text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been a great interest in space times with $`D`$ infinite and $`n`$ compact spatial dimensions . Phenomenologically, this interest originates from the idea that the four dimensional Planck mass $`M_4`$ may be obtained from a $`4+n`$ dimensional fundamental mass $`M_{4+n}`$ being of the order of the electroweak scale, where the $`n`$ extra spatial dimensions are compact. Taking this assertion seriously, the radius $`R`$ of the extra dimensions must be large ($`R1`$ mm for $`n=2`$) . In this scenario the (light) fields of the Standard Model are trapped on a defect along the compact dimensions while gravitons propagate freely. At the scale of distances set by the size of the extra dimensions the dynamics underlying the formation of the defect(s) and accompanying gravity should effectively be describable in terms of field theory rather than string theory, although a string realization of low scale gravity has been put forward in Ref. . In a field theoretic context defects can appear in the form of domain walls, gauge vortices, etc. to have widths of the order of the $`4+n`$ dimensional Planck length . In processes with high transverse momentum (comparable to the electroweak scale) it should be possible to lose energy to the bulk region and hencefore violate four-momentum conservation in our four dimensional universe. A similar picture has been set up for the case of infinite extra dimensions in Ref. . There it was argued that the formation of defects in supersymmetric theories leading to the spontaneous breakdown of a part of SUSY may provide a means of trapping of the zero modes and thereby reducing the dimension of space time for these light modes. In contrast to the case of non-compact space time the emergence of parallel worlds is conceivable in the extra compact dimensions since there may be stable constellations of manifold defects as we will make explicit below.

To solidify the above scenario it is important to understand the dynamical aspects of defect generation and particle trapping. It is also necessary to explain in a detailed way how the compact dimensions can be stabilized against a possible gravitational collaps or an expansion caused by other forces .

In the framework of supersymmetric theories it is known for a long time that the BPS nature of a vacua interpolation preserves a part of SUSY and that the very existence of it requires the central charge(s) of the SUSY algebra to be non-zero . Extensive investigations of BPS saturated domain walls and their junctions have been performed for example in Refs. . For the case of BPS vacua interpolation along one spatial dimension the (2+1) dimensional dynamics of light modes due to Nambu-Goldstone fields bound to the corresponding domain walls was shown to be supersymmetric .

In this paper we revisit the issue of dynamical supersymmetry breaking in one compact spatial dimension. The analysis is performed for a class of generalized Wess-Zumino toy models in four dimensions with one spatial dimension compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$. These models admit BPS saturated vacua interpolation along the compact dimension.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we briefly review the pecularities of BPS saturation for solutions dependent on one compact, spatial dimension as they were worked out in Ref. . We then introduce a class of generalized Wess-Zumino models with members labeled by an integer $`N`$. The $`N`$th model has $`N+1`$ vacua which can be connected by BPS saturated solutions of the scalar sector. The properties of these vacua interpolations are investigated on the classical level, and some remarks about quantum corrections are made. Section 3 summarizes the results and comments on how the toy models considered here relate to the phenomenological notion of large extra dimensions.

## 2 Model and BPS solutions

In the case of (3+1)-dimensional non-compact space the vacua interpolating solutions of a supersymmetric model with a set of distinct ground states are topologically stable . These solutions may or may not be BPS saturated. Specializing to a (3+1)-dimensional Wess-Zumino model with superpotential $`𝒲`$, one may seek for an interpolation of the vacua $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ 111In the following we will use the same symbol for the chiral superfield and the scalar component field. satisfying the following equations of BPS saturation

$$_z\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\frac{}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\overline{𝒲},_z\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(z)=\frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}𝒲,$$
(1)
where a possible phase factor has been absorbed in the definition of the superpotential. If such a solution exists then its tension $`\tau [\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ is equal to the $`(1,0)`$ central charge $`Z`$ of the SUSY algebra, which has been shown long ago .

Since $`\tau [\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ is given by the integral over a smooth, positive semi-definite function the nonvanishing of $`Z`$ is a necessary condition for the existence of a BPS saturated vacua interpolation. It is given as

$$Z=𝑑z\frac{d}{dz}\overline{𝒲}(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(2)
where the integration extends over the entire dimension.

In the case of a (3+1) dimensional space with the $`z`$ coordinate compactified on a circle with radius $`R`$ the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has to satisfy periodic boundary conditions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }(L2\pi R)`$. Hence, the vanishing of $`Z`$ can only be avoided if the superpotential $`𝒲`$ is a multivalued function, i.e. the target manifold of field variables admits non-contractable cycles. The former possibility is unproblematic as long as the derivatives $`𝒲^{}\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }},𝒲^{\prime \prime }\frac{^2𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2},\mathrm{}`$ are single valued since it is these quantities that define the physically relevant scalar potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\overline{𝒲}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$ and the fermionic interactions .

Let us consider the one-parameter set of generalized Wess-Zumino models with the standard Kähler and the following superpotential

$$𝒲i\left(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{N+1}\mathrm{\Phi }^{N+1}\right),(N=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$
(3)
The vacua $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N,k}^{}`$ of model $`N`$ are determined by the zeros of $`𝒲^{}`$, and hence we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N,k}^{}=\text{e}^{\frac{2\pi i}{N+1}k},(k=0,\mathrm{},N)`$. For $`N=1,2,3`$ the scalar potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\stackrel{~}{V}(\text{Re}\mathrm{\Phi },\text{Im}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is depicted in Fig. 1.

We are interested in BPS saturated vacua interpolation $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$. Using the BPS-equations (1), it is easy to see that the quantity

$$I\text{Im}𝒲=\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Phi }|+1/2\left[(\text{Re}\mathrm{\Phi })^2(\text{Im}\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right],(N=1),$$
(4)
is a constant of ”motion” . From Eq. (4) it is clear that for initial values $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)|1`$ the BPS trajectories are circles centered at the origin. Indeed, in this limit the pole in $`𝒲^{},\overline{𝒲}^{}`$ is dominant (right-hand sides of (1)), and the BPS equations have the simple winding solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{wi}=\sqrt{L/2\pi }\text{e}^{\frac{2\pi i}{L}z},$$
(5)
which implies the relation $`L=2\pi A^2`$ between the initial value $`A\mathrm{\Phi }_{wi}(0)`$ ($`A`$ real) and the cycle length $`L`$. There are similar solutions with winding number $`n>1`$. All these solutions are uninteresting for the purpose of the present paper in the sense that (a) they do not interpolate between the vacua of the models, and (b) they have a uniform distribution of energy density.

In the case $`A=1\delta `$ ($`0<\delta 1`$) Fig. 2 depicts the trajectories of the solutions to Eq. (1) for $`N=1,2,3`$.

Winding around the pole at $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, these solutions (approximately) connect all vacua of the corresponding model in a clockwise sense. We argue later that for each $`N`$ there is a bijection between the BPS saturated periodic solutions of a given topology $`n`$ and the cycle length $`L`$, which hence can be used to label these solutions. In the periodic case the tension $`\tau [\mathrm{\Phi }_L]`$ is the same for all $`N`$ and $`L`$. It is given by minus the residue of the pole of $`𝒲^{}`$ times $`2\pi i`$, that is $`\tau [\mathrm{\Phi }_L]2\pi `$. Fig. 3 shows Re$`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ and the energy density $`\epsilon _L`$ as functions of $`z`$.

In order to quantify the behavior of the solutions in the vicinity of the vacua $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N,k}^{}`$ ($`k=0,\mathrm{},N`$) for the topological sector $`n=1`$ we may linearize the BPS equations about these. Linearizing about $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{N,0}^{}=1`$ and demanding the initial condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(0)=(A1)`$ for the deviation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, we obtain the following solution

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(z)=(A1)\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left((N+1)z\right)+i\mathrm{sinh}\left((N+1)z\right)\right].$$
(6)
Approximating $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ at $`z=\frac{L}{2(N+1)}`$ (first wall) as

$$1+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\frac{L}{2(N+1)}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{L}{2(N+1)}\right)\mathrm{cos}(\pi /(N+1))\text{e}^{\frac{\pi i}{N+1}},(N>1),$$
(7)
and, by means of Eq. (6), comparing real parts we obtain in the limit of large $`L`$ ($`A1`$) the relation between initial value $`A`$ and cycle length $`L`$

$$L=2\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{1\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi /(N+1))}{1A}\right]\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\pi ^4}{N^4(1A)^2}\right],(N1,N^4\frac{\pi ^4}{(1A)^2}).$$
(8)
For small $`N`$ Eq. (8) indicates a weak dependence of $`L`$ on $`N`$ in accord with the numerical findings of Fig. 3. In Fig. 4 we indicate $`L`$ as a function of the initial value $`A`$ for $`N=1`$. The quadratic regime of the pole approximation is present up to values as high as $`A=0.8`$. The above numerical calculation yields a stronger increase of $`L`$ than does the pole approximation. The logarithmic regime starts at $`A0.999`$.

