text:
# Microscopic many-body theory of atomic Bose gases near a Feshbach resonance

## 1 Introduction

The recent experiment by Donley et al.  has made it clear that near a Feshbach resonance the coherence between atoms and molecules can have a profound role in the dynamics of an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate. As a result, it has become an urgent problem to understand from first principles how to properly incorporate the possible coherence between atoms and molecules into the theory of an interacting Bose gas. In the last four years important progress towards a solution of this problem has been made by a number of groups . Nevertheless, it appears that a fully satisfactory theory, which obeys all the requirements that on physical grounds can a priori be imposed upon the theory, still needs to be developed. It is with this goal in mind that the present contribution has been written.

A first requirement for the theory is that it is based on an adequate microscopic description of a Feshbach resonance. Feshbach resonances are already known for a long time in nuclear physics , but have only more recently been predicted to occur in ultracold atomic gases . The defining feature of such resonances is that they can only occur in a multi-channel scattering problem. More precisely, a Feshbach resonance occurs when the kinetic energy of the particles in the incoming open channel is equal to the energy of a bound state in a closed channel that is (weakly) coupled to the incoming channel. It is important for our purposes that the physics of a Feshbach resonance is quite different from the physics of a resonance in a single-channel scattering problem with a bound state near the continuum threshold of the particles. This can most easily be seen from the fact that in the latter case the bound state in the incoming channel is only very weakly bound and the extent of its wave function is, therefore, always much larger than the range of the interaction between the particles. For a Feshbach resonance the extent of the bound state wave function is generally of the same size as the range of the interactions, because it usually corresponds to a deeply bound state in the potential of another and closed channel. As a result also the quantum numbers of the bound state are different from the quantum numbers of the incoming particles, which is clearly not the case for the single-channel scattering problem.

A second requirement follows from the fact that the many-body theory based on the microscopic description envisaged above is free of ultra-violet divergences at any level of approximation, and in particular, for both the normal and superfluid phases of the atomic Bose gas. The reason for this is that microscopically the interatomic interactions responsible for the Feshbach resonance are determined by short-range potentials, which cut off all the momentum integrals that arise when we diagramatically include the effects of the interactions. As a result the desired effective atom-molecule hamiltonian of the gas can contain only terms with coefficients that are finite and cut-off independent. Moreover, the coefficients are determined by only a small number of experimental parameters such as the position and the width of the Feshbach resonance, for instance.

The most crucial additional requirement on the effective atom-molecule hamiltonian is that it must exactly reproduce the two-body physics of the atomic gas, i.e., by solving the hamiltonian in the Hilbert space of two atoms we must recover the correct scattering amplitude of the atoms and also the correct binding energy and quantum numbers of the molecule. Note that in this manner the molecular properties are exactly incorporated at the quantum level, which is important for several reasons. First, the theory can now be applied both in the normal and in the superfluid phase of the gas. Second, we are not restricted to a mean-field description of the gas and are now also able to systematically study fluctuation effects, which we have recently shown to be of importance under the experimental conditions of interest . Finally, the theory can be immediately generalized to atomic Fermi gases near a Feshbach resonance, which are of great current interest in view of the prospect of creating new neutral BCS superfluids . Also in this case fluctuation effects are known to be essential  and can only be accounted for after the molecular properties are exactly incorporated in the quantum theory.

As already implicitly mentioned, the effective atom-molecule hamiltonian is in first instance the most convenient way to arrive at a mean-field description of the gas. In the case of a Bose-Einstein condensed atomic gas, an exact property of the system is that it has a gapless excitation. Therefore, any physically reasonable mean-field theory must have the same property. From a fundamental point of view the gapless excitation is due to the fact that a Bose-Einstein condensate spontaneously breaks the global $`U(1)`$ symmetry associated with the conservation of the total number of atoms. For the mean-field theory to fulfill this requirement automatically it must be formulated such that it does not contain an anomalous density or pairing field . Including an anomalous density in general leads to a double counting of the interaction effects and, therefore, destroys the gaplessness of the mean-field theory.

In agreement with the above discussion, the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we start from a microscopic hamiltonian for an atomic Bose gas with a Feshbach resonance and derive from this a bare atom-molecule theory. To make contact with the experimentally known parameters of the Feshbach resonance, we then carry out in section 3 a complete ladder summation to arrive at the desired effective atom-molecule hamiltonian that incorporates exactly all the relevant two-atom physics. In section 4 we show in particular how the correct properties of the molecule are recovered. After that we discuss in section 5 how to arrive at the simplest mean-field theory that is appropriate at the low temperatures of interest experimentally, where the thermal component of the gas can be neglected. We finally end in section 6 with our conclusions.

## 2 Bare atom-molecule theory

Without loss of generality we can consider the simplest situation in which a Feshbach resonance arises, i.e., we consider a homogeneous gas of identical atoms with two internal states denoted by $`|`$ and $`|`$. The atoms in the two states interact via the potentials $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$ and $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$, respectively. The state $`|`$ has an energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu B/2`$ with respect to the state $`|`$ due to the Zeeman interaction with the magnetic field $`B`$. The coupling between the two states, which from the atomic physics point of view is due to the hyperfine interaction, is denoted by $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$. Putting everything together our microscopic hamiltonian is thus given by

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐱^{}\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱^{})V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱^{})\right]\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)}`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu B}{2}+\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐱^{}\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱^{})V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱^{})\right]\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d𝐱{\displaystyle }d𝐱^{}[\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱^{})V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
where the potential $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$ is assumed to contain the bound state responsible for the Feshbach resonance. Using a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation to decouple this part of the hamiltonian , we introduce the molecular field operator $`\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱)`$ that annihilates a molecule at position $`𝐱`$. In the approximation that we are close to resonance, only a single bound state contributes and this operator has the property that

$$\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱^{})=\sqrt{2}\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}((𝐱+𝐱^{})/2)\chi _\mathrm{m}(𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(2)
The properly normalized and symmetrized bound state wave function in the potential $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$, which we choose to be real for simplicity, obeys the Schrödinger equation

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{m}+V_{}(𝐱)\right]\chi _\mathrm{m}(𝐱)=E_\mathrm{m}\chi _\mathrm{m}(𝐱).$$
(3)
After the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation we obtain the bare hamiltonian for the coupled atom-molecule system. It reads

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐱^{}\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(𝐱^{})V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱^{})\right]\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}^{}(𝐱)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{4m}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu B+E_\mathrm{m}\right]\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle }d𝐱{\displaystyle }d𝐱^{}[g_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}^{}((𝐱+𝐱^{})/2)\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱^{})\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (4)
where $`g_{}(𝐱)=V_{}(𝐱)\chi _\mathrm{m}(𝐱)/\sqrt{2}`$ is the bare atom-molecule coupling. The molecule-molecule and atom-molecule interactions also follow from the above procedure but will be neglected in the following, since under the experimental conditions of interest  the density of molecules is very small.

## 3 Ladder summations

For an the application of the hamiltonian in (2) to realistic atomic gases we have to include all two-body processes, because at the relevant low densities three and more-body processes can in first instance be neglected. These are most conveniently included by a renormalization of the bare potential $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$ and the bare coupling $`g_{}(𝐱)`$. Moreover, the molecules acquire a self energy.

The interaction potential of the atoms in principle renormalizes to the many-body T(ransition) matrix. This renormalization is determined by a Bethe-Salpeter equation which, within the for our purposes sufficiently accurate Hartree-Fock approximation , reads

$`T^{\mathrm{MB}}(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐊,z)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{}(𝐤𝐤^{})`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{\prime \prime }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+N(ϵ_{𝐊/2+𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\mu )+N(ϵ_{𝐊/2𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\mu )\right]}{zϵ_{𝐊/2+𝐤^{\prime \prime }}ϵ_{𝐊/2𝐤^{\prime \prime }}}}`$
$`\times T^{\mathrm{MB}}(𝐤^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{},𝐊,z),`$
where $`N(x)=[e^{\beta x}1]^1`$ is the Bose distribution function of the atoms, $`\mu `$ their chemical potential, and $`1/k_\mathrm{B}T`$ the inverse thermal energy. This equation describes the scattering of a pair of atoms from relative momentum $`𝐤^{}`$ to relative momentum $`𝐤`$ at energy $`z`$. Due to the fact that the scattering takes places in a medium the many-body T matrix also depends on the center-of-mass momentum $`𝐊`$. The energy of a single atom is equal to $`ϵ_𝐤=\mathrm{}^2𝐤^2/2m`$. In the Hartree-Fock approximation the energy in principle also contains a mean-field correction which we neglect in first instance. We come back to this point in section 4, however. The diagrammatic representation of (5) is given in figure 1.

