theoretical and the experimental interest in studying systems with competition between short-range ordering interactions and long–range frustrating interactions widely exceeds the field of ultra–thin films. Actually, many different experimental systems can be modeled by this kind of microscopic interactions, which give place to very rich dynamical and static properties. In soft–matter physics for instance, we can mention diblock copolymer melt and cross–linked polymer mixtures, among others. Type I superconductors and rare–earth layers that occur in the perovskite structure of REBa2Cu3O$`{}_{7}{}^{}\delta `$ (where RE represents a rare earth from the lanthanide series) can be very well modeled with these interactions Macisaac .

It has also been frequently suggested that competing interactions can explain many of the phenomenological features observed in the glass formation process and in supercooled liquids Kivelson . Summarizing, many of the conclusions drawn from this work can be surely be applied to a large variety of physical systems.

For sufficiently thin films the magnetic moments align perpendicular to the plane of the film, indicating that the surface anisotropy is sufficient to overcome the anisotropy of the dipolar interaction which favors in-plane ordering.

Works in two dimensional uniaxial spin systems, where the spins are oriented perpendicular to the lattice and coupled with these kind of interactions, have shown a very rich phenomenological scenario concerning both its equilibrium statistical mechanics Kashuba ; Macisaac  and non-equilibrium dynamical properties Sampaio ; Toloza ; Stariolo . In particular, some of these results Sampaio ; Toloza  showed the existence of different types of slow relaxation dynamics when the system is quenched from a disordered high temperature configuration to a subcritical temperature, depending on the relative strengths of the dipolar and exchange interactions.

Under these circumstance one can use a uniaxial Ising representation for describing the magnetic moments Allenspach ; Allenspach2 . The ultra–thin film is then described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\delta \underset{i,j}{}\sigma _i\sigma _j+\underset{(i,j)}{}\frac{\sigma _i\sigma _j}{r_{ij}^3}$$
(1)
where the spin variable $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ is located at site $`i`$ of a square lattice, the sum $`_{i,j}`$ runs over all pairs of nearest neighbor sites and $`_{(i,j)}`$ runs over all distinct pair of sites of the lattice; $`r_{ij}`$ is the distance (in crystal units) between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$, $`\delta `$ represents the quotient between the exchange $`J_0`$ and dipolar $`J_d`$ coupling parameters ($`\delta =J_0/J_d`$). The energy is measured in units of $`J_d`$, which is always assumed to be antiferromagnetic $`(J_d>0)`$. Hence $`\delta >0`$ means ferromagnetic exchange coupling.

We have recently studied in detail Gleiser  the low temperature phase diagram of this system in the region where the change in the relaxation properties has been observed. We showed that for very low temperatures metastable states appear. In this work we investigate the effects of the presence of these metastable states on the far-from equilibrium dynamical properties of the system. In section II we present a review of the equilibrium phase diagram and metastability properties in the region of interest. In section III we analyze the magnetic domain growth or coarsening dynamics of the system when it is quenched from a disordered state (which corresponds to infinite temperature) to a temperature below the ordering transition for different values of $`\delta `$. Using Monte Carlo simulations we study the statistics of domains of the striped phases h1 and h2. We then analyze the temporal behavior of the average linear size of the domains $`L`$. We show that the coarsening dynamics is strongly affected by the presence of metastable states, which generate blocking clusters of the metastable phase where the domain walls of the stable phase become pinned. Such blocking clusters generate free–energy barriers to the domain growth dynamics that are independent of the linear domain size. Some conclusions and remarks are summarized in section IV.

## II Equilibrium phase diagram and metastable states

The overall features of the finite temperature phase diagram associated with Hamiltonian (1) were described by MacIsaac and coauthors Macisaac  by means of Monte Carlo simulations on $`16\times 16`$ lattices and analytic calculations of the ground state Debell . They found that the ground state of Hamiltonian (1) is the antiferromagnetic state for $`\delta <0.425`$ Diferences . For $`\delta >0.425`$ the antiferromagnetic state becomes unstable with respect to the formation of striped domains structures, that is, to state configurations with spins aligned along a particular axis forming ferromagnetic stripes of constant width $`h`$, so that spins in adjacent stripes are anti-aligned, forming a super lattice in the direction perpendicular to the stripes. At high temperatures, of course, the system always becomes paramagnetic. Specific heat calculations showed that the transition between the paramagnetic and the striped phases is a second order one Macisaac .