In the large $`N`$ limit (with the condition $`N1,N^4\pi ^4/(1A)^2`$ satisfied) the linearization of the BPS equations is justified for an entire interpolation of two adjacent vacua. Then, from Eqs. (6) and (8) we conclude that the energy density $`\epsilon _L^w`$ in the center of the wall is

$$\epsilon _L^w\frac{\pi ^4}{N^2},(N1,N^4\pi ^4/(1A)^2),$$
(9)
that is, $`\epsilon _L^w`$ is independent of the initial value $`A`$. We know that the tension $`\tau `$ is independent of $`N`$ and $`L`$. Defining the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of each wall by

$$\tau =(N+1)\times \epsilon _L^w\times \mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(10)
we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{2}{\pi ^3}N,(N1,N^4\pi ^4/(1A)^2).$$
(11)
Hence, in the above limit the sequence of domain walls looses its peak structure suggesting that there is a critical ratio $`R=\pi ^4/((1A)^2N^4)1`$ above which the individual walls melt into an almost uniform energy distribution along the entire compact dimension.

What happens for $`A>1`$? The solution of the linearized problem of Eq. (6) indicates that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ moves away from the origin within the first quadrant. For $`N=1`$ let us assume that at some $`z_0>0`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is close to the line $`\text{e}^{i\pi /4}t,(0t<\mathrm{})`$, that is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)f(z)(1+i),(f\text{positiv real for}zz_0).$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ initially moves away from the origin we furthermore can assume that $`f`$ is considerably larger than unity. Omitting then the pole term in the right-hand side of the BPS equations, we deduce that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=f(z)(1+i)`$ is an approximate solution for $`zz_0`$ with $`f(z)=\text{e}^z`$. This blow-up behavior is observed numerically also for $`N=2,3`$. The corresponding solutions are not periodic, and therefore they are not relevant to the case of a compactified dimension. For $`N=1`$ (and presumably also for $`N>1`$) we thus have found that the cycle length $`L`$ of the periodic (non-constant) BPS solutions as a function of the initial value $`A`$ is a bijection $`L:(0,1)(0,\mathrm{})`$. The set of periodic BPS solutions at given $`L`$ is therefore uniquely indexed by the winding number $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. 222There is also a bijection between the periodic BPS solutions and the initial value $`A(0,1)`$: Since the right-hand sides of the BPS equations (1) are smooth in the entire complex plane except for the point zero the solutions are uniquely determined by the initial value. It remains to be shown that each periodic solution is associated with one value of $`A(0,1)`$. Assume this was not the case, that is, there is a periodic solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B(z)`$ with initial value $`B\{\text{trajectories labeled by}A\}`$. At some $`z_R>0`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ must cross the real axis with $`0<\mathrm{\Phi }_B(z_R)<1`$ for otherwise it will be not periodic as we showed above. Setting $`A\mathrm{\Phi }_B(z_R)`$, we obtain a contradiction to the assumption that $`B`$ coincides with no point of the trajectories labeled by $`A`$. Rescaling the Kähler metric, we therefore conclude that BPS saturation is possible in all regimes of coupling strength (see Ref.  for details). We can view the BPS interpolation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L(z)`$ at cycle length $`L`$ as the classical ground state of the model. It is known for a long time that the tension of this configuration does not receive any perturbative corrections . Since the mass of the BPS interpolation is infinite, nonperturbative effects like instanton-tunneling can not change the BPS tension either.

Regarding the superpotential of Eq. (3) to define a generalized Landau-Ginzburg model  with extended $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY in (1+1) dimensions (spatial dimension compact) , the infinite-mass argument would no longer hold. A priori, there could be instanton mediated tunneling to change the energy of the state and make it non-BPS . However, since we have a bijection between cycle length and periodic solution there is only one BPS state with given winding number $`n`$ at a given radius $`R`$. Hence, non-perturbative quantum tunneling within one topological sector is impossible.

## 3 Summary

The existence of BPS saturated vacua interpolations along one compact spatial dimension has been exemplarily demonstrated for a class of generalized Wess-Zumino models in (3+1) dimensions. The non-vanishing of the $`(1,0)`$ central charge $`Z`$ of the SUSY algebra, necessary for the existence of BPS saturated solutions, is achieved by a superpotential with a branch cut. The solutions of the BPS equations are either periodic (tension=$`2\pi `$) or blow-up (infinite tension). For the case $`N=1`$ we showed explicitely that there is a bijection between the set of periodic solutions and the cycle length $`0<L<\mathrm{}`$. In the limit of large $`L`$ and $`N`$ the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the walls scales as $`N`$. On the other hand, for fixed initial value $`0<A<1`$ the length of the cycle scales logarithmically with $`N`$ suggesting that there are critical combinations of the quantities $`N`$ and $`A`$ for which the individual walls start to melt into a uniform distribution of energy throughout the entire compact dimension.

Viewing the above class of models as $`𝒩=2`$ generalized Landau-Ginzburg models in (1+1) dimensions , the energy of the classical BPS state of cycle length $`L`$ does not get affected by non-perturbative instanton tunneling for $`N=1`$ (presumably this is also true for $`N>1`$). Perturbative corrections in general change the shape of the BPS interpolation but leave its energy (tension) intact .

The class of $`(3+1)`$ dimensional models that were investigated in this paper are toy models in the following sense: Since four is the maximal dimension at which one can build a non-trivial, supersymmetric theory of scalars and fermions Wess-Zumino models cannot make direct contact with the phenomenology of extra dimensions as put forward in Refs. . However, they do provide a simple framework for the visualization of compactification scenarios. The possibility of the dynamical generation of a stable ”brane-lattice”, which may cause a gravitational stabilization of the extra dimension , is transparent in the setting of a Wess-Zumino model. Concerning the question of SUSY breaking in the universe of light particles trapped on a spontaneously generated defect, one may introduce small SUSY breaking terms into the scalar potential, which allow for a perturbative treatment and periodicity of the perturbed solution. Alternatively, one could start with a non-supersymmetric model allowing for BPS saturated domain walls. The reason for the existence of light, localized fermions is then solely due to generalized index theorems  in contrast to the case of a spontaneous, partial breakdown of SUSY, where the localized fermions primarily are Goldstinos .

## Acknowledgements

The author likes to thank M. Shifman for reading the manuscript and suggesting various improvements. Stimulating and useful conversations with T. ter Veldhuis are gratefully acknowledged. This work was funded by a postdoctoral fellowship of Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD).


format: text

text:
# Nonuniversal correlations in multiple scattering

## I Introduction

Tremendous progress has been made during the last years in the understanding of multiple scattering of waves in disordered media in so-called mesoscopic regime. This regime is commonly defined by

$`\lambda \mathrm{}LL_{abs},`$ (1)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the mean free path, $`L`$ is the sample size (or source-detector separation in the case of infinite medium), and $`L_{abs}`$ is the absorption length. In particular, considerable attention has been paid to the study of the correlation function of intensity fluctuations

$`C(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\delta I(𝐫,t)\delta I(𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,t+\tau )}{I(𝐫,t)I(𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,t)}},`$ (2)
where $`I(𝐫,t)=\left|\psi (𝐫,t)\right|^2`$ is the intensity of the wave field $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$, $`\delta I(𝐫,t)=I(𝐫,t)I(𝐫,t)`$, angular brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote ensemble averaging, and the random fields $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$, $`I(𝐫,t)`$ are assumed to be stationary. In the present paper, we are mainly interested in the correlation of intensities in two distant points separated by a distance superior to the mean free path: $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>\mathrm{}`$.

Several contributions to $`C`$ can be identified. Short-range (in both space and time) correlations arise from interference between the waves arriving at the points $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫`$. Weak long-range correlations are due to the interaction of diffusing modes in the medium. Finally, tiny infinite-range correlations manifest themselves in the phenomenon of universal conductance fluctuations, and have been recently observed for optical waves. The listed contributions to the correlation function are commonly denoted by $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$, respectively. It is important to emphasize that the magnitudes of these correlations scale with some dimensionless parameter and are not sensitive to the short-distance properties of disorder provided that $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|,\left|𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫𝐫_0\right|>\mathrm{}`$. For the case of plane wave transmission through a slab, such a parameter is the dimensionless conductance $`gN\mathrm{}/L`$, where $`Nk_0^2A`$ is the number of transport channels, $`k_0=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wavenumber, and $`A`$ is the area of the slab surface. For $`g1`$, which is a typical experimental situation, one finds $`C_11`$, $`C_2g^1`$, $`C_3g^2`$. For a medium of infinite extent, the relevant parameter is the product $`k_0\mathrm{}`$: $`C_11`$, $`C_2(k_0\mathrm{})^2`$, $`C_3(k_0\mathrm{})^4`$, where $`k_0\mathrm{}1`$ is assumed. In all cases, the only medium-specific quantity determining the magnitude of the correlation is the mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$, and thus we call the $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, and $`C_3`$ correlations universal as they are independent of the particular features of disorder, and only depend on the global parameter $`\mathrm{}`$.

Recently, a new contribution to the intensity correlation in random media ($`C_0`$) has been conjectured. This contribution originates from the scattering of wave near its source. In the case of a point source embedded in an infinite three-dimensional medium with fluctuations of the dielectric constant obeying white-noise Gaussian statistics, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau =0`$, it has been found

$`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0\mathrm{}}}.`$ (3)
The physical process giving rise to the $`C_0`$ correlation consists in the scattering of the wave in the immediate neighborhood of its source (more precisely, at a distance of order $`\lambda `$ from the source), which produces a secondary wave propagating to the distant points $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫`$ by diffusion. It turns out that the secondary waves created in such a way are correlated, and hence the described physical process establishes correlation between intensities at different points of the medium. It is important to emphasize that this correlation has an infinite spatial range.

