text:
# 1 BPS states near CMS

## 1 BPS states near CMS

We restrict our attention to a single charge sector of the low energy $`U(1)^n`$ theory on the Coulomb branch. The question is whether at a given vacuum there is or is not a one-particle BPS state in that charge sector. The mass of a BPS state is $`M=|Z|`$ where the central charge $`Z`$ is the sum of terms proportional to the charges. This mass is the minimum mass of any state (BPS or not, single particle or not) in this charge sector. A single BPS particle $`M`$ in this charge sector is stable or at worst marginally stable against decay into two (or more) constituent particles, since by charge conservation $`Z=Z_1+Z_2`$, so by the triangle inequality $`MM_1+M_2`$. The CMS are submanifolds of the Coulomb branch where this inequality is saturated. As one adiabatically changes the order parameter on the Coulomb branch from a vacuum on one side of a CMS to a vacuum on the other, the one particle state $`M`$ becomes more and more nearly degenerate with the two particle state $`M_1+M_2`$. Suppose $`M`$ does decay across the CMS, so only the two particle state $`M_1+M_2`$ remains in the spectrum once we have crossed the CMS. Since the transition takes place right at threshold, $`M`$ will decay into the two particle state with zero relative momentum.

Now, it follows from the triangle inequality that the two particle state $`M_1+M_2`$ is not BPS, even for zero relative momentum, except precisely at the CMS. Thus there will generically be no BPS force cancelation between particles $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, so the zero relative momentum two particle state is classically approximated by two spatially infinitely separated one-particle states (to have a static configuration). By locality and the adiabatic theorem, the transition across the CMS of a one particle state to a widely separated, zero momentum, two particle state should go by way of field configurations with large spatial overlap, implying that a state decaying just where its mass reaches the two-particle threshold of its decay products should have a diverging spatial extent as it approaches the transition. This argument gives the basic physics underlying our approach to decays across CMS: if a BPS state does decay across a CMS, that decay will be visible semiclassically in the low energy effective action even if it takes place at strong coupling from a microscopic point of view. The resulting picture is quite intuitive: a BPS state decaying across a CMS does so by becoming an ever-larger, more loosely bound state of its eventual decay products. Once the CMS is crossed, the bound state ceases to exist, and so, in particular, there will be no static BPS solutions to the low energy equations of motion and boundary conditions in this region of the Coulomb branch.

## 2 A $`U(1)`$ toy example

We illustrate these properties in a simple model which captures the main physics of the CMS. Consider the $`U(1)`$ effective action with two real scalars $`X`$, $`Y`$:

$$S=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}_\mu X^\mu X+\frac{1}{2}_\mu Y^\mu Y\right)$$
(1)
This theory by itself is too simple to be interesting, but all we need to add to it to capture the essential physics of the decay of BPS states across CMS are the presence of singularities in the vacuum manifold. In this case the vacuum manifold (Coulomb branch) is the $`X`$-$`Y`$ plane. For concreteness we posit that there are two singularities at points on the Coulomb branch with coordinates $`(X,Y)=(L,0)`$ where a particle with electric charge $`(Q_E,Q_B)=(1,0)`$ becomes massless, and $`(X,Y)=(0,L)`$ where a particle with magnetic charge $`(Q_E,Q_B)=(0,1)`$ becomes massless.

The low energy effective action (1) includes only the first terms in a derivative expansion with higher terms suppressed by powers of a cutoff energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, or distance scale $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Our strategy will be to use the low energy $`U(1)`$ solution away from the charge cores ($`r>r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and impose appropriate boundary conditions in the vicinity of the cores ($`rr_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The qualitative features of these boundary conditions are easy to deduce. The basic boundary condition on the electric and magnetic fields follow from Gauss’ law, $`𝐄𝑑𝐚=4\pi Q_E`$, and $`𝐁𝑑𝐚=4\pi Q_B`$, where the integrals are over spheres enclosing the charge cores.

The $`X`$, $`Y`$ scalar fields tend to approach their values at Coulomb branch singularities near the charge cores. Indeed, such field configurations are energetically favored because they approach those of the charged BPS states which become massless at the singularities $`(X,Y)=(0,L)`$ or $`(L,0)`$. Thus the scalar fields satisfy the approximate Dirichlet boundary conditions

$$(X,Y)(0,L)\text{or}(L,0)\text{within}B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^3$$
(2)
where $`B_\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ is a ball of approximate radius $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ around each charge core and $`(X,Y)(L,0)`$ means that $`(X,Y)`$ pass within a distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`(L,0)`$ on the Coulomb branch. This “fuzzy ball” boundary condition is all we can physically demand of the low energy solution since it is not accurate on spatial resolutions less than $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ nor for field value resolutions less than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the limit as the vacuum approaches a CMS, as we have described qualitatively in the last section and will see explicitly below, the size of the field configuration grows, and so the relative size of the cutoff region $`r_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the field configuration shrinks. In this limit the fuzzy ball Dirichlet boundary conditions become precise.

To simplify the algebra and make the basic points clear we choose the vacuum to be symmetrically placed at the point $`(X_0,X_0)`$ on the Coulomb branch and choose the state to have electric and magnetic charges $`(Q_E,Q_B)=(1,1)`$. There will then be separate electric and magnetic charge cores. The usual BPS equations for a static field configuration following from (1) are then simply $`^2X=^2Y=0`$ while the electric and magnetic fields are determined in terms of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ by $`𝐄=\mathbf{}X`$, and $`𝐁=\mathbf{}Y`$. The Gauss constraint implies a solution of the approximate form

$$XX_0=\frac{1}{|𝐱𝐱_E|},YX_0=\frac{1}{|𝐱𝐱_B|}$$
(3)
so that the electric and magnetic charge cores are located at $`𝐱_E`$ and $`𝐱_B`$ respectively. We want to check whether there are values of $`𝐱_E`$ and $`𝐱_B`$ for which this solution satisfies the fuzzy ball Dirichlet boundary condition (2), which demands that the $`(X,Y)`$ values taken by a solution enters a small ball around $`(L,0)`$ as $`𝐱𝐱_E`$ (and a small ball around $`(0,L)`$ as $`𝐱𝐱_B`$).

Now for $`|𝐱𝐱_E|(LX_0)^1`$ it follows that $`XL`$ as desired near the electric singularity. But this then implies that $`YX_0+r_{EB}^1`$ where $`r_{EB}|𝐱_E𝐱_B|`$ is the spatial distance between the charge centers. The fuzzy Dirichlet boundary condition $`Y0`$ then implies that the separation of the charge centers must be fixed to be

$$r_{EB}=\frac{1}{X_0}.$$
(4)
There are two striking things about this conclusion. First, there is only a solution for $`X_0<0`$. This inequality is equivalent to saying that there is only a solution on one side of the CMS for our dyonic $`(Q_E,Q_B)=(1,1)`$ state (as can be checked from the explicit BPS mass formula). Second, as $`X_00^{}`$ (i.e. as we approach the CMS) the spatial separation of the electric and magnetic charge centers goes to infinity. This confirms the qualitative description of the decay of a supersymmetric state near the CMS given above.

As we describe in detail elsewhere?, in the limit as the vacuum approaches the CMS, the projection on the Coulomb branch of the above low energy solution more and more accurately approximates a string web, i.e. it degenerates to a collection of segments of geodesics—“strings”—on the Coulomb branch which can meet in 3-string junctions or end at the vacuum or singularities on the Coulomb branch. For example, in the $`U(n)`$ $`N=4`$ SYM theory these “string” webs are thus stretched in the $`6n`$-dimensional moduli space and end on $`6(n1)`$-dimensional singular submanifolds. Note that this is different from the string web picture found in the string construction of this theory, where the strings are stretched in the 6-dimensional space transverse to $`N`$ D3-branes. It can be shown? that the 6-dimensional string theory webs are obtained from our $`6n`$-dimensional webs by a simple mapping. The basic reason this works is that the $`6N`$-dimensional moduli space $``$ of the $`U(n)`$ theory is $`=(R^6)^n/S_n`$ where the permutation group $`S_n`$ interchanging the $`R^6`$ factors is the Weyl group of $`U(n)`$.

Another property of the string webs found in string constructions is that 3-pronged string states that stretch between D-branes satisfy charge conservation and tension balance. These properties are also reproduced? in the webs from our low energy solutions. However, the low energy solutions have an extended spatial structure which is not seen in the string constructions. For example, the configuration discussed above corresponds to a $`(1,0)`$ (fundamental string), a $`(0,1)`$ (D-string)and a $`(1,1)`$ string stretched between three D3-branes. The three prongs or string legs meet at a common point, the junction, which remains point-like even arbitrarily close to the CMS. In the field theory picture discussed here, we have seen that the leg corresponding to the decaying $`(1,1)`$ dyon grows in spatial size (i.e., along the D3-brane worldvolume) near the CMS. Arbitrarily close to the CMS, the configuration resembles two separate strings that end on the D3-brane corresponding to the decaying $`U(1)`$. Thus there does not appear to be a point-like junction as the decaying configuration approaches the CMS in the field theory picture.

The difference between the two perspectives is the result of different orders of limits. Consider the Dirac-Born-Infeld action for the D3-brane corresponding to the decaying dyon, treating it as a probe in a background of other D3-branes. The brane prong corresponding to the decaying $`(1,1)`$ dyon then ends on other D3-branes that are treated as a fixed background. Looking at the quadratic terms and comparing with the low energy effective action we have used above, we can see that the scalars $`X`$ in the field theory with mass dimension unity and the coordinates in the brane transverse space, $`x`$, are related by $`X=x/\alpha ^{}`$, where $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the string length squared. The separation between the charge centers in the D-brane worldvolume is

$$r_{EB}1/(X_0)=\alpha ^{}/(x_0).$$
(5)
The low energy field theory is a good approximation in the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit holding the scalar vevs, including $`X_0`$, fixed. On the other hand, in the string junction/geodesic picture in string theory, the coordinates $`x_0`$ are what are held fixed: taking $`\alpha ^{}0`$ to suppress higher stringy corrections gives a vanishing separation $`r_{EB}`$ between the charge centers, i.e. a pointlike junction. For $`x_0=0`$, the separation is indeterminate, which corresponds to the two strings ending anywhere on the D-brane. This recovers the string theory result and it further illustrates that a spatially point-like junction is not visible within the field theory approximation.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank A. Buchel, J. Hein, R. Maimon, J. Maldacena, M. Moriconi, S. Pelland, M. Rangamani, V. Sahakian, and A. Shapere for helpful comments and discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY95-13717.

References


format: text

text:
# Neutron Scattering Signature of 𝐝-density Wave Order in the Cuprates

## a Introduction.

The pseudogap phase of the underdoped high-temperature superconducting cuprates is notable in its departure from the behavior of a conventional metal. Recently, it was proposed that this unusual behavior is due to a new broken symmetry, termed $`d`$-density wave (DDW), which competes with superconductivity. The crucial feature of this order is a staggered pattern of orbital currents that spontaneously appear at the onset of the pseudogap phase. The underdoped superconducting state coexists with this order. This proposal of the existence of an order parameter is fundamentally different from the proposal of staggered current fluctuations.

We discuss here the experimental signatures of this unusual state vis-à-vis a recent neutron scattering experiment in underdoped YBCO6.6. This experiment has identified rods of Bragg scattering (within the energy resolution window of 1 meV) arising from small magnetic moments which increase in strength below the pseudogap temperature, with a further increase below the superconducting transition temperature. The in-plane wavevector is $`𝐐=(\pi /a,\pi /a)`$, where $`a`$ is the in-plane lattice spacing, and the intensity is at the level of the background for perpendicular wavevector transfer $`q_z=0`$, implying an “antiferromagnetic” coupling between the layers within a bilayer. Both of these features are precisely the same as those observed in the undoped antiferromagnet, where the signal is from ordered Cu moments. Such scattering from ordered Cu moments deep in the superconducting state would be surprising to say the least.

