format: text

text:
# The Bose Metal: gauge field fluctuations and scaling for field tuned quantum phase transitions

## I Introduction

In a recent paper, we argued that a system of interacting Cooper pairs may form a gapless nonsuperfluid liquid, i.e. a metallic state, in two dimensions at $`T=0`$. We called this state a Bose metal(BM). Although such an idea might seem rather counter-intuitive offhand since a system of delocalised bosons typically forms a superfluid(SF) state at $`T=0`$, closer thinking suggests that it is not. A Bose metal is possible in the same sense that a spin liquid is possible in quantum antiferromagnets. In fact, we showed that it is just another variety of a spin liquid: an $`E_2`$ spin liquid.

In amorphous superconducting films, particularly MoGe, metal-like states analogous to the ones in granular superconductors, have been observed in the presence of a magnetic field. The fact that such a state exists as an intermediate phase between a superconductor(SC) and an insulator(INS), as predicted in Ref., is already a good hint that the Bose metal scenario might be applicable to these systems as well. In this paper, we generalize the arguments which were previously developed for the case of zero applied magnetic field, to the field tuned case. We show that the results of field tuned experiments in superconducting films, where such a metallic state has also been seen, also fit in with our concept of a Bose metal.

We first discuss (section II) the fact that gauge field fluctuations present in the vortex system in the JJA model play a key role in the formation of the BM state and show how generalized dissipation models can also similarly lead to an analogous BM state. We then discuss how the concept of the BM state may be generalized to the field tuned case. The observation of three phases in ref. is consistent with the Bose metal scenario. This leads to the suggestion of new scaling formulae for resistivity across the SC-BM and BM-INS transitions. These are presented in section III and are shown to work very well for the MoGe data. In section IV, we develop a phenomenological model for the metallic state based on the physics described above, which we find is in good agreement with the MoGe data. Finally in section V we discuss the effective action and the low energy excitation spectrum of the Bose metal state. Here, we also address the issue of why the BM state has not been observed in the previous analyses of the JJA model.

## II The JJA model and effects of dissipation.

Dynamical gauge field fluctuations: In ref., we considered a Josephson junction array (JJA) model with onsite and nearest neighbour repulsion for large Cooper pair fillings and zero external gate voltage (i.e. $`_i\delta \widehat{n}_i=0`$, where $`\delta \widehat{n}_i`$ is the charge fluctuation operator at the site $`i`$). We showed using the duality transformation relations that this model maps onto a two-component quantum plasma of vortices($`V`$) and antivortices($`\overline{V}`$), i.e. a set of non-relativistic bosons, moving in a dynamically fluctuating gauge field $`A^\mu `$.

This picture of vortices moving in a fluctuating gauge field is a simple quantum mechanical extension of the results of classical phase fluctuations in a 2-d superconductor. In the classical regime, a 2-d superconductor (with phase fluctuations) maps onto a two component classical plasma ($`V\overline{V}`$) undergoing screening by a static electric field ($`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}A_0`$), as described by Kosterlitz and Thouless(KT). In the quantum regime two new effects are important: (a)the Bose statistics of the vortices and antivortices allows for the possibility of their superfluidity; and (b) because of quantum fluctuations, the electric field is no more static but dynamical, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}A_0(1/c_s)\stackrel{}{A}/\tau `$ and is associated with a corresponding magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}`$. Hence, expressed in terms of vortices, in the quantum regime, two processes are important: depairing of $`V\overline{V}`$ pairs (or, blowing up of vortex loops in (2+1)-d) and Bose condensation of depaired vortices and antivortices, corresponding to the loss of phase order and growth of charge order for the Cooper pairs, as discussed in ref.. The presence of dynamically fluctuating gauge field $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ causes the vortices and antivortices to pick up random Aharonov-Bohm(AB) phases $`exp(i\stackrel{}{A}.d\stackrel{}{l})`$ which makes these two processes distinct from one another. If there were no fluctuating gauge field, then because of the quantum zero point motion, the vortices and antivortices would Bose condense into a phase coherent state as soon as they unbind, i.e. the film becomes insulating. Now because of the gauge field $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, the situation here is different. If the gauge field fluctuations are small, the dephasing induced by random AB phases is weak and superfluidity of $`V`$ and $`\overline{V}`$ is retained. On the other hand, if the gauge field fluctuations are very strong, then, because of the random AB phases, the unbound $`V`$ and $`\overline{V}`$ fail to produce a phase coherent state, and the system is a non-superfluid liquid.

The effects of these gauge field fluctuations may be seen very clearly in terms of a world line picture for the vortices(appendix A). We represent this as a bosonic system interacting with a fluctuating gauge field $`\stackrel{}{A}`$. The partition function is:

$`Z_{BA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}{\displaystyle _{\{r_i(\beta )=r_{Pi}(0)\}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Dr_i(\tau )D\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r},\tau )\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle _{r_i(0)}^{r_i(\beta )}}\stackrel{}{A}.d\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\dot{r}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}v(r_ir_j)\right]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(S_G\left(\stackrel{}{A}\right)\right)`$
where $`S_G\left(\stackrel{}{A}\right)`$ denotes the gauge part of the action and $`P`$ is the permutation of the particles. This type of partition function may be obtained, for example, by substituting $`j^0(r,\tau )=_iq_i\delta (rr_i(\tau ))`$ and $`j^\alpha (r,\tau )=_iq_i\dot{r}_i^\alpha (\tau )\delta (rr_i(\tau ))`$ in eqn.(15) in ref., where $`q_i`$ is the vortex charge. The AB phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{A}.d\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ appears explicitly here. When the gauge field fluctuations are weak, this factor is close to $`1`$. So, this case is very similar to the Bose system without any gauge field, and the ground state is an entangled liquid, i.e. a superfluid (appendix A). Now, when the gauge field fluctuations become very large, the AB phase trapped by the bosons is of order $`\pi `$ (modulo $`2\pi `$), and the phase factor appears in $`Z_{BA}`$ with fluctuating signs. This would cause cancellation of several terms in $`Z_{BA}`$ when entangled configurations are present, implying that such configurations enter the partition function with a low weight and are correspondingly high energy states, just like the fermionic case (appendix A). So, in this case, the ground state is a disentangled liquid, i.e. a non-superfluid. Phase separation is not possible because of the long-range interactions present in the (original) vortex Bose system. Hence, as gauge field fluctuations increases, there should be a phase transition from the superfluid to a non-superfluid state.

This discussion makes explicit why random AB phases causes disentanglement. The non-superfluid state of bosons, thus obtained due to dephasing by random AB phases, is a liquid rather than a solid where the particles are localised by fluctuations, because the gauge field fluctuates with time. Let us say that the vortices get localised by fluctuations. Then, since they see a magnetic field that fluctuates with time, by Faraday’s law, they see an induced electric field as well. This electric field will knock the localised particles out of their positions. Thus, the presence of a dynamically fluctuating gauge field in the quantum vortex system leads to the possibility of a non-SF liquid phase, and by duality, a consequent possibility of a metallic state for the Cooper pairs, the original players in the system. Because the vortices feel retardation effects due to gauge field fluctuations, they dissipate even in a pure system, thus leading to finite resitivity at $`T=0`$.

In summary, the effect of AB phases induced by the gauge field fluctuations is to disorder the vortices and to create a new variety of quantum liquid, some signatures of which we discuss in this paper.

Effects of dissipation: The following four features about the Bose metal scenario emerge from the description of the JJA model above and in Ref.: (i)when the Bose metal is observed, it exists as an intermediate phase between the SC and the INS; (ii) the observation of the BM phase is associated with two phase transitions: one from SC to BM and the other from BM to INS; (iii)the BM phase is dominated by dynamical gauge field(gf) fluctuations, as felt by the vortices; and (iv)there is a competition between gf fluctuations and quantum zero point motion of the vortices at the BM-INS phase boundary: in the INS phase, quantum zero point motion wins and the vortices are in the SF phase.

It has been suggested by Mason and Kapitulnik that dissipation effects will quite generally help the formation of a metallic like state for vortices in the quantum regime. We show here that the effects of a generalized dissipation model on the quantum motion of the vortices also maps onto a set of non-relativistic bosons moving in a dynamically fluctuating gauge field, just like the JJA model.

