text:
# Artificial light and quantum order in systems of screened dipoles

## I  Introduction

What is light? Where light comes from? Why light exists? Every one probably agrees that those are fundamental questions. But one may wonder if they are scientific questions, philosophical questions, or even religious question? Before answering those questions and the questions about the questions, we would like to ask three more questions: What is phonon? Where phonon comes from? Why phonon exists? 111Note that the term phonon always refers to gapless phonon in solid in this paper. We know that those are scientific questions and we know their answers. Phonon is a vibration of a crystal. Phonon comes from a spontaneous translation symmetry breaking. Phonon exists because the translation-symmetry-breaking phase actually exists in nature.

It is quite interesting to see that our understanding of a gapless excitation \- phonon - is rooted in our understanding of phases of matter. According to Landau’s theory,Landau (1937) phases of matter are different because they have different broken symmetries. The symmetry description of phases is very powerful. It allows us to classify all possible crystals. It also provide the origin for gapless phonons and many other gapless excitations.Nambu (1960); Goldstone (1961)

However, light, as a $`U(1)`$ gauge boson, cannot be a Nambu-Goldstone mode from a broken symmetry. Therefore, unlike phonon, light cannot originate from a symmetry breaking state. This may be the reason why we treat light differently than phonon. We regard light as an elementary particle and phonon as a collective mode.

However, if we believe in the equality between phonon and light and if we believe that light is also a collective mode of a particular “order” in our vacuum, then the very existence of light implies a new kind of order in our vacuum. Thus, to understand the origin of light, we need to deepen and expand our understanding of phases of matter. We need to discover a new kind of order that can produce and protect light.

After the discovery of fractional quantum Hall (FQH) effect,Tsui et al. (1982); Laughlin (1983) it became clear that the Landau’s symmetry breaking theory cannot describe different FQH states, since those states all have the same symmetry. It was proposed that FQH states contain a new kind of order - topological order.Wen (1995) The concept of topological order was recently generalized to quantum orderWen (2002a, b) that is used to describe new kind of orders in gapless quantum states. In particular, we used quantum order and its projective symmetry group (PSG) description to classify over one hundred different spin liquids that have the same symmetry.Wen (2002a) Intuitively, we can view quantum/topological order as a description of pattern of quantum entanglements in a quantum state.Wen (2002b) The pattern of quantum entanglements, being described by complex wave function, is much richer than pattern of classical configurations.

We know that the fluctuations of pattern of classical configurations (such as lattices) lead to low energy collective excitations (such as phonons). Similarly, the fluctuations of pattern of quantum entanglement also lead to low energy collective excitations. However, collective excitations from quantum entanglement can be gapless gauge bosonsD’Adda et al. (1978); Witten (1979); Baskaran and Anderson (1988); Affleck and Marston (1988); Read and Sachdev (1991); Wen (1991); Wen et al. (1989); Wen (2002c); Motrunich and Senthil (2002) and/or gapless fermions. The fermions can even appear from pure bosonic models on lattice.Rokhsar and Kivelson (1988); Read and Sachdev (1991); Wen (1991); Kitaev (1997); Wen (2002a, c, 2003)

If we believe in quantum order, then the three questions about light will be scientific questions. Their answer will be (A) light is a fluctuation of quantum entanglement, (B) light comes from the quantum order in our vacuum and (C) light exists because our vacuum contains a particular entanglement (ie a quantum order) that supports $`U(1)`$ gauge fluctuations.

According to the picture of quantum order, elementary particles (such as photon and electron) may not be elementary after all. They may be collective excitations of a bosonic system. Without experiments at Planck scale, it is hard to prove or disprove if photon and electron are elementary particles or not. However, one can make a point by showing that photon and electron can exist as collective excitations in certain lattice bosonic models. So photon and electron do not *have* to be elementary particles.

The emerging gauge fluctuations (also called dynamically generated gauge fields) has a long history. Dynamically generated $`U(1)`$ gauge field has been introduced in quantum disordered phase of 1+1D $`CP^N`$ model.D’Adda et al. (1978); Witten (1979) The $`U(1)`$ gauge field have also been found in the slave-boson approach to spin liquid states of $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(N)`$ spin models on 2D square lattice.Baskaran and Anderson (1988); Affleck and Marston (1988) The slave-boson approach not only introduces a $`U(1)`$ gauge field, it also introduces gapless fermion fields. However, due to the confinement of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field in 1+1D and 1+2D, non of the above gauge field and gapless fermion fields lead to gapless gauge bosons and gapless fermions that appear as low energy physical quasiparticles. This led to an opinion that the $`U(1)`$ gauge field and the gapless fermion fields are not real and are just a unphysical artifact of the “unreliable” slave-boson approach. Thus the key to find dynamically generated gauge boson is not to write down a Lagrangian that contain *gauge fields*, but to show that *gauge bosons* actually appear in the physical low energy spectrum. Here, we would like to stress that “gauge fields” and “gauge bosons” are very different things. A gauge field is a mathematical symbol that we used to write done a Lagrangian. While a gauge boson corresponds to a physical quasiparticle at low energies. A gauge field in a Lagrangian may not give rise to a gauge boson that appears as a low energy quasiparticle. Only when the dynamics of gauge field is such that the gauge field is in the deconfined phase can the gauge boson appears as a low energy quasiparticle. Thus many researches after the initial finding of LABEL:BA8880,AM8874 have been concentrated on finding the deconfined phase of the gauge field.

Following LABEL:AM8874, a gapless deconfined $`U(1)`$ gauge boson was found in a $`SU(N)`$ spin model on 3D cubic lattice.Wen (2002c) The model also contains gapless fermions. In 1+3D, the two kinds of excitations can be separated since they interact weakly at low energies. We will call those 1+3D excitations, artificial light and artificial electron. It was stressed that the gapless properties of those collective excitations are protected by the quantum order in the spin ground state.Wen (2002a, c); Wen and Zee (2002) Recently, a simpler and more realistic 3D interacting boson model was found to contain an artificial light (but not massless fermions).Motrunich and Senthil (2002) Exact soluble models and realistic Josephson junction arrays that realize 1+2D $`Z_2`$ gauge excitations and related topological orderWen (1991) can be found in LABEL:K9721,MS0181,Wqoexct,IFI0203,IF0286,MSP0228 We see that gauge bosons appear naturally and commonly in quantum ordered states. We do not need to introduce them by hand as elementary particles.

Motivated by lattice gauge theoryKogut and Susskind (1975) and projection by energy gap introduced in LABEL:BFG0212,SM0204, in this paper, we will construct realistic 2D and 3D spin models with screened dipole interaction. Our models contain an artificial light as their low energy excitation. Concrete devices that realize our models are also designed. Building those devices and observing artificial light in those devices will show for the first time that elementary particle, such as light, can be created artificially with designed properties (such as designed “speed of light” and designed value of “fine structure constant”).

Through our models, we also find that a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory is actually a dynamical theory of nets of closed strings.Kogut and Susskind (1975) The latter will be called the string-net theory whose definition will given in section 2. In other words, gauge theory and string-net theory are dual to each other. This duality is directly connected to the duality between statistical $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge models and statistical membrane models.Banks et al. (1977); Savit (1980); Itzykson and Drouffe (1989) According to the string-net picture, a gapless gauge boson is a fluctuation of large string-nets and charge is the end of open strings.

In the next a few sections, we will discuss in detail 2D and 3D spin models and derive their low energy effective theory. For persons who are interested experimental realization of the spin models and experimental probe of artificial light, they can go directly to section X and XI.

## II A 2D model

To construct a realistic model that contains artificial light as its low energy collective excitation, we consider systems formed by integral spins. We will consider two cases. In the first case the spins $`𝑺`$ carry magnetic dipole moment $`𝒎𝑺`$. In the second case, we want the spins to carry electric dipole moment $`𝒅𝑺`$. However, due to the time reversal symmetry in real molecules, it is impossible for a molecules with a finite spin to carry an electric dipole moment proportional to the spin. But it is possible to have a molecule whose ground states are formed by *two* spin $`S`$ multiples: $`|m,\sigma ^z`$, with $`m=S,\mathrm{},+S`$ and $`\sigma ^z=\pm 1`$. We will call $`\sigma ^z`$ the $`z`$-component of isospin. Such a molecule can be viewed as carrying spin-$`S`$ and isospin-$`1/2`$. This kind of molecules can carry a finite electric dipole moment $`𝒅\sigma ^z𝑺`$ and have a time reversal symmetry, since under time reversal $`(\sigma ^z,𝑺)(\sigma ^z,𝑺)`$. We will use the above magnetic dipoles $`𝒎𝑺`$ or electric dipoles $`𝒅\sigma ^z𝑺`$ to build our systems.

We start with a honeycomb lattice which will be called the H-lattice. To form a magnetic dipole system, we place an integral spin-$`S`$ on every link of the H-lattice. For an electric dipole system, we place an integral spin-$`S`$ and an isospin-$`1/2`$ on every link. We note that the spins form a Kagome lattice which will be called the K-lattice. There are two ways to label a spin. We can use a site index $`𝑰`$ of the K-lattice or we can use a pair of site indices $`𝒊𝒋`$ that labels a link in the H-lattice (see Fig. 1). Using these two labels, our model Hamiltonian can be written as

$`H`$ $`=U{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{𝜶}{}}\sigma _{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^zS_{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^z\right)^2+J{\displaystyle \underset{𝑰}{}}(S_𝑰^z)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝑰𝑱}{}}\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^z(tS_𝑰^+S_𝑱^{}+t^{}S_𝑰^+S_𝑱^+e^{i2\varphi _{𝑰𝑱}}+h.c.)`$ (1)
Here $`𝜶`$ is one of the three vectors that connect a H-lattice site $`𝒊`$ to its three nearest neighbors. The $`U`$-term enforces a constraint that the total $`S^z`$ of the three spins around a site in the H-lattice is zero. Also $`\varphi _{𝑰𝑱}`$ is the angle of the link $`𝑰𝑱`$ in the $`xy`$-plane and $`S^\pm =S^x\pm iS^y`$. The summation $`_{𝑰𝑱}`$ is over all nearest-neighbors in the K-lattice. The above Hamiltonian applies to both magnetic dipole systems and electric dipole systems. For magnetic dipole systems, we regard $`\sigma ^z`$ as a number $`\sigma ^z=1`$. For electric dipole systems, we regard $`\sigma ^z`$ as the $`z`$-component of the Pauli matrices.

For the time being, we will treat $`\sigma _𝑰^z`$ classically and assume each $`\sigma _𝑰^z`$ to take a fixed but a random value of $`+1`$ or $`1`$. (For magnetic dipole systems, we will set all $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$.) Let us first assume $`J=t=t^{}=0`$ and $`U>0`$. In this case the Hamiltonian is formed by commuting terms which perform local projections. The ground states are highly degenerate and form a projected space. One of the ground states is the state with $`\sigma _𝑰^zS_𝑰^z=0`$ for every spin. Other ground states can be constructed from the first ground state by drawing a loop in the H-lattice and then alternatively increase or decrease the $`\sigma _𝑰^zS_𝑰^z`$ for the spins on the loop by the same amount. Such a process can be repeated to construct all the degenerate ground states. We see that the projected space has some non-local characters despite that it is obtained via a local projection.