However, there are four important ways in which these experimental results differ from the corresponding ones for the undoped antiferromagnet: (1) the magnitude of the observed moments is of order $`2\times 10^2\mu _B`$ at 10 K, which is $`50`$ times smaller than that observed in the undoped antiferromagnet; (2) the intensity decreases rapidly with scattering wavevector $`𝐪`$ in a manner which is inconsistent with ordered Cu spins; (3) aside from the elastic peak, there is no significant intensity up to 20 meV. In other words, there is no evidence for the Goldstone modes (magnons) which must be present if spin-rotational symmetry is broken. (4) Finally, it is found that there is no 3D order down to the lowest temperatures studied despite the fact that the in-plane spatial correlations are resolution limited, with a correlation length greater than 200Å.

We argue that these four are the most robust features of the experiment and that they fit the explanation of DDW order but are inconsistent with spin order. In order to understand the experiment, we first introduce the theoretical framework of the DDW. Next, we address the ratio of the intensities for various Bragg reflections and then examine the ratio of the spin-flip to non-spin flip scattering for polarized neutrons.

## b Currents associated with DDW order.

The DDW order parameter is a spin singlet particle-hole condensate given by the equal time correlation function ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are spin indices): $`c_{}^{}{}_{𝐤+𝐐\alpha }{}^{}c_{𝐤\beta }=i\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐Y(𝐤)\delta _{\alpha \beta },`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐`$ is a real order parameter, and $`c_\beta `$ is an electron destruction operator. The internal degree of freedom of the condensate is given by the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ function $`Y(𝐤)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{cos}k_ya\right).`$ Charge density is not modulated in the DDW because $`_𝐤Y(𝐤)=0`$! It is actually the current density that is modulated, as we discuss below. A conventional charge density wave would occur if the internal orbital degree of freedom of the particle-hole condensate were of $`s`$-wave character, e.g. if $`Y(𝐤)`$ were a constant. The terminology is a very convenient way of classifying the internal orbital degree of freedom of a particle-hole condensate.

Neutron scattering from the DDW state is determined by its associated current distribution. This distribution depends on the details of the current paths along which electrons move in a copper-oxide superconductor. As we discuss below, unpolarized neutron scattering is fairly insensitive to these details, but the ratio of non-spin-flip to spin-flip polarized neutron scattering is not.

The charge and spin distribution of an electron at a Cu site is given by the well-known Cu form factor (see below). However, due to mixing of different orbitals, the profile of current flow is more complicated; it will be sensitive to many-body effects when the current is substantial, and it will be affected by the bi-layer coupling and, in YBCO, by the influence of the chains. We make a simple and tractable Ansatz for this current distribution, including the effects of orthorhombicity due to the chains. The orthorhombicity, even though it is small in terms of the lattice constants, is well known to give rise to remarkable anisotropy; for example the $`ab`$-anisotropy of the superfluid density can be as large as 2-3, and perhaps even larger.

Thus, we define the Fourier transform of the expectation value of the current, $`𝐣(𝐪)`$, satisfying $`𝐪𝐣(𝐪)=0`$, by

$`𝐣(𝐪)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆_{}}{}}\delta _{𝐪_{},𝐆_{}}f(𝐪)`$ (2)
$`\times \left[\left(\alpha (𝐪){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐱}}{q_x}}\beta (𝐪){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐲}}{q_y}}\right)(\alpha (𝐪)\beta (𝐪)){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐳}}{q_z}}\right]`$
where $`𝐪_{}=(q_x,q_y)`$, $`𝐆_{}=(G_x,G_y)`$, and $`𝐆=(2\pi H/a,2\pi K/a,2\pi L/c)`$ is a magnetic reciprocal lattice vector, where the lattice constants are $`a=3.86\text{Å}`$ and $`c=11.82\text{Å}`$; we ignore slight orthorhombicity in the lattice constants, but not in the physical quantities in which it is magnified. Note that $`f(𝐪)=\mathrm{sin}(\frac{q_zd}{2})`$, where $`d=3.25\text{Å}`$ is the intrabilayer separation. The temperature and doping dependence of the currents are determined by the DDW order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐`$, which must appear as a thermodynamic phase transition.

If the electrons behaved classically and took straight line trajectories between point-like Cu sites, we would have $`\alpha (𝐪)=\beta (𝐪)=1`$. In reality, however, these are non-trivial functions of $`𝐪`$. Guided by the phenomenology, we choose the simplest model in which these are non-trivial functions of $`q_z`$ alone. At long scales, the current distribution is essentially classical, $`\alpha (0)=\beta (0)=1`$. At short distances, the thickness of the current trajectories becomes apparent. We assume that currents flowing along the $`\widehat{𝐲}`$ axis are more spread out, reflecting the underlying orthorhombicity of YBCO, $`\alpha (q_z)\beta (q_z)`$ for $`q_z`$ large. In tetragonal materials, the asymmetry could be due to spontaneous symmetry breaking.

The requirement $`\alpha (0)=\beta (0)=1`$ automatically leads to zero average current along $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ in the bilayer model because of the bilayer form factor $`f(𝐪)`$. If we want to interpret $`\alpha (q_z)`$ and $`\beta (q_z)`$ to be merely form factors and want to adhere to the original order parameter, we can do so if we stipulate that $`\alpha (q_z)\beta (q_z)q_z^2`$, as $`q_z0`$. This will make the average $`z`$-component of the current vanish (as it must) for the single layer model for which the same expression for the current holds, except that the factor $`f(𝐪)`$ is missing.

The orbital currents give rise to magnetic fields of order $`10G`$,  and a very small magnetic moment, of order $`4\times 10^2\mu _B`$, consistent with the experimental estimate of order $`2\times 10^2\mu _B`$ .

## c Unpolarized elastic neutron scattering.

We first recall spin-scattering and then discuss scattering from orbital currents. The well-known scattering cross section of unpolarized neutrons from localized Cu spins in YBCO, when the net spin moment is along the $`c`$-axis, is

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_\mathrm{s}\underset{𝐆_{}}{}\delta _{𝐪_{},𝐆_{}}g^2(𝐪)f^2(𝐪)\left(1\frac{q_z^2}{q^2}\right),$$
(3)
where $`𝐪`$ is the momentum transfer, and the atomic form factor $`g(𝐪)`$ is the Fourier transform of the normalized density of unpaired electrons in a single ion. We have assumed that the spins are antiferromagnetically coupled within an YBCO bilayer and that different bi-layers are uncoupled, so that the scattering cross-section is proportional to that due to a single bi-layer.

Similarly, there is a formula which applies when the spin moment lies in the $`xy`$ plane. If the spin direction in the plane is averaged over magnetic domains or averaged due to spin glass order, this is

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_\mathrm{s}\underset{𝐆_{}}{}\delta _{𝐪_{},𝐆_{}}g^2(𝐪)f^2(𝐪)\left(1+\frac{q_z^2}{q^2}\right).$$
(4)
It is worth emphasizing that the quantity in large parentheses in (4) increases with $`q_z`$, as does its counterpart in the case in which the spins point in some direction in the $`ab`$ plane which is not averaged over.

Next, we consider Bragg scattering from orbital currents. The neutron magnetic moment generates a vector potential, $`𝐀`$, given by $`𝐀=𝝁\times \frac{(𝐫_e𝐫_n)}{|𝐫_e𝐫_n|^3},`$ where $`𝝁=1.91(\frac{e\mathrm{}}{m_n})𝐬_n`$, $`𝐬_n`$ is the neutron spin, and $`m_n`$ is the mass of a neutron; the electron and the neutron coordinates are $`𝐫_e`$ and $`𝐫_n`$, respectively. The coupling of the electrons to this gauge field is given in momentum space by the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{d^3𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}𝐣(𝐪)𝐀(𝐪).`$ The Bragg intensity of unpolarized neutrons is then

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_\mathrm{o}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐣(𝐪)\right|^2}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆_{}}{}}f^2(𝐪)\beta ^2(q_z){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{𝐪_{},𝐆_{}}}{q^2}}`$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2(q_z)}{q_x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\lambda (q_z)1\right)^2}{q_z^2}}\right],`$ (6)
where $`\lambda (q_z)=\alpha (q_z)/\beta (q_z)`$. We emphasize that there are no approximations in this formula, such as the SU(n) mean field approximation ; it simply follows from the assumption of DDW order.

We estimate the factor $`\beta ^2(q_z)`$ by $`g^2(𝐪)`$ for Cu spins found by Shamoto et al. as an upper bound, because $`\beta ^2(q_z)`$ must fall off faster than $`g^2(𝐪)`$ as the charge distribution for orbital current loops is more spread out than the atomic orbitals. The case for orbital currents made below will be even stronger with the true form factor.

The most salient feature distinguishing (3) and (4) from (6) is apparent from dimensional analysis. The former scale with $`𝐪`$ as $`q^0`$ while the latter dominantly scale as $`1/q^4`$ (recall that $`|𝐣(𝐪)|1/q`$ according to (2) and $`\alpha (q_z)`$ and $`\beta (q_z)`$ are of order unity). The latter form follows from the inherent spatial extent of a current loop and leads to a rapid decay of the scattering cross-section with $`𝐪`$.

Let us consider the ratios of the Bragg scattering intensities at various magnetic reciprocal lattice vectors; we will quote the intensities at the representative values, $`\lambda (q_z)=1`$ and $`3`$, thereby crudely replacing $`\lambda (q_z)`$ by a constant for wavevectors larger than or of order $`2\pi /c`$. From (6), we see that the ratio of the intensity at $`(0.5,0.5,1)`$ (in reciprocal lattice units) to that at $`(1.5,1.5,1)`$ is 111 at $`\lambda =1`$, and $`23`$ at $`\lambda =3`$. Meanwhile in the spin case, the same ratio is 1.9 if the spins lie in the $`ab`$ plane and 1.4 if they are along the $`c`$-axis. The strong suppression of the intensity at $`(1.5,1.5,1)`$ in the orbital case is consistent with experiments where no peak is observed at $`(1.5,1.5,1)`$ or $`(1.5,1.5,2)`$, while peaks are observed at $`(0.5,0.5,1)`$ and $`(0.5,0.5,2)`$. The absence of an observable peak at $`(1.5,1.5,1)`$ is inconsistent with spin order.

Let us now contrast the ratios of the intensities at different values of $`q_z`$ for spins pointing within the plane, Eq. 4, and orbital currents, Eq. 6, with the form factor correction described above. The ratio of the intensity at the Bragg reflection $`(0.5,0.5,1)`$ to that at $`(0.5,0.5,2)`$ is $`0.96`$ for orbital moments at $`\lambda =1`$, increasing to $`1.5`$ at $`\lambda =3`$. For spins pointing in the plane it is $`0.5`$. Experimentally it is found to be $`1.16\pm 0.16`$, suggesting orbital currents as the source of scattering. One can easily see from the known Cu form factor that the correction due to the atomic form factor for nearby Bragg reflections, such as $`(0.5,0.5,1)`$ and $`(0.5,0.5,2)`$, is negligible.

Moreover, for spin-moments lying parallel to the plane, the ratio of the intensity at $`(0.5,0.5,5)`$ to $`(0.5,0.5,1)`$ should be 1.6. This is clearly not the case in the experiment because there is no intensity above the background at $`(0.5,0.5,5)`$. For orbital currents, the same ratio is 0.2 (which is only an upper bound) at $`\lambda =1`$ and 0.1 at $`\lambda =3`$; as a result, there may not be a measurable intensity at $`(0.5,0.5,5)`$ as discussed in Ref. , thus confirming once again the source of the scattering to be orbital currents.

