format: text

text:
# 1 The diagram of tadpole approach (see, the text). The solid (dashed) lines correspond to the fermion (scalar) field.

Role of quark-instanton liquid interactions
in colour superconductivity phase
S. V. Molodtsov, G. M. Zinovjev

State Research Center, Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 117259, Moscow, RUSSIA
Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics,
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, UA-03143, Kiev, UKRAINE

## Abstract

The interaction of light quarks and instanton liquid is analyzed at finite density of quark/baryon matter and in the phase of nonzero values of diquark (colour) condensate. It is shown that instanton liquid perturbation produced by such an interaction results in an essential increase of the critical value of quark chemical potential $`\mu _c`$ which provokes the perceptible increase of quark matter density around the expected onset of the colour superconductivity phase.

PACS: 11.15 Kc, 12.38-Aw

The intriguing history of studying the structure of strongly interacting matter abounded in many interesting but somewhat contradictory phenomenological results up to the advent of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Since the time of its discovery the possible existence of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) phase is one of the most fundamental predictions of QCD. This phase is phenomenologically understood as a matter state where quarks and gluons being under extreme conditions of high temperature (T) and(or) quark/baryon density (driven by the corresponding chemical potential $`\mu `$) are able to propagate relatively freely over the considerable (of course, on the hadron scale) distances. Even the simplest quantitative estimates of QGP physical characteristics were so verisimilar that they allowed to launch the process of QGP experimental study in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. And although the first series of experiments at SPS CERN and AGS BNL have provided us with encouraging results a new generation of experiments is necessary to make convincing conclusions. The physical programme for new experimental research certainly needs serious quantitative analysis of the QCD phase diagram.

It seemed lattice QCD could be able to resolve the problem starting even on the first theoretical principles. However, up to now this approach was effective and apparently reliable in producing the results mainly around the temperature axis of the ($`\mu `$—T)-plane and, unfortunately, relies on the field theory formulation in imaginary time. Nevertheless, lattice QCD has corroborated the phenomenological expectations that its phase structure is quite rich . In particular, nowadays we know that the chiral symmetry of initial QCD Lagrangian becomes broken and the quarks are getting to be confined when the temperature decreases below a critical value. Moreover, the lattice calculations show us that both physical phenomena result from the corresponding phase transitions and their critical temperatures practically coincide. The latter observation indicates that both fundamental phenomena could be tightly knitted and it should heuristically play an important role to illuminate the confinement mechanism.

The features of the QCD matter at high baryon densities remains poorly understood in spite of the recent splash of renewed activity . One of the major theoretical reasons comes from serious technical difficulties of lattice simulations with Monte-Carlo techniques due to the complex fermion determinant in QCD at finite quark densities. From the phenomenological side the recent experimental data are not very informative for developing the theory along this direction. It is clear that present and future experiments with heavy ions at higher and higher energies should produce the strong interacting matter rather at higher temperature and closer to the temperature axis of the ($`\mu `$—T)-plane. In such a situation the phenomenological treatment of studying along the $`\mu `$-axis should basically rely on the astrophysical observations of the compact stars. In the meantime, it was demonstrated that the diquark pairing in colour anti-triplet attractive channel induced by the instanton interaction vertex should be much more effective than an one-gluon exchange and at sufficiently large quark/baryon densities and small T could lead to colour superconductivity and a sophisticated picture of the QCD phase diagram .

The present paper continues our preceding one  where the light quark interactions with the instanton liquid (IL) at nonzero values of quark/baryon chemical potentials were investigated in the phase of broken chiral symmetry within the improved method of calculating the generating function of the IL theory . The new treatment of the functional integral is mainly related to an idea t take into account the IL back-reaction upon the quark presence which was always considered negligible. In fact, this effect is pretty weak and should manifest itself in the leading order of expansion in the effective coupling. Nevertheless, it was qualitatively argued that the interaction of IL and quarks could increase the quark matter density around the onset of expected colour superconductivity. As known ,  this density occurred to be surprisingly small ($`n_q0.062\text{fm}^3`$) and, hence, the diquark phase would come to play already at the density of nuclear matter ($`n_n0.45\text{fm}^3`$ and quark matter density is taken to be three times larger than the conventional nuclear one).

Here we obtain the quantitative estimate of the corresponding critical chemical potential $`\mu _c`$ analyzing the system of the Gorkov equations for the colour superconductor which we further calculate. We do not introduce any simplification of the initial Lagrangian trying to deal with the ’exact’ four-quark interaction which is generated by (anti-)instantons. Such an intention is simply compulsory because it is dictated by the precision of problem where the effects of the IL perturbation are expected to be of the same order of magnitude compared to the terms which could usually be ignored.

Let us point out that in the IL approach  the generating functional has the following factorized form

$$𝒵=𝒵_g𝒵_\psi .$$

Here the first factor provides us with information on the gluon condensate whereas the fermion factor $`𝒵_\psi `$ serves to describe the quark practice in the instanton environment , . In what follows we use the notations of Ref.  where the dimensionless variables (motivated by the form of interquark interaction kernel) were introduced, for example, for the chemical potential it looks like $`\mu \mu \overline{\rho }/2`$ and for the momenta $`k_i\overline{\rho }/2k_i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average size of pseudoparticle (PP). The quark determinant $`𝒵_\psi `$ may be transformed with the auxiliary integration over the parameter $`\lambda `$ to the following form (for the colour $`SU(3)`$ group with the quarks of two flavours $`N_f=2`$):

$`𝒵_\psi {\displaystyle }d\lambda {\displaystyle }D\psi ^{}D\psi \mathrm{exp}\left\{nV_4(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{n\overline{\rho }^4}{\lambda N}}1)\right\}\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{\pi ^4}\underset{f=1}{\overset{2}{}}\psi _f^{}(k)2(\widehat{k}i\widehat{\mu })\psi _f(k)}+V\right\},`$ (1)
$`V=2\lambda (\psi _1^LL_1\psi _1^L)(\psi _2^LL_2\psi _2^L)+2\lambda (\psi _1^RR_1\psi _1^R)(\psi _2^RR_2\psi _2^R),`$
where $`\psi _f^T=(\psi _f^R,\psi _f^L),f=1,2`$ are the quark fields with the spinors of definite chirality, $`\psi _f^{L,R}=P_\pm \psi _f,P_\pm =\frac{1\pm \gamma _5}{2}`$, $`n`$ is the IL density, $`V_4`$ is 4-volume which the system occupies, $`\mu _\nu =(\mathrm{𝟎},\mu )`$ and $`N`$ is the normalizing factor. For clarity we take it to be equal a unity but, in principle, it could play a role of free model parameter. This factor is inessential for the models with the fixed value of the packing fraction parameter $`n\overline{\rho }^4`$ but in the model where it is admissible for variation the weak logarithmic dependence on N appears. The factors $`2`$ in Eq. (S0.Ex2) come with making use of the dimensionless variables. The term of four-fermion quark interaction $`V`$ may be directly expressed with the chiral components as

$$(\psi _f^LL_f\psi _f^L)=\frac{dp_fdq_f}{\pi ^8}\psi _{f\alpha _fi_f}^L(p_f)L_{\alpha _fi_f}^{\beta _fj_f}(p_f,q_f;\mu )\psi _f^{L\beta _fj_f}(q_f),$$

it being known that for the right hand fields the substitution $`LR`$ should be performed. The kernels $`L_{\alpha _fi_f}^{\beta _fj_f}`$ are defined by the functions $`h_i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ and the zero modes (the solutions of the Dirac equation with the chemical potential $`\mu `$ in the PP field)

$`h_4(k_4,k;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4k}}\{(k\mu ik_4)[(2k_4+i\mu )f_1^{}+i(k\mu ik_4)f_2^{}]+`$
$`+`$ $`(k+\mu +ik_4)[(2k_4+i\mu )f_1^+i(k+\mu +ik_4)f_2^+]\},`$
$`h_i(k_4,k;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_i}{4k^2}}\{(2k\mu )(k\mu ik_4)f_1^{}+(2k+\mu )(k+\mu +ik_4)f_1^++`$
$`+`$ $`\left[2(k\mu )(k\mu ik_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(\mu +ik_4)[k_4^2+(p\mu )^2]\right]f_2^{}+`$
$`+`$ $`[2(k+\mu )(k+\mu +ik_4)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}(\mu +ik_4)[k_4^2+(p+\mu )^2]]f_2^+\},`$
where $`k=|𝒌|`$ if the spatial components of 4-vector $`k_\nu `$ are considered and

$$f_1^\pm =\frac{I_1(z^\pm )K_0(z^\pm )I_0(z^\pm )K_1(z^\pm )}{z^\pm },f_2^\pm =\frac{I_1(z^\pm )K_1(z^\pm )}{z_\pm ^2},z^\pm =\frac{\rho }{2}\sqrt{k_4^2+(k\pm \mu )^2},$$

with the modified Bessel functions $`I_i,K_i(i=0,1)`$. Let us introduce the scalar function $`h(k_4,k;\mu )`$ related to three-dimensional component $`h_i(k_4,k;\mu )=h(k_4,k;\mu )\frac{k_i}{k},i=1,2,3`$ (we omit the arguments of functions $`h_i`$ when it does not mislead).

$$L_{\alpha i}^{\beta j}(p,q;\mu )=S^{ik}(p;\mu )ϵ^{kl}U_l^\alpha U_\beta ^\sigma ϵ^{\sigma n}S_{nj}^+(q;\mu ),$$

$`S(p;\mu )=(p+i\mu )^{}h^+(p;\mu ),S^+(p;\mu )=\stackrel{}{h}{}_{}{}^{}(p;\mu )(p+i\mu )^+`$ where it is valid for the conjugated function $`\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{h}}(p;\mu )=h_\mu (p;\mu )`$ and $`ϵ`$ is an antisymmetric matrix with $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=1`$. Here $`p^\pm `$ and other similar designations are used for the four-vectors spanned by $`\sigma _\nu ^\pm `$-matrices, $`\sigma _\mu ^\pm =(\pm i𝝈,1),`$ ($`𝝈`$ is the three-vector of the Pauli matrices), for example, $`p^\pm =p^\nu \sigma _\nu ^\pm `$ and $`U`$ is a matrix of rotations in the colour space. The similar relations are valid for the right hand components

$$(\psi _f^RR_f\psi _f^R)=\frac{dp_fdq_f}{\pi ^8}\psi _{f\alpha _fi_f}^R(p_f)R_{\alpha _fi_f}^{\beta _fj_f}(p_f,q_f;\mu )\psi _f^{R\beta _fj_f}(q_f),$$

with the kernel

$$R_{\alpha i}^{\beta j}(p,q;\mu )=T^{ik}(p;\mu )ϵ^{kl}U_l^\alpha U_\beta ^\sigma ϵ^{\sigma n}T_{nj}^+(q;\mu ),$$

where $`T(p;\mu )=(p+i\mu )^+h^{}(p;\mu ),T^+(p;\mu )=\stackrel{}{h}{}_{}{}^{+}(p;\mu )(p+i\mu )^{}`$. The components of matrices $`(p+i\mu )^\pm `$ and $`h^{}(p;\mu )`$ commute because the vector-function $`𝒉(p)`$ is spanned by the vector $`𝒑`$ only. Then the following identities are easily understood

$$T(p;\mu )=S^+(p;\mu ),T^+(p;\mu )=S(p;\mu ).$$

In what follows we omit the $`\mu `$-dependence of matrices $`T,T^+`$ as the chemical potential enters the matrix $`T`$ being always positive and the matrix $`T^+`$ being negative only. Besides, two other identities would also be helpful

$$\sigma _2T^T(p)\sigma _2=T^+(p),\sigma _2T^{+T}(p)\sigma _2=T(p),$$

where $`T^T`$ means a transposed matrix.