A fundamental difference between $`C_0`$ and other types of correlation is that $`C_0`$ should be sensitive to the short-distance details of disorder (e.g., to its correlation length). Moreover, as this contribution to the correlation function is due to the scattering in the vicinity of the source, one could expect that $`C_0`$ should depend on the geometrical parameters of the source and, in particular, on its size. Finally, for moving scatterers and $`\tau 0`$, $`C_0`$ should also be sensitive to the dynamics of disordered medium in the immediate neighborhood of the source. It follows then that the $`C_0`$ contribution to the correlation function is non-universal.

In the present paper, we show that the $`C_0`$ correlation function does exhibit a strongly non-universal behavior. First, we study the dependence of $`C_0`$ on the correlation length of disorder $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$. It is shown that the $`C_0`$ correlation function depends explicitly on $`k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$, and, more precisely, that it decreases linearly with $`k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ for $`k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon 1`$. The sensitivity of the $`C_0`$ correlation function to the correlation length of disorder might be used for sensitive specific measurements of $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$. Next, we study the effect of the source size $`a`$ on the $`C_0`$ correlation. We show that $`C_0`$ decreases as $`a`$ is increased. The decrease of $`C_0`$ with $`a`$ is linear for $`k_0a1`$ and becomes power-law \[$`C_0(k_0a)^1`$\] for $`k_0a1`$. Finally, we compute the space-time intensity correlation function $`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )`$. We show that this correlation function is sensitive to the motion of scatterers in the immediate neighborhood of the source. In the case of disordered medium consisting of scatterers undergoing Brownian motion, $`C_0`$ decays linearly with $`\sqrt{\tau /\tau _0}`$ as $`\tau \tau _0`$ and exhibits a power-law behavior \[$`C_0(\tau /\tau _0)^{3/2}`$\] for $`\tau \tau _0`$, with $`\tau _0`$ being a single-scattering correlation time. The decay of $`C_0`$ with time is exclusively determined by the motion of scatterers located at a distance of order $`\lambda `$ from the source, and is not sensitive to the dynamics of the rest of the medium. Measurements of $`C_0`$ could therefore provide a sensitive spatially-selective probe of scatterer motion in disordered media.

## II Spatial correlation

Following Ref. , we consider an infinite three-dimensional disordered medium with a monochromatic source of scalar waves located at $`𝐫_0`$. We assume that the source is spherically symmetric and has a radius $`a`$. To treat the problem of non-zero $`a`$, one needs to specify the boundary conditions for the wave field at the surface $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|=a`$. We assume that waves are transmitted through the region of space occupied by the source without being scattered. Then for $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|>a`$ the wave field $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ obeys the scalar wave equation with a point source at $`𝐫_0`$:

$`\left\{^2+k_0^2\left[1+\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)+i\eta \right]\right\}\psi (𝐫,t)=\delta (𝐫𝐫_0),`$ (4)
where $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ is the fluctuating part of the dielectric constant \[$`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)0`$ for $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|<a`$\], and $`\eta `$ is a positive infinitesimal ensuring the uniqueness of solution of Eq. (4). The wave equation can be written in the form of Eq. (4) only if $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ does not change significantly at the time scale of $`(ck_0)^1`$, with $`c`$ being the speed of propagation in the average medium: $`/t[\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)]ck_0`$.

Let us first consider the purely spatial correlation function $`C(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,0)`$. The time evolution of $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ is of no importance in this case, and the statistical properties of $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ are completely specified by its average value and covariance. Without loss of generality, we consider $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ which obeys Gaussian statistics with zero average and correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$:

$`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)=0,`$ (5)
$`B_\epsilon (\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫)=\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)\delta \epsilon (𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,t)=\sigma _\epsilon ^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }r^2}{\mathrm{}_\epsilon ^2}}\right),`$ (6)
where $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|,\left|𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫𝐫_0\right|>a`$. In the present paper we restrict ourselves to weak scattering ($`k_0^2\mathrm{}_\epsilon ^2\sigma _\epsilon ^21`$) and short correlation length ($`\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$). The first assumption allows us to benefit from a standard diagrammatic techniques in the first order Born approximation, while the second one permits to not distinguish between the scattering and the transport mean free paths. The case of $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$ calls for a more sophisticated treatment which is beyond the scope of this paper. For $`k_0^2\mathrm{}_\epsilon ^2\sigma _\epsilon ^21`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$, the mean free path is $`\mathrm{}=4\pi /(uk_0^4)`$ with $`u=\pi ^{3/2}\sigma _\epsilon ^2\mathrm{}_\epsilon ^3`$. In the following we assume that any variation of $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ implies corresponding change of $`\sigma _\epsilon `$ so that $`\mathrm{}`$ remains unchanged.

As shown in Ref. , in a weak scattering limit ($`k_0\mathrm{}1`$), the leading contribution to $`\delta I(𝐫,t)\delta I(𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,t+\tau )`$ can be represented by a diagram depicted in Fig. 1, where the ladder propagators are $`L(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=3/(\mathrm{}^3\left|𝐫_1𝐫_2\right|)`$, and $`V`$ is a vertex to be calculated with account for the short-distance properties of disorder and the size of the source. This vertex is a short-range object and can be replaced by a number. We show the leading contributions to $`V`$ in Fig. 2. Note that the diagrams (c) and (d) contribute to the vertex only if $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon 0`$ or $`a0`$ and therefore they have not been counted in Ref. , where only the case of $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon =a=0`$ has been considered.

The calculation of the diagrams of Fig. 2 is performed similarly to that of Ref. . For the diagram (b) of Fig. 2 we obtain, for instance,

$`V^{(b)}=k_0^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle d^3𝐫_1d^3𝐫_4\overline{G}(𝐫_1𝐫_0)\overline{G}^{}(𝐫_4𝐫_0)f^{}(𝐫_1𝐫_0)f(𝐫_4𝐫_0)B_\epsilon (𝐫_1,𝐫_4)},`$ (7)
where integrations cover the whole space except the interior of a sphere of radius $`a`$ centered at $`𝐫_0`$,

$`\overline{G}(𝐫𝐫_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(ik_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}\right)\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|\right]`$ (8)
is the average Green function of Eq. (4), and

$`f(𝐫𝐫_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(k_0\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|)}{k_0\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|}{2\mathrm{}}}\right).`$ (9)
The derivation of the two above expressions is performed under important assumptions of $`k_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`a\mathrm{}`$. The second assumption allows us to neglect the absence of the dielectric constant fluctuations inside the region of space occupied by the source, which simplifies greatly the derivations.

Results similar to Eq. (7) are also obtained for the three other diagrams of Fig. 2. The diagram (c), for example, is given by the same integral as in the Eq. (7) with the integrand $`\overline{G}^{}(𝐫_1𝐫_0)\overline{G}^{}(𝐫_4𝐫_0)f(𝐫_1𝐫_0)f(𝐫_4𝐫_0)B_\epsilon (𝐫_1,𝐫_4)`$. Next, diagrams (a) and (d) are obtained from (b) and (c) by a complex conjugation. Finally, taking the sum of all the four diagrams, performing angular integrals, and introducing $`x_1=k_0r_1`$ and $`x_2=k_0r_4`$ as new variables of integration, we get

$`V=V^{(a)}+\mathrm{}+V^{(d)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{16\pi k_0}}F(k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon ,k_0a),`$ (10)
where

$`F(\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle _\beta ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _\beta ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2x_1)}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2x_2)}{x_2}}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{\alpha }}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{\alpha }}\right)^2\right]\right\}.`$ (12)
The rest of the calculation is straightforward. The diagram of Fig. 1 yields $`\delta I(𝐫,t)\delta I(𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,t+\tau )=VL(𝐫_0,𝐫)L(𝐫_0,𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫)[\mathrm{}/(4\pi )]^2`$, where the factor $`[\mathrm{}/(4\pi )]^2`$ accounts for the two vertices connecting the diffusion ladders to the points $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫`$. As the average intensity is $`I(𝐫,t)=[\mathrm{}/(4\pi )]^2L(𝐫_0,𝐫)`$, the contribution of the diagram of Fig. 1 to the correlation function defined by Eq. (2) becomes

$`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0\mathrm{}}}F(k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon ,k_0a).`$ (13)
The result (3) is recovered for $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon =a=0`$, as $`F(0,0)1`$. Hence, the factor $`F(k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon ,k_0a)`$ describes the effects of source size $`a`$ and disorder correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ on the $`C_0`$ correlation. In general, $`F(k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon ,k_0a)`$ is a rather complicated function of its arguments. Below we consider separately the following two cases: (i) $`a\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$ and (ii) $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon a,\lambda `$.

(i). If $`a\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$, one can set the lower limits of integrations in Eq. (12) equal to zero. Then Eq. (12) can be simplified, although the simplification requires some care, as the integrand of Eq. (12) does not have finite derivatives at $`\alpha =0`$ and cannot be therefore expanded in a power series near this point. Instead, we represent the expression in the curved brackets of Eq. (12) as $`2\mathrm{exp}[(x_1^2+x_2^2)/\alpha ^2]\mathrm{sinh}(2x_1x_2/\alpha ^2)`$ and then expand $`\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{})`$ in Taylor series. Carrying out integrations, we obtain

$`F(\alpha ,0)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+3/2)}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(n+1;3/2;\alpha ^2),`$ (14)
where $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\mathrm{})`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function. While the series in Eq. (14) converges sufficiently fast for $`\alpha >1`$, the convergence slows down as $`\alpha `$ becomes less than unity.