Consider a generic dissipation model (no static disorder):

$`S={\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau d^2r{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2n}}\stackrel{}{j}(r)^2`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau d^2rd^2r^{}\rho (r,\tau )V(rr^{})\rho (r^{},\tau )`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}d^2rj^\alpha (r,\tau )\eta _{\alpha \beta }(rr^{},\tau \tau ^{})j^\beta (r,\tau ^{})`$ (2)
where $`j^\alpha (r,\tau )=_iq_i\dot{r}_i^\alpha (\tau )\delta (rr_i(\tau ))`$, $`\rho (r,\tau )=_iq_i\delta (rr_i(\tau ))`$ and $`n=`$ average vortex density. $`q_i=`$ vortex charge, and the partition function is $`Z=Dr_i(\tau )e^S`$. The first term is the quantum zero point motion term (also, known as the mass term); the second term is the long-range (logarithmic, in a pure system) interaction among the vortices and the last term is the dissipation term. Summation is implied in the dissipation term and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ refer to the space coordinates. This action can be recast, by virtue of a Hubbard Stratanovich transformation on the associated partition function, as:

$`S`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau d^2r\frac{m}{2n}\stackrel{}{j}(r)^2}+{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau d^2rd^2r^{}\rho (r,\tau )V(rr^{})\rho (r^{},\tau )}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^2r𝑑\tau j^\alpha (r,\tau )a^\alpha (r,\tau )}+{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}d^2rd^2r^{}a^\alpha (r,\tau )K_{\alpha \beta }(rr^{},\tau \tau ^{})a^\beta (r^{},\tau ^{})}`$ (4)
with $`K_{\alpha \beta }(\omega _n,k)=\eta _{\alpha \beta }^1(\omega _n,k)`$ ($`\omega _n=`$ Matsubara frequency). The dissipation kernel $`K_{\alpha \beta }`$ here is model dependent and the field $`a^\mu `$ is introduced through the transformation. The Maxwellian type of coupling $`\stackrel{}{j}.\stackrel{}{a}`$ implies that $`a^\mu `$ represents a gauge field. For example, for the Caldeira Leggett heat bath $`K_{\alpha \beta }(\omega _n,k)=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\omega _n/\eta `$, which is time-dependent. The dynamical nature of the gauge field follows from the fact that dissipation is associated with velocity dependent forces.

Clearly, this mapping implies two things. Firstly, as the vortices move in the presence of dissipation, they trap a random AB phase $`exp(i\stackrel{}{a}.d\stackrel{}{l})`$, and consequently the arguments of dephasing by random AB phases presented earlier in this section imply a disordered liquid phase for a dissipative system as well. For example, if we consider the case of Caldeirra-Leggett heat bath above, we see that: when dissipation $`\eta `$ is much weaker than the quantum zero point motion, gauge field flucutations are weak, the randomness induced by the AB phases is very small and the delocalised vortices are in an entangled state, i.e. a superfluid. However, when dissipation is very strong, gauge field fluctuations are also correspondingly very strong, and the random AB phases can dephase the vortices into a disentangled, i.e. non-superfluid, state. The liquidity of this state follows from the dynamical nature of the gauge field. Because of this mapping, we shall quite often use gauge field fluctuations and dissipation interchangeably in this paper. Secondly, the above mapping means that a dissipative quantum vortex system (where vortices have been induced by an external magnetic field) has a very similar phase diagaram to that of the JJA model considered in Ref., except that now dislocations are present (see below). There will be an SC phase which consists of dislocation - antidislocation pairs, when quantum fluctuations are weak. As quantum fluctuations are increased (by tuning the field, for example), the pairs will unbind. The state this film would enter depends on the strength of dissipation. If dissipation is weak, the vortices will form a superfluid state and the transition is from SC to INS. On the other hand, when the dissipation is strong, the vortices would first enter an uncondensed liquid like state due to dephasing effect by the AB phases. By duality, this state is a non-SF liquid for the Cooper pairs (see first part of this section), and hence, it is fair to call this a Bose metal. The resistance is induced by the free dislocations in this case. As the field is increased further, quantum zero point motion overcomes dissipation (or, gf fluctuations), the vortices would Bose condense and the film will be insulating. Thus, the transition is SC-Metal-INS in this case. We explore some of the consequences of this scenario below.

There are two key points which need to be kept track of while generalising the results for vortices from the zero field case to the field driven case in a dirty film. (a)In the presence of an external field, vortices enter an SC film in the form of an Abrikiosov lattice. True long range order is not possible in a 2d system at finite temperatures: dislocation-antidislocation pairs are created in the Abrikosov lattice. As temperature is increased, these pairs unbind (the analog of $`V\overline{V}`$ unbinding in the zero field case), and (Cooper pair) superconductivity is destroyed. (b)In the presence of static disorder, the Abrikosov lattice is converted into a glass, called a vortex glass(VG). Energy barriers between the various metastable states in this glassy phase are finite in 2d. One way to understand this is that dislocations are point like objects in 2-d, and that disorder screens long-range log interaction between the dislocations. Thus, the energy barriers to create dislocation-antidislocation pairs is finite in 2-d, and the energy barrier to their motion is very small, particularly in the collective pinning regime, in which we mostly focus on here. This means that as soon as the dislocation-antidislocation pairs are created, they will hop around and induce finite resistance at any finite temperature $`\mathrm{exp}(ϵ_d/kT)`$, where $`ϵ_d=`$ energy barrier to creation of dislocation pairs. This would imply that true superconductivity should set in at $`T=0`$. However, at $`T=0`$, tunneling processes resulting from quantum fluctuations due to quantum zero point motion, etc. can in principle be strong and destroy long-range order in the vortex glass phase, which is discussed in this paper.

## III Scaling at the zero temperature phase transitions

The presence of a Bose metallic phase in a SC film is associated with two phase transitions: one from SC to BM and another from BM to INS. Correspondingly there will be two scaling behaviours for the resistivity even for the field-tuned case, which we discuss below.

1. SC-BM transition: The first transition is associated with the unbinding of (quantum) dislocation - antidislocation pairs (or, in a dirty system, when the free dislocation - antidislocation pairs come into existence). The film enters a metallic state due to strong gauge field fluctuations. Finite resistance in the film is induced by free dislocations, which is proportional to the free dislocation density $`n_{df}`$: $`R_{\mathrm{}}R_Qn_{df}\mu _v`$. $`R_Q=h/4e^2`$ is the quantum of resistance and $`\mu _v=`$ vortex mobility. $`n_{df}`$ scales as $`n_{df}1/\xi _+^2`$. $`\xi _+=`$ SF correlation length that diverges across the SC-BM phase boundary with an exponent $`\nu _0`$: $`\xi _+(HH_{c0})^{\nu _0}`$; $`H_{c0}`$ is the critical field for SC-BM transition. Hence, on the metallic side,

$$R_{\mathrm{}}(HH_{c0})^{2\nu _0}.$$
(5)
This scaling formula is quite different from traditional quantum SC to non-SC scaling $`R_{\mathrm{}}=f(\delta /T^{1/\nu z})`$. Observation of this scaling in ref. provides good evidence that the metallic phase is a Bose metal. A comment about the value of $`H_{c0}`$: since energy barriers to metastable states are finite in 2-d in the presence of disorder, one might think that a small amount of quantum fluctuations (zero point motion and dynamical gauge field fluctuations) would destabilise the VG order completely, i.e. $`H_{c0}=0`$. But, at very low fields, the vortex system moves into the individual pinning regime from the collective pinning regime, and the energy barriers to the vortex motion due to pinning become very large. Hence, it is not inconceivable that, in this very low field regime, at $`T=0`$, quantum fluctuations and disorder can conspire to produce a pinned vortex state without any free dislocations, and consequently true (Cooper pair) superconductivity. In other words, there is a possibility that $`H_{c0}>0`$.

2. BM-INS transition: As the field is increased further, quantum zero point motion of the vortices ($`\mathrm{}^2n_v/m_vH`$) increases, and beyond a critical value $`H_c`$, the zero point motion overtakes the gauge field fluctuations, the vortices form a SF phase and the film is insulating. Presence of free vortices during this transition motivates a scaling for the resistivity across the BM-INS phase boundary. So far, this phase boundary has been thought to be a SC-INS transition and the predicted scaling is $`R_{\mathrm{}}=f(\delta /T^{1/\nu z})`$. Although this scaling formula works at high temperatures, it fails at low temperatures. The two parameter scaling formula which we obtain below for the BM-INS transition, however, scales the data across the entire temperature range, both high and low, when the external field is in the critical regime.

In ref., we mentioned that there is a jump in the vortex superfluid density at the BM-INS phase boundary. Naively, this would imply that this is either a first order or a KT type transition. But, the transition is possibly more subtle than this because it is a phase transition from a (vortex) superfluid to a gapless nonsuperfluid phase. In a first order transition, there is no divergent length scale and the length scale is finite through the transition. But, the BM phase is gapless, i.e. characterised by a diverged length scale. The KT transition, which is a close precedent to this, on the other hand, is a transition from a superfluid to a gapped nonsuperfluid state. Also, the situation here is fundamentally different from KT because of the involvement of the gauge degrees of freedom. Thus, we suspect that this transition belongs to a very new universality class. In the absence of the knowledge of what exactly this universality class is, it is hard to write down the scaling formula across this BM-INS transition. Below, we suggest a way to scale the resistance across this metal insulator transition based on phenomenological considerations and leave the rest to future research.