Let us introduce string operator which is formed by the product of $`S_{𝒊𝒋}^\pm `$ operators

$$U(C)=\underset{𝒊𝒋}{}S_{𝒊𝒋}^{\eta _{𝒊𝒋}\sigma _{𝒊𝒋}^z}$$
(2)
where $`C`$ is a string connecting nearest-neighbor sites in the H-lattice and the product $`_{𝒊𝒋}`$ is over all the nearest-neighbor links of the H-lattice that form the string. $`\eta _{𝒊𝒋}=+1`$ if the arrow of the link $`𝒊𝒋`$ points from $`𝒊`$ to $`𝒋`$ and $`\eta _{𝒊𝒋}=1`$ if the arrow of the link $`𝒊𝒋`$ points from $`𝒋`$ to $`𝒊`$. We note that the string operator alternatively increase or decrease the $`\sigma _𝑰^zS_𝑰^z`$ along the string. If all $`\sigma _{𝒊𝒋}^z=1`$, the string operator has the following simple form

$$U(C)=S_{𝒊_1𝒊_2}^+S_{𝒊_2𝒊_3}^{}S_{𝒊_3𝒊_4}^+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where the string $`C`$ is formed by the H-lattice sites $`𝒊_1,𝒊_2,\mathrm{}`$. Using the string operator, we can create all the degenerate ground states by repeatedly applying closed-string operators to one of the ground states.

We note that the above string operator $`U(C)`$ can be defined even when the loop $`C`$ intersects or overlaps with itself. In fact, those self intersecting/overlapping loops are more typical configurations of loops. Such kind of loops looks like nets of closed strings and we will call them closed string-nets. (Nets with open strings will be called open string-nets.) The string operators $`U(C)`$ will be called string-net operator. The degenerate ground states are formed by closed string-nets.

If $`t,J0`$, then the ground state degeneracy will be lifted. The $`t`$-term will make string-nets to fluctuate and the $`J`$-term will give strings in string-net a string tension. As we will see later the closed string-net fluctuations become $`U(1)`$ gauge fluctuations.

The degenerate ground states are invariant under local symmetry transformations generated by

$$U(\varphi _𝒊)=e^{i_𝒊\left(\eta _𝒊\varphi _𝒊_𝜶\sigma _{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^zS_{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^z\right)}$$
(4)
where $`\eta _𝒊=+1`$ if the arrows of links $`𝒊,𝒊+𝜶`$ all point to $`𝒊`$ and $`\eta _𝒊=1`$ if the arrows of links $`𝒊,𝒊+𝜶`$ all point away from $`𝒊`$ (see Fig. 1). The above transformation is called the gauge transformation. Thus we can also say that the degenerate ground states are gauge invariant.

## III A four-spin system

In this section, we will start to derive the low energy effective theory of our model for the case $`t,J0`$ and $`t^{}=0`$. We assume $`t`$ and $`J`$ to satisfy $`t,JU`$ and $`J>0`$. The ground state will no longer be degenerate. The low energy excitations are mainly in the projected space. To understand the low energy dynamics, we assume $`S1`$ and use a semiclassical approach.

To understand the dynamics of our model, let us consider a model of four spins described by $`S_{12}^z`$, $`S_{23}^z`$, $`S_{34}^z`$, and $`S_{41}^z`$ (see Fig. 2a):

$$H=\underset{i}{}\left(U(S_{i1,i}^zS_{i,i+1}^z)^2+J(S_{i,i+1}^z)^2\right),$$
(5)
where we have assumed $`4+11`$ and $`114`$. The Hilbert space is spanned by $`|n_{12}n_{23}n_{34}n_{41}`$ where the integer $`n_{i,i+1}`$ is the eigenvalue of $`S_{i,i+1}^z`$. If $`UJ`$, then the low energy excitations are described by $`|nnnn`$ states with energy $`E=4Jn^2`$. All other excitations have energy of order $`U`$. As we will see in section IV, those low energy excitations happen to be identical to the excitations of a $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory on the same square (see Fig. 2b). Thus our four-spin model describe a gauge theory at low energies.

To obtain an effective lattice gauge theory from our spin model, we would like to write down the Lagrangian of our four-spin model. Since the spins are mainly in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, we have $`S_{ij}^\pm =Se^{\pm i\theta _{ij}}`$. In this case $`S_{ij}^z`$ is the corresponding momentum $`i/\theta _{ij}`$ of variable $`\theta _{ij}`$. If we write the Hamiltonian in the form $`H=\frac{1}{2}P^TVP`$, where $`P^T=(S_{12}^z,S_{23}^z,S_{34}^z,S_{41}^z)`$ and

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}4U+2J& 2U& 0& 2U\\ 2U& 4U+2J& 2U& 0\\ 0& 2U& 4U+2J& 2U\\ 2U& 0& 2U& 4U+2J\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
then the Lagrangian will be

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}^TM\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^T=(\theta _{12},\theta _{23},\theta _{34},\theta _{41})`$ and $`M=V^1`$. Obviously, we do not see any sign of gauge theory in the above Lagrangian. To obtain a gauge theory, we need to derive the Lagrangian in another way. Using the path integral representation of $`H`$, we find

$`Z=`$ $`{\displaystyle D(p)D(\theta )e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\left(_iS_{i,i+1}^z\dot{\theta }_{i,i+1}H\right)}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D(p)D(\theta )D(a_0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\left(_iS_{i,i+1}^z\dot{\theta }_{i,i+1}\stackrel{~}{H}(p,a_0)\right)}}}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}=_i\left(J(S_{i,i+1}^z)^2+a_{0,i}(S_{i1,i}^zS_{i,i+1}^z)\frac{a_{0,i}^2}{4U}\right)`$. After integrating out $`S_{i,i+1}^z`$, we obtain

$$Z=D(\theta )D(a_0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tL(\theta ,\dot{\theta },a_0)}}$$
(9)
where the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{4J}\underset{i}{}\left((\dot{\theta }_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2+\frac{a_{0,i}^2}{4U}\right)$$
(10)
In the large $`U`$ limit, we can drop the $`\frac{a_{0,i}^2}{4U}`$ term and obtain

$$L=\frac{1}{4J}\underset{i}{}(\dot{a}_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2$$
(11)
which is just the Lagrangian of a $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory on a single square with

$$a_{i,i+1}=\theta _{i,i+1},a_{i+1,i}=\theta _{i,i+1}$$
(12)
as the lattice gauge fields (see Fig. 2b). One can check that the above Lagrangian is invariant under the following transformation

$$a_{ij}(t)a_{ij}(t)+\varphi _j(t)\varphi _i(t),a_{0,i}(t)a_{0,i}(t)+\dot{\varphi }_i(t)$$
(13)
which is called the gauge transformation.

We note that low energy wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a_{12},a_{23},a_{34},a_{41})`$ is a superposition of $`|nnnn`$ states. All the low energy states are gauge invariant, ie invariant under gauge transformation $`a_{ij}a_{ij}+\varphi _j\varphi _i`$.

The electric field of a continuum $`U(1)`$ gauge theory is given by $`𝒆=\dot{𝒂}\mathbf{}a_0`$. In a lattice gauge theory, the electric field becomes a quantity defined on the links

$$e_{ij}=\dot{a}_{ij}(a_{0,j}a_{0,i})$$
(14)
We see that our lattice gauge Lagrangian can be written as $`L=\frac{1}{4J}_ie_{i,i+1}^2`$. Comparing with the continuum $`U(1)`$ gauge theory $`𝒆^2𝒃^2`$, we see that our Lagrangian contains only the kinetic energy corresponding to $`𝒆^2`$. A more general lattice gauge theory also contains a potential energy term corresponding to $`𝒃^2`$.

To obtain a potential energy term, we generalized our spin model to

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(U(S_{i1,i}^zS_{i,i+1}^z)^2+J(S_{i,i+1}^z)^2`$
$`+t(e^{i\theta _{i1,i}}e^{i\theta _{i,i+1}}+h.c.)),`$ (15)
We note that $`nnn|e^{i\theta _{i1,i}}e^{i\theta _{i,i+1}}|nnn=0`$. Thus at the first order of $`t`$, the new term has no effect at low energies. The low energy effect of new term only appear at the second order of $`t`$.

We can repeat the above calculation to obtain the following Lagrangian

$`L=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4J}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}((\dot{a}_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2`$
$`t(e^{i(a_{i1,i}+a_{i,i+1})}+h.c.)+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{0,i}^2}{4U}})`$ (16)
It is a little more difficult to see in Lagrangian why the new term has no low energy effect at the first order of $`t`$. Let us concentrate on the fluctuations of the following form

$$a_{i1,i}=\varphi _i\varphi _{i1}$$
(17)
In the lattice gauge theory, such type of fluctuations are called the pure gauge fluctuations. After integrating out $`a_{0,i}`$, the Lagrangian for the above type of fluctuations has a form $`L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }_im_{ij}\dot{\varphi }_j_it(e^{i(\varphi _{i1}\varphi _{i+1})}+h.c.)`$ with $`m_{ij}=O(U^1)`$. We see that, in the large $`U`$ limit, the above form of fluctuations are fast fluctuations. Since $`\varphi _i`$ live on a compact space (ie $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _i+2\pi `$ represent the same point), those fast fluctuations all have large energy gap of order $`U`$. Now we see that the $`t`$-term $`te^{i(\varphi _{i1}\varphi _{i+1})}`$ average to zero for fast fluctuations and has no effect at the first order in $`t`$. However, at second order in $`t`$ there is a term $`t^2_{i=1,3}e^{i(\theta _{i1,i}+\theta _{i,i+1})}=t^2e^{i_i\theta _{i1,i}}`$. Such a term does not depend on $`\varphi _i`$ and does not average to zero. Thus we expect the low energy effective Lagrangian to have a form

$$L=\frac{1}{4J}\underset{i}{}\left((\dot{a}_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2+\frac{a_{0,i}^2}{4U}\right)+g\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(18)
where $`g=O(t^2/U)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=_ia_{i,i+1}`$ is the flux of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field through the square.

To calculate $`g`$ quantitatively, we would like to first derive the low energy effective Hamiltonian. If we treat the $`t`$-term as a perturbation and treat the low energy states as degenerate states, then at second order in $`t`$, we have

$`<n^{},n^{},n^{},n^{}|H_{eff}|nnnn`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2U}}n^{},n^{},n^{},n^{})|e^{i(\theta _{34}+\theta _{41})}|n^{},n^{},n,n\times `$
$`n^{},n^{},n,n|e^{i(\theta _{12}+\theta _{23})}|nnnn`$
$`+\text{three other similar terms}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2t^2}{U}}`$ (19)
where $`n^{}=n+1`$. Thus the low energy effective Hamiltonian is

$$\underset{i}{}\left(U(S_{i1,i}^zS_{i,i+1}^z)^2+J(S_{i,i+1}^z)^2\right)\frac{4t^2}{U}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(20)
The corresponding Lagrangian is given by Eq. (18) with

$$g=\frac{4t^2}{U}.$$
(21)
As discussed before, the pure gauge fluctuations has a large energy gap of order $`U`$. The low energy effective theory below $`U`$ can be obtained by letting $`U\mathrm{}`$ and we get

$$L=\frac{1}{4J}\underset{i}{}(\dot{a}_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2+g\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(22)
which contains both electric energy and magnetic energy.

## IV Quantum gauge theory

In this section, we will reverse the above calculation and start with the classical lattice gauge theory described by the Lagrangian Eq. (22). We would like to quantize it and find its Hamiltonian. This will allow us to calculate the energy levels of the lattice gauge theory and compare them with the energy levels of the four-spin model.