As we consider $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$, we are only interested in $`F(\alpha ,0)`$ for $`\alpha 1`$. Although Eq. (14) can be evaluated numerically even for $`\alpha <1`$, this equation is of little help if one wants to get some qualitative insight into the small-$`\alpha `$ behavior of $`F(\alpha ,0)`$. To get such an insight, we introduce $`t_{1,2}=x_{1,2}/\alpha `$ as new variables of integration in Eq. (12). This yields

$`F(\alpha ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t_1)}{t_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t_2)}{t_2}}`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(t_1^2t_2^2\right)\mathrm{sinh}(2t_1t_2).`$ (16)
Assuming small $`\alpha `$, we replace $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t_2)`$ by $`2\alpha t_2`$ and then perform the integrals over $`t_2`$ and $`t_1`$. Finally, we keep in a final result only the terms linear in $`\alpha `$. This gives

$`F(\alpha ,0)1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^{3/2}}}\alpha ,\text{ }\alpha 1.`$ (17)
A plot of $`F(\alpha ,0)`$ obtained by a numerical evaluation of Eq. (14) is presented in Fig. 3 by a solid line. The decay of $`F`$ is linear for $`\alpha <1`$, as predicted by Eq. (17). The part of the plot corresponding to $`\alpha >1`$ is meaningless for a moment, as we have assumed $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$. This part of the plot will be discussed and interpreted in the next section, where the space-time correlation function is considered.

As follows from Eq. (17) and Fig. 3, the $`C_0`$ correlation decreases with increase of the disorder correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$, and the characteristic scale of this decrease is set by $`\lambda `$. This is physically clear as $`C_0`$ originates from scattering at a distance of order $`\lambda `$ from the source, which is only possible if the wave “identifies” its environment as disordered already after a distance of order $`\lambda `$. Such an identification implies that $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ changes significantly at the scale of $`\lambda `$, or, in other words, that the correlation length of the fluctuations of $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ is shorter than $`\lambda `$. On the basis of this reasoning, we expect that $`C_0`$ should vanish for $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon >\lambda `$, while for $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon \lambda `$ the behavior of $`C_0`$ may be sensitive to a particular model of disorder. In contrast, the linear initial decay (17) of the $`C_0`$ correlation function with the disorder correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ seems to be rather general and independent of the model of disorder. We have verified that the linear law (17) holds (with an apparent change of numerical factors) not only for the Gaussian covariance of $`\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)`$ \[Eq. (6)\], but also for the exponential one $`B_\epsilon (\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫)=\sigma _\epsilon ^2\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }r/\mathrm{}_\epsilon )`$, as well as for $`B_\epsilon (\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫)=\sigma _\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }r/\mathrm{}_\epsilon )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=1`$ for $`x1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=0`$ for $`x>1`$.

An essential result of our analysis is that the $`C_0`$ correlation function appears to be sensitive to the correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ of the dielectric function fluctuations, which is a short-distance parameter of disorder. We remind that all the previously studied types of correlation ($`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$) are not sensitive to such details of the scattering medium, and only depend on the mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$. We conclude then that the sensitivity to the short-distance properties of disordered medium is a distinctive feature of the $`C_0`$ correlation function. Measurements of $`C_0`$ could thus provide unambiguous information on the disorder correlation length. It is rather surprising that such information is not lost as a result of multiple scattering, as one would expect, but determines the long-range spatial correlation in the multiple-scattering speckle pattern.

Another important outcome of the presented consideration is that the correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ entering into Eq. (13) is that characteristic for the disorder in the immediate neighborhood of the source (more precisely, at a distance of order $`\lambda `$ from it). The information about the rest of the medium is only contained in the mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$. Measurements of the $`C_0`$ correlation could therefore be used for “diffuse microscopy” of disordered media with spatial resolution of order $`\lambda `$. A possibility of such a microscopy stems from the enhanced sensitivity of the multiple-scattering speckle pattern to the properties of disorder in the vicinity of the source.

(ii). In the case of $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon a,\lambda `$, we can set $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon =0`$ and consider the limit $`\alpha 0`$ of Eq. (12). The exponentials in the curved brackets of Eq. (12) become $`\pi ^{1/2}\alpha \delta (x_1x_2)`$ and $`\pi ^{1/2}\alpha \delta (x_1+x_2)`$, respectively, which yields

$`F(0,k_0a)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left[\mathrm{Si}(4k_0a){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(2k_0a)}{2k_0a}}\right]`$ (18)
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}1(4/\pi )k_0a,\hfill & k_0a1,\hfill \\ 1/(2\pi k_0a),\hfill & k_0a1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{Si}(\mathrm{})`$ is the sine integral, and the second line of the equation shows simplified versions of the first one in two limiting cases. Eq. (19) is plotted in Fig. 3 by a dashed line. As $`k_0a1`$, the decay of $`F(0,k_0a)`$ is linear, similarly to that of $`F(k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon ,0)`$ (see the solid line in Fig. 3). When $`k_0a`$ becomes larger than unity, $`F(0,k_0a)`$ decreases as $`(k_0a)^1`$. This indicates that although the small size of the source is important for the magnitude of the $`C_0`$ correlation, the correlation process leading to $`C_0`$ survives even for extended ($`a0`$) sources.

The above analysis holds for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>\mathrm{}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }r<\mathrm{}`$, an additional contribution to the $`C_0`$ correlation function arises due to scattering in the neighborhood of the observation points. In a complete analogy with the term given by Eq. (13), this second contribution is determined by the short-distance properties of disorder in the vicinity of the observation points $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0`$, the contributions owing to scattering near the source and near the observation point become equal and their sum determines a correction to the second moment of intensity fluctuations $`\delta I(𝐫,t)^2`$. Hence, the most of the conclusions drawn concerning the $`C_0`$ correlation are also true (with obvious insignificant modifications) for $`\delta I(𝐫,t)^2`$.

## III Space-time correlation

We now turn to the case of the space-time correlation function, allowing $`\tau 0`$ in Eq. (2). It is obvious from general considerations that the correlation function of intensity of a multiple-scattered wave should decrease with $`\tau `$ once the disordered medium is subject to some non-periodic dynamics. This decrease was first discovered for the $`C_1`$ correlation function, and recently has been also studied for $`C_2`$ (see Ref. ) and $`C_3`$ (see Ref. ).

As the role of the disorder correlation length $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ has been studied in the previous section, and in order to emphasize the effect of the medium dynamics, we assume $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon =0`$ in the present section. For the sake of concreteness, we consider the disordered medium as a suspension of point-like scatterers which diffuse with a diffusion constant $`D_B`$. The relevant correlation function of the dielectric constant fluctuations is then

$`B_\epsilon (\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )=\delta \epsilon (𝐫,t)\delta \epsilon (𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,t+\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{u}{(4\pi D_B\tau )^{3/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }r^2}{4D_B\tau }}\right).`$ (20)
Calculation of the diagrams of Figs. 1, 2 is performed very similar to the case of $`\tau =0`$. We finally obtain

$`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0\mathrm{}}}F(\sqrt{\tau /\tau _0},k_0a),`$ (21)
where $`F(\mathrm{})`$ is given by Eq. (12), and $`\tau _0=(4k_0^2D_B)^1`$ is the single-scattering correlation time. To simplify the further analysis, we assume $`a\lambda ,(\tau D_B)^{1/2}`$ which allows us to extend the lower limits of integrations in Eq. (12) to zero, and to reduce Eq. (12) to Eq. (14).

An approximate expression for $`F(\alpha ,0)`$ in the limit of small $`\alpha `$ has been found in the previous section \[see Eq. (17)\]. To analyze the behavior of $`F(\alpha ,0)`$ for $`\alpha 1`$, we take the large-$`\alpha `$ limit of Eqs. (12), (14):

$`F(\alpha ,0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^3}},\text{ }\alpha 1.`$ (22)
Hence, the asymptotic behavior of the space-time correlation function can be summarized as follows:

$`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_0\mathrm{}}}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}1(4/\pi ^{3/2})\sqrt{\tau /\tau _0},\hfill & \tau \tau _0\text{,}\hfill \\ (1/\pi ^{3/2})(\tau /\tau _0)^{3/2},\hfill & \tau \tau _0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (23)
These approximate results are well supported by the numerical evaluation of Eq. (14) which yields the solid line of Fig. 3. Linear initial decay of $`F`$ (and, consequently, of $`C_0`$) with $`\sqrt{\tau /\tau _0}`$ is followed by a power-law long-time tail, as predicted by Eq. (22).

It is instructive to compare the initial decay of the $`C_0`$ correlation function with that of $`C_1`$, which for the considered case of a point source in an infinite medium and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0`$ reads

$`C_1(𝐫,0,\tau )12{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3\tau }{2\tau _0}}},\text{ }\tau \tau _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|}}\right)^2.`$ (24)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }r0`$, $`C_1`$ decreases exponentially with $`\mathrm{\Delta }r/\mathrm{}`$ and thus becomes negligible for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>\mathrm{}`$. Although the functional forms of $`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )`$ and $`C_1(𝐫,0,\tau )`$ for short $`\tau `$ are the same, the typical correlation time $`\tau _0`$ corresponding to $`C_0`$ is much larger than the correlation time $`\tau _0(\mathrm{}/\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|)^2`$ corresponding to $`C_1`$, as $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|\mathrm{}`$. This stems from the fact that the decay of $`C_1`$ is due to multiple scattering events, each giving a contribution to the decorrelation process. The factor $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|/\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (24) reflects the increase of the effective number of scattering events with $`\left|𝐫𝐫_0\right|`$. In contrast, the decay of $`C_0`$ with $`\tau `$ originates from single scattering events in the neighborhood of the source. The following propagation of waves to the distant points $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫`$ depicted by the ladder propagators in Fig. 1, does not lead to any additional decorrelation, and thus the characteristic decay time of $`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )`$ is insensitive to $`𝐫𝐫_0`$ and $`𝐫+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫𝐫_0`$.