## d Polarized elastic scattering.

For polarized neutrons, we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^4}}\left|\alpha |𝝁|\beta 𝐪\times 𝐣(𝐪)\right|^2,`$ (7)
where $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$ are the initial and final spin states of the neutrons. It is easy to see that if the neutron polarization is parallel to the scattering vector, the scattering is entirely spin flip irrespective of $`𝐣(𝐪)`$.

In contrast, if it is perpendicular to the scattering vector, then the scattering can be either spin flip or non-spin flip depending on $`𝐣(𝐪)`$ and $`𝐪`$. If $`𝐪=(H,H,L)`$ and the neutrons are polarized perpendicular to $`𝐪`$, in the $`[1,\overline{1},0]`$ direction, the ratio of the non-spin-flip to spin flip scattering intensities is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{NSF}}{\text{SF}}}=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (q_z)1}{\lambda (q_z)+1}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Hc}{La}}\right)^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{La}{Hc}}\right)^2\right]`$ (8)
While this ratio vanishes at $`\lambda =1`$, it increases rapidly with $`\lambda `$ because $`ca`$. At (0.5,0.5,1) and $`\lambda =3`$ it is of order unity, more precisely 1.4, which is similar to the ratios found in the experiments of Refs. .

## e Interlayer Coupling.

Earlier, we assumed that the order parameters from the two layers in a bilayer are opposite in sign. Let us see why this should be so. Interactions which couple the density at a site in one layer to the density at a site in another layer will not couple the DDW order parameters in the two layers because they will average over directions in the $`ab`$ plane, giving zero. However, interlayer tunneling will couple the DDW order parameters at second order.

Consider the interlayer tunneling Hamiltonian between layers (1) and (2): $`H_c=_{𝐤\alpha }t_{}(𝐤)(c_{𝐤\alpha }^{(1)}c_{𝐤\alpha }^{(2)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ where $`t_{}(𝐤)=(t_{}/4)(\mathrm{cos}k_xa\mathrm{cos}k_ya)^2`$. Let $`|s`$ be the ground state for $`t_{}=0`$ with equal DDW order parameters in each layer, while $`|a`$ is the ground state for $`t_{}=0`$ with DDW order parameters equal and opposite. The energy difference between these two states, per site, is given to lowest non-vanishing order in $`t_{}`$ by $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{sas}}}{N}\frac{25}{32}\frac{t_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐐^2,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{DDW}})^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{DSC}})^2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{DSC}}`$ is the maximum of the superconducting gap, i.e. the antisymmetric state has lower energy. The above result also holds for body-centered tetragonal materials, with the modified tunneling matrix element . Moreover, we see why the coupling between bilayers is so small: the tunneling matrix elements between bilayers are much smaller than those within a bilayer because $`c=11.82\text{Å}d=3.25\text{Å}`$.

Because the coupling between the unit cells is exceptionally small, we expect to see $`2D`$ Bragg rods without $`3D`$ order for temperatures which are not exceedingly low; recall that the transition to the DDW state is an Ising transition unlike the corresponding spin problem. Indeed, as remarked earlier, Mook et al. find such Bragg rods.

## f Inelastic scattering.

We note that because DDW order is Ising-like, there are no Goldstone modes, but a gap in the frequency spectrum. This is consistent with the experimental finding of a spin gap above the elastic peak, extending up to an energy of 20 meV. For spin-ordering, a Bragg peak will necessarily lead to a Goldstone mode (the Ising anisotropy in these materials is negligibly small; see, for example, Ref. .), which is continuously connected to it. It is not possible to have one without the other.

The magnetic resonance peak in inelastic scattering at 34 meV at the same momentum, $`𝐐`$, also testifies against the spin-ordering scenario. If the spins are ordered, this resonance should be at zero energy – i.e. it should not be distinct from the Bragg peak with the same quantum numbers! Furthermore, in the presence of broken spin-rotational symmetry, excitations are not organized into SU(2) multiplets (but, rather, U(1) multiplets if rotations about one axis are preserved), so the resonance could not possibly be a triplet mode as suggested in Ref. .

## g Global Phase Diagram.

According to the interpretation proposed here, DDW order has been observed in neutron scattering in YBCO6.6 . On the other hand, neutron scattering in YBCO6.35 produces a signal which is $`10`$ times more intense, is due to moments which lie in the $`ab`$ plane and is believed to be due to spin glass ordering. This not only supports the hypothesis that the effect observed in YBCO6.6 is due to something other than spin ordering – namely DDW ordering – but also suggests that DDW order disappears at low doping in favor of spin glass order and, possibly, other competing orders as well.

In neutron scattering experiments on YBCO6.5, Sidis et al.  find similar magnetic Bragg peaks with a ratio of $`0.67`$ between the intensity at $`(0.5,0.5,1)`$ and that at $`(0.5,0.5,2)`$. This is intermediate between the observed ratio in the putative DDW state of YBCO6.6 and the observed ratio in the spin glass of YBCO6.35. The measurements of Ref.  seem to be indicative of the spin glass phase. It is clear therefore that the doping dependence may be crucial, changing the results as we move from YBCO6.5 to YBCO6.6.

With the above ideas as inspiration, we propose the global phase diagram of Fig. 1.

## h Summary.

To summarize, the ratio of spin-flip to non-spin-flip scattering depends on details of the current distribution, but the rapid decrease of the scattering intensity with $`𝐪`$ is a robust feature which follows from the inherent spatial extent of the current loops (which is much larger than a Cu or even an O orbital). We believe that DDW order is the only way of reconciling the constraints following from the wavevector and polarization dependence of the neutron scattering intensity. These phenomenological considerations, although quite tight, clearly await a microscopic understanding.

Note added: Recent striking zero-field muon spin relaxation measurements in YBCO6.67 and YBCO6.95 have uncovered the onset of static magnetism consistent with our DDW picture, and the phase diagram proposed above, in particular, a phase transition within the superconducting dome.

S. C. is supported by NSF-DMR-9971138, and C. N. by NSF-DMR-9983544 and the A.P. Sloan Foundation. The work of H. -Y. K. was conducted under the auspices of the DOE, supported by funds provided by the University of California for the conduct of discretionary research by Los Alamos National Laboratory. We thank E. Abrahams, B. Keimer, S. Kivelson, R. B. Laughlin, and J. Tranquada for discussions. We especially thank H. Mook and J. E. Sonier for interesting and important correspondence.


text:
# Around SuSy 1970

## APPENDIX

At the suggestion of Misha Shifman I present below a verbatim translation of my paper written in 1970 which circulated as FIAN preprint No. 41 (1971). The final authorization for issuing this preprint was obtained on April 12, 1971.

LEBEDEV PHYSICS INSTITUTE OF THE USSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Theory Department

Preprint No. 41

Moscow 1971

IRREDUCIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE EXTENSION OF THE ALGEBRA OF GENERATORS OF THE POINCARÉ GROUP BY BISPINOR GENERATORS
E.P. Likhtman

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In Ref. 1 a special extension of the algebra $`𝒫`$ of the generators of the Poincaré group was considered. The extension was performed by virtue of introduction of the generators of the spinorial translations $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}_\beta `$,

$`[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\sigma \lambda }]_{}=i(\delta _{\mu \sigma }M_{\nu \lambda }+\delta _{\nu \lambda }M_{\mu \sigma }`$
$`\delta _{\mu \lambda }M_{\nu \sigma }\delta _{\nu \sigma }M_{\mu \lambda });`$
$`[P_\mu ,P_\nu ]_{}=0;`$
$`[M_{\mu \nu },P_\lambda ]_{}=i(\delta _{\mu \lambda }P_\nu \delta _{\nu \lambda }P_\mu );`$
$`[M_{\mu \nu },W]_{}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]W;`$ (1a)
$`\overline{W}=W^+\gamma _0;`$
$`[W,\overline{W}]_+=\gamma _\mu ^+P_\mu ;`$
$`[W,W]_+=0;[P_\mu ,W]_{}=0;`$ (1b)
$`\gamma _\mu ^\pm =s^\pm \gamma _\mu ;s^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \gamma _5),\gamma _5^2=1.`$
The spinorial indices are omitted, while the expressions of the type $`d_\mu d_\nu `$ are to be understood as $`d_0d_0d_1d_1d_2d_2d_3d_3`$ hereafter. In the same work a realization of this algebra was constructed in which a Hamiltonian describes interactions of quantum fields. This example shows that algebra (1) imposes rigid constraints on the form of the quantum field interaction. In constructing this example we used two linear irreducible representations of the algebra (1). Their definition was not given in Ref. 1. In this work I present the definition of these representations of algebra (1), and build other representations. The properties of these representations are investigated.

## 2 THE SPACE OF STATES AND INVARIANT SUBSPACES

In order to determine in which space the representations of algebra (1) act note that the algebra $`𝒫`$ is its subalgebra. Therefore, any representation of algebra (1) is also a representation of the algebra $`𝒫`$. The spaces in which these representations act coincide. However, irreducible representations of algebra (1) are reducible with respect to $`𝒫`$. This reducible representation splits in several irreducible representations of $`𝒫`$ and one and the same irreducible representation can be involved several times. To distinguish them we will introduce the number $`\chi `$ of the irreducible representations.

Of physical interest are those representations of (1) which can be reduced to (several) representations of $`𝒫`$ characterized by mass and spin. therefore, the basis vector of the space in which we build representations of (1) can be written as follows:

$$|\kappa ,p_\lambda ,j,m,\chi ,$$
(2)
where $`\kappa `$ is the mass, $`p_\lambda `$ is the spatial momentum, $`j`$ stands for the spin, $`m`$ is its projection on the $`z`$ axis, and, finally, $`\chi `$ is the number of the irreducible representation of $`𝒫`$.

In the space with the basis vectors (2) there are subspaces invariant under the action of the operators from the algebra in Eq. (1). According to Schur’s lemma , in order to find invariant subspaces it is necessary to find invariant operators which, by definition, commute with all operations of algebra (1). It is easy to observe that the operator $`P_\mu ^2`$ does have this property. Therefore, the space of which the basis vectors correspond to particles of one and the same mass $`\kappa `$ will be the invariant subspace. The spins of the vectors of this invariant subspace cannot be all the same, since the square of the spin operator is not an invariant operator of algebra (1),

$$[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^2,W]_{}0;(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }M_{\nu \lambda }P_\sigma ).$$

Instead, the invariant operator of algebra (1) is $`D_\mu ^2`$ where

$`D_\mu =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{W}\gamma _\mu W{\displaystyle \frac{P_\mu P_\nu }{P_\sigma ^2}}\overline{W}\gamma _\nu W),`$
$`P_\sigma ^2=\kappa ^2>0.`$
Other invariant operators in algebra (1) are likely to be absent.

A priori it is not exactly known which vectors (2) form the basis of the irreducible representation of (1), since the properties of the operator $`D_\mu ^2`$ are not known. Besides the fact that the mass of all states is the same, one can assert that the difference between the maximal and minimal spins is the irreducible representation of (1) does not exceed 1. In other words, irreducible representations of (1) contain no more than 3 distinct spins. Otherwise, by consecutively applying the operators from algebra (1) to the state vectors with spin $`j_1`$ one could obtain a vector with a nonvanishing projection on the state vectors with spin $`j_2`$, $`|j_2j_1|>1`$. To see that this is impossible note that the consecutive action of the operators from algebra (1) in the most general case can be represented as a polynomial in these operators. Due to the (anti)commutation relations (1) the form of this polynomial is

$`{\displaystyle C_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{};\lambda \mathrm{}}^{\alpha ,\mathrm{};\beta ,\mathrm{}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`M_{\mu \nu }\times \mathrm{}\times P_\lambda \times \mathrm{}\times W_\alpha \times \mathrm{}\times \overline{W}_\beta \times \mathrm{},`$
where $`C_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{};\lambda \mathrm{}}^{\alpha ,\mathrm{};\beta ,\mathrm{}}`$ are numerical coefficients.