As a gauge theory, the path integral

$$Z=D(a)D(a_0)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4J}}_i(\dot{a}_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2+g\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}},$$
(23)
should not be regarded as a summation over different functions $`(a_{ij}(t),a_{0,i}(t))`$. Here we regard two paths related by the gauge transformation Eq. (13) as the same path. Thus the path integral should be regarded as a summation over gauge equivalent classes of paths. Thus $`(a_{ij}(t),a_{0,i}(t))`$ is a many-to-one label of the gauge equivalent classes. We can obtain a one-to-one label by “fixing a gauge”. We note that $`_ja_{ij}`$ transforms as $`_ja_{ij}_j\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}=_j(a_{ij}+\varphi _i\varphi _j)`$ under gauge transformation. By tuning $`\varphi _i`$, we can always make $`_j\stackrel{~}{a}_{ij}=0`$. Thus for any path $`(a_{ij}(t),a_{0,i}(t))`$, we can always make a gauge transformation to make $`_ja_{ij}=0`$. Therefore, we can fix a gauge by choosing a gauge fixing condition

$$\underset{j}{}a_{ij}=0$$
(24)
Such a gauge is called the Coulomb gauge, which has a form $`\mathbf{}𝒂=0`$ for a continuum theory. In the Coulomb gauge our path integral becomes

$`Z=`$ $`{\displaystyle D(a)D(a_0)\underset{i}{}\delta (\underset{j}{}a_{ij})}`$
$`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4J}}_i(\dot{a}_{i,i+1}+a_{0,i}a_{0,i+1})^2+g\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}}`$ (25)
We note that a coupling between $`a_{0,i}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ has a form $`a_{0,i}_j\dot{a}_{ij}`$. Thus for $`a_{ij}`$ satisfying the constraint $`_ja_{ij}=0`$, $`a_{0,i}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ do not couple. Since $`a_{0,i}`$ has no dynamics (ie no $`\dot{a}_{0,i}`$ terms), we can integrate out $`a_{0,i}`$. The resulting path integral becomes

$$Z=D(a)\underset{i}{}\delta (\underset{j}{}a_{ij})e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4J}}_i\dot{a}_{i,i+1}^2+g\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}}$$
(26)
which is the path integral in the Coulomb gauge.

In general, a path integral in the Coulomb gauge can be obtained by the following two simple steps: (a) inserting the gauge fixing condition $`_i\delta (_ja_{ij})`$ and (b) drop the $`a_{0,i}`$ field.

For our problem, the constraint $`_i\delta (_ja_{ij})`$ makes $`a_{12}=a_{23}=a_{34}=a_{41}\theta /4`$. The path integral takes a simple form

$$Z=D(\theta )e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{16J}}\dot{\theta }^2+g\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}}$$
(27)
we note that the configuration $`(a_{12},a_{23},a_{34},a_{41})=(\pi /2,\pi /2,\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ is gauge equivalent to $`(a_{12},a_{23},a_{34},a_{41})=(2\pi ,0,0,0)`$ (ie there is a gauge transformation that transform $`(\pi /2,\pi /2,\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ to $`(2\pi ,0,0,0)`$). Also $`a_{12}=2\pi `$ is equivalent to $`a_{12}=0`$ since $`a_{i,i+1}=\theta _{i,i+1}`$ live on a circle. Thus $`\theta =2\pi `$ and $`\theta =0`$ correspond to the same physical point. The path integral Eq. (27) describes a particle of mass $`(8J)^1`$ on a unit circle. The flux energy $`g\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is the potential experienced by the particle. When $`g=0`$, the energy levels are given by $`E_n=4Jn^2`$ which agrees exactly with the energy levels of Eq. (5) at low energies. Hence Eq. (5) is indeed a gauge theory at low energies.

## V Effective gauge theory of lattice spin model

Using the similar calculation, we find that our 2D lattice model Eq. (II) can be described by the following Lagrangian in the large $`U`$ limit

$`L=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{J}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊𝒋}{}}[\dot{a}_{𝒊𝒋}+a_0(𝒊)a_0(𝒋)]^2`$
$`+g{\displaystyle \underset{𝒑}{}}\eta _𝒑\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑)+J_1{\displaystyle \underset{𝑰𝑱}{}}\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^z`$ (28)
Here $`a_{𝒊𝒋}=\theta _{𝒊𝒋}`$ if the arrow of link (see Fig. 1) points from $`𝒊`$ to $`𝒋`$ and $`a_{𝒊𝒋}=\theta _{𝒊𝒋}`$ if the arrow points from $`𝒋`$ to $`𝒊`$. $`𝒑`$ labels the plaquettes in the H-lattice and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑=a_{12}+a_{23}+\mathrm{}+a_{61}`$, where 1,…,6 are the six sites around the plaquette $`𝒑`$. The $`_{𝑰𝑱}`$ sums over all the nearest neighbor sites $`𝑰𝑱`$ in the K-lattice. $`\eta _𝒑=1`$ if all $`\sigma _{12}^z`$, …, $`\sigma _{61}^z`$ are equal and $`0\eta _𝒑0.5`$ otherwise. In the small $`t`$ limit $`\stackrel{~}{J}=J`$.

Let us first explain the potential term $`J_1_{𝑰𝑱}\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^z`$. We start with a low energy state in the projected space $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The action of the $`t`$-term $`tS^2\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^zS_𝑰^+S_𝑱^{}`$ on such a state give us a high energy state with an energy $`4U2\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^zU`$. The second order perturbation in $`t`$ gives rise to the following contribution $`2\times t^2S^4/(4U2\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^zU)`$. We see that $`\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^z=1`$ has a lower energy than $`\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^z=1`$. The energy difference is $`2t^2S^4/3U`$. We find that $`J_1=t^2S^4/3U`$. The dynamics of the isospin $`\sigma ^z`$ is described by an Ising model. The ground state is a ferromagnetic state with all $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$ (or $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$).

At second order, the $`t`$-term can also generate the $`J`$-term in Eq. (II). Thus $`\stackrel{~}{J}Jt^2/U`$.

Second, let us explain the potential term $`g_𝒑\eta _𝒑\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑)`$. We first note that the gauge transformation Eq. (4) changes

$$a_{𝒊𝒋}a_{𝒊𝒋}+\varphi _𝒊\varphi _𝒋.$$
(29)
The $`t`$-term in Eq. (II) can be written as $`S^2\mathrm{cos}(\sigma _{𝒊𝒋}^za_{𝒊𝒋}+\sigma _{𝒋𝒌}^za_{𝒋𝒌})`$ which is not gauge invariant. Thus the average of the $`t`$-term in the projected space is zero. Non zero potential terms can only be generated from the $`t`$-term via higher order perturbation, and the resulting potential term must be gauge invariant. The simplest gauge invariant term has a form $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑)`$ which is generated at the third order in $`t/U`$. Hence $`gt^3S^6/U^2`$. In the small $`t`$ limit, the second order $`J_1`$ term will make all $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$. In the following we will calculate the $`g`$-term assuming $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$.

At third order, the effective Hamiltonian in the projected space has the following matrix elements

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|H_{eff}|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_1|H_t|mm|H_t|nn|H_t|\mathrm{\Psi }_2}{(E_mE_\mathrm{\Psi })(E_nE_\mathrm{\Psi })}}`$ (30)
where $`E_\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ is the energy of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}`$, $`^{}`$ is a sum over all high energy states $`|m`$ and $`|n`$ that are *not* in the projected space, and $`H_t`$ is the $`t`$-term $`H_t=tS^2_{𝑰𝑱}\sigma _𝑰^z\sigma _𝑱^zS_𝑰^+S_𝑱^{}`$. When $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1=e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,2}`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1|H_{eff}|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=6\times 2\times t^3S^6/(2U)^2`$. Thus $`g\eta _𝒑=6t^3S^6/U^2`$.

In a numerical calculation, we considered our model on a single hexagon - a single cell of the H-lattice and assumed $`S=1`$. Solving the six-spin model exactly, we found that the low energy sector and the high energy sector start to mix when $`g0.25U`$. In that case perturbation theory break down.

The $`J_1`$-term favors a ground state with all $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$ or $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$. Such a ground state spontaneously breaks the time reversal symmetry. The time reversal symmetry breaking happens even when we include the quantum fluctuations of $`\sigma _𝑰^z`$ generated by $`\delta H=J^{}_𝑰\sigma _𝑰^x`$ as long as $`J^{}\mathrm{max}(|g|,t^2/U)`$. In the time reversal symmetry breaking phase, Eq. (V) describes a $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory.

When $`t^{}0`$, more complicated term of form $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑+\varphi )`$ can be generated, where $`\varphi `$ depends on $`\sigma _{12}^z`$,…,$`\sigma _{61}^z`$. In this case, $`\sigma _𝑰^z`$ might have a certain pattern in the ground state which can break translation and/or rotation symmetry. But as long as $`J^{}`$ is small, the quantum fluctuations of $`\sigma _𝑰^z`$ can be ignored and the model contains a $`U(1)`$ gapless gauge boson if we ignore the instanton effect.

However, in 2+1D, we do have an instanton effect. Due to the instanton effect, a $`U(1)`$ gauge excitation develops a gap.Polyakov (1977) The instanton effect is associated with a change of the $`U(1)`$ flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ on a plaquette. To estimate the importance of the instanton effect, let us consider a model with only a single plaquette (ie the single-hexagon model discussed before). Such a model is described by

$$L=\frac{1}{24\stackrel{~}{J}}\dot{\theta }^2+g\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(31)
The instanton effect corresponds to a path $`\theta (t)`$ where $`\theta `$ goes from $`\theta (\mathrm{})=0`$ to $`\theta (+\mathrm{})=2\pi `$. To estimate the instanton action, we assume

$$\theta (t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{for }t<0\hfill \\ 2\pi t/T,\hfill & \text{for }0<t<T\hfill \\ 2\pi ,\hfill & \text{for }T<t\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
The minimal instanton action is found to be

$$S_c=\pi \sqrt{2g/3\stackrel{~}{J}}$$
(33)
when $`T=\pi /2\sqrt{3g\stackrel{~}{J}/2}`$. From the density of the instanton gas $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{J}g}e^{S_c}`$, we estimate the energy gap of the $`U(1)`$ gauge boson to be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{J}g}e^{\pi \sqrt{2g/3\stackrel{~}{J}}}$$
(34)
Thus to have a nearly gapless gauge boson, we require the above gap to be much less than the bandwidth of the gauge field $`\sqrt{g\stackrel{~}{J}}`$. This requires

$$g0.25U,e^{2.4\sqrt{\frac{g}{\stackrel{~}{J}}}}1$$
(35)
If the above condition is satisfied, we can ignore the mass gap of the gauge boson and regard the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory as in the deconfined phase. Therefore, Eq. (35) is the conditions to have an artificial light in our 2D model.

## VI String-net theory and string-net picture of artificial light and artificial charge

As mention before, the low energy excitations below $`U`$ are describe by closed string-nets of increased/decreased $`\sigma ^zS^z`$. (see Fig. 1). To make this picture more precise, we would like to define a closed-string-net theory on a lattice.

The Hilbert space of the closed-string-net theory is a subspace of the Hilbert space of our model Eq. (II) (here we assume all $`\sigma _𝑰^z=1`$). The closed-string-net Hilbert space contains a state with all $`S_𝑰^z=0`$. If we apply the closed-string-net operator Eq. (2) to the $`S_𝑰^z=0`$ state, we obtain another state in the closed-string-net Hilbert space. Such a state is formed by $`S_𝑰^z=\pm 1`$ along the closed loop, or more generally a closed string-net $`C`$ if we include self intersection and overlap. Thus $`U(C)`$ in Eq. (2) can be viewed as a string-net creation operator. Other states in the closed-string-net Hilbert space correspond to multiple-string-net states and are generated by repeatedly applying the closed-string-net operators Eq. (2) to the $`S_𝑰^z=0`$ state.

The Hamiltonian of our closed-string-net theory is given by

$$H_{str}=\underset{𝑰}{}\stackrel{~}{J}(S_𝑰^z)^2\underset{𝒑}{}\frac{1}{2}(gW_𝒑+h.c.)$$
(36)
where $`_𝒑`$ sums over all the plaquettes of the H-lattice, and $`W_𝒑`$ is the closed-string-net operator for the closed string around the plaquette $`𝒑`$. One can check that the above Hamiltonian acts within the closed-string-net Hilbert space. The $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ term gives strings in string-nets a finite string tension, and the $`g`$ term causes the string-nets to fluctuate.

