text:
# Properties of the massive Thirring model from the 𝐗𝐘𝐙 spin chain

## I Introduction

The massive Thirring model (MTM) and sine-Gordon model (SGM) are important as a testing laboratory for understanding ideas proposed for other more complicated field theories.

In this paper we propose to calculate certain physical quantities for the MTM by performing an explicit diagonalization of its lattice regularization with the $`XYZ`$ spin chain. As the first task we want to calculate the masses of breathers. The previous calculations have been based on the semiclassical method , on factorized scattering theory , or on the Bethe ansatz method .

The additional interest in avoiding the previously mentioned assumptions is due to recent criticism  \[the authors claim that there is only one breather in the whole attractive region, and with different mass than the Dashen-Hasslacher-Neveu (DHN) formula predicts\]. The same authors challange also the well-known duality relation between the MTM and SGM . The precise meaning and extent of this equivalence was formulated by Klassen and Melzer  (notice that the models are not equivalent when they have a finite size in space).

One important criticism relates to the use of the so-called string conjecture. Indeed, violations of this conjecture are observed in the literature . Despite the fact that, at least untill now, it was not known that these violations affect any relevant results, it would be desirable to have a calculation which does not rely on the string conjecture.

It is for this reason that we want to treat the MTM without using the above-mentioned assumptions. Our approach will be based on direct numerical diagonalization of the $`XYZ`$ spin chain which is a lattice regularization of the MTM . This method is suited for analyses of low discrete states in the spectrum, but becomes less and less effective when we go to higher states. Such an approach was used in the literature for other problems, e.g., conformal unitary models perturbed by some relevant operator .

We also intend to calculate conformal dimensions of operators creating breather states. There are conjectured values for them . By explicit calculation we confirm this conjecture for the first breather but get different results for the second breather.

Recently  we have performed a similar calculation for the SGM. The regularization in this case was the $`XXZ`$ spin chain in a transverse field. The results on the masses of breathers and conformal dimensions agree as statements on relation of two models would suggest, so it maybe considered also as an independent check of the SGM-MTM correspondence .

## II MTM as a massive perturbation of the Gaussian model

The MTM is a $`(1+1)`$-dimensional field theory of a Dirac spinor field $`\psi `$, defined classically by the Lagrangian

$$_{MTM}=i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi \lambda \overline{\psi }\psi \frac{g}{2}(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi )(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi ).$$
(1)
Here $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionful parameter which sets the mass scale in a theory which is conformaly invariant when $`\lambda =0`$. However, although $`\lambda `$ enters Eq. (1) as a (bare) mass, its mass dimension $`d_\lambda `$ is not equal to 1 but is determined from the (nontrivial) anomalous dimension of the field $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$. The dimensionless coupling constant $`g`$ is scale invariant (vanishing beta function), but it is not uniquely defined due to the existence of different regularizations of the (conserved) current $`\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$. Correspondingly, there is at least a one-parameter family of definitions of $`g`$. Our definition will be the same as the one used by Coleman  (Schwinger definition). We shall find it more convenient to use the parameter $`\beta `$ related to $`g`$ with

$$\frac{4\pi }{\beta ^2}=1+\frac{g}{\pi }.$$
(2)
Here $`\beta `$ is the dimensionless coupling constant from the dually related SGM.

In  it was shown that the MTM can be viewed as a perturbed conformal field theory (CFT) when the second term in Eq. (1) is treated as a (massive) perturbation. We will now repeat here some results of their analyses relevant for our discussion.

An unperturbed theory $`\lambda =0`$ (approached in the UV limit) is the Thirring model which is a CFT with central charge $`c=1`$ and an operator algebra generated by

$$L_f=\left\{V_{m,n}\right|m2𝐙,n𝐙\text{ or }m2𝐙+1,n𝐙+1/2\}$$
(3)
where $`V_{m,n}(x)`$ are primary fields with conformal dimensions

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{m,n},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{m,n})=(\frac{2\pi }{\beta ^2}\left(\frac{m\beta ^2}{8\pi }+n\right)^2,\frac{2\pi }{\beta ^2}\left(\frac{m\beta ^2}{8\pi }n\right)^2),$$
(4)
where we used duality relation (2). From Eq. (4) we can read off the scaling dimensions and (Lorentz) spin of $`V_{m,n}`$:

$`d_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{m,n}+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{m,n}={\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^2}{16\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi n^2}{\beta ^2}},`$ (5)
$`s_{m,n}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{m,n}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{m,n}=mn.`$ (6)
A whole operator algebra is generated by a quartet of fields $`V_{\pm 1,\pm 1/2}`$, which are connected to the fundamental spinor fields $`\psi `$, $`\overline{\psi }`$ by

$$\psi \left(\begin{array}{c}V_{1,1/2}\\ V_{1,1/2}\end{array}\right),\overline{\psi }\left(\begin{array}{c}V_{1,1/2}\\ V_{1,1/2}\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Now one supposes that Hilbert space of the full (perturbed) theory is isomorphic to that of the unperturbed one. From operator product algebra (OPA) it follows that the (properly normalized) perturbing operator in the MTM (1) is

$$\overline{\psi }\psi =V_{2,0}^{(+)}\frac{1}{2}(V_{2,0}+V_{2,0}),$$
(8)
which means that $`\lambda `$ has mass dimension $`d_\lambda =2d_{2,0}=2\beta ^2/4\pi `$. From the condition of relevancy of the perturbation, i.e., $`d_\lambda >0`$, we obtain Coleman’s bound $`\beta ^2<8\pi `$ ($`g>\pi /2`$). Also, from Eqs. (3) and (8) we can see that the MTM has a $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\times Z_2\times \stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ internal symmetry group. The $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ acts as $`V_{m,n}e^{i\alpha n}V_{m,n}`$, while $`Z_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ are generated by $`R:V_{m,n}V_{m,n}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}:V_{m,n}V_{m,n}`$, respectively.

## III Spin chain regularization of the MTM

It was argued a while ago  that the MTM on a cylinder with proper (antiperiodic) boundary conditions (B.C.’s) possesses spin chain regularization given by the $`XYZ`$ spin chain defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H_{XYZ}=H_{XXZ}h\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^y\right),$$
(9)
where $`\sigma ^{x,y,z}`$ are Pauli matrices, $`N`$ is an even integer, and $`H_{XXZ}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the $`XXZ`$ spin chain:

$$H_{XXZ}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x+\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^y+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z\right),$$
(10)
where $`1<\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$ \[we also use standard parametrization $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$, so $`\gamma (0,\pi )`$\]. In Eqs. (9) and (10) sector-dependent B.C.’s should be used:

$$\sigma _{N+1}^{x,y}=\sigma _1^{x,y}(1)^{N/2}C,\sigma _{N+1}^z=\sigma _1^z,$$
(11)
where

$$C=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _n^z.$$
(12)
From results of Ref. it  follows that the $`XXZ`$ chain (10) with B.C. (11) gives in the continuum limit a CFT with a space of states equal to that of $`L_f`$ in Eq. (3), where

$$\beta =\sqrt{8(\pi \gamma )}.$$
(13)
That leads us to the conjecture that, aside from irrelevant corrections,

$$\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^yV_{2,0}^{(+)}$$
(14)
in the continuum limit.

Now, the continuum limit is obtained letting $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`h0`$, but at the same time keeping fixed the scaling parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }hN^{d_\lambda }=hN^{2\beta ^2/4\pi }=hN^{2\gamma /\pi }.$$
(15)
In this limit, the mass gaps of the $`XYZ`$ chain are expected to satisfy a scaling law

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_i=h^{1/d_\lambda }\stackrel{~}{G}_i(\gamma ,\stackrel{~}{\mu })=h^{\pi /2\gamma }\stackrel{~}{G}_i(\gamma ,\stackrel{~}{\mu }).$$
(16)
The scaling parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is connected to $`L`$ (space extension of continuum theory, i.e., MTM). For our purposes it is enough to know that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$) corresponds to $`L\mathrm{}`$ ($`L0`$), respectively.

## IV Mass spectrum

Our goal here is to calculate the mass ratios of particles in the MTM in the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit using the connection with the $`XYZ`$ spin chain (9). First we must numerically calculate the mass gaps of the spin chain for finite $`N`$ and $`h`$. Then we must make a continuum limit, i.e., take $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`h0`$, keeping $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ fixed. Finally we should make a $`L\mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{}`$, limit. In practice, it is preferable to do the following : first take $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`h`$ fixed and afterwards extrapolate $`h0`$. A difference is that in the latter case one does $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{}`$ before $`h0`$. These limits are performed using the BST extrapolation method .

We numerically diagonalized Hamiltonian (9) for up to 16 sites using the Lanczos algorithm. We are interested in the masses, so we only need the zero-momentum sector. We should note here that in Ref.  it was shown that true space translations are generated not by an ordinary translation operator on the spin chain, but by its square. From this and the fact that Hamiltonian (3.1) commutes with the operator $`C`$, Eq. (3.4), it follows that we can break the Hamiltonian in the momentum-zero sector into four sectors named $`0^\pm `$, $`\pi ^\pm `$, where $`0,\pi `$ is macroscopic momentum and $`\pm `$ denotes eigenvalue of $`(1)^{N/2}C`$ (which can only be $`\pm 1`$ because $`C^2=1`$). We considered a number of values of coupling constant in the attractive regime ($`g>0`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$). The structure of the spectrum is in agreement with the DHN prediction, i.e., we obtain: vacuum, first breather ($`B1`$), second breather ($`B2`$) (when it exists), and “continuum” in $`0^+`$; fermion ($`F`$) and “continuum” in $`0^{}`$; antifermion ($`\overline{F}`$) and “continuum” in $`\pi ^{}`$; “continuum” starting with $`FF`$ and $`\overline{F}\overline{F}`$ in $`\pi ^+`$. Names for the particle states and $`FF`$, $`\overline{F}\overline{F}`$ continuum will be confirmed by results for the mass ratios. But even we couldn’t make an extrapolation (because of the poor scaling in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{}`$ limit) for the lowest “continuum” state in $`0^+`$ for values of $`g`$ where the DHN formula predicts that it should be of $`B1B1`$ type, its scaling law in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$ limit clearly shows that its scaling dimension is the one we expect for the $`B1B1`$ lowest continuum state, i.e., $`d_{4,0}`$. We should mention also that spectra in $`0^{}`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ are exactly degenerated which means that the $`F`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ mass gaps are equal even on the lattice, which was not the case in similar analyses of the SGM in .

