text:
# Thermal evolution of the chiral condensate in SU(2) and SU(3) Chiral Perturbation Theory.

## 1 Introduction

We review here our recent study of the thermal evolution of the chiral strange and non-strange condensates . Our motivation is the study of the the phase diagram of QCD at zero baryonic densities, which is a state that is expected to occur in the central rapidity regions of Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions. Our purpose is to obtain a model independent description of the condensate and its thermal evolution. To that aim we will turn to the virial expansion and to Chiral Perturbation Theory.

The virial expansion is a simple and successful approach to describe many thermodynamic features of dilute gases made of interacting pions  and other hadrons . Let us note that for most thermodynamic properties it is enough to know the low energy scattering phase shifts of the particles, which, in principle, could be taken from experiment, avoiding any model dependence. However, we are interested in the chiral symmetry restoration, whose order parameters are the quark condensates, which are defined as derivatives of the pressure with respect to the quark masses. These derivatives cannot be measured experimentally and therefore a model independent theoretical description of the scattering amplitudes mass dependence is required. That is why we need the second ingredient of our approach: Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) , which provides a model-independent and systematic description of low energy hadronic interactions. ChPT follows from the identification of the pions, kaons and the eta as the Goldstone Bosons of the QCD spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking (pseudo Goldstone bosons indeed, due to the small light-quark masses). Then, the ChPT Lagrangian is built as the most general derivative and mass expansion, over $`4\pi F1.2\text{GeV}`$, (the symmetry breaking scale) respecting the symmetry constraints. At one loop any calculation can be renormalized in terms of just an small set of parameters, $`L_k(\mu )`$, $`H_k(\mu )`$, ($`\mu `$ being the renormalization scale) which can be determined from a few experiments and used for further predictions.

In particular, within SU(2) ChPT the leading coefficients of the low temperature expansion for the pressure and the non-strange quark condensate have been calculated for a hadron gas whose only interacting hadrons were the pions . Adding other more massive particles (like kaons, etas, rhos, protons, etc…) as free states, it was possible to obtain an estimate, $`T190200`$MeV, of the phase transition critical temperature. It was also shown that the perturbative calculation of the pressure was analogous to the second order virial expansion when the interacting part of the second virial coefficient is obtained from the one loop $`\pi \pi `$ ChPT scattering lengths. Other works have studied the applicability of the virial expansion with a pionic chemical potential , or the critical temperature in generalized scenarios .

The interest of extending the previously commented work to SU(3) is that the SU(2) approach is limited by the absence of other interacting particles, like kaons or etas, whose densities at $`T150`$ MeV are significant . In addition, let us recall that the chiral phase transition can be different for the SU(2) and SU(3) cases, and that several QCD inequalities and lattice results suggest an stronger chiral condensate temperature suppression with an increasing number of light flavors . Intuitively this is due to the fact that the existence of other states (strange quarks, or strange mesons) makes it easier to create entropy, that is, disorder, and therefore it is easier to melt the ordered state, that is, the condensates. This effect has been observed in lattice calculations , but only in the chiral limit, and it seems to lower the chiral critical temperature down by roughly $`20`$ MeV. Note, however, that none of these results have been obtained from the hadronic phase and realistic masses, which is what we have achieved with our approach.

In addition, within SU(2) it is not possible to study the $`\overline{s}s`$ condensate. This could be interesting because, in the chiral phase diagram, quark masses play the same role as magnetic fields in ferromagnets: Intuitively, we need a higher temperature to disorder a ferromagnet when there is a magnetic field aligned along the direction of the magnetization. Analogously, it has been found that the SU(2) chiral condensate melts at a lower temperature in the massless limit . In particular, we have obtained the temperature dependence of $`\overline{s}s`$ in the hadronic phase. Since the strange quark mass $`m_s`$ is much larger than $`m_u,m_d`$, we have indeed found a sizable “ferromagnetic” effect which translates into a slower thermal $`\overline{s}s`$ evolution. This effect had already been studied in the large $`N_c`$ limit with the use of QCD-motivated effective Lagrangian .

Thus, the second order relativistic virial expansion of the pressure for an inhomogeneous gas made of three species: $`i=\pi ,K,\eta `$ is :

$$\beta P=\underset{i}{}B_i(T)\xi _i+\underset{i}{}\left(B_{ii}\xi _i^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ji}{}B_{ij}\xi _i\xi _j\right)\mathrm{},$$

where $`\beta =1/T`$ and $`\xi _i=\mathrm{exp}(\beta m_i)`$. Expanding up to the second order in $`\xi _i`$ means that we consider only binary interactions. For a free boson gas, $`B_{ij}^{(0)}=0`$ for $`ij`$, whereas:

$`B_i^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_i}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2e^{\beta (\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}m_i)},`$ (1)
$`B_{ii}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_i}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^2e^{2\beta (\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}m_i)}.`$ (2)
The degeneracy is $`g_i=3,4,1`$ for $`\pi ,K,\eta `$, respectively. The interactions appear through :

$`B_{ij}^{(int)}={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _i^1\xi _j^1}{2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle _{m_i+m_j}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑EE^2K_1(E/T)\mathrm{\Delta }^{ij}(E),`$
where $`K_1`$ is the first modified Bessel function and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{ij}=\underset{I,J,S}{}(2I+1)(2J+1)\delta _{I,J,S}^{ij}(E),$$
(3)
$`\delta _{I,J,S}^{ij}`$ being the $`ijij`$ phase shifts (chosen so that $`\delta =0`$ at threshold) of the elastic scattering of a state $`ij`$ with quantum numbers $`I,J,S`$ ($`J`$ being the total angular momentum and $`S`$ the strangeness).

The virial expansion breaks around $`T200250`$ MeV . Fortunately, the physics we are interested in occurs already at $`T<250`$MeV, and $`\xi _\pi >\xi _K\xi _\eta `$, and it is enough to consider $`ij=\pi \pi ,\pi K`$ and $`\pi \eta `$ in $`B_{ij}`$.

At this point we recall that the quark mass appears in the QCD Lagrangian, and therefore in the partition function, as $`m_{q_\alpha }\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha `$, where $`q_\alpha =u,d,s`$. Thus, in order to obtain the condensate we simply have to differentiate the partition function with respect to $`m_{q_\alpha }`$. At finite temperature, the partition function is substituted by the free energy density $`z`$, so that

$$\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha =\frac{z}{m_{q_\alpha }}=0|\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha |0\frac{P}{m_{q_\alpha }}.$$
(4)
Note that we have separated the $`T=0`$ part from the temperature dependent part, which is nothing but the pressure $`P=ϵ_0z`$, $`ϵ_0`$ being the vacuum energy density. Of course, at $`T=0`$ we recover $`\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha =0|\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha |0=ϵ_0/m_{q_\alpha }`$.

Once more, we emphasize that in contrast with most thermodynamic quantities, for the chiral condensate it is not enough to know the $`\delta (E)`$, but we also need their dependence with the quark masses as well as a value for the $`T=0`$ vacuum expectation value. We will obtain this information from ChPT. Nevertheless, ChPT does not deal with quarks, and thus we first have to rewrite the condensate, eq.(4), in terms of meson masses:

$$\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha =0|\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha |0\left(1+\underset{i}{}\frac{c_i^{\overline{q_\alpha }q_\alpha }}{2m_iF^2}\frac{P}{m_i}\right)$$
(5)
where, as before, $`i=\pi ,K,\eta `$, and we have defined:

$$c_i^{\overline{q_\alpha }q_\alpha }=F^2\frac{m_i^2}{m_{q_\alpha }}0|\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha |0^1.$$
(6)
In the isospin limit, when $`m_u=m_d`$, the $`u`$ and $`d`$ condensates are equal, and we define $`0|\overline{q}q|00|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|0`$. It is tedious but straightforward to obtain the $`c`$ parameters above, whose explicit expressions can be found in . The only relevant comment is that the $`c`$ coefficients depend on the chiral parameters $`L_k`$, for $`k=4\mathrm{}8`$, and $`H_2`$.

In Table I, we show two $`L_k`$ determinations from meson data, but it makes little difference to use other parameter sets. For $`H_2`$ we will use $`H_2^r(M_\rho )=(3.4\pm 1.1)10^3`$, obtained as explained in  but using a more recent estimation of $`0|\overline{s}s|0/0|\overline{q}q|0=0.75\pm 0.12`$ . For instance, the $`c`$ parameters obtained when using the $`L_k`$ in the first column of Table I are:

$`c_\pi ^{\overline{q}q}=0.9_{0.4}^{+0.2},c_K^{\overline{q}q}=0.5_{0.7}^{+0.4},c_\eta ^{\overline{q}q}=0.4_{0.7}^{+0.5},`$
$`c_\pi ^{\overline{s}s}=0.005_{0.037}^{+0.029},c_K^{\overline{s}s}=1.3_{0.8}^{+0.4},c_\eta ^{\overline{s}s}=1.5_{1.6}^{+0.9}.`$
The above $`c_\pi ^{\overline{q}q}`$ is in good agreement with the SU(2) estimates: $`0.85`$ and $`0.90\pm 0.05`$ .