From the construction, it is clear that the closed-string-net Hilbert space is identical to the low energy Hilbert space of our model Eq. (II) which is formed by states with energy less than $`U`$. From our derivation of effective lattice gauge theory Eq. (V), it is also clear that the closed-string-net Hamiltonian Eq. (36) is directly related to the lattice gauge Lagrangian Eq. (V). In fact, the Hamiltonian of the lattice gauge theory is identical to the closed-string-net Hamiltonian Eq. (36). The string tension $`_𝑰\stackrel{~}{J}(S_𝑰^z)^2`$ term in the string-net theory corresponds to the $`\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{J}}_{𝒊𝒋}[\dot{a}_{𝒊𝒋}+a_0(𝒊)a_0(𝒋)]^2`$ term in the gauge theory, and the string hopping $`_𝒑\frac{1}{2}g(W_𝒑+h.c.)`$ term in the string-net theory corresponds to the $`g_𝒑\eta _𝒑\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑)`$ term in the gauge theory. Since the $`S^z\dot{\theta }_{𝒊𝒋}=\dot{a}_{𝒊𝒋}`$ corresponds to the electric flux along the link, A closed loop of increased/decreased $`\sigma ^zS^z`$ corresponds to a loop of electric flux tube. A string-net corresponds a “river” network of electric flux.

We see that the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory Eq. (V) is actually a dynamical theory of nets of closed strings. Typically, one expects a dynamical theory of closed-string-nets to be written in terms of string-nets as in Eq. (36). However, since we are more familiar with field theory, what we did in the last a few sections can be viewed as an attempt trying to describe a string-net theory using a field theory. Through some mathematical trick, we have achieved our goal. We are able to write the string-net theory in a form of gauge field theory. The gauge field theory is a special field theory in which the field *does not* correspond to physical degrees of freedom and the physical Hilbert space is non-local (in the sense that the total physical Hilbert space cannot be written as a direct product of local Hilbert spaces). The point we try to make here is that gauge theory (at least the one discussed here) is a closed-string-net theory in disguise. Or in other words, gauge theory and closed-string-net theory are dual to each other. We would like to point out that in LABEL:S8053,ID89 various duality relations between lattice gauge theories and theories of extended objects were reviewed. In particular, some statistical lattice gauge models were found to be dual to certain statistical membrane models.Banks et al. (1977) This duality relation is directly connected to the relation between gauge theory and closed-string-net theory in our dipole models.

In the large $`\stackrel{~}{J}/g`$ (hence large $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{gauge}`$) limit, the ground states for both the dipole model and string-net model are given by $`S^z=0`$ for every spin. In this phase, the closed string-nets or the electric flux tubes do not fluctuate much and have an energy proportional to their length. This implies that the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory is in the confining phase. In the small $`\stackrel{~}{J}/g`$ limit, the closed string-nets fluctuate strongly and the space is filled with closed string-nets of arbitrary sizes. According to the calculation in the previous section, we note that the small $`\stackrel{~}{J}/g`$ phase can also be viewed as the Coulomb phase with gapless gauge bosons. Combining the two pictures, we see that gapless gauge bosons correspond to fluctuations of large closed string-nets.

After relating the closed strings (or closed string-nets) to artificial light, we now turn to artificial charges. To create a pair of particles with opposite artificial charges for the artificial $`U(1)`$ gauge field, we need to draw an open string (or an open string-net) and alternatively increase and decrease the $`\sigma ^zS^z`$ of the spins along the string (see Fig. 1). The end points of the open strings, as the end points of electric flux tubes, correspond to particles with opposite artificial charges. We note that charged particles live on the H-lattice. In the confining phase, the string connecting the two artificial charges does not fluctuate much. The energy of the string is proportional to the length of the string. We see that there is a linear confinement between the artificial charges.

In the small $`\stackrel{~}{J}/g`$ limit, the large $`g`$ cause strong fluctuations of the closed string-nets, which lead to gapless $`U(1)`$ gauge fluctuations. The strong fluctuations of the string connecting the two charges also changes the linear confining potential to the $`\mathrm{log}(r)`$ potential between the charges.

To understand the dynamics of particles with artificial charges, let us derive the low energy effective theory for those charged particles. Let us first assume $`J=t=t^{}=0`$. A pair of charged particles with opposite unit artificial charges can be created by applying the open-string operator Eq. (2) to the ground state. We find that each charge particle has a energy $`U`$ and the string costs no energy. Let us first treat charge particles as independent particles. In this case the total Hilbert space of charged particles is formed by state $`|\{n_𝒊\}`$, where $`n_𝒊`$ is the number of artificial charges on the site $`𝒊`$ of the H-lattice. $`|\{n_𝒊\}`$ is an energy eigenstate with energy $`E=U_𝒊n_𝒊^2`$. Such a system can be described by the following rotor Lagrangian

$$L=\underset{𝒊}{}\frac{1}{4U}\dot{\phi }_𝒊^2$$
(37)
where $`\phi _𝒊`$ is an angular variable. The creation operator of the charged particle is given by $`e^{i\phi _𝒊}`$. Now, let us include the fact that the charged particles are always the ends of open strings (or nodes of string-nets). Such a fact can be implemented by including the $`U(1)`$ gauge field in the above Lagrangian. Using the gauge invariance, we find the gauged Lagrangian has a form

$$L=\underset{𝒊}{}\frac{1}{4U}(\dot{\phi }_𝒊+a_0(𝒊))^2$$
(38)
After including the gauge field, the single charge creation operator $`e^{i\phi _𝒊}`$ is no longer physical since it is not gauge invariant. The gauge invariant operator

$$e^{i\phi _{𝒊_1}}e^{ia_{𝒊_1𝒊_2}}\mathrm{}e^{ia_{𝒊_{N1}𝒊_N}}e^{i\phi _{𝒊_N}}$$
(39)
always creates a pair of opposite charges. In fact the above gauge invariant operator is nothing but the open-string-net operator Eq. (2). We also see that the string-net operator Eq. (2) is closely related to the Wegner-Wilson loop operator.Wegner (1971); Wilson (1974); Kogut (1979)

The $`t`$-term generates a hopping of charged particles to the next-nearest neighbor in the H-lattice. Thus, if $`t0`$, the charged particles will have a non-trivial dispersion. The corresponding Lagrangian is given by

$$L=\underset{𝒊}{}\frac{(\dot{\phi }_𝒊+a_0(𝒊))^2}{4U}\underset{(𝒊𝒋)}{}t(e^{i(\phi _𝒊\phi _𝒋a_{𝒊𝒌}a_{𝒌𝒋})}+h.c.)$$
(40)
where $`(𝒊𝒋)`$ are next-nearest neighbors in the H-lattice, and $`𝒌`$ is the site between site $`𝒊`$ and site $`𝒋`$. The above Lagrangian also tells us that the charged particles are bosons. We also note that a flipped spin corresponds to two artificial charges. Therefore each unit of artificial charge corresponds to a half-integer spin.

Using the string-net picture, we can give more concrete answers to the three questions about light:
What is light? Light is a fluctuation of closed string-nets of arbitrary sizes.   Where light comes from? Light comes from the collective motions of “things” that our vacuum is made of. 222Note that our vacuum is not empty. It is filled with “things” that form the space-time. In particular, light come from the large closed string-nets that fill the vacuum.   Why light exists? Light exists because our vacuum contains strong fluctuations of loop-like objects (the closed string-nets) of arbitrary size.

We would like to stress that the above string-net picture of the actual light in nature is just a proposal. There may be other theories that explain what is light and where light comes from. In this paper, we try to argue that the string-net picture is at least self consistent, since there are actual models that realize the string-net picture of light. We also try to argue that the string-net picture of light is more natural than the current theory of light where light is regarded as a vector gauge field which is introduced by hand.

## VII  A 3D model

Our 2D model and the related calculations can be easily generalized to 3 dimensions. To construct our 3D model, we first construct a 3DH-lattice which is formed by layers of H-lattices stacked on top of each other. Note that a H-lattice can be divided into two triangular sublattices (see Fig. 3). We link the sites in one sublattice to the corresponding sites in the layer above and link the sites in the other sublattice to the layer below. The spins are place on the links of the 3DH-lattice. The lattice formed by the spins is called 3DK-lattice. Actually, the 3DK-lattice is nothing but the conner-sharing tetrahedron lattice or the pyrochlore lattice. The 3D Hamiltonian still has a form Eq. (II). But now $`𝒊`$ label the sites in the 3DH-lattice and $`𝑰`$ the sites in the 3DK-lattice. $`𝜶`$ connects the site $`𝒊`$ to its four linked neighbors in the 3DH-lattice. The low energy effective theory still has the form Eq. (V) and the conditions to observe artificial light are still given by Eq. (35). The main difference between the 1+2D model and 1+3D model is that the artificial light, if exist, is exactly gapless in 1+3D. The effective Lagrangian for the charged particles still has the form in Eq. (40).

## VIII Emerging quantum order

Our 3D model contains two $`T=0`$ quantum phases with the same symmetry. One phase (phase A) appears in $`\stackrel{~}{J}|g|`$ limit and is gapped (see Eq. (35)). The other phase (phase B) appears in $`|g|\stackrel{~}{J}`$ limit. The phase B contains a non-trivial quantum order which is closely related to the artificial light in it.

By including the $`t`$-term between spins beyond nearest neighbors, our model can even support different kinds of non-trivial quantum orders. For example, by adjusting the different $`t`$-terms, we can independently tune the value and the sign of $`g`$ in $`g\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑)`$ for different kind of plaquettes. If all $`g`$ are positive, then we get the phase B discussed above, where there is zero gauge flux through all the plaquettes: $`e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒑}1`$. If we tune $`g`$ to be negative for the plaquettes in the layers of the 3DH-lattice and positive for the plaquettes between the layers, then we get a phase (phase C) with a new quantum order. In phase C there is $`\pi `$ flux through the plaquettes in the layers and zero flux through the other plaquettes. The phase C has the same symmetry as the phase A and B, and contains a gapless artificial light. The phase B and phase C are separated by phase A that appears in small $`g`$ limit.

Quantum orders in phase B and C can be more precisely characterized by the projective symmetry group or PSG.Wen (2002a, b) In semiclassical limit, the phase B is described by ansatz where all $`e^{ia_{𝒊𝒋}}1`$. While the phase C is described by ansatz where some $`e^{ia_{𝒊𝒋}}1`$ and other $`e^{ia_{𝒊𝒋}}1`$. The PSG for an ansatz is formed by all the combined gauge and symmetry transformations that leave the ansatz invariant.Wen (2002a, b) We find the PSG’s for the ansatz of phase B and the ansatz of phase C are different. It was shown that PSG is a universal property of a quantum phase that can be changed only through phase transitions.Wen (2002a, b) The different PSG’s for the phase B and phase C indicate that phase B and phase C are indeed different quantum phases which cannot be changed into each other at $`T=0`$ without a phase transition. Using PSG we can also describe more complicated quantum orders (or flux configurations). We can even use PSG to classify all the quantum orders in our model (in semiclassical limit).

The different quantum orders in the phase B and phase C can be distinguished in experiments by measuring the dispersion relation of the charge particle. From Eq. (40), we see that the hoping of the charged particles is affected by the flux through the plaquettes.