Dealing with the following averages interesting to study the diquark condensates (S0.Ex2)

$$\psi _{1\alpha i}^{L,R}(p)\psi _{2\beta j}^{L,R}(q)=ϵ_{12}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\pi ^4\delta (p+q)F_{ij}^{L,R}(p),$$

$$\psi _{f\alpha i}^L(p)\psi _{g\beta j}^R(q)=\delta _{fg}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\pi ^4\delta (pq)G_{ij}^{LR}(p),$$

and making use of the effective action of Eq. (S0.Ex2) one may obtain the Gorkov equations similar to ones treated in Ref.

$`\left[G_0^+(p)\right]^1F^L(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(p)G^{LRT}(p)=0,`$
$`\left[G_0^+(p)\right]^1G^{LR}(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(p)F^{+RT}(p)=1,`$
(2)
$`\left[G_0^{}(p)\right]^1F^R(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^L(p)G^{RLT}(p)=0,`$
$`\left[G_0^{}(p)\right]^1G^{RL}(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^L(p)F^{+LT}(p)=1,`$
where $`\left[G_0^\pm (p)\right]^1=2(p+i\mu )^\pm `$ means the free Green function, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }^RT(p)ϵT^T(p)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^L(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }^LT^+(p)ϵT^{+T}(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{L,R}`$ denotes a gap. The form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-matrices results from the kernel structure of equations if averaging over colour orientations done (remember that we consider colour stochastic ensemble). In order to complete Eqs. (S0.Ex18) we need the following gap equations

$$ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }^R=\frac{2\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}\frac{dq}{\pi ^4}\left[T^+(q)F^R(q)T^{+T}(q)T^+(q)F^{RT}(q)T^{+T}(q)\right],$$

$$ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }^L=\frac{2\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}\frac{dq}{\pi ^4}\left[T(q)F^L(q)T^T(q)T(q)F^{LT}(q)T^T(q)\right].$$

Apparently, the right hand sides of these equations are proportional $`ϵ`$ because they are the differences a matrix and its transposed form. Similar equations are valid for the conjugated matrices

$`F^{+LT}(p)`$ $`\left[G_0^{}(p)\right]^1`$ $`G^{RLT}(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+R}(p)=0,`$
$`G^{RL}(p)`$ $`\left[G_0^{}(p)\right]^1`$ $`F^R(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+R}(p)=1,`$
$`F^{+RT}(p)`$ $`\left[G_0^+(p)\right]^1`$ $`G^{LRT}(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+L}(p)=0,`$
$`G^{LR}(p)`$ $`\left[G_0^+(p)\right]^1`$ $`F^L(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+L}(p)=1,`$
with the corresponding gap equations

$$ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }^{+R}=\frac{2\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}\frac{dq}{\pi ^4}\left[T^T(q)F^{+RT}(q)T(q)T^T(q)F^{+R}(q)T(q)\right],$$

$$ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}=\frac{2\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}\frac{dq}{\pi ^4}\left[T^{+T}(q)F^{+LT}(q)T^+(q)T^{+T}(q)F^{+L}(q)T^+(q)\right],$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+R}(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+R}T^{+T}(p)ϵT^+(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+L}(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}T^T(p)ϵT(p)`$. In this paper we limit ourselves to treating the diquark condensate only. However, as known  the mixed phase of nonzero values both chiral and colour condensates could exist at $`\mu _c300\text{MeV}`$ realizing the transitional regime for the onset of colour superconducting phase. In order to bring this phase to the play the equation system should be extended including another averages as

$$\psi _{f\alpha i}^{L,R}(p)\psi _{g\beta j}^{L,R}(q)=\delta _{fg}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\pi ^4\delta (pq)G_{ij}^{LL,RR}(p).$$

From the Eqs. (S0.Ex18) and (S0.Ex24) we find

$`G^{LR}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`G_0^+(p)+G_0^+(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(p)F^{+RT}(p),`$
$`F^{+RT}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`G^{LRT}(p)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+L}(p)G_0^+(p).`$
With the auxiliary matrices $`C^{+L}(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}T^+(p)T(p)`$, $`C^R(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }^RT(p)T^+(p)`$ we may rewrite the matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{+L}(p)=ϵC^{+L}(p),\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(p)=C^R(p)ϵ.$$

The identities for $`T`$-matrix mentioned above help to show the validity of the relations

$$ϵC^{+LT}(p)ϵ^T=C^{+L}(p),$$

$$ϵC^{RT}(p)ϵ^T=C^R(p).$$

And for the Green function we have

$$G^{LR}(p)=G_0^+(p)+G_0^+(p)C^R(p)ϵG^{LRT}(p)ϵC^{+L}(p)G_0^+(p).$$

Combining the properties of $`C`$ matrices together with the identities for free Green functions

$$\sigma _2G_0^{\pm T}(p)\sigma _2=G_0^{}(p),$$

we are able to get the complete equation for calculating the function $`G^{LR}`$ in the form

$$ϵG^{LR}(p)ϵ^T=G_0^{}(p)+G_0^{}(p)C^{+L}(p)G^{LR}(p)C^R(p)G_0^{}(p).$$

The vector-function $`𝒉(p)`$ being spanned by the vector $`𝒑`$ helps to conclude that all the matrices $`G_0^\pm `$, $`C^{+L}`$, $`C^R`$ commute with each other. Then searching the solution for the Green function $`G^{LR}`$ by iterating one finds immediately that the Green function commutes with those matrices and finally obtains the equation to calculate it in the form

$$G^{LR}(p)=[1+H(p)]G_0^+(p)+H^2(p)G^{LR}(p),$$

or

$$[1H(p)]G^{LR}(p)=G_0^+(p),$$

where $`H(p)=G_0^+(p)C^R(p)G_0^{}(p)C^{+L}(p)`$.

The structure of matrices $`H(p)`$ allows us to conclude that their sum

$$H(p)+H(p)=\alpha (p)$$

and product

$$H(p)H(p)=\beta (p),$$

are proportional to the unity matrices (it is clear by definition that $`\alpha (p)=\alpha (p),\beta (p)=\beta (p)`$).

Introducing notation $`g_\nu =h_\nu (p)`$ we are able to present the functions $`\alpha (p)`$ and $`\beta (p)`$ in the compact form as

$$\alpha (p)=4\mathrm{\Delta }^R\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}[4A(p)(hg)+2(p^2+\mu ^2)(h^2)(g^2)],$$

where

$$A(p)=(p^2+\mu ^2)(hg)2i\mu p(g_4hh_4g).$$

and a scalar product is naturally defined $`(hg)=_{i=1}^4h_ig_i`$ together with the functions $`(h^2)`$ and $`(g^2)`$ squared. Getting the last term of $`A(p)`$ we used the designation of scalar function $`𝒉`$ mentioned above and for the function $`\beta `$ we have

$$\beta (p)=16\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^R\right)^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}\right)^2\left(p^2+\mu ^2\right)^2(h^2)^2(g^2)^2.$$

As both functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are spanned by the unit matrices the solution for the Green function may be given in

$$G^{LR}(p)=\frac{G_0^+(p)[1H(p)]}{1\alpha (p)+\beta (p)}.$$

The gap equation then looks like

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^L=\frac{2\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}\frac{dp}{\pi ^4}\frac{\alpha (p)2\beta (p)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}(1\alpha (p)+\beta (p)}.$$
(4)
We are interested in the solution of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }^R=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}=\mathrm{\Delta }^L=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+R}`$ at $`\lambda <0`$, which is dictated by the symmetries of four-quark interaction kernels. Let us remember that any kernel for every quark sort traditionally carries the imaginary unit factor $`i`$ , . The sign choice of $`\lambda `$ relies on this fact but, in principle, there is an alternative $`\mathrm{\Delta }^R=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+L}=\mathrm{\Delta }^L=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+R}`$ for $`\lambda >0`$, if the kernels are redefined. An analysis shows that the denominator of Eq. (4) is always positive and, therefore, the solution of this equation does exist at pretty large $`\lambda `$.

The quark matter state at finite chemical potential is defined by the saddle point of functional Eq. (S0.Ex2) which we treat further maintaining the first nonvanishing contribution which is the figure-eight type diagram (see, for example, ),

$$I=2(N_c1)\frac{dp}{\pi ^4}\frac{\alpha (p)2\beta (p)}{1\alpha (p)+\beta (p)}.$$

In our consideration this contribution to the generating functional ($`Z_\psi e^W`$) would occur to be

$$W=n\overline{\rho }^4\mathrm{ln}\lambda +\lambda Y,YI.$$
(5)
For the simplest situation of constant IL density the saddle point equation reads

$$n\overline{\rho }^4\lambda Y=0.$$

Comparing it with the gap equation Eq. (4) one could notice the peculiar feature which is very practical to keep numerical calculations under control. The saddle point equation leads to the condition of gap independent of $`\mu `$.

It was demonstrated in Refs. ,  that the quark back-reaction upon IL could be perturbatively estimated by studying the small variations of the IL parameters $`\delta n`$ and $`\delta \rho `$ around their equilibrium values $`n`$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$. Such variations could be incorporated by the IL theory if the deformable (crumpled) (anti-)instantons of size $`\rho `$, being the function of $`x`$ and $`z`$, i.e. $`\rho \rho (x,z)`$, are treated as the saturating configurations of the functional integral. Theoretically it is justified by developing the variational principle which makes use the Ritz method based on the multipole expansion of the deformation fields in the following form

$$\rho (x,z)=\rho (z,z)+\frac{\rho }{z_\mu }y_\mu +\frac{^2\rho }{z_\mu z_\nu }y_\mu y_\nu +\mathrm{},y=xz.$$
(6)
Then it is obvious the singular nature of the pseudoparticle solution generates the necessary cut-off at the scale of average instanton size.

In principle, the instanton orientation in the colour space should be treated in similar manner. However, it does not lead to noticeable consequences while in the random instanton medium. Although such a treatment turns out very informative if one considers the polarization characteristics of the IL when the probe colour charge is present.

In addition, the variations of zero modes in the interaction vertices of quark determinant at the transformation $`\overline{\rho }\overline{\rho }+\delta \rho `$ should be taken into account. Then as the output we have that for the long wave length excitations (for example, $`\pi `$-mesons) the deformation field describes colour less scalar excitations of IL with the mass gap $`M`$ of the order of several hundreds MeV, $`M^2=\frac{\nu }{\kappa }`$ where $`\nu =\frac{b4}{2}`$, $`b=\frac{11N_c2N_f}{3}`$, $`\kappa `$ is the kinetic coefficient being derived within the quasi-classical approach. $`N_c`$ and $`N_f`$ are the numbers of quark colours and flavours, respectively. Our estimates give for this coefficient value of a few single instanton actions $`\beta =8\pi ^2/g^2`$, i.e. $`\kappa c\beta `$ (with the factor $`c1.5`$$`6`$ according to the ansatz taken for the saturating configurations) .

Then, besides the diagrams with four legs (see, the term $`V`$ in (S0.Ex2)) the extra diagrams with the scalar field attached (relatively speaking, the derivative in $`\rho `$ of the vertex function in which the variation of the functions describing the zero mode

$$h_ih_i+\frac{h_i}{\rho }\delta \rho ,i=1,\mathrm{},4,$$
(7)
should be performed) are generated. Due to the diquark condensate presence handling the Lagrangian is substantially simplified if one restricts oneself with the leading contributions coming from the tadpole diagrams. Indeed, the leading contributions come from the term $`V`$ and the term shown in Fig. 1 where two vertices are linked with the propagator $`\frac{1}{M^2}`$ of scalar field.