We have recently Gleiser  performed Monte Carlo simulations of Hamiltonian (1) on square lattices up to $`48\times 48`$ sites using periodic boundary conditions and heat bath dynamics. Our calculations focused on the low temperature region of the $`(\delta ,T)`$ phase diagram for values of $`\delta `$ between $`0.2`$ and $`2`$, which includes the transition line between the $`AF`$ and the striped phase with width $`h=1`$ ($`h1`$) and also the transition line between the $`h1`$ phase and the striped phase with width $`h=2`$ ($`h2`$). First we calculated, through the energy fluctuations, the specific heat $`C`$ as a function of temperature for different values of $`\delta `$ and different system sizes up to $`48\times 48`$ sites. By considering the peaks in the specific heat we obtained the second order critical line between the paramagnetic and the low temperature ordered phases $`h1`$ and $`h2`$. These results (see Fig. 1) slightly improved those obtained by MacIsaac and coauthors Macisaac  for $`16\times 16`$ lattices, thus showing a fast convergence of the critical temperature for increasing system sizes, at least for small values of $`\delta `$.

Next, through a numerical study of the free energy, we analyzed the transition between the $`h1`$ and $`h2`$ phases. The free energy of the phase $`h1`$ ($`h2`$) was calculated for increasing (decreasing) values of $`\delta `$. We observed a continuous change of the minimal free energy from one phase to the other, with a discontinuous change in the slope for $`\delta =1.26(1)`$ indicating the presence of a first order phase transition Gleiser . This transition is indicated by means of diamonds in Fig. 1. We have also repeated these calculations for the transition line between the $`h1`$ and $`AF`$ phase, finding similar results.

Close to $`\delta =1.26(1)`$ the free energy displays a multivalued behavior characteristic of a first order phase transition. This behavior signals the metastable nature of these phases in some parts of the phase diagram. To characterize the presence of metastable states observed in the transition between the $`h1`$ and $`h2`$ phases we introduced the staggered magnetizations $`M_{h1}`$ and $`M_{h2}`$, and also their associated susceptibilities $`\chi _{h1}`$ and $`\chi _{h2}`$ for the $`h1`$ and $`h2`$ phases Gleiser . These quantities permitted us to analyze the stability of both phases in the different parts of the phase diagram. In Fig. 1 the shaded region indicates the presence of metastable states. It is important to stress that in the shaded region inside phase $`h1`$ the only phase observed to be metastable was $`h2`$. For $`\delta >1.26`$ metastables states of phases of higher width were observed, leading to a much more complicated metastable region. In this work we will focus only on the dynamical behavior of the system in the $`h1`$ region. As we will show in the next section, for a fixed value of $`\delta `$ inside this region different dynamical regimes are observed as the temperature is lowered and one enters the region of metastability.

## III SLOW DYNAMICS

When a system is quenched from a high temperature disordered phase into a low temperature ordered phase domains form and grow, a process that is known as coarsening. The coarsening process has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically over the past decade Bray .

Perhaps the most thoroughly studied system, and also the most common example is the Ising model. When this system is quenched from a high temperature to one below its critical temperature ($`T<T_c`$) ferromagnetic domains of up and down spins form and coarsen. The system presents curvature driven growth and the characteristic domain size $`L`$ grows with time as $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$. If the system is cooled to zero temperature the domain walls can be easily determined as bonds between oppositely oriented spins, but if the system is cooled to a temperature different from zero it becomes difficult to define domains and domain walls since small islands generated by thermal fluctuations arise. To overcome this problem, Derrida Derrida  proposed a new method to measure properties related to coarsening in the presence of thermal fluctuations. This method was extended by Hinrichsen and Antoni Hinrichsen2  to determine domain walls for nonzero temperatures. The method compares the state of a system with replicas in the different ground state configurations when they are all submitted to the same thermal noise, that is, when the same sequence of random numbers is used to update all systems. In this way, if one starts from a replica in the ordered state a spin flip will be a consequence of the thermal noise. When a spin flip occurs simultaneously in all the replicas it can be considered as a thermal fluctuation, otherwise the fluctuation will be due to the coarsening process. We used this technique to study the dynamics of domain walls, and characterize the coarsening process, when the system described by Hamiltonian (1) is quenched from a high temperature disordered state into the region where it orders. In particular we focus our interest on the growth of domains of the striped phase $`h1`$ when the metastability line is crossed for values of $`0.8<\delta <1.26`$ (See Fig.1).