Since this is a second order quantum phase transition, there is a diverging correlation length $`\xi `$ with an exponent $`\nu `$ at this transition, i.e. $`\xi \delta ^\nu `$, and a frequency scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which goes to zero with an exponent $`z`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\xi ^z`$, where $`\delta =(HH_c)`$. As the energy dissipated scales as, $`(V^2/R)t\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`V=`$ voltage drop, $`t`$ represents the time), resistance $`R`$ scales as $`RV^2/\mathrm{\Omega }^2.`$ Since the dissipation is due to the vortices, the voltage induced by moving vortices is $`V=(h/2e)d\theta /dt,`$ with $`d\theta /dt=2\pi n_fLv`$ , where $`v`$ is the vortex velocity, $`L`$ is the length over which the vortices move and $`n_f`$ is the vortex density. To obtain the scaling of $`V`$, we note that the scaling of $`L`$ is $`L\xi \mathrm{\Omega }^{1/z}.`$ Since $`mv^2\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the scaling of $`v`$ is $`v\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}.`$ We assume that the scaling of $`n_f`$ is $`n_f\delta ^\alpha ,`$ where $`\alpha `$ is an exponent to be determined below. $`n_f`$ is not the total vortex density $`H/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, but rather the critical fraction of the field induced vortices that participate in the dissipative process. Combining all these factors, we find that the scaling of $`R`$ is $`R\delta ^{2\alpha }/\mathrm{\Omega }^{1+2/z}.`$ At any finite temperature, the divergence of $`\xi `$ is cutoff by temperature $`T`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }T.`$ This also implies that the scaling function is always a function of $`\delta /T^{1/\nu z}`$, i.e.,

$`RT^{1+2/z}/\delta ^{2\alpha }=f(\delta /T^{1/\nu z})`$where $`f`$ represents the scaling function. The right hand side comes from the fact that $`\xi \delta ^\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\xi ^z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }T`$, so that $`\delta /T^{1/\nu z}`$ is the scaling variable. To obtain $`\alpha `$, one needs to first note that the resistance saturates to finite values independent of temperature at low temperature; i.e. in the above eqn, we must have $`f(x)x^{\nu (z+2)}`$ in this limit. Plus, since this low temperature resistance of the film is non-critical through the metal insulator transition when $`H`$ is tuned through $`H_c`$ as can be seen from eqn.(11) below, we should have

$$2\alpha =\nu (z+2)$$
(6)
Thus, the scaling formula for the resistance is:

$$R\left[\frac{T^{1/\nu z}}{\delta }\right]^{\nu (z+2)}=f(\delta /T^{1/\nu z})$$
(7)
This is essentially a two parameter scaling formula, which is expected of a bosonic system. For MoGe films, $`z=1`$ and $`\nu =4/3`$, and hence, $`2\alpha =4`$. The corresponding plot of eqn.(5) for these films is shown in fig.1. The data collapse with this two parameter scaling formula is quite remarkable. We think that this points out that there is a true metal-insulator transition at this critical field. Although resistance usually does not receive scaling under normal circumstances, we found at least one precedent to this in the literature, i.e. when a dangerously irrelevant variable is present.

## IV  Phenomenology of field tuned experiments

In this part, we discuss the phenomenology of the metallic state in a dirty SC film, close to the metal-insulator transition, by setting up a quantum “pseudo-temperature” model. This is based on the idea of competition between dissipation and quantum zero point motion of the vortices present near this transition point, presented so far.

The energy barrier to create of dislocation pairs in a disordered vortex lattice is: $`ϵ_dϵ_0ln(H_c/H).`$ At high temperatures, dislocations are created by thermal fluctuations, i.e. dislocation density is $`n_{dc}\mathrm{exp}(ϵ_d/kT)`$, and the resistance induced by these is $`R_{\mathrm{}}R_Qn_d\mu _ve^{ϵ_d/kT}.`$ At low temperatures, quantum fluctuations take over, which we model in terms of a quantum (pseudo) temperature $`T_Q`$: when $`T_Q`$ is small, the vortices being bosons are in a SF state, and when high, it is in a disordered/metallic state (real temperature remaining constant and small). Because whether the vortices are in a SF state or non-SF state is determined by the competition between the dissipation $`\eta `$ and quantum zero point motion, $`T_Q`$ should be a function of these two parameters. Since heating a system increases its entropy, and (a)enhanced quantum zero point motion ($`n_v/m_vH`$) leads to superfluidity in a Bose system, and hence, reduced entropy, while (b)action of dynamical gf fluctuations ($`\eta `$) increases (pseudo) entropy, we expect $`T_Q`$, for not too small fields, to scale as

$$T_Q\frac{\eta ^\alpha }{(n_v/m_v)^\beta }\frac{\eta ^\alpha }{H^\beta }$$
(8)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are constants $`>0`$. (It can be any monotonic function of $`\eta /H`$ in general.) Currently, we do not know how to obtain $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. In what follows, we shall assume $`\alpha =\beta =1`$ and show that this quantum temperature model captures the general phenomenlogical features of the field-tuned expts in the aforementioned regime very well.

Thus, expressed in terms of the quantum temperature model, as the field increases, the quantum temperature of the system decreases and when it falls below a temperature of the order of Kosterlitz Thouless temperature $`T_{KT}`$ (since vortices here are 2-d bosons), the vortices would form a SF, i.e. the film would be insulating. Since $`T_{KT}\mathrm{}^2n_v/m_vH`$, the critical field $`H_c`$ above which the film is insulating is obtained when $`T_QT_{KT}`$, i.e. $`H_c`$ scales as (using eqn.(6)):

$$H_c\sqrt{\eta }1/\sqrt{R_n}$$
(9)
since $`\eta `$ scales inversely as $`R_n`$. This makes sense physically, since as $`\eta `$ increases, gauge field fluctuations increase and it is harder to create a SF out of the vortices. This inverse dependence of $`H_c`$ on $`R_n`$ is broadly consistent with the trend observed in the MoGe films (see Table I in Ref.).

When $`T_Q>T_{KT}`$, the vortices are in a non-SF state and the film displays a metallic response. From eqn.(6), the density of quantum dislocations, by analogy with the thermal case, is then $`n_{dQ}\mathrm{exp}(ϵ_d/kT_Q)`$. Thus, the resistance of this metal at a finite temperature is given by $`R_{\mathrm{}}R_Q(n_{dC}+n_{dQ})\mu _v`$, i.e.

$$R_{\mathrm{}}R_n[e^{ϵ_d/kT}+e^{ϵ_d/kT_Q}]$$
(10)
This simple additive estimate is a good first hand measure when both thermal activation and quantum tunneling processes are going on simultaneously . Here we have used $`\mu _vR_n/R_Q`$, which is true of the Bardeen-Stephen processes. This implies that when the real temperature $`T`$ falls below $`T_Q`$, the vortices enter the quantum regime. This determines the crossover temperature $`T_{cross}`$ at which the system moves from the classical to the quantum regime:

$$T_{cross}T_Q\eta /H$$
(11)
Hence, as the field is increased, the crossover temperature decreases, as seen in the Mo-Ge experiments. This unusual crossover from the classical to quantum regime, which is very unlike that of a single particle system, results from the strong cooperative effects present in the vortex Bose system.

Thus, from eqn.(8), in the quantum regime, the resistance saturates to

$$R_{\mathrm{}}R_ne^{ϵ_d/kT_Q}R_nexp(C\frac{H}{H_{c2}}\frac{R_n}{R_Q}ln(\frac{H_c}{H}))$$
(12)
where we have used dimensionless expressions for $`\eta `$ and $`H`$ by rescaling them with $`R_Q`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ respectively. $`C`$ is a constant of order unity. Eqn.(10) has the same field dependence as that obtained in Ref. if one expands the logarithm about the critical field $`H_c`$, i.e. $`ln(\frac{H_c}{H})(\frac{H_cH}{H})`$,

$$R_{\mathrm{}}R_nexp(\stackrel{~}{C}\frac{R_n}{R_Q}(\frac{H_cH}{H_c})),$$
(13)
It should be noted that the metallic resistance is non-critical across the metal-insulator transition.

Thus, despite the simplicity of the quantum temperature model, it captures the basic phenomenology of the experiments very well.

To summarise, we find several indications here, viz. (a)occurence of the metallic state as an intermediate phase between SC and INS phases, (b)scaling behaviour at the SC-Metal and Metal-INS transitions being in accordance with the Bose metal scenario predictions and (c)the fact that the phenomenology of the metallic state is as would be expected for a Bose metal state, to suspect that the metallic state observed in the magnetic field tuned experiments in the SC films is prrobably an adiabatic continuation of the Bose metal state presented in ref..

## V The effective gauge field action of the Bose metal

In this final section, we discuss the effective gauge action of the Bose metal based on our analysis of the JJA model in Ref.. We obtain certain properties of this metal on the basis of this action, including its low energy excitation spectrum. And then, we revisit the issue of why the Bose metallic phase has not been observed in the previous analyses of the JJA model or the Bose Hubbard (BH) model.

Effective action: It is clear from the discussion in section II that a Bose metal is a liquid of uncondensed bosons(vortices) moving in a transverse gauge field. The effective action of this liquid can be obtained by integrating out the vortices in a one-loop approximation. This calculation has already been done in appendix E of ref.: the transverse part of the gauge action can be read off directly from eqn.(E.3) there. Thus, the effective action of a BM is:

$$S(\left[A^\mu \right])=\underset{\omega _n}{}d^2q\left[\left(q^2+1/\xi _+^2\right)A_{\omega _n,q}^0A_{\omega _n,q}^0+\left(\stackrel{~}{a}\frac{\omega _n}{q}+\stackrel{~}{b}q^2\right)\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{q^2}\right)A_{\omega _n,q}^\alpha A_{\omega _n,q}^\beta \right]$$
(14)
where the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ are finite and scale with free vortex density and may be read off from eqn. (E.3) in  and $`\omega _n=2\pi nT(n=`$integer$`)`$ are Matsubara frequencies. The spectrum of the longitudinal part of the gauge field follows from the fact that since the vortices and antivortices are free, they screen each other. Since the screening length scales as the density of free vortices $`n_f`$ and $`n_f1/\xi _+^2`$, the above result is obtained. Physically speaking, the above spectrum of the transverse gauge field comes about, beacuse it is dynamically screened and that there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking in this phase. Thus, the longitudinal modes are gapped but the transverse modes are gapless.