It is worthwhile to note that there exists another important difference between the $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ correlation functions. Eq. (24) for $`C_1`$ is derived under assumption of statistically homogeneous scatterer dynamics throughout the whole space \[the characteristic time $`\tau _0`$ in Eq. (24) is assumed to be the same for all parts of the medium\]. If, for instance, the scatterer motion in some region of space differs from that in the rest of the medium, the difference is reflected directly on the decay of $`C_1`$. This property of $`C_1`$ allows its use for imaging of scatterer dynamics in turbid media. Moreover, space-resolved measurements of $`C_1`$ permit to distinguish between Brownian and directed (flow) motion of scatterers inside some bounded region of space, and to image scatterer flows in multiple-scattering media. In contrast, as the decay of $`C_0`$ is only sensitive to the motion of scatterers in the vicinity of the source, any modifications of scatterer dynamics in other parts of the medium do not affect the $`C_0`$ correlation \[the characteristic time $`\tau _0`$ in Eqs. (21), (23) is that corresponding to the immediate neighborhood of the source\]. The $`C_0`$ correlation function is not therefore suitable for imaging of the bulk of disordered media. As a compensation of this drawback, $`C_0`$ has, however, an important advantage as compared to $`C_1`$. The advantage is the spatially-selective sensitivity to the scatterer motion in the immediate neighborhood of the source. This sensitivity opens up a possibility of “dynamic diffuse microscopy” of scatterer motion in multiple-scattering media.

The presented treatment of the space-time correlation is valid for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>\mathrm{}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }r<\mathrm{}`$, an additional contribution to the correlation function appears due to scattering in the neighborhood of the observation points, just like in the case of purely spatial correlation. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0`$, the sum of the two contributions yields a correction to the $`C_1`$ correlation function \[Eq. (24)\]. A possible existence of such a correction has been suggested by Scheffold et al., although they considered a different experimental geometry. This correction is uniquely determined by the motion of scatterers in the neighborhoods of the source and the observation point. We emphasize that $`C_0C_1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0`$, while for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r>\mathrm{}`$ the $`C_1`$ term disappears and the leading contribution to the correlation function is given by $`C_0`$, since $`C_2(k_0\mathrm{})^2C_0`$.

## IV Conclusion

In the present paper, we consider a recently suggested novel type of intensity correlation in disordered media ($`C_0`$). We show that the $`C_0`$ correlation function exhibits a strongly non-universal behavior in the sense that it is sensitive to the short-distance properties of disorder and geometrical parameters (e.g., size) of the localized source of waves. In particular, we find that $`C_0`$ depends explicitly on the correlation length of dielectric function fluctuations $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ and the size of the source $`a`$. More precisely, the $`C_0`$ correlation is damped down as either $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$ or $`a`$ is increased. As a function of $`k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$, $`C_0`$ exhibits linear decay for $`k_0\mathrm{}_\epsilon 1`$. As a function of $`k_0a`$, the $`C_0`$ correlation function also decays linearly for $`k_0a1`$, and $`C_0(k_0a)^1`$ for $`k_0a1`$. The sensitivity of the $`C_0`$ correlation to the short-distance properties of disorder (e.g., to $`\mathrm{}_\epsilon `$) is its distinctive feature, since all other types of correlation commonly considered for waves in disordered media ($`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$) are insensitive to the details of scattering medium, and only depend on the mean free path, which is an integral parameter of disorder.

Next, we calculate the space-time correlation function of intensity fluctuations $`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )`$. We show that this correlation function is only sensitive to the scatterer motion in the immediate neighborhood of the source, while being insensitive to the dynamics of the rest of disordered medium. $`C_0(𝐫,\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫,\tau )`$ is independent of $`𝐫`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐫`$ and decays linearly as a function of $`\sqrt{\tau /\tau _0}`$ for $`\tau \tau _0`$ ($`\tau _0`$ is the single-scattering correlation time). For large $`\tau `$ ($`\tau \tau _0`$), the decays of $`C_0`$ is power-law: $`C_0(\tau /\tau _0)^{3/2}`$.

Finally, we suggest that the spatially-selective sensitivity of the $`C_0`$ correlation function to the properties and dynamics of disordered medium in the neighborhood of the source (and detector for $`\mathrm{\Delta }r<\mathrm{}`$) may be used to develop a sort of “diffuse microscopy” of multiple-scattering media.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank B. A. van Tiggelen for many stimulating discussions.

FIGURE CAPTIONS


text:
# Perturbation theory methods applied to critical phenomena

## 1 Introduction

Phase transitions and critical phenomena is one of the most widely investigated topics in modern physics. Nevertheless, a limited number of exact and rigorous results is available . Our purpose is to give a critical analysis of the conventional approach in calculation of critical exponents based on the perturbative renormalization group (RG) theory  and to propose a new method which provides results consistent with the known exact solutions. The basic hypothesis of the conventional (RG) theory is the existence of a certain fixed point for the RG transformation. However, the existence of such a stable fixed point for the Ginzburg–Landau model (which lies in the basis of the field theory) has not been proven mathematically in the case of the spatial dimensionality $`d<4`$.

The usual RG theory treatment of the Ginzburg–Landau model is based on the diagrammatic perturbation theory (Feynman diagrams). We have demonstrated that this treatment is contradictory and therefore cannot give correct values of critical exponents. Namely, based on a method which is mathematically correct and well justified in view of the conventional RG theory, we prove the nonexistence of the non–Gaussian fixed point predicted by this theory (Sect. 2). In Sect. 3 we prove that a correctly treated diagram expansion provides results which essentially differ from those of the perturbative (diagrammatic) RG theory. Finally, we have proposed a novel analytical method of determination of critical exponents in the Ginzburg–Landau model (Sect. 4), and have compared the predicted exact values of critical exponents to the results of numerical and real experiments (Sect. 5).

## 2 Critical analysis of the perturbative RG method

Here we consider the Ginzburg–Landau phase transition model within the usual renormalization group approach to show that this approach is contradictory (for more details see also ). The Hamiltonian of this model in the Fourier representation reads

$$\frac{H}{T}=\underset{𝐤}{}\left(r_0+c𝐤^2\right)\phi _𝐤^2+uV^1\underset{𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3}{}\phi _{𝐤_1}\phi _{𝐤_2}\phi _{𝐤_3}\phi _{𝐤_1𝐤_2𝐤_3},$$
(1)
where $`\phi _𝐤=V^{1/2}\phi (𝐱)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱})𝑑𝐱`$ are Fourier components of the scalar order parameter field $`\phi (𝐱)`$, $`T`$ is the temperature,and $`V`$ is the volume of the system. In the RG field theory  Hamiltonian (1) is renormalized by integration of $`\mathrm{exp}(H/T)`$ over $`\phi _𝐤`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/s<k<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, followed by a certain rescaling procedure providing a Hamiltonian corresponding to the initial values of $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the upper cutoff of the $`\phi ^4`$ interaction. Due to this procedure, additional terms appear in the Hamiltonian (1), so that in general the renormalized Hamiltonian contains a continuum of parameters. The basic hypothesis of the RG theory in $`d<4`$ dimensions is the existence of a non–Gaussian fixed point $`\mu =\mu ^{}`$ for the RG transformation $`R_s`$ defined in the space of Hamiltonian parameters, i.e.,

$$R_s\mu ^{}=\mu ^{}.$$
(2)
The fixed-point values of the Hamiltonian parameters are marked by an asterisk ($`r_0^{}`$, $`c^{}`$, and $`u^{}`$, in particular). Note that $`\mu ^{}`$ is unambiguously defined by fixing the values of $`c^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. According to the RG theory, the main terms in the renormalized Hamiltonian in $`d=4ϵ`$ dimensions are those contained in (1) with $`r_0^{}`$ and $`u^{}`$ of the order $`ϵ`$, whereas the additional terms are small corrections of order $`ϵ^2`$.