Analyzing the modified Lagrangian it is easy to see that the form of the Gorkov equations would be the same if everywhere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is meant as an improved one $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in which the correction $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is constructed with the modified functions Eq. (7). Moreover, the result for the Green function is formally the same if the modified functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are meant. In particular, the form of gap equation is also retained because its kernel includes again the differences of the matrices which are constructed from the derivatives in $`\rho `$ of matrices $`T,T^+`$ and their transposed forms. This difference is spanned by the unit vector as well. However, the following substitutions

$$\alpha (p)\alpha (p)+\delta \alpha (p),$$

$$\beta (p)\beta (p)+\delta \beta (p),$$

where

$$\delta \alpha (p)=J\frac{\alpha }{\rho },$$

$$\delta \beta (p)=J\frac{\beta }{\rho },$$

are supposed to be performed and here $`J`$ is the contribution of figure-eight type diagram with the scalar field propagator as an external leg

$$J=\frac{2\lambda }{N_c(N_c1)}\frac{1}{n\overline{\rho }^4\kappa }\frac{1}{4M^2}I.$$

Let us mention that effectively a dependence on the kinetic term $`\kappa `$ disappears (remember that $`M^2=\frac{\nu }{\kappa }`$) and its precise value is not operative in the approximation developed. The derivative of the figure-eight type diagram which will shortly be necessary to proceed looks like

$$\frac{I}{\rho }=2(N_c1)\frac{dp}{\pi ^4}\left\{\frac{1\beta (p)}{(1\alpha (p)+\beta (p))^2}\delta \alpha (p)+\frac{\alpha (p)2}{(1\alpha (p)+\beta (p))^2}\delta \beta (p)\right\}.$$

And finally the modification of generating functional should be accommodated bringing Eq. (5) to the form

$$W=n\overline{\rho }^4\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{n\overline{\rho }^4}{\lambda }1\right)+\lambda Y.$$

Then the new (if the variation of the IL density is absorbed) equation to calculate the saddle point reads

$$n\overline{\rho }^4\lambda (n\overline{\rho }^4)^{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{n\overline{\rho }^4}{|\lambda |}\lambda Y=0$$

and the IL density is

$$n\overline{\rho }^4=\frac{\nu }{2\beta \xi ^2}+\left[\left(\frac{\nu }{2\beta \xi ^2}\right)^2+\frac{\left(\frac{\delta I}{\delta \rho }\right)^{^{}}}{\beta \xi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1/2)}{2\sqrt{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}\right]^{1/2},$$
(8)
where the prime available means the derivative in $`\lambda `$, the constant $`\xi ^2=\frac{27}{4}\frac{N_c}{N_c^21}\pi ^2`$ is a measure of interaction in the stochastic ensemble of PPs with an average size as
$`\overline{\rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2N_c}{2\nu 1}\right\}`$. The derivative in $`\lambda `$ of the figure-eight type diagram looks like

$$\left(\frac{\delta I}{\delta \rho }\right)^{^{}}=4(N_c1)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{dp}{\pi ^4}\left\{\frac{1+\alpha 6\beta +\alpha \beta +\beta ^2}{(1\alpha +\beta )^3}\delta \alpha +\frac{4+7\alpha +4\beta \alpha \beta \alpha ^2}{(1\alpha +\beta )^3}\delta \beta \right\}$$

and the derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{^{}}`$ is defined by the following equation

$$\frac{N_c(N_c1)}{2\lambda ^2}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}\frac{dp}{\pi ^4}\frac{2\beta 2\beta ^2+2\alpha \beta \alpha ^2}{(1\alpha +\beta )^2}.$$

Fig. 2 shows the results of calculating the parameter $`\lambda `$ (which is proportional to the free energy within the precision of one loop approximation) as the function of chemical potential at $`N_c=3,N_f=2.`$ The dashed lines expose a behaviour in the phase of nonzero values of diquark condensate (the left hand line (lower line) corresponds to the calculations if the quark interaction with IL is ignored) whereas the solid lines show the behaviours in the phase of broken chiral symmetry (upper line for the quark interaction with IL ignored) . The saddle point parameter $`\lambda _1`$ of Ref.  and that exploited in the present paper are related as $`\lambda _1^2=\frac{\lambda n\overline{\rho }^4}{2\left(N_c1\right)N_c}`$. The crossing points of the curves are fixing the onset of colour superconducting phase. As mentioned above, actually, there is a transitional region of mixed phase where both chiral and diquark condensates develop nonzero magnitudes and the descent is not so steep. However, these details are inessential for further discussion. What is more interesting to be noticed comes from the crossing point of lower solid and dashed lines positioned on the plot.

The first crossing point (along the $`\mu `$-axis) which corresponds to the approach without the tadpole contributions included looks to be slightly larger in magnitude than that obtained earlier $`\mu _c300\text{MeV}`$ in Refs. , . However, it does not signal about shifting the critical point to larger values of $`\mu `$ in the approach dealing with the initial Lagrangian. The IL parameters of various approaches are sometimes slightly different and, in principle, could be optimized fitting, for example, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Thus, the shift of $`\mu _c`$ value pointed out is well within a precision of the IL theory. Regarding the second crossing point (when IL is perturbed by quarks) the conclusion could be more indicative. Here $`\mu _c`$ becomes significantly larger. The corresponding quark matter densities as the functions of chemical potential for both approaches are depicted in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. Apparently, on both plots the density values corresponding to the onset of colour superconductivity phase are appreciably larger than the density of normal nuclear matter. Perhaps, our result could be taken as a general indication on the considerable role of supplementary (insignificant on the instanton background) interactions of light quarks. They are able to change the estimate of critical density for colour diquark condensation drastically.

Now we would like to comment on the crossing point of upper dashed and lower solid lines which is not shown in Fig. 2. It corresponds the unrealistic values of $`\mu `$ and in that region the IL is hardly applicable. One of the limits for IL approach coming from the very large values of chemical potential points out that with quark matter density increasing the average interquark distances may become very small and the ’Coulomb’ (perturbative) field strengths would occur to be comparable with the (anti-)instanton ones. Then the (anti-)instanton superposition is not a proper configuration to saturate the functional integral. Thus, our conclusion resulting from the approach developed gives a message that the quark perturbation of IL leads the corresponding curves to move apart inherent in the phases of nonzero values of diquark and chiral condensates in Fig. 2. The ’chiral’ curve becomes steeper but ’diquark’ curve is displaced to the larger values of $`\mu `$ increasing its critical value. It looks like giving more reliability to our understanding of the perturbative fields role in the IL theory could provide us with more accurate appraisals for the phenomena considered.

Fig. 5 demonstrates the IL density as the function of $`\mu `$ when the quark back-reaction is incorporated in the phase of broken chiral symmetry (solid curve) and in the phase of nonzero values of diquark condensate (dashed curve). It is interesting to notice that the curves manifest the different character of quark influence on IL. In the phase of broken chiral symmetry the density is almost constant in the suitable interval of $`\mu `$ whereas in the colour superconducting phase quickly disappears. It is remarkable that for the former the corresponding analogue of the tadpole contribution $`\left(\frac{\delta I}{\delta \rho }\right)^{^{}}`$ in Eq. (8) is strictly positive and, therefore, can lead to the increase of the IL density (gluon condensate) which is truly insignificant and demonstrates simply the approach sensitivity to the dynamical quark mass variation . In the latter case the sign of tadpole contribution is changing. As seen from Fig. 5 it leads to the drastic change of the IL density behaviour and the gluon condensate is getting weaker. Strictly speaking this effect has already been discussed in .

The authors are partly supported by STCU #P015c, CERN-INTAS 2000-349, NATO 2000-PST.CLG 977482 Grants.


text:
# Taming Asymptotic Strength

## I  Introduction

In a recent feuilleton  we agitated for serious consideration of the possibility that the Grand Unification Gauge group becomes strongly coupled above the scale of perturbative unification ($`M_U`$). This behaviour is inevitable in any GUT containing Higgs fields capable of giving realistic fermion mass relations (FM Higgs) at tree level  since the Casimir indices of such representations are generically large and hence drive the gauge coupling into the strongly coupled regime above their mass thresholds (the problem is especially acute in SO(10) Susy GUTs that employ 126-plets but the behaviour is generic ). We argued that the almost superstitious avoidance of Asymptotically Strong (AS) models in the literature was unjustified. The intuitive picture that emerges when the basic reversal of roles between the perturbative gauge non-singlet and the confined gauge singlet phases is accounted for, is quite appealing and does not violate any canon. Rather it raises the possibility of quite novel solutions and insights into the hoary puzzles of unification physics. Even if unrealized in nature it would constitute a remarkable logical completion that needs no banishment to the realm of the unthinkable.

Reversing the usual logic that sees fermion masses as a peripheral or second order issue relative to the primary fact of symmetry breaking we argued that their necessity in an important component of the inner rationale for symmetry breaking in the Standard Model (SM) and GUTs. The SM ensures an observable electromagnetic U(1) gauge symmetry only by ensuring that all charged particles are in fact massive. If this were not so then the massless charged particles would completely screen the U(1) charge at low energies thus rendering it unobservable. Moreover there are other pathologies associated with massless charged particles (of any spin) in both Quantum and Classical dynamics and this makes it all the more plausible that ensuring their absence in the SM via the formation the Higgs Condensate is a rationale behind the formation of the Higgs Condensate itself . The SM fermion mass spectrum is thus an important clue for the choice of Higgs representations and so to the mode of symmetry breaking of the GUT in which the SM is embedded. In a truly minimal (TM) model the low energy fermion mass and gauge coupling data and the Fermion Mass (FM) Higgs representations needed to fit it should determine the pattern and modality of unification completely. In our proposal it is the low energy data itself that forces us to take seriously the possibility of strong gauge couplings above the GUT scale. Else we must abandon painstakingly developed and otherwise sensible (Susy) GUTs e.g  where the presence of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}`$ is used to implement see-saw mechanisms for neutrino mass in an SO(10) Susy GUT while preserving R-parity to low energies. The Casimir index of these two Higgs multiplets alone is thrice that of the gauge fields !

Furthermore, the presence of effectively exact Supersymmetry at the GUT scale ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U>>M_S`$) fairly cries out for exploitation, given all the attendant simplifications. This is in sharp contrast to the case of “realistic” SQCD where the supersymmetry breaking scale completely dominates the condensation scale ($`M_S>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) and relegates the conclusions derived from Susy QCD largely to the realm of the qualitative  and the inapplicable. As we have shown elsewhere  Susy makes the analysis of symmetry breaking patterns and phenomenology tractable even in very complex models. The enhanced analyzability is conferred by the special holomorphicity and non renormalization properties of Supersymmetric theories . Thus N=1 strongly coupled Susy GUTs are prime candidates for application of the techniques developed for the analysis of phase portraits of Susy Gauge theories . Unfortunately, Asymptotically Strong (AS) models have received at most passing mention in the enormous literature devoted to the dynamics of Susy gauge theories. From time to time, the possibility of AS Unified theories (albeit with considerably larger gauge groups than standard GUTs) has been resurrected  but no particular merit of uniqueness or genericity has been available to justify the extensions proposed . Moreover it was unclear how any significant step beyond the bald statement of UV strength could be made about the UV dynamics of such theories and its relevance to the structure of the low energy theory.