In Figs 13 we present numerical results for the scaled gaps $`\stackrel{~}{G}_i`$ for four states: fermion ($`F`$), first breather ($`B1`$), second breather ($`B2`$), and lowest state in the $`FF`$ continuum ($`C`$). This is of course a check of the scaling relation (16). Finally, partially extrapolated mass ratios

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_a(\mathrm{\Delta },h)=\underset{\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{h\mathrm{fixed}}}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_a}{\stackrel{~}{m}_F}=\underset{\stackrel{N\mathrm{}}{h\mathrm{fixed}}}{lim}\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_a}{\stackrel{~}{G}_F},a\{B1,B2,C\}$$
(17)
and fully extrapolated mass ratios of the first breather

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_{B1}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{h0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{r}_a(\mathrm{\Delta },h),$$
(18)
are given in Tables. IIV, together with the DHN predictions  and predictions of Fujita et al. . Final extrapolation $`h0`$ was possible only for the first breather because scaling of the second breather is worse and asks for a larger $`N`$ (probably $`N24`$). One can see that our results strongly confirm DHN and reject Fujita et al.

## V UV (conformal) limit of particle states

Let us now turn our attention to the opposite, i.e., UV, limit of our results for the $`XYZ`$ spin chain. We mentioned in Sec. III that it obtained when $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$. From conformal perturbation theory we expect the scaling relation

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_a=h^{\pi /2\gamma }\left[2\pi \zeta d_a\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{\pi /2\gamma }+\stackrel{~}{H}_a(\gamma ,\stackrel{~}{\mu })\right],$$
(19)
where $`d_a`$ is the scaling dimension of the state $`a`$, and $`\zeta `$ is a well-known normalization factor,

$$\zeta =\frac{2\pi \mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\gamma }.$$

From Eq. (19) we can obtain the scaling dimensions of the particle states $`F`$, $`B1`$, and $`B2`$ from the condition that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_a`$ should be less singular than $`\stackrel{~}{G}_a`$. Our results are given in Table V. They differ from those conjectured in  only for the second breather, which has scaling dimension equal to that of the first breather. These results are in agreement with those in  for the SGM. This result for the scaling dimension of the second breather was analyticaly confirmed in  using an extension of nonlinear integral equation method (NLIE). In Figs. 46 we show the numeric results for reduced scaling functions, where we used values from Table V for the scaling dimensions.

## VI Conclusion

We have calculated in this paper the masses of breather states and the anomalous dimensions of related operators for the MTM using spin chain regularization. This is a direct numerical calculation independent of assumptions such as the semiclassical approximation , factorized scattering theory , or Bethe ansatz method . On the other hand, in a series of papers based on numerical calculation within the Bethe ansatz method  or using the infinite momentum frame technique , different results have been claimed. Our calculation confirms the conventional spectrum. In addition we calculate the anomalous dimensions of operators creating breather states. It agrees with conjecture in  for the first breather but disagrees for the second breather. This result is consistent with the previous calculation for the sine-Gordon model, i.e., consistent with equivalence relation between the two models .


format: text

text:
# Fermions obstruct dimensional reduction in hot QCD

## Abstract

We have studied, for the first time, screening masses obtained from glueball-like correlators in Quantum Chromodynamics with four light dynamical flavours of quarks in the temperature range $`1.5T_cT3T_c`$, where $`T_c`$ is the temperature at which the chiral transition occurs. We have also studied pion-like and sigma-like screening masses, and found that they are degenerate in the entire range of $`T`$. These obstruct perturbative dimensional reduction since the lowest glueball screening mass is heavier than them. Extrapolation of our results suggests that this obstruction may affect the entire range of temperature expected to be reached even at the Large Hadron Collider.

The quark-gluon plasma phase of QCD is currently of great experimental interest. The recent announcement that the CERN heavy ion program may have seen this phase, and the forthcoming start of the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider are just two reasons for this interest. The phase structure of baryon-free QCD matter is pretty well determined through lattice simulations . While this was sufficient in the past, experiments will soon begin to demand much more detailed information on the high temperature phase. In this letter we report work that bears on the detailed structure of this phase.

Lattice simulations of finite temperature ($`T`$) equilibrium field theories use a discretisation of the Euclidean formulation for partition function—

$$Z(T)=𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{1/T}𝑑td^3x(\varphi )\right],$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is a generic field, $``$ the Lagrangian density, and the Euclidean “time” runs from 0 to $`1/T`$. The path integral is over Bosonic (Fermionic) field configurations which are periodic (anti-periodic) in Euclidean time. For the lattice problem, $`Z(T)`$ is the trace of an appropriate power of the transfer matrix, $`𝒯`$, in one of the spatial directions. All the information in the theory is encoded in the set of eigenvalues of $`𝒯`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(T)`$.

Thermodynamics is determined by the largest eigenvalue, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, and its derivatives with respect to various parameters of the theory. The spectrum of screening masses (inverse correlation lengths),

$$\mu _i(T)=\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(T)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(T)}\right],$$
(2)
is in one-to-one correspondence with the remaining eigenvalues, and hence contain all the remaining information about the $`T>0`$ physics of the theory. Due to the lack of symmetry between the space and Euclidean time directions in eq. (1), $`𝒯`$ has only a subgroup of the rotational symmetry of the $`T=0`$ Euclidean theory. Hence the spectrum of $`\mu _i`$ is classified by the irreducible representations (irreps) of this new symmetry group. These symmetries and their irreps have been studied in .

Dimensional reduction has provided a good qualitative picture of the high temperature limit of field theories. This reduction yields an effective theory describing equilibrium physics of the (3+1)-dimensional theory at distance scales much greater than $`1/T`$. At these distances only fields with low momentum ($`<T`$) excitations survive; field excitations with momentum scales of order $`T`$ or more are integrated out. In practice this procedure is carried out perturbatively . Since the Fourier modes of Boson fields have momenta $`2n\pi T`$ in the Euclidean time direction and Fermion modes have momenta $`(2n+1)\pi T`$ (where $`n`$ is a non-negative integer), therefore all Fermion modes and all non-zero gauge field modes are integrated out. The result of this integration is a 3-dimensional theory of gauge fields coupled to adjoint scalars.

All the screening masses remaining at long distances should then belong to the glue sector of the (3+1)-dimensional theory, with Fermions appearing only in loop corrections. This approach has had great success in dealing with the electroweak sector of the standard model , and has been proposed as a way of dealing with high temperature QCD . A key question is about the temperature range where this can be done reliably.

Lattice measurements test dimensional reduction in three ways—

1. The degeneracies of $`\mu _i`$ test whether the effective symmetries at high temperatures are those of a theory in lower dimension. This form of dimensional reduction has been seen in (3+1)-dimensional pure gauge $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ theory at temperatures as low as $`2T_c`$ .
2. Perturbative matching of the couplings of the dimensionally reduced theory can be tested by comparing its correlators and screening masses with those of the full theory. Comparison of the results of  with those in 3-d SU(2)  and SU(3)  gauge theories with an adjoint scalar demonstrate such dimensional reduction, as do the results of . More recently, this reduction has also been tested in the gauge sector of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional QCD .
3. All low-lying screening masses must be shown to arise in the gauge sector of the theory if the perturbative matching is correct. Here we report that $`(3+1)`$-dimensional QCD with 4 degenerate flavours of light dynamical quarks fails this test.

We have performed Hybrid Monte Carlo simulations of $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory with 4 flavours of dynamical staggered quarks at temperatures above the first-order phase transition temperature $`T_c`$. The simulations were done at three different couplings, and the lattice size in the Euclidean time direction, $`N_\tau `$, was chosen to be 4. The temperature assignments at the couplings $`\beta =5.1`$ ($`T=1.5T_c`$) and $`\beta =5.15`$ ($`T=2T_c`$) are made using the results of previous simulations at $`N_\tau =6`$ and 8 . We also made a simulation at $`\beta =5.35`$, corresponding to $`T=(2.9\pm 0.1)T_c`$ . We have chosen the bare quark mass to be $`m=0.02T_c`$. We performed a finite size scaling study at $`2T_c`$ using $`4\times 16\times 10^2`$, $`4\times 24\times 10^2`$, $`4\times 24\times 12^2`$ and $`4\times 16^3`$ lattices. At $`1.5T_c`$ we worked with a lattice size of $`4\times 16\times 10^2`$ and at $`2.9T_c`$ with $`4\times 18^3`$. The lattice sizes have been chosen so that the correlators can be followed in at least one direction to spatial distance of $`2/T`$ or more, and the transverse size of the lattice is large enough to avoid spatial deconfinement. In thermal equilibrium, the HMC trajectory lengths were taken to be one unit of molecular dynamics time except for the cubic lattice at $`2T_c`$ where it was taken to be half an unit. Thermalisation was monitored using four variables— the spatial and temporal plaquettes, the Wilson line, and the quark condensate.

We have analysed correlation functions constructed from Wilson loops of various sizes (glueball-like correlators) for the first time in full QCD at $`T>0`$. We have also analysed meson-like correlators, i. e., those constructed with a $`\overline{q}q`$ pair. The particular operators that we have examined belong to the scalar and vector irreps of the $`T=0`$ theory. Under the symmetry of the spatial transfer matrix for $`T>0`$, i.e., the group called $`D_4^h`$, the former belong to an irrep called the $`A_1^+`$. The vector irrep of $`T=0`$ reduces under the $`T>0`$ symmetry group: two linear combinations give the irrep $`A_1^+`$ and one gives an irrep called $`B_1^+`$.

The glueball-like operators used in this study were the plaquette and the planar 6-link loop. Noise reduction was done through a variant of the fuzzing technique. The operators were constructed at each of five levels of fuzzing, and a variational method was used to extract the lowest mass in the channel and project out the corresponding correlator. More details of the methodology can be found in . We could follow the correlation function in the $`A_1^+`$ sector up to a distance of 4, enabling us to obtain its mass with a reasonable degree of confidence.

The meson-like operators used here are local operators corresponding to the $`\pi `$, $`\sigma `$, $`\rho `$ and $`A`$ at $`T=0`$. These screening correlators have been studied for $`T>0`$ in the $`A_1^+`$ channel earlier . We report below our measurements in this channel. The first measurement in the $`B_1^+`$ channel was reported recently . At all three temperatures studied here, the $`B_1^+`$ correlators vanished within errors, consistent with free field theory and unlike the $`B_1^+`$ correlators in the glue sector obtained from the same simulations.