Finally, we have to introduce the meson-meson interactions in the second order virial coefficients through the phase shifts in eq.(3). These are nothing but the complex phases of the meson-meson amplitudes, once they are projected in partial waves of definite isospin and angular momentum. The one loop ChPT amplitudes have been given in . As already commented within SU(2) ChPT it has been shown  that using just the amplitudes at threshold (scattering lengths) in the virial expansion is equivalent to expanding the partition function to third order in $`T/F`$ or $`T/m_\pi `$. This approach yields a fairly good representation of the pion gas thermodynamics at low temperatures, $`T150`$MeV . Let us recall that ChPT provides a good low energy description ($`E<500`$MeV) of the meson-meson amplitudes .

The virial coefficients and $`P/m_i`$ have been calculated numerically. For simplicity, in the figures, we have represented the chiral condensate over its vacuum expectation value, $`\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha /0|\overline{q}_\alpha q_\alpha |0`$, so that all of them are normalized to 1 at $`T=0`$. As a matter of fact, since there is always an small explicit chiral symmetry breaking due to the quark masses, the condensate should only vanish completely in the $`T\mathrm{}`$ limit (following with our analogy between the quark masses and the magnetic field, our ferromagnet above the Curie point becomes paramagnetic, but as if it was in the presence of a magnetic field, which still produces some magnetization.). Of course, with a virial expansion truncated at second order we cannot generate such an analytic behavior, and our curves become negative above some $`T`$, where the approach becomes clearly unreliable. Nevertheless, since the $`u`$ and $`d`$ masses are so small compared with the size of the non-strange condensate at T=0 (less than 3%), it is a fairly good approximation to speak about a melting temperature in that case. For the $`\overline{s}s`$ condensate, we will only consider an extrapolated melting temperature to ease the comparison with the non-strange case, but that number does not have an actual physical meaning.

In Figure 1 we show the results of using the one-loop ChPT phase shifts obtained using the central values of the parameters in the first column of Table I. For illustration, we have separated the different contributions. In particular, the thin continuous line represents the interacting pion gas in SU(2), (see  for the conversion of SU(3) into SU(2) parameters), whereas the thin-dashed line is the corresponding one-loop SU(3) result also for a pion gas. We have checked that the tiny difference between them comes only from the pure $`O(p^4)`$ phase shift contribution, ( the amplitude, once the parameters are translated, is the same for SU(2) and SU(3) only up to $`s/M_K^2`$ or $`s/M_\eta ^2`$ terms coming from the expansion of kaon or eta loops, which, of course, are not present in SU(2) ). This amounts to a 4 MeV decrease of the pion gas extrapolated melting temperature: $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}=231`$MeV for SU(2) and $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}=227`$MeV for SU(3). Next, the thin-dotted line is obtained by adding free kaons and etas to the pion gas, which lowers the extrapolated melting temperature, by roughly 5-6 MeV down to 221 MeV.

Our SU(3) result for a $`\pi ,K,\eta `$ gas, where also the $`kaons`$ and $`etas`$ interact with each other and the pions, is the thick continuous line, where we see that the additional decrease, basically due to the $`\pi K,\pi \eta `$ interactions, amounts to 10-11 MeV. On a first glance, it may seem surprising that the $`\pi K,\pi \eta `$ interaction effect comes out comparable or larger than that of free kaons and etas, since it is thermally suppressed by another $`\mathrm{exp}(m_\pi /T)`$ factor. Note, however, that the $`\mathrm{exp}(m_\pi /T)`$ suppression only amounts to a factor of $`6,4,2.5`$ at T= 80,100,150 MeV, respectively. In contrast, the $`\pi K`$ and $`\pi \eta `$ interactions depend strongly on $`m_\pi `$, which is much more sensitive to $`\widehat{m}`$ than $`m_K`$ or $`m_\eta `$, which carry the only $`\widehat{m}`$ dependence of the free $`K`$ and $`\eta `$ terms. In particular, it is easy to see that $`m_\pi ^2/\widehat{m}2m_K^2/\widehat{m}`$ and $`m_\pi /\widehat{m}6m_K/\widehat{m}`$, and this “temperature independent enhancement” competes with the thermal suppression, making the $`\pi K`$ and $`\pi \eta `$ interaction effect comparable to the free one, already at $`T=80100`$MeV and even larger if $`T>140`$MeV.

Putting all the pieces together, the $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}`$ decrease in SU(3) is roughly 20 MeV, in agreement with the chiral limit lattice results quoted in : $`T_c=173`$MeV for SU(2) and $`T_c=154`$MeV, for SU(3). The effect of using the real masses would be to increase both temperatures.

Furthermore, it can be noticed that $`\overline{s}s`$ melts much slower than $`\overline{q}q`$, since $`m_s\widehat{m}`$. Indeed, there is still 70% left of the $`\overline{s}s`$ condensate at the $`\overline{q}q`$ melting point.

Let us recall that both effects are already sizable at low temperatures $`T100`$MeV, where we can still trust pure ChPT. As commented above, only for illustration and to ease the comparison between curves and with previous works, we have extrapolated the condensates down to zero.

At this point we can also consider the uncertainties in the chiral parameters in Table I. By performing a Montecarlo gaussian sampling of the parameters within their errors, we can obtain a rather conservative estimate of our uncertainties (since the sampling is done assuming uncorrelated errors). We thus find:

$`T_m^{\overline{q}q}=211_7^{+19}\text{MeV},T_m^{\overline{s}s}=291_{35}^{+37}\text{MeV}`$
Note that the $`\overline{s}s`$ extrapolation is beyond the reliability region of the second order virial expansion, is just illustrative, and really only vanishes in the $`T\mathrm{}`$ limit. Let us also remark that the extrapolated melting temperatures are strongly correlated, so that their difference has less uncertainty than simply adding in quadrature their respective errors. In particular, we find

$`T_m^{\overline{q}q,SU(2)}T_m^{\overline{q}q,SU(3)}=21_7^{+14}\text{MeV}`$
$`T_m^{\overline{s}s}T_m^{\overline{q}q}=80_{40}^{+25}\text{MeV}`$
We remark once more that the $`\overline{s}s`$ melting temperature is, of course, only a crude extrapolation for illustrative purposes and to ease the comparison with the non-strange condensate evolution.

Furthermore, we have estimated the effect of other, more massive, hadrons. In the SU(2) case  these states also included the kaons and etas, although assuming a rather large uncertainty in $`M_i/m_{q_\alpha }`$. All in all this effect reduced $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}`$ by approximately 10-20 MeV. In the SU(3) case we have indeed calculated explicitly the kaon and eta $`\widehat{m}`$ dependence in the $`c^{\overline{q_\alpha }q_\alpha }`$ parameters, thus reducing considerably the above uncertainty. Since the kaons and eta are treated explicitly, the other massive hadrons are heavier than $`m_\eta `$, have a very low density, and their main contribution to the pressure comes from the first virial coefficient, i.e. the free gas. The only uncertainty is on $`M_h/m_{q_\alpha }`$, conservatively estimated to lie within the number of valence quarks $`N_{q_\alpha }`$ and $`2N_{q_\alpha }`$. Thus, we have found that their contribution decreases $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}`$ by 7-12 MeV, respectively.

Finally, and in order to estimate the effects of higher energies we can extend ChPT up to $`E1.2`$GeV by means of unitarization models . These techniques resum the ChPT series respecting unitarity but also the low energy expansion, including the mass dependency. In particular, it has been shown that the coupled channel Inverse amplitude Method (IAM) provides a remarkable and accurate description of the complete meson-meson interactions below 1.2 GeV, generating dynamically six resonances from the one-loop ChPT expansion and a set of fitted $`L_k`$ compatible with other previous determinations. This approach can be extended systematically to higher orders (for SU(2) case, see ).

Hence, in Figure 2 we show the results of using the one-loop coupled channel IAM fitted phase shifts. Its corresponding $`L_i`$ parameters are given in the last column of Table I, with two errors, the first, very small, is purely statistical, and the second covers the uncertainty in the parameters depending on what systematic error is assumed for the experimental data. Let us remark that, although the $`L_k`$ are highly correlated, the second, larger error, ignores completely these correlations, and should be considered as a very conservative range. The continuous line corresponds to the central values, and the dark shaded areas cover the one standard deviation uncertainty due to the small errors in the parameters. These areas have been obtained from a Montecarlo Gaussian sampling. The conservative ranges are covered by the light gray areas. We now find:

$`T_m^{\overline{q}q}=204_1^{+3}(_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}5}}^{13})\text{MeV},T_m^{\overline{s}s}=304_{25}^{+39}(_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}65}}^{120})\text{MeV}`$
where the errors in parenthesis are the conservative errors which should be interpreted as uncertainty ranges better than as standard deviations. Note the excellent agreement with standard ChPT. The magnitude of the different contributions is roughly the same, although the $`\pi K`$ and $`\pi \eta `$ interactions this time lower $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}`$ by 17 MeV, and the free kaons and etas by roughly 10 MeV. Again other massive states apart from kaons and etas would lower $`T_m^{\overline{q}q}`$ by 6-10 MeV, and $`T_m^{\overline{s}s}`$ by 22-32 MeV. In addition, we find

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T_m=T_m^{\overline{q}qSU(2)}T_m^{\overline{q}qSU(3)}=31.50_{0.03}^{+1.20}(_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}8}}^9)\text{MeV}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }T_m=T_m^{\overline{s}s}T_m^{\overline{q}q}=100_{29}^{+36}(_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}80}}^{120})\text{MeV},`$
The IAM results show that higher energy effects do not affect very much our conclusions and that the ChPT extrapolation from low temperatures seems robust.