Since the gauge field $`A^\mu `$ is seen by the vortices, one can use the duality transformation techniques on this gauge action to calculate the properties of the Cooper pairs (the original bosons) in the Bose metal phase. The superfluid density and the compressiblity of the charges, i.e. Cooper pairs, are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\rho _s^c`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{q0}{lim}\underset{\omega 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{q^2+1/\xi _+^2}}=0`$ (15)
$`\kappa ^c`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{q0}{lim}\underset{\omega 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{i\stackrel{~}{a}\frac{\omega }{q}+\stackrel{~}{b}q^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{c}^2}}=\text{ (finite)}`$ (16)
Here the superscript $`c`$ denotes charges and we have used $`\stackrel{~}{b}=\overline{c}^2`$ from eqn.(E.3), where $`\overline{c}`$ is the renormalised plasmon velocity. These results are consistent with the fact that a Bose metal is a non-superfluid compressible liquid.

The specific heat of the BM can be calculated from eqn.(12). This has already been done in ref.. The gapless transverse modes make the most important contribution to the specific heat: the low temperature specific heat of the BM goes as $`CT^{2/3}`$. This $`T^{2/3}`$ power law specific heat, in turn, directly implies that the low energy excitation spectrum of the original Cooper pair system in this liquid state goes as:

$$\omega k^3$$
(17)
This unconventional excitation spectrum results from the strong correlation effects present in the system and is consistent with the fact that Landau critical velocity should be zero in a nonsuperfluid Bose system. The density of states is correspondingly divergent: $`N(\omega )\omega ^{1/3}`$. Obviously, the BM state cannot be continued to a Fermi liquid or mapped onto a set of free particles. We shall argue below that this liquid is gapless beacuse it is an $`E_2`$ spin liquid, rather than an $`SU(2)`$ spin liquid.

In ref., we pointed out that the phase ($`\varphi _i`$) and charge fluctuation operators ($`\delta n_i`$) entering the JJA model are the generators of $`E_2`$, the Euclidean group in two dimensions; $`E_2`$ being a group contraction of $`SO(3)`$. In this sense, the JJA model is an $`E_2`$ “spin” model and the BM phase being the disordered phase of this model should be regarded as an $`E_2`$ spin liquid. An extremely important point is that, whereas an $`SU(2)`$ spin liquid is usually gapped, an $`E_2`$ spin liquid is necessarily gapless. This follows from the distinction that whereas an $`SU(2)`$ spin model maps onto bosons in a constant magnetic field, an $`E_2`$ spin model maps onto bosons in a fluctuating magnetic field. Because of the constant magnetic field, the $`SU(2)`$ spin liquid maps onto a Quantum Hall liquid. This means that the effective gauge action has a Chern Simmons term and the excitations are correspondingly gapped. On the other hand, the effective gauge action of the $`E_2`$ spin liquid is of Maxwellian type, i.e. without any Chern Simmons term:

$`S(\left[\stackrel{}{A}\right])={\displaystyle 𝑑\omega d^2qf(\omega ,q)A_{\omega ,q}^\alpha A_{\omega ,q}^\alpha }`$Now, if the excitation spectrum is gapped, i.e. $`lim_{\omega ,q0}f(\omega ,q)=`$ constant, then this means that there is spontaneous symmetry breaking and the z-component of the $`E_2`$ spins are ordered, i.e. the system is charge-ordered. Hence, the $`E_2`$ spin liquid is necessarily gapless. For the JJA model we have been discussing so far, this feature can be seen directly by focussing on the transverse part of the gauge action in eqn.(12).

It is hard to rule out the possibility of excitations with fractional quantum numbers in this liquid. However, since there is no explicit time reversal symmetry breaking in the effective action, we think that such excitations would always exist in pairs being held together strongly by gauge-like forces.

JJA model: what’s missing? In this last part of the paper, we revisit the issue of why the Bose metallic phase has not been observed in the previous analyses of the JJA model or the Bose Hubbard (BH) model.

The key issue which distinguishes our analysis from the others is that our calculation has been done in the limit when the average bosonic filling per site is very large. In this limit, the BH model maps onto a JJA model. A lot of current calculations on the JJA model are strongly influenced by the results available for the BH model at low fillings. However, as we stressed in our previous paper, the algebraic properties of the BH model in these two limits are very different: in the limit of low fillings, the model is very close to that of the $`SU(2)`$ spin model. On the other hand, in the limit of large fillings, it is close to that of the $`E_2`$ spin model.

It has been recently pointed out that $`SU(2)`$ and the $`E_2`$ algebras are actually connected by a singular transformation so that the results obtained in one limit cannot be continued adiabatically to those in the other limit, i.e. without crossing a phase boundary. This also lends extra support to our argument above that the properties of the spin liquids supported by the two spin models are distinctly different. Hence, it is very important to maintain this distinction between $`SU(2)`$ and $`E_2`$ while performing calculations on the JJA model. The limit of large fillings is good for the SC films, whereas low filling limit is good for helium films.

As a second point, a lot of the calculations on JJA model have been done for the case when an external gate voltage $`V_g`$ is present. We have worked on the case $`V_g=0`$. This situation is close to that of the real granular SC films. And, finally, our calculations have been done in the presence of nearest neighbour interaction $`V_1`$. The presence of $`V_1`$ brings about non-trivial effects in the JJA model, a quite well explored instance of which is the onset of supersolidity when rescaled gate voltage is close to half integer. More details on these differences may be found in Ref..

There are two previous calculations on the JJA model for $`V_g=0`$ and $`V_10`$: mean field calculations and numerical simulations. The reasons for non-observation of the BM phase in these are as follows: (a)Mean field: A BM phase benefits partly both from the kinetic energy and the potential energy terms. But, in a mean field calculation, as soon as superfluidity is destroyed, the kinetic energy term is completely suppressed. (b)Numerical Simulations: The problem with this calculation is that the authors investigated only the superfluid phase in the $`V_0V_1`$ plane at $`V_g=0`$. Only superfluid density and structure factor $`S_{\pi ,\pi }`$ were measured here, which do not distinguish between a Mott insulator phase and a BM phase: both of these quantities are zero in these states. More simulations addressing this issue might be helpful to crosscheck the existence of the BM phase and its properties.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Stuart Trugman, Steve Kivelson and Eugene Demler for helpful discussions and Nadya Mason for providing us with the MoGe data. Partial support from the Department of Energy through the complex materials program at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory is appreciated.

## A World line picture for bosons and fermions

Here we enlist the actions for bosons and fermions in the world line picture, which might help the reader in understanding the world line picture discussion of the gauge field fluctuations in section II.

First, consider a system of $`N`$ interacting bosons in the world line picture, without any gauge field. Partition function of this system is

$`Z_B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}{\displaystyle _{\{r_i(\beta )=r_{Pi}(0)\}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Dr_i(\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\dot{r}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}v(r_ir_j)\right]\right)`$where $`P`$ is the permutation of the particles. At low temperatures, the world lines get entangled because of quantum zero point motion effects, which implies a finite superfluid density for the bosons.

Now consider an equivalent system of fermions. Here, the partition function is

$`Z_F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}e^{i\pi P}{\displaystyle _{\{r_i(\beta )=r_{Pi}(0)\}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Dr_i(\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\dot{r}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}v(r_ir_j)\right]\right)`$the extra phase factor coming from the anticommutativity of the fermions. Because of this phase factor, it is readily clear that entangled configurations enter with random signs and cause cancellation of several terms. Thus, since the entangled configurations enter the partition function with low weight, this means that these configurations are high energy configurations and disentanglement is favoured for a fermionic system. And, hence the ground state of a Fermi system is a non-superfluid.

The case of bosons with gauge field fluctuations discussed in section II is intermediate between these two cases.


text:
# Supersymmetry and Superpartners

## I Introduction

Although the Standard Model (SM) is extremely successful, many physicist believe that new physics will show up at the TeV scale. Supersymmetry (SUSY) is considered as the most attractive extension of the Standard Model, in particular in its variant of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The open question of how supersymmetry is broken and how this breaking is communicated to the particles has been discussed by Godbole godbole . Frequently used schemes are the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model, gauge mediated (GMSB), gaugino mediated ($`\chi `$MSB) and anomaly mediated (AMSB) supersymmetry breaking models, which all lead to quite different phenomenological implications. In many scenarios at least some particles of the supersymmetric spectrum — especially the non-coloured charginos, neutralinos and sleptons — are expected to be light enough to be accessible at one of the proposed $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Colliders operating at $`\sqrt{s}=0.51\mathrm{TeV}`$.