We made direct measurements of the autocorrelation function for the $`\pi `$-like correlator, $`C_\pi (z)`$, at $`T=2T_c`$ on the $`4\times 24\times 10^2`$ lattice. For the correlators at $`z=0`$ and $`z=6`$ we found comparable autocorrelation times, somewhat less than 1 MD trajectory. For $`z>6`$ autocorrelations are hard to measure directly. We limit them by the following argument. For measurements of a correlator $`C(z)`$ where the relative errors $`e(z)/C(z)`$ are expected to be similar in magnitude, strong decreases signal large autocorrelations. Plotting $`e(z)/C(z)`$ for the $`\pi `$-like correlator as a function of $`z`$, we found no decrease for $`z`$ close to the center of the lattice. This makes the existence of strong autocorrelations rather unlikely, and eliminates possible simulation algorithm related systematic errors in mass measurements.

In the meson-like channels we have estimated the screening masses by two independent techniques— fitting and constructing local masses. On all lattices these two methods gave consistent results.

Our finite size scaling study showed that finite volume effects are under control. Figure 1 shows the local masses obtained from the pion-like correlator on the four different lattices at $`2T_c`$. Also shown as bands are our estimates of the screening masses obtained by a fit to the same correlator—

$$\mu _\pi (A_1^+)/T=\{\begin{array}{cc}3.74\pm 0.08\hfill & \text{(}4\times 16\times 10^2\text{ lattice),}\hfill \\ 3.92\pm 0.16\hfill & \text{(}4\times 16^3\text{ lattice),}\hfill \\ 3.83\pm 0.14\hfill & \text{(}4\times 24\times 10^2\text{ lattice),}\hfill \\ 3.76\pm 0.04\hfill & \text{(}4\times 24\times 12^2\text{ lattice).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Comparing the long ($`N_z=24`$) and short ($`N_z=16`$) lattices, we find that the effective masses stabilise very well to a common value. At the same time, this estimate of the screening mass is independent of the transverse spatial size of the lattice, indicating that the low lying eigenvalues of the transfer matrix have become independent of the lattice size. Therefore we have determined the infinite volume screening mass accurately. Similar lattice size independence of screening masses was observed in the other channels as well.

The screening masses from the $`\pi `$-like and $`\sigma `$-like correlators were equal within errors, as were those from the $`\rho `$-like and the $`A`$-like correlators. We investigated possible mass splittings more carefully by making simultaneous fits to these pairs of correlators, taking into account the covariance of the data due to the fact that the correlators are constructed from the same configurations. This analysis showed no hint of any mass splitting. The results are collected in Table I.

In principle, the $`\sigma `$-like correlator in the 4-dimensional theory could mix with the vacuum and hence with the $`A_1^+`$ glueball-like correlator. However the $`\pi `$-like channel does not mix with the 4-dimensional vacuum, and the above degeneracy of $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)`$ and $`\mu _\sigma (A_1^+)`$ cannot be explained if the latter is small due to mixing with $`\mu _g(A_1^+)`$. Hence screening masses seen in these two channels are characteristic of fermion-bilinear currents in the theory. Furthermore, our results taken in conjunction with earlier studies at different cutoffs  indicate that $`\pi `$-$`\sigma `$ degeneracy and the small value of their common screening mass, at these temperatures, are cutoff independent.

Our best estimates of the $`A_1^+`$ projection of the $`\rho `$-like screening mass is—

$$\mu _\rho (A_1^+)/T=5.6\pm 0.1$$
(4)
at $`T=2T_c`$. For $`N_\tau =4`$, free field theory gives $`\mu _\rho (A_1^+)/T=5.27`$. At other temperatures we also found values of $`\mu _\rho (A_1^+)/T`$ close to, but slightly higher than, this perturbative result. The ratio $`\mu _g(B_1^+)/T`$ was found to be close to this, but much larger statistics are needed to have any reliable estimate of this number.

In Figure 2 we show $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)/T`$ and $`\mu _g(A_1^+)/T`$ as a function of $`T/T_c`$. In contrast to the slow variation of $`\mu _g(A_1^+)/T`$ with changing $`T`$, we see that $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)/T`$ is increasing. The latter ratio is smaller up to $`2T_c`$, but there is a cross-over near $`2.9T_c`$. It is possible that at sufficiently large $`T`$ the perturbative value $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)/T=\mu _\rho (A_1^+)/T=5.27`$ is reached . In accordance with this, we tried various smooth and monotonic two parameter fits to the data which have this limit as $`T\mathrm{}`$, and have a finite and non-zero value at $`T=T_c`$. Two such fits are shown in the figure. Extrapolating these to higher temperatures, we find that $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)`$ becomes compatible with free fermion field theory only for $`T_p10T_c`$ or more. It would be interesting to test this extrapolation by direct simulation .

Our results have implications for the dimensionally reduced theory. If the perturbative approach to dimensional reduction were accurate at these temperatures, then one should be able to integrate out the Fermions altogether. Their contribution would be visible only in the effective couplings between the zero momentum gauge modes. At the same time, $`\mu (A_1^+)`$ should be independent of whether it was measured in the $`\pi `$-like or $`\rho `$-like channel and, being close to the free-field value, should decouple from the long distance physics. However, something non-perturbative happens in the Fermion sector at experimentally accessible temperatures of up to about 1 GeV.

Since $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)<\mu _g(A_1^+)`$ up to $`3T_c`$, this excitation cannot be integrated out of the effective theory that describes physics at the length scale $`1/\mu _g(A_1^+)`$. This state of affairs cannot be accommodated into a perturbative description of dimensional reduction, since all Fermions and multi-Fermion states need to be integrated out in such an approach. For $`3T_c<T<10T_c`$, $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)`$ still deviates sufficiently from its perturbative value to obstruct perturbative approaches to dimensional reduction, although the obstruction becomes progressively smaller.

The values of $`\mu _g(A_1^+)/T`$ we measured in 4-flavour QCD are 53% higher than in quenched QCD . Although comparisons of glueball masses at $`T=0`$ in quenched and full QCD show much smaller shifts , the increase in the Debye screening mass, in going to the four-flavour theory is about 30% in leading order of the perturbation expansion at any $`T`$. At the same order, the increase in $`\mu _g(A_1^+)/T`$ is expected to be about 60%. Although perturbation theory may not be reliable here, this estimate shows that the large shift is not unnatural. In contrast, $`\mu _\pi (A_1^+)/T`$ decreases by 17% when going from quenched to 4-flavour QCD. The obstruction to dimensional reduction appears very clearly in 4-flavour QCD due to these two movements. However it is present even in quenched QCD, albeit in a subtle form, since $`\mu _g(A_1^+)<\mu _\pi (A_1^+)<\mu _g(B_1^+)`$ for $`T1.5`$$`2T_c`$.

This first measurement of $`\mu _g(A_1^+)`$ in full QCD thus sheds new light on the effective long distance theory at $`T>T_c`$. As far as gauge invariant correlators are concerned, the situation up to $`2T_c`$ is reminiscent less of the usual dimensional reduction than of the $`T=0`$ situation where the long distance effective theory is built from scalar and pseudo-scalar fermion bilinear composites. Thermodynamics, governed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(T)`$ alone, cannot be explained by this effective model. In any case, there are differences between the $`T=0`$ and $`T>0`$ effective theories. At $`T=0`$ chiral symmetry is broken and the scalar and pseudo-scalar masses are different. Here, on the other hand, this symmetry is restored and the masses are equal.

Finally we mention that a weaker form of dimensional reduction may still be valid in this range of temperatures. This can be investigated by looking for degeneracies of all measurable screening masses and checking whether they reflect the 4-dimensional $`T>0`$ symmetries or an effective 3-dimensional symmetry. This requires a measurement of correlations of non-local Fermion bilinear operators, and is left for the future. Also left for the future is a detailed investigation of the continuum limit of our results. A similar investigation in the more realistic case of 2 light and one medium heavy flavour of quarks is a desirable future computation, specially with Wilson Fermions.


text:
# A generalized Ginsparg-Wilson relation

## 1 Introduction

The construction of chirally symmetric theories on the lattice has been the subject of renewed interest during the last years, because of some interesting developments. Among these, the overlap formalism , based on an earlier idea by Kaplan , has been shown to be a quite satisfactory approach to the study of chirality-sensitive perturbative and non-perturbative phenomena on the lattice.

On the other hand, the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem  tells us that a strictly chirally symmetric theory on the lattice necessarily breaks some nice features one would expect the theory to have, like proper continuum limit for the fermion propagators, absence of doublers, and locality. However, there is a compromise solution, which amounts to breaking chiral symmetry, but in such a way that most of the interesting properties are preserved. Than can be achieved if the Dirac operator $`D`$ satisfies the Ginsparg-Wilson relation

$$D\gamma _5+\gamma _5D=aD\gamma _5D.$$
(1)
which can be thought of as a mild deformation of the ‘strong’ anticommutation relation,

$$D_c\gamma _5+\gamma _5D_c=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(2)
corresponding to a chirally symmetric operator $`D_c`$.

An important consequence of (1), is that the fermionic action defined in terms of such Dirac operator 111We shall follow here the conventions of .

$$S_F=a^4\underset{x}{}\overline{\psi }D\psi ,$$
(3)
is invariant under the global symmetry transformation

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \gamma _5(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}aD)\psi `$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \overline{\psi }(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}aD)\gamma _5,`$ (4)
where $`\xi `$ is a (real) infinitesimal parameter. The finite-$`\xi `$ version of (1) is, of course,

$`\psi `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i\xi \gamma _5(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}aD)]\psi `$
$`\overline{\psi }`$ $``$ $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}[i\xi (1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}aD)\gamma _5].`$ (5)
Thus the fermionic action has, on the lattice, a symmetry which in the naive continuum limit ($`a0`$) coincides with the usual chiral transformation. Note, however, that the lattice symmetry transformation itself is quite non-local.