## IX Emerging low energy gauge invariance

After seeing the importance of gauge transformation Eq. (4) in obtaining artificial light and in PSG characterization of quantum orders, we are ready to make a remark about the gauge invariance. We note that after including the higher order $`t/U`$ terms, the Lagrangian formally is not invariant under gauge transformation Eq. (29). As a result, the so called pure gauge fluctuations (which should be unphysical in gauge theory) actually represent physical degrees of freedom. However, those fluctuations all have a large energy gap of order $`U`$.Balents et al. (2002); Senthil and Motrunich (2002) The low energy fluctuations (assuming there is a finite energy gap between the low energy and high energy excitations) should be gauge invariant, and the effective Lagrangian that describes their dynamics should be gauge invariant.

Due to the finite mixing between the low energy and high energy excitations caused by the $`t`$-term, the low energy excitations are not invariant under the particular gauge transformation defined in Eq. (4). However, since the mixing is perturbative, we can perturbatively modify the gauge transformations such that the low energy excitations are invariant under a modified gauge transformation. To obtain the modified gauge transformation, we continuously change $`t`$ from zero to a small value. This will cause the eigenstates of our model to rotate. The rotation is generated by a unitary matrix $`W`$. Then the modified gauge transformation is given by $`\stackrel{~}{U}(\varphi _𝒊)=We^{i_𝒊\left(\eta _𝒊\varphi _𝒊_𝜶\sigma _{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^zS_{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^z\right)}W^{}`$. By definition, the modified gauge transformation will leave the low energy excitations invariant. The non-trivial point here is that the modified gauge generator $`W_𝒊\left(\eta _𝒊\varphi _𝒊_𝜶\sigma _{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^zS_{𝒊,𝒊+𝜶}^z\right)W^{}`$ is still a local operator. This is likely to be the case if $`t`$ is not too large to destroy the energy gap between the low and high energy excitations. We see that both the $`U(1)`$ gauge structure and the PSG are emerging properties in our model.

We would like to remark that the key to obtain a low energy effective gauge theory is not to formally derive an effective Lagrangian that have a gauge invariance, but to show all the pure gauge fluctuations to have a large energy gap. In this limit, as we have seen for the $`t`$-term, all the gauge non-invariant terms will drop out from the low energy effective theory. Only gauge invariant combinations can appear in the effective theory.Balents et al. (2002); Senthil and Motrunich (2002)

## X Realistic devices

In the following, we will discuss how to design realistic devices that realize our 2D and 3D models. First we note that our 2D model Hamiltonian Eq. (II) can be realized by magnetic or electric dipoles which form a Kagome lattice (assuming only dipolar interactions between the dipoles). For such a system $`t=S^2U/2`$, $`t^{}=3S^2U/2`$ and $`J=2U`$. So the coupling constants do not have the right values to support an artificial light. Thus the key to design a working device is to find a way to reduce the couping between $`S^\pm `$. We need to reduce the $`t`$-term and $`t^{}`$-term by a factor $`4S^2`$. We also need to introduce an anisotropic spin term $`(S^z)^2`$ to bring $`J`$ close to zero.

We can use molecules with a finite electric dipole moment $`𝒅`$ as our spins. For a fixed $`𝒅`$, the molecule should have two degenerate ground states with angular momentum $`\pm S`$ in the $`𝒅`$ direction. If we allow the molecule to rotate, the ground states of the molecule will contain $`2(2S+1)`$ states $`|S^z,\sigma ^z`$, $`S^z=S,\mathrm{},S`$ and $`\sigma ^z=\pm 1`$. $`S^z`$ corresponds to the spin degree of freedom and $`\sigma ^z`$ the isospin degree of freedom. The tunneling between the $`\pm S`$ states generates a term $`\delta H=J^{}\sigma ^x`$ which leads to quantum fluctuation of $`\sigma ^z`$. We also need to put the molecule, say, in a $`C_{80}`$ buckyball so the dipole can rotate freely. We note that endohedral $`S_cA_2N\mathrm{@}C_{80}`$Stevenson et al. (2000) is commercially available from Luna Nanomaterials (http://www.lunananomaterials.com), where $`A`$ is a rare earth atom such as $`Y,Er,Gd,\mathrm{}`$ If endohedral $`S_cABN\mathrm{@}C_{80}`$ can be made with $`A`$ and $`B`$ being different rare earth atoms, such an endohedral may have the properties discussed above.

One way to reduce $`t,t^{}`$ is to embed dipoles in a fully gapped superconductor. A particular design for our 2D model is given in Fig. 4a. The sample is formed by a superconducting film. Circular holes of diameter $`d`$ are drilled through the film to form a Kagome lattice. The dipoles are placed in the holes. A large $`h`$ will reduce $`t`$. The screening of the superconducting film also make the dipoles to tend to point horizontally (ie $`S^z=0`$). In this case $`J`$ can be tuned by changing $`d/l`$. If we choose $`l=10`$nm, $`S=2`$ and dipole moment $`0.1e`$nm, we find $`U40`$mK. The operating temperature to observe artificial light is about $`1`$mK, which is achievable.

The 3D model can be realized by the device in Fig. 4b. We note that the 3DK-lattice is formed by alternatively stacking K-lattices and triangular lattices together. The top and the bottom layers in Fig. 4b are screened K-lattices just like Fig. 4a, while the middle layer is a screened triangular lattice. The distance between layers and $`d/l`$ need to be tuned to reproduce the $`U`$-term. The $`t`$-term and $`J`$-term can be adjusted similarly as in the 2D device.

## XI Physical properties of 2D and 3D devices

The 2D and 3D devices are described by model Hamiltonian Eq. (II) with coupling constants $`U`$, $`J`$, $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$. The low energy effective theory Eq. (V) contains only two coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ and $`g`$ in large $`U`$ limit. $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ and $`g`$ are determined by $`U`$, $`J`$, $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$. If $`U=40`$mK, we can tune $`t`$ to make $`g=6`$mK. We can tune $`J`$ to make $`\stackrel{~}{J}=g/2=3`$mK.

The phase diagrams of the 2D and 3D devices are sketched in Fig. 5. Both 2D and 3D electric dipole systems have a phase transition at $`T_ct^2S^4/U`$ which breaks the time reversal symmetry. The 3D system also has a quantum phase transition at $`g/\stackrel{~}{J}1`$. The quantum phase transition separates the confined phase where the artificial light has an energy gap and the Coulomb phase where the artificial light is gapless. In principle, the quantum phase transition can be a continuous phase transition although it does not change any symmetry. We know that the Coulomb phase corresponds to a phase with strong fluctuations of large closed strings. There are two ways in which the Coulomb phase can change into the confined phase. In the first way, the large closed string-nets break up into small open string-nets. This corresponds to condensation of charged bosons and produces in a Anderson-Higgs phase. (Note that a confined phase is the same as a Anderson-Higgs phase.) Such a transition is expected to be first order.Coleman and Weinberg (1973); Halperin et al. (1974); Peskin (1978) In the second way, the large closed string-nets start to cost too much energy and the ground state after transition contains only dilute small closed string-nets. Such a transition was believed to be continuous.Fradkin and Shenker (1979)

Both type of the transitions are between the same pair of phases - the Coulomb and the confined phases. Both type of transition can appear in our 3D dipole model. However, in the large $`U`$ limit, we expect the quantum phase transition from the Coulomb phase to the confined phase to be the second type and to be continuous. The continuous phase transition will become a smooth cross over at finite temperatures (see Fig. 5b). If $`U`$ is not large enough, the quantum phase transition can be the first type which is a first order phase transition. Such a first order phase transition will extend to finite temperatures.

In the 2D electric dipole system, there is no zero-temperature quantum phase transition and the artificial light always has a finite energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see Eq. (34)). The thin solid line in Fig. 5a marks the scale of the energy gap. When the energy gap is much less than the bandwidth $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{J}g}`$ of the artificial light, we say the artificial light exists.

Our 2D and 3D dipole systems have boundaries. Some interesting questions arise. To the artificial light, what is the properties of the boundary? If we shine artificial light onto the boundary, does artificial light get reflected or absorbed? If we place an artificial charge near the boundary, whther the charge is attracted or repelled by the boundary? Those questions can be answered by our string-net picture of artificial light and artificial charges. We note that the closed strings are always confined in the sample. The ends of open strings always cost an energy of order $`U`$ even when the open string is ended on the boundary. This means that the closed strings do not break up near the boundary. Since the closed strings represent electric flux tube, we find that the electric flux of the artificial light can never leave the sample neither can end at the boundary of the sample. Therefore, to the artificial light, the outside of the sample behaves like a perfect dia-electric media which repels all the artificial electric flux. If we place an artificial charge near the boundary, the charge will be repelled by the boundary.

To understand the physical properties of the artificial light in the 2D model, we can take the continuum limit by writing

$`a_{𝒊𝒋}=`$ $`\delta 𝒙_{𝒊𝒋}𝒂(𝒙)`$
$`a_{0,𝒊}=`$ $`a_0(𝒙),`$ (41)
where $`𝒂=(a_x,a_y)`$ is a 2D vector field (the vector gauge potential in 2D), $`a_0`$ corresponds to the potential field, $`𝒙`$ is near the site $`𝒊`$, $`\delta 𝒙_{𝒊𝒋}`$ is the vector that connect the $`𝒊`$ and $`𝒋`$ sites in the H-lattice, and $`l`$ is the distance between the neighboring sites in the H-lattice. In the continuum limit, the Lagrangian Eq. (V) becomes

$$L=d^2𝒙\left(\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{J}\sqrt{3}}𝒆^2\frac{3\sqrt{3}gl^2}{4}b^2\right)$$
(42)
where $`𝒆=_t𝒂_𝒙a_0`$ and $`𝒃=_xa_y_ya_x`$ are the corresponding artificial electric field and artificial magnetic field. We see that the velocity of our artificial light is $`c_a=\sqrt{9g\stackrel{~}{J}l^2/\mathrm{}^2}\frac{\sqrt{t\stackrel{~}{J}}}{U}tl`$. If we take $`\stackrel{~}{J}=3`$mK, $`g=6`$mK and $`l=10`$nm, we find the speed of the artificial light is about $`c_a=20`$m/s. The band width of the artificial light is about $`E_a=\pi c_a\mathrm{}/2l=20`$mK. The gap of the artificial light is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.03E_a`$.

From Eq. (40), we find the continuum Lagrangian that describes the charged particles in the 2D model (in the $`Ut`$ limit)

$`L=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2𝒙{\displaystyle \underset{I=1,2}{}}(\varphi _I^{}(i_ta_0U)\varphi _I{\displaystyle \frac{9tl^2}{2}}|(_i+ia_i)\varphi _I|^2`$
$`+\overline{\varphi }_I^{}(i_t+a_0U)\overline{\varphi }_I{\displaystyle \frac{9tl^2}{2}}|(_iia_i)\overline{\varphi }_I|^2)`$ (43)
where $`\varphi _I`$ describe the positively charged bosons, $`\overline{\varphi }_I`$ describe the negatively charged bosons, $`\psi _1,\overline{\psi }_1`$ describe the charged boson on the even sites of the H-lattice, and $`\psi _2,\overline{\psi }_2`$ describe the charged boson on the odd sites of the H-lattice. It costs energy $`2U`$ to create a pair of charged bosons. The mass of the bosons is $`m=(9tl^2)^1`$ and $`mc_a^2=2.3`$mK. We would like to note that the boson velocity can be larger than the speed of artificial light. The potential energy between a positive and a negative charge is $`V(r)=\frac{\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{J}}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}r`$. A bound state of a positive charge and a negative charge (an artificial atom) has a size of order $`l\sqrt{3\sqrt{3}\pi t/\stackrel{~}{J}}=6.6l`$. For each angular momentum $`m\mathrm{}`$, the lowest energy level of the artificial atom is of order $`\frac{\mathrm{ln}(m)\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{J}}{\pi }=1.7\mathrm{ln}(m)`$mK.