For temperatures not too close to the critical temperature we are allowed to neglect the many-body effects , and (5) reduces to the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the two-body T matrix. The effective interaction between the atoms thus becomes $`T^{2\mathrm{B}}(𝐤,𝐤^{},zϵ_𝐊/2)`$. For the realistic conditions of the atomic gases under consideration here, i.e., small external momenta and energies, the two-body T matrix is independent of momentum and energy and equal to $`4\pi a_{}\mathrm{}^2/m`$, with $`a_{}`$ the $`s`$-wave scattering length of the potential $`V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})`$. Therefore, we conclude that the renormalization of this potential is given by

$$V_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})\frac{4\pi a_{}\mathrm{}^2}{m}\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(6)
The renormalization of the bare atom-molecule coupling is determined by the equation

$`g^{\mathrm{MB}}(𝐤,𝐊,z)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{}(𝐤)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}T^{\mathrm{MB}}(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐊,z)`$ (7)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+N(ϵ_{𝐊/2+𝐤^{}}\mu )+N(ϵ_{𝐊/2𝐤^{}}\mu )\right]}{zϵ_{𝐊/2+𝐤^{}}ϵ_{𝐊/2𝐤^{}}}}g_{}(𝐤^{}),`$
and is presented diagramatically in figure 2. Neglecting many-body effects, the coupling constant becomes $`g^{2\mathrm{B}}(𝐤,zϵ_𝐊/2)`$ with

$`g^{2\mathrm{B}}(𝐤,z)=g_{}(𝐤)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}T^{2\mathrm{B}}(𝐤,𝐤^{},z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{z2ϵ_𝐤^{}}}g_{}(𝐤^{}).`$ (8)
For the relevant small momenta and energies we are thus lead to the substitution

$$g_{}(𝐱𝐱^{})g\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}),$$
(9)
where $`g`$ can be related to experimentally known parameters as follows. The resonance is characterized experimentally by a width $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ and a position $`B_0`$. More precisely, the $`s`$-wave scattering length of the atoms as a function of magnetic field is given by

$$a(B)=a_{\mathrm{bg}}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{BB_0}\right),$$
(10)
where $`a_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ denotes the so-called background scattering length. To make correspondence with the experiment we thus have that $`a_{}=a_{\mathrm{bg}}`$. In order to reproduce the experimentally observed width of the resonance we have that $`g=\mathrm{}\sqrt{2\pi a_{\mathrm{bg}}\mathrm{\Delta }B\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /m}`$, since an elimination of the molecular field shows that $`a_{bg}\mathrm{\Delta }B=mg^2/(2\pi \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )`$.

The self energy of the molecules, shown diagramatically in figure 3, is given by

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{MB}}(𝐊,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}g_{}(𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+N(ϵ_{𝐊/2+𝐤}\mu )+N(ϵ_{𝐊/2𝐤}\mu )\right]}{zϵ_{𝐊/2+𝐤}ϵ_{𝐊/2𝐤}}}`$ (11)
$`\times g^{\mathrm{MB}}(𝐤,𝐊,z).`$
In first instance we neglect again many-body effects which reduces the self energy in (11) to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2\mathrm{B}}(zϵ_𝐊/2)`$ with

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2\mathrm{B}}(z)=\chi _\mathrm{m}|\widehat{V}_{}\widehat{G}_{}(z)\widehat{V}_{}|\chi _\mathrm{m},$$
(12)
where the propagator $`\widehat{G}_{}(z)`$ is given by

$$\widehat{G}_{}(z)=\frac{1}{z\widehat{H}_{}},$$
(13)
with the hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_{}=\frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{m}+\widehat{V}_{}\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{V}_{}.$$
(14)
We insert in (12) a complete set of bound states $`|\varphi _\kappa `$ with energies $`E_\kappa `$ and scattering states $`|\varphi _𝐤^{(+)}`$. The latter obey the Lippmann-Schwinger equation

$$|\varphi _𝐤^{(+)}=|𝐤+\frac{1}{2ϵ_𝐤^+\widehat{H}_0}\widehat{V}_{}|\varphi _𝐤^{(+)},$$
(15)
where $`ϵ_𝐤^+=ϵ_𝐤+i0`$ denotes the usual limiting procedure. This reduces the self energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2\mathrm{B}}(z)`$ to

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2\mathrm{B}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa }{}}|\chi _\mathrm{m}|\widehat{V}_{}|\varphi _\kappa |^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{zE_\kappa }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}|\chi _\mathrm{m}|\widehat{V}_{}|\varphi _𝐤^{(+)}|^2\frac{1}{z2ϵ_𝐤}},`$
where we replaced the sum over the momenta k by an integral. Using (8) and the Lippmann-Schwinger equation we have that

$$g^{2\mathrm{B}}(𝐤,2ϵ_𝐤^+)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\chi _\mathrm{m}|\widehat{V}_{}|\varphi _𝐤^{(+)}.$$
(17)
As a result we have for the retarded self energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(+)}(\mathrm{}\omega )`$, i.e., the self energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2B}(z)`$ evaluated at the physically relevant energy $`z=\mathrm{}\omega ^+`$ that

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(+)}(\mathrm{}\omega )g^2\frac{m^{3/2}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3}i\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu B_0+E_\mathrm{m}\right),$$
(18)
where we have denoted the energy-independent shift, that results from the sum over bound states and the principal-value part of the integral in (3), in such a manner that the position of the resonance in the magnetic field is precisely at the experimentally observed magnetic field value $`B_0`$.

## 4 Molecular binding energy and density of states

Putting the results of the previous sections together, we find that the Bose gas near a Feshbach resonance is described by a coupled set of equations of motion for the atomic and molecular Heisenberg operators

$`\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}(𝐱,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}t\right]\widehat{\psi }_{}(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}t\right],`$
$`\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}t\right]\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{H}t\right],`$ (19)
given by

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}(𝐱,t)}{t}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}}+T_{\mathrm{bg}}^{2\mathrm{B}}\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}^{}(𝐱,t)\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}(𝐱,t)\right]\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}(𝐱,t)`$
$`+2g\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}^{}(𝐱,t)\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱,t),`$
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱,t)}{t}}=[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{4m}}+\delta (B(t))`$
$`g^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^{3/2}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3}}i\sqrt{i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{4m}}}]\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{m}(𝐱,t)+g\widehat{\psi }_\mathrm{a}^2(𝐱,t),`$ (20)
where the detuning is defined by $`\delta (B)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (BB_0)`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{bg}}^{2\mathrm{B}}=4\pi a_{\mathrm{bg}}\mathrm{}^2/m`$. This is the most important result of our work. Note that the time-derivative and gradient terms appear exactly such that both equations of motion are manifestly galilean invariant. Note also that an external trapping potential can just be added to the right-hand sides of these equations if required. It is interesting to mention that the above equations can immediately be generalized to a Fermi gas near a Feshbach resonance. Moreover, a simple Hartree-Fock approximation to the resulting theory reproduces exactly the interesting crossover physics recently discussed by Ohashi and Griffin on the basis of the Nozières and Schmitt-Rink formalism for the normal phase of the gas . Having made this observation, it is now clear how the same crossover phenomena can be studied in the superfluid phase of the gas. Work in this direction is in progress and will be reported elsewhere.

From (4) we determine the retarded Green’s function of the molecules $`G_\mathrm{m}^{(+)}(𝐱,t;𝐱^{},t^{})`$. For fixed detuning, the poles of its Fourier transform determine the bound-state energy. This Fourier transform is given by

$$G_\mathrm{m}^{(+)}(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}\omega ^+ϵ_𝐤/2\delta (B)+(g^2m^{3/2}/2\pi \mathrm{}^3)i\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2}},$$
(21)
with $`ϵ_𝐤/2=\mathrm{}^2𝐤^2/4m`$ the kinetic energy of a molecule. For positive detuning the propagator has a pole with nonzero imaginary part, which shows that the molecule has a finite lifetime in this case. In first approximation the energy of the molecule is $`ϵ_\mathrm{m}(B)+ϵ_𝐤/2`$ with $`ϵ_\mathrm{m}(B)=\delta (B)`$ and its rate of decay equals $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{m}(B)=(g^2m^{3/2}/4\pi \mathrm{}^4)\sqrt{\delta (B)}`$. For negative detuning the molecular propagator has a real pole at $`\mathrm{}\omega =ϵ_\mathrm{m}+ϵ_𝐤/2`$, where the bound state energy of the molecule is given by

$$ϵ_\mathrm{m}(B)=\delta (B)+\frac{g^4m^3}{8\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6}\left[\sqrt{1\frac{16\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6}{g^4m^3}\delta (B)}1\right].$$
(22)
Close to the resonance the bound-state energy is, using (10), found to be equal to

$$ϵ_\mathrm{m}(B)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m[a(B)]^2}.$$
(23)
It is important to realize that this last equation, which is well-known to be true for a weakly bound state in a single-channel scattering problem , has now thus been proven to be also valid for the case of a multi-channel Feshbach resonance.