Since the last workshop of this series, LCWS 99 lcws99 , some ongoing studies on supersymmetry and the superpartners of the SM particles have been completed and many new ideas have been addressed.

A major concern is, what collider energy is required? Cosmological constraints have been discussed by Feng feng . If the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is taken as cold dark matter candidate in mSUGRA models, cosmology does not provide useful bounds on superpartner masses. A possibly large scalar mass $`m_01\mathrm{TeV}`$ would lead to heavy sleptons without affecting the low mass gaugino sector. But if SUSY should be observable at $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$, then some signature of supersymmetry should already show up before the LHC, which would be very exciting.

Arguments of naturalness and fine tuning were examined by Anderson anderson . He comes to the conclusion that if supersymmetry is relevant to the weak scale, it should provide a multitude of sparticles, but probably not the complete spectrum, kinematically accessible at a $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$ Linear Collider.

Murayama murayama  pointed out that in order to establish SUSY and to remove ambiguous interpretations by alternative theories, as many observables of the sparticle spectrum as possible have to be measured and proven to be consistent with supersymmetry. Each SM particle has to have a superpartner with a spin differing by $`1/2`$, the same gauge quantum numbers and identical couplings, for example $`g_{e\nu W}=g_{e\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{W}}`$. This will be a long-term programme and the required precision can only be achieved at an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider.

## II Polarisation

A very important tool to study supersymmetry will be the use of highly polarised beams, as discussed by Moortgat-Pick moortgat . Performances of $`𝒫_e^{}=0.8`$ and $`𝒫_{e^+}=0.6`$ appear feasible. A proper choice of polarisations and centre of mass energy helps disentangle the particle spectrum by enhancing specific reactions and suppressing unwanted background. Electron polarisation is absolutely essential to determine the weak quantum numbers, couplings and mixings, e.g. to associate the chiral couplings of the right-handed and left-handed fermions to their $`R`$, $`L`$ superpartners. Positron polarisation offers additional important advantages by selecting respectively enriching initial states of a definite spin: (i) it provides an improved separation of sparticle production and decay topologies and thus a higher precision on model parameters by exploiting all combinations of polarisations; (ii) it increases the event rate (factor 1.5 or more) resulting in a higher sensitivity to rare decays and subtle effects; and (iii) it strongly supports the discovery of new physics, e.g. the exchange of spin 0 particles. Note that all types of helicity conserving processes (SM and alternative theories) profit in increased rates by having both $`e^\pm `$ beams polarised. A few examples should illustrate the impact of positron polarisation.

$``$ An interesting case is associated selectron production $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ via $`t`$ channel $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ exchange. Using polarised beams the charge of the observed lepton can be directly related to the $`L,R`$ quantum number of the produced selectron, $`e_{L,R}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^{}`$ and $`e_{L,R}^+\stackrel{~}{e}_{L,R}^+`$ at the corresponding vertex. This elegant separation of selectron species and their decay spectra has been proposed for polarised electrons in the talk by Dima dima . But obviously the method can be efficiently improved if the $`e^+`$ beam is polarised as well.

$``$ Stop quarks are expected to have large mixings between $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$, e.g. the lighter state being $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1=\stackrel{~}{t}_L\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\stackrel{~}{t}_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. The polarised cross sections $`e_L^+e_R^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ and $`e_R^+e_L^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ have a characteristic dependence on the mass and stop mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. A simulation of stop decays $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ shows that the sensitivity to both parameters can be increased by more than $`20\%`$ when choosing the maximal $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ polarisation, see contribution of Sopczak sopczak .

$``$ Gaugino production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ exhibit a very pronounced polarisation dependence. With polarised positrons the error on SUSY parameters and the masses of exchanged sleptons can be substantially reduced. In particular the reach and separation towards extended models with low cross sections, such as NMSSM and E6, can be largely extended moortgat .

$``$ Very spectacular signatures would arise from rare processes with ‘wrong’ helicities, which are absent in the Standard Model. Such reactions may occur through spin 0 sparticle exchange in $`R_p`$ violating SUSY models. Examples are resonant or contact interaction type fermion pair production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ and single neutralino or chargino production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^0,\mathrm{}^\pm \chi ^{}`$ mediated through $`s`$-channel sneutrino exchange.

## III Sleptons

Scalar leptons are the superpartners of the right-handed and left-handed leptons. They are produced in pairs

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_R,\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_L,\stackrel{~}{e}_R\stackrel{~}{e}_L,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_e`$
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\mu `$
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau `$
via $`s`$-channel $`\gamma /Z`$ exchange. In addition the $`t`$-channel contributes in selectron production via neutralinos and in electron-sneutrino production via charginos. The decays $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^{}\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+`$ allow a clean identification and accurate measurements of the primary and secondary sparticle masses and other slepton properties like spin, branching ratios, couplings and mixing parameters, see e.g. reports at LCWS 99 lcws99 .

The masses of the first and second generation of sleptons can be determined within a few per mil from the isotropic two-body decay kinematics and to the order of $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ from cross section measurements, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}\beta ^3`$, at threshold.

It has been suggested that $`e^{}e^{}`$ collisions provide a clean environment to study selectron production feng2 . The main interest lies in mass determinations through threshold scans. Selectrons associated to the same fermion helicity, $`e^{}e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{},\stackrel{~}{e}_L^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_L^{}`$, have a large cross section rising as $`\sigma \beta `$, in contrast to $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. A simulation using the NLC machine parameters was presented by Heusch heusch  and shows, however, that this apparent advantage is depleted by initial state radiation and beamstrahlung effects. The excitation curve is severely degraded and looks in shape (flattening of the steep rise) and magnitude very similar to the $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{e}^+\stackrel{~}{e}^{}`$ case. Given the considerably lower luminosity, factor of $`1/5`$, it is questionable whether a competitive or even more precise mass measurement will be achievable in comparable running times.

Studies of the third slepton generation, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$, have been presented by Mizukoshi mizukoshi . Due to large Yukawa couplings the stau physical eigenstates are mixed, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1=\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2=\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$, and are no longer degenerate with the selectron and smuon masses. While identification via decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ will be easy and efficient, the background is large ($`W^+W^{}`$ and other SUSY production) and a mass determination using the spectra of $`\tau `$ decays is much less accurate. The mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ can be accessed through $`\tau `$ polarisation $`𝒫_\tau =\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2`$ which is measurable via the distinct energy spectra of the decays $`\tau \pi \nu ,\rho \nu `$. An accuracy of $`10\%`$ with $`=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ can be achieved. Such a polarisation study has been applied to decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\tau \stackrel{~}{G}`$ in a GMSB model, where the gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the lightest sparticle. It allows to test the coupling $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and to set limits on the stau lifetime in this model.

Recent results from Super-Kamiokande superk  suggest that neutrinos oscillate ($`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$) and thus are massive. As a consequence there should also exist the superpartners $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R`$ of right-handed neutrinos (RHN). The addition of a new singlet neutrino field would change the predictions for slepton masses mizukoshi . RHN effects may be observable as deviations from mass relations, in particular those involving the third generation, e.g. $`2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2`$ (up to higher order corrections). In order to become observable, present data require a sensitivity on mass measurements of 2.5%. The limitation comes from the third slepton generation. In a case study $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ could be determined to 1.5% using hadronic $`\tau `$ decay spectra, while the accuracy for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }`$ obtained from cross section measurements well above threshold is much worse and insufficient and needs to be improved.

## IV Charginos and Neutralinos

Charginos and neutralinos are produced in pairs

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{}[i,j=1,2]`$
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0[i,j=1,\mathrm{},4]`$
via $`s`$-channel $`\gamma /Z`$ exchange and $`t`$-channel selectron or sneutrino exchange. They are easy to detect via their decays into lighter charginos/neutralinos and gauge or Higgs bosons or into sfermion-fermion pairs. If these two-body decays are kinematically not possible, typically for the lighter chargino and neutralino, they decay via virtual gauge bosons and sfermions, e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+f\overline{f}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0f\overline{f}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. In $`R`$-parity conserving MSSM scenarios the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is stable. Typical mass resolutions (see e.g. contributions to lcws99 ) for the lighter chargino and neutralinos are expected to be at the per mil level from decays into electrons, muons or quark jets and below $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ from threshold scans, where the cross section rises as $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\beta `$. Charged and neutral $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$’s are abundantly produced in decay chains of heavy SUSY particles. By exploiting all di-lepton and di-jet mass spectra one will be able to measure mass difference of cascade decays, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)`$, with a resolution of better than $`50\mathrm{MeV}`$, essentially given by the detector performance.

For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the decay pattern may be very different and the mass splitting of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ sector may lead to a situation where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm },m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$. Consequently the decays $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+\nu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+\tau ^{}`$ dominate over all other decay modes via lepton or quark pairs. A simulation of $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+\nu \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}\nu \tau ^+\nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^{}\nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=172.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}=152.7\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=86.8\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ was reported by Kamon kamon . Fitting the energy distribution of hadronic $`\tau `$ decays, which depend on the masses of all three sparticles involved, results in resolutions of about $`4\%`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ masses. Note that cross section measurements are less affected by $`\tau `$ topologies and become more important for precise mass determinations in large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenarios.