The product of any number of operators $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`P_\lambda `$ does not change the spin of the state. The number of operators $`W`$ (and $`\overline{W}`$) in each term can be equal to one or two since if it is larger than 2 then the product vanishes because of the anticommutation relation in Eq. (1). By the same reason the product $`W_\alpha W_\beta 0`$ only provided that $`\alpha \beta `$. Such operator does not change the spin of the state as well. Thus, an invariant subspace can contain only the spins $`j`$, $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$, $`j+1`$.

In order to build the irreducible representation of algebra (1) it is necessary to find the matrix elements of the operators from algebra (1) between these states.

## 3 EQUATIONS FOR THE REDUCED MATRIX STATES

The matrix element of the operator of conventional translations can obviously be written as

$`\kappa ,p_\lambda ,j,m,\chi |P_\mu |\kappa ,p_\lambda ^{},j^{},m^{},\chi ^{}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`(\delta _{\mu 0}\sqrt{\kappa ^2+p_\lambda ^2}+\delta _{\mu \lambda }p_\lambda )`$
$`\times `$ $`\delta (p_\lambda p_\lambda ^{})\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{\chi \chi ^{}},`$
where $`\lambda =1,2,3`$. The operator $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ will have its conventional form as well. We will be interested in the matrix elements of the operators $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}_\beta `$, which, due to Eq. (1), are diagonal with respect to $`\kappa `$ and $`p_\lambda `$. One can readily convince oneself that the operators $`s^{}W`$ and $`\overline{W}s^+`$ satisfy the trivial commutation relations. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to investigating such representations in which 111Relaxing this requirement would require, of necessity, the introduction of an indefinite metric .

$$s^{}W=\overline{s}^+=0.$$

Without loss of generality let us choose the representation of the $`\gamma `$ matrices with a diagonal $`\gamma _5`$. Then the operators $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}_\beta `$ become two-component. Moreover, knowing the transformation law of spinors under the Lorentz transformations, and assuming that $`\kappa >0`$, let us pass to the reference frame with $`p_\lambda =p_\lambda ^{}=0`$. In this reference frame one could apply the Wigner-Eckart theorem  according to which

$`\kappa ,0,j,m,\chi |s^+W_\alpha |\kappa ,0,j^{},m^{},\chi ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j& \frac{1}{2}& j^{}\\ m& \alpha & m^{}\end{array}\right)(1)^{j^{}m^{}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\sqrt{(2j+1)(2j^{}+1)}j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{};`$
$`\kappa ,0,j,m,\chi |\overline{W}s_\beta ^{}|\kappa ,0,j^{},m^{},\chi ^{}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j^{}& \frac{1}{2}& j\\ m^{}& \beta & m\end{array}\right)(1)^{jm}`$
$`\times `$ $`\sqrt{(2j+1)(2j^{}+1)}j\chi |f^+|j^{}\chi ^{},`$ (10)
where $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j& \frac{1}{2}& j^{}\\ m& \alpha & m^{}\end{array}\right)`$ are the Wigner symbols, $`|jj^{}|=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}`$ are the reduced matrix elements, $`\sqrt{(2j+1)(2j^{}+1)}`$ is a convenient normalization factor. The representation (4) ensures the correct commutation relation with the momentum operator and the operator of the spatial rotations. In order to satisfy other commutation relations of algebra (1), we substitute (3) and (4) in (1b) and exploit the formulae of summation of the $`3j`$ symbols in the spin projections ,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}}{}}(1)^{j^{}+m}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j^{}\\ m_1& m_2& m^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_3& j_4& j^{}\\ m_3& m_4& m^{}\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{JM}{}}(1)^{2j_4+J+M}(2J+1)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j^{}\\ j_3& j_4& J\end{array}\right\}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_3& j_2& J\\ m_3& m_2& M\end{array}\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_4& J\\ m_1& m_4& M\end{array}\right),`$
where $`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j^{}\\ j_3& j_4& J\end{array}\right\}`$ is the $`6j`$ symbol. As a result of this substitution we obtain, after performing the summation,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{JMj^{}\chi ^{}}{}}(1)^{2j^{\prime \prime }+J+M}(2J+1)`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j& j^{}& J\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& j^{}\end{array}\right\}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& J\\ \beta & \alpha & M\end{array}\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j& j^{\prime \prime }& J\\ m& m^{\prime \prime }& M\end{array}\right)`$
$`\times `$ $`(1)^{m+\alpha j^{}}\sqrt{(2j+1)(2j^{\prime \prime }+1)(2j^{}+1)^2}`$
$`\times `$ $`(j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f^+|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$
$`+`$ $`(1)^{Jj+j^{\prime \prime }}j\chi |f^+|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime })`$
$`=`$ $`\kappa \delta _{jj^{\prime \prime }}\delta _{mm^{\prime \prime }}\delta _{\chi \chi ^{\prime \prime }}.`$ (22)
(An analogous formula is obtained upon substitution of Eq. (4) in the anticommutation relation $`[W,W]_+=0`$.) Next we use the values of the $`6j`$ symbols ,

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ \frac{1}{2}& j_3\frac{1}{2}& j_2+\frac{1}{2}\end{array}\}=(1)^{j_1+j_2+j_3}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(j_1+j_3j_2)(j_1+j_2j_3+1)}{(2j_2+1)(2j_2+2)(2j_3)(2j_3+1)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}};`$
$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ \frac{1}{2}& j_3\frac{1}{2}& j_2\frac{1}{2}\end{array}\}=(1)^{j_1+j_2+j_3}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(j_1+j_2+j_3+1)(j_2+j_3j_1)}{(2j_2)(2j_2+1)(2j_3)(2j_3+1)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Then Eq. (5) takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}\chi ^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j^{}+1}{2}}\right)(j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f^+|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ (6a)
$`+`$ $`j\chi |f^+|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime })`$
$`=`$ $`\kappa \delta _{jj^{\prime \prime }}\delta _{\chi \chi ^{\prime \prime }};`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}\chi ^{}}{}}(1)^j^{}(j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f^+|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ (6b)
$``$ $`j\chi |f^+|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime })`$
$`=`$ $`0,\text{for }j0;`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}\chi ^{}}{}}j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}j^{}\chi ^{}|f^+|j^{\prime \prime }\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ (6c)
$`=`$ $`0,\text{except for }j=j^{\prime \prime }=0.`$
These are the equations that were our goal. Their solution will allow us to find the explicit form of $`s^+W`$ and $`\overline{W}s^{}`$. Note that Eq. (6) describes the representation in which the invariant operator $`D_\mu ^2`$ need not necessarily be proportional to the unit operator, i.e. we get reducible representations of algebra (1), generally speaking.

## 4 THE NUMBER OF PARTICLES IN THE REPRESENTATION OF ALGEBRA (1) AND SOME SOLUTIONS OF EQ. (6)

First of all, starting from Eq. (6) I will deduce constraints on the number of particles in the representation of algebra (1). To this end let us multiply Eq. (6a) by $`(1)^{2j}(2j+1)/2`$ and sum over $`j=j^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\chi =\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$. After this operation the left-hand side will vanish. To see that this is the case it is sufficient to transpose two factors in the second term (which is justified since this is inside the trace) and to use the fact that $`(1)^{2j}=(1)^{2j^{}+1}`$ (see Eq. (4)). Then the second term will differ from the first one by the sign only. The right-hand side of Eq. (6a) must also vanish, and we obtain the constraint on the number $`n`$ of the particles with spin $`j`$ in the representation of algebra (1),

$$\underset{j}{}(1)^{2j}(2j+1)n_j=0.$$
(7)
As is known , in relativistic quantum field theory, the particle energy operator, being transformed to the normal form, contains an infinite term which is interpreted as the vacuum energy. It is also known that the sign of this term is different for particles subject to the Bose and Fermi statistics. According to Eq. (7), the representations of algebra (1) include particles with different statistics, so that the number of the boson states is always equal to that of the fermion states. From this it follows that the infinite positive energy of the boson states is canceled by the infinite negative energy of the fermion states in any representation of algebra (1).

After these preliminary remarks we proceed directly to solving Eq. (6). Let us try to find representation in which only particles with two distinct spin values enter. In this case $`j^{}`$ in Eq. (6) takes only one value, and the summation over $`j^{}`$ is, in fact, absent. Using this fact, let us multiply Eq. (6b) by $`(1)^j^{}(2j^{}+1)/2`$ and add up the result with Eq. (6a). Then on the right-hand side one will find a nonsingular matrix acting in the space of the variable $`\chi `$ (at fixed $`j`$, $`j^{}`$, and $`j^{\prime \prime }`$). On the left-hand side the matrix will be nonsingular only if $`j0`$. (Cf. Eq. (6c)). Therefore, the representation of algebra (1) with two spins can contain only spin-0 and spin-1/2 states. It is easy to check that in this case the simplest solution of the system with $`n_0=2`$ ($`\chi =1,2`$) and $`n_{1/2}=1`$ ($`\chi =1`$) has the form

$$j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}=\sqrt{\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where the matrix on the right-hand side acts on the state

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ b\\ \\ c\end{array}\right).$$

The amplitudes $`a`$ and $`b`$ describe the spin-0 particles while $`c`$ describes the spin-1/2 particle.

In the case of the three-spin representations, $`j`$, $`j+1/2`$, and $`j+1`$, the lowest spin $`j`$ can be arbitrary. The simplest solution with $`n_j=1`$ ($`\chi =1`$), $`n_{j+1/2}=2`$ ($`\chi =1,2`$), and $`n_{j+1}=1`$ ($`\chi =1`$) can be written in a form analogous to (8),

$$j\chi |f|j^{}\chi ^{}=\sqrt{\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ & & & \\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
The representations (8) and (9) are irreducible. One can readily convince oneself that this is the case even without calculating the eigenvalues of the operator $`D_\mu ^2`$. It is enough to observe that there exist no representations with a lesser number of particles satisfying the necessary condition (7). The question of existence/nonexistence of other irreducible representations of (1), besides those found here, requires further investigation.

## 5 SECOND-QUANTIZED RELATIVISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF ALGEBRA (1)

In this section we will show how one can pass from the representations (8), (9) acting in the space with the basis vectors (2) to the relativistic-covariant form of these representations, acting in the space of the occupation numbers. The operators of the algebra in such representations have to be expressible in terms of the second-quantized free fields with equal masses but distinct spins. Since relativistic equation for spin-1/2 particles describes both particles and antiparticles, it is necessary to introduce antiparticles in the representation (7) . Then the operators of the algebra will be expressible in terms of non-Hermitian free scalar fields $`\phi (x)`$, $`\omega (x)`$, and a spinor field $`\psi _1(x)`$. Let us show that the operator

$`W^o=s^+W^o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle }(\phi ^{}(x)\stackrel{}{_0}s^+\psi _1(x)`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\omega (x)\stackrel{}{_0}s^+\psi _1^c(x))d^3x,`$
(where the superscript $`o`$ means that the operator is bilinear in the field operators while the superscript $`c`$ means the charge conjugation) satisfies 222The operator $`W`$ is defined up to a phase factor, see Ref. 3. (anti)commutation relations (1). For instance,