In  we proposed that the (scale inverted) analogy of AS theories with familiar strong coupling QCD dynamics suggests a very appealing intuitive picture of the effect of AS. Since the low energy and long distance theory is weakly coupled the principal effects of the strong coupling in the UV are likely to be in the formation of condensates that break gauge symmetry and thus define the vacuum of the perturbative effective gauge theory at larger length scales $`>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_U^1`$. Such condensates would also directly modify our picture of the nature of elementary particles at the smallest scales where the gauge flux would be strongly self attracting. This picture also suggested a close connection with Dual unification  in which matter elementary particles are seen as monopole solitons of a dual gauge theory. Indeed the dual unification picture becomes much more coherent, consistent and plausible when seen as the dual of an AS Susy GUT; as indeed is required by its very assumptions.

For these reasons we think it necessary and possible to investigate the scenario in which FM Higgs residuals with mass thresholds just above the scale of perturbative unification ($`M_U`$) drive the gauge coupling into the strong coupling regime at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ which is quite close to $`M_U`$ in realistic models. The energy ranges that need to be characterized divide naturally into three : I)  the UV strong coupled regime ($`E>\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$) II) the perturbatively coupled supersymmetric intermediate regime $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U>E>M_S`$ and III) the standard low energy MSSM/SM regime below the supersymmetry breaking scale : $`M_S>E`$. We shall take the pragmatic epistemic position that the theoretical task is no more than to construct economical and minimal models within which each of these qualitatively distinct regimes can be quantitatively characterized and their dynamics understood via simple “pictures” of the processes involved. The relation and translation between the effective theories that characterize each regime, and their derivation from the underlying fundamental gauge theory, is $``$ as familiar from QCD and Chiral Perturbation theory $``$ expectedly a difficult problem that we may expect to resolve only semi-quantitatively in an analytic context.

We argue that the novel interpretative context of UV condensation (regime I) and GUT scale to QCD scale liberation of gauge variant degrees of freedom(regime II) makes available new - and pleasing - possibilities that can further our insight into the nature of elementarity and unification. For clarity and definiteness we choose a simple renormalizable AS model consisting of N=1 Susy SU(2) Gauge theory coupled to a Chiral multiplet transforming as a 5 dimensional SU(2) irrep and ask what are the effective theories that characterize its behaviour in the regimes described above. We make the plausible assumption that in the crucial intermediate energy perturbative regime II the relevant degrees of freedom are the usual gauge non-singlet ones described by the N=1 Susy YM lagrangian with a renormalizable tree level superpotential $`W_t`$ and a dynamically induced superpotential arising from non-perturbative dynamics in a manner consistent with holomorphicity, anomalies and global (super)symmetries in complete analogy with the well established dynamical superpotentials that arise in the AF case . In region I we take the relevant degrees of freedom to be (‘t Hooft anomaly matched ) gauge singlet chiral moduli interacting via the same dynamical superpotential as in the perturbative regime but differing in (at least) an independent and unknown Kahler potential. We assume that the deviations from the canonical form of the Kahler potential (and the gauge kinetic chiral functions) in the perturbative region II are negligible (see Section II). This ansatz is in accord with the standard picture of confinement enforced on non-gauge particles by singular wave function renormalization, and, correspondingly, the divergence of their renormalized effective masses. In the perturbative region II we can extract significant information using the definition of the moduli as polynomial composites in the chiral multiplets. Region III or the Susy EW breaking/QCD confining regime is governed by the standard MSSM/SM dynamics.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II we set out our scenario and intuitive picture of how an AS GUT works. In Section III we define and discuss the strongly coupled SU(2) Gauge plus quintet Higgs model referred to above and obtain the possible vevs of the Higgs fields . In Section IV we discuss the pattern of dynamical symmetry breaking (DSB) and gaugino condensation implied by the vevs of Section III and the constraints on the dynamical superpotential that may be inferred using the Konishi Anomaly and decoupling arguments. In Section V we discuss the lessons and implications of our simple model for the project of constructing viable realistic AS GUTs. We conclude in Section VI with a discussion of the appealing relation ASGUTs necessarily and naturally enjoy with the Dual unification picture  in which the elementary particles of the SM appear as monopoles of a dual gauge group and how it resolves otherwise problematic features of those models. We thus motivate a new, supersymmetric, version of the dual unification scenario. Finally we discuss the ASGUT novel cosmogony implied by liberation of degrees of freedom by cooling in ASGUT thermodynamics.

## II  AS Dynamical Scenario

A plausible picture of the dynamics of AS theories may be drawn using the analogy with the known features of IR strong gauge theories. The reversal of the roles of small and large length scales in the case of AS theories turns the usual picture of confinement “inside out”. It is this conceptual leap , diametrically opposed yet closely analogous to the inbred picture of QCD and its effective low energy theory of colour singlet hadrons that jumps the barrier to realizing that AS theories can be an equally consistent “other half” of the space of Yang Mills theories.

When the gauge coupling becomes strong one expects gauge singlet condensates (in particular the gaugino condensate familiar from Susy QCD) to form and to be characterized by a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) at which the (one-loop) RG equations indicate a divergence in the gauge coupling . Above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the gauge non-singlet degrees of freedom become confined due to singular wavefunction renormalizations which give them infinite effective masses. Thus the residual dynamics must involve suitable gauge singlet degrees of freedom. It is natural to choose the D-flat moduli which are so central in Asymptotically Free (AF) Susy theories for the leading role in the AS UV dynamics as well since their masses are less than the typical energies in region I. As in the AF case the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions serve as a valuable cross check of the completeness and consistency of the set of modes retained.

The electric permeability of the UV condensates must exhibit the peculiar inversion referred to above : self attraction of a point particle’s electric flux (equivalently strong screening by the condensate) implies that it should form a gauge singlet tangle or ball of size $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ surrounding the putative point charge. This tangle will not be resolvable by any gauge non singlet probe: thus conferring an elementary size on fundamental gauge non-singlet particles. On larger scales however the electric flux is weakly coupled and hence the gauge charge of an elementary particle will appear as the source of flux streaming out freely (on scales $`>>l=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$) from a gauge singlet core (see Fig.1) characterized by the gauge charge as a “surface ” parameter (somewhat like the quantum numbers of a black hole in the horizon-membrane picture ). Such a structure could be described as a soliton or bag of the Chiral gauge singlet dynamics used to characterize the high energy phase of the theory married to the perturbative gauge theory at the core boundary .

Since the gauge coupling is small below $`M_U`$ the low energy dynamics is a perturbative theory of gauge non-singlet particles interacting with the massless gauge bosons of the gauge symmetry left unbroken by the condensation at the UV scales. This is in sharp contrast to QCD where the perturbative dynamics is indifferent to the confining condensates precisely because the energy scales of the perturbative theory are much larger than those of the QCD condensates ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ functions as an IR cutoff). Our prescription for unravelling the very novel features presented by AS UV condensation is thus to replace the fundamental Gauge theory by effective field theories in each of the dynamical regions. For region I ( energy scales $`E>\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$) we propose a theory of the anomaly matched gauge singlet Chiral moduli ($`X_{(n)}`$) of the fundamental N=1 Susy Gauge model interacting according to a dynamical superpotential $`W_d(X_{(n)},\mathrm{\Lambda },m,\lambda )`$ (in addition there is the tree superpotential of the fundamental theory which depends on the masses and couplings $`m_i,\lambda _i^{(n)}`$ of the Chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}`$) which represents the strong coupling dynamics. The Kahler potential in region I $`K_I(X,X^{})`$ is a highly non perturbative object representing the condensation of the moduli theory and the confinement of the gauge and gauge variant chiral modes. However one could still apply supersymmetric chiral perturbation theory techniques to it in direct analogy with the AF case . Many of the features of $`W_d`$ can be deduced or constrained on the basis of (super)symmetry, holomorphicity and decoupling requirements . In the perturbative regime II, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U>E>M_S`$, we have the effective spontaneously broken gauge theory of modes left light by the UV condensation of the gauge singlet moduli. Such a theory will be described by three functions : the Kahler potential $`K_{II}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, the superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })=W_d+W_t`$ and the chiral gauge kinetic coupling function $`f_{II}^{ab}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. In this paper we shall focus on Region II and the effects coded in the superpotential $`W_d`$ assuming the Kahler potential and gauge kinetic function are effectively canonical. Note however that while a canonical Kahler potential for the perturbative modes is a reasonable assumption , the effects of a non-canonical gauge kinetic function can be critical for issues of supersymmetry breaking in the presence of gravity . Indeed it is very interesting to study the generation of non-canonical structure in this function in $`N=2`$ AS theories (or perturbations thereof) where one can seek to apply the techniques developed  for N=2 AF theories.

An important consistency check on the set of gauge singlet moduli retained in the UV effective theory of region I is that they should satisfy the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions  for the unbroken global symmetries of the model with respect to the anomalies calculated using the gauge non singlet or fundamental spectrum. In IR strong models this set is found to exclude the glueball chiral superfield $`S=(1/32\pi ^2)W_\alpha ^aW^{a\alpha }`$ (where $`W_\alpha ^a`$ is the (bare) chiral gauge supermultiplet in ‘holomorphic’ normalization. We also find that the anomaly matching conditions exclude S from the singlet spectrum for region I. As in the IR strong case, S plays a vital role in understanding the strong coupling condensates since the Konishi anomaly  furnishes the value of the gluino condensate (i.e the scalar component of $`S`$) in terms of the expectation value of the chiral condensates . In the initial studies  low energy effective actions were built including this glueball field. Then one can code in the anomalies of the theory into the effective Lagrangian since the Glueball superfield $`S`$ contains $`F_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\mu \nu }`$ in its auxiliary component. However it was argued  that the effective low energy action can lead to misleading and ambiguous answers if only a partial set of the “heavy” degrees of freedom is included in it. This caveat is supported by the fact that inclusion of the glueball field S along with the singlet moduli in the effective theory typically violates the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions for the unbroken global symmetries. On the other hand it is not clear that inclusion of a finite set of additional composite fields could not cancel the contribution of the glueball field. Then this additional anomaly matched set, being qualitatively lighter than the coloured fields which have receded to infinite running mass, could play a useful role in describing the dynamics of modes with masses less than or near to the confinement scale or even of massless modes that could appear as bound states . In any case the action with $`S`$ can serve the useful functions described above even if it is not trustworthy for quantitative dynamics.