The physics of (21) is best understood by considering the molecular density of states, related to the retarded propagator by

$$\rho _\mathrm{m}(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\left[G_\mathrm{m}^{(+)}(𝐤,\omega )\right].$$
(24)
For negative detuning, it has two contributions as shown in figure 4. The first comes from the bound state, i.e., the (dressed) molecule, the second comes from the two-atom continuum. It is the latter part of the density of states that incorporates into our theory the rogue dissociation process put forward recently by Mackie et al. . More explicitly, the density of states is found to be equal to

$`\rho _\mathrm{m}(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+g^2m^{3/2}/(4\pi \mathrm{}^3\sqrt{|ϵ_\mathrm{m}|})}}\delta (\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2ϵ_\mathrm{m})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\theta (\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2){\displaystyle \frac{(g^2m^{3/2}/2\pi \mathrm{}^3)\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2}}{\left[\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2\delta (B)\right]^2+(g^4m^3/4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6)(\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2)}},`$ (25)
and can be shown to obey the sum rule

$$d(\mathrm{}\omega )\rho _\mathrm{m}(𝐤,\omega )=1.$$
(26)
We thus conclude that the wave function renormalization factor of the molecules is given by $`Z=1/[1+g^2m^{3/2}/(4\pi \mathrm{}^3\sqrt{|ϵ_\mathrm{m}|})]`$, which close to resonance is much smaller than one. Physically, this implies that in this case the wave function of the molecule is strongly affected by the interaction with the continuum in the incoming channel and contains only with an amplitude $`\sqrt{Z}`$ the wave function $`\chi _\mathrm{m}(𝐱)`$ of the bound state in the closed channel.

The molecular density of states changes when an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate is present, due to the mean-field interactions with the condensate. In particular, in this case we expect that the two-atom continuum part of the density of states is less important because of the mean-field barrier that the two colliding condensate atoms have to overcome. Mathematically this comes about since, to include the Hartree-Fock mean-field shift of the energy of the atoms, we have to replace in (21) $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega ϵ_𝐤/2}`$ by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega 2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}ϵ_𝐤/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}`$ denotes the Hartree-Fock self energy of the noncondensed atoms due to their interaction with the condensate.

The mean-field shift of the thermal atoms leads to a change of the bound state energy as well. In equilibrium we estimate the magnitude of this shift by approximately calculating the self energy $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}`$ from

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}2n_0\left[T_{bg}^{2\mathrm{B}}+\frac{2g^2}{2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{HF}}\delta (B)}\right],$$
(27)
for a given condensate density $`n_0`$. In this manner we have calculated the mean-field shift of the bound-state energy as a function of the magnetic field for the Feshbach resonance at $`B_0154.9`$ G in the $`|f=2;m_f=2`$ state of <sup>85</sup>Rb. In figure 5 the results of this calculation are presented for two experimentally relevant condensate densities, namely $`n_0=1.1\times 10^{13}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> and $`n_0=5.4\times 10^{13}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> . As expected, the shift of the bound-state energy is largest for the highest condensate density and decreases away from the resonance. Although (27) is only a first approximation to calculate the Hartree-Fock mean-field energy, figure 5 shows that the shift in the bound-state energy is significant. A more thorough calculation of the mean-field effect on the bound-state energy and also on the position of the resonance is postponed to future work. With respect to this remark, it should be noted that, since the retardation time of the interaction is only of the order of $`\mathrm{}/ϵ_\mathrm{m}(B)`$, the mean-field effects are not instantaneous. Therefore, the relevance of the mean-field shifts to nonequilibrium situations, such as in the recent experiments with time-dependent detuning , is also subject to further research.

## 5 Mean-field theory

The mean-field theory for the coupled atomic and molecular condensates is found by taking the expectation value of (4). We assume for simplicity that the temperatures are so low that the thermal cloud of the Bose gas can be neglected. It is, however, straightforward to include the mean-field effects of the thermal cloud in the same manner as in the by now standard Popov theory for weakly-interacting Bose gases. Furthermore, we neglect for simplicity the effect of the Hartree-Fock energy shift on the two-atom continuum and the molecular binding energy. The resulting mean-field equations are then given by

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _\mathrm{a}(t)}{t}}=T_{\mathrm{bg}}^{2\mathrm{B}}|\psi _\mathrm{a}(t)|^2\psi _\mathrm{a}(t)+2g\psi _\mathrm{a}^{}(t)\psi _\mathrm{m}(t),`$
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _\mathrm{m}(t)}{t}}=\left[\delta (B(t))g^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^{3/2}}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3}}i\sqrt{i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}}\right]\psi _\mathrm{m}(t)+g\psi _\mathrm{a}^2(t).`$ (28)
Note that in agreement with our remarks in the introduction the above equations contains no anomalous density or pairing field. One way to understand the reason for this is that the effects of the anomalous density are already included by using the renormalized couplings and including the molecular self energy. Including these effects again would lead to double counting problems and, therefore, to a theory that is not gapless. Another way to understand it is that equation (5) is explicitly $`U(1)`$ invariant and the gaplessness of the theory is thus automatically guaranteed.

A crucial ingredient in our formulation is the (nonlocal) term proportional to $`\sqrt{i\mathrm{}/t}`$. It is this term that incorporates the correct binding energy of the molecules for negative detuning, and their lifetime if the detuning is positive. In principle this term must be treated as follows. Using the Green’s function in (21) we find that the wave function of the molecular condensate is, for time-independent detuning, given by

$$\psi _\mathrm{m}(t)=\frac{g}{\mathrm{}}_0^t𝑑t^{}G^{(+)}(tt^{})\psi _a^2(t^{})+\psi _\mathrm{m}(0),$$
(29)
where the Fourier transform of $`G^{(+)}(\mathrm{𝟎},\omega )`$ is given by

$`G^{(+)}(tt^{})=i\theta (tt^{})Z\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}ϵ_\mathrm{m}(tt^{})\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\theta (tt^{})g^2m^{3/2}}{\pi \mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega }e^{i\omega (tt^{})}}{\left[\mathrm{}\omega \delta (B)\right]^2+(g^4m^3/4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^6)\mathrm{}\omega }}.`$ (30)
This result can then be substituted in the equation for the atomic condensate wave function, which can now be easily solved numerically as we will show in future work.

## 6 Conclusions and outlook

We have derived from first principles an effective quantum field theory for Feshbach resonant interactions in atomic Bose gases. In future work we intend to apply this quantum field theory to study various equilibrium and nonequilibrium properties of ultracold atomic gases near a Feshbach resonance. This will include a further study of the mean-field shifts of the bound-state energy and the position of the resonance, as well as the study of the BEC/BCS crossover in the superfluid phase of a two-component Fermi gas . Moreover, we are now in a position to also study the normal phase for both for bosonic and fermionic gases. In order to apply the theory also to the recent pulse experiments with Bose-Einstein condensates of <sup>85</sup>Rb , we need to include a detuning that varies rapidly with time. This leads to some technical complications with the proper treatment of our nonlocal term that remain to be resolved. With respect to the latter experiments we also want to further study the importance of the quantum evaporation process, which previous work has shown not to be negligible .

We would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the European Centre for Theoretical Studies in Nuclear Physics and Related Areas (ECT\*) during the Summer Program on Bose-Einstein condensation.

## References


format: text

text:
# Green Functions of 𝒩=1 SYM and Radial/Energy-Scale Relation

## I Introduction

Due to the remarkable success of AdS/CFT correspondence Mald98  more and more attention has been attracted to the study of gauge/gravity duality with less supersymmetry and the gauge theory part is not conformally invariant. The $`d=4,𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory (SYM) turned out to be extremely interesting with rich results. Nonsingular supergravity (SUGRA) solutions are constructed and proposed to be dual of the $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory. With these solutions we are able to get information of the dual quantum gauge theory at all energy scales. So far two SUGRA backgrounds were found:

* The Maldacena-Nu$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{n}}`$ez (MN) solutionMN01 : It corresponds to a large ($`N`$) number of D5-branes wrapped on a supersymmetric two-cycle inside a Calabi-Yau threefold. It is dual to pure $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM.
* The Klebanov-Strassler-Tseytlin (KST) solution KT00 ; KS00 : It describes the geometry of the warped deformed conifold when one places M D3-branes and N fractional D3-branes at the apex of the conifold. It is dual to a certain $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N+M)\times SU(M)`$ gauge theory. If $`M`$ is a multiple of $`N`$, then this theory flows to $`SU(N)`$ in the IR, via a chain of duality cascade which reduces the rank of the gauge group by $`N`$ units at each cascade jump. Thus at the end of the duality cascade the gauge theory is effectively pure $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM.