$`[W^o,\overline{W}^o]_+=i{\displaystyle d^3xd^3y}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\left(\phi ^{}(x)\stackrel{}{_{x_0}}\gamma _\mu ^+i_{x_\mu }D(xy)\stackrel{}{_{y_0}}\phi (y)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^3xd^3y}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\omega (x)\stackrel{}{_{x_0}}\gamma _\mu ^+i_{x_\mu }D(xy)\stackrel{}{_{y_0}}\omega ^{}(y)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^3xd^3y}`$
$`\times `$ $`(\overline{\psi }_1(y)s^{}\times \stackrel{}{_{y_0}}D(yx)\stackrel{}{_{x_0}}s^+\psi _1(x))`$
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^3xd^3y}`$
$`\times `$ $`(\overline{\psi }_1^c(y)s^{}\times \stackrel{}{_{y_0}}D(yx)\stackrel{}{_{x_0}}s^+\psi _1^c(x))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\phi ^{}(x)_\mu \stackrel{}{_0}\phi (x)\right)\times \gamma _\mu ^+}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\omega ^{}(x)_\mu \stackrel{}{_0}\omega (x)\right)\times \gamma _\mu ^+}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\overline{\psi }_1(x)\stackrel{}{_0}\gamma _\mu ^{}\psi _1(x)\right)\times \gamma _\mu ^+}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\left(\overline{\psi }_1^c(x)\stackrel{}{_0}\gamma _\mu ^{}\psi _1^c(x)\right)\times \gamma _\mu ^+}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3xT_{\mu 0}(x)\times \gamma _\mu ^+}.`$
In this calculation I used the Fierz identity, the equations of motion, and the commutation relations for free fields. Let us further note that the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is nonsymmetric in the case of the spinor field, generally speaking. However, if one of the indices is zero, then

$$T_{\mu 0}=T_{0\mu },$$

and the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (11) becomes the energy-momentum tensor of the fields $`\phi (x)`$, $`\omega (x)`$, and $`\psi _1(x)`$. All other relations in (1) can be checked in a similar manner. The action of the operator $`W^o`$ on the field operators is a linear transformation of these fields. Schematically, one can write it as follows:

$`\phi (x)\psi (x)\omega (x)0,`$
$`\omega ^{}(x)\psi ^c(x)\phi ^{}(x)0.`$
Let us pass now to generalization of the representation (9) to cover the case of the quantized fields. We will limit ourselves to the option that the lowest spin is zero, while two spin 1/2 particles may be considered related by the operation of the charge conjugation. Then the operators of algebra (1) in this representation will be expressed in terms of a Hermitian scalar field $`\chi (x)`$, Hermitian vector transverse field $`A_\mu (x)`$, and a spinor field $`\psi _2(x)`$. This irreducible representation can differ from that in Eq. (10) by the mass of the particles and must differ by the eigenvalues of the invariant operator $`D_\mu ^2`$. The operator $`W^o`$ in this representation has the form

$`W^o=s^+W^o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle }(\chi (x)\stackrel{}{_0}s^+\psi _2(x)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`A_\mu \stackrel{}{_0}\gamma _\mu ^+\psi _2(x))d^3x.`$
One can verify Eq. (12) in the same manner as Eq. (10),

$`[s^+W^o,\overline{W}^os^{}]_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle d^3xd^3y}`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`(\overline{\psi }_2(y)s^{}\times \stackrel{}{_{y_0}}D(yx)\stackrel{}{_{x_0}}s^+\psi _2(x))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^3xd^3y(\psi _2(y)\gamma _\mu ^+\times \stackrel{}{_{y_0}}`$
$`\times `$ $`(\delta _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2}}_{y_\mu }_{y_\nu })D(yx)\stackrel{}{_{x_0}}\gamma _\nu ^+\psi _2(x))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(\chi (x)\stackrel{}{_0}_\mu \chi (x)\right)d^3x\times \gamma _\mu ^+}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(A_\mu (x)\stackrel{}{_0}_\alpha A_\nu (x)\right)d^3x\times \gamma _\mu ^+\gamma _\alpha ^{}\gamma _\nu ^+}`$
$`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu ^+P_\mu ,`$
where $`\mu 0`$ is the mass of the fields $`\chi (x)`$, $`A_\mu (x)`$, and $`\psi _2(x)`$. In this representation the action of the operator $`W^o`$ on free fields can be schematically depicted as

$$\psi _2^c(x)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\begin{array}{c}\chi (x)\\ \\ A_\mu (x)\end{array}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}\psi _2(x)0.$$

At intermediate stages the mass $`\mu `$ enters in the denominator in Eq. (13). Therefore, it cannot be set to zero. The limit $`\mu 0`$ can be realized by abandoning the condition of transversality of the vector field and passing to the diagonal pairing

$$[A_\mu (x),A_\nu (y)]_{}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }D(xy).$$

In this case the field $`\psi _2(x)`$ becomes two-component ($`s^+\psi _2=0`$). The first term in intermediate calculations in (13) becomes unnecessary and disappears; therefore, there is no need in the introduction of the scalar field $`\chi (x)`$. At $`\mu =0`$ the operator $`W^o`$ has the following form

$`W^o`$ $`=`$ $`s^+W^o`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \left(A_\mu (x)\stackrel{}{_0}\gamma _\mu ^+\psi _2(x)\right)d^3x}.`$
In Secs. 2–4 where I investigated the properties of the representations with nonvanishing mass, it was shown that the numbers of the fermion and boson states in the representations of algebra (1) coincide. Therefore, the operator $`P_\mu ^o`$ is automatically representable in the normal form. This can be seen also from the fact that the action of the operators $`W^o`$ and $`\overline{W}^o`$ on the vacuum always yields zero, and

$$P_\mu =\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma _\mu ^{}[W^o,\overline{W}^o]_+).$$

Therefore, the representation (14) also possesses this property, while the vector and spinor massless particles can only be in two states with the opposite chiralities.

## 6 CONCLUSION

Summarizing, we found several irreducible representations of algebra (1). In these representations conventional fields are united in certain multiplets. A question arises whether one can identify these multiplets with some observed particles. In answering this question the main difficulty lies in the fact that masses of all particles in the multiplet are identical, while spins are different. Therefore, at present algebra (1) and its realizations must be considered as just a model of a Hamiltonian formulation of quantum field theory.

In conclusion I express my deep gratitude to Yu.A. Golfand for his constant attention to my work and stimulating discussions.


text:
# Lattice instanton action from 3D SU(2) Georgi-Glashow model

## 1 Introduction

It is very important to understand confinement mechanism of QCD. Wilson’s lattice formulation  shows that the confinement is a property of a non-Abelian gauge theory of strong interaction and there are a lot of numerical lattice calculations showing the confinement of color. But the mechanism of confinement is still not well understood.

One of approaches to the confinement problem is to search for relevant dynamical variables and to construct an effective theory in terms of these variables. In 1970’s, it was pointed out that the confinement of quarks may be explained as the dual Meissner effect due to condensation of monopoles .

In (QCD)4, ’t Hooft proposed an idea of abelian projection. After a partial gauge fixing (called as abelian projection), SU(N) gauge theory can be reduced to an abelian U(1)N-1 theory with $`N1`$ different charges and magnetic charges. Namely, $`N1`$ monopoles appear after the abelian projection. Quark confinement could be understood by the dual Meissner effect due to condensation of these monopoles. Actually there have been many numerical data supporting the above conjecture when one performs the abelian projection in the Maximally abelian (MA) gauge.

The first interesting findings are some phenomena called abelian dominance. Abelian Wilson loops composed of abelian link variables alone seem to reproduce essential features of quark confinement in the Maximally Abelian gauge .

The second is monopole dominance. It has been shown that monopoles alone are responsible for abelian quantities in the infrared region. Abelian Wilson loops and abelian Polyakov loops are written as a product of monopole and photon contributions. The monopoles which are defined by DeGrand and Toussaint reproduce the confinement features .

Furthermore an effective lattice monopole action was derived by Shiba and Suzuki in a simple case with two-point interactions alone. The work was extended to include 4 and 6 point interactions in  and .

There is another system having such a magnetic quantity naturally. It is the three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model (GG)3 where there exist a famous ’t Hooft-Polyakov instanton  having a magnetic charge. Polyakov showed analytically  that the string tension of 3D Georgi-Glashow model has a finite value. He made a quasi-classical calculation using a dilute Coulomb gas approximation of ’t Hooft-Polyakov instantons. However justification of his method is not clear. If the quasi-classical assumption using the dilute instanton gas is true, abelian and instanton dominances should hold in the infrared region of three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model. It is expected naturally that an effective abelian instanton action works well in the infrared region.

It is shown in  that Polyakov’s picture of the dilute Coulomb instanton gas is too simple to describe all infrared physics of (GG)3. Actually, it can not explain the screening of doubly charged particle due to $`W^\pm `$ bosons. However, such a screening appears only for particles with even charge and also in the long infrared range of $`O(2M_W/\sigma )`$, where $`M_W`$ is a mass of the W boson and $`\sigma `$ is the string tension. Hence if we restricted ourselves to an infrared but an intermediate region before the screening appears, we may be allowed to adopt such a picture as Polyakov’s one.

It is just the purpose of this study to test the Polyakov’s assumptions and to check calculations done by him quantitatively formulating the theory on the lattice and restricting ourselves to the intermediate region before the screening appears. Our method is Monte-Carlo numerical simulations without ad-hoc assumptions. In Section 2, we briefly review the Polyakov’s work in 1977. We calculate the total energy of ’t Hooft-Polyakov instanton in the London limit. In Section 3, we show the method of our numerical study. We derive a lattice instanton action in 3D Georgi-Glashow model using an inverse Monte-Carlo method. We then perform a block-spin transformation of DeGrand-Toussaint instantons. These discussions are almost similar to those in 4D pure QCD in MA gauge fixing. In Section 4, we show our numerical results of the lattice monopole action in 3D Georgi-Glashow model. Then we calculate the string tension derived by Polyakov using the parameters determined in our numerical simulations. Section 5 is devoted to concluding remarks.

## 2 Confinement mechanism in 3D Georgi-Glashow model

We review briefly the ’t Hooft-Polyakov instanton and confinement mechanism due to the instantons as discussed by Polyakov in Ref.

### 2.1 Georgi-Glashow model and ’t Hooft-Polyakov instanton

The three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model is given by

$$S=\mathrm{d}^3x\left\{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a+\frac{1}{2}𝒟_\mu \varphi ^a𝒟_\mu \varphi ^a+\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^av^2)^2\right\},$$
(1)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gϵ^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,$$
(2)
$$𝒟_\mu \varphi ^a=_\mu \varphi ^a+gϵ^{abc}A_\mu ^b\varphi ^c.$$
(3)
It is a SU(2) Yang Mills theory with an adjoint Higgs field. It has a phase with spontaneously broken symmetry (SU(2) $``$ U(1)) and the gauge field becomes massive because of the Higgs mechanism. The gauge boson mass is given at the tree level by

$$m_Wgv.$$
(4)
In the case of three space-time dimensions, the theory has an instanton solution —— ’t Hooft-Polyakov instanton. One instanton solution takes the form

$`\varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^a}{gr^2}}H(gvr),`$ (5)
$`A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\epsilon _{a\mu b}{\displaystyle \frac{r^b}{r^2}}[1K(gvr)],`$ (6)
where $`H`$ and $`K`$ are dimensionless functions determined by the equations of motion. They satisfy

$$\begin{array}{c}K(gvr)0\hfill \\ H(gvr)gvr\hfill \end{array}\}r\mathrm{}.$$
(7)
For the ansatz given in Eqs.(5) and (6), the energy of the one-instanton system is given by

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi v}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\xi }{\xi ^2}}[\xi ^2({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}K}{\mathrm{d}\xi }})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}H}{\mathrm{d}\xi }}H)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(K^21)^2`$
$`+K^2H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4g^2}}(H^2\xi ^2)^2],`$ (8)
where $`\xi =gvr`$. This can be calculated numerically solving equations of motion for $`K`$ and $`H`$.

The value of $`S`$ at this minimum is expressed as

$$S_{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{m_W}{g^2}ϵ(\lambda /g).$$
(9)
The function $`ϵ(x)`$ is slowly varying. For example, it is known  that $`ϵ(0)=4\pi `$. In our case, we calculate Eq.(8) in the London limit ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$) because we adopt the London limit in lattice calculations done later. We obtain

$$ϵ(\mathrm{})=4\pi \times 1.67.$$
(10)
### 2.2 Instanton dilute gas model and Confinement

Polyakov showed that, when the Higgs mass is large enough, the infrared structure of the model in its Higgs phase is dominated by a dilute Coulomb gas of ’t Hooft-Polyakov instantons with long-range interactions ($`rm_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$) which disorder the system.