For the 3D model, if the layer separation is $`l_z`$, we find the Lagrangian in the continuum limit is given by

$`L=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒙\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{J}\sqrt{3}l_z}(e_x^2+e_y^2+\frac{l_z^2}{l^2}e_z^2)}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3𝒙\frac{3\sqrt{3}gl^2}{4l_z}(\frac{2l_z^2b_x^2}{3l^2}+\frac{2l_z^2b_y^2}{3l^2}+b_z^2)}`$ (44)
where $`𝒆`$ and $`𝒃`$ are the artificial electric field and artificial magnetic field in 3D. We see that, in general, the speed of artificial light is different in different directions. For simplicity, we choose $`l_z=l`$ and ignore the anisotropy in the speed of artificial light. That is we work with the following simplified Lagrangian

$`L=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒙\left(\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{J}\sqrt{3}l}𝒆^2\frac{3\sqrt{3}gl}{4}𝒃^2\right)}`$ (45)
The speed of artificial light is $`c_a=\sqrt{9g\stackrel{~}{J}l^2/\mathrm{}^2}`$. If we take $`\stackrel{~}{J}=3`$mK, $`g=6`$mK and $`l=10`$nm, we find $`c_a=20`$m/s. The band width of the artificial light is about $`E_a=\pi c_a\mathrm{}/2l=20`$mK. The above 3D Lagrangian can be rewritten in a more standard form

$`L=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3𝒙\frac{1}{8\pi \alpha }\left(\frac{1}{c_a}𝒆^2c_a𝒃^2\right)}`$ (46)
where $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{J}/3g}=1/15`$ is the artificial fine structure constant. The mass of the charged boson $`m`$ is of order $`(9tl^2)^1`$ and $`mc_a^22.3`$mK. The artificial atom has an energy level spacing $`\frac{1}{2}mc_a^2\alpha ^20.01`$mK and a size of order $`1/\alpha mc_a\frac{6\pi \sqrt{3}t}{\stackrel{~}{J}}l=87l`$.

In the following, we will discuss one experiment that can detect some of the above properties in the 2D system. (Note it is easier to create a 2D device.) If we place a tip of scanning tunneling microscope near an electric dipole, we can induce the following coupling $`\delta H=E(t)S_𝑰^++h.c.`$ to the electric dipole. $`S_𝑰^\pm `$ flips a spin on a link which create a pair of bosons on the two ends of the link. The two bosons carry positive and negative artificial charges. If we measure the high frequency capacitance of the tip,Finkelstein et al. (2000) we can see peaks at the energy levels of the artificial atom $`\omega =2U+\frac{\mathrm{ln}(m)\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{J}}{\pi }=(80+1.7\mathrm{ln}(m))`$mK$`=(1668+35\mathrm{ln}(m))`$MHz. We also note that a AC voltage on the tip at lower frequencies can generate artificial light. However, the tip of scanning tunneling microscope is not an efficient antenna to generate artificial light.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the electric dipole systems, if can be created, really provide a model for artificial light, artificial charge, and artificial electromagnetic interaction in both two and three dimensions. We know that the $`SU(N)`$-spin model that realize 3D artificial light, artificial electron and artificial protonWen (2002c) is not realistic. The dipole systems discussed here contain only artificial light. It would be very interesting to design a realistic device that has artificial light, artificial electron and artificial proton. In that case, we can have an artificial world sitting on our palm.

This research is supported by NSF Grant No. DMR–01–23156 and by NSF-MRSEC Grant No. DMR–02–13282.


format: text

text:
# Quantum diffraction and interference of spatially correlated photon pairs generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion

( )

## Abstract

We demonstrate one- and two-photon diffraction and interference experiments utilizing parametric down-converted photon pairs (biphotons) and a transmission grating. With two-photon detection, the biphoton exhibits a diffraction-interference pattern equivalent to that of an effective single particle that is associated with half the wavelength of the constituent photons. With one-photon detection, however no diffraction-interference pattern is observed. We show that these phenomena originate from the spatial quantum correlation between the down-converted photons.

The present optical imaging technologies, such as optical lithography, have reached a spatial resolution in the sub-micrometer range, which comes up against the diffraction limit due to the wavelength of light. However, the guiding principle of such technology is still based on the classical diffraction theory established by Fresnel, Kirchhoff and others more than a hundred years ago Born . Recently, the use of quantum-correlated photon pairs (biphotons) to overcome the classical diffraction limit was proposed and attracted much attention Boto00 ; Angelo01 . Obviously, quantum-mechanical treatments are necessary to explain the diffraction-interference of the quantum-correlated multiphoton state. It is well known that much work has been done on two-photon interference using biphotons generated by parametric down-conversion Rarity90 ; Ou90 ; Brendel91 ; Shi94 ; Strekalov95 . Although the behavior of two-photon interference can be explained by the standard quantum theory of light, it is also interpreted qualitatively by the concept of the photonic de Broglie wave Jacobson95 , which is attributable to a special case of the concept of two-photon wave packets Belinsky94 ; Rubin94 . Within the concept of the photonic de Broglie wave, the period of two-photon interference is governed by the sum of the momenta, or wave numbers, of the two constituent photons. Recently, the measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of a two-photon state has been experimentally demonstrated Fonseca99 ; Edamatsu01 . It has been also proposed that the entangled photons are applicable to novel imaging technologies Boto00 ; Bjork01 ; Abouraddy02 . Boto et al. proposed that it is possible to apply entangled photons to high spatial resolution imaging for uses such as optical lithography Boto00 . According to this proposal, the diffraction-limited spatial resolution of a quantum n-photon state is better than that of a single photon by a factor of n. D’Angelo et al. demonstrated a Young’s double slit experiment utilizing parametric down-converted biphotons, and showed that the two-photon diffraction pattern width is narrower, by a factor of 2, than that of classical light Angelo01 .

In this letter, we present the diffraction-interference patterns of parametric down-converted photons through a transmission grating by both one- and two-photon detection schemes. We also show that the measured diffraction patterns can be explained by the Fourier analysis of the two-photon wave packet, taking account of the quantum correlation between the signal and idler photons. The results also demonstrate a proof of the principle of quantum lithography.

Figure 1 shows the schematic drawing of our experimental setup. Pairs of frequency-degenerate photons were generated collinearly by spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in a 5-mm-long KNbO3 (KN) crystal pumped by the second harmonic light (50 mW) of a single longitudinal mode Ti:sapphire laser operating at 861.5 nm. The photon pairs were diffracted by a transmission grating (Fig. 2; slit width: 125 $`\mu `$m, period: 250 $`\mu `$m) placed just after the KN crystal. In this geometry, each photon pair passes together through one of the grating slits Angelo01 . We separated photon pairs from the pump beam by using a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) and a long-pass filter (LPF). By rotating a mirror (M1), we recorded spatial diffraction-interference patterns by a two-photon detector, which consisted of a 50/50% non-polarizing beam splitter (BS) and two avalanche photodiodes (APD; EG&G SPCM-AQ161) followed by a multiple-stop time analyzer (EG&G 9308). To measure two-photon coincidence counting rates, we recorded the number of start-stop events within the time window (1 ns). In addition, we simultaneously recorded the number of start pulses as a one-photon counting rate. In front of each APD we placed an interference filter (IF; center wavelength $`\lambda _c`$ = 860 nm, bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 10 nm). To compare the results with those of classical lights, we also observed, using the same apparatus, diffraction-interference patterns of the Ti:sapphire laser and that of chaotic light generated from a tungsten-halogen lamp.

It is worth discussing diffraction-interference patterns expected in our experiment. In the previous experiments using Young’s double slit, the counting rate for their experiments was obtained by calculating a fourth-order correlation function (superposition method). However, this method seems rather complicated for analyzing arbitrary patterns of two-photon diffraction. We will now take a semiclassical method using Fourier analysis for a two-photon wave packet, considering the quantum correlation between the constituent photons. This approach corresponds to the Fraunhofer diffraction of the classical optics case. In addition, assuming monochromatic, paraxial, and thin crystal approximation, we need to consider only transverse components of the wave vector Monken98 . Then, a generalized form for a two-photon wave packet in a one-dimensional system can be expressed by

$`F(q,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}A(x)A(x^{})}`$ (1)
$`\times G(xx^{})\mathrm{exp}[i(qx+q^{}x^{})],`$
where $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ are the transverse components of the wave vector, $`A(x)`$ represents the transmission amplitude through the grating, and $`G(xx^{})`$ represents the transverse correlation between the two photons. The counting rate, which is the same for both two- and one-photon detection, is given by Burlakov97

$$R^{(2)}(q,q^{})=\left|F(q,q^{})\right|^2,$$
(2)
$$R^{(1)}(q)=𝑑q^{}R^{(2)}(q,q^{}).$$
(3)
First, we assume that $`G(xx^{})=\delta (xx^{})`$, that is, a pair of signal and idler photons passes together through the same point x of the grating slit. Then Eq. (1) can be reduced as follows:

$`F(q,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑xA(x)^2\mathrm{exp}[i(q+q^{})x]}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}[A^2](q+q^{}),`$
where $`[A^2]`$ represents the Fourier transform of $`A^2`$. In this case, the two-photon wave packet is not separable into any product of two independent wave packets. In other words, it is a spatially entangled state. Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (2), we get the biphoton counting rate:

$$R^{(2)}(q,q^{})\left|[A^2](q+q^{})\right|^2.$$
(5)
The two-photon counting rate when we carry out the two-photon detection at the same point $`(q=q^{})`$ can be rewritten as

$$R^{(2)}(q,q)\left|[A^2](2q)\right|^2.$$
(6)
On the other hand, substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (3), the one-photon counting rate becomes constant:

$$R^{(1)}(q)=\text{const}.$$
(7)
This result means that the one-photon diffraction-interference of the biphoton will exhibit no modulation.

Next we consider the case of $`G(xx^{})=1`$, that is, there is no transverse correlation between the two photons. In this case, the Eq. (1) can be rewritten as follows:

$`F(q,q^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑xA(x)\mathrm{exp}(iqx)}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dx^{}A(x^{})\mathrm{exp}(iq^{}x^{})`$
$`=`$ $`[A](q)[A](q^{}).`$
In this case, the two-photon wave packet is separable into two independent wave packets. Thus, the two- and one-photon counting rates are given by

$$R^{(2)}(q,q^{})\left|[A](q)\right|^2\left|[A](q^{})\right|^2,$$
(9)
$$R^{(1)}(q)\left|[A](q)\right|^2.$$
(10)
The one-photon counting rate $`R^{(1)}`$ corresponds to the classical Fraunhofer diffraction pattern. In addition, when $`q=q^{}`$, the two-photon counting rate is just the square of the one-photon counting rate:

$$R^{(2)}(q,q)=\left|R^{(1)}(q)\right|^2.$$
(11)
From Eqs. (10) and (11), we understand quite naturally that these results in the case of $`G(xx^{})=1`$ are compatible with classical optics. However, comparing Eq. (6) with Eq. (11), we see that the results for the biphoton wave packet are quite different from those of two independent photon wave packets in both one- and two-photon counting rates. Biphotons will exhibit half the modulation period that they would have in the classical case in the diffraction-interference pattern for two-photon detection. Moreover, in one-photon detction, no intensity modulation will be exhibited.