The verification on the above gauge/gravity duality is to perform calculations for correlation functions in terms of the SUGRA duals, in particular for Green functions in the non-conformal case. Since the KST solution is asymptotically AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times X^5`$ in the UV, where $`X^5`$ is an Einstein manifold, the extension to KST solution is directKras02 . That is the classical action of SUGRA is identified with the generating function of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM at the large $`N`$ limit and bulk field/boundary operator correspondence is established via solving the SUGRA equations of motion of bulk field $`\varphi (x,r)`$ subject to boundary conditions in the UV, i.e., for $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`\varphi (x,r)=r^\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _0(x)`$ where $`r`$ is radial of the asymptotic AdS space, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is related to (mass) dimension of the boundary operator. The extension to MN solution, however, has to be re-examined since MN solution is no longer asymptotic to AdS. MN background can be treated as a domain wall solution of a truncated $`d=7`$ gauge supergravityCLP00 ; DLM02  and this $`d=7`$ gauged supergravity is obtained by compactification of IIB supergravity on $`S^3`$. Thus the partition function of IIB superstring in the MN background can naturally be identified with the generating function of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM. At large $`N`$ limit we can identify the classical SUGRA action in the MN background with the generating function of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM. The bulk field/boundary operator correspondence is also established via similar method as in KST solution. Because the transverse space of MN background is parameterized as $`S^2\times S^3`$ respectively in UV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is determined by two parameters which are eigenvalues of the spherical harmonic functions on $`S^2`$ and on $`S^3`$. Meanwhile $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in KST solution is determined by the mass $`m`$ of the bulk field in AdS5.

When we try to extend gauge/graivity duality beyond the conformally invariant case with maximal supersymmetry a well-known problem is that fluctuation equations on those complicated background can not be strictly solved. It prevents us from extracting enough information about the Green functions. In general there are two kinds of useful information included in Green functions from their SUGRA dual description. One is the singular behavior of the Green function which can be used to directly check the duality between SYM and their SUGRA dual. For KST solution it was partially discussed in ref.Kras02 . Another one is the structure of counter-terms of the Green function from which we can obtain information of the renormalization group. In Ref.WH02  we have shown that it can be extracted even though we only got near-boundary asymptotic solution of the fluctuation equation. In other words with those asymptotic solution and the UV/IR relationPP98  we can analyze the divergence structure of the Green function of SYM from their SUGRA dual. In particular the relation between the radial in SUGRA configuration and the energy scale in the dual gauge theory can in principle be established via comparing counter-terms of the Green functions calculated from SUGRA side and from SYM side respectively. In Ref.WH02  the $`𝒩=2`$ case was successfully studied. The purpose of the present paper is to study the structure of counter-terms of the Green functions and the consequent radial/energy-scale relation with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in the framework of both MN and KST background.

The radial/energy-scale relation is crucial in the study of gauge/gravity duality. For conformally invariant case this relation has been well establishedMald98 ; PP98 ; Relation . For non-conformally invariant theories it was suspected that to establish such a relation may be difficult for the relation maybe ambiguous. However at least for $`𝒩=2`$ case it was shown that such a relation can be unambiguously obtained via several different waysWH02 ; DLM02 . For $`𝒩=1`$ case although there are some complications many interesting results have been achieved: the authors of Ref.HKO01  extend radial/energy-scale relation to KST solution and show that it is right at the leading order. In Ref.ABCPZ01 , the leading order expression of radial/energy-scale relation in MN solution was also achieved via comparing $`\beta `$-functions calculated from both the SUGRA side and the field theory side. In particular the authors of Ref.DLM02  (DLM) suggested radial/energy-scale relation in $`𝒩=1`$ case can be completely established via considering the phenomena of gaugino condensation. In concrete they considered a scalar SUGRA field whose boundary value couples to a gaugino bi-linear form and they identified the scaling behavior of this field to the inverse of gaugino condensation. They have applied this idea to MN solution and obtain radial/energy scale relation for the MN solution and consequently obtain $`\beta `$-function for all loops. However in Ref.OS02  it was shown that DLM’s result is right at the leading order only and a correction has to be made to compensate the effect of gaugino condensation in order to get the right result for higher order. Surprisingly DLM’s idea has been applied to KST solutionIme02  and the right $`\beta `$-function for all orders was obtained.

In this paper, following the method shown in Ref.WH02 , we calculate one- and two-point Green functions of certain operators of SYM via their SUGRA dual descriptions. These results in general involve a large radial cut-off. It corresponds to UV cut-off in quantum field theory (QFT) calculation. Therefore we can investigate the divergence behavior of Green functions resulted from SUGRA and from QFT respectively and compare coefficients of these terms possessing same pole behavior. Then we will obtain a radial/energy-scale relation for this gauge/gravity correspondence. Of course the $`𝒩=1`$ case is very different from the $`𝒩=2`$ case. We will discuss those differences in section II and in section IV.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we consider the bilinear gaugino operator. We calculate gaugino condensation (one-point function) and two-point function of this operator for MN solution. We then extract radial/energy-scale relation for MN solution and calculate the $`\beta `$-function to check this relation. In section III the same steps will be performed for KST solution. However for KST solution we conveniently consider dimension four operator instead of the bilinear gaugino operator. In section IV we discuss some ambiguities when we try to exactly match results from SUGRA description with the one from QFT. We also devote a brief summary in this section.

## II Green Functions and Radial/Energy-Scale Relation for MN Solution

### II.1 The MN Solution

The MN solution can be obtained via finding a domain wall solution of a seven dimension gauge supergravity after truncating its $`SO(4)`$ gauge group to $`SU(2)`$DLM02 . This solution is parameterized by three dimensionless scalar functions $`k,g`$, and $`a`$. They are in general independent of the five transverse space dimensions whose geometry is $`S^3\times S^2`$. Therefore we can further compactify this truncated 7-d supergravity on $`S^2`$ and get a 5-d effective action

$`S=\eta {\displaystyle d^4x𝑑\rho }`$ $`e^{2k}\{`$ $`4_ik^ik2_ig^ig`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_ia^ia}{2}}e^{2g}+V\},`$
where the metric is $`g_{ij}=\eta _{ij}`$, $`\rho `$ is a dimensionless radial parameter, $`\eta \alpha ^2`$ and

$`V=4+2e^{2g}{\displaystyle \frac{(1a^2)^2}{4}}e^{4g}.`$ (2)
The MN solution is obtained by assuming that functions $`k,g`$, and $`a`$ depend on $`\rho `$ only. Explicitly we read off this solution in the ten-dimensional string frame metric MN01 ; DLM02 ; CV97

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }\left[dx_{1,3}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2g}}{\lambda ^2}}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}d\rho ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(w^a{\displaystyle \frac{A^a}{\lambda }})^2\right],`$
$`e^{2g}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{coth}2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^22\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (3)
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k2g}=ce^g\mathrm{sinh}2\rho ,a={\displaystyle \frac{2\rho }{\mathrm{sinh}2\rho }},`$
where $`\lambda ^2=Ng_s\alpha ^{}`$, $`c`$ are integral constants, $`w^a`$ parameterizes the 3-sphere, and gauge field $`A_a`$ are written as

$`A^1=\lambda ad\theta ,A^2=\lambda a\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi ,A^3=\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi .`$
The value of the Yang-Mills coupling is given in terms of the volume of the sphere $`S^2`$ byDLM02

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Vol}_{S^2}}{g_{D_6}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{16\pi ^2}}Y(\rho )E\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Y(\rho )1}{Y(\rho )}}}\right),`$ (5)
where the function $`Y`$ is defined as

$`Y(\rho )=4e^{2g}+a^2=4\rho \mathrm{coth}2\rho 1,`$ (6)
and $`E`$ is a complete elliptic integral

$`E(k)={\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}𝑑x\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2x}.`$ (7)
### II.2 Green functions and radial/energy scale relation

In the $`𝒩=2`$ case we studied Green functions of dimension four operator, $`𝒪_4(x)=Tr(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{})`$, which couples to fluctuation of gauge coupling. However it is difficult to consider similar operator for the MN solution. The reason is that the gauge coupling $`g_{YM}^2`$ is a complicated nonlinear function of fields $`g`$ and $`a`$. Because of this it is very hard to identify fluctuation of gauge coupling to one of the dynamical fields $`k,g`$ or $`a`$. Consequently the fluctuation equation corresponding to the above operator can not be derived. Fortunately it is well-known that the field $`a`$ directly couples to gaugino bilinear operatorHKO01 ,

$`𝒪_3(x)=Tr\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x).`$ (8)
Therefore it is convenient to calculate Green functions of $`𝒪_3(x)`$.

Let us consider the fluctuation of $`a`$ in background (II.1),

$`a(x,\rho )\overline{a}(\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi (x,\rho )}{\lambda }},`$ (9)
where $`\overline{a}(\rho )`$ is a background solution in Eq. (II.1),

$`\phi (x,\rho )=s(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipx}}`$ (10)
is the fluctuation normalized to $`s(\rho \mathrm{})=1`$ at the boundary. The field equation for this fluctuation reads off

$`\ddot{s}`$ $`+`$ $`2(\dot{k}\dot{g})\dot{s}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}})s+e^{2g}(m3a^2)s`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`2\overline{a}(\dot{\delta k}\dot{\delta g})\overline{a}(1\overline{a}^2)e^{2\delta g}=0,`$
where dot denotes differential on $`\rho `$, $`\delta k`$ and $`\delta g`$ are fluctuations of fields $`k`$, and $`g`$ respectively and the constants $`m`$ and $`n`$ are associated to eigenvalues of the spherical harmonic functions of $`S^2`$ and $`S^3`$ respectively.