Consider the Fourier transform $`G(𝐤,\mu )`$ of the two–point correlation (Green’s) function, corresponding to a point $`\mu `$. Under the RG transformation $`R_s`$ this function transforms as follows

$$G(𝐤,\mu )=s^{2\eta }G(s𝐤,R_s\mu ).$$
(3)
Let $`G(𝐤,\mu )G(k,\mu )`$ (at $`𝐤\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`V\mathrm{}`$) be defined within $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since Eq. (3) holds for any $`s>1`$, we can set $`s=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$, which at $`\mu =\mu ^{}`$ yields

$$G(𝐤,\mu ^{})=ak^{2+\eta }\text{for}k<\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(4)
where $`a=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\eta }G(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu ^{})`$ is the amplitude and $`\eta `$ is the universal critical exponent. According to the universality hypothesis, the infrared behavior of the Green’s function is described by the same universal value of $`\eta `$ at any $`\mu `$ on the critical surface (with the only requirement that all parameters of Hamiltonian (1) are present), i.e.,

$$G(𝐤,\mu )=b(\mu )k^{2+\eta }\text{at}k0,$$
(5)
where

$$b(\mu )=\underset{k0}{lim}k^{2\eta }G(𝐤,\mu ).$$
(6)
According to Eq. (3), which holds for any $`s=s(k)>1`$ and for $`s=\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$ in particular, Eq. (6) reduces to

$$b(\mu )=\underset{k0}{lim}k^{2\eta }s(k)^{2\eta }G(s𝐤,R_s\mu )=a,$$
(7)
if the fixed point $`\mu ^{}=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}R_s\mu `$ exists. Let us define the function $`X(𝐤,\mu )`$ as $`X(𝐤,\mu )=k^2G^1(𝐤,\mu )`$. According to Eqs. (4), (5), and (7), we have (for $`k<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$)

$$X(𝐤,\mu ^{})=\frac{1}{a}k^\eta $$
(8)
and

$$X(𝐤,\mu )=\frac{1}{a}k^\eta +\delta X(𝐤,\mu ),$$
(9)
where $`\mu `$ belongs to the critical surface, and $`\delta X(𝐤,\mu )`$ denotes the correction–to–scaling term. From (8) and (9) we obtain the equation

$$\delta X(𝐤,\mu ^{}+\delta \mu )=X(𝐤,\mu ^{}+\delta \mu )X(𝐤,\mu ^{}),$$
(10)
where $`\delta \mu =\mu \mu ^{}`$. Since Eq. (10) is true for any small deviation $`\delta \mu `$ satisfying the relation

$$\mu ^{}=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}R_s(\mu ^{}+\delta \mu ),$$
(11)
we choose $`\delta \mu `$ such that $`\mu ^{}\mu ^{}+\delta \mu `$ corresponds to the variation of the Hamiltonian parameters $`r_0^{}r_0^{}+\delta r_0`$, $`c^{}c^{}+\delta c`$, and $`u^{}u^{}+ϵ\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a small constant. The values of $`\delta r_0`$ and $`\delta c`$ are choosen to fit the critical surface and to meet the condition (11) at fixed $`c^{}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. In particular, quantity $`\delta c`$ is found $`\delta c=Bϵ^2+o(ϵ^3)`$ with some (small) coefficient $`B=B(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, to compensate the shift in $`c`$ of the order $`ϵ^2`$ due to the renormalization (cf. ). The formal $`ϵ`$–expansion of $`\delta X(𝐤,\mu )`$, defined by Eq. (10), can be obtained in the usual way from the perturbation theory. This yields

$$\delta X(𝐤,\mu )=ϵ^2[C_1(\mathrm{\Delta })+C_2(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{ln}k]+o(ϵ^3)\text{at}k0,$$
(12)
where $`C_1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`C_2(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ ($`C_20`$) are coefficients independent on $`ϵ`$.

It is commonly accepted in the RG field theory to make an expansion like (12), obtained from the diagrammatic perturbation theory, to fit an asymptotic expansion in $`k`$ powers, thus determining the critical exponents. In general, such a method is not rigorous since, obviously, there exist such functions which do not contribute to the asymptotic expansion in $`k`$ powers at $`k0`$, but give a contribution to the formal $`ϵ`$–expansion at any fixed $`k`$. Besides, the expansion coefficients do not vanish at $`k0`$. Trivial examples of such functions are $`ϵ^m\mathrm{exp}(ϵk^ϵ)`$ and $`ϵ^m[1\mathrm{tanh}(ϵk^ϵ)]`$ where $`m`$ is integer. Nevertheless, according to the general ideas of the RG theory (not based on Eq. (10)), in the vicinity of the fixed point the asymptotic expansion

$$X(𝐤,\mu )=\frac{1}{a}k^\eta +b_1k^{ϵ+o(ϵ^2)}+b_2k^{2+o(ϵ)}+\mathrm{}$$
(13)
is valid not only at $`k0`$, but within $`k<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The latter means that terms of the kind $`ϵ^m\mathrm{exp}(ϵk^ϵ)`$ are absent or negligible. Thus, if the fixed point does exist, then we can obtain correct $`ϵ`$–expansion of $`\delta X(𝐤,\mu )`$ at small $`k`$ by expanding the term $`b_1k^{ϵ+o(ϵ^2)}`$ (with $`b_1=b_1(ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$) in Eq. (13) in $`ϵ`$ powers, and the result must agree with (12) at small $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, at least. The latter, however, is impossible since Eq. (12) never agree with

$$\delta X(𝐤,\mu )=b_1(ϵ,\mathrm{\Delta })\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+ϵ\mathrm{ln}k+o(ϵ^2)\right]$$
(14)
obtained from (13) at $`k0`$. Thus, in its very basics the perturbative RG method in $`4ϵ`$ dimensions is contradictory. From this we can conclude that the initial assumption about existence of a certain fixed point, predicted by the RG field theory in $`4ϵ`$ dimensions, is not valid.

## 3 A model with quenched randomness

Here we consider the Ginzburg–Landau phase transition model with $`O(n)`$ symmetry (i.e., the $`n`$–vector model) which includes a quenched randomness, i.e., a random temperature disorder (for more details see also ). One of the basic ideas of the perturbative RG theory is that $`n`$ may be considered as a continuous parameter and the limit $`n0`$ makes sense describing the self–avoiding random walk or statistics of polymers . We have proven rigorously that within the diagrammatic perturbation theory the quenched randomness does not change the critical exponents at $`n0`$, which is in contrast to the prediction of the conventional RG theory formulated by means of the Feynman diagrams.

The Hamiltonian of the actually considered model is

$`H/T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left[\left(r_0+\sqrt{u}f(𝐱)\right)\phi ^2(𝐱)+c(\phi (𝐱))^2\right]𝑑𝐱}`$
$`+`$ $`uV^1{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3}{}}\phi _i(𝐤_1)\phi _i(𝐤_2)u_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}\phi _j(𝐤_3)\phi _j(𝐤_1𝐤_2𝐤_3)`$
which includes a random temperature (or random mass) disorder represented by the term $`\sqrt{u}f(𝐱)\phi ^2(𝐱)`$. For convenience, we call this model the random model. In Eq. (3) $`\phi (𝐱)`$ is an $`n`$–component vector with components $`\phi _i(𝐱)=V^{1/2}_{k<\mathrm{\Lambda }}\phi _i(𝐤)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}`$, depending on the coordinate $`𝐱`$, and $`f(𝐱)=V^{1/2}_𝐤f_𝐤e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}`$ is a random variable with the Fourier components $`f_𝐤=V^{1/2}f(𝐱)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}𝑑𝐱`$.

The system is characterized by the two–point correlation function $`G_i(𝐤)`$ defined by the equation

$$\phi _i(𝐤)\phi _j(𝐤)=\delta _{i,j}G_i(𝐤)=\delta _{i,j}G(𝐤).$$
(16)
It is supposed that the averaging is performed over the $`\phi (𝐱)`$ configurations and then over the $`f(𝐱)`$ configurations with a fixed (quenched) Gaussian distribution $`P(\{f_𝐤\})`$ for the set of Fourier components $`\{f_𝐤\}`$, i. e., our random model describes a quenched randomness.

We have proven the following theorem.

Theorem. In the limit $`n0`$, the perturbation expansion of the correlation function $`G(𝐤)`$ in $`u`$ power series for the random model with the Hamiltonian (3) is identical to the perturbation expansion for the corresponding model with the Hamiltonian

$`H/T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left[r_0\phi ^2(𝐱)+c(\phi (𝐱))^2\right]𝑑𝐱}`$
$`+`$ $`uV^1{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_3}{}}\phi _i(𝐤_1)\phi _i(𝐤_2)\stackrel{~}{u}_{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}\phi _j(𝐤_3)\phi _j(𝐤_1𝐤_2𝐤_3)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤=u_𝐤\frac{1}{2}f_𝐤^2`$.

For convenience, we call the model without the term $`\sqrt{u}f(𝐱)\phi ^2(𝐱)`$ the pure model, since this term simulates the effect of random impurities .

Proof of the theorem. According to the rules of the diagram technique, the formal expansion for $`G(𝐤)`$ involves all connected diagrams with two fixed outer solid lines. In the case of the pure model, diagrams are constructed of the vertices  , with factor $`uV^1\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤`$ related to any zigzag line with wave vector $`𝐤`$. The solid lines are related to the correlation function in the Gaussian approximation $`G_0(𝐤)=1/\left(2r_0+2ck^2\right)`$. Summation over the components $`\phi _i(𝐤)`$ of the vector $`\phi (𝐤)`$ yields factor $`n`$ corresponding to each closed loop of solid lines in the diagrams. According to this, the formal perturbation expansion is defined at arbitrary $`n`$. In the limit $`n0`$, all diagrams of $`G(𝐤)`$ vanish except those which do not contain the closed loops. In such a way, for the pure model we obtain the expansion

$$G(𝐤)=\text{}+\text{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
In the case of the random model, the diagrams are constructed of the vertices and  . The factors $`uV^1f_𝐤^2`$ correspond to the coupled dotted lines and the factors $`uV^1u_𝐤`$ correspond to the dashed lines. Thus, we have

$$G(𝐤)=\text{}+\left[\text{}+\text{}\right]+\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
In the random model, first the correlation function $`G(𝐤)`$ is calculated at a fixed $`\{f_𝐤\}`$ (which corresponds to connected diagrams where solid lines are coupled, but the dotted lines with factors $`\sqrt{u}V^{1/2}f_𝐤`$ are not coupled), performing the averaging with the weight $`P(\{f_𝐤\})`$ over the configurations of the random variable (i.e., the coupling of the dotted lines) afterwards. According to this procedure, the diagrams of the random model in general (not only at $`n0`$) do not contain parts like  ,  ,  , etc., which would appear only if unconnected (i.e., consisting of separate parts) diagrams would be considered before the coupling of dotted lines.