When we consider quantum fluctuations around the instanton background, we need to consider zero mode solutions the number of which are equal to that of conservation laws violated by the classical solution .

The partition function in the one-instanton case is given in the tree approximation by 111 Polyakov evaluated the integral beyond the tree level (Ref.). The one-instanton partition function in the one-loop approximation is given by $`Z_1=\mathrm{d}𝑹N^{3/2}\mathrm{Det}^{1/2}(𝒟_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}}𝒟_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}}g^2[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cl}},[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cl}},]])\mathrm{exp}(_{n0}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0})m_W^3e^{S_{\mathrm{cl}}}.`$
But we focus only on the tree-level result for simplicity.

$$Z_1d𝑹N^{3/2}m_W^3e^{S_{\mathrm{cl}}},$$
(11)
where $`N`$ is the normalization factor

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3x\{(F_{\lambda \mu }^{\mathrm{cl}})^2+(𝒟_\lambda ^{\mathrm{cl}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{cl}})^2\}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi v}{g}}{\displaystyle d\xi \frac{1}{\xi ^2}\left[2\xi ^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}K}{\mathrm{d}\xi }\right)^2+(K^21)^2+K^2H^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi \frac{\mathrm{d}H}{\mathrm{d}\xi }H\right)^2\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W}{g^2}}\alpha (\lambda /g^2).`$
It is evaluated in the London limit ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$) as

$$\alpha (\mathrm{})4\pi \times 3.33.$$
(13)
Let us next discuss a system of several instantons. In Ref., Polyakov considered a case in which the positions of instantons are far from each other ( $`rm_W^1`$) and the instantons have only the Coulomb interaction. This is justified when the Higgs mass is large. Then the action is given by

$$S=\frac{m_W}{g^2}ϵ(\lambda /g^2)\underset{a}{}q_a^2+\frac{2\pi }{g^2}\underset{ab}{}\frac{q_aq_b}{|\stackrel{}{x}_a\stackrel{}{x}_b|}.$$
(14)
where $`q_a`$ is an instanton charge and $`q_a=\pm 1`$ alone are taken into account.

The partition function of the dilute gas model is given by

$$Z=\underset{n,\{q_a\}}{}\frac{\zeta ^n}{n!}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{d}^3x_j\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\pi }{g^2}\underset{ab}{}\frac{q_aq_b}{|\stackrel{}{x}_a\stackrel{}{x}_b|}\right\},$$
(15)
where

$$\zeta =N^{3/2}m_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e^{\frac{m_W}{g^2}ϵ(\lambda /g^2)}.$$
(16)
This is rewritten as

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\chi \underset{n,\{q_a\}}{}\frac{\zeta ^n}{n!}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{d}^3x_j)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g}{4\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{d}^3x(_\mu \chi )^2+i\underset{a}{}q_a\chi (x_a)\right\}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\chi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g}{4\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{d}^3x((_\mu \chi )^22M^2\mathrm{cos}\chi )\right\}},`$
where

$$M^2=2\left(\frac{4\pi }{g}\right)^2\zeta .$$
(18)
The static potential between a pair of static electric charges is estimated by the Wilson loop (Fig.1) defined by

$$W[C]=e^{ig_CA_\mu ^3dx_\mu }=e^{ig_SB_\mu dS_\mu },$$
(19)
where the magnetic field from an instanton is

$$B_\mu (x)=\frac{1}{g}\frac{r_\mu }{r^3}.$$
(20)
One easily recognizes in (20) the Dirac quantization condition. In the case of several instantons, the strength of the magnetic field is given by

$$B_\mu (x)=\frac{1}{g}\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{x_\mu y_\mu }{|xy|^3}k(y),$$
(21)
where the instanton density is

$$k(x)=\underset{a}{}q_a\delta ^3(xx_a).$$
(22)
The Wilson loop Eq.(19) is expressed as

$$W=e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{d}^3x\eta (x)k(x)}}=\frac{Z[\eta ]}{Z[0]},$$
(23)
where

$`Z[\eta ]={\displaystyle D\chi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g}{4\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{d}^3x[(_\mu (\chi \eta ))^22M^2\mathrm{cos}\chi ]\right\}},`$ (24)
$`\eta (x)={\displaystyle _S}d\stackrel{}{S}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|^3}}.`$ (25)
The path integral (24) may be evaluated by the saddle-point solution (see Appendix A):

$`W[C]\mathrm{exp}\{RT\times `$ (26)
$`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{d}z\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2RT}{2z\sqrt{(MR)^2+(MT)^2+4z^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^z(1e^{2z})}{(1+e^{2z})^2}}\right]\}.`$
It shows an area law in the approximation of large $`T`$ and large $`R`$. The string tension is obtained explicitly as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{Mg^2}{4\pi }.$$
(27)
Finally in this section, we show that Eq.(14) is rewritten in the outside of the instantons as

$$S\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{d}^3x^{}k(x)\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^1(xx^{})k(x^{}).$$
(28)
We will compare later this form of action with a lattice instanton action derived numerically.

## 3 Lattice Georgi-Glashow model and instantons

Now let us make an analysis of the Georgi-Glashow model in the framework of lattice field theory without recourse to the quasi classical approximation. First we check the abelian dominance and the instanton dominance in the infrared region numerically. Next we try to derive an effective instanton action in the continuum limit and compare it with the action derived by Polyakov (28).

### 3.1 Lattice Georgi-Glashow model

The lattice form of Eq.(1) is expressed by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu >\nu }{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}U_{\mu \nu }(x)\right)`$ (29)
$`+\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}(\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x)U_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x+\mu )U_L^{}(x))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _L}{4}}\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}[2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}(\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x))1]^2,`$
where the plaquette gauge variable is

$$U_{\mu \nu }(x)=U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\mu )U_\mu ^{}(x+\nu )U_\nu ^{}(x).$$
(30)
In the case of three space-time dimensions, the relations between the continuum and the lattice quantities are

$`U_\mu (ax)=\mathrm{exp}[iagA_\mu ^a(x){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^a}{2}}],\mathrm{\Phi }_L(ax)=a\varphi ^a(x){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^a}{2}},`$ (31)
$`m_L^2=a^2v^2\lambda ,\lambda _L=a\lambda ,`$ (32)
$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{g^2a}},\kappa ^2=v^2a.`$ (33)
For simplicity, we consider only the London limit $`\lambda _L\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}(\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(x))1$$
(34)
and

$$\underset{a}{}\phi _L^a\phi _L^a=1.$$
(35)
The action is reduced to

$$S=\beta \underset{x,\mu >\nu }{}\left(1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}U_{\mu \nu }(x)\right)+\kappa \underset{x,\mu }{}\left(1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\{\phi _L^a(x)\sigma ^aU_\mu (x)\phi _L^b(x+\mu )\sigma ^bU_\mu ^{}(x)\}\right).$$
(36)
### 3.2 The method

The method of our numerical study is the following:

1. We generate thermalized vacuum configurations $`\{U_\mu (x)\}`$, adopting, for simplicity, a unitary gauge condition

$$\phi _L^a\delta ^{a3}.$$
(37)
In this gauge, the Higgs field disappears in the action. There remains still $`U(1)`$ symmetry under the unitary gauge condition and hence it is regarded as one of abelian projections.
2. The lattice considered is $`48^3`$ for $`\beta =4.06.0`$ and $`\kappa =1.001.30`$. We also used $`12^3`$, $`16^3`$, $`24^3`$ and $`32^3`$ lattices to study volume dependence.
3. We next extract abelian link variables $`\{u_\mu (x)\}`$ in the unitary gauge as

$`U_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`C_\mu (x)u_\mu (x)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`C_\mu (x)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\theta _\mu (x)}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\theta _\mu (x)}\end{array}\right).`$ (41)
4. We generate also the vacuum configurations in the maximally abelian (MA) gauge from those in the unitary gauge. They are generated after a gauge transformation in such a way as maximizing a quantity $`R=_{x,\mu }\mathrm{tr}\left(\sigma _3U_\mu (x)\sigma _3U_\mu ^{}(x)\right).`$ The abelian link variables in MA gauge are extracted similarly as in (41) . The Higgs field reappear in MA gauge, but we don’t need them, since we evaluate here only operators composed of abelian link variables.
5. An integer instanton charge is defined from the $`U(1)`$ plaquette variables following DeGrand and Toussaint . The U(1) plaquette variables are written by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(x)\theta _\mu (x)+\theta _\nu (x+\mu )\theta _\mu (x+\nu )\theta _\nu (x),(4\pi <\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(x)<4\pi ).$$
(42)
It is decomposed into two terms:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\mu \nu }(x)+2\pi n_{\mu \nu }(x),(\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\mu \nu }(x)<\pi ).$$
(43)
Here, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is interpreted as the electro-magnetic flux through the plaquette and the integer $`n_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ corresponds to the number of Dirac string penetrating a plaquette. One can define a quantized instanton charge as

$`k(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\nu \rho }(x)`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }_\mu n_{\nu \rho }(x),`$
where $``$ denotes the forward difference on the lattice. We then obtain vacuum ensembles $`\{k(x)\}`$ from the vacuum configuration $`\{u_\mu (x)\}`$ both in unitary and MA gauges.
6. We determine an effective instanton action $`S[k]`$ from the vacuum ensemble $`\{k(x)\}`$ with the help of an inverse Monte-Carlo method first developed by Swendsen and extended to closed monopole currents by Shiba and Suzuki . Here instantons are a site variable and the original Swendsen method works. We consider a set of independent instanton interactions that are summed up over the whole lattice. We denote each operator as $`S_i[k]`$. Then the instanton action may be written as a linear combination of these operators:

$$S[k]=\underset{i}{}G_iS_i[k],$$
(45)
where $`G_i`$ are coupling constants.

We determine the set of couplings $`G_i`$ from the instanton ensemble $`\{k(x)\}`$. Practically, we have to restrict the number of interaction terms. It is natural to assume that instantons that are far apart do not interact strongly and to consider only short-ranged interactions of instantons. This assumption is not justified when the screening appears. Non-local long-range interactions are inevitable if we express the theory in terms of abelian quantities alone. But here we are restricted to the intermediate region before the screening appears.

The form of actions adopted here is 10 quadratic interactions :

$`S[k]`$ $`=`$ $`G_0{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}k(x)^2+G_1{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}k(x)k(x+\mu )+G_2{\displaystyle \mathrm{}}+G_9{\displaystyle \mathrm{}}`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,x^{}}{}}k(x)D(xx^{})k(x^{}).`$ (47)
The detailed form of interactions is shown in Fig.2.
7. To study the continuum limit, we perform a block-spin transformation in terms of the instantons. We adopt $`n=1,2,3,4,6,8`$ extended instantons which are defined as

$$k^{(n)}(x^{(n)})=\underset{i,j,k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}k(nx^{(n)}+i\widehat{1}+j\widehat{2}+k\widehat{3}).$$
(48)
This is a block-spin transformation on the dual lattice and the renormalized lattice spacing is $`b=na(\beta ,\kappa )`$. The value of the blocked instanton $`k^{(n)}(x^{(n)})`$ is integer.

We determine the effective instanton action from the blocked instanton ensemble $`\{k^{(n)}(x^{(n)})\}`$ using the above inverse Monte-Carlo method. Then one can obtain the renormalization flow in the coupling constant space.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 String tension

We first measure the static potential between a pair of quarks and the lattice string tension for $`\beta =4.06.0`$ and $`\kappa =1.001.30`$. They are measured from $`T\mathrm{}`$ of $`R\times T`$ Wilson loops. The Coulomb potential is not $`1/R`$ but $`\mathrm{log}R`$ because we are considering the three-dimensional case. The static potential is fitted as $`A\mathrm{log}R+\sigma _LR+B`$ (where $`A,B`$ are constants). The usual $`SU(2)`$ Wilson loops and the string tension are evaluated to fix the scale of this theory.