The properties of the chargino and neutralino systems and the extraction of fundamental SUSY parameters in a model independent way have been discussed by Kalinowski kalinowski  and Blöchinger bloechinger . In the MSSM the chargino system depends on the parameters $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Charginos are composed of Winos and Higgsinos. An easy way to access the Wino component is via $`t`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ exchange, which couples only to left-handed electrons. Thus the mixing parameters of the chargino system as well as the mass of the exchanged sneutrino can be determined by varying the beam polarisation. If the collider energy is sufficient to produce all chargino states the SUSY parameters can be extracted from the masses and polarised production cross sections in an unambiguous way. The neutralino system, which is a mixture of Bino, Wino and two Higgsino fields, depends in addition to $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ on the $`U(1)`$ gaugino parameter $`M_1`$. The diagonalisation of the $`4\times 4`$ mass matrix is much more involved and a general analysis to extract the four fundamental SUSY parameters has not yet been done. Therefore the neutralinos are primarily used to determine $`M_1`$ bloechinger . Further, if not directly accessible, the mass of the exchanged selectron can be determined up to $`800\mathrm{GeV}`$ with a resolution of $`10\mathrm{GeV}`$. It should be noted once more that the use of polarisation as well as exploiting spin correlations, for instance in the reaction $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, is of great importance.

For final precision measurements the inclusion of higher order electroweak radiative corrections will be important, as discussed by Díaz diaz . They may change the polarised cross sections by up to 15% and also have a strong influence on the scheme dependent definitions of masses. The expected sensitivity of the chargino and neutralino systems to the parameters of two mSUGRA models are given in table 1.

$`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ can be determined very precisely to one per cent or better. Large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values are difficult to extract from the $`\chi `$ systems, they are easier accessible in the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ sector.

In general, the parameters $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ can be complex, which also leads to $`CP`$ violation. In fact, $`M_2`$ may be taken real, so that only two additional phases $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _{M_1}`$ remain. The detection of $`CP`$ violating phases in MSSM models has been discussed by Plehn plehn . Limits from the electric dipole moments of the electron, neutron and mercury suggest small phases of $`\varphi 0.001`$. Measurements of chargino and neutralino masses and production cross sections would only give a modest precision of $`\delta \varphi 0.1`$. A more promising approach is to construct directly $`CP`$ sensitive quantities, like triple products of momentum vectors. Consider for example the reaction $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The distribution of the angle between the normal of the di-lepton plane and the beam direction is expected to exhibit $`CP`$ asymmetries of typically $`0.11.5\%`$, which is a challenge to the experiments.

A quite different $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$) mass spectrum is predicted in so-called anomaly mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB) models, where gaugino masses are no more universal but generated at one loop. The reversed hierarchy of gaugino parameters $`M_13M_2`$ (in contrast to SUGRA with $`M_10.5M_2`$) leads to near degeneracy of the lighter chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and the wino–like neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ masses. Search strategies for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^1`$ production in AMSB models were discussed by Mrenna mrenna . The signatures rely on the lifetime and decay modes of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, which depend almost entirely on the small mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}<0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ the chargino has a long lifetime yielding either a heavily ionising or a terminating track without visible decay products. For $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}2\mathrm{GeV}`$, most typical of models with loop-dominated gaugino masses, the decay pion(s) will be detected, possibly associated to a secondary vertex. The large $`\gamma \gamma \pi \pi `$ background may be suppressed by requiring an additional photon. If the pions have too low an energy to be detected, then one relies on a single photon plus missing mass from $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$. Once $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{GeV}`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm `$ the signatures resemble the usual MSSM topologies. With a luminosity of $`=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ the AMSB discovery potential extends over a large $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}`$ region almost to the kinematic limit.

## V SUSY parameters at high energy scales

The precise mass measurements of sleptons, neutralinos and charginos constitute an over-constrained set of observables, which allow the structure and parameters of the underlying SUSY theory to be determined. The renormalisation group equations (RGE) relate the observable masses to the fundamental SUSY parameters at high energy scales. Two different approaches were discussed by Blair blair .

A widely used strategy, for example at the LHC, is to assume a SUSY breaking scenario and then fit to the corresponding low-energy particle spectrum including experimental uncertainties. If applying such a model dependent top-down approach to a specific mSUGRA model one expects excellent accuracies for the parameters: for the common scalar mass $`m_0=100\pm 0.09\mathrm{GeV}`$, for the common gaugino mass $`m_{1/2}=200\pm 0.10\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3\pm 0.02`$ and for the trilinear coupling $`A_0=0\pm 6.3\mathrm{GeV}`$. The magnitude of $`\mu `$ is obtained implicitly by the requirement of electroweak symmetry breaking. The weakness of such an approach is that scenario assumptions are effectively constraints in the fit and so one may miss alternative solutions or new intermediate scales below the GUT scale.

The great advantage of an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider is that the rich and precise information allows to perform a model independent analysis, where the structure of the theory is extrapolated from low energy to high energy scales via RGEs. Input to this bottom-up approach are experimental measurements alone without any assumption an a model. An extrapolation of SUSY parameters from the weak scale to the GUT scale within a mSUGRA scenario is shown in figure 1. The gaugino mass parameters $`M_{1,2,3}`$ and the slepton mass parameters $`M_{L_1},M_{E_1}`$ for the first and second generation are in excellent agreement with unification. Using only LHC information would give uncertainties on the unification scale worse by more than an order of magnitude. The squark parameters $`M_{Q_1},M_{U_1},M_{D_1}`$ and the Higgs parameter $`M_{H_2}`$, being less well known, still allow to test unification. New patterns at intermediate scales would be immediately visible.

## VI Outlook

The present Linear Collider projects JLC, NLC and TESLA will probably not be able to explore the full supersymmetry spectrum. A multi-TeV collider may be necessary to complete the programme, in particular to study the properties of the coloured squarks and gluinos. A first look on experimentation at CLIC has been taken by WIlson wilson . A case study to search for di-leptons from SUSY processes around $`3\mathrm{TeV}`$ shows that edges in energy spectra from decay kinematics are difficult to observe due to more degenerate mass spectra as well as detector and machine effects. ISR and beamstrahlung effects provide a relatively wide energy spread; but mass determinations of a couple of per cent from threshold scans should be feasible. The search strategy would probably be a bottom-up approach and slowly rise the cms energy above each sparticle threshold and make use of polarisation to improve on the signal.

If supersymmetry is realised at low energy, an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider will be an ideal instrument to explore the full portrait of the accessible sparticle spectrum. This workshop has shown that much progress has been made to develop the tools — experimental analysis techniques and theoretical ideas — to determine the sparticle properties with high accuracy. The LHC may discover supersymmetry and constrain its gross features. However, only high precision measurements at the Linear Collider will be able to pin down the detailed structure of the underlying supersymmetry theory. The potential of the Linear Collider includes specifically:

* precise determination of sparticle masses, widths and branching ratios
* precise determination of couplings
* measurement of mixing angles in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ sectors
* determination of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ sector
* determination of spin-parity $`J^{PC}`$ and electroweak quantum numbers
* model independent determination of SUSY parameters

It should be emphasised once more that for this ambitious programme the highest possible luminosity is required and the availability of polarised beams is important.

Acknowledgements I want to thank all my colleagues for providing and discussing the material of their work presented in the many talks. It is a pleasure to thank the organisers of LCWS 2000 for having prepared such an excellent workshop in the stimulating atmosphere of Fermilab.


text:
# Monopole-like Configuration from Quantized SU(3) Gauge Fields

## I Introduction

Monopoles have been studied within the context of both Abelian dirac  and non-Abelian thooft  gauge theories. Usually, the approach is to start with a classical monopole configuration (i.e. having a magnetic field which becomes Coulombic as $`r\mathrm{}`$) and then consider the quantum corrections to the system. One difficulty with this approach is that the coupling strength of monopole configurations is large due to the Dirac quantization condition dirac  which requires that there be an inverse relationship between electric and magnetic couplings. A perturbatively small electric coupling requires a non-perturbatively large magnetic coupling. The perturbative quantization techniques do not work well with monopoles for the same reason that they have trouble with QCD in the low energy regime : the couplings are non-perturbatively large.

Here we will use a modification of a non-perturbative quantization method originally used by Heisenberg to quantize nonlinear, strongly coupled spinor fields hs1  hs3 . However, rather than applying this quantization to an SU(3) field configuration which is monopole-like already at the classical level, we apply it to a non-monopole configuration, which has fields and an energy density which diverge at spacial infinity ($`r\mathrm{}`$). After applying Heisenberg’s quantization technique to this solution we find that the fields and energy density become physically well behaved, and the asymptotic magnetic field becomes monopole-like. This result may indicate that monopoles are inherently quantum objects. Rather than quantizing a classical field theory configuration which appears monopole-like, real monopoles might arise as a consequence of quantizing non-monopole classical solutions.