Besides allowing for the existence of this symmetry, it has been emphasized  that the general solution of (1) can be written as

$$D=D_c(1+\frac{1}{2}aD_c)^1=(1+\frac{1}{2}aD_c)^1D_c,$$
(6)
$`D_c`$ being a lattice Dirac operator satisfying (2). This implies the important property that $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ have the same zero modes. Indeed, it has been shown that

$$\mathrm{index}(D)=\mathrm{index}(D_c),$$
(7)
and this is the reason why (6), as a mapping from $`D_c`$ to $`D`$, has been called  a ‘topological transformation’.

Thus the problem reduces to finding a suitable (non-local) operator $`D_c`$, satisfying the relation (2). It should also have the proper index (the topological transformation cannot change it). Inserting that operator into (6) yields $`D`$, which is no longer chirally symmetric ($`\{D,\gamma _5\}0`$), but which, for a suitable $`D_c`$, will be local. This could be summarized by saying that the non-locality of the chirally symmetric $`D_c`$ is traded for the locality of $`D`$, at the price of introducing non-local chiral symmetry transformations.

In this paper, we shall argue that the GWR is the simplest form of the more general GGWR, and that the important properties often associated to the GWR are also valid for the generalized relation. Moreover (see section 4 below), this generalization appears quite naturally in some examples. The different realizations of the GGWR will be shown to correspond to different ways of fixing the UV behaviour of the Dirac operator for large eigenvalues. As for the case of the GWR, its generalization also requires the existence of a suitable $`D_c`$, while the relation between $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ will be different to (6). This introduces new parameters and different ways of adjusting the locality properties of $`D`$.

The structure of this paper is as follows: in section 2, we derive the generalization of the standard GWR, discussing the nature of the different constraints one has to impose, and their consequences. Then the general solution of the GGWR is presented, in terms of the solution of a (c-number) equation. We also discuss the meaning of the GGWR in the context of renormalization group transformations with a non-trivial averaging function.

Section 3 deals with the ‘topological’ properties of the lattice Dirac operator, such as its index theorems. Finally, in section 4, we consider some known proposals for lattice Dirac operators, showing that they satisfy a GGWR.

## 2 Generalizing the GWR

We begin by observing that, for the standard GWR case, the finite transformations (1) that leave the fermionic action (3) invariant are non-local, because they include an exponential of the (local) operator $`D`$, while they become local in the infinitesimal case. It is rather strange to have a global symmetry that makes such a radical distinction between finite and infinitesimal transformations. A natural, more symmetric situation, would be to consider transformations that are not necessarily local, even at the infinitesimal level:

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \gamma _5f(aD)\psi `$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \overline{\psi }f(aD)\gamma _5,`$ (8)
where $`f`$ is a real function with the proper continuum limit behaviour

$$x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}f(x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(9)
a condition that must be satisfied if we want (2) to be the lattice version of the continuum chiral symmetry transformations. This is the first of a series of constraints on $`f`$; the following ones will appear, as we shall see, by relating $`f`$ to the actual form of the lattice Dirac operator. We note that relation (1) is, of course, a particular case of (2), i.e., $`f(x)=1\frac{1}{2}x`$. Before proceeding, we remark that everything we discuss in this section can be applied also to a theory in the continuum, if the basic assumptions are true for the system under consideration. Of course, one must then replace $`a`$ by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the UV cutoff.

Of course not every $`D`$ will make (3) invariant under (2). To see this, we impose (2) to be a symmetry of (3), and find that this requires $`D`$ to satisfy

$$D\gamma _5f(aD)+f(aD)\gamma _5D=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(10)
which is the GGWR 222It is trivial to check that it yields the usual GWR if $`f`$ is assumed to be linear..

To begin with our study of (10), we first look for its solutions, a problem which, except for the particular case of a linear $`f`$, would seem to involve solving a non-linear operatorial equation. This is fortunately not so, as we shall now see. We first left and right multiply both sides of (10) by $`\frac{1}{f(aD)}`$, obtaining

$$\frac{1}{f(aD)}D\gamma _5+\gamma _5\frac{1}{f(aD)}D=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(11)
where we used the fact that $`f(aD)`$ commutes with $`D`$. It is evident from (11) that the general solution is

$$\frac{1}{f(aD)}D=D_c$$
(12)
with $`D_c`$ as in the case of the usual GWR. Now the non-linear operatorial equation (12) yields an implicit definition for $`D`$ in terms of $`D_c`$. The problem is greatly simplified by noting that from (12), and from the fact that $`f`$ commutes with $`D`$, one deduces

$$D=f(aD)D_c=D_cf(aD)$$
(13)
namely, $`f(aD)`$ commutes with $`D_c`$. Hence, also $`D`$ commutes with $`D_c`$,

$$DD_c=f(aD)D_c^2=D_cf(aD)D_c=D_cD.$$
(14)
As $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ commute, we see that the problem of solving equation (12) explicitly for $`D`$ in terms of $`D_c`$ reduces to that of finding the (numerical) function $`g`$ such that $`x=g(y)`$ solves:

$$\frac{x}{f(x)}=y.$$
(15)
For such a solution to exist around a given point $`x`$, a necessary condition is

$$\frac{d}{dx}\frac{x}{f(x)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(16)
or

$$f(x)Cx$$
(17)
with $`C`$ a real constant. We may then be sure that such a $`g`$ exists, at least near to $`x=0`$, because of condition (9). To address different $`x`$’s, we shall now study in more detail the relation between $`D`$ and $`D_c`$. It is clear that, when such a $`g`$ exists, then we can relate $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ by:

$$aD=g(aD_c),$$
(18)
which is the generalization of (6). We note that, also because of condition (9),

$$x0g(y)y$$
(19)
and thus $`DD_c`$ for $`aD0`$. This means that both $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ have approximately the same low-lying modes 333To work with Hermitian operators, one can of course multiply (18) to the left by $`\gamma _5`$.. This is true in particular of the zero modes (see section 3 below).

Let us now consider the large-$`x`$ regime. We note that the fermionic determinant (in an $`A`$ background), $`𝒵(A)`$, corresponding to the action (3) can be written as

$$𝒵(A)=detaD(A)=det\left[a\gamma _5D(A)\right]=\mathrm{\Pi }_n(a\lambda _n)$$
(20)
where $`\lambda _n`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\gamma _5D`$, which we order according to their increasing moduli. The $`a`$’s were introduced for the sake of the normalization, and the $`\gamma _5`$ for algebraic simplicity (note that $`D`$ and $`\gamma _5D`$ have identical determinants).

Because of (18), we may also write

$$𝒵(A)=\mathrm{\Pi }_ng(a\lambda _n^c)$$
(21)
where $`\lambda _n^c`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\gamma _5D_c`$. The large eigenvalue (large $`n`$, because of our ordering) regime is characterized by $`a\lambda _n^c>>1`$. A necessary condition for the determinant to be finite is

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}g(a\lambda _n^c)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}$$
(22)
since this is required for the convergence of the infinite product. Namely,

$$y\mathrm{}g(y)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.$$
(23)
Condition (23), when combined with (15), yields another important constraint on $`f`$:

$$x\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}f(x)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(24)
The most immediate consequence of (24) is that the symmetry transformation (2) is trivialized at the large eigenvalues, namely, it becomes the identity transformation for modes of the order of the cutoff. More explicitly,

$$\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(25)
if $`\varphi `$ is an eigenvector of $`\gamma _5D`$, with an eigenvalue of the order of the cutoff.

Considering both (9) and (24), we may conclude that the generalized transformations (2) have the property of behaving as the usual chiral transformations for low eigenvalues (large distances), and disappearing for large eigenvalues (short distances). The non-local nature of the transformation stems from the fact that it interpolates between these two regimes.

As a final remark on the general solution of (10), we check that for the linear-$`f`$ case (GWR), we have $`f(x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{2}x`$, and $`g(y)=\frac{y}{1+\frac{y}{2}}`$, thus

$$D=D_c(1+\frac{1}{2}aD_c)^1,$$
(26)
as it should be. Contrary to what happens for the linear-$`f`$ case, not every choice of $`f(x)`$ will allow us to find $`D`$ in terms of $`D_c`$ exactly. However, there are important non-linear cases where such a solution can indeed be found, as discussed in section 4.

It is convenient to adopt the convention that $`\gamma _5D_c`$ is Hermitian. Together with (18), this implies that $`\gamma _5D`$ is also Hermitian, as can be easily verified.

Let us now study the GGWR from the point of view of the symmetry that remains after performing a renormalization group transformation, which is the approach followed in the original derivation of the GWR . To that end, we start by considering $`𝒵[A]`$, the partition function for massless Dirac fermions in the presence of an external gauge field:

$$𝒵[A]=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{S_F[\overline{\psi },\psi ;A]}$$
(27)
where $`S_F`$ denotes the fermionic action. Since we want to deal with both the continuum and lattice cases, we use the notation:

$$S_F[\overline{\psi },\psi ;A]=_{x,y}\overline{\psi }_xD_c(x,y)\psi _y$$
(28)
where the integral should be interpreted as a sum, when considering the lattice case. $`D_c(x,y)`$ is the chirally symmetric Dirac operator. Then, following , we introduce a blocking transformation to obtain an effective action for the new fermion variables $`\overline{\chi },\chi `$:

$$e^{S_{eff}[\overline{\chi },\chi ;A]}=\frac{1}{𝒩}𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \times e^{S_F[\overline{\psi },\psi ;A]𝒯[\overline{\chi },\chi ;\overline{\psi },\psi ;A]},$$
(29)
where $`𝒩`$ is a normalization constant and $`𝒯`$ defines the blocking. The general form of this functional, for the non-interacting fermion case is

$$𝒯[\overline{\chi },\chi ;\overline{\psi },\psi ;A]=_{x,y}(\overline{\psi }_x\overline{\chi }_x)\alpha (x,y)(\psi _y\chi _y)$$
(30)
where alpha determines, of course, the properties of the transformation. When it is a local function, diagonal in Dirac and flavour space, the usual GWR emerges . This can be done following the original derivation in the reference above, or by explicitly evaluating the functional integral over the original fields, and comparing with (6). Performing the functional integral over the fermionic fields, we obtain

$$S_{eff}[\overline{\chi },\chi ;A]=_{x,y}\overline{\chi }_xD(x,y)\chi _y$$
(31)
with

$$D=\frac{D_c}{1+\alpha ^1D_c}.$$
(32)
The simplest choice corresponds to taking a constant $`\alpha `$, which by dimensional reasons has to be proportional to the cutoff, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }1/a`$. In fact, relation follows from the choice $`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}`$.