The Konishi Anomaly relations are superfield $`U(1)_c`$ Ward-Takahashi identities that arise when the non-invariance of the path-integral measure under an arbitrary chiral superfield rephasing of individual chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}`$ is taken into account. In the absence of sources it reads ($`V_i`$ is the gauge vector superfield)

$$0=\frac{\overline{D}^2}{4}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(i)}exp[V_i]\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}\frac{W_{tree}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}}+\frac{2T_{(i)}}{32\pi ^2}W^{a\alpha }W_\alpha ^a$$
(1)
The lowest component of the Konishi anomaly yields a very useful set of relations involving the gaugino condensate $`S|_{\theta =0}=(\lambda ^a\lambda ^a/32\pi ^2)`$ and vevs of the different invariants formed from chiral superfield scalar components corresponding to the chiral invariants occurring in the tree superpotential $`W_{tree}`$:

$$S=\frac{1}{2T_{(i)}}\varphi _{(i)}\frac{W_{tree}}{\varphi _{(i)}}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }i}\varphi _i\}$$
(2)
There is no sum over the index $`(i)`$, $`T_{(i)}`$ is the index of $`(i)`$th representation in the normalization where the fundamental is $`1/2`$, and $`W_{tree}`$ is the tree level superpotential of the underlying gauge theory. The vev of the anticommutator with the supercharge $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ above vanishes to the accuracy that supersymmetry is preserved. On dimensional grounds its value can be tentatively estimated as $`M_S^3`$ or perhaps as $`M_S^2\varphi _i`$. A clearer understanding of its role can come about only once the source of supersymmetry breaking in the theory is specified (see Section 6) and the effect of soft supersymmetry breaking terms on the derivation of the Konishi Identities eqn.(1) determined. In eqn.(2), in the limit of exact supersymmetry, the glueball field S is not renormalized perturbatively and nor is $`W_{tree}`$ or the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}/\mathrm{\Phi }_{(i)}`$. Thus we may expect that this relation is RG invariant and should be respected at all scales to the accuracy to which supersymmetry is preserved. On the other hand, since a realistic model will have soft Susy breaking masses that violate Susy explicitly in the Lagrangian , the assumptions of the derivation of eqns(1,2) will not hold and thus, at least till we have better control on the mechanisms of Susy breaking in ASGUTs, we should not trust these relations to an accuracy better than $`M_S^3`$ or perhaps $`M_S^2\varphi `$ .

These equations thus impose strong restrictions and requirements on the pattern of condensates in the theory. In the presence of a tree superpotential we expect that gaugino condensation at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ implies UV condensation of moduli (and relations among different moduli vevs) and vice versa at least as long as supersymmetry is unbroken. In the perturbative theory the moduli are defined as polynomials in the gauge variant chiral fields and their (large) vevs determine the broken symmetry of the low energy gauge theory while characterizing it in a gauge invariant way. A subtle but inescapable possibility in this regard is that of quantum phase transitions in which e.g the product of two Higgs fields obtains an expectation value but not the fields themselves. This is a real possibility since the scale of perturbative unification $`M_U`$ is sufficiently close to the UV strong coupling scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ to make quantum condensates important. However we shall resist the temptation of invoking such condensates, until and unless it is unavoidable, so as to retain maximal calculability in the effective gauge theory below the GUT scale. The effective low energy field theory must thus be shown to be compatible with the these very novel quantum vevs of gauge singlet composite operators which preserve all the symmetries of the theory, by definition.

## III SU(2) AS model

Our model consists of a N=1 Susy SU(2) Gauge theory coupled to a SU(2) 5-plet ($`SU(2)`$ spin $`j=2`$) Chiral superfield presented as a symmetric traceless $`3\times 3`$ matrix: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{ji};\mathrm{\Phi }_{ii}=0;i,j=1,2,3`$ . The additional feature relative to the familiar adjoint representation is that such a complex symmetric matrix cannot, in general, be diagonalized by a complex orthogonal transformation. However one observes that firstly the (upper triangular) Jordan canonical form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=S\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& c& d\\ 0& b& e\\ 0& 0& (a+b)\end{array}\right)S^1$$
(3)
so that $`X_{(n)}=Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^n=a^n+b^n+((a+b))^n`$ are dependent on only two independent complex numbers $`a,b`$ and as such only two of them, say the quadratic and cubic invariants $`X_{(2)}=X,X_{(3)}=Y`$, need be considered independent.

This can also be seen from the less familiar result that complex orthogonal transformation by $`O_c`$ can be used to put  a complex symmetric matrix in a block diagonal canonical form :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=O_cDiag(B_1,B_2,\mathrm{}..)O_c^T$$
(4)
where a diagonal block $`B_i`$ is either a $`1\times 1`$ submatrix consisting of an eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ or a $`q\times q`$ symmetric submatrix of form $`\lambda _iI+E_i`$ where $`\lambda _i`$ is an eigenvalue and $`E_i`$ has all its eigenvalues zero, all its eigenvectors quasi-null and an eigenspace of dimension $`dq`$. The matrices $`E_i`$ arise because in general a complex symmetric matrix can have invariant eigen-subspaces of zero Euclidean length. However in the present instance the additional freedom associated with these subspaces is irrelevant to definition of the gauge singlet moduli and also to the extremization of the superpotential w.r.t the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The D-terms can be written as a commutator $`[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ . After fixing the $`SU(2)_c`$ gauge freedom by putting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the canonical form (4) one sees that the pseudo-moduli contained in $`E_i`$ must vanish so that one can work with the diagonal form .

The index of the 5-plet (in the normalization where the fundamental has index $`1/2`$) is $`10`$ . Thus this theory has a one loop gauge beta function $`\beta (g)=b_0g^3/16\pi ^2;b_0=3\times 210=4`$ and hence its coupling grows in the ultraviolet. In the absence of a superpotential the underlying theory has $`U(1)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ symmetry under which the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has charge 1 and in addition a $`U(1)_R`$ R-symmetry under which the Grassman coordinate $`\theta _\alpha `$ has charge 1 , the gaugino -1 and the components $`(A,\psi ,F)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ have charges (0,1,2) respectively. Both these symmetries have mixed $`U(1)SU(2)^2`$ anomalies but the linear combination

$$\widehat{Q}=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{i}{}T(i)(q_i^0Q_\mathrm{\Phi }q_i^\mathrm{\Phi }Q_0))=4Q_\mathrm{\Phi }5Q_0$$
(5)
generates a non anomalous U(1) R symmetry. The charges of the various Chiral superfields and components (and of the holomorphic parameters introduced below) are given in Table I.

| Field | $`Q_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | $`Q_0`$ | $`\widehat{Q}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\theta _\alpha `$ | 0 | 1 | -5 |
| $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| $`\psi _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | 1 | 1 | -1 |
| $`\lambda _\alpha `$ | 0 | -1 | 5 |
| $`S`$ | 0 | -2 | 10 |
| $`m`$ | -2 | -2 | 2 |
| $`\lambda `$ | -3 | -2 | -2 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ | 20 | 16 | 0 |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3`$ | 0 | -2 | 10 |

Table 1 :$`U(1)`$ charges of fields and parameters.

The contributions of the elementary fermions to the $`\widehat{U(1)}^3`$ and $`\widehat{U(1)}`$ (gravitational) anomalies are $`370=35^3+5(1)^3`$ and $`35+5(1)=10`$ respectively . The fermionic components of the moduli fields i.e $`\psi _{X,Y}`$ have $`\widehat{U(1)}`$ charges 3,7 and hence precisely match these anomalies . The glueball field $`S=(32\pi ^2)^1W_\alpha ^aW_\alpha ^a`$ cannot therefore be consistently included alone in the relevant degrees of freedom.

The most general renormalizable tree superpotential is

$$W_t=\frac{m}{2}X+\frac{\lambda }{3}Y$$
(6)
Prima facie this potential violates all the $`U(1)`$ symmetries . However by considering the parameters $`m,\lambda `$ as expectation values of chiral fields one can exploit the holomorphicity of the Susy theories w.r.t chiral fields and hence we assign the charges shown in Table I to $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$ so as to formally preserve the $`U(1)`$ symmetries.

The one loop gauge coupling evolution in the range $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U>\mu >m`$ is

$$\frac{1}{g^2(\mu )}=\frac{1}{g^2(m)}\frac{4}{8\pi ^2}ln\frac{\mu }{m}$$
(7)
If the Higgs field decouples completely and leaves an unbroken pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory below the scale $`m`$ the in the range $`m>\mu >\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ the gauge coupling evolves as

$$\frac{1}{g^2(\mu )}=\frac{1}{g^2(m)}+\frac{6}{8\pi ^2}ln\frac{\mu }{m}$$
(8)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ is the scale where the (one-loop) running coupling of the AS model diverges (henceforth abbreviated to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ the corresponding scale for the effective theory in which the Higgs multiplet has decoupled completely without breaking the symmetry. It can also happen that the Higgs multiplet breaks the symmetry partially : i.e in this case down to U(1). In that case the low energy theory will be a pure $`U(1)`$ gauge theory coupled to charged Higgs remnants (if any) and the $`U(1)`$ gauge coupling evolves accordingly and must be matched at the scale $`m`$ to the coupling in the high energy theory. However, in more complicated models with larger gauge groups, the low energy symmetry can be non-abelian. Let $`m_t`$ be a notional low energy scale where the gauge coupling of the low energy effective theory is specified , then by matching gauge couplings of the UV and IR theories at the threshold $`m`$ (in the DR scheme) one gets

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ $`=`$ $`m_te^{(\frac{4\pi ^2}{3g^2(m_t)})}=me^{(\frac{4\pi ^2}{3g^2(m)})}`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`me^{(\frac{2\pi ^2}{g^2(m)})}=({\displaystyle \frac{m^5}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3}})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (10)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_d}{m}})^{\frac{3}{2}}=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_d}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})^{\frac{3}{5}}`$ (11)
It is important to note that the decoupling parameter $`ϵ`$ must be taken to zero as $`m,\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ while keeping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ constant for consistency.

When building effective superpotentials invariant under all symmetries (anomalous or not) it is also useful to assign $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{b_0}`$ the charges 20,16,0 and use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to adjust dimensions in dynamical expressions. Proceeding in the familiar way  one finds that the symmetries of the theory restrict the dynamical superpotential to the form

$`W_d`$ $`=`$ $`X^{\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{W}(v,w,z)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3f({\displaystyle \frac{m\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})`$ (12)
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`X^3/6Y^2w=m/X^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}z=\lambda X^{\frac{1}{4}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (13)
Note that the exponent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`T=10`$ is the index of the Higgs, N=2 the gauge Casimir) is $`(3NT)/(NT)`$ and thus has the form familiar from QCD but is positive due to a double negative (numerator and denominator). As is well known, these exponents are determined by symmetry and dimensional analysis coupled with the renormalization group . The unknown function $`\widehat{W}`$ is a power series

$$\widehat{W}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\widehat{W}_{\alpha ,\beta }(v)w^\alpha z^\beta =\widehat{W}_{\alpha ,\beta }(v)m^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{(\alpha +\beta )}{2}}X^{\frac{\beta \alpha }{4}}$$
(14)
As in the case of QCD such a function can, presumably, arise via (fractional) instanton or other non-perturbative effects. Our basic assumption and approximation is that $`W_d`$ is non zero and admits an expansion in the perturbing parameters $`m,\lambda `$. As we shall see, the presence of such a function, which respects all symmetries and anomalies, allows one to implement the demands of decoupling in a straightforward manner and presents no difficulties of the sort one might expect to encounter if it was forbidden for deep reasons. On the contrary, we show that the consistency of the physical picture requires a dynamical superpotential, or at least a constraint implementing condensation. It is perhaps worth noting that even in the well studied case of Susy QCD the amplitude of the induced superpotential is only reliably calculable, so far, in the case $`N_f=N_c1`$ while the amplitudes in all cases where fractional powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{b_0}`$ enter are deduced only on the basis of decoupling. Note that if the function $`\widehat{W}`$ respects the form of the (fractional) instanton expansion then (schematically)

$$W_d(\underset{n=1}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{nb_0})^{\frac{1}{(NT)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{b_0}{NT}}(1+\frac{1}{NT}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{b_0}+\mathrm{}.)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+..)$$
(15)
Where we have written the instanton suppression factor $`e^{8\pi ^2/g^2}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{b_0}`$ using the one loop definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus in eqn.(14) $`\alpha +\beta =8n,n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$. Since we regard the superpotential parameters as small perturbations to the main dynamics we see that to leading order in $`m,\lambda `$ we can write