## II Classical SU(3) solution

In this section we will briefly review the classical, spherically symmetric, SU(3) Yang-Mills theory solution dzh1  to which we will apply the modified Heisenberg quantization method. We begin with the following ansatz for pure SU(3) Yang-Mills theory

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^a\left(\lambda _{ij}^a+\lambda _{ji}^a\right){\displaystyle \frac{x^ix^j}{r^2}}w(r),`$ (1)
$`A_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\lambda _{ij}^a\lambda _{ji}^a\right){\displaystyle \frac{𝐢x^j}{r^2}}+\lambda _{jk}^a\left(ϵ_{ilj}x^k+ϵ_{ilk}x^j\right){\displaystyle \frac{x^l}{r^3}}v(r),`$ (2)
here $`\lambda ^a`$ are the Gell - Mann matrices; $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},8`$ is a color index; the Latin indices $`i,j,k,l=1,2,3`$ are space indices; $`𝐢^2=1`$; $`r,\theta ,\phi `$ are the usual spherically coordinates. This is a simplified version of an ansatz considered by several groups dzh1 galt .

Under this ansatz the Yang - Mills equations ($`D^\mu F_{}^{a}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=0`$) become

$`r^2v^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`v^3vvw^2,`$ (3)
$`r^2w^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`6wv^2.`$ (4)
where the primes indicate differentiation with respect to $`r`$. In the asymptotic limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ the solutions to Eqs. (3), (4) approach the form

$`v`$ $``$ $`A\mathrm{sin}\left(x^\alpha +\varphi _0\right),`$ (5)
$`w`$ $``$ $`\pm \left[\alpha x^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha 1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(2x^\alpha +2\varphi _0\right)}{x^\alpha }}\right],`$ (6)
$`3A^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (\alpha 1)`$ (7)
where $`x=r/r_0`$ is a dimensionless radius and $`r_0,\varphi _0`$, and $`A`$ are constants. When Eqs. (3), (4) were studied numerically dzh1  it was found that the approximate form of the solution in Eqs. (5) - (7) was a good representation even for $`x`$ fairly close to the origin. It was also found that for a broad range of boundary conditions for the functions $`v,w`$ that $`\alpha `$ tend to fall in the range $`1.2\alpha 1.8`$. Thus for large $`x`$ the ansatz function $`w`$ is a smoothly, increasing function, which yields an increasing time-like gauge potential from Eq. (1). This can be compared with the confining potentials used in some phenomenological studies of quarkonia bound states eich . It is also possible to find analytic solutions with such increasing gauge potentials if one couples the Yang-Mills fields to a scalar field yos . However, this increasing of $`w`$ also leads to the field energy and action of this solution diverging as $`x\mathrm{}`$.

The “magnetic” ($`H_i^a=F_{jk}^a`$) and “electric” ($`E_i^a=F_{0i}^a`$) fields associated with this solution can be found from the non-Abelian gauge potentials, $`A_\mu ^a`$, and have the following behavior

$`H_r^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^21}{r^2}},`$ $`H_\phi ^av^{},`$ $`H_\theta ^av^{},`$ (8)
$`E_r^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{rw^{}w}{r^2}},`$ $`E_\phi ^a{\displaystyle \frac{vw}{r}},`$ $`E_\theta ^a{\displaystyle \frac{vw}{r}},`$ (9)
here for $`E_r^a,H_\theta ^a`$, and $`H_\phi ^a`$ the color index $`a=1,3,4,6,8`$ and for $`H_r^a,E_\theta ^a`$ and $`E_\phi ^a`$ $`a=2,5,7`$.

## III Heisenberg’s Non-Perturbative Quantization

Although the confining behavior of the above classical solution is of interest due to its similarity with certain phenomenological potentials, its infinite field energy makes its physical importance/meaning uncertain. One possible resolution to this classical solution’s divergent field energy is if quantum effects removed its bad long distance behavior. The difficulty is that strongly interacting, nonlinear theories are notoriously hard to quantize. In order to take into account the quantum effects on this solution we will employ a variation of the method used by Heisenberg hs1  in attempts to quantize the nonlinear Dirac equation. We will outline the key points of the method by using the nonlinear Dirac equation as an illustrative example. The nonlinear spinor field equation considered by Heisenberg had the following form :

$$\gamma ^\mu _\mu \widehat{\psi }(x)l^2\mathrm{}[\widehat{\psi }(\widehat{\overline{\psi }}\psi )]=0$$
(10)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are Dirac matrices; $`\widehat{\psi }(x),\widehat{\overline{\psi }}`$ are the spinor field and its adjoint respectively; $`\mathrm{}[\widehat{\psi }(\widehat{\overline{\psi }}\widehat{\psi })]`$ is the general nonlinear spinor self interaction term which involved three spinor fields and various combinations of $`\gamma ^\mu `$’s and/or $`\gamma ^5`$’s. The constant $`l`$ has units of length, and sets the scale for the strength of the interaction. Next one defines $`\tau `$ functions as

$$\tau (x_1x_2\mathrm{}|y_1y_2\mathrm{})=0|T[\widehat{\psi }(x_1)\widehat{\psi }(x_2)\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(y_1)\widehat{\psi }^{}(y_2)\mathrm{}]|\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(11)
where $`T`$ is the time ordering operator; $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a state for the system described by Eq. (10). Applying Eq. (10) to (11) we obtain the following infinite system of equations for various $`\tau `$’s

$`l^2\gamma _{(r)}^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{x_{(r)}^\mu }}`$ $`\tau (x_1\mathrm{}x_n|y_1\mathrm{}y_n)=\mathrm{}[\tau (x_1\mathrm{}x_nx_r|y_1\mathrm{}y_ny_r)]+`$ (12)
$`\delta (x_ry_1)\tau (x_1\mathrm{}x_{r1}x_{r+1}\mathrm{}x_n|y_2\mathrm{}y_{r1}y_{r+1}\mathrm{}y_n)+`$
$`\delta (x_ry_2)\tau (x_1\mathrm{}x_{r1}x_{r+1}\mathrm{}x_n|y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_{r1}y_{r+1}\mathrm{}y_n)+\mathrm{}`$
Eq. (12) represents one of an infinite set of coupled equations which relate various order (given by the index $`n`$) of the $`\tau `$ functions to one another. To make some head way toward solving this infinite set of equations Heisenberg employed the Tamm-Dankoff method whereby he only considered $`\tau `$ functions up to a certain order. This effectively turned the infinite set of coupled equations into a finite set of coupled equations.

For the SU(3) Yang-Mills theory this idea leads to the following Yang-Mills equations for the quantized SU(3) gauge field

$$D_\mu \widehat{F}^{a\mu \nu }=0$$
(13)
here $`\widehat{F}^{a\mu \nu }`$ is the field operator of the SU(3) gauge field.

One can show that Heisenberg’s method is equivalent to the Dyson-Schwinger system of equations for small coupling constants. One can also make a comparison between the Heisenberg method and the standard Feynman diagram technique. With the Feynman diagram method quantum corrections to physical quantities are given in terms of an infinite number of higher order, loop diagrams. In practice one takes only a finite number of diagrams into account when calculating the quantum correction to some physical quantity. This standard diagrammatic method requires a small expansion parameter (the coupling constant), and thus does not work for strongly coupled theories. The Heisenberg method was intended for strongly coupled, nonlinear theories, and we will apply a variation of this method to the classical solution discussed in the last section.

We will consider a variation of Heisenberg’s quantization method for the present non-Abelian equations by making the following assumptions dzh2 :

1. The physical degrees of freedom relevant for studying the above classical solution are given entirely by the two ansatz functions $`v,w`$ appearing in Eqs. (3), (4). No other degrees of freedom will arise through the quantization process.
2. From Eqs. (5), (6) we see that one function $`w(r)`$ is a smoothly varying function for large $`r`$, while another function, $`v(r)`$, is strongly oscillating. Thus we take $`w(r)`$ to be an almost classical degree of freedom while $`v(r)`$ is treated as a fully quantum mechanical degree of freedom. Naively one might expect that only the behavior of second function would change while first function stayed the same. However since both functions are interrelated through the nonlinear nature of the field equations we find that both functions are modified.

To begin we replace the ansatz functions by operators $`\widehat{w}(x),\widehat{v}(x)`$.

$`r^2\widehat{v}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{v}^3\widehat{v}\widehat{v}\widehat{w}^2,`$ (14)
$`r^2\widehat{w}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`6\widehat{w}\widehat{v}^2`$ (15)
These equations can be seen as an approximation of the quantized SU(3) Yang-Mills field equations (13). Taking into account assumption (2) we let $`\widehat{w}w`$ become just a classical function again, and replace $`\widehat{v}^2`$ in Eq. (15) by its expectation value to arrive at

$`r^2\widehat{v}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{v}^3\widehat{v}\widehat{v}w^2,`$ (16)
$`r^2w^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`6wv^2`$ (17)
where the expectation value $`\widehat{v}^2`$ is taken with respect to some quantum state $`|q`$: $`v^2=q|v^2|q`$. We can average Eq. (16) to get

$`r^2v^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`v^3vvw^2,`$ (18)
$`r^2w^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`6wv^2`$ (19)
Eqs. (18) (19) are almost a closed system for determining $`v`$ except for the $`v^2`$ and $`v^3`$ terms. One can obtain differential equations for these expectation values by applying $`r^2/r`$ to $`\widehat{v}^2`$ or $`\widehat{v}^3`$ and using Eqs. (16) - (17). However the differential equations for $`v^2`$ or $`v^3`$ would involve yet higher powers of $`\widehat{v}`$ thus generating an infinite number of coupled differential equations for the various $`v^n`$. In the next section we will use a path integral inspired method dzh3  to cut this progression off at some finite number of differential equations.