We now show that the GGWR may be obtained from a blocking transformation which is non diagonal in Dirac space. We note that $`\alpha `$ has to commute with $`D_c`$, otherwise, more symmetries would be broken. As this has to happen regardless of the particular background field configuration, $`\alpha `$ can only be a function of $`D_c`$:

$$\alpha =\frac{2}{a\beta [aD_c]},$$
(33)
where $`\beta `$ is a dimensionless real function. In this case, we have of course

$$D=\frac{D_c}{1+\frac{a}{2}\beta [aD_c]D_c}.$$
(34)
This allows we to consider the effect of iterating the blocking transformation. Denoting by $`D^{(0)}`$ the initial operator $`D_c`$, and by $`D^{(n)}`$ the one that results from applying the transformation $`n`$ times, we see that

$$D^{(n)}=\frac{D_c}{1+\frac{na}{2}\beta [aD_c]D_c}.$$
(35)
That the operator $`D`$ in (34) will satisfy a GGWR is evident from the fact that the relation between $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ implies, in the notation of section 2,

$$x=g(y)=\frac{y}{1+\frac{1}{2}\beta (y)y},$$
(36)
and this implies a non linear $`f(x)`$, except for a trivial function $`\beta `$.

## 3 Topological properties

Let us first check the property of ‘topological invariance’ of the transformation (18), namely, whether it preserves the index of $`D_c`$ or not. To that end, let $`\varphi _0^\pm `$ be a chiral zero mode of $`D_c`$:

$$D_c\varphi _0^\pm =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(37)
where $`\pm `$ denotes the chirality of $`\varphi _0^\pm `$

$$(\frac{1\pm \gamma _5}{2})\varphi _0^\pm =\varphi _0^\pm .$$
(38)
Then,

$$D\varphi _0^\pm =\frac{1}{a}g(aD_c)\varphi _0^\pm ,$$
(39)
which does, indeed, yield

$$D\varphi _0^\pm =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(40)
We are using property (19) for the regular behaviour of $`g(x)`$ near to the origin. As $`g(x)x`$ for $`x0`$, then the inverse of $`g`$ also behaves like $`x`$ around $`x=0`$. This guarantees the validity of the reciprocal proposition: a zero mode of $`D`$ is also a zero mode of $`D_c`$. Thus (18) is topologically invariant, as expected from the fact that the lowest modes of $`D`$ and $`D_c`$ are not distorted by that transformation.

Let us now study the index theorems on the lattice. We shall follow the approach developed in , adapting it to the GGWR. As a first check, we verify that the global version of the index theorem, obtained from the anomalous Jacobian for a chiral transformation, holds true for the GGWR. Following , we have to consider the trace

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5f(aD)\right]$$
(41)
which corresponds to half of the Jacobian factor for the transformation (2). Evaluating the trace in the basis of the $`\varphi _n`$, eigenvectors of the Hermitian operator $`\gamma _5D`$, we see that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5f(aD)\right]=\underset{n}{}\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n$$

$$=\underset{\lambda _n=0}{}\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5\varphi _n+\underset{\lambda _n0}{}\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n$$
(42)
as a consequence of (9). To deal with the sum over non-zero modes, we left multiply relation (10) by $`\gamma _5`$ and sandwich it with an arbitrary non-zero mode $`\varphi _n`$, obtaining

$$\lambda _n\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n=\lambda _n\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n$$
(43)
where we applied the property:

$$\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5D=\lambda _n\varphi _n^{}.$$
(44)
As $`\lambda _n0`$, then $`\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n=0`$. Thus we immediately deduce that

$$\underset{\lambda _n0}{}\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(45)
Inserting this result back into (42), we obtain a result which is identical to the one in , namely

$$\underset{n}{}\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi _n=\underset{\lambda _n=0}{}\varphi _n^{}\gamma _5\varphi _n=n_+n_{}=\mathrm{index}(D).$$
(46)
The above theorem, (45) and (46), means that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=n_+n_{},$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\gamma _5f(aD)`$. Because of (10), this operator anticommutes with the Hermitian operator $`𝒟=\gamma _5D`$:

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Gamma }_5+\mathrm{\Gamma }_5𝒟=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(48)
which is identical to the relation found by Fujikawa in .

As for the interpretation of the $`\mathrm{Tr}\gamma _5=0`$ relation, discussed in  for the case of the GWR, we follow a parallel approach. We should therefore find the ‘highest states’, namely, zero modes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$. These are again responsible for the cancellation of the contribution coming from the zero modes of $`D`$ to the trace of $`\gamma _5`$. Denoting by $`\varphi `$ those highest states, we should then have

$$\gamma _5f(aD)\varphi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(49)
but this is precisely the relation we found in (25), namely, those vectors do exist as a consequence of the good large momentum behaviour of $`D`$. As for their number (degeneracy), it should be the same as for the zero modes of $`𝒟`$, since the degeneracy depends on the symmetries (and they are the same for both operators).

## 4 Examples

In ’t Hooft’s approach , the fermionic determinant is defined in the continuum by

$$detD=\mathrm{\Pi }_i\left[det(D_c+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)\right]^{e_i}$$
(50)
where

$$D_c=\overline{)}D=\gamma _\mu D_\mu ,D_\mu =_\mu +iA_\mu .$$
(51)
Here $`D_c`$ stands for ‘continuum’ Dirac operator, and indeed it also verifies the chirality condition (2) satisfied by the lattice operator $`D_c`$. To render $`detD`$ finite (non-perturbatively), the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is defined through an extrapolation mechanism from the usual link variables , and besides, Pauli-Villars regulators are introduced in (50), verifying the usual conditions:

$$\underset{i}{}e_i\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda },\underset{i}{}e_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(52)
Here $`n`$ runs from $`0`$ through $`4`$ if one is dealing with a four-dimensional theory. Of course, this range will be different for different numbers of dimensions. In $`4`$ dimensions, three regulator fields are sufficient, while in $`2`$ dimensions only one. We shall now see that $`D`$ will satisfy a GWR when there is only one regulator, and a GGWR when three (or more) regulators are required.

The simplest case corresponds to using just one regulator field, which, in order to improve the UV behaviour of the bare Dirac operator has to have bosonic statistics. This is frequently stated in terms of a regulated action $`S_F^R`$

$$S_F^R=d^dx\left[\overline{\psi }(x)\overline{)}D\psi (x)+\overline{\varphi }(x)(\overline{)}D+\mathrm{\Lambda })\varphi (x)\right]$$
(53)
where $`\varphi `$ is the bosonic regulator field 444This regularized action was also introduced in the GWR context by Fujikawa , although not in order to show that it satisfies the GWR.. Equivalently, if one integrates out the regulator, the result is the equivalent action (for which we use the same notation)

$$S_F^R=d^dx\overline{\psi }(x)D_R\psi (x)$$
(54)
where

$$D_R=D_c(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}D_c+1)^1.$$
(55)
This is not the usual way of writing the action, since it is formally non-local, and the version (53) is sometimes preferred. However, (54) is the more convenient form to study the GWR: the operator $`D_R`$, as it is evident by comparing (55) with (6), will verify the relation

$$D_R\gamma _5+\gamma _5D_R=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}D_R\gamma _5D_R$$
(56)
i.e., a GWR with $`a=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. We can of course borrow some of the already known properties of the GWR to this case. For example, the regularized action (54) is invariant under the transformation:

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \gamma _5(1{\displaystyle \frac{D_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\psi =i\xi \gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D_c+\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\psi `$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \overline{\psi }(1{\displaystyle \frac{D_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\gamma _5=i\xi \overline{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D_c+\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\gamma _5`$ (57)
where we have expressed the transformations both in terms of the regularized and unregularized Dirac operators.

This symmetry for the continuum theory has consequences for the study of anomalous Ward identities, from the point of view of anomalous (Fujikawa) Jacobians. Let us recall that, in the usual setting , one starts from the functional integral representation for the unregularized fermionic determinant $`D_c`$,

$$detD_c=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}\{S_F\}$$
(58)
and then performs a local axial transformation for the fermions:

$`\delta \psi (x)=i\xi (x)\gamma _5\psi (x)`$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }(x)=i\xi (x)\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _5.`$ (59)
This produces a variation in the action:

$$\delta S_F=i𝑑x\xi (x)_\mu J_{\mu 5}$$
(60)
where $`J_{\mu 5}=\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi `$, and the measure acquires an anomalous Jacobian $`J`$:

$$𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi J𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi .$$
(61)
$`J`$ is ill defined,

$$J=\mathrm{exp}[2i𝒜],𝒜=\mathrm{Tr}(\xi \gamma _5).$$
(62)
A regulator $`\rho `$ is then introduced to give meaning to the trace,

$$𝒜=𝑑x\xi (x)\mathrm{tr}[\gamma _5\rho (\frac{\overline{)}D^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})]$$
(63)
where $`\rho (0)=1`$, and $`\rho `$ vanishes rapidly for $`x\mathrm{}`$. Evaluating the regulated Jacobian and taking then the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ limit yields the well known result:

$$𝒜=𝑑x\xi (x)\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }$$
(64)
which leads to the anomalous Ward identity

$$_\mu J_{\mu 5}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(65)
On the other hand, as we know about the existence of the GWR and its symmetry for the continuum theory, can start from the regularized action (53), perform the transformation (4), and then evaluate the anomalous Jacobian, which does not need any extra regularization, since its exponent is proportional to the functional trace:

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5(1\frac{D_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]$$
(66)
and moreover, in terms of $`D_c=\overline{)}D`$,

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5(1\frac{D_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5\frac{1}{1+\frac{\overline{)}D}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _5\frac{1}{1+\frac{\overline{)}D^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right].$$
(67)
And (67) is one of the general expressions which lead to the proper result for the chiral anomaly in the continuum, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. The variation of the action, just produces the divergence of a regularized current. We thus again obtain the usual result, but note that the procedure has the advantage of involving regular objects at all the steps in the calculation.

It is well known that more general Pauli-Villars regularizations amount to replacing the simple equation (55) by:

$$\frac{D_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(\frac{D_c}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),$$
(68)
where $``$ denotes a rational function, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cutoff. The function $``$ will depend also on a set of dimensionless constants.