The one-point function of $`𝒪_3`$ or the gaugino condensation depends on normalization of fluctuations yet it is independent of the explicit expression of fluctuation. Taking cut-off $`\rho _0\mathrm{}`$ at a region near the boundary we easily get

$`<Tr\overline{\psi }\psi >={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\lambda }}e^{2k2g}\dot{a}|_{\rho =\rho _0}={\displaystyle \frac{c\eta }{\lambda }}\rho _0^{1/2}+O(\rho _0^{1/2})`$ (12)
The gaugino condensation of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM has been computed in terms of quantum field theory methods in different schemes Shifman99 ; DHKM99 ; HKLM00 . In the Pauli-Villars scheme it is

$`<Tr\overline{\psi }\psi >_{\mathrm{QFT}}=\mathrm{Const}.{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3e^{\frac{8\pi ^2}{Ng_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}},`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an UV cut-off of QFT. In addition for large $`\rho `$ the gauge coupling is approximately

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{Ng_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}=\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{ln}\rho +c+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\rho }{\rho }}).`$ (14)
It implies that the large $`\rho `$ limit corresponds to weak ’t Hooft coupling limit of the gauge theory and it agrees with asymptotic freedom of the $`𝒩=1`$ pure SYM. Using Eq. (14), the gaugino condensation (12) can be rewritten as

$`<Tr\overline{\psi }\psi >_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2c\eta }{\lambda N}}\rho _0^{3/8}e^{2\rho _0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}e^{\frac{8\pi ^2}{Ng_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`Zl_0^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}e^{\frac{8\pi ^2}{Ng_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}},`$
where we define a new radial variable $`l^3=c\lambda ^3\rho ^{3/8}e^{2\rho }`$ and take cut-off $`l=l_0`$. The constants $`Z`$ and $`l`$ are independent of $`\alpha ^{}`$. Comparing Eqs. (13) with (15) we have

$`l_0^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^3.`$ (16)
Now let both the radial and the momentum flow away from their cut-off point we obtain radial/energy-scale relation for the MN solution

$`\rho ^{3/8}e^{2\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^3}{M^3}},`$ (17)
where $`M`$ is a definite energy scale.

In order to calculate the two-point function of $`𝒪_3`$ we have to solve Eq. (11) explicitly. However equation (11) does not have an explicit analytic solution. Actually for our purpose we do not need the full analytic solution we only need asymptotic solution of fluctuation close to the boundary (or large $`\rho `$). Notice that both $`\delta k`$ and $`e^{\delta g}`$ are normalized at the boundary, i.e., $`\delta ke^{\delta g}1`$ for $`\rho \rho _0`$ and $`\overline{a}e^{2\rho }`$. Then up to $`O(e^{2\rho }),s`$ is decoupled from $`\delta k`$ and $`\delta g`$. Therefore for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ the field equation (11) is approximately

$`\ddot{s}+(2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho }})\dot{s}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\rho }})s=0.`$ (18)
The asymptotic solution of fluctuation field is

$`\phi (x,\rho )`$ $`\stackrel{\rho \mathrm{}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G(\rho )}{G(\rho _0)}}e^{ipx}`$
$`G(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\lambda _i\rho ^{\frac{a_i2m}{4(a_i+1)}}e^{a_i\rho },`$ (19)
with constants $`\lambda _i`$ and

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`1+\sqrt{1+n+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}},`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`1\sqrt{1+n+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}}.`$ (20)
In general $`\lambda _i`$ are not constants but are functions of $`p^2/\lambda ^2`$Kras02 . As we will see in eq. (24), however, $`\lambda _i`$ do not contribute to two-point Green function when we take cut-off to infinity. Because of this we will conveniently treat $`\lambda _i`$ as constants.

Because the operator $`𝒪_3`$ is protected at quantum correction we expect fluctuation field $`\phi `$ to be (mass) dimension one. In terms of radial/energy-scale relation (17) it implies

$`a_1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}),{\displaystyle \frac{a_12m}{4(a_1+1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}),`$ (21)
with

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},n={\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}},`$ (22)
and $`a_2=\frac{8}{3}+O(p^2/\lambda ^2)`$. The solution (II.2) is simplified to

$`G(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1\rho ^{\frac{1}{8}}e^{2\rho /3}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{27}{500}}\mathrm{ln}\rho )`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`O(e^{10\rho /3})+O(p^4/\lambda ^4)).`$
Now let us check contribution from fluctuation fields $`\delta k`$ and $`\delta g`$. As discussed previously we should add $`O(e^{2\rho })`$ terms in $`G(\rho )`$ if we consider their contribution. These terms are $`O(e^{8\rho /3})`$ comparing with the leading order of $`G(\rho )`$ and therefor we can consistently ignore those terms.

Using solution (II.2) and (23) the two-point function is

$`<𝒪_3(p)𝒪_3(q)>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.+\delta ^4(p+q){\displaystyle \frac{3c\eta }{20\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}}+O(p^4/\lambda ^4)\right)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{50\rho _0}})\rho _0^{1/2}e^{2\rho _0}+O(e^{2\rho _0/3})`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.+\delta ^4(p+q)p^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}Z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{\lambda ^3}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{50}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{M^2}})^1]+O(p^4/\lambda ^4)+O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$
From this result we see that there are no finite terms in two-point function of $`𝒪_3`$. At low energy $`O(p^4)`$ terms are suppressed by $`\alpha ^{}`$. Then only $`p^2`$ terms survive. The above result is important: it implies that gauginos is a dynamical composite field, like quarks composed by mesons in QCD.

### II.3 Further discussions

Using Eqs. (14) and (17) we obtain $`\beta `$-function of pure $`𝒩=1`$ SYM

$`\beta (g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}})={\displaystyle \frac{3N}{16\pi ^2}}g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^3[1+{\displaystyle \frac{Ng_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}{16\pi ^2}}+O(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^4)].`$ (25)
On the other hand the $`\beta `$-functions obtained by field theory method (NSVZ) NSVZ  is

$`\beta (g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}})_{\mathrm{NSVZ}}={\displaystyle \frac{3N}{16\pi ^2}}g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^3[1{\displaystyle \frac{Ng_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}{8\pi ^2}}]^1.`$ (26)
The leading order term of the expression (25) ($`g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^3`$) precisely agree with result of field theory. The sub-leading order terms, however, does not match with the result of NSVZ. This is a puzzle of our results. We will see that similar results also appear for the KST solution. In section IV we will discuss several possible solutions for this puzzle.

Another important issue shown in this section is how to establish field/operator correspondence for the MN solution. For the sake of convenience let us consider scalar field as an example: All scalar fields in 5-d bulk are distinguished by two eigenvalues of the spherical harmonic functions of the transverse space $`S^2\times S^3`$ in the UV. It is different from AdS/CFT correspondence that only one eigenvalue generate “mass” of bulk field here we need both eigenvalues to determine the scaling behavior of bulk field in the UV. This scaling behavior associates with (mass) dimension of the dual operator of the boundary quantum field theory. Therefore field/operator correspondence can be unambiguously established via correspondence between (mass) dimension of operator and eigenvalues of the spherical harmonic functions of the transverse space $`S^2\times S^3`$.

## III Green Functions and Radial/Energy-Scale Relation for the KST Solution

### III.1 The KST solution

The KST solution is proposed to be dual of $`𝒩=1`$ pure SYM with gauge group $`SU(N+M)\times SU(M)`$. It is realized via placing $`M`$ D3-branes and $`N`$ fractional D3-branes on the conifold KW99 . If $`M`$ is a multiple of $`N`$ then this theory flows to $`SU(N)`$ in the IR via a chain of duality cascade which reduces the rank of the gauge group by $`N`$ units at each cascade jump. Thus at the end of the duality cascade the gauge theory is effectively the $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(N)`$ pure SYM. It was shown in KS00  that in order to remove the naked singularity found in KT00  the conifold have to be replaced by the deformed one. The 10-d metric in the string frame takes “D-brane” form:

$`ds_{10}^2=h^{1/2}(\tau )dx_ndx_n+h^{1/2}(\tau )ds_6^2,`$ (27)
where $`\tau `$ is the radial parameter of the transverse space. $`ds_6^2`$ is the metric of the deformed conifoldDC ,

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{4/3}K(\tau )[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3K^3(\tau )}}(d\tau ^2+(g^5)^2)`$ (28)
$`+\mathrm{cosh}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{4}{}}}(g^i)^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(g^i)^2]`$
where $`ϵ`$ is a parameter with length dimension $`3/2`$, $`K(\tau )`$ is given by

$`K(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{sinh}(2\tau )2\tau )^{1/3}}{2^{1/3}\mathrm{sinh}\tau }},`$ (29)
and the 1-form basis $`g^i`$ is defined as follows

$`g^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta _2),`$
$`g^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta _2),`$
$`g^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\varphi _2+\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta _2),`$
$`g^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(d\theta _1+\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\varphi _2+\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta _2),`$
$`g^5`$ $`=`$ $`d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2.`$ (30)
For the KST solution the type IIB SUGRA fields NS-NS 2-form $`B2`$, R-R 2-form $`C_2`$ and the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are excited. The simplest ansatz for the 2-form fields is