To summarize, we have studied the SU(2) and SU(3) temperature evolution of the chiral condensates in the hadronic phase. The thermodynamics of the meson gas has been obtained from the virial expansion and Chiral Perturbation Theory. Our results clearly show a significant decrease, about 20-30 MeV, of the non-strange condensate melting temperature, from the SU(2) to the SU(3) case, similar to lattice results. Of these, about 6 MeV had already been explained with free kaons and etas, but the rest are mainly due to $`\pi K`$ and $`\pi \eta `$ interactions. We have also estimated the effect of heavier hadrons and of the third order virial coefficient. All in all we find

$`T_m^{\overline{q}q}=201_{11}^{+23}\text{MeV},`$
In addition, our results show an slower temperature evolution of the strange condensate, shifted by about 80 MeV with respect to the non-strange, due to the different quark masses. More quantitatively, $`\overline{q}q`$ does not show a sizable melting up to $`T150`$MeV and it still remains about 80% when the non-strange is basically zero.

Both effects are clearly visible already at low temperatures. However, we have checked that their size is completely similar when using unitarized models.

These techniques should be easily extended to Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory, in order to study the condensates with non-zero baryon density. In general the whole approach could be used with any effective Lagrangian formalism, in particular to study other QCD phase transitions like those of the color superconducting phases.

The author thanks A. Dobado, A. Gómez Nicola and E. Oset for useful comments, and support from the Spanish CICYT projects FPA2000 0956 and BFM2000 1326,a CICYT-INFN collaboration grant, the European EURIDICE HPRN-CT-2002-00311, as well as a Marie Curie fellowship MCFI-2001-01155.


format: text

text:
# Quasi two-dimensional antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice RbFe(MoO4)2

## I Introduction

The problem of an antiferromagnet on a triangular planar lattice (AFMT) has been intensively studied theoretically. Kawamura ; Korshunov ; Anderson ; PlumerCalie ; Chubukov  The ground state in the Heisenberg and XY-models is a “triangular” planar spin structure with the three magnetic sublattices arranged 120 apart. The orientation of the spin plane is not fixed in the exchange approximation.

A non-zero magnetization appears in the presence of a magnetic field due to the canting of the sublattices. Possible field-induced structures are shown on Fig. 1. All configurations with equal magnetization vectors but with different sublattice orientations have the same energy in the molecular field approximation. Chubukov  The umbrella-like structure “a” with the sublattices tilted from the spin plane towards the field, and the planar structures “b” and “b” are among these degenerate configurations. In this approximation the b-configuration becomes collinear (c-configuration) at a particular field $`H_c=H_{sat}/3`$, where $`H_{sat}`$ is the saturation field. In magnetic fields above $`H_c`$, the structure is again noncollinear, with two parallel sublattices tilted with respect to the third, forming the “canted” d-phase. Finally, at the saturation field $`H=H_{sat}`$, a spin-flip transition to the phase “f” occurs.

Because of the degeneracy of the classical spin configurations, both quantum and thermal fluctuations play an important role in the formation of the equilibrium state of the AFMT. Chubukov ; Rastelli12 ; Korshunov  They result in a free-energy gain of the planar structure with respect to the umbrella-like structure. Due to the contribution of fluctuations to the free energy the more symmetric configuration “b” is preferred to “b”. Further, the fluctuations stabilize the collinear spin configuration “c” in a range of magnetic fields $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$ around the special point $`H=\frac{1}{3}H_{sat}`$. Thus, a magnetization plateau should be observed over a relatively wide field range.

In the case of an easy-plane magnetic anisotropy, an analogous evolution of the sublattice orientations is expected when a magnetic field is applied in the easy plane. The umbrella-like structure should be realized for magnetic fields applied along the six-fold axis C6, provided the easy-plane anisotropy is sufficiently strong.

The magnetic resonance spectrum of a 120-spin structure differs from the spectrum of a usual antiferromagnet both in the number of normal modes and in the dependencies of frequencies on the applied magnetic field. There are three eigenmodes for a 2D triangular structure. AndreevMarchenko ; Chubukov  For the case of an easy-plane anisotropy, two of them are degenerate in zero field, but have nonzero frequency; the third mode has zero-frequency in zero field. In a magnetic field there are three different resonance frequencies of uniform spin precession.

The presence of the interplanar antiferromagnetic exchange requires one to consider at least a six-sublattice 3D magnetic structures. For a weak interplanar exchange however, the main features of the 2D-system should remain unchanged. The interplane exchange may cause additional field-induced phase transitions, where the mutual orientation of spins in neighboring planes changes. Possible magnetic structures of the 3D $`XY`$ AFMT in a magnetic field were analyzed in Ref. PlumerCalie, , while the Heisenberg AFMT was considered in Ref. Gekht, . A two-fold period along the $`C^6`$ (or $`C^3`$) axis is assumed here. The structures under consideration are shown schematically in Fig. 1 and denoted as B1, B2, B3, C, D1 and D2. For the zero-field starting structure, B0, the nearest neighboring spins, which are placed one above another along the C6-axis, are considered to be antiparallel due to the antiferromagnetic interplane exchange. Depending on the relative values of the in-plane magnetic field, interplane and intraplane exchange integrals, a phase from the set shown on Fig. 1 should be realized. Thus, for a particular combination of both exchange fields, one might expect a sequence of phase transitions in an increasing magnetic field. Particularly, a sequence of transitions like B1-B3-C-D1-D2-f is possible according to Ref. Gekht, . The last phase corresponds to the parallel orientation of the magnetization of all six sublattices in a high magnetic field. Naturally, the interplanar interaction may also modify the values of the critical fields $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ with respect to the purely 2D case. Gekht

As far as the magnetic resonance spectrum is concerned, the interplanar exchange should result in a splitting of the main eigenfrequencies and in the appearance of new modes due to the increased number of sublattices.

There are several materials with triangular lattices carrying magnetic ions, however, the members of the family AFe(TO4)2 (A=Cs, Rb; T=S, Mo) with RbFe(MoO4)2 among them, are the most likely candidates for AFMT-systems suitable for experiments. Other related compounds, e.g. the ABX3-family (A=Cs, Rb; B=Ni, Mn, Cu; X=Cl, Br, I), have an interplanar exchange that is larger than the intraplanar one, thus they are quasi-1D magnets (see, e.g., Ref. Prozorova, ; Luthi, ). “Triangular” antiferromagnets from other families, VX2 (X=Cl, Br, I) (Ref. VX2, ) and ACrO2 with A=Li, Cu (Ref. ACrO2, ), have quasi-2D exchange, but their exchange field is too large, shifting the field-induced transitions outside the range of conventional measurements. A review of the magnetic properties of the triangular magnets is given in Ref. Petrenko, .

In the present paper, we describe a study of the magnetic and resonant properties of RbFe(MoO4)2, a material which can be considered as a rare example of a nearly two-dimensional Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice and that can be prepared in single-crystal form. At room temperature the crystal structure of RbFe(MoO4)2 has the space group $`P\overline{3}m1`$. The magnetic Fe3+ ions with spin $`S=5/2`$ are placed on the hexagonal lattice with lattice parameters $`a=`$5.69 Å and $`c=`$7.48 Å. The MoO4-tetrahedra are placed between the layers of Fe3+-ions and form the structure with the three-fold axis. The exchange integral $`J`$ representing the interaction within the planes should be much larger than the exchange integral, $`J^{}`$, of the nearest neighbor ions in adjacent planes. The large difference in these exchange integrals is due to the different exchange paths of the indirect exchange interactions: via two oxygen ions within the planes and via three or even more oxygen ions between the planes. Thus, the structure of RbFe(MoO4)2 may be considered (see, e.g., Ref. Inami, ) as an ensemble of layers with a triangular lattice occupied by $`S=5/2`$ Fe3+ ions, and these magnetic layers are separated by layers of MoO4-Rb-MoO4. Magnetic ions in neighboring layers are placed one above another.

Evidence for a structural transformation at T=180 K was recently reported in Ref. Popova, . Small changes of lattice constants, Raman spectra and ESR linewidth indicate a structural transformation, identified as a second-order phase transition from a highly symmetric $`P\overline{3}m1`$ room-temperature structure into a very similar but less symmetric $`P\overline{3}c1`$ low-temperature structure. This transformation corresponds to rotations of the MoO4 tetrahedra. The ”triangular” spin structure of Fe3+-layers in crystals of RbFe(MoO4)2 was recently confirmed by the elastic neutron scattering experiment in zero magnetic field.Broholm  At the same time, according to the observed neutron diffraction, an incommensurate modulation of the ordered spin structure in the C3-direction is present there: the mutual orientation of spins from neighboring planes is close to the antiparallel one but is slightly tilted at an angle of 17. The low-temperature magnetization curves of powder samples of RbFe(MoO4)2 were reported earlier. Inami  The magnetization saturated at a field of $`H_{sat}=`$ 186 kOe and a magnetization plateau marking the collinear phase was observed.