$$W=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3[x^{\frac{5}{4}}G(v)\frac{ϵ}{2}x+\frac{\lambda }{3}y]$$
(16)
where $`x=X/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,y=Y/\mathrm{\Lambda }^3,ϵ=m/\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_d/m)^{3/2}`$ are dimensionless and we have dropped the constant term as irrelevant. Our assumption is thus that, at least in the perturbative regime, the superpotential $`W_d`$ represents the main non-perturbative effects. Its implications for the vacuum structure can be evaluated by extremizing it w.r.t the perturbative field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The same result may also be obtained by demanding  that a superpotential dependent on $`X,Y`$ and the glueball field $`S`$ reproduce the ABJ anomalies and be invariant under the $`\widehat{U(1)}`$ symmetry. In that case one finds that

$$W_d(X,Y,S)=S[lnX^{10}\mathrm{\Lambda }^4H(v,\frac{mX}{S},\frac{\lambda X^{\frac{3}{2}}}{S})]8SlnS$$
(17)
satisfies all the conditions imposed even if $`H`$ is taken to be an arbitrary power series in its arguments. From such a superpotential one could, given H, eliminate $`X,Y`$ using the vacuum equations of motion , to obtain a superpotential $`W(S,m,\lambda )`$ which can be used to characterize the gaugino condensate in the vacuum of the low energy pure gauge theory. In the process one finds, to leading order in $`m,\lambda `$ the Konishi anomaly relation eqn(2). Conversely, in the same approximation, if one eliminates the field $`S`$ in favour of $`X,Y`$ one finds $`W_d=8S(X,Y)`$. The Konishi relation eqn.(2) between gaugino ($`S`$) and chiral multiplet ($`X,Y`$) condensates is then readily seen to follow from from the extremization of the total superpotential. The effects of the $`m,\lambda `$ dependence of $`H`$ appear as corrections. Recently remarkable claims have appeared  regarding the calculability of the full ($`m,\lambda `$) corrections to $`W(S)`$ and $`W(m,\lambda )`$ via large $`N_c`$ matrix models (at least in theories where the chiral multiplets can be written as matrix representations of the gauge group). Such results would permit evaluation of the chiral condensates and (via a Legendre transform) construction of $`W_d`$ . Moreover the Konishi relation eqn(2) is a rigorous relation that should be obeyed to all orders in the parameters $`m,\lambda `$ and this will also constrain $`H`$. Since we are here working only to leading order in $`m,\lambda `$ the form of our superpotential is already consistent with the Konishi Anomaly relation as explained. One gets

$$S|=\frac{1}{20}\underset{A=1}{\overset{5}{}}\varphi _A\frac{}{\varphi _A}W_t=\frac{1}{20}(mX|\lambda Y|)$$
(18)
The $`|`$ refers to taking the scalar component and will be implicit hence forth. Since the limit $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ should be nonsingular for AS theories, the behaviour of the unknown dynamical function $`G(v)`$ as $`v0,\mathrm{}`$ is constrained. If $`\gamma _0,\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ are the exponents of G in these limits then one obviously has $`\gamma _0\frac{5}{12},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}0`$ since these represent the conditions required to approach $`X=0`$ at constant $`Y`$, and $`Y=0`$ at constant $`X`$, respectively, without $`W_d`$ becoming singular. The vanishing of the $`F_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ terms gives

$$2\mathrm{\Lambda }W_x\mathrm{\Phi }+3W_y(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\frac{1}{3}tr\mathrm{\Phi }^2)=0$$
(19)
where

$`W_x=x^{\frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}G(v)+3vG^{}(v)){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}`$ (20)
$`W_y=x^{\frac{1}{4}}(2\sqrt{6}v^{\frac{3}{2}}G^{}(v))+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}`$ (21)
The solutions to these equations can be divided into

A) Singlet mode solutions which arise when $`W_x=W_y=0`$ .

B) Perturbative mode solutions which arise when $`W_x,W_y`$ are both non zero.

A) Singlet mode solutions

Multiplying the two equations in $`W_x=W_y=0`$ using eqns.(21) we get

$$(\frac{5}{2}G(v)+6vG^{}(v))(6v)^{\frac{3}{2}}G^{}(v))=ϵ\lambda =\eta $$
(22)
thus given $`G(v)`$ one can determine $`v`$, while the second of eqns(21) fixes $`X`$ once the value of $`v`$ is found :

$$x^{\frac{1}{4}}=\frac{(6v)^{\frac{3}{2}}G^{}(v)}{\lambda }$$
(23)
We now perturb in the small parameter $`\eta `$ . Three types of solutions can exist depending on the solution $`v_0`$ of the equation

$$(5G(v_0)+12v_0G^{}(v_0))(6v_0)^{\frac{3}{2}}G^{}(v_0))=0$$
(24)
These are

* $`v_0`$ non-zero and finite and determined by

$$5G(v_0)+12v_0G^{}(v_0)5G_0+12v_0G_0^{}=0$$
(25)
* $`v_0=0`$ iii) $`v_0=\mathrm{}`$.

The exponents and amplitudes of perturbation in the small parameter $`\eta `$ are defined as :

$`v`$ $`=v_0+v_1\eta ^\delta +\mathrm{}..`$ (26)
$`x`$ $`=x_0+x_1\eta ^\theta +\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.`$ (27)
$`y`$ $`=y_0+x_1\eta ^\omega +\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.`$ (28)
i) $`v_00,\mathrm{}`$

When $`v_0,G_0^{}`$ are non zero one finds

$`x_0`$ $`=`$ $`(5\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3v_0}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{\lambda }})^4`$ (29)
$`y_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_0^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{6v_0}}}`$ (30)
Continuing one can find the higher order corrections . Thus $`\delta =\theta =\eta =1`$ and $`v_1,x_1,y_1`$ are determined in terms of $`v_0`$ and the derivatives of $`G(v)`$ at $`v_0`$. This type of solution generically gives

$$X\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\lambda ^4},Y\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{\lambda ^6}i.e\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\lambda ^2}$$
(31)
and thus represents dynamical breaking of the gauge symmetry at the strong coupling scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The gauginos also condense strongly (see the next section for a discussion). Clearly in the absence of further information about $`G(v)`$ there is nothing useful further to say. In the other two cases the solutions are governed by the exponents $`\gamma _{0,\mathrm{}}`$ of the function $`G(v)`$ as $`v0,\mathrm{}`$

b) $`v_0=0`$

In this case the exponent $`\delta `$ must be positive for consistency . Provided $`\gamma _00,5/12`$ one finds

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{4\gamma _0+1}}\gamma _0>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ (32)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4+8\gamma _0}{1+4\gamma _0}}`$ (33)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5+12\gamma _0}{1+4\gamma _0}}`$ (34)
and

$`v_1=({\displaystyle \frac{2}{6^{\frac{3}{2}}\gamma _0h_0^2(5+12\gamma _0)}})^{\frac{2}{4\gamma _0+1}}`$ (35)
(36)
$`<x>^{\frac{1}{4}}=({\displaystyle \frac{2\eta ^{\frac{1+2\gamma _0}{1+4\gamma _0}}}{h_0\lambda (5+12\gamma _0))v_1^{\gamma _0}}})+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ (37)
The requirement that $`X,Y`$ decouple as $`m\mathrm{}`$ amounts to requiring that $`\theta >10/3`$ and $`\omega >5`$ . Thus $`X`$ vanishes as $`m\mathrm{}`$ provided $`1/4<\gamma _0<1/8`$ and $`Y`$ vanishes if $`1/4<\gamma _0<0`$ i.e both decouple only if $`1/4<\gamma _0<0`$ .

The values $`\gamma _0=0,\frac{5}{12}`$ are seen to be special from eqn.(37) and need separate treatment. In these cases the next to leading order exponents of G are important :

$$G(v)_v\mathrm{}g_0v^{\gamma _0}+g_0^{}v^{\gamma _0^{}}+\mathrm{}$$
(38)
i) $`\gamma _0=0`$ , $`\gamma _0^{}>\gamma _0`$, by definition, and one finds

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+2\gamma _0^{}}}\gamma _0^{}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (39)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`4`$ (40)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}`$ (41)
Thus $`X,Y`$ both decouple as $`m\mathrm{}`$ and the decoupling connection to the pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory left behind fixes $`g_0`$ (see the next section).

ii) $`v_0=\frac{5}{12}`$ Now one finds

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{1+12\gamma _0^{}}}\gamma _0^{}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}`$ (42)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+12\gamma _0^{}}}`$ (43)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (44)
Although $`X`$ decouples for $`1/60>\gamma _0^{}`$, $`Y`$ diverges as $`m\mathrm{}`$ so that symmetry is broken completely and strongly .

c) $`v_0=\mathrm{}`$

i) Here there is again the special case when the leading term in $`G(v)`$ is a constant:

$$G(v)g_{\mathrm{}}+g_{\mathrm{}}^{}v^\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}$$
(45)
Since now $`\delta <0`$ for consistency one finds

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+2\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}}}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (46)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`4`$ (47)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5+12\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}}{1+2\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}}}`$ (48)
Now both the vevs and thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ decouple since $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}<1/2`$ . The Konishi anomaly fixes $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$.

ii) In the generic case when $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}0`$ we get essentially the same equations as in b) above but with $`\gamma _0`$ replaced by $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ so that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}<1/4`$ for consistency.

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{4\gamma _{\mathrm{}}+1}}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ (49)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`4(1\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\delta )`$ (50)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5+12\gamma _{\mathrm{}}}{1+4\gamma _{\mathrm{}}}}`$ (51)
Since $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}<1/4`$ neither $`X`$ nor $`Y`$ decouple.

II : Perturbative Mode Solutions

a) $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$  When $`\mathrm{\Phi },W_{x,y}`$ are non-zero we can multiply eqn(19) by $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ and take traces to get (using the identity $`tr\mathrm{\Phi }^4=(tr\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2/2`$ which follows using the Jordan canonical form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ )

$`2xW_x+3yW_y=0`$ (52)
$`2yW_x+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2}}x^2W_y=0`$ (53)
so that

$$v=\frac{x^3}{6y^2}=1$$
(54)
This constraint implies that in the Perturbative mode $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must take a $`U(1)`$ preserving form which can be taken to be $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\stackrel{~}{a}Diag(1,1,2)`$ without loss of generality. Then $`x=6a^2,y=6a^3=x^{3/2}/\sqrt{6}`$ (where $`a=\stackrel{~}{a}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and the equation for $`x`$ becomes simply

$$x(\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{6}}x^{1/2}+\frac{5G(1)}{2}x^{1/4}ϵ)=0$$
(55)
Since $`x=0`$ is an artifact of the multiplication by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the solutions are

$$x^{\frac{1}{4}}=\frac{5\sqrt{3}G(1)}{2\sqrt{2}\lambda }\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{16\eta }{25G(1)^2\sqrt{6}}}\right]$$
(56)
which yields a Small solution (exact if $`\lambda =0`$)

$$x_S=(\frac{2ϵ}{5G(1)})^4+\mathrm{}$$
(57)
and a Large solution

$$x_L=(\frac{5\sqrt{3}G(1)}{\sqrt{2}\lambda })^4+\mathrm{}$$
(58)
b) $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ solutions ?