$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_sN\alpha ^{}}{2}}[f(\tau )g^1g^2+\kappa (\tau )g^3g^4],`$ (31)
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N\alpha ^{}}{2}}\{g^5g^3g^4+d[F(\tau )(g^1g^3+g^2g^4)]\},`$
with boundary condition $`F(0)=0`$ and $`F(\mathrm{})=1/2`$. The self-dual 5-form field strength may be decomposed as $`\stackrel{~}{F}_5=_5+`$,

$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`B_2F_3={\displaystyle \frac{g_sN\alpha ^2}{4}}l(\tau )g^1g^2g^3g^4g^5,`$
$`l(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`f(1F)+\kappa F.`$ (32)
Writing the dilation field as

$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\phi }=g_se^\phi ,`$ (33)
and define

$`\alpha =4(g_sN\alpha ^{})^2ϵ^{8/3},`$ (34)
the type IIB SUGRA field equations can be rewritten as follows

$`2h{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(e^\phi h^1F^{})+e^\phi (1F)\mathrm{tanh}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})e^\phi F\mathrm{coth}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})=\alpha (\kappa f){\displaystyle \frac{l}{K^2h\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau }},`$
$`h{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(e^\phi h^1\mathrm{coth}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})f^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\phi (f\kappa )=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{l(1F)}{K^2h\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau }},`$
$`h{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(e^\phi h^1\mathrm{tanh}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}})\kappa ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\phi (f\kappa )=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{lF}{K^2h\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau }},`$
$`^2\phi ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8}}ϵ^{4/3}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1F)^2e^\phi \kappa ^2e^\phi }{\mathrm{cosh}^4(\frac{\tau }{2})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F^2e^\phi f^2e^\phi }{\mathrm{sinh}^4(\frac{\tau }{2})}}+8{\displaystyle \frac{F^2e^\phi (f\kappa )^2e^\phi }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau }}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(h^{}K^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(1F)^2e^\phi \kappa ^2e^\phi }{\mathrm{cosh}^4(\frac{\tau }{2})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F^2e^\phi f^2e^\phi }{\mathrm{sinh}^4(\frac{\tau }{2})}}+8{\displaystyle \frac{F^2e^\phi (f\kappa )^2e^\phi }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau }}\}.`$
Setting $`\phi =0`$ we get the KST solution:

$`F(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\tau \tau }{2\mathrm{sinh}\tau }},`$
$`f(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau \mathrm{coth}\tau 1}{2\mathrm{sinh}\tau }}(\mathrm{cosh}\tau 1),`$
$`\kappa (\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau \mathrm{coth}\tau 1}{2\mathrm{sinh}\tau }}(\mathrm{cosh}\tau +1),`$ (36)
$`h(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2/3}}{4}}\alpha {\displaystyle _\tau ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{coth}x1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2x}}(\mathrm{sinh}(2x)2x)^{1/3}.`$
It should be pointed out that $`f`$ and $`\kappa `$ can be shifted by the same constant. It yields the singular behavior of the metric for small $`\tau `$KS00 .

### III.2 Green functions

Since NS-NS 2-form is turned on in the KST solution the gauge coupling of dual SYM is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}g_{D3}^2}}{\displaystyle d^2\xi \sqrt{det(G_{ij}+Bij)}}.`$ (37)
In the present case for D5-branes wrapped on the vanishing $`S^2`$ one has $`G=0`$. From Eq. (III.1) and (31) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{4\pi ^2}}\kappa (\tau ).`$ (38)
Therefore we will consider Green functions of the following operator

$`𝒪_4(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })+Tr(\overline{\psi }/D\psi ).`$ (39)
In terms of AdS/CFT correspondence it requires us to solve fluctuation equation of $`\kappa `$. From Eq. (III.1) however we can see that functions $`\kappa ,f,F`$ and $`\phi `$ are not independent from each other. Then we have to solve simultaneous equations of all fluctuations $`\delta \kappa ,\delta f,\delta F`$ and $`\delta \phi `$. The fluctuation equations do not admit full analytic solutions. We again consider near-boundary (or large $`\tau `$) solution only. In the following all of our discussions and calculations should be treated at large $`\tau `$ limit if we do not stay otherwise.

Conveniently we assume that the fluctuation $`\delta F`$ vanishes (in the following we can see this assumption is a consistent one). Because $`e^{\delta \phi }`$ should be normalized at the boundary, i.e., $`e^{\delta \phi }1`$ for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, the fluctuation equations can be expanded to the first linear order for large $`\tau `$. From the fourth equation of Eq. (III.1) we get

$`^2\delta \phi \alpha ϵ^{4/3}e^{2\tau }[\delta \phi (\delta \kappa )^{}(\delta f)^{})+O(e^{4\tau }].`$ (40)
Then noticing $`\delta \kappa `$ and $`\delta f`$ are also normalized at the boundary we have

$`\delta \phi \stackrel{\tau \mathrm{}}{}P(\tau )e^{2\tau }+O(e^{4\tau }),`$ (41)
where $`P(\tau )`$ is a polynomial function of $`\tau `$. Using Eq. (41) we find that the left side of fluctuation equation yielded from the first equation of (III.1) is of order $`e^{2\tau }`$. Meanwhile the right side of this equation is proportional to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}(f\delta f\kappa \delta \kappa )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau ^2}}(f^2\kappa ^2)\delta h.`$ (42)
Because $`f\kappa e^\tau `$ up to $`O(e^\tau )`$ we may set $`\delta f=\delta \kappa =y(x,\tau )`$. Then fluctuation equation yielded from the last equation of (III.1) reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}[(\delta h)^{}e^{4\tau /3}]\alpha y^{}.`$ (43)
Again, recalling $`y^{}O(1/\tau )`$, we have $`\delta hO(e^{4\tau /3}/\tau )`$. Finally, up to $`O(e^\tau )`$, we obtain the fluctuation equation on $`y`$ ($`\delta \kappa `$) as follows

$`h{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(h^1y^{})+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\tau e^{2\tau /3}_m^my=(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\tau }})y,`$ (44)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=2^{10/3}ϵ^{4/3}\alpha `$ and mass $`m`$ is related to eigenvalues of the Laplace equation on $`X^5=T^{1,1}`$.

We are considering a (mass) dimension four operator. As in AdS/CFT correspondence the scaling behavior of $`y(x,\tau )`$ in the UV requires $`m=0`$. Then asymptotic solution of Eq. (44) is

$`y(x,\tau )\stackrel{\tau \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{G(\tau )}{G(\tau _0)}}e^{ipx},`$
$`G(\tau )=[\tau {\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}+O(1/\tau )]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }p^2[\tau ^3+O(\tau ^2)]e^{2\tau /3}`$
$`+O(p^4e^{4\tau /3}),`$ (45)
where $`\tau _0\mathrm{}`$ is a cut-off.

The 5-d action can be obtained via compactifing type IIB SUGAR on $`(g^1,\mathrm{},g^5)`$. In particular only terms involving derivatives of $`\tau `$ contribute to one- and two-point functions:

$`S_5=\eta {\displaystyle d^4x𝑑\tau \frac{1}{\tau }e^{4\tau /3}\kappa ^2}+\mathrm{},`$ (46)
where $`\eta N^2/\alpha ^2`$. Then the one-point function of $`𝒪_4`$ is

$`<𝒪_4>=2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _0}}e^{4\tau _0/3},`$ (47)
and the two-point function is

$`<𝒪_4(p)𝒪_4(q)>`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\eta \stackrel{~}{\alpha }[1+O(1/\tau _0)]e^{2\tau _0/3}p^2\delta ^4(p+q)`$
$`+\lambda _1\eta \stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2\tau _0^2p^4\delta ^4(p+q)+O(\alpha ^{}p^6),`$
where $`\lambda _1`$ is a constant.

### III.3 Radial/energy relation and anomalous dimension

For large $`\tau `$ we may introduce another radial coordinate $`r`$ via $`r=ϵ^{2/3}e^{\tau /3}`$KS00 . Noticing $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(g_sN\alpha ^{})^2ϵ^{4/3}`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{8\pi ^2}}(\tau 2),\tau \mathrm{},`$ (49)
the two-point function in Eq. (48) can be rewritten as

$`<𝒪_4(p)𝒪_4(q)>`$ (50)
$``$ $`(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N)^2\delta ^4(p+q)[Z_1\mathrm{ln}r_0(\mathrm{ln}r_0+C)r_0^2p^2`$
$`+Z_2\alpha ^{}ϵ^{8/3}(\mathrm{ln}r_0)^4p^4],`$
where $`r_00`$ is a cut-off, $`Z_1`$, $`Z_2`$ and $`C`$ are constants independent of $`\alpha ^{}`$. Meanwhile the two-point function is easy to compute at the leading order by perturbative method of quantum field theory,

$`<𝒪_4(p)𝒪_4(q)>`$ $``$ $`(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N)^2[a_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+a_1p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ (51)
$`+a_2p^4\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mathrm{}]\delta ^4(p+q).`$
Comparing $`p^2`$ terms in Eqs. (48) and in (51) we obtain the radial/energy-scale relation

$`\mathrm{ln}\mu /M={\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{3}}+\mathrm{ln}\tau +\mathrm{constant}.`$ (52)
From Eqs. (52) and (49) we have the following $`\beta `$-function

$`\beta (g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}})={\displaystyle \frac{3N}{16\pi ^2}}g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^3[1{\displaystyle \frac{3N}{8\pi ^2}}g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2+O(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^4)].`$ (53)
Similar as for MN solution we only recover the leading order term of NSVZ $`\beta `$-function. The sub-leading order terms, unfortunately, is very different from that of NSVZ $`\beta `$-function. In the next section we will show that there are some ambiguities which makes it impossible to exactly determine the radial/energy scale relation beyond leading order in terms of the above method.