To characterize the growth of the domains we determined first the domain areas $`A(t)`$, by counting the number of spins inside each domain. The characteristic (linear) domain size was calculated as $`L(t)=\sqrt{A(t)}`$, where $`A(t)`$ is the mean domain area of the system at time $`t`$.

In Fig. 2 we present the behavior of the characteristic domain size $`L(t)`$ when $`\delta =1.1`$ and $`T=0.2`$ for three different system sizes $`N=24\times 24`$, $`N=36\times 36`$ and $`N=48\times 48`$. After a short transient in which the characteristic length presents a slow growth the system enters into a coarsening regime where $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$, as expected for a system with non–conserved order parameterBray . For large times $`L(t)`$ presents a crossover to a saturation value. This saturation behavior is clearly a finite size effect, since a domain cannot grow beyond the system size $`N`$ so that as the system size increase, the behavior $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$ remains for larger periods of time.

In section II we observed and characterized the presence of metastable states in the low temperature region of the phase diagram. We will study now how the behavior of $`L(t)`$ changes as we lower the temperature and cross the metastability line for a fixed value of $`\delta `$. In Fig. 3 we present the time evolution of $`L(t)`$ when $`\delta =1.1`$ for eight decreasing temperatures. For low temperatures a regime of slow growth develops at intermediate time scales before the system crosses over to the $`t^{1/2}`$ coarsening regime. As we lower the temperature the intermediate regime extends to larger time scales, but all the curves eventually cross over to the $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$ regime. Note that for short times there seems to be a change in the concavity of $`L(t)`$ when it crosses $`T=0.1`$, which coincides with the boundary of the metastable phase for $`\delta =1.1`$.

To characterize the behavior of $`L(t)`$ as we lower the temperature we studied the crossover time $`\tau `$ from the power law to the saturation regime. Note that the crossover time to the power law regime presents a similar behavior. However the study of the intersection of the power law branch of the curve and the horizontal saturation branch allows for a sistematic approach. This is so since the saturation value always correspond to the linear size of the system. In figure 4 we present how $`\tau `$ grows as the temperature is lowered. For temperatures greater than $`T=0.1`$ the crossover time presents a linear dependency with $`1/T`$, while for temperatures lower than $`T=0.1`$ it presents an exponential increase with $`1/T`$ as can be observed in the Arrhenius plot presented in the inset of Fig. 4.

The straight line indicates the best fit, given by a function of the form

$$\tau =\tau _0\mathrm{exp}(\tau _1/T)$$
(2)
where $`\tau _0=62.5(5)`$ and $`\tau _1=0.39(5)`$. Using this expression we present in Fig. 5 a data collapse plot of $`L(t)`$ in the low temperature regime.

In the high temperature regime the crossover time decreases linearly as the temperature increases, and $`L(t)`$ collapses simply by scaling with $`T`$ as can be seen in figure 6.

Summarizing, for $`\delta =1.1`$ two different dynamical regimes were observed above and below the metastability line ($`T=0.1`$). When the system is quenched to the ordered phase to a temperature $`T>0.1`$, the characteristic domain size $`L(t)`$ grows as $`t^{1/2}`$ after a short transient. If, on the other hand, the system is quenched to a temperature $`T<0.1`$, an intermediate regime with a slow growth appears. For long times the system always crosses over to the $`t^{1/2}`$ regime. That is, for every temperature we observe the same behavior presented in Fig.3, where $`L(t)`$ always reaches the asymptotic behavior $`t^{1/2}`$ as we increase the system size. However, as we lower the temperature the crossover time to this regime increases. We repeated these analysis for different values of $`\delta `$, inside the $`h=1`$ region, obtaining the same qualitative behaviors.