It is evident from Eqs. (18) and (19) that all diagrams of the random model are obtained from those of the pure model if any of the zigzag lines is replaced either by a dashed or by a dotted line, performing summation over all such possibilities. Such a method is valid in the limit $`n0`$, but not in general. The problem is that, except the case $`n0`$, the diagrams of the pure model contain parts like  ,  ,  , etc. If all the depicted here zigzag lines are replaced by the dotted lines, then we obtain diagrams which are not allowed in the random model, as explained before. At $`n0`$, the only problem is to determine the combinatorial factors for the diagrams obtained by the above replacements. For a diagram constructed of $`M_1`$ vertices and $`M_2`$ vertices the combinatorial factor is the number of possible different couplings of lines, corresponding to the given topological picture, divided by $`M_1!M_2!`$.

Our further consideration is valid also for the diagrams of free energy (at $`n0`$ represented by the main terms containing single loop of solid lines) and of $`2m`$–point correlation function. We define that all diagrams which can be obtained from the $`i`$–th diagram (i.e., the diagram of the $`i`$–th topology) of the pure model, belong to the $`i`$–th group. Obviously, all diagrams of the $`i`$–th group represent a contribution of order $`u^l`$, where $`l`$ is the total number of vertices in the $`i`$–th diagram. The sum of the diagrams of the $`i`$–th group can be found by the following algorithm.

* Depict the $`i`$–th diagram of pure model in an a priori defined way.
* Choose any one replacement of the vertices by and  , and perform the summation over all such possibilities. For any specific choice we consider only one of the equivalent $`M_1!M_2!`$ distributions of the numbered $`M_1`$ vertices and $`M_2`$ vertices over the fixed numbered positions instead of the summation over all these distributions with the weight $`1/(M_1!M_2!)`$. Thus, at this step the combinatorial factor for any specific diagram is determined as the number of possible distributions of lines (numbered before coupling) for one fixed location of vertices consistent with the picture defined in step 1.
* The result of summation in step 2 is divided by the number of independent symmetry transformations (including the identical transformation) for the considered $`i`$–th diagram constructed of vertices , since the same (original and transformed) diagrams were counted as different.

Note that the location of any vertex is defined by fixing the position of dashed line, the orientation of which is not fixed. According to this, the summation over all possible distributions of lines (numbered before coupling) for one fixed location of vertices yields factor $`8^{M_1}4^{M_2/2}`$. The $`i`$–th diagram of the pure model also can be calculated by such an algorithm. In this case we have $`8^l`$ line distributions, where $`l=M_1+M_2/2`$ is the total number of vertices in the $`i`$–th diagram. Obviously, the summation of diagrams of the $`i`$–th group can be performed with factors $`8^l`$ instead of $`8^{M_1}4^{M_2/2}`$, but in this case twice smaller factors must be related to the coupled dotted lines. The summation over all possibilities where zigzag lines are replaced by dashed lines with factors $`uV^1u_𝐤`$ and by dotted lines with factors $`\frac{1}{2}uV^1f_𝐤^2`$, obviously, yields a factor $`uV^1\left(u_𝐤+\frac{1}{2}f_𝐤^2\right)uV^1\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤`$ corresponding to each zigzag line with wave vector $`𝐤`$. Thus, the sum over the diagrams of the $`i`$–th group is identical to the $`i`$–th diagram of the pure model defined by Eq. (3). By this the theorem has proved not only for the two–point correlation function, but also for $`2m`$–point correlation function and free energy.

If, in general, the factor $`\sqrt{u}`$ in Eq. (3) is replaced by $`\sqrt{u^{}}`$, where $`u^{}`$ is an independent expansion parameter, then our analysis leads to the above relation between diagrams for $`u\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤=uu_𝐤\frac{u^{}}{2}f_𝐤^2`$. According to this, at $`n0`$ the pure and random models cannot be distinguished within the diagrammatic perturbation theory. If, in principle, critical exponents can be determined from the diagram expansions at $`n0`$, as it is suggested in the usual RG theory, then the same critical exponents should be provided for both models at $`n0`$. In such a way, we conclude that the RG method is not correct because the above condition is violated. As compared to our simple treatment of the random model, the RG treatment includes additional Feynman diagrams because the Hamiltonian becomes more complicated after the renormalization. However, this does not enable to find the difference between both models: the original information, when one starts the perturbative renormalization of Hamiltonian (3), is contained in the Feynman diagrams we considered, but the renormalization by itself does not create new information about the model. Really, by renormalization we merely “forget” some information about the short–wave fluctuations to make that for the long–wave fluctuations easier accessible. Thus, our conclusion remains true.

## 4 New method based on perturbation theory

As we have already discussed in Sect. 2, it is not a rigorous method to make a formal expansion like (12) and to try calculate the critical exponents therefrom. We propose another treatment of the diagrammatic perturbation theory. The basic idea is to obtain suitable equations by appropriate grouping of the diagrams. Suitable are such equations which allow to find the asymptotic expansions at the critical point directly in $`k`$ power series, but not in terms of the formal parameter $`\mathrm{ln}k`$ (as in Eq. 12) which diverges at $`k0`$. In such a way, for the Ginzburg–Landau model defined by Eq. (3), where $`u\stackrel{~}{u}_𝐤=u_𝐤`$, (for simplicity here we consider the case of the scalar order parameter, i. e. $`n=1`$) we have obtained the Dyson equation

$$\frac{1}{2G(𝐤)}=r_0+ck^2\frac{D(G)}{G(𝐤)}$$
(20)
where $`D(G)`$ denotes a quantity, the diagram expansion of which involves all the so–called skeleton diagrams (constructed of the fourth–order vertices with factors $`V^1u_𝐤`$ related to the dashed lines) without outer lines. Skeleton diagram is defined as a connected diagram containing no parts like  . In distinction to the usual (simple) perturbation theory, the true correlation function $`G(𝐤)`$ is related to the coupled solid lines instead of the Gaussian correlation function $`G_0(𝐤)`$. In such a way, quantity $`D(G)`$ have to be considered as a function of discrete variables $`G(𝐤)`$ corresponding to the set of discrete wave vectors $`𝐤`$. Eq. (20) has been previously obtained in Ref. , where also the simplest (ring) skeleton diagrams have been considered. We have found a possibility to include all the skeleton diagrams into consideration, which allows to find the set of possible values for exact critical exponents. At $`u0`$ our equations, represented by converging sums and integrals, define the true correlation function $`G(𝐤)`$ with an error smaller than $`u^l`$ at any positive $`l`$. This is quite enough to find the exact critical exponents based on general scaling properties of the solution in vicinity of the critical point. The structure of our equations allows to prove these properties taking into account all diagrams. The results also can be easily generalized to the case with $`O(n)`$ symmetry. It is not possible in this relatively short paper to give the mathematical derivations of our equations and results. Hopefully, they will be available in nearest future. Here we present the final result according to which possible exact values of critical exponents $`\gamma `$ (susceptibility exponent) and $`\nu `$ (correlation length exponent) for the $`n`$–component vector model ($`n`$ = 1, 2, 3, etc.) in $`d<4`$ dimensions (i. e., at $`d=2,3`$) are given by

$$\gamma =\frac{d+2j+4m}{d(1+m+j)2j};\nu =\frac{2(1+m)+j}{d(1+m+j)2j},$$
(21)
where $`m`$ may have a natural value starting with 1 and $`j`$ is integer equal or larger than $`m`$. In general, different values of $`j`$ and $`m`$ can correspond to different (natural) $`n`$, i. e., $`j=j(n)`$ and $`m=m(n)`$. It is easy to verify that at $`j=0`$ and $`m=3`$ Eq. (21) reproduces the known  exact results in two dimensions. The known exact exponents for the spherical model  ($`n=\mathrm{}`$) are obtained at $`j(n)/m(n)\mathrm{}`$. Although the derivations are true for $`d<4`$, Eq. (21) provides correct result $`\nu =1/2`$ and $`\gamma =1`$ also at $`d=4`$. It is reasonable to consider $`d`$ as a continuous parameter. This leads to the conclusion that $`m=3`$ and $`j=0`$ are the correct values for the case $`n=1`$ not only at $`d=2`$, but also at $`d=3`$. In the latter case we have $`\gamma =5/4`$ and $`\nu =2/3`$. The nearest values of $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu `$ provided by Eq. (21), e. g., at $`j=1`$ and $`m=3`$ or at $`j=1`$ and $`m=4`$ are then the most probable candidates for the case $`n=2`$.