It is obvious that (68) plays a similar role to (18), and in order to find the corresponding $`f`$ (and hence the GGWR), we have to find the solution to

$$y=\frac{x}{f(x)}.$$
(69)
For the particular case of a four dimensional theory, and if one wants to have convergence for all the diagrams contributing to the fermionic determinant (vacuum diagrams factorized) the rational function is

$$(x)=y\frac{y+\sqrt{2}}{(y+1)^2}.$$
(70)
This expression was obtained by integrating the regulator fields in the corresponding regularized action:

$$S_F^R=d^4x\underset{s=0}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{\psi }_s(D_c+M_s)\psi _s$$
(71)
where $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _1`$ are fermionic fields, while $`\psi _{2,3}`$ are bosonic. The masses are: $`M_0=0`$, $`M_1^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, $`M_2^2=M_3^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$.

For this particular case, the relation can, indeed, be inverted to obtain $`y`$ as a function of $`x`$, and so we can find the form of the function $`f(x)`$, which determines the GGWR and its associated global symmetry. The answer is:

$$f(x)=\frac{\sqrt{2}\left(1x\right)x}{1+\sqrt{2}x+\sqrt{12(\sqrt{2}1)x}}$$
(72)
We have seen that the continuum Dirac operator plays here the same role as the lattice operator $`D_c`$, whose drawback is its non-locality. This is also true of ’t Hooft’s method, since the continuum Dirac operator, when viewed from the lattice point of view, is a non-local object.

As another example of a Dirac operator which verifies a GGWR, we point our Slavnov’s proposal . It amounts to using, on the lattice, a SLAC derivative lattice Dirac operator (which has no doublers and is non-local), supplemented by Pauli-Villars regulator fields. These regulators, with cutoffs of the order of $`a^1`$, have the effect of taming the lattice artifacts introduced by the SLAC derivative operator. Indeed, it has been shown that more than one regulator field may be necessary to have a reasonable behaviour, even in two dimensions . When three regulators are used, we are in the situation of the previously discussed example, where a GGWR relation is verified.

Acknowledgements:

C.D.F. acknowledges Profs. H. Neuberger and T-W. Chiu for useful comments. This work commenced when one of the authors (M. T.) was visiting the Centro Atómico Bariloche. He is grateful to the Centro for its hospitality, and to the Fundación Antorchas - British Council exchange program for funding his visit. C. D. F. was supported by CONICET, and ANPCyT (Argentina).


text:
# High magnetic field pulsars and magnetars: a unified picture

## 1. Introduction

There is growing evidence that two sub-groups of objects, namely soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters (hereafter SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (hereafter AXPs) are magnetars (e.g. Kouveliotou et al. 1998, 1999; Hurley et al. 1999; Mereghetti & Stella 1995; Wilson et al. 1999; Kaspi, Chakrabarty & Steinberger 1999), a type of objects with dipolar magnetic fields much stronger than the critical magnetic field (Duncan & Thompson 1992; Paczynski 1992; Usov 1992; Thompson & Duncan 1995, 1996). These objects occupy a unique phase space in their combination of long, monotonically increasing periods and high period derivatives, and are believed to be a distinct species from the normal radio pulsars in that most of them are radio quiet, except for a possible detection of radio emission from SGR 1900+14 (Shitov 1999; Shitov, Pugachev & Kutuzov 2000). However, the recent Parkes multi-beam radio pulsar survey (e.g. Manchester et al. 2000; Camilo et al. 2000b) discovered three pulsars with dipolar field strength higher than the critical value (i.e. high magnetic field pulsars, hereafter HBPs); and one of them, PSR J1814-1744, has spin parameters quite similar to the AXP 1E 2259+586 (Camilo et al. 2000; Kaspi et al. 2000). Furthermore, a search of the archival X-ray data from the HBP PSR J1814-1744 indicates that the upper limit of the X-ray luminosity of this pulsar is approximately 1/10 that of 1E 2259+586; this led to the suggestion that HBPs and AXPs may have distinct evolutionary paths, despite their proximity in period-period derivative phase space (Pivoraroff, Kaspi & Camilo 2000). Here we propose a possible interpretation of the distinct emission properties of the HBPs and AXPs (especially PSR J1814-1744 and 1E 2259+586) using a simple geometric effect.

## 2. The interpretation

Pulsar radio emission is believed to be due to some kind of coherent emission processes in an electron-positron pair plasma. Therefore pair production from a pulsar inner magnetosphere is the essential condition for pulsar radio emission. The apparent lack of pulsed radio emission from the known SGRs and AXPs has been attributed to the possible pair production suppression by photon splitting, a third-order QED process that may become important in strong magnetic fields above the critical field (Baring & Harding 1998, 2000). However, the discovery of PSR J1119-6127, PSR J1726-3530, and PSR J1814-1744 (Camilo et al. 2000a; Kaspi et al. 2000, see also, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/$``$pulsar /psr/pmsurv/pmwww/pmpsrs.db) above the photon splitting “death line” (Baring & Harding 1998) raises questions concerning how photon splitting suppresses pair production. The close clustering of PSR J1814-1744 and the AXP 1E 2259+586 in the $`\dot{P}P`$ phase space makes the problem more severe.

Such a behavior could be understood in a simple, unified picture when the properties of pulsar inner accelerators are taken into account, assuming that photon splitting can completely suppress pair creation in magnetic fields exceeding $`10^{14}`$ G. Baring & Harding (2000) found that pair creation is completely suppressed only if all three modes permitted by QED operate, i.e. photons polarized both parallel and perpendicular to the field can split, which we will assume throughout this letter. Rotating magnetized neutron stars are unipolar inductors that generate huge potential drops

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{B_pR^3\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2c^2}=(1.0\times 10^{13}\mathrm{V})\left(\frac{B_p}{10^{14}\mathrm{G}}\right)\left(\frac{P}{8\mathrm{s}}\right)^2R_6^3$$
(1)
across the open field line region, where $`B_p`$ is the dipolar magnetic field strength at the pole, $`R`$ is the star radius, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`P`$ are the rotation velocity and the period of the pulsar, respectively. Under certain conditions a part of or even the total amount of this potential will drop across a charge-depleted region (or a gap) formed in the polar cap area of the pulsar. Depending on the boundary condition at the surface, there are two kinds of inner accelerators, i.e., the space-charge-limited flow (hereafter SCLF) type accelerator, which is formed by a self-regulated flow due to free extraction of the charged particles from the neutron star surface (Arons & Scharlemann 1979; Harding & Muslimov 1998), and the vacuum (hereafter V) type gap, which is formed due to strong binding of the charged particles within the surface (Ruderman & Sutherland 1975). There are two important differences between these two types of accelerators (see Zhang, Harding & Muslimov 2000, for a comparison between the two models). First, SCLF gaps could be extremely long and narrow because the potential drop only increases mildly with the gap height so that pair formation fronts (PFFs) could be formed at much higher altitudes, especially when the parallel electric field within the gap is saturated (Harding & Muslimov 1998; Zhang & Harding 2000). A V gap, on the other hand, usually has a height less than the polar cap radius mainly due to the quadratic form of the gap potential-height relation, and the maximum potential is achieved when the gap height $`hr_{\mathrm{pc}}/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`r_{\mathrm{pc}}`$ is the polar cap radius (Ruderman & Sutherland 1975; Zhang et al. 2000). Second, the cessation of a V gap requires a pair formation avalanche within the gap, which requires pair production at both the top and the bottom of the gap (Ruderman & Sutherland 1975). A SCLF gap, however, only requires a steady PFF at the top of the gap111Although a lower PFF at the gap bottom can also be formed sometimes in the SCLF model (e.g. Harding & Muslimov 1998), this is never obligatory..

These features have important implications for whether photon splitting can completely suppress pair production. Since photon splitting is only important in strong fields, it does not suppress pair production at higher altitudes where the local field strength is considerably degraded ($`B(r)r^3`$, where $`r`$ is the radius in spherical coordinates), even if the near surface field is super-strong. Since a SCLF accelerator could be long and narrow, particles within the gap can keep accelerating. Though the $`\gamma `$-rays produced near the surface by these primary particles will split to lower frequency photons, those produced at higher altitudes will eventually undergo pair production in the less intense fields. For a V gap, however, the gap is usually pancake-shaped, and there is no significant degradation of the field at the gap top with respect to the gap bottom. Even if in some cases (usually near the death line, Zhang et al. 2000) the gap could be long so that the field at the top is less intense, the gap still can not breakdown because pairs can not be formed at the bottom. Thus if the surface field strength is super strong, very likely, such a V gap simply does not form, since a gap solution with boundary condition \[$`E_{}(z=0)0`$, $`E_{}(z=h)=0`$\] can not be realized. We therefore conclude that in magnetar environments where photon splitting effectively suppresses pair production at the surface, only SCLF-type accelerators could be formed; V-type accelerators can not develop. Numerical simulations (Baring & Harding 2000) show that the pair yields drop steeply with increasing magnetic field when photon splitting starts to suppress pair production, which means that at the top of the SCLF gap when pair production starts to overcome photon splitting the pair production rate also rises steeply to provide copious pairs for radio emission. Here we assume that in magnetar environments, radio emission is possible if a SCLF accelerator is formed.