Figures 3 and 4 show the measured diffraction-interference patterns of parametric down-converted photons and the Ti:sapphire laser, respectively. In both figures, the upper graphs represent the interference patterns observed by one-photon detection and the lower graphs are those observed by two-photon detection. The open circles in each figure represent the measured data points. The diffraction angles are normalized by $`q=2\pi /d`$, where $`d`$ is the slit period of the grating. These experimental data were fitted with the theoretically expected functions (6)-(7),(10)-(11), as indicated by the solid curves. Here, we assume the rectangular transmission profile of the grating as shown in Fig. 2. Note that in this case the Fourier transform of A is

$$[A](q)=\frac{A_0}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(Ndq/2)}{\mathrm{sin}(dq/2)}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(sq/2)}{q/2}.$$
(12)
One can see that the experimental data are in good agreement with the theoretical prediction Note . Especially, the two-photon interference of the SPDC in Fig. 3(b) exhibits half the modulation period of that of the Ti:sapphire laser in Fig. 4 (see Eqs. (6), (10) and (11)). This result indicates that the biphoton generated by SPDC behaves as an effective single particle that is associated with half the wavelength of the constituent photons. In other words, the diffraction of a biphoton can be explained by the concept of the photonic de Broglie wave. Furthermore, these results manifest the principle of quantum lithography that utilizes the reduced interferometric wavelength of the multiphoton state for optical lithography beyond the classical diffraction limit.

It is also noteworthy that the one-photon interference of the SPDC exhibits no modulation, whereas that of the Ti:sapphire laser exhibits normal modulation that can be understood by classical optics. In classical optics, the disappearance of an interference fringe might be caused by the shortage of coherence length owing to the wide spectral distribution of the parametric emission. To be sure that the observed phenomenon originates from a quantum mechanical effect but not from classical effects caused by the spectral width of the light, we also measured a diffraction-interference pattern of thermal light from a halogen lamp. We note that the spectrum of the SPDC emission at the detectors is almost the same as that of the halogen lamp, because we detected both emissions through the same interference filters. However, the measured pattern of the halogen lamp is quite different from that of the SPDC, and is quite similar to that of the Ti:sapphire laser. Thus the disappearance of the one-photon diffraction-interference pattern in the SPDC emission is not due to its spectral width, but to the quantum mechanical effect as described by Eq. (7). Together with the two-photon diffraction-interference, the one-photon diffraction-interference of the SPDC also illustrates the non-classical nature of a biphoton that can be explained only by the quantum-mechanical treatment.

Finally, we consider the case of finite spatial correlation. To achieve this, we observed diffraction-interference by inserting two lenses (focal length = 200 mm) before and after the KN crystal and putting the grating at a distance of 40 cm from the crystal. The increased divergence of the pump beam enlarges the uncertainty of the transverse wave number of the SPDC photons, and this results in the increase of the spatial correlation width between the two photons at the grating Grayson94 . Therefore, by using the lenses, we can control the spatial correlation between the signal and idler photons. Fig. 5 shows the observed diffraction-interference patterns. Comparing these results with the former ones shown in Figs. 3 and 4, we see that the diffraction-interference pattern in the two-photon detection (Fig. 5(b)) exhibits the intermediate pattern between the two extreme cases. Furthermore, the biphotons begin to show partial modulation in the one-photon detection (Fig. 5(a)), again exhibiting the intermediate pattern between Figs 3 and 4. Considering a finite correlation width, we can also reproduce these patterns from Eqs.(1)-(3). Here we assume the Gaussian correlation function:

$$G(xx^{})=\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{xx^{}}{0.56d}\right)^2\right].$$
(13)
The calculated patterns are in good agreement with the measured patterns as shown the solid curves in Fig. 5. From these results we see that the relation between the extent of the transverse correlation and the object size plays a very important role in forming the diffraction-interference patterns. In terms of quantum lithography, these results indicate that the distribution of a transverse correlation has to be much smaller than an object so as to achieve a spatial resolution high enough to surpass the classical diffraction limit.

In conclusion, we have measured the spatial diffraction-interference patterns of spontaneous parametric down-converted biphotons using transmission grating, and showed that the spatially correlated biphoton exhibits half the modulation period of that of classical light. Also, we have found that one-photon interference of the biphoton exhibits no modulation. Furthermore, by controlling the spatial correlation between the two photons, we have successfully demonstrated that the diffraction-interference pattern changes from the perfectly correlated biphoton case towards the classical case. These experimental results can be understood in a straightforward manner by Fourier analysis of a two-photon wave packet assuming the spatial correlation between the two photons. In this letter, we have discussed the Fourier analysis only for the diffraction-interference patterns formed by the one-dimensional grating, and demonstrated the validity of this analysis. However, this analysis is extendable to arbitrary one- and two-dimensional objects. Therefore, this analysis is very useful for future imaging technology utilizing entangled photons.

This work was supported by the program “Research and Development on Quantum Communication Technology” of the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications of Japan, and by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan.


text:
# A statistical approach to the QCD phase transition — A mystery in the critical temperature

## I Introduction

The quark-gluon-plasma (QGP) is one of the most interesting targets in the finite-temperature quark-hadron physics qcd . Currently, the QGP creation experiment is being performed in RHIC project at BNL, and much progress in understanding the finite-temperature QCD is desired. Historically, the instability of the hadron phase was first argued by Hagedorn hagedorn  before the discovery of QCD. He pointed out the possibility of a phase transition at finite temperature, based on the string or the flux-tube picture of hadronshagedorn ; patel . After QCD was established as the fundamental theory of the strong interaction, this transition was recognized as the deconfinement phase transition to the QGP phase, where quarks and gluons are liberated with the restored chiral symmetry. The QCD phase transition has been studied using various infrared effective models of QCD such as the linear $`\sigma `$ modelkapusta , the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio modelhatsuda-kunihiro , the dual Ginzburg-Landau theoryichie  and so on.

In order to study nonperturbative features of the QCD phase transition, the lattice QCD Monte Carlo calculation serves as a powerful tool directly based on QCD. It has been already extensively used to study the nature of the QCD phase transition. At the quenched level, SU(3) lattice QCD indicates the existence of the deconfinement phase transition of a weak first order at $`T_c260280`$ MeV karsch2 . On the other hand, in the presence of dynamical quarks, it indicates the chiral phase transition at $`T_c=173(3)`$ MeV for $`N_f=2`$ and $`T_c=154(8)`$ MeV for $`N_f=3`$ in the chiral limit karsch .

In this paper, we attempt to understand the physical implications of the recent lattice QCD results on the QCD phase transition, and point out an abnormal nature of the quenched QCD phase transition based on the statistical argument. In the actual calculation, we adopt the statistical approach to the QCD phase transition with the bag-model picture of hadrons jaffe . Although it is a simply-minded phenomenological effective model, it can reproduce the critical temperature of the full-QCD phase transition “amazingly” well. In spite of this success, this approach terribly overestimates the critical temperature in quenched QCD. We consider the essential cause of this overestimate, and point out a serious problem hidden in the QCD phase transition in a model-independent manner.

The contents are organized as follows. In Sect. II, we give a brief review of the statistical approach to the QCD phase transition with the bag-model picture of hadrons, and derive a phenomenological relation among the hadron masses, the hadron sizes and the critical temperature. We apply this relation to full QCD. In Sect. III, we apply this relation to quenched QCD without dynamical quarks, and point out a serious problem on the critical temperature. In Sect. IV, after the summary of the results, we attempt to clarify the essence of this problem, and discuss an abnormal nature of the deconfinement phase transition in quenched QCD.

## II A statistical approach to the full-QCD phase transition

We investigate analytically the features of the QCD phase transition based on the statistical treatment with the bag-model picture of hadrons. We begin by deriving a phenomenological relation between the critical temperature $`T_c`$ and the properties of the hadrons, i.e., the mass and the size. In the bag-model picture, quarks and gluons are assumed to be confined inside a spherical bag. Here, color confinement is simply taken into account through the bag-like intrinsic structure of hadrons. At low temperature, only a small number of such bags are thermally excited, and the thermodynamic properties of the system are described in terms of these spatially isolated bags.With the increasing temperature, the number of the thermally excited bags increases. Gradually, these bags begin to overlap one another, and they finally cover the whole space region at a critical temperature $`T_c`$ in this picture. Above $`T_c`$, since the volume of the outside disappears, the whole space is filled with liberated quarks and gluons, and the thermodynamic properties of the system is now governed by quarks and gluons. In this way, the QCD phase transition is described in terms of the overlaps of the thermally excited bags. Such a physical interpretation of the QCD phase transition is called as the closed packing picture.

To proceed, we define the spatial occupation ratio $`r_V(T)`$ at temperature $`T`$ to be the ratio of the total volume of the spatial regions inside the thermally excited bags to the volume $`V`$ of the whole space region. In the closed packing picture of the QCD phase transition, $`r_V(T)`$ plays the key role, which is estimated as

$`r_V(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}R_n^3\lambda _nN_n(T)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\lambda _nR_n^3{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{e^{\sqrt{m_n^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}/T}1}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\lambda _nR_n^3T^3f(m_n/T),`$
where $`N_n(T)`$, $`\lambda _n`$, $`m_n`$ and $`R_n`$ are the number at temperature $`T`$, the degeneracy, the mass and the bag radius of the $`n`$-th elementary excitation, respectively. Here, $`f(\overline{m})`$ is defined by

$`f(\overline{m})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\overline{k}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{e^{\sqrt{\overline{m}^2+\overline{k}^2}}1}},`$ (2)
and its functional form is plotted against $`\overline{m}m/T`$ in Fig. 1. Note that $`f(m/T)`$ is a characteristic function to describe the thermal contribution of the boson with the mass $`m`$ at the temperature $`T`$ ST91 . For $`mT`$, $`f(m/T)`$ decreases exponentially with $`m/T`$, and the thermal contribution is expected to become negligible.

As mentioned before, in the closed packing picture, the phase transition takes place, when the thermally excited bags almost cover the whole space region. Hence, the critical temperature $`T_c`$ is estimated by solving

$$r_V(T_c)=1.$$
(3)
Now, we investigate the phase transition in full QCD using the statistical approach. In full QCD, the lightest physical excitation is the pion, and all the other hadrons are rather heavy as $`mm_\pi `$, $`T_c`$. In fact, the pion is considered to play the key role in describing the thermodynamic properties of full QCD below $`T_c`$ from the viewpoint of the statistical physics. Hence, in most cases, only the pionic degrees of freedom are taken into account in the hadron phase in the argument of the full-QCD phase transition. By using the isospin degeneracy $`\lambda _\pi =3`$, the mass $`m_\pi =140`$ MeV and the radius $`R_\pi 1`$ fm, we solve Eq. (3) with $`r_V(T)=3R_\pi ^3T^3f(m_\pi /T)`$ to estimate the critical temperature as $`T_c183`$ MeV. Considering its closeness to the full lattice QCD result with $`N_f=2`$, i.e., $`T_c170`$ MeV, the statistical approach to the full-QCD phase transition seems to be rather good.

We now consider the $`m_\pi `$-dependence of the critical temperature $`T_c`$. Note that, in the actual lattice QCD calculations, the pion mass is taken to be still rather heavy as $`m_\pi 400`$ MeV for the technical reasons. From these data, the critical temperature $`T_c`$ in the chiral limit is obtained using the chiral extrapolation.

In LABEL:karsch, the authors parametrized the full lattice QCD result of $`T_c`$ as

$$\left(\frac{T_c}{\sqrt{\sigma }}\right)(m_\pi )=0.40(1)+0.039(4)\left(\frac{m_\pi }{\sqrt{\sigma }}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\sigma `$ denotes the string tension. Strictly speaking, the phase transition becomes just a cross-over for intermediate values of $`m_\pi `$. Hence, in LABEL:karsch, the pseudo critical temperature is adopted as $`T_c`$, which is determined from the peak positions of the susceptibilities of the Polyakov loop and so on.