Another puzzle is related to the $`p^4`$ term of two-point functions. First we see that the $`p^4`$ term yielded from SUGRA description (Eq. (50)) is suppressed by $`\alpha ^{}`$ but not suppressed from field theoretical method (Eq. (51)). In fact it indicates that $`ϵ^{8/3}\alpha ^{}`$. For KST solution the singularity of the conifold is removed through the blowing-up of the $`S^3`$ of $`T^{1,1}`$. The length of $`S^3`$ is parameterized by $`ϵ`$. Therefore $`ϵ^{8/3}\alpha ^{}`$ means that the 3-sphere is very small. Recalling $`r_0\mathrm{\Lambda }/M`$ the $`p^4`$ term yielded by SUGRA description is proportional to $`(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2)^4`$. However, the one obtained from perturbative calculation of QFT is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2`$. In the next section, we will show that, the Green functions yielded from SUGRA description represent non-perturbative results of QFT. It must correct the perturbative results of QFT.

In addition, there is a very interesting result hiding in the solution (III.2): The dimensions of $`𝒪_4`$ requires that the leading order function $`G(\tau )`$ should be a constant. However it is not true. From eqs. (III.2), (49) and (52) we see that the scaling behavior of $`G(\tau )`$ is

$`G1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\tau _0}}\mathrm{ln}\mu \mu ^{\frac{3g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N}{8\pi ^2}}.`$ (54)
It indicates that $`𝒪_4`$ has anomalous dimension

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{3g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N}{8\pi ^2}}.`$ (55)
In principle this method can be generalized to calculate anomalous dimensions of any operators.

## IV Discussion

In the previous two sections we have obtained counter-terms of some Green functions and $`\beta `$-function of $`𝒩=1`$ pure SYM from their SUGRA dual description. However there are some mismatchs between the results from SUGRA description and those from perturbative calculations of QFT. In order to explain these mismatchs we should first ask:

* Are MN solution or KST solution exactly dual to $`𝒩=1`$ SYM at large N limit?
* Is the classical action of SUGRA exactly equal to the generation function of SYM at large N limit?

In the case of SUGRA part with maximum supersymmetry and the gauge theory part conformally invariant the answer should be unambiguous. In the case of SUGRA part with less supersymmetry and the gauge theory part not conformally invariant, however, it is still very difficult to answer these questions thus far. It requires more careful studies on this type gauge/gravity duality. In the conformally invariant case we knew that the property of weak/strong duality prevents us to directly check AdS/CFT correspondence. The same difficulty also appears our investigation. It induces ambiguity when we study the divergence structure of Green functions.

In order to illustrate this ambiguity, let us assume that the gauge/gravity duality is exact at large $`N`$ limit for MN solution or KST solution. It is unambiguous that the SUGRA description reproduces non-perturbative results of QFT. In indicates that the Green functions obtained from SUGRA description should contain all order terms of perturbative calculation of QFT. Usually the high orders can be ignored at weak ’t Hooft coupling limit. It is not true for the divergence part because higher orders of ’t Hooft coupling are more divergent than lower order. Let us consider KST solution as an example. Recalling $`\tau _0\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2`$ Eq. (49) indicates $`(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/M^2`$ fixed. The perturbative calculation of QFT tells us that the most divergence part of two-point function of $`𝒪_4`$ has the following form

$`<𝒪_4(p)𝒪_4(q)>{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N)^{(n+2)}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2}})^n(a_np^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+b_np^4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2}}+\mathrm{})\delta ^4(p+q).`$ (56)
This implies contributions of every order are equally important! Of course it is impossible to sum over all order contributions in terms of perturbative method of QFT. This is a potential origin of mismatchs mentioned above. However we see that the structure of $`p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ in two-point Green function of $`𝒪_4`$ is universal. We then obtain the right leading order result on $`\beta `$-function. It implies that the SUGRA solution should include right one-loop effect of dual SYM at least but the mismatch between Eq. (50) and (51) implies the SUGRA solution must include many higher loop effects of dual SYM.

In order to further understand the above ambiguity, we should notice that the divergence terms in Green functions is unphysical, i.e., it has to be subtracted via renormalization procedure. But this procedure introduces an extra freedom of energy scale described by the renormalization group equation. We can in general assume that $`p^2`$ terms in two-point functions $`G^{(2)}(p)`$ of any operator $`𝒪`$ have the following form,

$`G^{(2)}(p^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })_{\mathrm{QFT}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2N)^{(n+m)}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})^na_np^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,`$
$`G^{(2)}(p^2,\tau _0)_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}`$ $``$ $`Z_1P(\tau _0)e^{a\tau _0}p^2,`$ (57)
where $`\tau `$ is related to the radial parameter of SUGRA configuration, $`\tau _0\mathrm{}`$ is a cut-off, and $`P(\tau _0)=\tau _0^l+\mathrm{}`$ is a polynomial function of $`\tau _0`$.

Now let both cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\tau _0`$ have small changes, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }b\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\tau _0\tau _0+c`$ with $`|b1|<<1`$ and $`|c|<<1`$. It should be careful that $`g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}`$ in $`G^{(2)}(p)_{\mathrm{QFT}}`$ is also affected by a rescaling of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This effect can be simply captured via treating $`g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}`$ as energy scale dependent, i.e., $`g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}=g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}(\nu _0)`$, and $`\nu _0b\nu _0`$. When cut-offs are removed we expect to exactly match the results obtained from SUGRA and QFT respectively. In other words we should have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G^{(2)}(p^2,b\mathrm{\Lambda })_{\mathrm{QFT}}}{G^{(2)}(p^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })_{\mathrm{QFT}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{G^{(2)}(p^2,\tau _0+c)_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}}{G^{(2)}(p^2,\tau _0)_{\mathrm{SUGRA}}}}`$ (58)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}[g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2(b\nu _0)N]^{(n+m)}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}+\mathrm{ln}b^2)^na_n}{_{n^{}=0}^{\mathrm{}}[g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2(\nu _0)N]^{(n^{}+m)}(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2})^na_n^{}}}b^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\tau _0+c)}{P(\tau _0)}}e^{ac}.`$
Using result of renormalization group, we can write

$`g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2(b\nu _0)=g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2(\nu _0)(1+\beta _0g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^2(\nu _0)\mathrm{ln}b^2+O(g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^4(\nu _0)),`$ (59)
where $`\beta _0`$ is defined by $`\beta `$-function

$$\beta =\beta _0g_{_{\mathrm{YM}}}^3+\mathrm{}.$$

Then the second line of Eq. (58) is rewritten as

$`b^2(1+wg^2(\nu _0)\mathrm{ln}b^2),`$
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_na_n(N/s_0)^n[(n+m)\beta _0+ns_0]}{_n^{}a_n^{}(N/s_0)^n^{}}}.`$ (60)
Here we have used the relation $`s_0g^2(\nu _0)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m^21`$ and $`s_0`$ depends on SUGRA solution. For MN solution, $`\rho _0\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/m`$, then Eq. (II.2) gives $`s_0=\frac{N}{8\pi ^2}`$. For KST solution, $`\tau _03\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/m`$, then Eq. (49) tells us $`s_0=\frac{3N}{16\pi ^2}`$. Let $`b=\mu /m`$ we can produce a freedom of energy scale, and $`c`$ should be related to radial parameter of SUGRA solutions (named “$`\tau `$”). Then we obtain the radial/energy-scale relation as follows

$`c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}(1+wg^2(\nu _0){\displaystyle \frac{l}{a\tau _0}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}.`$ (61)
For MN solution, unfortunately , w is not computable so that we can not obtain radial/energy-scale relation beyond the leading order. It just reflects the ambiguity mentioned above.

The ambiguity, however, still exists even though Eq. (IV) is computable (e.g., for KST solution). The difficulty is how to exactly determine the relation between $`c`$ and $`\tau `$. There are two natural conditions: $`c(\tau =\tau _0)=0`$ and $`dc/d\tau (\tau \mathrm{})=1`$, but they are not sufficient to fix the relation between $`c`$ and $`\tau `$ beyond leading order for finite cut-off. For example, the relation $`c=(1+x/\tau _0)(\tau \tau _0)`$ is allowed, but $`x`$ is an unknown constant.