Neutron scattering experiments of Ref. Serrano,  confirming the triangular magnetic structure were performed for powder samples of the related compounds CsFe(SO4)2 and RbFe(SO4)2.

We have verified experimentally the theoretical concepts outlined above by taking advantage of single-crystal samples of RbFe(MoO4)2. The choice of a molybdate instead of a sulphate allowed us to avoid the hydration and to obtain single crystals. Field-induced phase transitions and low frequency spin dynamics in the different phases were studied by means of magnetization measurements and ESR spectroscopy. In the present paper we describe several field-induced phase transitions including transitions not detected earlier. Each phase is found to possess a characteristic set of spin-resonance modes.

## II Samples and experimental techniques

Single-crystal samples of RbFe(MoO4)2 were synthesized by means of the spontaneous crystallization from a flux melt. The mixture of RbFe(MoO4)2 and of K2Mo2O7 in the molar ratio of 1:2 was heated in a platinum crucible up to a temperature of 1300 K and held at this temperature for 12 hours then cooled to 1000 K at a rate of 3 K/h. The nucleation of crystals was localized due to the temperature gradient near a platinum rod which was inserted into the melt in the precristallization state. The platinum rod was withdrawn from the solution after the crystallization. The K2Mo2O7 flux was removed by dissolving in water. A much slower dilution of the crystals of RbFe(MoO4)2 takes place at the same time. The crystals have the shape of thin hexagonal plates with the size of 3-4 mm along each edge. The lattice parameters are in accordance with those reported for powder samples. Inami  The magnetization curves and the temperature dependencies of the magnetic susceptibility were measured using a vibrating sample magnetometer with the field range 0 - 120 kOe. Magnetic resonance spectra were taken by a set of transmission-type magnetic resonance spectrometers with resonators covering the range 9-120 GHz.

## III Experimental results

### III.1 Susceptibility and magnetization curves

The temperature dependence of the susceptibility of RbFe(MoO4)2 at low temperatures is shown in Fig. 2 and clearly demonstrates the transition into the magnetically ordered state at $`T_N=3.8`$ K. The susceptibility measurements in the whole range 10-300 K reveal the temperature dependence of the Curie-Weiss type $`(T+\mathrm{\Theta }_c)^1`$ with the value of the Weiss constant $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c=22\pm 2`$ K. A small (about 0.1%) step-like anomaly in the reverse susceptibility appears at 180 K giving an additional indication for the structural transformation mentioned in the Introduction. There is a significant deviation from the Curie-Weiss behavior below 10 K. A strong anisotropy of the susceptibility also appears in this temperature range, well above $`T_N`$.

Below the transition point $`T_N=3.8`$ K, the magnetization curves $`M(H)`$ are quite different for different orientations of the magnetic field. For $`HC^3`$, the magnetization increases linearly with the field for all values of the applied field (see Fig. 3). For $`HC^3`$, the field dependence of the magnetization is much more complicated, as shown in Fig. 4 for $`T=1.6`$ K. There are abrupt changes in the slope of the magnetization curve at 47 kOe and 71 kOe, with the differential magnetic susceptibility being significantly reduced in the region between these fields.

An additional, first-order phase transformation with a hysteresis in $`M(H)`$ curve was detected at $`H_{c3}=35`$ kOe. Magnetization measured between 30 and 38 kOe shows a large difference in signal obtained for the rising and falling magnetic field. A smaller, but still clearly observable difference exists down to a field of 20 kOe. In order to detect the transitions by changing temperature we measured the temperature dependence of the magnetic moment at constant magnetic field. Several examples of these data are shown in Fig. 5. The temperatures of the abrupt changes of the magnetization curves are marked by arrows and indicate the field dependence of the Néel temperature and the temperature dependence of the fields $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c3}`$. The values of critical magnetic fields and temperatures derived from the curves like those shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are collected on the $`HT`$ phase diagram in Fig. 6. There are at least 4 ordered antiferromagnetic phases P1, P2, P3, P4 and a paramagnetic phase PM.

It should be noted that smeared changes in the magnetization slope were observed at the critical fields $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ for temperatures slightly above the Néel temperature. These regions are marked in Fig. 6 by shadowed ovals.

### III.2 Antiferromagnetic resonance

On cooling the samples, the ESR line broadens markedly below 10 K. After passing through the Néel point, the ESR line shifts from the paramagnetic resonance position and again becomes rather narrow. The temperature evolution of the ESR line is shown in Fig. 7. In this paper we discuss only the low-temperature magnetic resonance, well below the Néel point. The critical behavior will be the subject of further investigations.

The field-dependencies of the microwave transmission at $`T=`$ 1.3 K are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 for two orientations of the magnetic field. We can derive the field dependencies of the spin-resonance modes in the ordered state from the positions of the resonance-absorption lines at different frequencies. As shown in Fig. 9, the microwave absorption data are sensitive to all the phase transitions detected in the magnetization measurements. The hysteresis loop around the field $`H_{c3}`$ is clearly evident in the microwave absorption. The change of the microwave absorption at this transition is frequency-dependent. The curves taken at a frequency around 25 GHz are the most sensitive to this transition as they demonstrate the largest hysteresis around $`H_{c3}`$.

For $`HC^3`$, two branches of the resonance are clearly seen. The frequency of the first branch rises with the field, while the frequency of the second branch decreases (see Figs. 8 and 10). The frequencies of these two branches are monotonic functions of the applied magnetic field as expected for the umbrella-like structure.

For $`HC^3`$, a complicated nonmonotonic dependence of the resonant frequencies $`\nu _i`$ with varying magnetic field was observed (see Fig. 11). The frequency-field curves contain abrupt changes at the fields of the phase transitions in accordance with the data of the magnetization measurements. The values of the phase-transition fields derived from the microwave-absorption curves are marked on the phase diagram in Fig. 6 by filled squares and are in a good agreement with the results of static magnetization measurements. The total number of the observed spin resonance modes is five.

## IV Discussion

### IV.1 Basic principles

The observation of the sequence of the phase transitions for the magnetic field lying in the basal plane implies that there is an easy-plane type of anisotropy (an easy-axis anisotropy would result in the umbrella-like spin structure at $`HC^3`$ without the cascade of field-induced phase transitions).

At the moment there is no explanation for the nature of the incommensurate modulation observed in Ref. Broholm, , but on the assumption of the small deviation from the antiparallel orientation of spins in neighboring planes, we shall describe the field-dependent spin structure in the approximation of the perfect antiferromagnetic orientation of spins in neighboring layers in the zero-field ground state.

Thus, we consider the following model spin-Hamiltonian, following the notation of Ref. Chubukov, .

$`=2J{\displaystyle \underset{(ij),n}{}}S_{in}S_{jn}+2J^{}{\displaystyle \underset{in}{}}S_{in}S_{in+1}`$
$`+D{\displaystyle \underset{in}{}}(S_{in}^z)^2g\mu _BH{\displaystyle \underset{in}{}}S_{in}.`$ (1)
Here the sums are taken within the layers ($`i,j`$) and along the transverse direction ($`n`$), and $`D>0`$ is the constant of the anisotropy of the easy-plane type.

### IV.2 Field-induced phase transitions and molecular fields

Using the molecular-field calculations Chubukov  of the susceptibilities along and perpendicular to the $`C^3`$-axis

$`\chi _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(g\mu _B)^2}{18J+2D}}N,`$
$`\chi _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(g\mu _B)^2}{18J}}N,`$
($`N`$ is the number of magnetic ions), we can estimate the strength of the exchange field, $`H_E`$, and the anisotropy field, $`H_A`$:

$`H_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{g\mu _B}}=67\mathrm{kOe},`$
$`H_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{DS}{g\mu _B}}=(5\pm 1.5)\mathrm{kOe}.`$
The value of $`H_E`$ is in a good agreement with the saturation field value $`H_{sat}`$=186 kOe measured in Ref. Inami,  (according to the molecular-field calculations $`H_{sat}=3H_E`$).

The nearly vanishing slope in the $`M(H)`$-curve in the field range between $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$ indicates the presence of magnetization plateau and suggests that we should treat this phase as the collinear phase (phase C of Fig. 1), which is stabilized in the range $`H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}`$ by thermal and quantum fluctuations. Chubukov ; Korshunov ; Rastelli12  Using the $`J`$ value derived from the susceptibility measurements and the ratio $`J^{}/J`$ derived from the magnetic resonance spectra (see the next section) we can propose a sequence of phase transition on the basis of the model of Ref. Gekht, , where the calculated phase diagram at $`T=0`$ is plotted on the $`H/J,J^{}S/J`$ \- plane. At the consideration of that phase diagram one should remember that our situation of the easy-plane anisotropy should be considered neglecting the umbrella-like phase derived for the isotropic approximation. For our case of $`J^{}S/J=0.095`$ with an easy plane anisotropy this phase diagram predicts a sequence of phase transitions B1-B2-C-D1-D2 in the magnetic field. Thus, according to the theoretical analysis of Ref. Gekht, , we can propose that in the field $`H_{c3}`$ we have transition like B1-B2 with change in the mutual orientation of spins in neighboring layers, then transition B2-C at $`H=H_{c1}`$ and C-D1 at $`H=H_{c2}`$. Thus we propose the observed sequence P1-P2-P3-P4 may be treated as B1-B2-C-D1.