## IV Path integration over classical solutions

Within the path integral method the expectation value of some field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }e^{iS\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\right]}D\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(20)
The classical solutions, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}`$, give the dominate contribution to the path integral. For a single classical solution one can approximate the path integral as

$$e^{iS[\mathrm{\Phi }]}D\mathrm{\Phi }Ae^{iS[\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}]}$$
(21)
where $`A`$ is a normalization constant. Consequently the expectation of the field can be approximated by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }e^{iS[\mathrm{\Phi }]}D\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}.$$
(22)
We are interested in the case where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the gauge potential $`A_\mu ^a`$, in which case our approximation becomes

$$A_\mu ^a\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\right)_{\varphi _0}e^{iS\left[\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\right)_{\varphi _0}\right]}D\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a\right)_{\varphi _0}$$
(23)
$`(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a)_{\varphi _0}`$ are the classical solutions of the Yang - Mills equations labeled by a parameter $`\varphi _0`$. In the present case the classical solution with the asymptotic form (5) (6) has an infinite energy and action. When one considers the Euclidean version of the path integral above the exponential factor in (23) becomes $`\mathrm{exp}[S[(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a)_{\varphi _0}]`$ which for an infinite action would naively imply that this classical configuration would not contribute to the path integral at all. However, there examples where infinite action classical solutions have been hypothesized to play a significant role in the path integral. The most well known example of this is the meron solution callan , which has an infinite action. Analytically the singularities of the meron solutions can be dealt with by replacing the regions that contain the singularities by instanton solutions. Since instanton solutions have finite action this patched together solution of meron plus instanton has finite action. However, the Yang-Mills field equations are not satisfied at the boundary where the meron and instanton solutions are sewn together. In addition recent lattice studies sn  negele  have indicated that merons (or the patched meron/instanton) do play a role in the path integral. Here we will treat this divergence in the action in an approximate way through a redefinition of the path integral integration measure. Since the divergence in the action comes from first term of the $`w(r)`$ ansatz function of (6), which does not contain $`\varphi _0`$ we will take the action for different $`\varphi _0`$ ’s to be approximately the same : $`S[(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a)_{\varphi _0}]S_0\mathrm{}`$. Then changing the functional integration measure in the following way – $`D(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a)_{\varphi _0}e^{iS_0}D(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a)_{\varphi _0}`$ – allows us to approximate the expectation value of $`A_\mu ^a`$ as

$$A_\mu ^a\underset{\begin{array}{c}\text{over all}\\ \text{classical solutions}\end{array}}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{A_\mu ^a}\right)_{\varphi _0}p_{\varphi _0}$$
(24)
where $`p_{\varphi _0}`$ is the probability for a given classical solution. We will consider the classical solutions whose asymptotic behavior is given by (5)-(6), and we will take the different solutions (as distinguished by different $`\varphi _0`$’s) to have equal probability $`p_{\varphi _0}const`$. Therefore

$`v`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}v_{cl}𝑑\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{A}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\mathrm{sin}(x^\alpha +\varphi _0)𝑑\varphi _0=0,`$ (25)
$`v^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}v_{cl}^2𝑑\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(x^\alpha +\varphi _0)𝑑\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}},`$ (26)
$`v^3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}v_{cl}^3𝑑\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{A^3}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\mathrm{sin}^3(x^\alpha +\varphi _0)𝑑\varphi _0=0,`$ (27)
$`v^4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}v_{cl}^4𝑑\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{A^4}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}\mathrm{sin}^4(x^\alpha +\varphi _0)𝑑\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}A^4`$ (28)
here $`v_{cl}`$ is the function from the Eq.(5). The path integral inspired Eqns. (25) - (28) are the heart of the cutoff procedure that we wish to apply to Eqns. (18), (19). On substituting Eqs. (25), (26) into Eqs. (18), (19) we find that Eq.(18) is satisfied identically and Eq.(19) takes the form

$$r^2w^{\prime \prime }=3A^2w=\alpha (\alpha 1)w,\alpha >1$$
(29)
which has the solutions

$`w`$ $`=`$ $`w_0r^\alpha ,`$ (30)
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_0}{r^{\alpha 1}}}`$ (31)
where $`w_0`$ is some constant. The first solution is simply the classically averaged singular solution (6) which still has the bad asymptotic divergence of the fields and energy density. The second solution, (31), is more physically relevant since it leads to asymptotic fields which are well behaved.

The solution of Eq. (31) implies the following important result: the quantum fluctuations of the strongly oscillating, nonlinear fields leads to an improvement of the bad asymptotic behavior of these nonlinear fields. This means that after quantization the monotonically growing and strongly oscillating components of the gauge potential become functions with good asymptotic behavior.

As $`r\mathrm{}`$ we find the following SU(3) color fields

$`H_r^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^21}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r^2}}\text{with}Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\alpha (\alpha 1)1,`$ (32)
$`H_{\phi ,\theta }^a`$ $``$ $`v^{}0,`$ (33)
$`E_r^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{rw^{}w}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha w_0}{r^{\alpha +1}}},`$ (34)
$`E_{\phi ,\theta }^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{vw}{r}}=0.`$ (35)
We can see that as $`r\mathrm{}`$ $`|E_r^a||H_r^a|`$. In particular at infinity we find only a monopole “magnetic” field $`H_r^aQ/r^2`$ with a “magnetic” charge $`Q`$. This result can be summarized as: the approximate quantization of the SU(3) gauge field (by averaging over the classical singular solutions) gives a monopole-like configuration from an initial classical configuration which was not monopole-like. We will call this a “quantum monopole” to distinguish it from field configurations which are monopole-like already in the classical theory.

## V Energy density

The divergence of the fields of the classical solution given by Eqs. (5) - (7) leads to a diverging energy density for the solution, and thus an infinite total field energy. The energy density $`\epsilon `$ of the quantized solution is

$$\epsilon (E_\mu ^a)^2+(H_\mu ^a)^2\left(\frac{rg^{}g}{r^2}\right)^2+\frac{2f^2g^2}{r^4}+\frac{2f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^2}+\frac{(f^21)^2}{r^4}$$
(36)
The first two terms on the right hand side of Eq. (36), which involve the “classical” ansatz function $`g(r)`$, go to zero faster than $`1/r^4`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ due to the form of $`g(r)`$ in Eq. (31). Thus the leading behavior of $`\epsilon `$ is given by the last two terms in Eq. (36) which have only the “quantum” ansatz function $`f(r)`$. To calculate $`f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ let us consider

$$r^2\frac{d}{dr}f^{}(r^{})f^{}(r)=f^{}(r^{})f^3(r)f^{}(r^{})f(r)\left(1+g^2(r)\right)$$
(37)
In the limit $`r^{}r`$ we have

$$r^2f^{}(r)f^{\prime \prime }(r)=\frac{r^2}{2}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(r)^{}=\frac{1}{4}f^4(r)^{}\frac{1}{2}f^2(r)^{}\left(1+g^2(r)\right).$$
(38)
From Eqs. (26) and (28) we see that $`f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}^{}=0`$ which implies $`f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=const.`$ Thus the third term in (36) gives the leading asymptotic behavior as $`r\mathrm{}`$ to be

$$\epsilon \frac{const}{r^2}$$
(39)
and the total energy of this “quantum monopole” (excitation) is infinite. This fact indicates that our approximation (20) is good only for $`f^n(r)`$ calculations but not for the derivative $`f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(r)`$. .

## VI Conclusions

Starting from an infinite energy, classical solution to the SU(3) Yang-Mills field equations we found that the bad asymptotic behavior of this solution was favorably modified by a variation of the quantization method proposed by Heisenberg to deal with strongly coupled, nonlinear field theories. In addition, although the original classical solution was not monopole-like, it was found that the quantized solution was monopole-like. This may imply that if real monopoles exist they may be inherently quantum mechanical objects i.e. that monopoles arise from the quantization of non-monopole classical solutions. This is to be contrasted with the standard idea that monopoles result from quantizing solutions which are already monopole-like at the classical level. One possible application of this is to the dual-superconductor picture of the QCD vacuum. In this picture one models the QCD vacuum as a stochastic gas of appearing/disappearing monopoles and antimonopoles as in Fig.1. These monopole/antimonopole fluctuations can form pairs (analogous to Cooper pairs in real superconductors) which can Bose condense leading to a dual Meissner effect hooft2  mand  expelling color electric flux from the QCD vacuum, expect in narrow flux tubes which connect and confine the quarks. Lattice calculations confirm such a model suzuki  : monopoles appear to play a major role in the QCD lattice gauge path integral. Based on the results of the present paper it may be that the monopoles which are considered in the dual superconductor QCD vacuum picture should be the “quantum” monopoles discussed here rather than “classical” monopoles (i.e. monopoles which are already monopole-like at the classical level).

## VII Acknowledgment

VD is grateful for Viktor Gurovich for the fruitful discussion.