In conclusion: We have discussed field/operator correspondence in gauge/gravity duality in the MN and the KST background. In terms of this correspondence the counter-terms of some one- and two-point Green functions of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM have been studied via their SUGRA dual solution. Although we can only obtain asymptotical solution of fluctuation equations it is sufficient to determine some information of the renormalization group equation of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM. In particular the leading order behavior of $`\beta `$-function and anomalous dimension of $`𝒪_4`$ are obtained. However some ambiguities appear when we want to obtain information beyond the leading order. It was shown that the extra constrains are needed to fix these ambiguities. It indicates that we need to obtain full analytical solutions instead of an asymptotical solutions of the fluctuation equations. This suggests more studies are needed to check whether the MN solution or the KST solution are exactly dual to $`𝒩=1`$ SYM.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. D. Martelli, J. X. Lu and Ch. J. Zhu for useful discussions and comments.


text:
# A 2 rebit gate universal for quantum computing

## Abstract

We show, within the circuit model, how any quantum computation can be efficiently performed using states with only real amplitudes (a result known within the Quantum Turing Machine model). This allows us to identify a 2-qubit (in fact 2-rebit) gate which is universal for quantum computing, although it cannot be used to perform arbitrary unitary transformations.

Performing universal quantum computation is generally equated with the ability to build up arbitrary unitary transformations acting on $`n`$ qubits, out of a set of unitary transformations that act on a small number of qubits at a time. Deutsch deutsch  originally presented a single 3 qubit universal quantum gate from which all $`n`$ qubit unitary transformations could be built. It was subsequently shown that two qubit gates suffice divincenzo .111While this was surprising from a computer science perspective (because universal reversible classical computing provably requires a three bit gate), it would have been distressing from a physicist’s perspective had it been otherwise \- all fundamental physical interactions are of a “two-body” form!

In general, when evaluating a new proposal for implementing quantum computation, the standard procedure is to check whether one can perform (i) a controlled-NOT (CNOT) operation between two qubits, and (ii) arbitrary single qubit unitary transformations. If so, then universal quantum computing is certainly possible. Recently some beautiful ideas for implementing quantum computation by performing measurements on appropriate states have been presented raussendorf . However the general principle of proving universality in accordance with the ability to obtain evolution corresponding to (i) and (ii) has still been followed.

The ability to perform a CNOT and arbitrary single qubit gates allows one to evolve an $`n`$ qubit state to any point in the Hilbert space, i.e. it allows the construction of arbitrary unitary transforms. However it has been shown within the Quantum Turing Machine model that universal quantum computing can be performed using only *real* amplitudes adleman .

The Quantum Turing Machine model is not particularly intuitive for either thinking about construction of a practical quantum computer, nor for design of quantum algorithms. The purpose of this note is to point out how any quantum computation can be simply translated into a quantum circuit in which all quantum states and gates are real. In particular we will show that the following two qubit gate (written in the computational basis) is universal for quantum computing:

$$G=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is some irrational multiple of $`\pi `$. Note that this gate does *not* allow arbitrary unitary operations to be performed, as can be easily deduced from the fact that the matrix entries are real - and thus it can only produce superpositions of states with real amplitudes. In other words, such a gate cannot in fact evolve us through much, in fact most, of an $`n`$ qubit hilbert space.

In addition to the ability to perform a gate $`G`$, we need the standard assumption that the qubits can be prepared initially in the computational basis. Generally one assumes they can be prepared in the state $`|0`$, however we will assume here that they can be prepared in the state $`|1`$. This means that by using an ancilla in the state $`|1`$ as the control bit, we can implement the single qubit gate $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \mathrm{cos}\varphi \end{array}\right)`$ by implementing $`G`$.

The choice of $`\varphi `$ to be an irrational multiple of $`\pi `$ is well known to allow us (by a polynomial number of repeated applications) to efficiently approximate the gate

$$F(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
for any desired value of $`\theta `$. Our goal therefore is to show that a gate of the form $`F(\theta )`$ suffices for universal quantum computation.222In fact the the use of irrational numbers here is not strictly necessary, following the argument of adleman  certain rational numbers will suffice.

We begin by showing how any quantum computation which uses complex amplitudes, can be replaced by one which is as efficient (in the complexity theoretic sense), but which makes use of only real amplitudes. Imagine the standard quantum algorithm involves the creation at some point of the state:

$$|\psi =\underset{j}{}r_je^{i\theta _j}|j.$$
(3)
If we introduce an ancilla 2-level qubit, the orthonormal states of which we label $`|R`$ and $`|I`$, then an equivalent state for the purposes of quantum computing is

$$|\psi _E=\underset{j}{}r_j\mathrm{cos}\theta _j|j|R+r_j\mathrm{sin}\theta _j|j|I.$$
(4)
The purpose of the two-level “R-I” ancilla bit is to keep track of Real and Imaginary parts of the amplitudes which appear in (3). We will use the terminology that the state (4) is the *encoded form* of (3). Note that the probability of obtaining the state $`|j`$, upon a measurement in the computational basis, is $`r_j^2`$ for both $`|\psi `$ and $`|\psi _E`$, and of course the amplitudes of $`|\psi _E`$ are real.

We need to show that if an efficient algorithm is implemented such that our standard quantum computer now undergoes an evolution

$$|\psi |\psi ^{}=\underset{j}{}r_j^{}e^{i\theta _j^{}}|j,$$

then an efficient set of gates $`F(\theta )`$ can be found such that

$$|\psi _E|\psi _E^{}=\underset{j}{}r_j^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _j^{}|j|R+r_j^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _j^{}|j|I.$$

We begin by showing how to map arbitrary single qubit gates from the standard to the encoded form, using only $`F(\theta )`$ gates. In the standard form an arbitrary single qubit rotation can be performed using some combination of the gates

$$R_z(\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{ı\tau }\end{array}\right),R_y(\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\tau & \mathrm{sin}\tau \\ \mathrm{sin}\tau & \mathrm{cos}\tau \end{array}\right).$$

Consider the action of $`R_z(\tau )`$ on a single qubit state in standard form:

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`r_0e^{i\theta _0}|0+r_1e^{i\theta _1}|1`$
$``$ $`r_0e^{i\theta _0}|0+r_1e^{i(\theta _1+\tau )}|1.`$
The equivalent evolution in encoded form is

$`|\psi _E`$ $`=`$ $`r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|0|R+r_0\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|0|I`$
$`+`$ $`r_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1|1|R+r_1\mathrm{sin}\theta _1|1|I`$
$``$ $`r_0\mathrm{cos}\theta _0|0|R+r_0\mathrm{sin}\theta _0|0|I`$
$`+`$ $`r_1\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1+\tau )|1|R+r_1\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1+\tau )|1|I.`$
This evolution can be achieved by performing a 2-qubit gate $`F(\tau )`$, where the *target* qubit is the R-I ancilla. i.e. we control on the first qubit; in the standard encoding this would be the qubit upon which $`R_z(\tau )`$ acted.

If we now consider the action of $`R_y(\tau )`$ on a qubit in standard form, it is simple to see that exactly the same evolution can be achieved in encoded form by applying the same gate $`R_y(\tau )`$ to the equivalent qubit. (Use of the R-I ancilla is not necessary; this gate does not mix real and imaginary parts of amplitudes.) As mentioned previously, this gate can be implemented by $`F(\tau )`$.

Having seen how to map the action of arbitrary single qubit gates in a standard quantum computation to implementations of $`F(\theta )`$ on qubits in the encoded form, it remains to be shown that we can implement the encoded form of a non-trivial 2-qubit gate. Generally one chooses a controlled NOT gate, however we will use here the gate $`F(\pi /2)`$ (which combined with arbitrary single qubit rotations is universal for quantum computing in the standard form). Acting on two qubits in standard form, the gate $`F(\pi /2)`$ implements

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`r_0e^{i\theta _0}|00+r_1e^{i\theta _1}|01+r_2e^{i\theta _2}|10+r_3e^{i\theta _3}|11,`$
$``$ $`r_0e^{i\theta _0}|00+r_1e^{i\theta _1}|01+r_2e^{i\theta _2}|11r_3e^{i\theta _3}|10.`$
One can see by inspection that, applying the gate $`F(\pi /2)`$ in standard form is equivalent to applying it to the corresponding qubits in encoded form - use of the R-I ancilla is again unnecessary.

Thus, gates of the form $`F(\theta )`$ are universal for quantum computing, and, since they can be efficiently implemented by a gate $`G=F(\varphi )`$ for an appropriately chosen fixed $`\varphi `$, we see that the gate $`G`$ is universal for quantum computing within the circuit model, although it is clearly *not* universal for performing arbitrary unitary transforms. Such considerations may be useful for practical implementations, as well as for probing the more interesting questions about precisely where quantum computers gain their power and to what extent the standard complex Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics can actually be argued as necessary as opposed to merely sufficient.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Nielsen for pointers to the literature. This research was supported by the NSA & ARO under contract No. DAAG55-98-C-0040.