We now discuss the condition for a SCLF gap to develop. The essential point is to investigate whether free ejection of charged particles from the surface is possible, and this depends on (1) the binding energy of the charged particles, and (2) the surface temperature. Let us first discuss a type of neutron star in which the angle between the rotation axis and the magnetic axis is larger than $`90^\mathrm{o}`$, or $`𝛀𝐁_p<0`$. We call such rotators “anti-parallel rotators” (hereafter APRs) although the axes are not strictly anti-parallel. In such rotators, a force-free magnetosphere requires that the polar cap region is filled with positive charges, and the positive ions from the surface are expected to flow out. The composition of the neutron star surface is uncertain, but it is probably composed of 56Fe. Although there is a large uncertainty in calculating the binding energy of Fe ions, in magnetar environment, it is likely that a magnetic metal could be formed, and the cohesive energy could be approximated $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ(26.0\mathrm{keV})(B_p/10^{14}\mathrm{G})^{0.73}`$ (Abrahams & Shapiro 1991; Usov & Melrose 1995, 1996), and the critical temperature for thermionic emission of the ions is (Usov & Melrose 1995)

$$T_i(1.0\times 10^7\mathrm{K})\left(\frac{B_p}{10^{14}\mathrm{G}}\right)^{0.73}.$$
(2)
The surface temperature of a magnetar is connected to the core temperature by, e.g., $`T_s(0.87\times 10^6\mathrm{K})(T_c/10^8\mathrm{K})^{0.55}g_{14}^{0.25}`$ (Gudmundsson, Pethick & Epstein 1983, where $`g_{14}`$ is the surface gravity of the neutron star in units of $`10^{14}`$ cm s-2). The balance of neutrino cooling and various magnetic heating yields the core temperature to be $`T_c6\times 10^8`$ K which insensitively depends on the age of the magnetar (Thompson & Duncan 1996). This approach gives a rough estimate of the surface temperature of $`T_s2.3\times 10^6`$ K. From the observational approach, the surface temperature could be estimated from the quiescent X-ray luminosity of magnetars, $`L_x`$, by

$$T_s(4.8\times 10^6\mathrm{K})\left(\frac{L_x}{10^{35}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{R}{10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(3)
Both estimations show that the surface temperature is not hot enough for thermionic emission of the ions, and that a SCLF accelerator can not develop. With $`T_s3\times 10^6`$ K, the condition for a SCLF gap, i.e., $`T_sT_i`$, is $`B_p^i1.9\times 10^{13}`$ G, which is well below the photon splitting death line for surface emission (Baring & Harding 1998)

$$B_p(5.7\times 10^{13}\mathrm{G})P^{2/15}.$$
(4)
Field emission of ions, which is possibly important when thermionic emission is unimportant, can also be neglected, since the maximum parallel electric field at the surface $`E_{}(\mathrm{max})=(2\mathrm{\Omega }B_p/c)(r_{\mathrm{pc}}/\sqrt{2})5.7\times 10^9(\mathrm{V}\mathrm{cm}^1)B_{p,14}(P/8\mathrm{s})^{3/2}(R/10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m})^{3/2}`$ is much smaller than the critical parallel field required to pull out the ions, $`E_{}(\mathrm{cri})(8\times 10^{12}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{cm}^1)(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ/26\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^{3/2}`$ (Usov & Melrose 1995). Here $`r_{\mathrm{pc}}R(\mathrm{\Omega }R/c)^{1/2}`$ is the radius of the polar cap, and $`B_{p,14}=B_p/(10^{14}\mathrm{G})`$. Therefore, for APRs above the photon splitting death line (4), the magnetospheres of magnetars are very likely to be dead, with no active inner accelerators.

We now investigate the opposite case that the neutron stars have inclinations less than $`90^\mathrm{o}`$, i.e., $`𝛀𝐁_p>0`$. With the same convention, we call such kind of objects parallel rotators (hereafter PRs). In such neutron stars, negative charges are expected to fill the polar cap region, and electrons from the surface are expected to be pulled out. The binding energy of electrons is roughly the Fermi energy of the electrons, which reads $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}(5.0\mathrm{keV})(Z/26)^{0.8}B_{p,14}^{0.4}`$ (Usov & Melrose 1995). And the critical temperature for thermionic emission of the electrons is

$$T_e(2.3\times 10^6\mathrm{K})\left(\frac{Z}{26}\right)^{0.8}\left(\frac{B_p}{10^{14}\mathrm{G}}\right)^{0.4},$$
(5)
where $`Z`$ is the atomic number ($`Z=26`$ for Fe) (Usov & Melrose 1995). Assuming that the fields of the HBPs decay in a similar way to that of the AXPs, they should also have typical surface temperatures of $`T_s3\times 10^6`$ K. By comparing the temperature $`T_e`$ to $`T_s`$ in magnetar environments, the condition for thermionic emission of electrons (and hence for a SCLF accelerator to form for a PR), i.e., $`T_sT_e`$, is thus

$$B_p^e1.9\times 10^{14}\mathrm{G}.$$
(6)
It is notable that thermionic emission of the electrons is possible at a much higher field strength than the field strength $`B_p^i`$ for the thermionic emission of ions. There is a large phase space in the high $`B`$ regime where pair production is still allowed at higher altitudes when a SCLF accelerator is formed, even though it is above the photon splitting death line for surface emission. We emphasize that such a conclusion only holds for PRs, and it is interesting to note that such rotators are originally proposed as “anti-pulsars” in the Ruderman & Sutherland (1975) vacuum gap model.

A $`B_pP`$ diagram of the HBPs, AXPs, SGRs, as well as some of the other known radio pulsars is shown in Fig.1, in which the photon splitting death line and the SCLF accelerator “death line” for PRs are also plotted. Polar surface magnetic field is calculated by $`B_p=6.4\times 10^{19}\sqrt{P\dot{P}}`$ G (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983; Usov & Melrose 1995). Note that besides the observed variation of $`\dot{P}`$ for SGR 1900+14 and 1E 1048.1-5937, there are even more uncertainties in inferring $`B_p`$ from the spin-down parameters of SGRs, since a general spin-down formula also includes the contribution from the winds (Harding, Contopoulos, & Kazanas 1999). Therefore, in some cases we adopt a bar instead of a point to denote an object in Fig.1. An important fact is that the three newly-discovered HBPs are located in the phase space defined by the photon splitting and PR SCLF death lines, which means that they could be theoretically radio loud if they are PRs. The AXP 1E 2259+586 also lies in this regime but is clearly radio quiet, and we argue that it is an APR. Thus the discrepancy between AXPs and HBPs in this picture is simply due to a geometric effect.

Another question is why PSR J1814-1744 is quiet in X-rays, in contrast to 1E 2259+586. Quiescent emission from magnetars is interpreted as due to magnetic field decay (Goldreich & Reisenegger & 1992; Thompson & Duncan 1996; Heyl & Kulkarni 1998). The quiescent X-ray luminosity should satisfy

$$L_x\dot{E}_B(1/6)B_p^2R^3/\tau _d,$$
(7)
where $`\dot{E}_B`$ is the magnetic energy decay rate, and $`\tau _d`$ is the decay time scale, which is model dependent (Goldreich & Reisenegger 1992; Heyl & Kulkarni 1998) and $`B`$ dependent. Note that $`E_B=(1/12)B_p^2R^3`$, and $`\dot{B}B/\tau _d`$ have been adopted. In the general case of a field permeating the core, ambipolar diffusion is the dominant decay mechanism when the field strength is in the magnetar regime. For the solenoidal ambipolar decay mode, the decay timescale is $`\tau _d(\mathrm{ambip},\mathrm{s})(3\times 10^5\mathrm{yr})L_5^2T_{c,8}^2B_{p,14}^2`$, thus the quiescent X-ray luminosity is limited to

$$L_x(\mathrm{ambip},\mathrm{s})1.8\times 10^{32}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1B_{p,14}^4R_6^3L_5^2T_{c,8}^2.$$
(8)
Here $`T_{c,8}=T_c/10^8`$ K, $`R_6=R/10^6`$ cm, and $`L_5`$ is a characteristic length scale of the flux loops through the outer core in units of $`10^5`$ cm (Goldreich & Reisenegger 1992). Note that the right side is proportional to $`B_p^4`$. Observed quiescent X-ray luminosities of all other AXPs do not contradict (8) except for 1E 2259+586, which gives an upper limit on the X-ray luminosity of $`L_x(1\mathrm{E}2259)3.7\times 10^{32}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, while observations show that $`L_x(1\mathrm{E}2259,\mathrm{obs})5\times 10^{34}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$. For PSR J1814-1744, on the other hand, (8) gives $`L_x(\mathrm{J1814})2.6\times 10^{32}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which is consistent with the upper limit from the archival observations, $`L_x(\mathrm{J1814},\mathrm{obs})<3.8\times 10^{33}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ \[$`(1/13)L_x(1\mathrm{E}2259,\mathrm{obs})`$, Pivovaroff et al. 2000\]222Note that this luminosity upper limit implies a surface temperature above what we have assumed to derive the SCLF death line for PRs (eq.).. Thus the non-detection of bright X-rays from PSR J1814-1744 is not a surprise if neutron star magnetic fields are of core-origin. The discrepency between PSR J1814-1744 and 1E 2259+586 must then be attributed to the peculiarity of 1E 2259+586. To interpret the quiescent emission of this AXP, one needs to assume either a much faster field decay mechanism (e.g. magnetic fields are of crustal origin and the Hall cascade effect dominates the field decay, Colpi, Geppert & Page 2000) or much stronger multipole fields near the magnetic pole (Baring & Harding 2000). In fact, the age of the associated supernova remnant (SNR) CTB 109 ($`t_{\mathrm{SNR}}320`$ kyr) (Parmar et al. 1998) is much younger than the characteristic age of the AXP 1E 2259+586 ($`t_c2.3\times 10^5`$ yr) and $`\tau _d(\mathrm{ambip},\mathrm{s})`$. If one assumes $`\tau _dt_{\mathrm{SNR}}`$ for this pulsar, the high $`L_x`$ is then consistent with eq.(7).

## 3. Discussions

In this letter we discuss possible formation of the inner accelerators in a magnetar environment for the first time and come to a unified picture for AXPs and HBPs by arguing that they are all rotating high-field neutron stars, but have different orientations of the magnetic axes with respective to the rotation axes. If photon splitting suppresses pair creation near the surface, the HBPs can have active inner accelerators while the AXPs can not.

This suggestion may also have implications for another type of magnetar, i.e., the SGRs. These objects react much differently from the AXPs by exhibiting irregular short bursts and occasional giant flares, which are interpreted as crust cracking and large-scale magnetic field reconnection, respectively, within the framework of the magnetar model (Thompson & Duncan 1995). It remains unclear whether they are experiencing a different evolutionary stage than that of AXPs or whether they are intrinsically different objects. Only two of them (SGR 1806-20 and SGR 1900+14) have $`\dot{P}`$ measurements, but determination of their dipolar magnetic fields is complicated by the contribution of the relativistic winds to the spin-down (Harding et al. 1999). It is notable that the constraints of both the SNR age and the magnetar energy requirements lead to a polar field $`B_p(\mathrm{SGR})10^{14}`$ G (Harding et al. 1999), which may lie below the SCLF death line for PRs. Thus they may also have active inner accelerators if they are actually PRs. Here we suggest a possibility that SGRs might also have active accelerators while AXPs do not, and the active behaviors of SGRs may have some connections with their inner accelerators. For example, the constant extraction of electrons from the pole may somehow more frequently trigger instability within the crust. One expectation of this scenario is pulsed radio emission from the SGRs, which may account for the pulsed radio emission from SGR 1900+14 (Shitov 1999; Shitov et al. 2000).