Abelian Wilson loops in terms of the abelian link variables $`\theta _\mu (x)`$ in Eq.(41) are measured similarly. The string tension is obtained from the abelian Wilson loops. They are rewritten as

$$W[C]=\mathrm{exp}\{i\underset{x}{}\theta _\mu (x)J_\mu (x)\}=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(x)M_{\mu \nu }(x)\},$$
(49)
where $`J_\mu (x)=_\mu ^{}M_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ . Then the abelian Wilson loop operator can be decomposed into instanton and photon parts as shown in Ref.: Using an identity

$$M_{\mu \nu }(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(xx^{})[_\alpha ^{}(_\mu M_{\alpha \nu }_\nu M_{\alpha \mu })+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \mu \nu }ϵ_{\lambda \rho \sigma }_\alpha ^{}_\lambda M_{\rho \sigma }],$$
(50)
we get

$`W[C]`$ $`=`$ $`W_p[C]W_m[C],`$ (51)
$`W_p[C]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle \underset{x,x^{}}{}}_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(xx^{})J_\nu (x^{})\},`$ (52)
$`W_m[C]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi i{\displaystyle \underset{x,x^{}}{}}k(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(xx^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\alpha \rho \sigma }_\alpha M_{\rho \sigma }\},`$ (53)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(x)`$ is the lattice Coulomb propagator.

In Table.1 and in Fig.3 we show the data of the string tensions for the regions of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$. It is interesting that the instanton contribution to the abelian Wilson loop gives us a static potential which is almost linear: $`V(R)\sigma _LR+B`$. The string tension is determined also from this potential. Except for the data of instanton contributions in MA gauge which are smaller than the $`SU(2)`$ ones, we see abelian and instanton dominances are fairy good. This supports the analysis of Polyakov.

### 4.2 Instanton vacuum in both gauges

Polyakov assumed the dilute instanton gas approximation. Let us see the instanton vacuum configurations. As we mention in the previous section, we calculate the instanton configuration using the DeGrand-Toussaint definition. The instanton configuration and anti-instanton configuration in unitary gauge condition for $`\beta =4.0`$ and $`\kappa =1.30`$ are shown in Fig.5. Those in MA gauge condition are shown in Fig.6. These configurations look to be a dilute gas for this set of coupling constants.

Polyakov assumed that instanton charges $`q_a=\pm 1`$ alone contribute to the summation. We plot a histogram of numerically obtained instanton charges in Fig.7 for various blocked instantons. Theoretically an $`n`$ blocked instanton can take a charge up to $`3n^21`$. However as seen from Fig.7, the number of instantons having a charge larger than one is very small. This is consistent with Polyakov’s assumption.

### 4.3 Parameter regions of $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$

Let us discuss here what values of the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ should be chosen. We plot the static potential in Fig.8 for different values of $`\kappa `$ with fixed $`\beta =5.0`$ and the instanton density in Fig.9 for $`\beta =6.0`$.

We see that, in the case of the unitary gauge condition, the instanton density of the system is very large for small $`\kappa `$, whereas in the case of MA gauge condition it remains low. The dilute gas approximation may be wrong for small $`\kappa `$ regions in unitary gauge. Actually, the abelian and the instanton potentials have large errors in the unitary gauge, whereas in MA gauge these potentials are seen clearly. The Georgi-Glashow model is reduced to pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory in the limit of $`\kappa 0`$. Such density and potential behaviors of both gauges are seen also in four-dimensional pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory.

What happens in the large $`\kappa `$ region? One can find that there seems to be a critical $`\kappa _c`$ above which the instanton density becomes vanishing and the instanton contribution to the potential becomes zero. Note that the Georgi-Glashow model in three dimensions is always in the confinement phase contrary to the model in four dimensions. The existence of $`\kappa _c`$ does not mean that instantons are not responsible for confinement. In the limit of $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$, the three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model becomes the three-dimensional compact U(1) model. The confinement in the latter model is proved to be due to instantons for all $`\beta `$ region. We can define instantons in the compact U(1) model naturally without following DeGrand and Toussaint (DT). It is those instantons which are responsible for confinement in the compact U(1) model. (We call it as natural instanton.) This concludes that the DT definition of instanton is not good for larger $`\kappa `$ region than $`\kappa _c`$ in three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model. In Ref., the effective actions of DT and natural monopoles are studied in 4D compact QED. They are not always in agreement. Hence it is not understandable that the difference appears for such large $`\kappa `$ and $`\beta `$ region also in 3D (GG)3. We admit that the physical meaning of $`\kappa _c`$ is not understood theoretically, however. In this numerical study, we have to adopt the DeGrand-Toussaint definition of instanton, since we do not know how to define natural monopoles in 3D (GG)3.

Instantons in the unitary gauge are more interesting, since they correspond to the instantons studied by Polyakov. Hence in the following discussions we restrict ourselves to the value of $`\kappa `$ around $`1.0`$ which is near but less than $`\kappa _c`$.

What about the $`\beta `$ dependence? We show in Fig.10 the $`\beta `$ dependence for fixed $`\kappa =1.00`$. For small $`\beta `$, the static potential for large distance is not fixed clearly. This comes from that the theory in the small $`\beta `$ region has a large lattice string tension which corresponds to a large lattice distance as shown later. To study the continuum limit, it is better to study larger $`\beta `$ region.

However, for very large $`\beta `$, even $`\kappa =1.00`$ becomes larger than $`\kappa _c`$ in MA gauge. Namely $`\kappa _c`$ depends on the value of $`\beta `$. When $`\beta `$ becomes larger, $`\kappa _c`$ becomes smaller. $`\kappa _c`$ in MA gauge is a little bit smaller than that in the unitary gauge. Since we discuss around $`\kappa =1.00`$, we are restricted to $`\beta =47`$ regions.

### 4.4 Lattice instanton action

Since the instanton dominance is seen numerically, an effective instanton action is expected to work in the infrared region. Let us derive the lattice instanton action from instanton configurations using Swendsen’s method  (See also Appendix B). We express $`D(x)`$ in (47) as

$$D(xx^{})=G_0\delta ^3(xx^{})+G_1(\delta ^3(x(x^{}\widehat{1}))+\mathrm{})+G_2\mathrm{},$$
(54)
where we restrict ourselves to ten different two-point couplings shown in Fig.2. Our numerical results are the following:

1. The inverse Monte-Carlo method works very well and the 10 coupling constants are fixed very beautifully. The convergence is very fast.

When we start from the ensemble of blocked instanton configurations $`\{k^n(x)\}`$, we can get also a lattice action $`S[k^n]`$ very rapidly.

We have tried to include a four-point self interaction in addition. In the case of $`n=1`$, we can fix the coupling constants, although the convergence is very slow. The convergence was not obtained in the case $`n>1`$. Hence we take into account only the two-point interactions.
2. We show in Fig.11 an example of coupling constants in both gauges, where the horizontal axis stands for the distance between two instantons in each two-point interaction. The data points of $`S_8`$ and $`S_9`$ in Fig.11 are almost degenerate.

The action (28) derived by Polyakov is composed of the self-interaction and the Coulomb term. Hence let us check if the above action obtained numerically can be written similarly as in (28). When we rewrite the lattice Coulomb propagator as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(xx^{})=C_0\delta ^3(xx^{})+C_1(\delta ^3(x(x^{}\widehat{1}))+\mathrm{})+C_2\mathrm{},$$
(55)
we get a beautiful fit

$$G_i\mathrm{Const}.\times C_i(i0)$$
(56)
in both gauges as shown in Fig.11.

The lattice instanton action of Georgi-Glashow model in three-dimension can be written as

$$S=\mathrm{Self}\mathrm{term}+\mathrm{Const}.\times \underset{x,x^{}}{}k(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(xx^{})k(x^{}).$$
(57)
Although the Coulomb term is reproduced well, we can not compare the self terms of the lattice and the Polyakov actions, since we need to know the details of short-ranged renormalization effects. Actually the lattice Coulomb propagator is finite even at zero distance, whereas the propagator in the continuum is infinite.
3. To study the continuum limit, we need to take both $`V\mathrm{}`$ and $`a0`$ limits. First we study the volume dependence of the action, adopting $`12^3,16^3,24^3,32^3`$ and $`48^3`$ lattices. Fig.12 is an example of the lattice volume dependence of couplings for $`\beta =4.0,\kappa =1.225`$ and $`n=2`$. In both gauge conditions, the lattice instanton action is almost independent of the lattice volume.
4. We next study the $`a0`$ limit, performing the block-spin transformation (48). To get the renormalization flow, we have to fix a scale unit. Since there is no physical experimental data in three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model, we fix the scale in terms of the string tension determined from lattice simulations. The lattice spacing is defined with

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma _L}{\sigma _{\mathrm{phys}}}},$$
(58)
We perform the block-spin transformations using the scale. An example of the renormalization flow is plotted on the $`G_1(b)G_2(b)`$ and the $`G_2(b)G_3(b)`$ projected planes in Fig.13. We see that there seems to exist a universal flow line especially in the infrared large $`b=na(\beta ,\kappa )`$ region. Each flow line for large $`b`$ is straight with small errors. The universal flow lines of both gauges are almost the same for large $`b`$. This suggests the gauge independence of the action in the infrared regions of the continuum limit.
5. To check if the universal curve is the renormalized trajectory which is the continuum theory, let us study a scaling behavior. The continuum limit of the lattice theory is realized when $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`a0`$ for fixed $`b`$ is taken. Effective actions are usually a function of the step $`n`$ of the block-spin transformation and the lattice distance $`a(\beta ,\kappa )`$. If the effective action shows a scaling, that is, a function of the product $`b=na(\beta ,\kappa )`$ alone, it is the renormalized trajectory (RT). Since we have seen the couplings except the self one are well reproduced by the Coulomb interaction, let us concentrate on the constant coefficient of the Coulomb term in (57).

The theory has two parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ on the lattice and $`g`$ and $`v`$ in the continuum. For the purpose of the comparison with the continuum theory, we tune $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ so that we may get the same value of $`v=\sqrt{\kappa /a(\beta ,\kappa )}`$ as in Table.2. Here we fix $`v2.56`$. The values of the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ in Table 1 are chosen similarly.

Then we study in Fig.14 $`n`$ dependence for some $`b`$.

One can find that the action for $`n4`$ blocked instantons looks on RT. The scaling can be seen more clearly in Fig.15 in which we show the Coulomb term vs. $`b`$ for fixed $`v2.56`$. This is very interesting.
6. Let us determine the gauge coupling $`g`$ which is super-renormalizable in three dimensions. For that purpose, let us rewrite the action, restoring the lattice spacing $`b=na`$ explicitly:

$`S[k]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x,x^{}}{}}b^6k(bx)D(bxbx^{})k(bx^{})`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Self}\mathrm{term}+\beta _m{\displaystyle \underset{x,x^{}}{}}b^6k(bx)\mathrm{\Delta }_L^1(bxbx^{})k(bx^{}),`$
where $`\beta _m`$ is a constant. Since the mass dimension of the lattice Coulomb propagator is $`1`$ and that of $`\delta ^3(bxbx^{})`$ is $`3`$, the coefficients $`C_i`$ in (55) have the mass dimension $`2`$. $`\beta _m`$ is written as $`8\pi /g^2`$. Hence the constant in (57) is expected to behave as

$$\mathrm{Const}.\frac{8\pi }{g^2}\frac{1}{b^2}.$$
(60)
The $`1/b^2`$ behavior in each gauge is actually observed for $`b>1`$ as shown in Fig.15. ¿From the fitting (60), we can obtain the renormalized gauge coupling $`g`$ numerically. In the case of $`v2.56`$, we find $`g=3.9(2)`$ in the unitary gauge condition and $`g=3.8(1)`$ in MA gauge. Gauge independence is seen also in this case.