In standard Susy GUT symmetry breaking the tree level superpotential allows several vacuum solutions , among which the trivial or symmetry preserving one is always included. In presence of a dynamical superpotential however the existence of such a solution becomes moot. Consider the effect of a typical term $`h_\gamma v^\gamma `$ in the series expansion of $`G(v)`$ in some region of the v plane. One finds that its contributions to the equations of motion (19) are of form

$$c_1\frac{X^{3\gamma +\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }}{Y^{2\gamma }}+c_2\frac{X^{3\gamma +\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{Y^{2\gamma +1}}+c_3\frac{X^{3\gamma +\frac{9}{4}}}{Y^{2\gamma +1}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(59)
where the $`c_i`$ are some constants . Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }=Diag(a,b,(a+b)`$ , $`X=2(a^2+ab+b^2),Y=3ab(a+b)`$, it is clear that such terms are indeterminate at $`a=0=b`$ and can be made to take any value depending on how $`a,b`$ are sent to zero. Thus it is generically likely that if there is a dynamical superpotential the $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ solution will no longer exist. We shall see that a similar conclusion is urged by the Konishi anomaly eqn(2) and the requirement of correct decoupling behaviour. In the next section we discuss the interpretation of these vevs in the light of decoupling and the Konishi Anomaly with a view to building DSB models .

## IV Interpretation of Condensates

Extremization of the superpotential has shown that the dynamically induced superpotential can cause partial or complete gauge symmetry breaking at either a Small scale that vanishes in the decoupling limit ($`m\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_d,g_d(m_t)`$ constant) or at a Large scale which diverges as $`m,\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ or $`g_d`$ constant. For the Small solutions the entire Higgs multiplet decouples leaving behind an effective $`SU(2)`$ N=1 Susy pure YM theory whose gaugino condensate is known to be one of $`S=\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3`$. Thus the value of the $`SU(2)`$ condensate in the full theory (obtained using the Konishi Anomaly relation) should match with the pure gauge theory value in the decoupling limit. This yields constraints on the values $`G(v_0),G^{}(v_0)`$ of the unknown function $`G(v)`$ and its derivatives at the decoupling limit values $`v_0`$. At finite values of $`m`$ the Small solutions could be used in AS models yielding DSB of gauge symmetries at a low scale e.g for EW breaking . However in the case of ASGUT models it is the Large solutions with the exponentially high scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of DSB which are of interest. Note however that we also obtained solutions where one of the two moduli vanished in the decoupling limit while the other did not. In the present case the model is too simple for such behaviour to correspond to partial symmetry breaking. However in general when we have many moduli of different types (FM Higgs , AM Higgs and mixed invariants ) we could have a hybrid Large-Small solution which could be interpreted as a large breaking of GUT symmetry and a small breaking of the SM symmetry.

For Large solutions, in the complete symmetry breaking case, the gauge supermultiplet and the entire 5-plet are supermassive so that there are no residual degrees of freedom at low energies. Thus there is nothing to match. In the partial symmetry breaking case $`SU(2)U(1)`$, however, there is a massless U(1) gauge supermultiplet left over after the decoupling of the massive charged gauge supermultiplet $`W^\pm `$ with masses $`g\mathrm{\Lambda }/\lambda ^2`$ and the Higgs residuals

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pm 2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}2i\mathrm{\Phi }_{12})`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{22})`$ (61)
which get masses $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\lambda `$ (the exact value depends on $`G^{}(1)`$). Since the pure Susy $`U(1)`$ theory will not condense, matching of the condensates indicates that the little group ($`H`$) singlet combination ($`\lambda ^{\overline{a}}\lambda ^{\overline{a}}`$) of the gaugino condensate $`\lambda ^a\lambda ^a=\lambda ^{\overline{a}}\lambda ^{\overline{a}}\lambda ^{\widehat{a}}\lambda ^{\widehat{a}}(\overline{a}G/H,\widehat{a}H`$) should obtain a condensate (if any) on the scale of the low energy theory’s condensate i.e $`0`$ for the case of $`U(1)`$. Since the value of the full condensate $`\lambda ^a\lambda ^a`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ it seems likely that it is the H singlet combinations $`\lambda ^{\widehat{a}}\lambda ^{\widehat{a}}`$ (i.e $`\lambda ^+\lambda ^{}`$ in the present case) that will carry the burden of the large condensate needed to match the $`H`$ singlet vevs of the Large Higgs condensates while the light neutral gauginos condense only on the scale appropriate to their masses. Thus, by analogy, in the GUT case, it will be $`X`$-gaugino bilinears that will condense to match the Large AM channel vevs that break the GUT symmetry to $`G_{123}`$. Below we discuss the decoupling behaviour of the various Small and Large solutions obtained by us in detail.

Small solutions : A) Singlet Mode Solutions :

ii) $`v_0=0`$

a) If $`\gamma _00,5/12`$ we saw that $`X,Y`$ decouple when $`1/4<\gamma _0<0`$ . However one finds that

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{20}(ϵx\lambda y)\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3\eta ^{4\gamma _0\delta }$$
(62)
Since $`\delta ,\gamma _0`$ are positive in the decoupling range, $`S`$ will vanish even though $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ decouples . Thus this range of exponents is unacceptable since it does not connect to the known $`SU(2)`$ gaugino condensate.

b) $`\gamma _0=0`$

$$S=\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3(\frac{2^2}{5^5g_0^4}(1+O(\eta ^{1\frac{\delta }{2}})))$$
(63)
which is acceptable and fixes $`g_0=G(1)`$ (the value determined in the perturbative decoupling solution, see below).

iii) $`v_0=\mathrm{}`$

The generic solutions with $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}<\frac{1}{4}`$ are non decoupling but for the special case $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=0`$ one obtains decoupling solutions if $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}<1/2`$ . Evaluating $`S`$ one finds

$$S=\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3(\frac{2^2}{5^5g_{\mathrm{}}^4}(1+O(\eta ^{\frac{2\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}}{1+2\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}}})))$$
(64)
this decoupling behaviour is acceptable and once again $`g_{\mathrm{}}=G(1)`$. Note that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=0`$ corresponds to $`Wx^{5/4}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}+\mathrm{}`$ as $`X\mathrm{},Y`$ fixed or $`Y0,X`$ fixed.

B) Perturbative mode solution

The vev pattern in this mode, $`\mathrm{\Phi }Diag(1,1,2)`$, is preserved by the $`T_3`$ generator of $`SU(2)`$ since $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}(\varphi _i\varphi _j)ϵ_{ijk}\theta _k`$ (where $`\varphi _k,\theta _k,k=1,2,3`$ are the diagonal components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and parameters of $`SU(2)`$ respectively). In more general situations we expect that this type of behaviour will allow for breaking to non-abelian little groups .

The Konishi anomaly relation eqn.(2) gives for the small perturbative solution eqn(57) (which decouples leaving $`SU(2)`$ unbroken as $`m\mathrm{}`$)

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3}{20}(\frac{x}{ϵ^4}\frac{\lambda y}{ϵ^5})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3(\frac{2^2}{5^5G(1)^4}(1+O(\eta ))$$
(65)
while the value for a pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory is $`\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3`$ in the DR scheme . Thus $`G(1)`$ is fixed to be

$$G(1)=(\frac{\pm 2^2}{5^5})^{1/4}$$
(66)
b) Vanishing vev ?

If the equations of motion were to have the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ we see from eqn.(2) that even in the presence of a tree superpotential the gaugino condensate would vanish . Thus the low energy theory which should be pure Susy SU(2) gauge theory would not have the condensate it is known to have. Therefore it is natural to expect that the induced superpotential is such as to destroy the tree level trivial solution. As discussed above, this is in accord with our expectations from the study of the equations of motion.

This behaviour may be compared with a superficially similar model namely SU(3) Susy YM with one adjoint chiral superfield . There all moduli higher than quadratic are thought to vanish  but the quadratic modulus (analogous to X) is constrained to take a value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. However the single adjoint case is rather exceptional in its symmetries. The $`U(1)_0`$ R-symmetry under which the moduli have charge 0 is anomaly free and the exponent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ expected in the superpotential i.e $`b_0/(NT)`$ is formally infinity, while the charge of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{b_0}`$ vanishes. Thus no dynamical superpotential respecting the non anomalous R-symmetry can be written in terms of the chiral moduli alone, although the introduction of a Lagrange multiplier allows one to rewrite the constraint as a equation of motion from a superpotential (the multiplier is essentially the glueball field $`S`$). When further adjoints are included a superpotential - being permitted \- does arise . In our model however the situation is analogous to the case with several adjoints and one expects the superpotential that can exist to implement the Konishi anomaly and decoupling.

Large Solutions :

i) $`v_00,\mathrm{}`$

The symmetry is generically completely broken although it is possible that the unknown function $`G(v)`$ will be such that the singlet mode equations(22) do in fact have $`v=1`$ as a solution( and thus unbroken $`U(1)`$). In that case one could match the large solution of the singlet mode to the large solution in the perturbative mode at $`v=1`$. The equality of the values of the leading terms of the perturbative and singlet mode solutions at $`v=1`$ (see below) is thus suggestive.

ii) $`v_0=0`$

a) For $`\gamma _0>0`$ the symmetry breaking is Large and complete and there are no decoupling constraints .

b) For $`\gamma _0=5/12`$ one finds that $`Y`$ does not decouple since $`\omega =0`$ so $`S\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$. Symmetry breaking is again complete although since $`X0`$ one can find the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Phi }Diag(1,(1+\sqrt{3}i)/2,(1+\sqrt{3})/2)`$ , which we mention with an eye on the possibilities, by analogy, in deciphering the GUT case.

iii) $`v_0=\mathrm{}`$ The generic solutions with $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}<\frac{1}{4}`$ are non decoupling.

A) Perturbative Mode Large Solution :

In this case since $`G(1)`$ has been fixed by eqn(66) one finds

$$x_L=\frac{\pm 9}{5\lambda ^4}+O(ϵ)y_L=\frac{x_L^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\sqrt{6}}S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\frac{\lambda x_L^{\frac{3}{2}}}{20\sqrt{6}}$$
(67)
Since a U(1) gauge symmetry is unbroken the charged gaugino condensate $`\lambda ^+\lambda ^{}`$ is large while the light neutral $`\lambda ^0`$ does not condense.

To sum up , the possible types of solutions divide naturally into Large and Small solutions. The former typically have $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_d^{1\rho }`$ while the latter are typically $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_d^3/m)^{\rho ^{}/2}m^{1\rho ^{}}`$ where $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ will be determined in practice by the -at present\- unknown function $`G(v)`$. Irrespective of $`G`$, there is always a $`U(1)`$ symmetric solution for which $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ are both one. Both kinds of solutions are constrained to obey decoupling and this has provided some restrictions on both exponents and amplitudes as well as an understanding of how the little group and coset sectors of the GUT scale gaugino condensates should arrange themselves to match the low scale condensates, if any, of the effective little group gauge theory. These solutions offer an ample range of behaviours to motivate a study of realistic GUT scenarios of the type suggested in  to determine the dynamical symmetry breaking possibilities. Indeed, Susy AS YM theories can even be considered in other important contexts such as novel types of DSB models for EW symmetry breaking by employing the Small solutions . In the next section we discuss the gross features of prospective ASGUTs in the light of what we have learnt from our toy model.

## V Realistic AS GUTs

As discussed in detail in , our primary motivation for studying ASGUTs - apart from their theoretical fascination as the ‘dark side’ of YM theories - is that typical $`SU(5)`$ and $`SO(10)`$ Susy GUTs that successfully account for realistic charged fermion and neutrino masses at the tree level (i.e without invoking Planck scale effects and non renormalizable operators) are Asymptotically Strong . A realistic $`SU(5)`$ model should consist (at least ) of three families of matter in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}(F)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}(T)`$ , FM Higgs $`\mathrm{𝟓}(H)\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}(\overline{H})`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\overline{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ (which drive the gauge coupling strong above the thresholds ($`M_U`$) of the massive residual FM Higgs sub-multiplets and allow one to fit fermion masses ) and an AM Higgs $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^j`$) to enable us to describe the GUT symmetry breaking as a classical condensate.