It should be noticed that the phase boundary observed in the temperature range 3.4-4.2 K and in fields above $`H_{c2}`$ cannot be smoothly extrapolated to the saturation field 186 kOe at $`T`$=1.3 K. Therefore, the existence of yet another phase transition at higher magnetic field cannot be ruled out. According to the analysis given in Ref. Gekht, , the phase D2 is energetically favourable for certain values of the interplanar exchange in a field just below the saturation field. Thus we suggest the region of the phase diagram indicated in Fig. 6 as P5 may be treated as the D2 phase.

Using only the results of magnetization and ESR measurements we cannot distinguish between the phases B1, B2, B3 and between the D1 and D2 phases. Thus, an alternative sequence of phase transitions, such as B2-B3-C-D1 (Ref. Korshunov2, ) should, in principle, also be considered as an explanation of the observed sequence P1-P2-P3-P4. A scenario for the field-induced transitions with B2 as the starting phase is also suggested on the basis of the molecular field approximation in Ref. PlumerCalie, . The tiny differences between the free energies of the phases B1 and B2 may be associated with the contribution of thermal and quantum fluctuations which should be taken into account along with the anisotropy. In any case, the exact solution of this problem will only have a limited significance for RbFe(MoO4)2 because of the incommensurate modulation mentioned, which is still not included in the theoretical models.

Nevertheless, the observation of the $`H_{c3}`$-phase transition clearly marks the effect of the interplanar exchange on the field-dependent phases of the AFMT with weakly coupled layers.

The observed boundaries in the collinear phase range may be compared to the calculations Chubukov  performed using an isotropic ($`D=0`$) and XY (infinite $`D`$) models at $`T=0`$ K. The calculated zero-temperature field-ranges of the C-phase (using $`H_E=67`$ kOe) are shown in the phase diagram in Fig. 6 by the line segments. There is a qualitative agreement with our observations.

### IV.3 Spin-resonance modes

For a triangular system with antiferromagnetic interplane exchange interactions, there should be five resonance modes with non-zero frequencies (the frequency of the sixth mode is zero in small fields in absence of any in-plane anisotropy). We have observed all five resonances for $`HC^3`$. For weak magnetic fields, where the exchange triangular spin configuration is only slightly distorted, the resonance frequencies may be calculated following the macroscopic theory based on a classical Lagrange formalism AndreevMarchenko . This method of calculation is suitable for complicated and multi-sublattice systems, however it is valid only in the field range where the exchange magnetic structure is not strongly distorted by the magnetic field. 111Authors acknowledge V. I. Marchenko for making these calculations. The basic principles of the calculations and the resulting formulae are given in Appendix A, while the field-dependencies of the resonant frequencies $`\nu _i`$ are presented in Fig. 10, and Fig. 11 (the values of the parameters will be described below). For the modes $`\nu _{3,6}`$ in the low-field range, the oscillating components lie within the plane. The modes with frequencies $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$ correspond to the in-phase oscillations of spins in the neighboring planes while for the modes with frequencies $`\nu _{4,5,6}`$, the spins in the neighboring planes oscillate out of phase. Note that for a purely 2D AFMT only the modes $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$ are present.

The frequencies calculated in this way are only valid for small magnetic fields, when the exchange triangular structure is not strongly distorted. Thus the approximation used is not strictly true in fields of the order of $`H_{c1}`$. The distortion of the triangular structure, as shown in the 2D approximation Chubukov , will result in a field dependence of the resonance frequencies $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _3`$. The approximate correspondence between the parameters of the macroscopic theory described in Appendix A and of the spin-Hamiltonian may be derived using estimates (i.e. neglecting zero-point fluctuations) for the susceptibility and resonance frequencies derived for 2D AFMT in the molecular-field approximation:

$`a^2`$ $`=`$ $`18JDS^2=\gamma ^23H_AH_E,`$ (2)
$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2H_E^2{\displaystyle \frac{J^{}}{J}},`$ (3)
here $`\gamma =g\mu _B/2\pi \mathrm{}`$.

The nonzero frequency of the mode $`\nu _6`$ confirms the interplanar exchange. Another indication of the interplanar exchange is the splitting of the rising ESR mode (the difference in resonance fields of the modes $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _5`$ in Fig. 11).

The five spin resonance branches shown in the low-field range in Fig. 11 and the resonance frequencies for $`𝐇C^3`$ (Fig. 10) may be reasonably described by the equations (8-12) with only two fitting parameters: $`a`$=90.8 GHz and $`c`$=32 GHz. The dashed curves in Fig. 11 and curves in Fig. 10 are calculated in this way with the anisotropy parameter of the susceptibility, $`\eta =0.05`$, derived from the susceptibility measurements.

Using the value of the susceptibility described above and the molecular-field relations (2, 3) we can evaluate the molecular fields and parameters of the Hamiltonian: $`H_E=67`$ kOe, $`H_A=5.2`$ kOe, $`J^{}/J=0.039`$. These values of $`H_E`$ and $`H_A`$ are in reasonable agreement with the values derived from the susceptibility and saturation field.

For $`HC^3`$, the triangular spin structure of RbFe(MoO4)2 is already strongly distorted in a field of about 10 kOe. Therefore the macroscopic theory of magnetic dynamics given in Ref. AndreevMarchenko,  cannot be used. To have at least an approximate description of the resonant frequencies over wider range of applied fields, we used the calculations for the three-sublattice 2D model (i.e. for $`J^{}=`$0) in a classical approximation. Chubukov  The results of these calculations (relations 13, 18) are presented in Fig. 11 by the solid lines. The values of $`D`$ and $`J`$ used to calculate these curves are taken from the values of $`H_E`$ and $`H_A`$ given above and thus agree with the parameters used for fitting the data in low fields according to relations (8-12).

For qualitative description of the resonance frequencies within the field range of the collinear phase $`H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}`$, one should take into account the zero-point fluctuations stabilizing this phase in that field range. The appropriate calculation was made in the $`J^{}=0`$ approximation with the assumptions of the XY-model in the same paper of Chubukov and Golosov. Chubukov  Corresponding relations for the lowest resonance frequencies are given in Appendix B (relations 19,20) and are plotted by dashed lines in the region $`H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}`$ in Fig. 11. These formulae reveal critical softening of the resonance frequencies near the fields $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$. We observe a soft mode near $`H_{c2}`$ which is in qualitative agreement with relation (20).

## V Conclusion

A sequence of field-induced phase transitions, governed by the intraplane exchange interaction and by the weak interplane exchange was found in RbFe(MoO4)2, a quasi-2D antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice. The magnetic properties may, in part, be explained in terms of a 2D antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice. However, a phase transition governed by weak interplane exchange was found. This phase transition is accompanied by the changes in spin-resonance spectra. A self-consistent description of the magnetization curves, phase transitions and resonance modes in a wide field range is given.

###### Acknowledgements.

We kindly acknowledge V. I. Marchenko for making calculations of resonance spectra and discussions, S. E. Korshunov, M. E. Zhitomirsky, A. V. Chubukov and S. S. Sosin for numerous discussions, M. R. Lees for critical reading of the manuscript and C. Broholm for transmitting to us the results of the unpublished work. Broholm  We acknoledge the support by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), grant No.01-02-17557, and by the Award No. RP1-2097 of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for the Independent States of the former Soviet union (CRDF).

## VI Appendix A. Spin resonanse modes in the macroscopic approach

We consider 120-triangular structures in planes 1 and 2, which can be represented by normalized spin densities

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐒_1(𝐫)=𝐥_{11}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}+𝐥_{12}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫},\\ 𝐒_2(𝐫)=𝐥_{21}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}+𝐥_{22}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}.\end{array}$$
(4)
Here $`𝐥_{11},𝐥_{12}`$ and $`𝐥_{21},𝐥_{22}`$ are two pairs of orthogonal unit vectors of antiferromagnetism, $`q_x=4\pi /3a`$, $`q_y=0`$, $`a`$ \- crystal period within the plane; vector $`𝐫`$ takes discrete values within the basal plane pointing at the magnetic sites on a triangular lattice. This structure is due to the in-plane exchange. The mutual orientation of spin triangles in neighboring planes for weak interplane exchange corresponds to the minimum of the Heisenberg exchange energy of nearest neighbors from different planes:

$$\alpha (𝐥_{11}𝐥_{21}+𝐥_{12}𝐥_{22})$$
(5)
For $`\alpha >0`$: $`𝐥_{11}=𝐥_{21}`$, $`𝐥_{12}=𝐥_{22}`$.

For $`\alpha <0`$: $`𝐥_{11}=𝐥_{21}`$, $`𝐥_{12}=𝐥_{22}`$.