### 4.5 String tension of the Polyakov model

Now let us calculate the string tension $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=Mg^2/(4\pi )`$ of Polyakov’s model (27) using the lattice parameters determined from the renormalized trajectory.

Note that

$$M^2=2\left(\frac{4\pi }{g}\right)^2N^{3/2}m_W^3e^{\frac{m_W}{g^2}ϵ(\lambda /g^2)}$$
(61)
and

$$N=\frac{m_W}{g^2}\alpha (\lambda /g^2).$$
(62)
As evaluated in Sec.2, we get $`ϵ(\mathrm{})=4\pi \times 1.67`$ and $`\alpha (\mathrm{})4\pi \times 3.33`$. Also we have seen above that, for $`v2.56`$, $`g=3.9(2)`$ in the unitary gauge and $`g=3.8(1)`$ in MA gauge.

Using these parameters, we can estimate the string tension from Eq.(27). In the case of the unitary gauge condition,

$$\sqrt{\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}}{\sigma _L}}=1.4(9)(\mathrm{unitary}\mathrm{gauge}).$$
(63)
Note that we are considering the scale using $`\sigma _L`$. The error is not small, since the errors of $`g`$ and $`v`$ is enlarged by the exponential factor in Eq.(16).

In the case of MA gauge, we obtain

$$\sqrt{\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}}{\sigma _L}}=1.3(8)(\mathrm{MA}\mathrm{gauge}).$$
(64)
Considering the fact that the saddle point approximation used in deriving Eq.(27) is not perfectly justified for such small $`g`$ used here, the above agreement is rather surprising. In conclusion, we may say that the confinement scenario of three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model by Polyakov is thus verified numerically.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We have studied three-dimensional lattice Georgi-Glashow model in the London limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ under the restriction to an intermediate region where the screening appears. In Ref., the screening is seen around the range of $`O(2m_W/\sigma )`$. In our case this value is around 20 in our unit. As seen in Fig.15, we are dealing with the region up to $`b2`$ in our unit. Hence the screening is not viable in this region.

We have found that Polyakov’s quasi-classical analyses on the basis of the dilute instanton gas approximation are in almost quantitative agreement with the Monte-Carlo results using the DeGrand-Toussaint definition of a lattice instanton both in the unitary and the MA gauges.

There are other exciting topics to which one can apply the method developed here.

1. When we integrate out non-zero modes of gauge and quark fields perturbatively in high temperature QCD in four dimensions, we get an effective model described in terms of the zero-mode bosonic fields alone. The model is equivalent to the three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model . The effective couplings $`g`$, $`v`$ and $`\lambda `$ are calculated in terms of the quantities in four-dimensional QCD. In this case we need to perform simulations for the case with finite $`\lambda `$. It is very interesting to know if non-perturbative effects in the deconfinement phase of (QCD)4 can be explained totally by the instanton effects.
2. It is expected that, when $`\lambda =0`$, the three-dimensional Georgi-Glashow model can not be described in terms of the Coulomb gas of instantons and the deconfinement phase will appear. There is an attractive interaction between instantons and anti-instantons which does not depend on the sign of the magnetic charge. It is a Yukawa-type interaction for $`\lambda 0`$. But when $`\lambda =0`$, the Higgs field becomes massless and the interaction just cancel the Coulomb repulsive interaction between the same-sign instantons or between anti-instantons. However, such a scenario needs information of the core region of instantons and so non-perturbative numerical evaluation is highly desirable.

###### Acknowledgments.

The authors thank Tomohiro Tsunemi for fruitful discussions. This work is supported by the Supercomputer Project (No.98-33, No.99-47, No.00-59) of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) and the Supercomputer Project of the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN). T.S. acknowledges the financial support from JSPS Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research (B) (Grant No. 10440073 and No. 11695029)

## Appendix A Confinement from the instanton dilute gas model

String tension from the dilute gas model Eq.(27) is calculated as follows.

Let us start from Eq.(24):

$`Z[\eta ]={\displaystyle D\chi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g}{4\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{d}^3x[(_\mu (\chi \eta ))^22M^2\mathrm{cos}\chi ]\right\}},`$ (65)
$`\eta (x)={\displaystyle _S}d\stackrel{}{S}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|^3}}.`$ (66)
The path integral may be evaluated by the saddle point approximation when the coupling $`g`$ is large enough. Then we have to solve the saddle point equation

$$^2(\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}\eta )=M^2\mathrm{sin}\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}.$$
(67)
We assume a Wilson loop that the contour $`C`$ is planar and is placed in the $`xy`$ plane as in Fig.16 .

Then Eq.(67) takes the form

$$^2\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}=2\pi \delta (z)\theta _S(xy)+M^2\mathrm{sin}\chi _{\mathrm{cl}},$$
(68)
where

$$\theta _S(xy)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& x,yS\hfill \\ 0& \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(69)
Far from the boundaries of the contour, Eq.(68) is approximately one dimensional ($`\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ depends only on $`z`$) and has a solution

$$\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}4\mathrm{arctan}(e^{Mz})& z>0\\ 4\mathrm{arctan}(e^{Mz})& z<0\end{array}.$$
(70)
$`\eta (x)`$ only depends on $`z`$ approximately, too. Eq.(25) is rewritten as

$`\eta (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _r^r}dy_1{\displaystyle _t^t}dy_2{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{\{(x_1y_1)^2+(x_2y_2)^2+x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\}^{3/2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(rx_1)(tx_2)}{x_3\sqrt{(x_1r)^2+(x_2t)^2+x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(r+x_1)(tx_2)}{x_3\sqrt{(x_1+r)^2+(x_2t)^2+x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(rx_1)(t+x_2)}{x_3\sqrt{(x_1r)^2+(x_2+t)^2+x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(r+x_1)(t+x_2)}{x_3\sqrt{(x_1+r)^2+(x_2+t)^2+x_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}\right).`$
Now, if $`rx_1`$ and $`tx_2`$ ( far from the boundaries of the contour), it is reduced to

$$\eta (z)4\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{rt}{z\sqrt{r^2+t^2+z^2}}\right).$$
(71)
Hence, one may estimate the integral of $`Z[\eta ]`$ in terms of a $`z`$ integral alone(where $`x_3z`$ ):

$$Z[\eta ]\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g}{4\pi }\right)^2SM^2dz[(\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}(z)\eta (z))\mathrm{sin}\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}+\mathrm{cos}\chi _{\mathrm{cl}}]\right\},$$
(72)
where $`S`$ is the area of the Wilson loop ($`S=RT=4rt`$).

¿From Eq.(25), (72) and (71),

$`W[C]`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{RT\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\pi }}\right)^2M^2`$ (73)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{d}z\left[16\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rt}{z\sqrt{r^2+t^2+z^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{Mz}(1e^{2Mz})}{(1+e^{2Mz})^2}}\right]\}.`$
The string tension is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=M\left(\frac{g}{\pi }\right)^2_0^{\mathrm{}}dz\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{M^2rt}{z\sqrt{(Mr)^2+(Mt)^2+z^2}}\right)\frac{e^z(1e^{2z})}{(1+e^{2z})^2}\right].$$
(74)
The $`z`$ integral of Eq.(74) is finite if $`Mr,Mz\mathrm{}`$ . Thus we obtain the string tension Eq.(27)

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{Mg^2}{4\pi }.$$
(75)
## Appendix B Swendsen’s method

We determine a lattice instanton action from instanton configurations on three-dimensional lattice. A theory of instanton is given in general by the following partition function

$$Z=\left(\underset{x}{}\underset{k(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\right)e^{S[k]},$$
(76)
where $`S[k]`$ is an instanton action describing the theory. Consider a set of all independent operators which are summed up over the whole lattice. We denote each operator as $`S_i[k]`$. Then, the action may be written as a linear combination of these operators,

$$S[k]=\underset{i}{}G_iS_i[k],$$
(77)
where $`G_i`$ are renormalized coupling constants.

The expectation value of operator $`𝒪[k]`$ is estimated as

$$<𝒪[k]>=\frac{1}{Z}\left(\underset{x}{}\underset{k(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\right)𝒪[k]e^{S[k]}.$$
(78)
Here, we focus on a certain site $`x^{}`$. We define $`\widehat{S}[k]`$ which contains $`k(x^{})`$ and rewrite the numerator of Eq.(78) as

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\right)𝒪[k]e^{S[k]}`$ (79)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{x}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\right)e^{_iG_i(S_i[k]\widehat{S}_i[k])}\{{\displaystyle \underset{k(x^{})=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒪[k]e^{_iG_i\widehat{S}_i[k]}\},`$ (80)
where $`^{}`$ means the product except for the site $`x^{}`$. We rewrite Eq.(80) as

$`(\text{80})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{x}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\right)e^{_iG_i(S_i[k]\widehat{S}_i[k])}`$ (81)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k(x^{})=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\widehat{k}=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝒪[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]e^{_iG_i\widehat{S}_i[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]}}{_{\widehat{k}=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{_iG_i\widehat{S}_i[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]}}}e^{_iG_i\widehat{S}_i[k]}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\right)\widehat{𝒪}[k]e^{_iG_iS_i[k]},`$
where

$$\widehat{𝒪}[k]=\frac{_{\widehat{k}=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝒪[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]e^{_iG_i\widehat{S}_i[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]}}{_{\widehat{k}=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{_iG_i\widehat{S}_i[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]}},$$
(82)
$`\widehat{k}=k(x^{})`$ and $`\{k\}^{}`$ is the coset of $`\widehat{k}`$.

When we consider the DeGrand-Toussaint definition of instanton, the sum with respect to instanton charge in Eq.(82) is not $`[\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}]`$ but to $`[(3n^21),3n^21]`$, where $`n`$ is a step of block spin transformation of instanton.

Hence we get an identity

$$<𝒪[k]>=<\widehat{𝒪}[k]>.$$
(83)
Since we don’t know the correct set of coupling constants $`G_i`$, we have to start from a trial set of coupling constants $`\stackrel{~}{G}_i`$ . We define $`\overline{𝒪}[k]`$ in which the true coupling constants $`G_i`$ in Eq.(82) are replaced by the trial ones $`\stackrel{~}{G}_i`$ as

$$\overline{𝒪}[k]=\frac{_{\widehat{k}=k_{\mathrm{min}}}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}}𝒪[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]e^{_i\stackrel{~}{G}_i\widehat{S}_i[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]}}{_{\widehat{k}=k_{\mathrm{min}}}^{k_{\mathrm{max}}}e^{_i\stackrel{~}{G}_i\widehat{S}_i[\widehat{k},\{k\}^{}]}}.$$
(84)
If the trial $`\stackrel{~}{G}_i`$ are not equal to the true $`G_i`$, $`<𝒪[k]\overline{𝒪}[k]>0`$. When $`\{\stackrel{~}{G}_i\}`$ are not far from $`\{G_i\}`$, we get

$$<𝒪[k]\overline{𝒪}[k]>\underset{i}{}<\overline{𝒪}\overline{S}_i(\overline{𝒪S_i})>(G_i\stackrel{~}{G}_i).$$
(85)
Actually, if we use $`S_i[k]`$ as an operator $`𝒪[k]`$, we get a very good convergence . Hence we use here

$$<S_i[k]\overline{S}_i[k]>\underset{j}{}<\overline{S}_i\overline{S}_j(\overline{S_iS_j})>(G_j\stackrel{~}{G}_j).$$
(86)
Since the value of $`S_i[k]`$ is obtained from vacuum configurations, we can solve Eq.(86) iteratively to obtain the real set of coupling constants $`G_i`$.