The renormalizable tree superpotential in this model is quite restricted. It further simplifies once one imposes R-parity. R-parity is central to our approach to Susy unification  since it defines and maintains the distinction between matter fields and vacuum defining order parameter fields , which one violates only at the risk of fancifulness (as opposed to minimality ) in view of the stringent constraints available and the lack of direct evidence for supersymmetry. Then only operators with an even number of matter superfields are allowed in the tree superpotential. The possible gauge invariants (up to cubic) are (flavour indices are suppressed and the masses /couplings included in the definitions for convenience) :

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_F\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}Z_2={\displaystyle \frac{m_A}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2Z_3={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ (68)
$`Z_4`$ $`=`$ $`w_1\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Phi }Z_5=y_1T\overline{F}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}Z_6={\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{2}}TT\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (69)
$`Z_7`$ $`=`$ $`m_HH\overline{H}Z_8={\displaystyle \frac{y_3}{2}}TTHZ_9=w_2\overline{H}\mathrm{\Phi }H`$ (70)
$`Z_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`y_4T\overline{F}\overline{H}Z_{11}=\theta _1\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}H\mathrm{\Phi }Z_{12}=\theta _2\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{H}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (71)
with obvious contractions. Then the renormalizable R-Parity preserving superpotential is simply $`W_t=_iZ_i`$.

The construction of the possible form of the dynamical superpotential is now a very complex project since the number of chiral invariants even in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ sector is very large. We therefore restrict ourselves here to considering how the symmetry breaking in a successful model might proceed and the restrictions on the pattern of condensates discernable on the basis of the Konishi anomaly.

Let us consider the problem in stages . We first retain only the $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ sector i.e invariants $`Z_1\mathrm{}Z_4`$. The Konishi anomaly gives (we drop $``$ for brevity)

$`24S`$ $`=`$ $`Z_1+Z_4`$ (72)
$`10S`$ $`=`$ $`2Z_2+3Z_3+Z_4`$ (73)
With 4 invariants and the gaugino condensate we see that the two equations leave 3 invariants (say $`Z_1,Z_2,Z_3`$) free while

$`Z_4`$ $`=`$ $`w_1\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}(5Z_124Z_236Z_3)={\displaystyle \frac{5}{7}}m_F\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{12}{7}}(m_A\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3)`$ (74)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{14}}(Z_1+2Z_2+3Z_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{14}}(m_F\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+m_A\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3)`$ (75)
In our scenario the vevs have magnitudes $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda };\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}M_W`$ while $`m_FM_U`$ , thus it is clear that this constraint can only be satisfied either if the combination $`(m_A\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3)`$ is vanishing to $`O(M_W^2)`$ (either from the solution itself or by fine tuning) or else the fields are living in a Quantum vacuum where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ attains a large vev but the fields $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ have vevs $`M_W`$. At least with present calculational techniques, the latter alternative represents a regression to the pre-calculable or ad-hoc stage as far as the effective theory of interest is concerned. The price of the first illustrates the adage concerning free lunches !

To proceed further let us now add a single family of matter fields i.e include the two additional invariants $`Z_{5,6}`$. The KA equations are now

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`Z_5`$ (76)
$`3S`$ $`=`$ $`Z_5+2Z_6`$ (77)
$`24S`$ $`=`$ $`Z_1+Z_4+Z_5`$ (78)
$`24S`$ $`=`$ $`Z_1+Z_4+Z_6`$ (79)
$`10S`$ $`=`$ $`2Z_2+3Z_3+Z_4`$ (80)
whose solution is :

$`Z_4`$ $`=`$ $`w_1\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{13}}(10Z_123(2Z_2+3Z_3))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{13}}\left(10m_F\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}23(m_A\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3)\right)`$ (81)
$`Z_5`$ $`=`$ $`Z_6=S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{13}}(Z_1(2Z_2+3Z_3))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{13}}(m_F\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(m_A\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3))`$ (82)
While the argument concerning fine tuning still holds for the $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ condensate relations we see that some new feature must intervene to avoid invoking “ quantum vacua” if we are to avoid catastrophic violation of Baryon and Lepton number through vevs of the sfermions in the matter 5,10 ! Although we can invoke the violation of supersymmetry and thus of the Konishi Anomaly relations (2) by terms $`M_S^3`$ a further fine tuning to ensure that $`SM_S^3`$ seems required. An even more rigorous fine tuning is required if one insists that each equation be modified only by terms $`M_{S}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}\varphi _i`$ since the $`F,T`$ vevs must vanish very strictly. A decision on the consistency of the former choice requires a review of the derivation of the Konishi anomaly in the presence of soft supersymmetry breaking. The possibility that the vevs of the composite invariants involving matter superfields are non zero while the vevs of the fields themselves are not also deserves further consideration , particularly since it would contribute novel features to the effective theory (analogous to instanton-chiral fermion vertices but now with chiral scalars disappearing into the vacuum in gauge and B-L invariant combinations).

One can continue in this vein, adding the invariants $`Z_7\mathrm{}Z_{12}`$ containing $`H,\overline{H}`$, but we omit the details as the point regarding the necessity of fine tuning have already been made clear.

Although many details need to be worked out we see that so far the Truly Minimal(TM) ASGUT program has not run into manifestly insuperable obstacles of interpretation or consistency and can even furnish a low energy effective theory largely identical to that of standard Susy GUTs with , however, a radically modified picture of the root dynamics that engendered it and a way of generating the exponential gauge hierarchy of GUT theories that is intrinsic to the RG running that suggested it’s existence in the first place . Since we are very far from verifying any feature of the standard Susy GUT dynamics at the unification scale it would be premature to foreclose the option of Asymptotic strength. In the next section we shall see that ASGUTs offer further novel insights into elementarity and a qualitatively new cosmogony.

## VI ASGUTs, Dual Unification and Concluding Remarks

Our new picture (Fig.1) of an elementary particle bears an intriguing duality to the picture of standard model particles as monopoles formed in the breaking of a dual unification group down to a dual standard model . In both pictures elementary particles have a core of very small size : $`l_m\stackrel{~}{M}_U^1`$ in the dual unification picture and $`l_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_U<<<M_W^1`$ in the ASGUT picture . The monopole core of Higgs/gauge magnetic energy is naturally dual to the tangle of electric flux that forms at the core of the elementary particle in the AS theory with both representing concentrations of mass-energy of utterly tiny size. Thus it is very natural to identify $`ł_ml_e`$ i.e $`\stackrel{~}{M}_U\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ . We argue below that ASGUTs present ready answers to some of the difficulties faced by dual unification models when we make this identification of the dual unification scale $`\stackrel{~}{M}_U`$ not with the perturbative electric unification scale $`M_U`$ but with the UV condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$.

Monopole solutions of the classical equations of motion make sense only in the regimes where the gauge coupling $`g_m(l_m)`$ is small. Therefore the electric dual of the magnetic coupling $`g_e=2\pi /g_m`$ will be large at the same energy scale i.e the electric theory should be AS. Furthermore the discrepancy between the large mass one would expect for a weakly coupled monopole with a core of size $`\stackrel{~}{M}_U^1`$ and the GeV scale masses of SM particles (at the EW scale, or even -after renormalization - at the perturbative unification scale $`M_U`$) receives an elegant explanation in terms of the rapid growth of the effective mass of SM non singlet masses with the growth of the gauge coupling and the vanishing of their wave function renormalization constant as the confinement scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ lying above $`M_U`$ is approached : the huge dual model soliton mass at $`\stackrel{~}{M}_U`$ can thus be identified with the large mass of the gauge variant particles as they approach confinement. Correspondingly the dual model’s monopole mass $`\stackrel{~}{v}/g_m`$ will fall as its coupling grows strongly below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ to match the rapidly falling electric coupling . In other words the dual identification $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_UM_U`$ is also naturally implied. This picture is also in accord with the large values of the magnetic coupling that may be expected on the basis of the known values of the couplings of the SM and the duality relation $`4\alpha _m\alpha _e=1`$. These show that the dual gauge group may be expected to be confining at all energies below $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_U`$ corresponding to confinement of its particles and of monopoles of standard GUTs and providing a clear reason for their non observation.  This constitutes a novel and robust solution of the monopole problem of GUTs.

Finally, in the context of a Supersymmetric AS GUT one enjoys the additional bonus of complete supermultiplets of dual monopoles dual to the chiral supermultiplets containing the fermions and sfermions of the MSSM. This avoids the necessity of conferring a half integer spin on the bosonic monopoles by delicate additional mechanisms  : both quarks and squarks arise together. Since the dual model is AF, these arguments motivate a supersymmetric dual unification scenario  using e.g an AF $`\stackrel{~}{SU(5)}`$ gauge theory with adjoint Higgs broken to $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{123}`$ at a scale $`\stackrel{~}{M_U}\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$.

The high temperature behaviour of AS Theories and in particular ASGUTs is also remarkable. One expects that the growing gauge coupling at high temperature will cause all the gauge variant fields to condense and their fluctuations will acquire infinite effective masses leaving behind only a few gauge singlet degrees of freedom associated with the D-flat chiral moduli, which typically have masses in the region of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, to carry the entire energy content of the (cosmological) system. Conversely cooling  below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_U`$ liberates the gauge degrees of freedom and the gauge variant fermions and scalars ! It is this pleasing cosmogony in which the “featureless” (i.e SM singlet) but ultra-energetic initial plasma freezes out into a manifold plurality that inspired the name pleromal <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*1) Pleromal \[a. Gr. $`\pi \lambda \eta \rho \mu \alpha `$ that which fills\],Fullness, plenitude; In Gnostic theology, the spiritual universe as the abode of God and the totality of the Divine powers and emanations 2) Plerome: Bot. The innermost layer of the primary tissue or meristem at a growing point. (Shorter Oxford Dictionary) . These considerations motivate a detailed study of the pleromal gauge singlet dynamics at high temperatures. This may be undertaken using standard Susy sigma model techniques.

The relation of ASGUTs to gravitation is clearly of possible fundamental importance. We restrict ourselves to remarking here that the common feature of Asymptotic Strength of Gravity and ASGUTs, together with Susy  and the closeness $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_UM_{Planck}`$ is a plausible motivation for re-evaluating the program of induced (super)-gravity in the context of a Susy ASGUT with background metric and gravitino fields in the fundamental lagrangian introduced to permit the implementation of (super) general coordinate invariance. As is well known  this scenario by passes the no-go theorems limiting the generation of massless particles with spin greater than $`1/2`$ .

A large number of complex dynamical issues must be resolved before the viability of realistic ASGUT or AS-Technicolour scenarios can be established . Nevertheless our hope is to have contributed a stimulus to the taking up of this challenge by breaking the taboo against AS theories by sketching ‘pretty pictures’ in which they belie their reputation of fearsome and untameable strength.

Acknowledgements :

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the warm hospitality of the High Energy Group of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste where this work was conceived and executed and Goran Senjanovic in particular for hospitality, friendship and useful advice. I am grateful to Gia Dvali, Hossein Sarmadi, Asoke Sen and Tanmoy Vachaspati for very useful discussions and T.J. Hollowood, K. Konishi and M.Shifman for helpful correspondance. I thank George Thompson for help with TeX and figures.