Note, that the low-frequency spectrum, which depends on the quadratic expansion on the angles of the mutual rotation of the spin triangles, is the same for the antiferromagnetic ($`\alpha >0`$) and ferromagnetic ($`\alpha <0`$) exchange.

The Lagrange function of the spin dynamics has three contributions: two “ordinary” terms of the triangular structures of the two systems of spin planes $`(𝐥_{11},𝐥_{12})`$

$$\frac{1}{4}\left\{\frac{\chi _{}}{\gamma ^2}(𝛀_1+\gamma 𝐇)^2+\frac{\chi _{}\chi _{}}{\gamma ^2}(𝛀_1+\gamma 𝐇,𝐧_1)^2+\beta n_{1z}^2\right\}$$
(6)
and $`(𝐥_{21},𝐥_{22})`$

$$\frac{1}{4}\left\{\frac{\chi _{}}{\gamma ^2}(𝛀_2+\gamma 𝐇)^2+\frac{\chi _{}\chi _{}}{\gamma ^2}(𝛀_2+\gamma 𝐇,𝐧_2)^2+\beta n_{2z}^2\right\}$$
(7)
while the third term, the energy of the interplane exchange, is given above (5). Here $`𝐧_1=[𝐥_{11}𝐥_{12}]`$, $`𝐧_2=[𝐥_{21}𝐥_{22}]`$ are unit vectors in the spin space, which are normal to the spin planes, $`\beta `$ – is the constant of uniaxial anisotropy, $`𝛀_1`$ and $`𝛀_2`$ – are angular velocities of rotation of the spin triangles. The values $`\chi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$\- determine the components of the tensor of the magnetic susceptibility in the ground state, along and perpendicular to the vector $`𝐧_1`$ respectively.

For the in-plane field, the frequencies of the in-phase oscillations of spins in neighboring planes are given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _1=a,\hfill \\ \nu _2=\sqrt{a^2+H^2},\hfill \\ \nu _3=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The additional frequencies due to the interplane exchange (spins of different planes oscillate ”out of phase”) are

$`\nu _4=b=\sqrt{a^2+A^2}`$
$`2\nu _{5,6}^2=b^2+c^2+H^2\pm `$
$`\sqrt{(b^2+c^2+H^2)^24c^2(b^2\eta H^2)}`$
Here $`A^2=\gamma ^2\alpha /\chi _{}`$, $`a^2=\gamma ^2\beta /\chi _{}`$, $`\eta =\frac{\chi _{}\chi _{}}{\chi _{}}`$, $`c^2=2A^2/(1+\eta )`$. Parameters $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are coupled by the relation

$$2(b^2a^2)=(1+\eta )c^2$$
(10)
For the magnetic field oriented parallel to the $`C^3`$-axis, ordinary resonances (in-phase motion of triangles) are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _{1,2}=\sqrt{a^2+(\frac{1+\eta }{2}\gamma H)^2}\pm \frac{1\eta }{2}\gamma H,\hfill \\ \nu _3=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
while the additional frequencies (the triangles rotate in opposite directions) are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _{4,5}=\sqrt{b^2+(\frac{1+\eta }{2}\gamma H)^2}\pm \frac{1\eta }{2}\gamma H,\hfill \\ \nu _6=c\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
## VII Appendix B. Spin-resonance modes in 2D model Chubukov

#### VII.0.1 Molecular field approximation

Introducing the normalized field

$$h=\frac{2\mu _BH}{6JS}=3H/H_{sat}$$

we have the following resonance frequencies, for the magnetic field lying in the easy plane of 2D-AFMT:
1) below the transition to the collinear phase ($`0<h<1`$)

$`\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{6J}}(32hh^2)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (13)
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{6J}}(3+2h+h^2)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (14)
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
2) above the transition to the canted phase ($`1<h<3`$)

$`\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (16)
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{6J}}{\displaystyle \frac{(h^63h^4+35h^2+63)}{16h^2}})]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (17)
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{6J}}{\displaystyle \frac{(9h^2)(h^21)(h^2+7)}{16h^2}})]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (18)
#### VII.0.2 XY-model including fluctuations

The two lowest resonant frequencies in the collinear phase are

$`\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\left(hh_{c1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (19)
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6JS}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_{c2}h}{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (20)
Here $`h_{c1}`$ and $`h_{c2}`$ are the normalised values of the critical fields $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$.


text:
# Asymptotically embedded defects

## 1 Introduction

Embedded defects  are a useful way of describing classical solutions to spontaneously broken Yang-Mills theories. The idea is to take a defect in one symmetry breaking and then embed this breaking in that of the full theory:

$`G`$ $``$ $`H`$ (1)
$``$ $``$ (2)
$`G_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ $``$ $`H_{\mathrm{emb}}.`$ (3)
Then, if certain conditions are met, the embedded defect solves the full field equations.

A convenient feature of such embedded defects is that their construction allows the degeneracy of the solutions to be easily found. Then the embedded classification is complementary to the topological classification , where only the existence of the classical solutions is usually clear. Degeneracies of classical solutions are relevant to non-Abelian duality , the collective coordinate quantization , zero modes and the global properties of gauge transformations .

The construction of embedded defects has been closely examined for vortices  and monopoles . For both cases, one of the embedding conditions gives a geometric constraint on (1). This constraint is simply stated in terms of the Lie algebras of the two theories.

In addition to this geometric constraint, there is another condition on the fields of the embedding. This condition was shown, in reference , to hold when

$$D(G_{\mathrm{emb}})𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}=𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}$$
(4)
with $`D`$ the representation and $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ the embedded vector space of scalar field values. Essentially, (4) constrains the pairs $`(𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}},G_{\mathrm{emb}})`$ that define the embedded theory. However, when examining embedded monopoles , we found condition (4) to be so constraining that it only holds in the simplest cases. Because of this, we instead considered asymptotically embedded monopoles, which are only embedded at infinity and can behave differently in the core. Such asymptotically embedded monopoles are not constrained by (4).

The aim of this paper is to generalize this idea of asymptotic embedding to other defects and then study how these defects are constrained. Just like embedded monopoles, we find that many defects can only be asymptotically embedded and, then, the problematic condition (4) does not apply.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we review the theory of embedded defects, then in section 3 we discuss how the embedding (1) is constrained — generalizing the discussion from references . After giving an example of a non-embedded vortex in section 4, we consider asymptotically embedded defects and their properties in section 5. To conclude, we summarize our main results in section 6.

## 2 Embedded defects

Consider a spontaneously broken Yang-Mills theory with compact gauge group $`G`$ and a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }𝒱`$ in the $`D`$ representation of $`G`$

$`[\mathrm{\Phi },A^\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu },F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }V[\mathrm{\Phi }],`$ (7)
$`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu +[A^\mu ,A^\nu ],`$
$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+d(A^\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }.`$
In this Lagrangian density, the derived representation $`d(X)`$ is defined by $`e^{d(X)}=D(e^X)`$ with $`X`$ in the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. Then $`[\mathrm{\Phi },A^\mu ]`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }D(g)\mathrm{\Phi },A^\mu \mathrm{Ad}(g)A^\mu (^\mu g)g^1$$
(8)
with $`g(x)G`$ and $`x=(𝒓,t)`$.

If the potential $`V[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ is minimized at some value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, the residual gauge symmetry is

$$H=\{hG:D(h)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\},$$
(9)
where $``$ is the Lie algebra of $`H`$. This defines an $`\mathrm{Ad}(H)`$-invariant decomposition of $`𝒢`$ into massless and massive gauge boson generators

$$𝒢=,\mathrm{Ad}(H),\mathrm{Ad}(H).$$
(10)
Here $`\mathrm{Ad}`$ refers to the adjoint representation of $`G`$ on $`𝒢`$, where $`\mathrm{Ad}(g)X=gXg^1`$ and the derived representation is $`\mathrm{ad}(X)Y=[X,Y]`$ for $`X,Y𝒢`$.

In this paper, we use a coordinate independent notation, which we believe better reflects the geometry behind most of our results . Then the gauge kinetic term in (7) is defined by an inner-product on $`𝒢`$

$$X,Y=\frac{1}{f_a^2}\{X,Y\}_a,X,Y𝒢_a$$
(11)
with $`f_a`$ a coupling constant and $`\{X,Y\}_a`$ a real, $`\mathrm{Ad}(G_a)`$-invariant inner-product on each simple or $`\mathrm{u}(1)`$ subgroup $`𝒢_a𝒢`$ . Likewise, the scalar kinetic term is defined by a Euclidean inner-product $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ on $`𝒱`$ .