## 5 Comparison of results and discussion

It is commonly believed that all more or less correct Monte Carlo (MC) simulations confirm the values of critical exponents obtained from the perturbation expansions based on the renormalization group. This is not true. We have found that some kind of MC simulations at the critical point, namely, the MC simulations of fractal configurations of Ising model  and the MC simulations of the energy density  for the $`XY`$ model in reality do not confirm the results of the RG theory, but provide the values of critical exponents which are very close to those we predicted.

The MC simulations of Ref.  allows to determine the fractal dimensionality $`D`$ (the largest cluster in the relevant configuration has the volume $`L^D`$ where $`L`$ denotes the linear size of the system) which is related to the critical exponents by $`\gamma =\nu (2Dd)`$ or, which is the same, $`\eta =2\gamma /\nu =d+22D`$. In our opinion, this method is better than other more convenient simulation methods, since it provides the value of $`\eta `$ as a result of direct simulation, i. e., there are no fitting parameters. Besides, the result is relatively insensitive to the precise value of the critical coupling (temperature). In Fig. 1 we have shown the average values of $`D`$ (the averaging is is made over the MC steps from 1 to 10 (except the initial point), from 11 to 20, and so on) calculated from the MC data of Ref.  by measuring deviation from the line $`D=2.48`$ in Fig. 8 (of Ref. ).

If properly treated, these simulation data confirm the value of $`\eta `$ about $`1/8`$ (or $`D=2.4375`$) consistent with our prediction $`\gamma =5/4`$ and $`\nu =2/3`$, as it is evident from Fig. 1. The value $`D=2.46\pm 0.01`$ reported in Ref.  seems to be determined from the upper MC points (Fig. 8 in Ref. ) only which are closer to the known theoretical prediction $`D=2.48`$.

As regards the MC simulations of the energy density $`E`$ of $`XY`$ model  at the critical point, the true picture can be reconstructed from the simulated values listed in Tab. I of Ref. . Since all the values of $`E`$ are of comparable accuracy, it is purposeful to use the least–square method to find the optimum value of $`1/\nu `$ by fitting the MC data to the prediction of the finite–size scaling theory

$$E(L)=E_0+E_1L^{\frac{1}{\nu }d},$$
(22)
where $`E(L)`$ is the energy density at the critical temperature $`T_\lambda `$ depending on the linear size of the system $`L`$. The standard deviation of the simulated data points from the analytical curve (22) can be easily calculated for any given value of $`1/\nu `$ with the parameters $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ corresponding to the least–square fit. The result is shown in Fig. 2.

The thick solid curve is calculated including all 11 data points ($`L`$=10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 80), whereas the dashed line – including 9 data points (except $`L`$=10, 15) used for the fitting in Ref. . Minimum of the solid curve, shown by a vertical dashed line, corresponds to the best fit $`1/\nu =1.4457`$ which comes very close to our theoretical value $`13/9`$ ( provided by (21) at $`j=1`$ and $`m=3`$) indicated by a vertical dotted line. We have estimated the statistical error of this MC result about $`\pm 0.007`$ by comparing the best fits for several random data sets. Different data sets have been generated from the original one by omitting some data points with $`10<L<80`$. We have found it unreasonable to omit the data points with two smaller sizes, as it has been proposed in Ref. , since the result in this case becomes very poorly defined, i. e., the dashed curve in Fig. 2 has a very broad minimum. Besides, there is no reason to omit the smallest sizes, since the analytical curve (22) excellently fit all the data points and the standard deviation for 11 data points is even smaller than that for 9 data points (see Fig. 2). The possible systematical error due to the inaccuracy in the critical temperature $`T_\lambda =2.2017\pm 0.0005`$ (the error bars are taken from the source of this estimation ) used in the simulations  has been evaluated $`\pm 0.017`$ by comparing the simulation results at $`T_\lambda `$ values 2.2012, 2.2017, and 2.2022. In this case the values of the energy density at a slightly shifted temperature have been calculated from the specific heat data given in Tab. I of Ref. . In such a way, our final estimate from the original MC data of Ref.  is $`1/\nu =1.446\pm 0.025`$ in a good agreement with our theoretical value $`13/9=1.444\mathrm{}`$ and in a clear disagreement with the usual (RG) prediction about $`1.493`$. One can only wonder where the value $`1.487`$ proposed in Ref.  comes from. It does not correspond neither to the best fit for 11 data points nor to that for 9 data points, as it is evident from Fig. 2. The values of $`1/\nu `$ and $`\alpha /\nu `$ cannot be determined independently from the discussed here energy density data. One of them have to be calculated from the scaling relation $`\alpha /\nu +d=2/\nu `$. If authors of Ref.  were able to determine $`1/\nu `$ with $`\pm 0.081`$ accuracy, then they should be able to find $`\alpha /\nu `$ with $`\pm 0.162`$ accuracy. In this aspect, the estimate $`\alpha /\nu =0.0258\pm 0.0075`$ given by the authors looks more than strange.

In Fig. 3 we have shown our fits to the MC data for the energy density $`E(L)=2.01082.0286L^{14/9}`$ and for the specific heat $`c(L)=7.3606.990L^{1/9}`$.

They do not look worse than those in Ref. , but our fit for $`c(L)`$ seems to be better.

One believes that the value of critical exponent $`\nu `$ about $`0.67`$, predicted by the RG theory at $`n=2`$, is well confirmed by very accurate measurements of the superfluid fraction $`\rho _s/\rho =y`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$. This is not true, since in reality these experiments  provide a good evidence that the effective critical exponent $`\nu _{eff}(t)=(\mathrm{ln}y)/(\mathrm{ln}t)`$ remarkably increases when the reduced temperature $`t=(T_\lambda T)/T_\lambda `$ (where $`T_\lambda `$ is the critical temperature) is decreased below $`10^5`$. According to Ref. , $`\rho _s/\rho `$ is given by

$$\rho _s/\rho =y(t)=k_0(1+k_1t)(1+D_\rho t^\mathrm{\Delta })t^\zeta \times (1+\delta (t)),$$
(23)
where $`k_0`$, $`k_1`$, $`D_\rho `$, and $`\zeta `$ are the fitting parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.5`$ is supposed to be the correction–to scaling exponent, and $`\delta (t)`$ is the measured relative deviation from the expected theoretical expression obtained by setting $`\delta (t)=0`$. The percent deviation discussed in Ref.  is 100 times $`\delta (t)`$. From Eq. (23) we obtain

$$\nu _{eff}(t)=\zeta +\frac{k_1t}{1+k_1t}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }D_\rho t^\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+D_\rho t^\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{1}{1+\delta (t)}\times \frac{\delta (t)}{(\mathrm{ln}t)}.$$
(24)
For the values of $`t`$ as small as $`t<10^5`$ and for $`\delta (t)1`$ Eq. (24) with the fitting parameters $`\zeta =0.6705`$, $`k_0=2.38`$, $`k_1=1.74`$, and $`D_\rho =0.396`$ used in Ref.  reduces to

$$\nu _{eff}(t)\zeta +\delta (t)/(\mathrm{ln}t).$$
(25)
The second term in this equation is proportional to the slope of the percent deviation plot $`100\delta (t)`$ vs $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ or $`\mathrm{lg}t`$ (the decimal logarithm) in Figs. 2 and 3 of Ref. . We have read the experimental data from Fig. 2 in Ref.  within the region $`t<10^4`$ and have depicted them in Fig. 4.

Almost all the data points with a reasonable accuracy fit the smooth curve $`\delta (t)`$ vs $`\mathrm{lg}t`$ (dashed line) having a maximum at about $`\mathrm{lg}t=5.5`$. It means that $`^2\delta (t)/(\mathrm{ln}t)^2`$ is negative within some region around the maximum, i. e., according to (25) the effective critical exponent $`\nu _{eff}(t)`$ increases if $`t`$ is decreased. We have roughly estimated and have shown by stright line the slope of this curve at $`t=t^{}=510^7`$ ($`t^{}`$ value is indicated in Fig. 4 by vertical dashed line). From this we obtain $`\delta (t)/(\mathrm{ln}t)0.025`$. This result depends on the shift in the experimentally determined $`T_\lambda `$ value. To obtain a more reliable estimate, we have performed the same manipulations with the data depicted in Fig. 3 of Ref.  corresponding to $`T_\lambda `$ shifted by $`\pm 20nK`$, and have obtained the values of $`\delta (t)/(\mathrm{ln}t)`$ about $`0.03`$ and $`0.015`$, respectively. Our final result $`0.0233\pm 0.0083`$ for this derivative at $`t=t^{}`$ has been obtained by averaging over the three above discussed estimates ($`0.015`$, $`0.025`$, and $`0.03`$) with the error bars large enough to include all these values. According to this, from Eq. (25) with $`\zeta =0.6705`$ we obtain $`\nu _{eff}(t^{})=0.694\pm 0.009`$ which, again, is in a good agreement with the value $`\nu =9/130.6923`$ provided by Eq. (21) at $`j=1`$ and $`m=3`$ and in a disagreement with the RG predictions.

## 6 Conclusions

We have proposed a novel method (Sect. 4) which allows to predict the exact values of critical exponents in the Ginzburg–Landau phase transition model. Our proposal is accompanied by a critical analysis of the conventional (perturbative) RG method. In view of this analysis (Sect. 2 and 3) and comparison with MC simulation results and experiments (Sect. 5), our results should not be doubted from the positions of the conventional (RG) theory. The best evidence of the correctness of our treatment is the precise agreement with the known exact solutions.