Theoretically, the question of whether photon splitting occurs in all three modes permitted by QED or only in one mode in superstrong magnetic fields is difficult to tackle. If radio pulsar surveys discover any pulsar above the SCLF death line for PRs (the dashed line in Fig.1), these pulsars must have active V gaps with pair breakdown near the surface. This would strongly imply that only one mode of photon splitting occurs in fields above a few times $`10^{14}`$ G, and thus sheds important light on a fundamental physics process. It is worth noting that the location of the SCLF death line for PRs depends on the surface temperature of the neutron star, so that the location of the dashed line in Fig.1 may rise or drop. Thus detections in both radio and X-ray bands are desirable.

We thank Matthew Baring, Alex Muslimov, and Zaven Arzoumanian for interesting discussions and helpful comments.


text:
# Sub-Microarcsecond Astrometry and New Horizons in Relativistic Gravitational Physics

## 1 Theoretical Principles of Relativistic Astrometry

For a long time the basic theoretical principles of general relativistic astrometry in the solar system were based on using the post-Newtonian approximate solution of the Einstein equations (Soffel 1989; Brumberg 1991; Will 1993). The metric tensor of the post-Newtonian solution is an instantaneous function of coordinate time $`t`$. It depends on the field point, $`𝐱`$, and the coordinates, $`𝐱_a(t)`$, and velocities, $`𝐯_a(t)`$, of the gravitating bodies, and is valid only inside the near zone of the solar system because it involves expansion of retarded field integrals with respect to the small parameter $`v_a/c`$ (Fock 1959). This expansion restricts the domain of validity for which the propagation of light rays can be considered from the mathematical point of view in a self-consistent manner by the boundary of the near zone. Finding a solution of the equations of light propagation in the near zone of the solar system, for instance, can be achieved by expanding the positions and velocities of the solar system bodies in a Taylor series around some fixed instant of time $`t^{}`$, their substitution into the equations of motion of photons, and their subsequent integration with respect to time. Such an approach is theoretically well justified for a proper description of radar (Reasenberg et al. 1979) and lunar laser ranging (Williams et al. 1996) experiments, and interpretation of the Doppler tracking of satellites. However, this static-in-time approach meets with unsurpassable difficulties if one wants to integrate the equations of light propagation from any object lying beyond the limits of the solar system, where the gravitational field can not be considered as static if one decides to search for sub-microarcseconds astrometric effects111This is because planets are moving around the Sun and, hence, the gravitational field is changing..

An additional problem arising in expansion about a single instant of time $`t^{}`$ is how to determine that fiducial instant of time to which the coordinates and velocities of gravitating bodies should be anchored. The answer is obscured if one works in the framework of the PNA scheme, which disguises the hyperbolic character of the Einstein equations for the gravitational field, and does not admit us to distinguish between advanced and retarded solutions of the field equations (Damour et al. 1991). For this reason, propagation of light rays, which always takes place along the null characteristics of a light cone, differs in the post-Newtonian scheme from that of the gravitational field itself, which propagates (in the framework of this scheme) instantaneously with infinite speed. Thus, the true causal relationship between the position of the light particle and the location of the light-deflecting bodies in the system is violated, which leads to a need for artificial assumptions about the initial values of the positions and velocities of the bodies for integration of equations of light propagation. One reasonable choice is to fix the coordinates and velocities of the body at the moment of the closest approach of light ray to it. Such an assumption was used by Klioner & Kopeikin (1992), who proved that it minimizes the magnitude of residual terms of the post-Newtonian solution of the equations of light propagation. Among other difficulties in the application of the PNA to solving the problem of propagation of light rays beyond its domain of applicability is the logarithmic divergence of the post-Newtonian metric tensor at large distances from the solar system. Almost all extra-solar luminous objects visible in the sky lie far beyond the allowed distance and, hence, the results of integration of the equations of light propagation from, e.g., stars in our galaxy or extra-galactic objects performed previously by various authors on the premise of the implementation of the post-Newtonian metric tensor can not be considered as rigorous and conclusive, because the magnitude of residual terms of such an integration were never discussed.

A real breakthrough in the problem of integration of equations of light propagation in time-dependent gravitational fields has been achieved only recently by Kopeikin et al. (1999), where astrometric and timing effects of the near, intermediate, and far regions of localized gravitational source emitting gravitational waves were precisely calculated and thoroughly discussed on the basis of the post-Minkowskian approximation (PMA) scheme that is free of the drawbacks of the standard PNA. Further progress in solving this problem was made in the paper by Kopeikin & Schäfer (1999), where propagation of light in the field of arbitrary-moving massive monopole particles was described in detail. All possible astrometric effects in VLBI, pulsar timing, Doppler tracking, and so on were considered, including all retardation phenomena in the propagation of a gravitational field from the particles to the photon. We will present a precise description of the gravitomagnetic effects of particles due to their translational and rotational motion in an upcoming publication (Kopeikin & Mashhoon 2000). The model we are using now is so flexible and physically meaningful that it can be applied for the treatment of any modern astrometric observation as well as for the prediction of numerous physical effects caused by time-dependent gravitational fields including gravitational waves from the early universe, localized sources of gravitational waves like supernova explosions or binary stars, moving and rotating bodies, oscillations of stars, topological defects, and many others.

## 2 Advanced Relativistic Model of Light Propagation

In this section we briefly describe the relativistic model of light propagation used in our calculations (Kopeikin & Schäfer 1999, Kopeikin et al. 1999, Kopeikin & Mashhoon 2000) and its application for the calculation of some effects that are important in gravitational physics.

The relativistic model of light propagation includes three main constituents: (1) equations of the gravitational field, (2) equations of light propagation, and (3) initial and/or boundary conditions. We formulate the equations of gravitational field in harmonic coordinate system with arbitrary origin in space (for convenience it can be put at the center-of-mass of the source of gravitational field, but this is not essential). We also work in the linear approximation with respect to the universal gravitational constant $`G`$ without expansion in the velocities of bodies. The metric tensor of the gravitational field can be found immediately from the energy-momentum tensor of the source of gravitational field. The metric tensor is a function of the retarded time argument $`s`$ related to the running time $`t`$ and to the coordinates $`𝐱`$ of photon, as well as the retarded coordinates $`𝐱_a(s)`$ of the light-deflecting body by the light-cone equation $`s=t|𝐱𝐱_a(s)|`$. With the metric tensor in hand we calculate the Christoffel symbols and derive the equations of light propagation, which are second-order ordinary differential equations with retarded argument $`s`$. Exact solutions of such equations became available only after we found a series of transformations which brought the equations to the integrable form (Kopeikin & Schäfer 1999, Kopeikin et al. 1999).

Assuming that the light is emitted at a point $`𝐱_0`$ at time $`t_0`$, and that its direction of propagation is given at past null infinity as a unit vector $`𝐤`$, we integrate the equations of light propagation with no other restrictions. The result is the trajectory of the light ray perturbed by the time-dependent gravitational field, and written as a function of spatial coordinates of the photon, $`𝐱`$, with parametric dependence on the coordinates of the light-deflecting bodies, taken at the retarded time $`s`$. All predictions of possible relativistic effects (time delay, deflection angle, intensity, polarization angle, etc.) follow directly from the parametric representation of the trajectory (for more details see Kopeikin et al. 1999, Kopeikin & Schäfer 1999, Kopeikin & Mashhoon 2000).

## 3 Sub-Microarcsecond Astrometry and Relativistic Gravitational Effects

In this section we briefly describe what kind of predictions one can make beyond the sub-microarcsecond level using the aforementioned advanced integration technique. Sub-microarcsecond space-interferometry optical technology along with the advanced post-Minkowskian theory of light propagation in time-dependent gravitational fields, particularly including plane and multipolar gravitational waves, opens outstanding new perspectives for experimental gravitational physics. Here we briefly outline some of the relativistic effects that could be precisely calculated and measured. These effects include:

* 1. Deflection of light in the higher-order PMA quadratic in $`G`$, allowing a static-gravitational-field test of alternative theories of gravity with much better precision than in the weak-gravitational-field regime linear in $`G`$.
* 2. Deflection of light caused by gravitational waves emitted by binary stars and other periodic and/or non-periodic sources of gravitational waves, which may allow tests of alternative theories of gravity in the radiative gravitational-wave regime.
* 3. Various effects caused by a pre-assumed hypothetical difference in the speeds of propagation of gravity and electromagnetic waves222This difference may arise, for example, as a result of propagation of light rays through the interstellar medium with the refraction index different from unity or within the framework of an alternative theory of gravity.. Difference in these speeds would bring about deviation of the gravitational null cone from the electromagnetic one, which can be tested in observations of the deflection of light by giant planets of the solar system or extra-solar gravitational lenses.
* 4. Specific pattern of proper motions of quasars over the whole sky caused by primordial gravitational waves from the early universe. Certain progress in solving this problem both theoretically and observationally has been achieved by Pyne et al. (1996) and by Gwinn et al. (1997). However, a step over the sub-microarcsecond threshold would make the research in this direction much more profound.
* 5. Relativistic effect of secular aberration caused by the circular motion of the solar system with respect to the galactic barycenter. Visualization of the secular aberration effect requires calculation of light-ray trajectory in the galactic reference frame with the subsequent relativistic space-time transformation from this frame to the proper reference frame of observer (some details of calculations are given by Kopeikin 1992, Klioner & Kopeikin 1992).
* 6. Cosmological gravitational lens effects for deflectors with variable parameters such as mass, spin, quadrupole moment, etc. A super-massive binary black hole in an AGN emitting gravitational waves on a cosmological time-scale is an example of such a source.
* 7. Testing astrometric effects caused by relic space-time topological defects like vibrating cosmic strings, oscillating cosmic loops, gases of monopoles, textures, etc.
* 8. Study of limitations on the precision of fundamental astrometric reference frames imposed by gravitational lensing events due to flybys of stars in our galaxy (Sazhin et al. 1998), gravitational waves from an ensemble of galactic binary stars (Kopeikin 1999), and other related phenomena.

We are now critically examining these effects in order to work out an appropriate observational strategy which might be used for their detection by VLBI and/or FAME, SIM, and GAIA space-astrometric missions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Bahram Mashhoon and Mikhail Sazhin for a critical reading of the manuscript and useful comments.