Then, in this notation, the field equations are

$`D_\mu D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{\Phi }}},D_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=J^\nu ,`$ (12)
where the current and covariant derivative are

$`J^\nu ,Y`$ $`=`$ $`d(Y)\mathrm{\Phi },D^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }D^\nu \mathrm{\Phi },d(Y)\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (13)
$`D_\mu F^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }+[A_\mu ,F^{\mu \nu }].`$ (14)
Embedded defects  are $`(2k)`$-dimensional defects that remain solutions when embedded into a larger gauge theory (so $`k=0,1,2`$ for domain walls, vortices and monopoles). They are defined by an embedding of their gauge symmetry breaking in that of the full theory

$`G`$ $``$ $`H`$ (15)
$``$ $``$ (16)
$`G_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ $``$ $`H_{\mathrm{emb}}.`$ (17)
Such embedded defects have fields fully embedded over their space-time domain

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}(𝒓,t)𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}},A_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu (𝒓,t)𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}},𝒓^{1+k},`$ (18)
where $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}𝒱`$ is a vector subspace. Note that it will often be useful to embed topological defects, which have $`\pi _k(G_{\mathrm{emb}}/H_{\mathrm{emb}})0`$.

In reference  another condition was given for a defect to be embedded:

$$D(G_{\mathrm{emb}})𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}=𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}},$$
(19)
because the constraint in (b), below, is then satisfied. Later in this paper we find this condition to be so constraining that it only holds for the simplest cases. This motivates our discussion of asymptotically embedded defects, for which condition (19) is relaxed.

An embedded defect is a solution of the full theory if the field equations reduce to consistent field equations on its embedded theory . This gives four constraints from the two field equations in (12):
(a) The current, found from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu `$, satisfies

$$J^\nu ,𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}=0,$$
(20)
where $`𝒢=𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}`$. This constrains how $`𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}𝒢`$.
(b) The kinetic scalar term satisfies

$$D_\mu D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}},𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}=0,$$
(21)
where $`𝒱=𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}`$. As mentioned above, this always holds when (19) is satisfied .
(c) The scalar potential, found from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}`$, satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{\Phi }}},𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}=0.`$ (22)
This constrains the potential — for example, it holds in the BPS limit.
(d) The gauge kinetic terms satisfies

$$D_\mu F^{\mu \nu },𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}=0.$$
(23)
This always holds by algebraic closure of $`𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ .

## 3 Constraining the spectrum of embedded defects

The condition $`J^\nu ,𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}=0`$ in (a) above has been shown to constrain the spectrum of embedded vortices  and embedded monopoles . Here we give a general proof of this constraint for embedded defects.

The following proof relies on reducing $``$ into irreducible subspaces under the adjoint action of $`H`$. These correspond to irreducible representations of $`H`$ on $``$:

$$=_1\mathrm{}_n,\mathrm{Ad}(H)_a_a.$$
(24)
Physically, each $`_a`$ defines a gauge multiplet of massive gauge bosons (for example, the W- and Z-bosons in electroweak theory).

To examine condition (20), we firstly rewrite (15) as

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒢& =& & & \\ & & & & \\ 𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}& =& _{\mathrm{emb}}& & 𝒩\end{array}`$ (28)
and split $`𝒩`$ into its $`\mathrm{Ad}(H_{\mathrm{emb}})`$-irreducible subspaces

$$𝒩=𝒩_1\mathrm{}𝒩_m,\mathrm{Ad}(H_{\mathrm{emb}})𝒩_a𝒩_a$$
(29)
in a similar way to $``$ in (24). It will also be useful to consider an embedded defect with scalar field generated by the action of $`G`$ upon $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}(x)=h(x)D[g(x)]\mathrm{\Phi }_0,g(x)G`$ (30)
with $`h(x)`$ a function of $`x=(𝒓,t)`$. Consequently, a gauge transformation (8) with group element $`g^1(x)`$ takes the embedded defect to a unitary gauge

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}=h(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,A_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu =C_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu (x)+W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu (x),`$ (31)
where the gauge field naturally separates into massless $`C_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu _{\mathrm{emb}}`$ and massive $`W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu 𝒩`$ parts.

Then a substitution of $`J^\nu `$ from (13) into (20) constrains the ansatz (31) by

$$d(𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0,D^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }=D^\nu \mathrm{\Phi },d(𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{})\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(32)
Now, in a unitary gauge

$$D^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }=(^\nu h)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+hd(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(33)
Using this and noting $`d(𝒢)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$, we see that (32) holds when

$$d(𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0,d(𝒩)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=d(𝒩)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,d(𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0,$$
(34)
which algebraically constrains the embedding (28).

This algebraic constraint (34) is expressed more simply by applying the following result :

$`d(X_a)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,d(Y_b)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\lambda _a\lambda _bX_a,Y_b,`$ (35)
$`\lambda _a={\displaystyle \frac{d(X_a)\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{X_a}},X_a_a,Y_b_b,`$ (36)
which says the representation respects orthogonality between the irreducible subspaces $`_a`$ in (24). Therefore when $`\lambda _a\lambda _b`$, we have

$$𝒩_c_a$$
(37)
with $`𝒩_c`$ a subspace from (29). If $`\lambda _a=\lambda _b`$, the embedding can also be between gauge families (see reference ).

When $`𝒩`$ is irreducible under $`\mathrm{Ad}(H_{\mathrm{emb}})`$, so (29) is trivial, the constraint (37) becomes more simply $`𝒩_a`$. This is the case with embedded vortices and embedded monopoles, as we now discuss.

For embedded vortices, which are Nielsen-Olesen vortices  embedded like (15), the embedding is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}𝒢& & \\ & & \\ \mathrm{u}(1)& & 0\end{array}`$ (41)
with $`\mathrm{U}(1)=\mathrm{exp}(X\vartheta )`$ and $`X`$. In the radial gauge, the embedded ansatz (18) is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}(r,\vartheta )=f(r)D(e^{X\vartheta })\mathrm{\Phi }_0,𝑨_{\mathrm{emb}}(r,\vartheta )={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)}{r}}X\widehat{\mathit{\vartheta }}.`$ (42)
In the unitary gauge, this ansatz becomes

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}(r,\vartheta )=f(r)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,𝑨_{\mathrm{emb}}(r,\vartheta )={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)+1}{r}}X\widehat{\mathit{\vartheta }}.`$ (43)
Then (37) constrains the vortex’s embedding by

$$𝒩_a,𝒩=X$$
(44)
with $`_a`$ an irreducible subspace from (24).

For embedded monopoles, which are ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles  embedded like (15), the embedding is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}𝒢& & \\ & & \\ \mathrm{su}(2)& & \mathrm{u}(1)\end{array}`$ (48)
with $`\mathrm{su}(2)`$ basis $`[t_a,t_b]=ϵ_{abc}t_c`$ and $`\mathrm{U}(1)=\mathrm{exp}(t_3\vartheta )`$. In the radial gauge, the embedded ansatz (18) is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{H}{r}}D[g(\widehat{𝒓})]\mathrm{\Phi }_0,A^i(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{K1}{r}}ϵ_{iab}\widehat{x}_bt_a,`$ (49)
where $`g(\widehat{𝒓})=e^{\phi t_3}e^{\vartheta t_2}e^{\phi t_3}`$ in spherical polars. In the unitary gauge, this ansatz becomes

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{H}{r}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,𝑨(𝒓)=𝑨_Dt_3{\displaystyle \frac{K}{r}}\widehat{𝜼}_st_s`$ (50)
with $`𝑨_D=\widehat{𝝋}(1\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )/r\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ the Dirac gauge potential ($`\mathbf{}𝑨_D=0`$, $`\mathbf{}𝑨_D=\widehat{𝒓}/r^2`$) and

$$\widehat{𝜼}_1=\mathrm{sin}\phi \widehat{\mathit{\vartheta }}+\mathrm{cos}\phi \widehat{𝝋},\widehat{𝜼}_2=\mathrm{cos}\phi \widehat{\mathit{\vartheta }}+\mathrm{sin}\phi \widehat{𝝋}$$
(51)
are two orthonormal unit-vectors orthogonal to $`\widehat{𝒓}`$. Then (37) constrains the monopole’s embedding by

$$𝒩_a,𝒩=t_1+t_2,$$
(52)
where $`_a`$ is an irreducible subspace from (24).

## 4 An illustrative example: vortices in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝐔\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

Let us consider a spontaneously broken $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ Yang-Mills theory with scalar field in the adjoint representation. This theory should give a typical example of a non-Abelian gauge theory in which to construct embedded defects.

It will be convenient to define the following diagonal generators

$$T_1=i\mathrm{diag}(1,1,2),T_2=i\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0).$$
(53)
Then a vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=vT_1`$ gives a residual gauge symmetry $`H=\mathrm{U}(2)`$ that satisfies $`\mathrm{Ad}(H)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ with Lie algebra

$`=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{su}(2)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}^{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{u}(1)_{T_1},u(1)_{T_1}=T_1.`$ (57)
This algebra defines a split $`\mathrm{su}(3)=`$, where

$`=\{X(𝒗):𝒗^2\},X(𝒗)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}_2& \mathrm{}& 𝒗\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝒗^{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (61)
with $``$ irreducible under $`\mathrm{Ad}(H)`$.