These dynamical behaviors present a strong resemblance with the ones observed in the two dimensional Shore model Shore2 . This model is a ferromagnetic Ising model on a square lattice with frustration added by introducing weak next-nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic bonds, that is

$$H=J_1\underset{NN}{}s_is_j+\underset{NNN}{}s_is_j$$
(3)
The presence of NNN antiferromagnetic bonds in this model introduce free–energy barriers to domain coarsening that are independent of the domain size $`L`$Shore2 . Such barriers in this model are a consequence of a corner rounding process which generates structures that block the coarsening dynamicsShore2 . Hence, the system is stuck and coarsens little on time scales $`t\tau _B(T)=exp(F_B/T)`$ ($`F_B`$ being the height of the barrier), while on time scales $`t\tau _B(T)`$ the free–energy barrier can be crossed and the $`t^{1/2}`$ behavior emerges.

Thus, it is interesting to see if structures that block the coarsening process are present in our system. In fact the presence of metastable states for low temperatures gives a strong hint of what to look for.

Figure 7 presents a series of snapshots of the coarsening process when a system of size $`N=48\times 48`$ and $`\delta =1.1`$ is quenched to $`T=0.05`$. For these values of $`\delta `$ and $`T`$ the system evolves in the metastability region. Two different kind of domain walls can be clearly distinguished. When domains of phase $`h1`$ with different orientation meet, the walls detected by the method are thin. The thicker walls correspond to bands of two spins, that is stripes of phase h2. We should stress that phase h2 is the only metastable phase in phase h1 Gleiser . Notice how these small blocks of the h2 phase seem to slow the domain growth by pinning the domain walls. These small blocks were also observed at short times when the system was quenched to a temperature above the metastability line, however they are highly unstable and did not seem to block the domain growth. In order to quantify this effect, we studied the time for completely shrinking squares in phase h2 immersed in a system in phase h1 with fixed boundary conditions. A square was considered to be completely shrunk when the length of the sorrounding domain walls became zero. Fig.8 presents a series of snapshots of this process. In the first time steps the square quickly deforms. However, further advance seems to be blocked by small blocks of spins in the $`h2`$ phase. This coarsening behavior presents a strong resemblance to the one observed in the snapshots presented in Fig. 7.

Figure 9 shows the time $`\tau _{h2}`$ to shrink a $`4\times 4`$ square in phase $`h2`$ immersed in a system with $`N=48\times 48`$ spins in phase $`h1`$ with fixed boundary conditions. As the temperature is lowered the shrinking time diverges as $`\tau _{h2}exp(0.41/T)`$. This divergence agrees well with the divergence observed in the crossover time from the slow growth to the $`t^{1/2}`$ regime. We have also studied the shrinking time of blocks in different phases, such as combinations of vertical and horizontal $`h1`$ phases and also a ferromagnetic block immersed in the $`h1`$ phase. In all these cases a similar behavior was observed. The system quickly reached a configuration where small blocks of the $`h2`$ phase were present, with a slowing down of the domain growth similar to the one described above.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have studied some dynamical properties of a two-dimensional Ising Hamiltonian with competing interactions. We analyzed the coarsening process when the system is quenched from a high temperature disordered phase into the ordered phase $`h1`$. To characterize the growth of domains we considered the time evolution of the characteristic domain size $`L(t)`$. We found that for a fixed value of $`\delta `$ the system presents two different dynamical behaviors associated with the presence or absence of $`h2`$ metastable states. When the system is quenched into the ordered phase for temperatures above the metastability region, the characteristic domain length presents a power law $`t^{1/2}`$ growth. If, on the other hand, the system is quenched to temperature in the metastability region, the behavior of $`L(t)`$ presents a slow growth intermediate regime before crossing over to the $`t^{1/2}`$ power law growth. Through a direct examination of snapshots of the system during the coarsening process we found that the presence of small domains in the $`h2`$ phase slowed the coarsening when the system was quenched to the metastable region. These results are consistent with the presence of free–energy barriers independent of the domain size $`L`$, associated with blocking clusters of the metastable phase, which generates a crossover in the coarsening behavior as we cross the spinodal line. Since the cross over time diverges as the temperature is lowered, the very slow behavior at intermediate times may be indistinguishable from a logarithmic law. This could explain the apparently logarithmic scaling observed in the aging behavior of this modelToloza .

This work was partially supported by grants from Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas CONICET (Argentina), Consejo Provincial de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (Córdoba, Argentina), Secretaría de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (Argentina) and Fundación Antorchas (Argentina).