For the $`N_f=2`$ case, we plot, in Fig. 2, the theoretical estimate of $`T_c`$ against $`m_\pi `$ based on Eq. (2) in the statistical approach with the bag-model picture. The dashed curve denotes $`T_c`$ retaining only the contribution from pions with $`R_\pi 1`$ fm. The solid curve denotes the result in the case including also the contributions from the low-lying vector mesons, such as $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$, which are the next lightest particles in $`N_f=2`$ full QCD. Here, we have used $`\lambda _\rho =3\times 3=9`$, $`m_\rho =770`$ MeV, $`R_\rho 1`$ fm, $`\lambda _\omega =3`$, $`m_\omega =783`$ MeV, $`R_\omega 1`$ fm as inputs, which are treated as $`m_\pi `$-independent constants. These vector mesons give an additional contribution to $`r_V(T)`$ as $`\delta r_V(T)=9R_\rho ^3T^3f(m_\rho /T)+3R_\omega ^3T^3f(m_\omega /T)`$. The triangle and the square in Fig. 2 denote the lattice data taken from Refs.luetgemeier ; karsch . In spite of its roughness, the resulting behavior of the critical temperature $`T_c`$ seems to coincide rather well with the lattice QCD result. In this calculation, the low-lying vector mesons, $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$, give a small but non-negligible contribution to the critical temperature.

We next investigate the idealized SU(3)f symmetric case to analyze the other lattice QCD data. In this case, the pseudo-scalar (PS) octet mesons, such as pions, kaons and $`\eta _8`$, are the lightest and possess the same mass $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$ in common with the degeneracy as $`\lambda _{\mathrm{PS}}=8`$. We plot, in Fig. 3, the critical temperature $`T_c`$ against $`m_{\mathrm{PS}}`$. The dashed curve denotes $`T_c`$ retaining only the contribution from PS-mesons with $`R_{\mathrm{PS}}1`$ fm, which leads to $`r_V(T)=8R_{\mathrm{PS}}^3T^3f(m_{\mathrm{PS}}/T)`$. The dot-dashed curve in Fig. 3 denotes the results including also the contributions from the octet vector mesons with $`\lambda _\mathrm{V}=8\times 3=24`$, $`m_\mathrm{V}770`$ MeV, $`R_\mathrm{V}1`$ fm. (Inclusion of the flavor-singlet vector meson does not change the result so much.) These vector mesons give an additional contribution to $`r_V(T)`$ as $`\delta r_V(T)=24R_\mathrm{V}^3T^3f(m_\mathrm{V}/T)`$. The circle in Fig. 3 denotes the lattice data taken from LABEL:karsch. We see that both the dashed and the dot-dashed curves are roughly consistent with the lattice QCD results. We note that the small deviation almost disappears by slightly adjusting the bag size as $`R_{\mathrm{PS}}=R_\mathrm{V}=0.75`$ fm, as is shown in Fig. 3 with the solid curve.

In this way, this simple statistical approach with the bag-model picture works rather well in reproducing the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the full-QCD phase transition. Here, the main contribution is given by the thermal pion, and the low-lying vector mesons give a small but non-negligible contribution to $`T_c`$.

## III A Mystery in the Quenched QCD Phase Transition

In spite of the absence of the dynamical quarks, quenched QCD provides various important nonperturbative features such as the color confinement and instantons. Hence, to understand some of the nonperturbative natures of QCD, quenched QCD plays the primary role, serving as a simplified version of the complicated real problems. In this section, we apply the statistical approach with the bag-model picture to quenched QCD in a similar manner done in the previous section.

Due to the color confinement, only the color-singlet modes can appear as physical excitations, and such modes are called as glueballs in quenched QCD. The mass spectrum of the glueballs is known through the quenched lattice QCD calculations morningstar ; weingarten ; teper . The lightest physical excitation is the $`0^{++}`$ glueball with $`m_\mathrm{G}=1.51.7`$ GeV. Following the similar argument as in the full QCD case, the lowest $`0^{++}`$ glueball is expected to play the key role in describing the thermodynamic properties of quenched QCD in the confinement phase. Hence, we first take into account only the $`0^{++}`$ glueball. As for the size $`R`$ of the scalar glueball, we note that there is no widely agreed value on it. We adopt a rather small value as $`R`$ 0.4fm, which has been indicated by recent lattice QCD studies ishii.full.paper ; ishii .

We use the degeneracy $`\lambda _{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}=1`$, the mass $`m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}1730`$ MeV morningstar , and $`R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}0.4`$ fm as inputs. Then, the spatial occupation ratio is given by $`r_V(T)=R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}^3T^3f(m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}/T)`$, and the critical temperature is estimated as $`T_c827`$ MeV from Eq. (3). This estimate is too much larger than the quenched lattice QCD result as $`T_c=0.629(3)\sqrt{\sigma }280`$ MeV in LABEL:karsch2 with $`\sqrt{\sigma }=450`$ MeV. (In other words, only a tiny fraction of the space region is covered by the thermally excited bags as $`r_V(T)=0.0021`$ at $`T=280`$ MeV.) This large discrepancy would be a serious problem in the quenched QCD phase transition.

To seek a possible solution, we examine the case with a larger value of the glueball size $`R`$, since there is no established value on $`R`$.

In Fig. 4, the critical temperature $`T_c`$ is plotted against the lightest $`0^{++}`$ glueball mass $`m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}`$ in the statistical approach for various glueball sizes as $`R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}=0.5,1.0,1.5`$ fm. The cross ($`\times `$) indicates the quenched lattice QCD results, $`T_c=280`$ MeV and $`m_\mathrm{G}=1730`$ MeV. In this argument, to reproduce the critical temperature as $`T_c280`$ MeV, the glueball size is to be abnormally large as $`R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}3.1`$ fm in the vicinity of $`T_c`$. However, such a drastic thermal swelling of the lowest scalar glueball was rejected by the recent lattice QCD studies ishii.full.paper ; ishii , which states that the thermal glueball size is almost unchanged even near $`T_c`$. In any case, the glueball size does not seem to provide the solution on this discrepancy.

We may seek for the solution in the drastic pole-mass reduction of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball near the critical temperature as was suggested in LABEL:ichie in the context of the dual Ginzburg-Landau theory. In Fig. 4, we see that, for the problem to be settled, the pole-mass reduction must be as significant as $`m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}(T_c)500`$ MeV. However, in the recent lattice QCD calculations ishii.full.paper ; ishii , it has been reported that the thermal $`0^{++}`$ glueball persists to hold a rather large pole-mass as $`m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}(TT_c)1250`$ MeV. Hence, we have to seek for another possibility by including the contribution of the excited-state glueballs.

In addition to the lowest $`0^{++}`$ glueball with $`m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}1730`$ MeV and $`R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}0.4`$ fm, we consider the thermal contribution from the lowest $`2^{++}`$ glueball, which is the next lightest hadron in quenched QCD. We take $`\lambda _{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{T})}=5`$, $`m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{T})}2400`$ MeV morningstar , $`R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{T})}1`$ fm. (Here, we assume it to have a typical hadron size.) Then, the spatial occupation ratio receives a correction as $`\delta r_V(T)=5R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{T})}^3T^3f(m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{T})}/T)`$, and the correction amounts to $`\delta r_V(T)=0.0223`$ at $`T=280`$ MeV. The resulting critical temperature is given as $`T_c432`$ MeV, which is still too large. We note that the realistic glueball size would be more compact. However, if so, its contribution becomes more negligible.

Besides these two low-lying glueballs, the following excited states are predicted in LABEL:morningstar as $`0^+(2590)`$, $`0^{++}(2670)`$, $`1^+(2940)`$, $`2^+(3100)`$, $`3^+(3550)`$, $`0^+(3640)`$, $`3^{++}(3690)`$, $`1^{}(3850)`$, $`2^+(3890)`$, $`2^{}(3930)`$, $`3^{}(4130)`$, $`2^+(4140)`$, $`0^+(4740)`$. We include all the contribution from these excited states, assuming the unknown glueball size as a typical hadron size, i.e., $`R_\mathrm{G}1`$ fm. The correction by these excited states amounts to only $`\delta r_V(T)=0.0113`$ at $`T=280`$ MeV, and the resulting critical temperature is estimated as $`T_c=395`$ MeV, which is again too large.

In this way, we observe that the statistical approach does not work at all in quenched QCD. The direct cause of this failure is the extremely small statistical factor $`e^{m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}/T_c}0.0021`$, which strongly suppresses the excitations of the glueballs. As a consequence, only a remarkably tiny fraction of the space region can be covered by the thermally excited bags of glueballs at $`T=280`$ MeV, which cannot be the driving force of the QCD phase transition.

## IV Summary and Discussions —What is the trigger or the driving force of the QCD phase transition ?

We have analytically studied the QCD phase transition based on the statistical treatment with the bag-model picture. We have derived a phenomenological relation among the critical temperature $`T_c`$, the mass and the size of the low-lying hadrons. First, we have applied this relation to full QCD, and have compared the analytical results with the full lattice QCD results. In full QCD, we have found that this approach works amazingly well. As is expected, the pionic contribution seems to play the main role in determining the critical temperature, and the low-lying vector mesons are found to provide a small but non-negligible contribution.

Unlike full QCD, we have found that the statistical approach terribly overestimates the critical temperature as $`T_c827`$ MeV in quenched QCD, and that only a tiny fraction of the space region is covered by the thermally excited bags of glueballs at $`T`$ 280MeV. We have considered the possibility of a swelling of the glueball size and reduction of the glueball mass near the critical temperature. However, both of these two have not provided us with the solution on the large discrepancy. In spite of including all the contributions from the 15 low-lying glueballs up to 5 GeV predicted in quenched lattice QCD morningstar , the discrepancy remains to be still large. In other words, the number of the thermally-excited glueballs is still too small at $`T`$ 280MeV, even after so many glueball excited states are taken into account. The direct origin of this discrepancy is the strong suppression of the thermal excitation of glueballs due to the extremely small statistical factor as $`e^{m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}/T}=0.00207`$ at $`T=280`$ MeV even for the lightest glueball, which leads to the insufficient amount of the covered space by the thermally excited bags of glueballs.

Although several arguments given so far have been based on the bag-model picture, this problem itself has a quite general nature, which can go beyond the reliability of the model framework. We finally reformulate this problem in a model-independent general manner by considering the inter-particle distance $`l`$ instead of the bag size $`R`$. Note that the reliability of the statistical argument becomes improved in the dilute glueball gas limit. Now, taking into account all the low-lying 15 glueball modes up to 5 GeV predicted in quenched lattice QCD morningstar , we calculate the inter-particle distance $`l`$ of the glueballs based on only the statistical argument. At $`T=280`$ MeV, the inter-particle distance is estimated as $`l5`$ fm. It follows that the deconfinement phase transition takes place at $`T`$ 280MeV, when the glueball density becomes $`\rho =1/\{\frac{4\pi }{3}(2.5\mathrm{fm})^3\}1/(4.0\mathrm{fm})^3`$. Remember that the theoretical estimates of the glueball size are rather small as $`R_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}0.4`$ fm ishii ; ishii.full.paper ; schafer . Hence, this density seems to be rather dilute. Since the long-range interaction among glueballs is mediated by the virtual one-glueball exchange process in quenched QCD, the interactions among glueballs are exponentially suppressed beyond its Compton length $`1/m_{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{S})}=0.112`$ fm. Therefore, one cannot expect the strong long-range interaction acting among the spatially-separated thermal glueballs.

In this way, it is quite difficult to imagine how such a too rare excitation of thermal glueballs can lead to the phase transition. We are thus arrive at the mystery. What is really the trigger or the driving force of the deconfinement phase transition in quenched QCD ? In order to understand the QCD phase transition, this problem should be seriously considered.

Acknowledgement

H. S. is supported by Grant for Scientific Research (No.12640274) from Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology, Japan.