Using the methods in section 2, we consider an embedded vortex ansatz in a radial gauge

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}=f(r)\mathrm{Ad}(e^{\vartheta X_1})\mathrm{\Phi }_0,𝑨_{\mathrm{emb}}={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)}{r}}X_1\widehat{\mathit{\vartheta }}`$ (62)
with generator $`X_1=X(\frac{1}{2}𝒆_1)`$, where $`𝒆_1^{}=(1,0)`$. Then $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}`$, the vector space of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ values, is constructed by expanding

$`\mathrm{Ad}(e^{X_1\vartheta })\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\vartheta \mathrm{ad}(X_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (64)
$`+\frac{1}{2}\vartheta ^2\mathrm{ad}(X_1)\mathrm{ad}(X_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{}`$
In this expansion

$$\mathrm{ad}(X_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=3vY_1,\mathrm{ad}(X_1)\mathrm{ad}(X_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=9vX_1,$$
(65)
where $`Y_1=X(\frac{1}{2}i𝒆_1)`$. Therefore $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ is spanned by at least three independent generators $`T_1,X_1,Y_1`$.

However, (62) is supposed to be an embedded vortex, for which $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ should be isomorphic to either $``$ or $`^2`$ in a radial gauge. Therefore we conclude that (62) is not an embedded vortex.

Another way to see that (62) is not an embedded vortex is by calculating

$`\mathrm{Ad}(e^{\vartheta X_1})T_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\frac{1}{4}\right)T_1`$ (67)
$`+\left(\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \frac{3}{4}\right)T_2\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta Y_1.`$
Evidently, this forms a complicated curve that is not contained within a two-dimensional vector space.

## 5 Asymptotically embedded defects

Essentially, the vortex in section 4 is not embedded because the condition $`D(G_{\mathrm{emb}})𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}=𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ does not hold for any $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}^2`$. However, the simple classification in section 3 still applies, so let us see if we can generalize the definition of an embedded defect in a useful way.

For this definition, we consider an asymptotically embedded defect to have asymptotic fields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{asy}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}(x)𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}},A_{\mathrm{asy}}^\mu A_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu (x)𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}.$$
(68)
These are asymptotically similar to an embedded defect, but can differ from that form elsewhere. We also suppose that the scalar field is like (30), so in a unitary gauge

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{asy}}h(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,𝑨_{\mathrm{asy}}^\mu C_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu (x)+W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu (x)`$ (69)
with $`h(x)1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

To simplify matters, we take $`h=h(r)`$ to be a radial function and suppose the gauge field satisfies

$$_\mu W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu =0,\widehat{x}^iW_{\mathrm{emb}}^i=0.$$
(70)
All of the above conditions are motivated by the properties of embedded vortices and embedded monopoles.

Now, we examine condition (b) in section 2, which requires $`D_\mu D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}},𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}^{}=0`$. In this condition, the second-order covariant derivative is

$`D_\mu D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}`$ $`=`$ $`(^2h)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+hg_{\mu \nu }d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu )d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (72)
$`+hd(_\mu W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }_0^ihd(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^i)\mathrm{\Phi }_0.`$
Since $`h=h(r)`$ is radial, then $`^ih=h^{}\widehat{r}^i`$ and so by (69)

$`D_\mu D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}=(^2h)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+hg_{\mu \nu }d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu )d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }_0.`$ (73)
Then condition (b) in section 2 holds when

$$g_{\mu \nu }d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu )d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(74)
This is very constraining on both the defect’s fields and embedding $`𝒩`$.

Therefore when both conditions (37) and (74) hold, there are embedded defect solutions like (18). These solve the full field equations.

Alternatively, if (74) does not hold, the defect may then be asymptotically embedded. This situation happens when the second term of (73) is negligible compared to the first; namely, when asymptotically

$$\mathrm{O}(^2h_{\mathrm{asy}})>\mathrm{O}(W_{\mathrm{asy}}^2).$$
(75)
Whether this is the case depends on the nature of the defect and the parameters of the theory. Such asymptotically embedded defects are constrained only by the analysis in section 3, which requires $`𝒩_a_b`$.

To illustrate these results, we now consider embedded vortices and embedded monopoles.

For embedded vortices, condition (74) becomes

$$d(X)d(X)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0,$$
(76)
where $`X`$ is the vortex generator in (62). This equation is very constraining on $`X`$ and does not always hold \[for example, see equation (65) in section 4\]. When (76) does not hold, the vortex could instead be asymptotically embedded; this depends on the scalar and gauge masses in the embedded theory, $`m_S`$ and $`m_V`$, that define the asymptotic Nielsen-Olesen profiles

$`f(r)v`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{O}[r^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(m_Sr)],\hfill & m_S2m_V,\hfill \\ \mathrm{O}[r^1\mathrm{exp}(2m_Vr)],\hfill & m_S2m_V,\hfill \end{array}`$ (79)
$`g(r)+1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{O}[r^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(m_Vr)].`$ (80)
Therefore the vortex can be asymptotically embedded when $`m_S<2m_V`$.

For embedded monopoles, condition (74) becomes

$$d(t_1)d(t_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+d(t_2)d(t_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(81)
Again this is very constraining and does not generally hold. When (81) is not the case, the monopole may instead be asymptotically embedded; this depends upon the asymptotic ’t Hooft-Polyakov profiles

$`H(r)v`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{O}[\mathrm{exp}(m_Sr)],`$ (82)
$`K(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{O}[\mathrm{exp}(m_Vr)].`$ (83)
Therefore the monopole can be asymptotically embedded when $`m_S<2m_V`$, as found in reference .

To finish this section, we discuss a couple of points about asymptotically embedded vortices and monopoles.

The first point is that condition (81) essentially generalizes (76) to two generators. This generalization relates to the property that any monopole embedding contains vortex embeddings:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{u}(1)& & \mathrm{su}(2)& & 𝒢\\ & & & & \\ 0& & \mathrm{u}(1)& & \end{array}$$
(84)
For further discussion, we refer to reference .

The other point is that conditions (76) and (19) are the same in many situations. For example, the relation $`d(X)d(X)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=c^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the same as

$$D(e^{X\theta })\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{sin}\theta d(X/c)\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(85)
Then (85) means that $`𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}=D(e^{X\theta })\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is a two-dimensional vector space with $`D(\mathrm{U}(1)_{\mathrm{emb}})𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}=𝒱_{\mathrm{emb}}`$. Thus (76) and (19) are equivalent for embedded vortices.

In this paper, however, we find the constraint (76) more convenient because it more clearly relates to the definition of asymptotically embedded defects.

## 6 Conclusions

To conclude, we summarize our results and make a comment.

(a) Our arguments relate to the following decomposition

$`𝒢=,=_1\mathrm{}_n`$

with each $`_a`$ irreducible under $`\mathrm{Ad}(H)`$.

(b) Then defect embeddings are constructed by

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒢& =& & & \\ & & & & \\ 𝒢_{\mathrm{emb}}& =& _{\mathrm{emb}}& & 𝒩\end{array}`$

and satisfy a constraint

$`𝒩_a_b,`$

where $`𝒩=𝒩_1\mathrm{}𝒩_m`$ under $`\mathrm{Ad}(H_{\mathrm{emb}})`$.

(c) Whether defects are fully embedded or asymptotically embedded depends on whether the embedded ansatz

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=h(r)\mathrm{\Phi }_0,A_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu =C_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu +W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu `$

satisfies the field equations everywhere or only asymptotically. The defect is fully embedded when

$`g_{\mu \nu }d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu )d(W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$

(with certain conditions on $`W_{\mathrm{emb}}^\mu `$); otherwise, the defect is asymptotically embedded when

$`\mathrm{O}(^2h_{\mathrm{asy}})<O(W_{\mathrm{asy}}^2),`$

which depends on the scalar and gauge masses within the embedded theory, $`m_S`$ and $`m_V`$. Such asymptotically embedded defects are constrained only by (b).

(d) For embedded Nielsen-Olesen vortices

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{emb}}=f(r)\mathrm{Ad}(e^{\vartheta X_1})\mathrm{\Phi }_0,𝑨_{\mathrm{emb}}={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)}{r}}X_1\widehat{\mathit{\vartheta }},`$

the vortex embedding is therefore constrained by

$`𝒩_a,𝒩=X.`$

Furthermore, the vortex is fully embedded when

$`d(X)d(X)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$

and, otherwise, asymptotically embedded if $`m_S<2m_V`$.

(e) For embedded ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{H}{r}}D(g(\widehat{𝒓}))\mathrm{\Phi }_0,A^i(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{K1}{r}}ϵ_{iab}\widehat{x}_bt_a,`$

the monopole embedding is therefore constrained by

$`𝒩_a,𝒩=t_1+t_2.`$

Furthermore, the monopole is fully embedded when

$`d(t_1)d(t_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_0+d(t_2)d(t_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$

and, otherwise, asymptotically embedded if $`m_S<2m_V`$.

(f) For a final comment, we note that the formalism in (a) to (c) is general. Therefore more complicated embeddings can be constructed — for example, electroweak theory in flipped-$`\mathrm{SU}(5)`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{su}(5)\mathrm{u}(1)& & \mathrm{su}(3)\mathrm{su}(2)\mathrm{u}(1)\\ & & \\ \mathrm{su}(2)\mathrm{u}(1)& & \mathrm{u}(1).\end{array}`$ (89)
Such an embedding could be useful for considering the counterparts of Z-strings, W-strings, sphalerons and Nambu monopoles in a grand unified theory.

<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>footnotetext:  email address: n$`\mathrm{\_}`$lepora@hotmail.com